Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Legitimacy of multilateral climate governance: a deliberative democratic approach
Critical Policy Studies, 2012
"For almost three decades, the international community has grappled with the challenge of avoiding dangerous global climate change. The failure to produce a new comprehensive treaty in Copenhagen, in 2009, provoked debate about appropriate decisionmaking processes. Multilateralism has lost favor and credibility, while ‘minilateralism’ appears to be an idea whose time has come. Reconciling this approach with growing demands for legitimacy in global governance will be difficult but essential. Existing proposals for reforming multilateral negotiations promise greater effectiveness, but fall short on legitimacy. We propose that the dilemma of securing both effectiveness and legitimacy can be resolved in a deliberative democratic model that combines minilateralism with discursive representation. Legitimacy is therein sought in the resonance of collective decisions with public opinion, defined in terms of the provisional engagement and contestation of discourses."
Prospects of Deliberative Global Governance
Global governance is often equated with international institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank that were established after World War II to address problems transcending national borders. While these institutions incorporate norms of representative democracy that evolved in national societies, their legitimacy is often questioned on grounds of limited effectiveness and remoteness from the citizens they purportedly serve. The arguments of many democratic theorists that deliberation among ordinary citizens can legitimize policies that heed these views thus bear important implications for global governance. In this paper, the possibility and different ways that civil society enhancing public participation, transparency and accountability in global governance are addressed. The empirical focus will be on the world's first global deliberation-WWViews (world wide views on global warming) that was held in 38 countries with all inhabited continents in 2009. The social drivers that encourage innovation in global democratic governance are analysed, as the main successes and challenges of WWViews and sketch three scenarios of the future of deliberative global governance are based on the experiences and plans around global citizen participation. The authors argue that despite some challenges, such as ensuring high quality of deliberation in highly variant policy cultural contexts and building policy pathways conducive to political impact, the prospects of deliberation in helping solve global environmental and policy problems are high, and likely to see cumulative progress in the near future.
Deliberative democracy and climate governance
Nature Human Behaviour, 2019
Against those who advocate simplistic authoritarian solutions to the climate challenge 1 , we argue for democracy's revitalization through harnessing the latent wisdom of citizens and joining that wisdom more effectively to relevant expertise and political authority. Skeptics argue that weaknesses in mass political cognition warrant elite governance. In contrast, we argue that it is the way the political process is constructed that affects how citizens engage and behave on issues such as climate change, and that if constructed properly citizens reveal competence that enables them to play key roles in governance. Effective response can be enhanced by deliberative democratic principles and practices. This includes institutions that promote genuine deliberation among citizens and leaders rather than posturing and strategic language, together with mechanisms to link deliberation with decision making. A concerted effort along these lines to reimagine governance at different scales can better equip us to meet the challenges of climate change.
Environmental Politics, 2018
The main achievements of the debates on deliberative democracy and democratized science are investigated in order to analyse the reasons, meanings and prospects for a democratisation of global environmental policy. A deliberative systems approach, which emphasises the need to explore how processes in societal spheres interact to shape the deliberative qualities of the system as a whole, is adopted. Although science plays a key role in this, its potential to enhance deliberative capacity has hardly been addressed in deliberative theories. The democratisation of science has potential to contribute to the democratisation of global environmental policy, in that it also shapes the potential of deliberative arrangements in the policy sphere. Deliberative arrangements within the policy sphere may stimulate the democratization of science to different degrees.
DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Public Administration, 2014
Since the emergence of anthropocentric climate change as a theme of public policy some 25 years ago, much academic debate has taken place within the discipline of International Relations, and especially the study of how competing nation states can overcome national interests in order to sign international agreements to limit greenhouse gases. Increasingly, scholars from other academic disciplines such as sociology and public policy have begun to analyse climate change politics. These approaches differ from the traditional approach of International Relations because they focus more upon how different sub-state social actors such as citizens and businesses contest climate change politics, and how their actions are governed by underlying discourses, rather than on the analysis of national interests alone. A key theme of this analysis is deliberative democracy -or the achievement of political actions through open debate, and the consideration of differences between actors.
The IPCC: A Chameleon of Expertise
2021
In this paper I examine the role and function of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I do this by reviewing concepts of expertise, and by delineating the history of the IPCC. I advance the argument that the IPCC does not occupy the role of an expert body, in the usual sense of providing advice to policy-makers. Instead, it combines the roles of commentator, science arbiter and stealth advocate. While the IPCC has come to occupy a highly visible role globally, its institutional place in the world of international science-policy relations is precarious. This paradox needs analyzing if we want to understand the problems, limitations and criticisms of this organisation.
Deliberative Democracy, Participation, and OECD Peer Reviews of Environmental Policies
American Journal of Evaluation, 2006
Deliberative democracy has attracted increasing attention in political science and has been suggested as a normative ideal for evaluation. This article analyzes to what extent evaluations carried out in a highly government-driven manner can nevertheless contribute to deliberative democracy. This potential is examined by taking the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's environmental performance reviews as an example of an expertled evaluative process built on the ideals of representative democracy. The author argues that although they are not participatory, these reviews lay the groundwork for deliberative democracy by "empowering" weaker actors within governments and by improving the factual basis for political debate and decision making. This example suggests that to enhance deliberative democracy, the evaluation process need not be highly inclusive, dialogical, and deliberative but that a broader view is needed, encompassing the indirect impacts of evaluation on power relations and on the knowledge basis on which decision making relies.
Risking the earth Part 2: Power politics and structural reform of the IPCC and UNFCCC
Climate Risk Management, 2021
This two-part paper details the arguments and evidence that have been marshalled by both climate scientists and social scientists to critique the current procedures and methodologies deployed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to represent the risks of anthropogenic forcing and a continuation of business-as-usual. In the first part, the rationale for moving from an atmospheric stabilisation target to an average surface temperature target is explained. This is followed by a discussion of the IPCC's representations of nonlinear behaviour in relation to climate forcing, and the problems associated with using a single temperature target in assessing climate risk. An outline is then provided of efforts to define what can or should constitute physical, biological and socioeconomic indicators of dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI). The paper reviews the IPCC's representations of sea-level rise to illustrate the argument that it continues to take insufficient account of the paleoclimate record and improved methods of modelling. Part 1 concludes by arguing that the IPCC continues to under-represent the risks associated with DAI. In the second part, the rationale and methodologies for reconfiguring international climate governance are discussed in more detail. Part 2 argues that the currently dominant model of international policymaking is primarily an outcome of compromises made by governments under pressure from powerful polluting industries and their business allies. It is argued that the political economy of international climate governance has produced systematic biases in the kinds of expertise and evidence that national governments deem appropriate for consideration via the IPCC and UNFCCC frameworks, along with the relative importance that is ascribed to them. Drawing on the research of climate scientists and social scientists, some suggestions for how to restructure and refocus the activities of the IPCC, UNFCCC and climate governance more generally are canvassed, including the necessity of creating far more interdisciplinary and democratically accountable structures of expertise for climate policy-making at the national and supra-national levels. Part 2 concludes with a discussion of the kinds of reforms which could be undertaken to reduce the ability of incumbent actors to shape climate policy and politics to their advantage.
Making up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The IPCC has been studied by a diverse range of social science disciplines. The majority of this research focuses on the scientific and political dimensions of the organization and its work, and as such, overlooks other important actors and activities within the IPCC. The lack of understanding surrounding institutional decision-making process and assessment procedures—as well as the social and political forces shaping these—may have left the IPCC vulnerable to recent attacks. Taking a sociological approach and exploring the expertise that make up the IPCC as five distinct units: the panel, the bureau, the TSUs, the secretariat and the authors, this study aims to update our knowledge of the organization and the institutional changes it has undergone since its establishment. In doing so, the study offers a closer look at the social dynamics structuring relations within and between IPCC actors and contextualises how the scientific habitus, political order and economic capital shape how and by whom climate change is assessed.