The treatment of divergent viewpoints in global environmental assessments

Kowarsch, Martin; Flachsland, Christian; Garard, Jennifer; Jabbour, Jason; Riousset, Pauline

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.001

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The turn toward future solutions will likely generate novel challenges for the IPCC—such as addressing the fact‐value‐dimension in a more explicit way and coping with value‐laden questions at the cognitive level, as well as the inclusion of a broader range of actors (at the sociopolitical level), each with different epistemic, ethical and political commitments (Kowarsch et al, ). Coping with these challenges will demand a new form of reflexivity to critically self‐examine (and thus render open to change) the institution's own performance and basic assumptions in the light of novel demands, and how procedures and governance structures can be adjusted in response to scientific developments and to transformations in the societal context.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The IPCC and the new map of science and politics

Beck¹,

Mahony

2018

WIREs Climate Change

176

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we review work which seeks to understand and interpret the place of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) within the science and politics of climate change in the context of a post-Paris polycentric governance regime and the culture of "post-truth" politics. Focusing on studies of how the IPCC has sought to maintain a boundary between the scientific and the political, we offer an historical account of "boundary work" within the IPCC which is instructive for thinking, in an anticipative mode, about emerging and likely challenges to the IPCC's position as a science-policy boundary organization. We suggest that the relationships between climate science and policy are undergoing fundamental transformation in light of the Paris Agreement, and contend that the IPCC will need to be nimble and reflexive in meeting new challenges. Growing calls for more "solution-oriented" assessment question the IPCC's positioning at the sciencepolitics boundary, where it can function to put some policy options on the table, while obscuring others. Recent controversies over proposed mitigation solutions are indicative of likely future challenges. We suggest that by adopting a mode of "responsible assessment," the IPCC can continue to exercise its world-making power in a relevant and legitimate fashion.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The IPCC and the new map of science and politics

Beck¹,

Mahony

2018

WIREs Climate Change

176

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The treatment of divergent viewpoints in global environmental assessments (GEA) has been recently addressed by Kowarscha et al (2017), but their focus was on the various actors involved, including scientists but also industry, NGOs and different institutions. Furthermore, the whole GEA process was considered, from the development of the mandate and scope to writing the summary for policy makers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of epidemiological studies: Procedural rules for uncertain science for policy, a case study on bisphenol-A

Maxim¹,

Sluijs

2018

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a method for in-depth mapping of heterogeneity in expert judgment, in the evaluation of the quality of epidemiological studies used in regulatory chemical risk assessment. Whereas consensus in scientific advisory groups provides legitimation for subsequent political action, it can also have unintended effects on the quality of regulatory risk assessment. Based on empirical testing of our method, called Qualichem_epi, with ten experts and two epidemiological case studies about bisphenol A (BPA)'s effects on human health, we have shown that expert judgment plays an essential role in managing uncertainty and deciding what "quality" of a study actually means. We found substantial heterogeneity of scientists' judgments about the quality of epidemiological studies, even if the same criteria were used for the assessment. This heterogeneity is not present anymore in reports produced by expert groups, where results are presented under the collective signature of all the scientists involved. We argue that flattening heterogeneity can be an important problem when it is not the result of true scientific agreement but only a secondary effect of consensus-based working procedures of agencies that experts have to follow. Qualichem_epi provides an easy to understand color-based picture of both majority and minority opinions in a scientific advisory group. We suggest that it could be used on a regular basis for communicating quality assessments of epidemiological studies in regulatory chemical risk assessment.

show abstract

“…What key characteristics do otherwise different GEAs share? Here (i) we reflect on our own analysis of a sample of GEAs 4 going back some years and (ii) we gloss from the most systematic examination of GEAs ever conducted (via the Mercator Institute in Berlin: Kowarsch et al 2014) and from papers assembled in a special issue of the journal Environmental Science & Policy (2017, issue 2) devoted to taking stock of GEAs. There are eight things to say.…”

Section: Global Environmental Assessments: the Story So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, few have yet to provide a developed template that might lend a foundational shift broad cohesion within various existing GEAs or new ones in the future. 5 By far the most detailed proposals for change have appeared in a major report about GEAs, produced under UNEP auspices (Kowarsch et al, 2014), and a set of journal papers authored by a mixture of analysts (Edenhofer and Kowarsch, 2015; Kowarsch et al, 2016, 2017 [the second and third also present Supplementary Online Information]). Kowarsch is a constant and significant intellectual presence in these publications.…”

Section: Global Environmental Assessments 20: the Search For Solutiomentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of global environmental assessments: Making a case for fundamental change

Castree

Bellamy

Osaka³

2020

The Anthropocene Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the late 1970s, over 140 global environmental assessments (GEAs) have been completed. But are they any longer fit for purpose? Some believe not. Compelling arguments have been advanced for a new assessment paradigm, one more focussed on problem-solving than problem-identification. If translated into new assessment practices, this envisaged paradigm could prevail for the next several decades, just as the current one has since the late 1970s. In this paper, it is contended that the arguments for GEAs 2.0 are, in fact, insufficiently bold. Solutions-orientated assessments, often associated with a ‘policy turn’ by their advocates, are undoubtedly necessary. But without a ‘politics turn’ they will be profoundly insufficient: policy options would be detached from the diverse socio-economic explanations and ‘deep hermeneutics’ of value that ultimately give them meaning, especially given the very high stakes now attached to managing human impacts on a fast-changing planet. Here we make the case for GEAs 3.0, where two paradigmatic steps forward are taken at once rather than just one. The second step involves the introduction of political reasoning and structured normative debate about existential alternatives, a pre-requisite to strategic decision-making and its operational expression. Possible objections to this second step are addressed and rebutted. Even so, the case for politically-overt GEAs faces formidable difficulties of implementation. However, we consider these challenges less a sign of our undue idealism and more an indication of the urgent need to mitigate, if not overcome them. In a world of ‘wicked problems’ we need ‘wicked assessments’ adequate to them, preparatory to so-called ‘clumsy solutions’. This paper is intended to inspire more far-reaching debate about the future of GEAs and, by implication, about the roles social science and the humanities might usefully play in addressing global environmental change.

show abstract

The treatment of divergent viewpoints in global environmental assessments

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

The IPCC and the new map of science and politics

The IPCC and the new map of science and politics

Quality of epidemiological studies: Procedural rules for uncertain science for policy, a case study on bisphenol-A

The future of global environmental assessments: Making a case for fundamental change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About