Andresen Steinar, Baral Prativa, Hoffman Steven J, Fafard Patrick
Fridtjof Nansen Institute 1366 Lysaker Norway.
Global Strategy Lab York University/University of Ottawa Canada.
Glob Chall. 2018 Aug 5;2(9):1800055. doi: 10.1002/gch2.201800055. eCollection 2018 Sep.
Scientific advisory committees (SACs) are a critically important part of global environmental policy. This commentary reviews the role of SACs in six global and regional environmental regimes, defined here as the set of rules, norms, and procedures that are developed by states and international organizations out of their common concerns and used to organize common activities. First, SACs play a critical role in putting issues on the political agenda and the creation of an overarching regime. Second, the effectiveness of a given SAC and the associated regime is highly variable. Third, there is also considerable variation in the extent to which the regime is driven by an overarching scientific consensus, for example, high in the case of climate change, lower in the case of whaling. Fourth, the role of science in a given regime is also a function of whether the problem being addressed is relatively benign or more malign, that is to say, marked by deep political disagreements (i.e., climate change). Finally, the cases examined here suggest that the institutional design of the SAC matters and can influence the overall effectiveness of the SAC and by extension, the regime, but it is seldom decisive.
科学咨询委员会(SACs)是全球环境政策的关键重要组成部分。本评论回顾了科学咨询委员会在六个全球和区域环境制度中的作用,这里将其定义为由各国和国际组织出于共同关切而制定、用于组织共同活动的一套规则、规范和程序。首先,科学咨询委员会在将问题提上政治议程以及创建总体制度方面发挥着关键作用。其次,特定科学咨询委员会及相关制度的有效性差异很大。第三,该制度受总体科学共识驱动的程度也有很大差异,例如,在气候变化方面较高,在捕鲸方面较低。第四,科学在特定制度中的作用还取决于所解决的问题相对温和还是更具危害性,也就是说,是否存在深刻的政治分歧(如气候变化)。最后,这里所考察的案例表明,科学咨询委员会的制度设计很重要,能够影响科学咨询委员会的整体有效性,进而影响该制度,但它很少起决定性作用。