THE USABILITY OF SCIENCE ADVICE TO INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONSsedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/openmtg/docs/Kohler.pdf · SCIENCE ADVICE TO INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS

Kohler Usability of Science Advice – IHDP Open Meeting 2003 p. 1/42

THE USABILITY OF

SCIENCE ADVICE TO

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS

by Pia M. Kohler [email protected]

Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

September 2003 Abstract: Many international environmental conventions have designated a body responsible for providing decision makers with science advice. Yet, how usable is this advice being provided to decision-makers? I suggest that the usability of this science advice will depend on four factors: autonomy, diversity, process and transparency (in order of decreasing importance). These factors are evaluated for three international environmental conventions: the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision-makers from these conventions were surveyed to gain a greater insight into what factors are significant contributors to a more usable output. Through these surveys, three factors are identified as most important in determining usability of science advice: scientist reputation, autonomy from government influence and transparency. The results also imply that the size of the science advisory body may be a critical factor. The next step in this avenue of research is to examine how thee attributes can be improved in existing science advisory bodies, and how these lessons can be applied to the creation of new science advisory processes for international settings. Prepared for presentation at the Open Meeting of the Global Environmental Change Research Community, Montreal, Canada, 16-18 October, 2003 Forthcoming publication: Kohler, Pia M. 2003. The Usability of Science Advice to International Environmental Conventions. in Negotiating a Sustainable Future: Innovations in International Environmental Negotiation - Volume 12. Lawrence E. Susskind, William Moomaw and Kristen Kurczak. Eds. Cambridge, MA: Program on Negotiation Books.


THE USABILITY OF SCIENCE ADVICE TO INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS

PROLOGUE

The global community has recently come together in an effort to prevent further

degradation and loss of X, a cherished environmental commodity found throughout the world

and whose existence is vulnerable to industrial development. Non-governmental organizations,

grassroots activists, politicians and experts have drafted the text of a convention on X which will

serve as a basis for global action to preserve X.

This convention will function as most other international environmental conventions. The

day-to-day operations of the convention will be overseen by a small secretariat which will report

to the governments that have decided to become parties to the convention (Parties). The Parties

to this convention will meet regularly as a “Conference of the Parties” (COP). Parties will be

called upon to make decisions on the setting, implementation and monitoring of targets and

measures.

While governments have agreed on a final text for the convention, it is now necessary to

wait for a predetermined minimum number of governments to ratify the convention so that it can

enter into force. Meanwhile, governments are meeting regularly to “iron out” organizational and

implementation details of the convention. The monitoring of X, and the necessary steps to

preserve X all come under the decision-making authority of the COP. As the convention is

implemented, these decisions will be based on science knowledge. Following the example of

most recent international conventions, governments are designing a science advisory body to

provide guidance to Parties on the setting, monitoring and implementation of targets and

measures pertaining to the effective application of the Convention.


In setting the parameters for this science advisory body, governments will need to define

its mandate. Will it only be asked to provide guidance on setting targets, or will it also be asked

to provide analyses of policy options for meeting these targets? Will this body oversee

compliance by Parties, and should its members be responsible for assessing infractions or

extenuating circumstances? Governments will have to agree on the required qualifications for

participation in the science advisory body, on the number of participants, as well as on any

controls over participants’ nationalities or institutional affiliation. This science advisory body

will represent a significant budgetary commitment, and governments will have to decide how

much can be spent on providing science advice, including details such as convening meetings

and providing translation (in meetings or of documents).

Throughout this decision-making process, governments will seek an organizational

structure that will provide science advice most usable to Parties in making decisions for the

preservation of X. In facing the challenge of designing this science advisory body, there is a need

to learn from existing science advisory bodies which organizational elements contribute to a

more usable output.

INTRODUCTION

Some issues, in particular those concerning public goods, or common pool resources, are

often better suited to preservation, or to being addressed in general through multilateral, or even

global action. Yet, few of these efforts have been successful in achieving the improvement

sought in the first place. Many factors may be to blame for this lack of efficacy. These may

include concerns over maintaining national sovereignty and the associated limits to

implementing and enforcing international agreements, difficulties arising from the sheer scale

and scope of the problems being tackled through these means, a lack of sufficient widespread


commitment or interest to concretely improve the situation. One factor increasingly blamed for

the lack of effectiveness of international environmental conventions is the provision of science

advice. Among others, Oran Young and George Demko identified the integration of scientific

knowledge as one of the necessary components of an effective international environmental

regime (Young and Demko, 1996). In order to address this flaw of international environmental

systems, it is necessary to first gain a greater understanding of the science advisory process

associated with different international environmental conventions.

In most international environmental conventions, the incorporation of science into

decision-making has been provided for through the creation of science advisory bodies

associated with specific conventions. Science advice has been provided using a variety of

structures, including large subsidiary science advisory bodies, principal scientific panels, and

groupings of expert panels.

The differences in the organizational structures of these science advisory bodies will

influence the extent to which decision-makers will feel confident in accepting and using the

products from these bodies. In this context, decision-makers are government delegates attending

the Conference of the Parties (COP) – the decision making body – of an international

environmental convention.

In this paper, I suggest that the usability will depend on four factors (in order of

decreasing importance): autonomy, diversity, process, and transparency. I will evaluate these

factors for three international environmental conventions: the 1971 Ramsar Convention on

Wetlands, the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its 1987

Montreal Protocol Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the 1992 Convention on

Biological Diversity. This evaluation will first be carried out using a weighted score sheet, and


further understanding will be sought by surveying decision-makers who have taken part in recent

COPs of these three conventions.

BACKGROUND

The improved integration of scientific knowledge has been identified as a key element in

developing effective international policy by a number of researchers whom have explored the

effectiveness of international institutions (Birnie, 1996; Guppy, 1996). There is also an emerging

literature available assessing the effectiveness of current international environmental conventions

and in a few cases providing recommendations for improvement (Haas, Keohane and Levy,

1993). In Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective Global Agreements (Susskind,

1994), Lawrence Susskind concludes by presenting suggestions for improvements, including the

ten recommendations from the Salzburg Initiative, the result of a series of seminars held in 1990

and 1991 bringing together “more than 120 governmental, nongovernmental, and corporate

representatives from thirty-two countries”. In her 1999 work, Elisabeth Corell focused on the

specific role of expert knowledge in the negotiation of the Convention to Combat Desertification

(Corell, 1999).

There is little research available focusing in particular on the means of providing science

advice, identifying its weaknesses, or developing opportunities for improvement. Such research

is of particular interest as new conventions are being created and specifics of their scientific

advisory bodies are under negotiation. For example, the recent Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants has yet to have a clear definition of its science advisory body

responsible for reviewing chemicals for inclusion under this convention. Gaining a greater

understanding of what will make the products of such bodies more usable for decision-makers is

an important consideration in designing, or even improving, science advisory bodies. For the


purpose of this research, three international environmental conventions are being studied. These

conventions were established in different decades and tackle problems of varying scope and

scale.

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands was adopted in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. As of August

2003, 138 states were Contracting Parties to this agreement (Ramsar Convention Bureau,

2003b). The Ramsar Convention is implemented by a Conference of the Contracting Parties

(COP) which meets every three years. The last meeting was held in November 2002 in Valencia,

Spain. The COP elects a Standing Committee to guide the Convention's progress and oversee the

work of the Ramsar Bureau in between meetings of the COP. The Standing Committee has 16

members, ensuring geographic representation among the Convention’s 6 regions: Africa, Asia,

Europe, Neotropics, North America, and Oceania. There are also 6 permanent observers to the

Standing Committee: the Netherlands, Switzerland, BirdLife International, IUCN-The World

Conservation Union, Wetlands International, and WWF-International (Ramsar Convention

Bureau, 2003a). The Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) provides science advice to

the Ramsar COP and Standing Committee (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2003d).

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted in 1985 and

has been ratified by 185 Parties as of July 2003 (Ozone Secretariat, 2003c). In 1987, the

Convention was supplemented by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone

Layer, which 184 Parties have ratified to date (Ozone Secretariat, 2003c). Four subsequent

amendments have been made to the Montreal Protocol, in 1990, 1992, 1997 and 1999. The

Conference of the Parties (COP) and the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) oversee the

implementation of the Convention and the Protocol respectively. While the MOP meets annually,

the COP meets every three years. These two events are usually held in conjunction with each


other. Each of these groups has the authority to mandate the creation of expert panels to provide

them with science advice. Three panels are currently providing science advice: a Scientific

Assessment Panel (SAP), an Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) and a Technology

and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). Their work is supplemented by seven Technical

Options Committees (TOC) (Ozone Secretariat, 2000).

The Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in 1992 and has been ratified by

187 parties as of August 2003 (Secretariat of the CBD, 2003c). In 2000, the Convention was

supplemented by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which to date has been ratified by 57

Parties and will be entering into force in September 2003. The Conference of the Parties (COP)

to the Convention is advised in science matters by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical

and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) (Secretariat of the CBD, 2003d). The COP has the

authority to create special working groups to supplement the work of the SBSTTA. A roster of

experts is also maintained as a resource for science advice to the parties (Secretariat of the CBD,

2003a).

METHOD Score sheet

In order to gain a greater understanding of which organizational components will

influence the output from a science advisory body, it is necessary to determine whether some

design aspects are more important than others in influencing the usability of the output. In light

of the numerous variables that must be decided upon in structuring a science advisory body, it

was necessary to focus on components more likely to significantly influence the usability of the

output.


In developing a score sheet to assess these factors for different conventions, it was also

necessary to focus on factors that would exhibit some variation between different international

environmental regimes. To a great extent, the factors applied in the score sheet were chosen

based on knowledge of the international environmental conventions, and from a series of

interviews with both decision-makers and providers of science advice in global environmental

policy. Insight into the issues at stake was also drawn from sitting in on the negotiations to

design a science advisory body1.

The autonomy of the body is an evaluation of the extent to which its output is influenced

by one country in particular, or one particular organizational viewpoint. Along with the

reputation of the scientists involved, this independence contributes significantly to improving the

general perception of the science advisory body’s work. The reputation of scientists involved

was most cited as the most important factor of success in a series of interviews, while Rajendra

K. Pachauri added that the autonomy from government and institution influence was also an

important contributor to success2. In his recent book, Edward Parson argues that science

assessments achieve what he calls authoritativeness by involving a “critical mass of the most

respected experts on the issue” (Parson, 2003).

The diversity of the panel is a key component of creating a product that is of relevance to

delegates from all parties to the convention. Environmental issues are interdisciplinary in nature,

and as such, the product of the science advisory body will benefit from a panel which brings

together scientists from all the disciplines concerned. Also, scientists may vary in their

viewpoints as their institutional affiliation varies. Thus institutional diversity, i.e. whether a

1 Contact group on the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Geneva, Switzerland. June 2002. more information available at: Earth Negotiations Bulletin Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS INC-6) http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/chemical/pops6/ 2 Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The interview took place in Cambridge, MA on November 16, 2002.


participant is primarily affiliated with industry, a government authority, academia, an

intergovernmental organization, or a non-governmental organization will also enhance the

output’s usability.

Procedural factors will also affect the extent to which the product from the body will be

used by decision-makers in the COP. This includes ensuring that potential participants to the

science advisory body have received sufficient notice prior to participation. The results of the

science advisory body will be of greater use to decision-makers if they address issues that reflect

their principal concerns. Finally, the extent to which any advice is taken into consideration by

decision makers will depend on the accessibility of the format in which the advice is presented.

A more transparent process will contribute to the extent to which science advice is

considered by decision-makers. While the success of the body is dependent on accessibility to its

reports and products, transparency will also be enhanced by the extent to which information is

made available on the preliminary proceedings leading to the final output as these can better

reflect the dialogue involved. Thus transparency would be increased by making available

minutes from the meetings or preparatory and preliminary reports. Acknowledging the global

nature of these international environmental conventions, a key to transparency of the proceedings

and results is the availability of these documents in a range of language that makes them

accessible to a wider proportion of participants. In most international environmental conventions,

proceedings and documents are available in the six official UN languages (English, French,

Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Arabic) yet this is not always true of science advisory

proceedings. Transparency will be enhanced by making materials available in the languages of

relevance to the decision-makers concerned with the issue at hand.


The following score sheet, with four components, was used in assigning a “usability”

score to science advisory bodies. This score is a function of autonomy, diversity, process and

transparency. Each component is made up of criteria evaluated using a scale of 1 to 5, where:

5 = very good

4 = good

3 = average

2 = poor

1 = very poor

The Autonomy component (A) has three criteria: resistance to influence by a single organization,

resistance to influence by a single country, reputation of scientists. The maximum score for this

component is 15. The Diversity component (D) has three criteria: disciplinary representation,

country representation, and variety of institutional affiliations. The maximum score for this

component is 15.The Process component (P) has three components: prior notice of meetings,

ease of use of product, relevance of agenda. The maximum score for this component is 15. The

Transparency component (T) has four components: availability of information on participating

scientists, availability of minutes and proceedings, availability of final product, translation of

final product. The maximum score for this component is 20.

A Usability score (U) was derived using the following formula:

Usability = 4* Autonomy + 3*Diversity + 2*Process + Transparency or U = 4A +3D + 2P + T

The relative weights used in this formula reflect the relative importance assigned to each of these

factors by interviewees and in the relevant literature. The maximum usability score is 155 points.

According to this scoring system, science advisory bodies with the best usability would be


expected to have a score ranging between 124 and 155. A score of 124 is achieved by earning a 4

(good) in every criteria in the score sheet. Science advisory bodies with average usability would

be expected to have a score ranging between 84 and 123. A score of 84 is achieved by earning a

3 (average) in every criteria in the score sheet. Science advisory bodies with worst usability

would be expected to have a score of less than 84 points.

Surveys

Surveys were sent to participants of the most recent COPs of each of the conventions

being studied. The survey was made up of two parts. The full surveys sent out for each

convention are available in appendices 1 to 3.

The first half of the survey gathered information about the respondent. Questions 1 to 3

focused on the respondent’s experience and institutional affiliation. Questions 5 to 7 sought

information on participation by scientists from the respondent’s region and country in the science

advisory process. Question 4 asked for the primary source of science knowledge while Question

8 asked respondents to rank a list of factors in order of their importance for a science advisory

body whose output they would trust and use.

The second half of the survey (questions 9 to 21) asked the respondent to fill out the same

score sheet described above. Each criteria was set out as a statement and respondents used scores

from 1 to 5, where 5 signified strong agreement, and 1 indicated strong disagreement. Questions

9 to 11 contributed to the diversity score, Questions 12 to 15 addressed issues of transparency.

Questions 16 to 18 reflected the process and questions 19 to 21 related to autonomy.

Surveys were sent to decision-makers associated with each of these conventions. Thirty

surveys were sent via email to randomly selected government delegates who had recently

attended the 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP-8) to the Ramsar


Convention on Wetlands, held in November 2002. Thirty surveys were also sent to randomly

selected government delegates who had recently attended the 14th Meeting of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances and the 6th Conference of the Parties to the

Vienna Convention to Protect the Ozone Layer (MOP14/COP6), also held in November 2002.

Contact information was not available for participants of a recent Conference of the Parties

(COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the survey was sent to thirty randomly

selected government representatives listed as National Focal Points on issues relating to the

CBD. The list had last been updated in December 2002.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Score sheet

Using the information available on each of the three Conventions and their subsidiary

bodies provided in their official documents, on their website, and from other sources, I evaluated

each of the criteria in the score sheet described above. Results are presented in table 2 at the end

of this section.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

The Ramsar Convention promotes wetland conservation through their wise use, which is defined

as “sustainable utilization for the benefit of mankind in a way compatible with the maintenance

of the natural properties of the ecosystem” (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2001d).

The Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) to the Ramsar Convention on

Wetlands was established in 1993 as a subsidiary body to the Conference of the Parties, the

Standing Committee, and to the Secretariat. Its composition and duties were further defined in

Resolution VII.2. The STRP is currently composed of fifteen members from across Ramsar’s


geographic areas and also includes representatives from the Convention’s four partner

organizations: BirdLife International, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Wetlands

International and WWF and other invited observer organizations (Ramsar Convention Bureau,

2003d).

AUTONOMY

When assessing autonomy, the STRP’s geographically constrained memberships ensures

that representatives from Ramsar’s six regions are represented. Such distribution contributes to

preventing any one country from exercising disproporational influence on the outcomes of the

STRP. Ramsar obtains a score of “good” (4) for “no influence by one country”.

The Convention’s four partner organizations participate in the STRP. While these four

organizations may at first be perceived as being similar environmental non-governmental

organizations, their differing agendas help ensure that one of these organizations will not overly

influence the results of the STRP. Institutional diversity is also enhanced by the participation of

representatives from many observer organizations, such as from the science advisory bodies to

other international environmental conventions (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2001b). Ramsar

obtains a score of “average” (3) for “no influence by an organization”.

The STRP is set up to encourage the consultation of outside experts in developing their

science advice, which can help ensure that the best scientists in the field of wetland management

play a role in advising the COP and Standing Committee. In addition, the members on the STRP

are often their country’s specialist on wetlands issues thus providing a certain level of expertise

(Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2001a). Finally, every party is asked to designate a national focal

point for STRP matters which can contribute further to identifying the best scientists for


participation in the STRP (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2000a). Ramsar obtains a score of “very

good” (5) for “reputation of scientists”.

A = 4 + 3 + 5 = 12

DIVERSITY

The members of the STRP bring to the panel a very wide range of areas of expertise,

which is enhanced by access to outside experts and participation by the four partner

organizations (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2001b). Ramsar obtains a score of “very good” (5)

for “disciplinary diversity”.

The STRP’s geographically constrained membership ensures that experts from Ramsar’s

six regions are represented. The triennial nomination to the panel ensures that over time different

countries will be represented on the STRP. However, country diversity is in effect limited by the

small size of the panel. Ramsar obtains a score of “good” (4) for “country diversity”.

The participation in the STRP by the Convention’s four partner organizations, along with

the STRP’s freedom in consulting outside experts helps ensure a certain diversity of affiliations.

However, while academia, government institutes, and environmental NGOs are all represented,

experts associated with private interests are rarely included in the STRP. Ramsar obtains a score

of “good” (4) for “institutional affiliation diversity”.

D = 5 + 4 + 4 = 13

PROCESS

The STRP meets annually, and the Ramsar secretariat maintains an extensive website

with a detailed list of meetings (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2003c). The last STRP meeting was

held in June 2001, and members of the STRP also participated in the recent 8th Meeting the


Conference of the Parties in November 2002. The date of the next meeting of the STRP has not

yet been announced. Ramsar obtains a score of “average” (3) for “prior notice of meetings”.

The STRP produces many reports submitted to the secretariat, the Standing Committee

and finally to delegates to the COP meetings. The output and work of the STRP is presented to

the COP in a large overview document, and the outcome of more specialized working groups

overseen by the STRP is presented to the COP as information documents prepared by the STRP

(Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2002). These documents are presented in a straightforward manner

and successfully draw attention to policy implications of relevance to the COP. In some

instances, the output is made easier to apply through the effective use of case studies (STRP,

2002a). These outputs would benefit from more succinct policy-maker summaries, especially in

light of the many documents being submitted to the COP. The reports themselves are easily

accessible on the website in multiple digital formats (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2002). Ramsar

obtains a score of “good” (4) for “product in usable format”.

The STRP addresses issues set to it by the COP and is overseen by the Standing

Committee, and as such can organize its work to investigate issues of priority to the COP

(Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2000b). However, the STRP in its last meeting expressed concern

at the lack of manpower for covering in a timely manner the issues on its agenda (Ramsar

Convention Bureau, 2001c). Ramsar obtains a score of “good” (4) for “ address topics of priority

to COP”.

P = 3 + 4 + 4 = 11

TRANSPARENCY

Information on participants is widely available on the Ramsar website and in its official

documentation. Representatives to the STRP are listed by name, along with information about


their affiliation and areas of expertise. Further details on participants to the STRP are also

available in minutes and documents from its meetings. Participants and leaders of the various

working groups overseen by the STRP are also listed in STRP reports and documents. Ramsar

obtains a score of “very good” (5) for “ information on participants”.

Detailed minutes, as well as summaries of the minutes and decisions, from STRP

Meetings are available on the Ramsar website (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2001c). Detailed

information on the working groups is also made available (STRP, 2002b). Ramsar obtains a

score of “very good” (5) for “minutes and proceedings available”.

Final reports from the STRP are made available to delegates at the meetings of the COP.

The STRP submits a general report of its work to the COP, along with numerous information

papers on specific scientific concerns. These reports are prepared to be available to delegates 6

months prior to a COP meeting and are available on the Convention website and from the

Secretariat. Ramsar obtains a score of “very good” (5) for “ final reports available”.

Minutes of the STRP meetings, and the general report to the COP are available in

Ramsar’s three official languages: French, English and Spanish. However, the information

papers submitted to the COP which contain the more substantial science advice are only

available in English. Ramsar obtains a score of “poor” (2) for “translation”.

T = 5 + 5 + 5 + 2 = 17

USABILITY

U = U = 4A +3D + 2P + T = 126

The scores above combine to give Ramsar a final score of 126 points out of 155, which

fits in the range of “good” science advisory bodies.


Vienna Convention to Protect the Ozone Layer

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted in 1985 and

was supplemented in 1987 by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone

Layer. Expert panels were initially put in place leading up to the negotiating of an Ozone layer

treaty. Four panels were created: a science panel to report projected ozone losses under various

emission scenarios, a technology panel to report the availability of substitutes and the feasibility

of larger cuts, an environmental effects panel, and an economic panel (Parson, 2003).

Now that the Convention has entered into force, these panels evolved into a Scientific

Assessment Panel (SAP), and Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EAAP) and a

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). Their work is supplemented by seven

Technical Options Committees (TOC). These panels and committees meet regularly and produce

reports and recommendations to the Conference of the Parties of the Vienna Convention and the

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. The members are independent scientists from

organizations and institutions such as The World Bank, the US National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, and various academic institutions and private corporations from

around the world (Ozone Secretariat, 2003a).

AUTONOMY

There are no requirements or controls to prevent undue influence by a particular country

or organization in the work of the panels and technical options committees associated with the

Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol. However, there are no structures in place to

systematically grant influence to any one particular actor involved. The Ozone Panels obtain a

score of “average” (3) for “no influence by one country” and “no influence by an organization”.


The Ozone Panels function under a peer review system and involve many respected

scientists in this field of ozone research. The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “very good” (5) for

“reputation of scientists”.

A = 3 + 3 + 5 = 11

DIVERSITY

The many panels and committees under the Ozone regime have ensured

widespread disciplinary diversity in developing science advice. However, disciplinary diversity

has been limited in the past, especially in terms of including a focus on interactions with climate

change issues. This latter restriction however was reduced at MOP14/COP6 (Earth Negotiations

Bulletin, 2002c). The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “good” (4) for “disciplinary diversity”.

As described above, there are no controls on country affiliation and as a result panels and

committees can easily be skewed towards overrepresentation by a region or country. The Ozone

Panels obtain a score of “poor” (2) for “country diversity”.

Scientists from many institutional affiliations are involved in the science advice provision

to the Ozone regime, and include representatives from governments, academia, the private sector

and non-governmental organizations. The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “very good” (5) for

“institutional affiliation diversity”.

D = 4 + 2 + 5 = 11

PROCESS

The dates of upcoming meetings of panels and committees are not announced far in

advance, and are sometimes not listed on the Ozone secretariat website. The “upcoming

meetings” section is rather limited, and one must generally refer to other sources to find out


about upcoming events (Ozone Secretariat, 2003b). The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “poor”

(2) for “prior notice of meetings”.

The assessment panels provide extensive reports to the MOP/COP that generally include

succinct and accessible policy-maker summaries (Ozone Secretariat, 2002). The reports are also

presented at length to participant of the MOP/COP thus making the product of the Panels all the

more usable (Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2002c). The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “very

good” (5) for “product in usable format”.

The work of the ozone panels and committees is in direct response to guidelines set for it

by the MOP/COP. The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “very good” (5) for “ address topics of

priority to COP”.

P = 3 + 4 + 4 = 12

TRANSPARENCY

Information on participants of panels is not easily available, and the most information

available in some cases is only for the chairs of the panels and committees. In such cases,

nationality, affiliation and qualifications are rarely disclosed (Ozone Secretariat, 2003a). The

Ozone Panels obtain a score of “poor” (2) for “ information on participants”.

Proceedings of the meetings are not available, and the only output are in the form of

reports published or submitted to the MOP/COP. The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “very poor”

(1) for “minutes and proceedings available”.

The final reports are available on-line and at meetings of the MOP/COP and are

sometimes published in between meetings. The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “very good” (5)

for “ final reports available”.


The proceedings of the panel reports to the MOP/COP benefit from simultaneous

translation in the six UN languages. The summary report submitted to the MOP/COP is also

available in six languages, but more detailed reports from the panels are only available in

English. The Ozone Panels obtain a score of “good” (4) for “translation”.

T = 2 + 1 + 5 + 4 = 12

USABILITY

U = U = 4A +3D + 2P + T = 113

The scores above combine to give the Ozone regime a final score of 113 points out of 155, which

fits in the range of “average” science advisory bodies.

Convention on Biological Diversity

The Convention on Biological Diversity was drafted in 1992 and its objectives include

“the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and

equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources” (Secretariat of

the CBD, 1992b). The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological

Diversity is advised in science matters by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and

Technological Advice (SBSTTA) (Secretariat of the CBD, 2003d). The COP has the authority to

create special working groups to supplement the work of the SBSTTA. A roster of experts is also

maintained as a resource for science advice to the parties (Secretariat of the CBD, 2003a).

AUTONOMY

The SBSTTA meetings take place in a plenary format similar to that followed for COP

meetings, and as such the SBSTTA is vulnerable to being held up by a minority of countries in

trying to reach a consensus. The CBD obtains a score of “very poor” (1) for “no influence by one

country”.


The CBD is a recent convention and has such is still prone to power struggles in its

management. In particular, the United Nations Environment Programme has exercised an

increasingly significant role in the management of the Secretariat to the CBD. The mandate of

the CBD, and its SBSTTA is also influenced by actions of the World Trade Organization,

especially as relating to biosafety issues. The CBD obtains a score of “average” (3) for “no

influence by an organization”.

The SBSTTA includes delegates from every party and some observer countries. These

delegates often include both scientists and government negotiators, and experts are also hired as

consultants by the Secretariat to provide science input to the SBSTTA. The CBD obtains a score

of “average” (3) for “reputation of scientists”.

A = 1 + 3 + 3 = 7

DIVERSITY

While the field of biological diversity is broad, there are few efforts within the SBSTTA

to explore the full range of issues involved. In addition, each meeting of the SBSTTA is limited

in its scope by the agenda set for it by the COP (Secretariat of the CBD, 2002). The CBD obtains

a score of “poor” (2) for “disciplinary diversity”.

Every party to the CBD is allowed to send as many delegates as they wish to meetings of

the SBSTTA, and even governments that are not parties to the Convention are allowed to send

delegates. The CBD obtains a score of “very good” (5) for “country diversity”.

Due to the SBSTTA’s plenary format, participation is mostly limited to scientists with

government affiliations. While non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations

and industry are allowed as observers their participation is limited. There is little input from


scientists affiliated with academia. The CBD obtains a score of “very poor” (1) for “institutional

affiliation diversity”.

D = 2 + 5 + 1 = 8

PROCESS

Participants are given ample notice of SBSTTA meetings, the dates and venue of the next

SBSTTA meeting generally being announced by the end of the preceding meeting (Secretariat of

the CBD, 2003b). The CBD obtains a score of “very good” (5) for “prior notice of meetings”.

The product of the SBSTTA is a detailed report (Secretariat of the CBD, 2001) submitted

to the COP in the format of decisions. In a sense this output is already of a very political nature

and does not contain scientific information that can easily be referred to in decision-making at

the COP. The CBD obtains a score of “average” (3) for “product in usable format”.

The SBSTTA does address issues set for it by the COP, yet the agenda is set with such

advance that the SBSTTA is often ill equipped to advise the COP on issues of urgency. The CBD

obtains a score of “average” (3) for “ address topics of priority to COP”.

P = 5 + 3 + 3 = 11

TRANSPARENCY

While a list of participants to the SBSTTA is distributed to those physically present at the

meeting, participants list are not available on the CBD website and are even hard to obtain from

the Secretariat. In any event, in this listing there is little if any information on affiliation or

qualifications. While the CBD does maintain a roster of experts (Secretariat of the CBD, 2003a)

that could be called upon by delegates, which does include information on nationality, affiliation

and expertise, these experts are not involved in the outcome of the SBSTTA. The CBD obtains a

score of “very poor” (1) for “information on participants”.


The proceedings of the SBTTA are available to a limited extent in the meeting report put

out by the Secretariat (Secretariat of the CBD, 2001). A more detailed record is made available

through daily reports form the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2001).

The CBD obtains a score of “good” (4) for “minutes and proceedings available”.

Final reports from the SBSTTA are available on the CBD website and are also distributed

by the Secretariat. These reports also benefit from being available in all six UN languages. Yet it

is more difficult to gain access to any technical reports presented to the SBSTTA (prepared by

parties or the Secretariat) in which case they are only available in English. The CBD obtains a

score of “good” (4) for “ final reports available”. The CBD obtains a score of “good” (4) for

“translation”.

T = 1 + 4+ 4 + 4 = 13

USABILITY

U = U = 4A +3D + 2P + T = 87

The scores above combine to give the CBD a final score of 83 points out of 155, which

fits in the lower end of the range for “average” science advisory bodies.

Table 1 presents an overview of the score sheet results for the three conventions. Using these

score sheets, the output from the STRP was found to be the most usable, while the output from

the SBSTTA was found to be least usable.

Wetlands Ozone Biodiversity

No influence by organization (/5) 4 3 3 No influence by country(/5) 3 3 1 Reputation of scientists 5 5 3 => AUTONOMY (/15) 12 11 7 Disciplinary diversity (/5) 5 4 2


Country diversity (/5) 4 2 5 Institutional affiliation diversity (/5) 4 5 1 => DIVERSITY (/15) 13 11 8 Prior notice of meetings (/5) 3 2 5 Product in usable format (/5) 4 5 3 Address topics of priority to COP (/5) 4 5 3 => PROCESS (/15) 11 12 11 Information on participants (/5) 5 2 1 Minutes and proceedings available (/5) 5 1 4 Final reports available (/5) 5 5 4 Translation (/5) 2 4 4 => TRANSPARENCY (/20) 17 12 13 USABILITY (U = 4A + 3D + 2P + T) 126 113 87 Table 1: results of score sheet Surveys: Thirty surveys were sent by email to decision-makers associated with each Convention.

Of the 90 surveys sent out, 8 surveys were unanswerable because the email addresses were

faulty. 22 surveys were returned, providing a response rate of 27%. Some survey respondents

expressed difficulty in filling out the score sheet portion of the survey. This was the case in

particular for respondents associated with the CBD who expressed doubt as to whether the

SBSTTA could be considered a scientific body.

Table 2 presents the range of results returned for the score sheet portion of the survey. If

one were to consider the mean usability scores obtained by respondents, the Ozone regime and

the Biodiversity Convention are identified as having the more usable science advice output.

However, contrary to the results obtained when filling out the score sheet using the information

made available by the Conventions themselves, the Wetlands Convention is found to have the

least usable science advice output. It is most interesting to note that all three of the conventions

had mean score sheet results falling in the average range.



Influence by organization (/5) 2-4 2-4 2-5 Influence from countries (/5) 3-4 2-4 2-5 Reputation of scientists (/5) 2-4 3-4 1-5 => AUTONOMY (/15) 8-12 7-12 7-14 Disciplinary diversity (/5) 2-5 4-5 4 Country diversity (/5) 2-5 2-5 4-5 Institutional affiliation diversity (/5) 2-5 3-5 3-4 => DIVERSITY (/15) 8-14 9-14 11-12 Prior notice of meetings (/5) 2-4 3-4 3-4 Product in usable format (/5) 2-4 4-5 4 Address topics of priority to COP (/5) 3-5 4-5 2-5 => PROCESS (/15) 7-11 11-14 10-13 Information on participants (/5) 2-5 2-4 2-4 Minutes and proceedings available (/5) 2-5 1-4 4-5 Final reports available (/5) 2-5 4-5 4-5 Translation (/5) 1-5 3-5 4-5 => TRANSPARENCY (/20) 9-16 13-18 15-19 USABILITY (U = 4A + 3D + 2P + T) 89-129 90-133 103-135 Number of surveys sent out 30 30 30 Number of surveys returned 10 6 6 Mean Usability Score 105.3 120 115.5 Table 2. Range of usability scores from survey respondents Since respondents who received the survey were only asked about their experiences with

one convention process, it is difficult to compare the score sheet results obtained for these

conventions. However, it is necessary to determine whether these inconclusive score sheet results

are influenced by changing the formula for usability used above.

Rankings assigned by respondents Overall ranking of each factor Wetlands Ozone Biodiversity

1. Reputation of scientists involved

5, 1, 1, 9, 3, 2, 1, 1 1, 1, 4, 1 3, 1, 1

2. Availability of result in accessible format

5, 6, 1, 6, 1, 8, 4, 1, 5, 1 5, 2, 2 1, 9, 2, 3

2. Autonomy from government influence

2, 10, 2, 8, 6, 1, 1, 2, 4 7, 6, 2, 4 1, 4, 2, 1


4. Diversity of disciplines

4, 8, 1, 3, 2, 7, 1, 3 3, 3, 4, 7, 3 3, 7, 1, 2

4. Transparency of Process

7, 2, 2, 4, 11, 2, 4 2, 8, 1, 3, 7 1, 2, 1, 1

6. Autonomy from other organizations

3, 7, 5, 2, 4 5, 7, 1, 5 1, 5, 2, 1

7. Responsiveness to policy-maker requests

9, 2, 4, 3, 4, 1, 2 6, 2, 3, 5, 6 2, 3, 4

8. Lack of bureaucracy

3, 2, 11, 5, 3, 3, 6, 3 4, 4, 9 5, 11, 2, 1

9. Diversity of nationalities

10, 8, 6, 7 9, 6, 8 2, 6, 1, 3

10. Translation of results in multiple languages

4, 3, 5, 10, 10, 2, 5, 2 11, 11 2, 10, 5

11. Conducting proceedings in multiple languages

3, 9, 7, 9, 2, 5 10, 10 3, 8, 4

Other: autonomy from political pressure from government and ngos

1

Other: Experience relevant to the issue

1

Other: Authenticity of information

1

Table 3: rankings of factors of importance for trust and use of output.

In ranking the most important factors for a science advisory body whose results

will be trusted and used (table 3), it is interesting to note that overall respondents ranked the

reputation of scientists involved as most significant. This, combined with the high ranking of

autonomy from government influence, concurs with the formula used in developing the score

sheet, which includes scientists’ reputation and autonomy from government within the most

significant component, autonomy. More surprising, was the high ranking of transparency, which

in contrast to its least significant role in the score sheet formula, was frequently cited as an

important factor. These rankings were used to derive another formula in an attempt to better

reflect these responses.


Based on the rankings of factors from respondents, the score sheet results were computed

using the following formula:

USABILITY = 10*(reputation of scientists) + 8*(product in usable format + autonomy from

country) + 6*(information on participants + minutes and proceedings available + diversity of

disciplines + autonomy from organization) + 4*(topics of priority to COP) + 2*(diversity of

countries) + translation of documents

Using this new formula, a good score would be in the range of 228 to 285 points, while

an average score would fall in the range of 171 to 227 points. Any score below 171 would fall in

the poor range. When this formula is applied to the evaluations I carried out of the three science

advisory bodies, the STRP obtains a score of 246 out of 285, in the good range. The Ozone

panels obtain a score of 202 out of 285, well in the average range. The SBSTTA obtains only

148, well in the poor range. Applying the formula derived from respondent preferences

accentuated the variance in usability for the three conventions.

When this new formula is applied to the survey responses for the score sheets, the STRP

obtains a mean score of 195.5 out of 285 points. The Ozone panels obtain a mean score of

211.25 out of 285, while the SBSTTA obtains a mean score of 210 out of 285. All three of these

results fall within the “average” score range.

The first half of the survey provided insight in the sources of science advice commonly

used by decision-makers at the COP. As shown in table 4, a majority of decision-makers sought

their science knowledge from their government’s science authority. The second most cited

source of science knowledge is scientific peer-reviewed literature. It is interesting to note that,

despite the high score achieved by the SBSTTA in the second half of the surveys, none of the

respondents associated with the CBD chose the SBSTTA as a source of science knowledge.


Wetlands Ozone Biodiversity Government science authority 8 4 4 Regional science authority 2 0 1 Scientific peer-reviewed literature 4 0 4 Mainstream media 0 0 2 The convention’s science advisory body

3 3 0

Other: information distributed by convention secretariat

1 0 0

Other: Universities, institutes 0 0 1 Table 4: Number of times source of science knowledge chosen by respondents (some respondents chose multiple sources) The first half of the survey also provided information on respondents’ knowledge of

participation by scientists from their region and country in the science advisory body. Table 5

highlights the emphasis on regional representation within the STRP to the Wetlands Convention.


From region: YES 9 4 5

From region: NO 1 1 0

From country: YES 4 4 5

From country: NO 5 1 0

Table 5: Are scientists from your region/your country involved in the provision of science advice? CONCLUSION The survey results highlighted that the factors identified by respondents as most

significant do not vary greatly across the three conventions. Thus it may be possible to determine

through further research which specific organizational details are most efficient at meeting the

needs of decision-makers in providing usable advice. In particular the results above indicate that

three factors may be most influential in determining the usability of the output of a science

advisory body. These are: scientist reputation, autonomy from government influence and


transparency. The next step in this avenue of research is to examine how these attributes can be

improved in an existing science advisory body and how these lessons can be applied to the

creation of a new science advisory body.

Science advice usability might be improved, and in turn contribute to increased

effectiveness of an international environmental convention, by taking steps to improve the

transparency of the science advisory process. Indeed this factor would improve through

increasing access to information that is most likely readily available (such as nationality and

affiliation of participants, or minutes and summaries from meetings). Scientist reputation and

autonomy from government influence are both factors dependent on the perception of the

process by decision-makers and may also suffer from a certain element of inertia. For example, if

steps were taken to prevent disproportionate influence by any one country, there may be a time-

lag involved before decision-makers are convinced of the amelioration. Perhaps any measures

taken to address issues of scientists reputation and autonomy may have to be accompanied by an

awareness raising campaign so that decision-makers know to reevaluate the science advisory

body.

In creating a new science advisory body, these results emphasize the importance of

reaching an agreement on an organizational set-up that promotes transparency, draws the best

scientists from the relevant disciplines, and that is resistant to undue influence from any one

country. In many cases, governments may be able to draw from an existing science advisory

process that may have played a key role in the negotiation process. If the reputation of scientists

involved is of concern, then additional efforts should be made to involve the science community

in the organizational design. The final science advisory body may then function in such a way

that it would encourage participation by the best scientists in the field.


The similar performance by all three conventions in the score sheet portion of the surveys

was surprising. Yet, even though the SBSTTA was ranked average along with the other two

conventions, none of the respondents from the Convention on Biological Diversity selected the

SBSTTA as a source of science knowledge used in decision-making. This may be indicative of

the fact that organizational structure may not be sufficient in assigning a usability score to the

output from a science advisory body. In order for this output to be usable, decision-makers need

to be aware of the process involved in the production of this advice. One of the ways in which

decision-makers have access to this information is through participation by their country’s

scientists. This might have contributed to the differing results for the STRP between the surveys

and the score sheet compiled using information available from the Ramsar Secretariat. If this is

indeed a factor, perhaps there is a critical minimum size that can help ensure greater knowledge

of the process by decision-makers.

The survey results also highlighted the extent to which decision-makers gather their

science knowledge from national science authorities. As such, it may be necessary to examine

the role of a science advisory body in an effective international environmental convention.

Future considerations of the organizational design of science advisory bodies should consider the

potential for interactions with regional and national science authorities, and perhaps even with

the science advisory bodies of other international environmental conventions.


REFERENCE LIST Birnie, P. 1996. Regimes Dealing with the Oceans of All Kinds of Seas from the Perspective of the North. In Global Environmental Change and International Governance, eds. Young, OR, Demko, GJ and Ramakrishna, K, 47-92. Hanover: University Press of New England. Corell, Elisabeth. 1999. The negotiable desert : expert knowledge in the negotiations of the Convention to Combat Desertification. Linköping, Sweden : Dept. of Water and Environmental Studies, University of Linköping. Earth Negotiations Bulletin. 2001. Coverage of the Seventh Meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): 12-16 November 2001. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): Vol. 09. Accessed January 2003. Available from: http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/biodiv/sbstta7/. Earth Negotiations Bulletin. 2002a. POPS INC-6 Highlights Thursday, 20 June 2002. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): Vol. 15 No. 68 Friday, 21 June 2002 Earth Negotiations Bulletin. 2002b. Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS INC-6). International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Accessed January 2003. Available from: http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/chemical/pops6/ Earth Negotiations Bulletin. 2002c. Summary Of The Fourteenth Meeting Of The Parties To The Montreal Protocol And The Sixth Conference Of The Parties To The Vienna Convention: 25-29 November 2002. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): Vol. 19 No. 24 Monday, 2 December 2002. Guppy, N. 1996. International Governance and Regimes Dealing with Land Resources from the Perspective of the North. In Global Environmental Change and International Governance, ed. Young, OR, Demko, GJ and Ramakrishna, K, 136-165. Hanover: University Press of New England. Haas, PM, RO Keohane and MA Levy, eds. 1993. Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Ozone Secretariat. 2000. Handbook for the International Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer Ozone Layer 5th edition, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. Ozone Secretariat. 2002. Documents of the 14th Meeting Of The Parties To The Montreal Protocol, 25 – 29 November 2002, Rome, Italy. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.unep.org/ozone/mop/mop14-docs.shtml Ozone Secretariat. 2003a. Contacts for The UNEP Assessment Panels' CoChairs. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.unep.org/ozone/secr_add.shtml Ozone Secretariat. 2003b. List of Meetings for 2003. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.unep.org/ozone/meet2003.shtml


Ozone Secretariat. 2003c. Status of Ratification/Accession/Acceptance/Approval of the agreements on the protection of the stratospheric ozone layer. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.unep.org/ozone/ratif.shtml Parson, Edward A. 2003. Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003. Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2000a. Ramsar National Focal Points for the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/key_nfp_strp.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2000b. The STRP Work Plan 1999-2002. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/key_strp_workplan.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2001a. 10th Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/strp10_minutes.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2001b. List of Participants to the 10th Meeting of the STRP. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/strp10_participants.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2001c. Report of the 10th Meeting of the STRP. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/strp10_minutes.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2001d. What is the Ramsar Convention. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/about_infopack_2e.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2002. List of Documents for Ramsar COP8. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/cop8_docs_index_e.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2003a. About the Ramsar Convention: The Ramsar Standing Committee. accessed August 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/about_stancomm.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2003b. Key Documents of the Ramsar Convention: Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. accessed August 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/key_cp_e.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2003c. Upcoming Meetings of Interest to the Ramsar Convention. accessed August 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/meetings.htm Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2003d. About the Ramsar Convention: The Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP), Ramsar's scientific subsidiary body. accessed August 2003. available from: http://www.ramsar.org/about_strp.htm Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992a. Article 25 - Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0&a=cbd-25 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992b. Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Article 1. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0&a=cbd-01


Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2001. Report of the 6th Meeting of the SBSTTA UNEP/CBD/COP/6/3. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop-06/official/cop-06-03-en.pdf Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2002. Provisional Agenda of the 8th Meeting of the SBSTTA UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/8/1. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-08/official/sbstta-08-01-en.pdf Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2003a. CBD-Roster of Experts Search Page. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.biodiv.org/roster/ Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2003b. Meetings organized by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.biodiv.org/meetings/default.asp?dur=all s Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2003c. Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. accessed August 2003. available at: http://www.biodiv.org/world/parties.asp Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2003d. Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA): Introduction. accessed January 2003. available from: http://www.biodiv.org/convention/sbstta.asp STRP. 2002a. Allocation and management of water for maintaining wetland ecosystem functions: processes, strategies and tools. Information Paper: Ramsar COP8 DOC. 9.2002 STRP. 2002b. Report of the Chair of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). Ramsar COP8 DOC. 4. 2002 Susskind, Lawrence. 1994. Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective Global Agreements. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Young, OR and Demko, GJ. 1996. Improving the Effectiveness of International Environmental Governance Systems. In Global Environmental Change and International Governance, eds. Young, O., G., Demko, G and K. Ramakrishna, 229-246. Hanover: University Press of New England. Young, O., G. Demko, and K. Ramakrishna, eds. 1996. Global Environmental Change and International Governance. Hanover: University Press of New England.


APPENDIX 1 – Survey sent out to participants from the recent COP8 on Wetlands. Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing regarding your participation in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. I am a PhD student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where I am conducting research to gain a greater understanding of the way in which science advice is given to decision-makers in environmental conventions. I would be very grateful if you would take the time (between 10 and 15 minutes) to complete this questionnaire about your experiences with the Ramsar Convention and its Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). To fill out the survey, reply to this email, and fill in where appropriate. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this research, Thank you for your cooperation and assistance, Best regards, Pia Kohler [email protected] PhD program, Environment Policy Group – web.mit.edu/epg Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – web.mit.edu Please indicate the appropriate response by inserting an x in the appropriate brackets [ ] 1. How long have you been involved with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands? [ ] less than 1 year [ ] between 1 and 5 years [ ] between 6 and 10 years [ ] more than 10 years 2. In what capacity have you been involved with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands? (please select all that apply) [ ] as a government delegate [ ] as a member of the convention secretariat [ ] as a contributor to the STRP [ ] as a representative from an intergovernmental organization [ ] as a representative from a non-governmental organization [ ] as a representative from the private sector 3. In what capacity are you currently involved with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands? (please select all that apply) [ ] as a government delegate [ ] as a member of the convention secretariat [ ] as a contributor to the STRP [ ] as a representative from an intergovernmental organization [ ] as a representative from a non-governmental organization [ ] as a representative from industry 4. What is the primary source of science knowledge used by the Party or organization you represent? [ ] government science authority [ ] regional science authority [ ] scientific peer-reviewed literature [ ] mainstream media [ ] the STRP [ ] other (please specify): 5. If you represent a government, do scientists from its geographic region participate, to your knowledge, in the STRP? [ ] yes [ ] no [ ] do not represent a government


6. If you represent a government, do scientists from that country participate, to your knowledge, in the STRP?

[ ] yes [ ] no [ ] do not represent a government 7. If you represent an organization or industry, do scientists from that or similar organization participate, to your knowledge, in the STRP?

[ ] yes [ ] no [ ] not applicable 8. Please rank the following factors (starting with 1 for the most important) in order of their importance in a science advisory panel or committee whose results you will trust and use (please add and number any other criteria you feel are significant). Do not assign a number to criteria you feel are unimportant. [ ] Autonomy from government influence [ ] Autonomy from other organizations [ ] Availability of result in accessible format [ ] Conducting proceedings in multiple languages [ ] Diversity of disciplines [ ] Diversity of nationalities [ ] Lack of bureaucracy [ ] Reputation of scientists involved [ ] Responsiveness to policy-maker request [ ] Translation of results in multiple languages [ ] Transparency of process [ ] other (please specify): [ ] other (please specify): [ ] other (please specify): For the purpose of this research I am interested in how science advice is provided to the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the STRP by choosing a number from 1 to 5, where 1 expresses a strong disagreement, and 5 is strong agreement, as follows: 1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: no opinion 4: agree 5: strongly agree 9. The scientists on the STRP represent a wide range of disciplines.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 10. The scientists on the STRP represent a wide range of countries.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5

11. The scientists on the STRP are affiliated with many different institutional settings (academia, government, private sector, non-governmental organizations…)

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5


12. Information about participating scientists’ qualifications, nationalities, and institutional affiliation are readily available to Parties.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5

13. Minutes and proceedings of the meeting are readily available to Parties. [ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 14. Final documents and reports from the STRP are readily available to Parties.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 15. Final documents and reports from the STRP are translated into the appropriate languages.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 16. Participant scientists are given sufficient prior notification of meetings of the STRP.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 17. Members of the COP can effectively use the results of the work by the STRP.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 18. The STRP address issues that are a high priority for members of the COP.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 19.The STRP is not unduly influenced by a single organization.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 20. The STRP is not unduly influenced by a single country

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 21. The STRP brings together the most qualified scientists on the issues being studied.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5


APPENDIX 2 – Survey sent out to participants from the recent COP6/MOP14 of Ozone. Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing regarding your participation in the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. I am a PhD student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where I am conducting research to gain a greater understanding of the way in which science advice is given to decision-makers in environmental conventions. I would be very grateful if you would take the time (between10 and 15 minutes) to complete this questionnaire about your experiences with the Ozone regime and its associated Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees. To fill out the survey, reply to this email, and fill in where appropriate. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this research, Thank you for your cooperation and assistance, Best regards, Pia Kohler [email protected] PhD program, Environment Policy Group – web.mit.edu/epg Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – web.mit.edu Please indicate the appropriate response by inserting an x in the appropriate brackets [ ] 1. How long have you been involved with the Ozone Convention and Protocol? [ ] less than 1 year [ ] between 1 and 5 years [ ] between 6 and 10 years [ ] more than 10 years 2. In what capacity have you been involved with the Ozone Convention and Protocol? (please select all that apply) [ ] as a government delegate [ ] as a member of the convention secretariat [ ] as a contributor to one of its scientific panels or committees [ ] as a representative from an intergovernmental organization [ ] as a representative from a non-governmental organization [ ] as a representative from industry 3. In what capacity are you currently involved with the Ozone Convention and Protocol? (please select all that apply) [ ] as a government delegate [ ] as a member of the convention secretariat [ ] as a contributor to one of its scientific panels or committees [ ] as a representative from an intergovernmental organization [ ] as a representative from a non-governmental organization [ ] as a representative from industry 4. What is the primary source of science knowledge used by the Party or organization you represent? [ ] government science authority [ ] regional science authority [ ] scientific peer-reviewed literature [ ] mainstream media [ ] the Ozone Assessment Panels and/or Technical Options Committees [ ] other (please specify): 5. If you represent a government, do scientists from its geographic region participate, to your knowledge, in the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees? [ ] yes [ ] no [ ] do not represent a government


6. If you represent a government, do scientists from that country participate, to your knowledge, in the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees?

[ ] yes [ ] no [ ] do not represent a government 7. If you represent an organization or industry, do scientists from that or similar organization participate, to your knowledge, in the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees?

[ ] yes [ ] no [ ] not applicable 8. Please rank the following factors (starting with 1 for the most important) in order of their importance in a science advisory panel or committee whose results you will trust and use (please add and number any other criteria you feel are significant). Do not assign a number to criteria you feel are unimportant. [ ] Autonomy from government influence [ ] Autonomy from other organizations [ ] Availability of result in accessible format [ ] Conducting proceedings in multiple languages [ ] Diversity of disciplines [ ] Diversity of nationalities [ ] Lack of bureaucracy [ ] Reputation of scientists involved [ ] Responsiveness to policy-maker requests [ ] Translation of results in multiple languages [ ] Transparency of process [ ] other (please specify): [ ] other (please specify): [ ] other (please specify): For the purpose of this research I am interested in how science advice is provided to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and to the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the Montreal Protocol. Indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees by choosing a number from 1 to 5, where 1 expresses a strong disagreement, and 5 is strong agreement, as follows: 1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: no opinion 4: agree 5: strongly agree 9. The scientists on the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees represent a wide range of disciplines.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 10. The scientists on the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees represent a wide range of countries.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5


11. The scientists on the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees are affiliated with many different institutional settings (academia, government, private sector, non-governmental organizations…)

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 12. Information about participating scientists’ qualifications, nationalities, and institutional affiliation are readily available to Parties.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5

13. Minutes and proceedings of the meeting are readily available to Parties. [ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 14. Final documents and reports from the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees are readily available to Parties.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 15. Final documents and reports from the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees are translated into the appropriate languages.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 16. Participant scientists are given sufficient prior notification of meetings of the Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 17. Members of the COP and MOP can effectively use the results of the work by Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 18. The Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees address issues that are a high priority for members of the COP and MOP.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 19.The Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees are not unduly influenced by a single organization.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 20. The Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees are not unduly influenced by a single country

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 21. The Ozone Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees bring together the most qualified scientists on the issues being studied.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5


APPENDIX 3 – Survey sent out to CBD National Focal Points. Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing regarding your participation in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). I am a PhD student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where I am conducting research to gain a greater understanding of the way in which science advice is given to decision-makers in environmental conventions. I would be very grateful if you would take the time (between10 and 15 minutes) to complete this questionnaire about your experiences with the CBD and its Subsidiary Body on Science, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA). To fill out the survey, reply to this email, and fill in where appropriate. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this research, Thank you for your cooperation and assistance, Best regards, Pia Kohler [email protected] PhD program, Environment Policy Group – web.mit.edu/epg Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – web.mit.edu Please indicate the appropriate response by inserting an x in the appropriate brackets [ ] 1. How long have you been involved with the Convention on Biological Diversity? [ ] less than 1 year [ ] between 1 and 5 years [ ] between 6 and 10 years [ ] more than 10 years 2. In what capacity have you been involved with the Convention on Biological Diversity? (please select all that apply) [ ] as a government delegate [ ] as a member of the convention secretariat [ ] as an expert listed on the roster of experts [ ] as a representative from an intergovernmental organization [ ] as a representative from a non-governmental organization [ ] as a representative from the private sector 3. In what capacity are you currently involved with the Convention on Biological Diversity? (please select all that apply) [ ] as a government delegate [ ] as a member of the convention secretariat [ ] as a an expert listed on the roster of experts [ ] as a representative from an intergovernmental organization [ ] as a representative from a non-governmental organization [ ] as a representative from industry 4. What is the primary source of science knowledge used by the Party or organization you represent? [ ] government science authority [ ] regional science authority [ ] scientific peer-reviewed literature [ ] mainstream media [ ] the SBSTTA [ ] other (please specify): 5. If you represent a government, do scientists from its geographic region participate, to your knowledge, in the SBSTTA? [ ] yes [ ] no [ ] do not represent a government


6. If you represent a government, do scientists from that country participate, to your knowledge, in the SBSTTA?

[ ] yes [ ] no [ ] do not represent a government 7. If you represent an organization or industry, do scientists from that or similar organization participate, to your knowledge, in the SBSTTA?

[ ] yes [ ] no [ ] not applicable 8. Please rank the following factors (starting with 1 for the most important) in order of their importance in a science advisory panel or committee whose results you will trust and use (please add and number any other criteria you feel are significant). Do not assign a number to criteria you feel are unimportant. [ ] Autonomy from government influence [ ] Autonomy from other organizations [ ] Availability of result in accessible format [ ] Conducting proceedings in multiple languages [ ] Diversity of disciplines [ ] Diversity of nationalities [ ] Lack of bureaucracy [ ] Reputation of scientists involved [ ] Responsiveness to policy-maker requests [ ] Translation of results in multiple languages [ ] Transparency of process [ ] other (please specify): [ ] other (please specify): [ ] other (please specify): For the purpose of this research I am interested in how science advice is provided to the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD. Indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the SBSTTA by choosing a number from 1 to 5, where 1 expresses a strong disagreement, and 5 is strong agreement, as follows: 1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: no opinion 4: agree 5: strongly agree 9. The scientists on the SBSTTA represent a wide range of disciplines.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 10. The scientists on the SBSTTA represent a wide range of countries.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5

11. The scientists on the SBSTTA are affiliated with many different institutional settings (academia, government, private sector, non-governmental organizations…)

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5


12. Information about participating scientists’ qualifications, nationalities, and institutional affiliation are readily available to Parties.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5

13. Minutes and proceedings of the meeting are readily available to Parties. [ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 14. Final documents and reports from the SBSTTA are readily available to Parties.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 15. Final documents and reports from the SBSTTA are translated into the appropriate languages.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 16. Participant scientists are given sufficient prior notification of meetings of the SBSTTA.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 17. Members of the COP can effectively use the results of the work by the SBSTTA.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 18. The SBSTTA address issues that are a high priority for members of the COP.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 19.The SBSTTA is not unduly influenced by a single organization.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 20. The SBSTTA is not unduly influenced by a single country

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5 21. The SBSTTA brings together the most qualified scientists on the issues being studied.

[ ]1 [ ]2 [ ]3 [ ]4 [ ]5