Intergovernmental Expert Consensus in the Making: The Case of the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report

Abstract

This article investigates practices through which consensus is reached on policy-relevant scientific conclusions in intergovernmental assessment bodies. Using the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the production of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Synthesis Report published in 2014, it sheds light on the procedural, visual, and rhetorical arrangements in the weaving of an intergovernmental expert consensus. Drawing on ethnographic methods, the main point of the article is that the consensus emerging from the approval of the SPM is best understood as an accumulation and juxtaposition of scientific/diplomatic consensuses. It shows that these consensuses result from a layering of compromises negotiated at various stages in the assessment process and contingent on the issues at stake and the strategies of actors. In this context, consensus is not reached on individual statements but on the document as a whole, as both authors and governments seek to have their perspectives reflected. Finally, the article draws attention to the entanglement between the scientific and diplomatic rhetoric in the fabric of the SPM, which tends to construct climate change as a decontextualized and nonpolitical problem.

Science for implementation: the roles, experiences, and perceptions of practitioners involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“…Global research programs and assessments have provided scientific evidence for the existence of global warming and other environmental challenges and have significantly influenced environmental negotiations (Haas 2017 ). However, despite the involvement of both the scientific and policy communities in the formulation and revision of IPCC reports (De Pryck 2021 ), this evidence has yet to translate into comprehensive solutions (Beck and Mahony 2018 ). Translation of scientific (and other) evidence into policy is complex and often leads to frustrations on both sides, “because clearly presented and robust evidence does not always have the desired effect on policy processes” (Strydom et al 2010 , 2).…”

Is it only about science and policy? The ‘intergovernmental epistemologies’ of global environmental governance

“…Such moves have been accompanied by a growing interest in engaging with the STS field not only from a reflexive perspective (Bueger and Gadinger 2007 ) but also through applied approaches, building on STS research and/or adopting its analytical tools (Allan 2017 ; De Pryck 2021 ; Hughes and Vadrot 2019 ; Kranke 2020 ).…”

Bridging in Network Organisations the Case of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

“…Second, the IPCC is a hybrid organisation, characterised by the cohabitation of scientists coming from different disciplines and diplomats representing different countries. Not only do these two populations often have different professional backgrounds, but they serve different functions in the IPCC: while the authors are tasked with reviewing and summarising climate change literature, the delegates are in charge of managing the process and making sure that the academic outcomes are translated to the policy community (De Pryck, 2021).…”