SCIENCE ADVICE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: EXPERT INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES by Pia M. Kohler Published by Anthem Press, 2019, 226 pp., £80.00, hardback.

• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12357

500 

|

     BOOK REVIEWS

DOI: 10 .1111/reel .12357

SCIENCE ADVICE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL

GOVERNANCE: EXPERT INSTITUTIO NS AND

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES by Pia M. Kohler

Published by A nthem Press, 2019, 226 pp., £80 .00, hardback .

The research t hat Pia Kohler gathe red in this book is a t imely re-

minder of the imp ortance of how scientif ic expertise is incor porated

in global environ mental law. This is re levant today, as exper tise

needs to adapt to th e current post-normal context wh ere ‘facts are

uncertain , values in dispute, stakes hig h and decisions urgent’.1 The

book explore s how scientific expert bod ies advise international en-

vironmental treaties and influence their implementation. Kohler’s

interdisciplinary background combines environmental sciences

and internation al relations, w hich are key to analys e the dynamic s

within scientif ic expert bodies. He r previous work on the Minamat a

Convention and th e Stockholm Conve ntion on Persist ent Organic

Pollutants (P OPs Convention) at test to her inter est and exper tise

in pollutant governance.2 The scientific advi sory bodie s (SABs) an-

alysed in this bo ok are subsidiar y bodies that p rovide recomme n-

dations to the exec utive or decision -making body (Co nference or

Meeting of the Pa rties, COP/MOP) of mult ilateral enviro nmental

agreements (M EAs). As such , these SABs are ‘si tes where par tici-

pants are simultaneously working out understandings of global

earth syst ems as well as how to govern t hem’ (at 1). To provide re-

liable scientif ic advice, thr ee import ant criteria have to be f ulfilled

by these SABs: credibility, salience and legitimacy.3 Kohler finds her

place among an extensive interdisciplinary scholarship in science,

technology a nd governance stu dies that work s with the concept

of co-producti on. The latter was first deve loped by Sheila Jasanoff,

who explained t hat scientifi c knowledge is both i nfluenced by and

influences society.4 By analysing how SABs func tion and bring to-

gether exper ts to inform policymaker s, Kohler points out that SABs

are inherently places of co-production.

The book represents a welcome addition to the literature

that question s how scientist s contribute to th e implement ation

of MEAs. Kohle r sets herse lf the task of answe ring the ques tion

of how global knowl edge is constitu ted and what can b e under-

stood as ‘democra tic’ on an internat ional scale (at 4). To this end ,

she uses three ME As as case s tudies: (i) the M ontreal Protoco l

© 2020 John Wile y & Sons Ltd

on Substance s that Deplete th e Ozone Layer to the V ienna

Convention for th e Protection of th e Ozone Layer; (ii ) the POPs

Convention; and (ii i) the United Nati ons Convention to Co mbat

Desertification (UNCCD). These examples were selected for their

relevance in add ressing the issu e of membership of t heir respec-

tive SABs and to high light the non-lin ear co-produc tion of in-

formed scienti fic advice and policymaki ng that unfold from these

processes. By analysing technical negotiations within these SABs,

Kohler provides a p ractical s tudy of the dif ferent quest ions that

are faced in relat ion to membership, know ledge production as we ll

as institutional arrangements. These issues, Kohler argues, influ-

ence in turn the im plementatio n of substanti ve norms of MEAs .

Kohler examine s these case studies ag ainst the backdrop of Sheila

Jasanoff’s argument about the ‘three-body problem’ or three lev-

els of governance that i nfluence expe rt legitima cy, namely ‘good

science’, ‘unbiased exp erts’ and ‘b alanced commit tees’.5 Kohler

focuses on these three different perspectives when analysing and

evaluating the r ole of SABs in imple menting the thr ee MEAs she

concentrates up on. She looks at SABs as a ‘ three-body frame work’

(at 4), or more precisel y as ‘bodies of know ledge’, by asking what

kind of knowledge a nd disciplines are taken into co nsideration; as

‘bodies of exper ts’ based on the membershi p of SABs; and as ‘in-

stitutional b odies’ by assessing the role of SABs wi thin the wider

framework of eac h MEA in light of it s specific man date and the

rules governing i t. This approa ch enables her to a nalyse SABs

under differ ent layers and answer import ant questions o n the le-

gitimacy of scie ntific advice, the typ e of knowledge produced and

the institut ional settings of norms.

The first ca se study (Chapte r 3) focuses on the M ontreal

Protocol, the mem bership of its SAB and its role i n shaping the im-

plementation of the Protocol. The implementation of the Protocol

occurred in phas es since it entered into force in 1989. The rational e

behind this gra dual impleme ntation was to ena ble affecte d indus-

tries to find alt ernative chemicals to re place substances th at deplete

the ozone layer. Kohler look s at negotiations undertake n within the

Methyl Bromide Techni cal Options Co mmittee (MBTOC ) in 2003,

notably on the g ranting of critical use exempt ions that would allow

parties to th e Protocol to apply f or exceptions enab ling them to

pursue the pro duction and u se of methyl bromid e for ‘critical use’.

Critical use of m ethyl bromide wa s understoo d to be applicab le if

the lack of availability of methyl bromide would result in signifi-

cant market disr uption or if ther e were no technica l and economic

 1SO Funtowicz an d JR Ravetz, ‘Sc ience for the Pos tnormal Age’ (1993) 2 5 Futures 744.

 2PM Kohler, ‘Science, PIC and POPs: Negotiating the Membership of Chemical Review

Committe es under the Stoc kholm and Rotte rdam Conventio ns’ (2006) 15 Revi ew of

European Co mmunity and In ternational Env ironmental L aw 293, 294; J Templeton a nd

PM Kohler, ‘Implementation and Compliance under the Minamata Convention on

Mercury ’ (2014) 23 Review of Europ ean, Compara tive and Intern ational Environ mental

Law 212.

 3DW Cash et al, ‘K nowledge Syste ms for Sustain able Developm ent’ (2003) 10 0

Proceeding s of the National A cademy of Scien ces of the United St ates of Americ a 8086.

 4S Jasanoff (ed ), States of Knowled ge: The Co-prod uction of Scien ce and the Social O rder

(Routledge 2 004) 2.

 5S Jasanoff, ‘Judg ment Under Sieg e: The Three-B ody Problem of E xpert Legiti macy’ in S

Maasen and P Wein gard (eds), Democ ratization of Ex pertise? Expl oring Novel Form s of

Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making (Springer 2005) 209, 211.