Can the tone of scientific reports shape the ensuing political debates? This question is of utmost importance as global science bodies like the IPCC and IPBES release increasingly fervent calls to action. This article seeks an initial study about whether global science bodies can influence the negotiations by state parties by performing a multifaceted sentiment analysis of scientific inputs into the debates of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The article articulates two social learning pathways in which science can influence the tone of debates: pushing and participation. It then finds these pathways lacking in the incorporation of science into the CBD negotiations, and empirical work demonstrates limited effect on the sentiment or tone of debates as a result of scientific inputs. The conclusion reflects on the role that multifaceted sentiment analysis can play in understanding the increasingly complex politics of science on global governance institutions and particularly in the case of biodiversity governance.
AylingJ.GunninghamN. (2017). Non-state governance and climate policy: The fossil fuel divestment movement. Climate Policy, 17(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1094729
2.
BauerS.StringerL. C. (2009). The role of science in the global governance of desertification. The Journal of Environment and Development, 18(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496509338405
3.
BeckS. (2011). Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 11(2), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0136-2
4.
Biodiversity, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on, and Ecosystem Services (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy Platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. (Vol. IPBEs/7/10/Add.1). IPBES.
5.
BlondeelM.ColganJ.Van de GraafT. (2019). What drives norm success? Evidence from anti–fossil fuel campaigns. Global Environmental Politics, 19(4), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00528
6.
BorieM.HulmeM. (2015). Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother Earth and ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.009.
7.
BorieM.MahonyM.ObermeisterN.HulmeM. (2021). Knowing like a global expert organization: Comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES. Global Environmental Change, 68(102261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102261.
ClarkW. C.Van KerkhoffL.LebelL.GallopinG. C. (2016). Crafting useable knowledge for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4570–4578. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113
10.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2005). Report of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological Advice on the work of its eleventh meeting. Secretariat of the CBD. UNEP/CBD/COP/8/3.
11.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2006). Global initiative on communication, education and public awareness: Overview of implementation of the Programme of work and options to advance future work. Secretariat of the CBD. Decision, VIII/6.
12.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Report of the tenth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the CBD, Vol. UNEP/CBD/COP./10/27.
13.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2014b). Report of the eighteenth meeting of the subsidiary body on scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. Secretariat of the CBD, Vol. UNEP/CBD/COP12/3.
14.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2016). Report of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity on its thirteenth meeting. Secretariat of the CBD, Vol. CBD/COP/13/25.
15.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2014) Report of the twelfth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the CBD. Vol. UNEP/CBD/COP/12/29.
16.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2015). Report of the subsidiary body on scientific, Technical and technological Advice on its nineteenth meeting. Secretariat of the CBD. Vol. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA./19/10.
17.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2021). Report of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity on its fifteenth meeting-part i. Secretariat of the CBD. Vol. CBD/COP/15/4.
18.
CornilleauL. (2019). Magicians at work: Modellers as institutional entrepreneurs in the global governance of agriculture and food security. Science and Technology Studies, 32(4), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.65187
19.
DimitrovR. S. (2002). Confronting nonregimes: Science and international coral reef policy. The Journal of Environment and Development, 11(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/107049650201100103
20.
Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2010). Summary of the tenth conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity”. 18-29, October 2010. Nagoya, Japan, 9(544). http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cop10/enb/.
21.
Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2006) “Summary of the eighth conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity” Curitiba, Brazil. 21-309(363).March 2006. https://enb.iisd.org/events/cbd-cop-8
22.
Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2016). “Summary of the UN biodiversity conference: 2-17 december 2016” Cancún, Mexico. 2-17 December 2016. 9(678). http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cop13/enb/
HallP. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246
KoetzT.BridgewaterP.van den HoveS.SiebenhünerB. (2008). The role of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological Advice to the convention on biological diversity as science–policy interface. Environmental Science and Policy, 11(6), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.05.001
30.
KoetzT.FarrellK. N.BridgewaterP. (2012). Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: Assessing potential within the intergovernmental Platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-011-9152-z
31.
KohlerP. M. (2019). Science Advice and global environmental governance: Expert institutions and the implementation of international environmental treaties. Anthem Press.
32.
KopraS. (2020). Leadership in global environmental politics. Oxford research encyclopedia of international studies.
33.
KusmanoffA. M.FidlerF.GordonA.GarrardG. E.BekessyS. A. (2020). Five lessons to guide more effective biodiversity conservation message framing. Conservation Biology, 34(5), 1131–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13482
34.
LePrestreP. G. (2002). The CBD at ten: The long road to effectiveness. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 5(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880290209354014
35.
Littoz-MonnetA. (2022). Exclusivity and circularity in the production of global governance expertise: The making of ‘global mental health’ knowledge. International Political Sociology, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olab035
36.
LiuB. (2020). Sentiment analysis: Mining opinions, sentiments, and emotions. Cambridge University Press.
37.
LivingstonJ. E.RummukainenM. (2020). Taking science by surprise: The knowledge politics of the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees. Environmental Science and Policy, 112, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.020.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute.
40.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
41.
MorrisetteP. M. (1989). The evolution of policy responses to stratospheric ozone depletion. Natural Resources Journal, 29(3), 793–820.
42.
MuroM.JeffreyP. (2012). Time to talk? How the structure of dialog processes shapes stakeholder learning in participatory water resources management. Ecology and Society, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-04476-170103
ParkS. (2005). Norm diffusion within international organizations: A case study of the world bank. Journal of International Relations and Development, 8(2), 111–141. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800051
45.
PattersonJ.WybornC.WestmanL.BrisboisM. C.MilkoreitM.JayaramD. (2021). The political effects of emergency frames in sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4(10), 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00749-9
46.
ReedM. S.EvelyA. C.CundillG.FazeyI.GlassJ.LaingA.NewigJ.ParrishB.PrellC.RaymondC.StringerL. C. (2010). What is social learning?Ecology and Society, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03564-1504r01
47.
RoanS. (1989). Ozone crisis: The 15-year evolution of a sudden global emergency. Wiley Science Editions.
48.
SarkkiS.NiemeläJ.TinchR.van den HoveS.WattA.YoungJ. (2014). Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct046
49.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Global biodiversity Outlook 3-executive summary. Montréal.
50.
ShibaikeT. (2022). Small NGOs and agenda-setting in global conservation governance: The case of pangolin conservation. Global Environmental Politics, 22(2), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00623
51.
SiebenhünerB. (2008). Learning in international organizations in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(4), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2008.8.4.92
52.
SilgeJ.RobinsonD. (2016). Tidytext: Text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in r. JOSS, 1(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00037
TallbergJ.DellmuthL. M.AgnéH.DuitA. (2018). NGO influence in international organizations: Information, access and exchange. British Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000712341500037x
55.
TengöM.HillR.MalmerP.RaymondC. M.SpierenburgM.DanielsenF.ElmqvistT.FolkeC. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond — lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.
56.
TobinP. (2017). Leaders and laggards: Climate policy ambition in developed states. Global Environmental Politics, 17(4), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00433
57.
United Nations Environment Programme (1995). Report of the first meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. UNEP, Vol. UNEP/CBD/COP/1/17.
WehnU.CollinsK.AnemaK.Basco-CarreraL.LereboursA. (2018). Stakeholder engagement in water governance as social learning: Lessons from practice. Water International, 43(1), 34–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1403083
62.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL. D. A.FrançoiR.GrolemunG. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
63.
WinickoffD. E.MatthieuM. (2017). The problem of epistemic jurisdiction in global governance: The case of sustainability standards for biofuels. Social Studies of Science, 47(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716667855
64.
WolfJ.SusanneC. M. (2011). Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: Insights from in‐depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(4), 547–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.120
