Science advice for international governance – An evidence-based perspective on the role of SCAR in the Antarctic Treaty System

• Published in: Marine Policy
• Main Authors: Chown, Steven L., Bastmeijer, Kees, Brooks, Cassandra M., Gilbert, Neil, Phillips, Laura M., Shibata, Akiho
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: 2024
• Subjects: Antarctica; Decision-making; Reliable knowledge; Science-policy interface; Southern Ocean; Antarctic; The Antarctic; Antarc*; SCAR; Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/11370/7b0a3791-7233-4903-840b-24dccd7e2000; https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/7b0a3791-7233-4903-840b-24dccd7e2000; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106143; https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/979495922/Marine_Policy_article_Chown_et_al.pdf

Knowledge brokers are essential for science-based international governance. Recently, the objectivity of the Antarctic Treaty System’s (ATS) primary knowledge broker, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), has been questioned, both in discussions at ATS meetings and now in a recent published perspective. Much of the concern is based on a misunderstanding of SCAR’s history, structure and internal operations, and of its interactions with the ATS, in particular at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs). Articulation of these concerns provides a useful basis for an examination of science-based advice in an international governance system founded on peace and science. Therefore, this study provides an evidence-based assessment of SCAR’s operations and history with respect to its interactions with the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs). It shows that the dangers of lack of objectivity by SCAR, or its politicization by one or more of its Members have long been recognised by SCAR, and that SCAR has policies and procedures that are specifically designed to preclude this happening, as might be expected from a reliable international knowledge broker. Evidence-based clarification of SCAR’s interactions with the ATCPs demonstrate that no evidence exists of bias to SCAR’s advice to ATCMs throughout its history. This study therefore shows that concerns about lack of objectivity do not reflect any systematic problems within SCAR. Rather, the study shows they reflect insufficient appreciation of the way in which SCAR acts as a reliable knowledge broker in the ATS. The assessment provides a useful overview of best practice in science-based advice for international governance.