Short abstract:

Using STS theories, I explore expertise-making practices in the UNFCCC's Loss and Damage committee. The thick description reveals formal and informal mechanisms that make expertise. The findings calls for reevaluating expertise's role and advocates for transparency in global governance.

Long abstract:

This study explores the practices of "making expertise" within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), focusing on the Executive Committee (ExCom) of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for Loss and Damage. While the ExCom asserts its commitment to embedding the "best available science" into its decision-making, what constitutes this science remains ambiguous.

Drawing on theories from sociology and science and technology studies (STS), the study shifts the analytical focus from the value and function of expertise to the processes through which it is constructed and integrated into governance mechanisms. This approach, part of the "third generation" of expertise scholarship, concentrates on the way practices make expertise and perform epistemic arrangements.

Based on ethnographic data generated between 2018 and 2022, and interviews with stakeholders, the study identifies formal and informal mechanisms that contribute to the practice of making expertise within the UNFCCC. By providing a thick description, the study contributes to theoretical discussions about expertise in environmental governance and challenges assumptions about its objectivity and universality.

The empirical findings not only shed light on the intricate processes of making expertise within the UNFCCC but also highlight the potential implications of these processes for decision-making and policy development. Ultimately, the study calls for a reevaluation of the role of expertise in environmental governance and underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in the construction and utilization of expertise within international institutions.