Does Science Shape Sentiment? Scientific Inputs and the Deliberations in the Convention on Biological Diversity

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.

Automated summary

This article examines whether global science bodies can influence state party negotiations through a sentiment analysis of scientific inputs in the debates of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It identifies two pathways, pushing and participation, through which science can shape the tone of debates. However, the article finds these pathways lacking in the CBD negotiations, as empirical evidence shows limited impact of scientific inputs on the sentiment or tone of debates. The conclusion reflects on the role of sentiment analysis in understanding the complex politics of science in global governance institutions, specifically in biodiversity governance.