Multidisciplinary Composition of Climate Change Commissions: Transnational Trends and Expert Perspectives

Abstract

Climate change governance has metamorphosed from multilateral pacts such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement to the enactment of country-specific dedicated legislation for mitigation and adaptation. A common feature of this phenomenon is the establishment of an expert committee on climate change, or simply, a climate change commission (CCC). For effective climate change governance, a multidisciplinary CCC will play a key role. The objective of this study is to inquire into the multidisciplinary requirements of a CCC and how multidisciplinarity can influence the efficacy of climate governance measures. Accordingly, it inquires into transnational circumstances on the disciplinary/multidisciplinary composition of CCCs and samples the perspectives of over 120 climate policy experts—through a structured survey—to draw insights into how countries could establish a suitable multidisciplinary CCC in legislative and policy processes. Key results from transnational circumstances and expert perspectives reveal the propriety of establishing CCCs to drive robust mitigation and adaptation policies. As the study shows, multiple countries have already incorporated diverse domains and backgrounds of expertise in the composition of their CCCs. Furthermore, our experts’ survey reveals overwhelming support among respondents (98%) for CCCs, and all those who support these commissions believe they should be, to some degree, independent and multidisciplinary. Experts’ perspectives reveal a spectrum of specific desirable multidisciplinary categories—legal, physical science, biosciences, energy and engineering, economics, planning, social sciences, ethics, governance, health, and communication. We also highlight some caveats regarding multidisciplinarity and reflect on the existence of quasi-institutions across countries without dedicated CCCs.

1. Introduction

Climate change has gained notoriety as one of the most significant concerns of humanity [1]. Scholars also recognize it as a super-wicked problem requiring serious governance and policy responses at multidimensional and multilateral levels [2,3]. This recognition underscores the urgency of potent mitigation and adaptation measures. This fact forms the background for, as well as justifies, the enactment and proliferation of dedicated climate change legislation and relevant policies to support mitigation and adaptation measures globally. There is also a specific growing trend of establishing a climate change commission (CCC) as part of climate governance frameworks of sovereign states. We construe “trend” here simply as the general course, style, direction or prevailing tendency regarding the establishment of multidisciplinary CCCs. We do not attach any temporal dimension to this description.

This paper represents the foremost scholarly effort to inquire into the modalities for establishing optimal CCCs. We are cognizant of the possibility of other factors for operationalizing this institutional arrangement. However, in this paper, we focus on the multidisciplinary composition of the commission, drawing insights from national circumstances in countries already establishing relevant institutions in their legal and policy frameworks, and analyzing the perspectives of climate policy experts on the issue. Reflecting the evolving trend at the time of its authorship, the paper was inspired by the proliferation of climate change legislation and the growing emergence of CCCs in multiple countries across the globe [4,5,6,7,8]. It is apparent that the rapidly evolving climate governance architecture is receiving scholarly attention. However, there is a scant examination on the particular issue of CCC, which appears to be one of the core features of the evolving climate governance regime across multiple jurisdictions. Most studies on climate governance concentrate on describing and explaining the climate change policies of a particular country or region [9]. Also, there is a paucity of studies that focus on the importance of multidisciplinary expertise in improving climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts across countries [10]. As noted in [11], the defragmentation of research and cooperation between disciplines amplified the issue of climate change and led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has also been observed that cooperation across disciplines improves fluidity in research and deepens the understanding of complex climate issues [12]. Therefore, exploring the multidisciplinary requirement of climate governance institutions (in this case, CCCs) can potentially advance the state of scholarship within the climate change research community.

The objective of this study is to inquire into the multidisciplinary requirements of a CCC and how multidisciplinarity can influence the efficacy of climate governance measures. The study, building on the existing and growing literature on climate governance, provides a scholarly analysis of multidisciplinary requirements for entrenching CCCs that produce robust mitigation and adaptation measures in countries’ climate governance regimes. The scope of the paper traverses 11 countries, all signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. They are the United Kingdom, Philippines, Norway, France, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Ireland, Finland and Germany. These countries were selected because they constitute prime case studies of countries that have enacted dedicated climate change legislation and established CCCs as part of their climate change governance regimes. This delimited focus also provides a direct picture regarding the issue of “climate change commission” as opposed to the existence of state departments or other institutions with similar functions. The multidisciplinary characteristics of CCCs across these countries represent the transnational circumstances reported in the study. In order to match transnational circumstances with ideal governance criteria for policy efficacy, we sampled the perspectives of climate policy experts. We present these as part of the results in Section 4, before undertaking a synthesized discussion to aid the operationalizing of CCCs as more countries consider enacting more dedicated climate change legislation, as well as establishing CCCs.

The next section will situate the evolution of climate change governance—particularly highlighting the emergence of CCCs—across multiple jurisdictions (Section 2). We present the justification and context for our study and describe the methods and materials adopted for its execution in detail (Section 3); followed by results from transnational circumstances and expert survey responses (Section 4); synthesized discussion (Section 5); and conclusions (Section 6).

2. Evolving Climate Change Governance Architecture: A Review

Climate change governance has multiple parallels, but in this study, we draw from the literature to conceptualize it as “all purposeful mechanisms and measures aimed at steering social systems toward preventing, mitigating, or adapting to the risks posed by climate change” [13]. It is, perhaps, best succinctly captured as a broad range of options for coordination concerning climate change adaptation and mitigation [14]. Within this framing, we note the existence of international, national, transnational and nonstate actors that all work towards achieving mitigation and adaptation objectives [15].

It has become conventional at the global scene to address problems through cooperation among countries, often through bilateral and multilateral frameworks. This is partly owing to the transnational effects of such problems and the universal brotherhood of all humanity. These considerations underpin international and global environmental agreements that seek to address climate change [16,17]. Climate change, being one of humanity’s greatest challenges, lends itself as a humanitarian imperative requiring concerted efforts, cooperation and burden-sharing by all countries of the world [18]. Stakeholders, policymakers, diplomats and political think tanks have consistently endeavoured to entrench and develop a comprehensive and integrated international regulatory regime for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The United Nations climate change regime—predominantly consisting of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement—represents the global focal point for such an international cooperation.

However, the international governance of climate change is not within the exclusive purview of the United Nations. On the contrary, the topic lends itself to numerous well-meaning policy initiatives of other international organisations and nonstate actors [19]. Hence, the notion of fragmentation of climate governance arises [20]. From the dimension of nonstate actors, the private sector plays a crucial role in terms of investments and leadership in innovation, hence the need for states to initiate suitable incentives for useful private-sector engagement in climate governance [21].

We also note the emergence and prevalence of global citizen deliberation—a deliberative assembly composed predominantly of lay citizens—as an important framework that can inform global climate governance and other problems of the world [22,23]. In fact, there are numerous other frameworks that fall outside our scope. At this juncture, it is important to state that this study does not intend duplicating other scholarly efforts to track the emergence of climate governance trends and strategies globally. This explains the brevity of the present review to situate the evolution of global climate governance in recent history. A corollary, and more relevant, objective here is to contextualize state governance measures through the enactment of climate change legislation, formulation of relevant policies and the establishment of CCCs as part of the climate governance features across the globe.

As climate change mitigation and adaptation dominate the global agenda, it has also become salient to ensure the existence of functional legal and policy frameworks that clearly define mandates, responsibilities and the implementation of strategies that are consistent with climate goals [24]. These frameworks would facilitate actions that reduce climate risks and inhibit actions that increase them. Relatedly, there was a surge in the number of climate-related policies and laws from 60 in 1997 to over 1200 in 2017 in about 164 countries [4,8]. As of August 2020, the database of the Grantham Research Institute records over 1800 climate-related policies and laws globally (Grantham Online Climate Law Database https://climate-laws.org/#map-section). These include specific legislations and policies on climate change, and related laws and policies that affect climate action.

The relatively rapid proliferation of climate change policies and legislations actually help to reduce emissions. Research shows that each new law potentially reduces annual CO₂ emission per unit of gross domestic product by 0.78% nationally in the short term (during the first three years), and by 1.79% in the long term (beyond three years) [6]. However, these do not necessarily translate into large-scale emissions reduction required to achieve net-zero scenarios by 2050 [6]. The net-zero emissions goal certainly necessitates the emergence and evolution of far-reaching legal and policy measures to drive large-scale emissions reduction.

Legislative and policy instruments around the world are now clearly prescribing specific elements to galvanize more potent climate action, especially mitigation efforts. These encompass the setting of emissions reduction targets, capping of national carbon budgets, establishment of emissions pricing schemes, establishment of CCCs, among other measures. It is apparent that the existence of a CCC has become a relevant component of the climate governance architecture around multiple countries, as Section 4 will show. Despite this governance trend, there is scarce scholarly analysis on the modality of operationalizing or establishing an optimal CCC. This is clearly a gap in the literature, which we fill by our modest study.

Consequently, this study contributes to the literature by inquiring into transnational circumstances on the establishment of CCCs and samples the perspectives of over 120 climate policy experts—through a structured survey—to draw insights into how countries could establish suitable CCCs in legislative and policy processes. We define CCC in this paper narrowly, to capture the formal institution established by legislation or policy processes and designated as “climate change commission” or an “expert committee on climate change” or simply “committee on climate change”, with the principal function of providing expert and evidence-based advisory services to inform state climate policy responses and strategies across countries. We take due cognizance of the possible existence of quasi-institutions with identical functions across multiple states. For example, there are ministerial and interministerial committees on climate change across multiple countries. We are also aware of the existence of ministries, departments and agencies of government with functions relating to climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, we limit our focus to independent CCCs or independent expert committees on climate change established by legislation or policy processes. In the next section, we present the study justification and scope, as well as enumerate our materials and methods.

3. Justification, Materials and Methods

3.1. Justification

Contemporary political/administrative systems face serious challenges and difficulties regarding effective climate governance. Some specific documented examples include, but are not limited to: the long-time framing for addressing climate change, global implications and the tendency to wait for other countries to act, revolutionary societal ramifications, scientific uncertainty, and distributional and equity linkages [25]. These challenges predominantly stem from the multidimensional complexities associated with climate governance and the need for both innovative and evidence-based approaches that may fall outside the expertise of traditional institutions, as well as political and government functionaries in most countries [26]. More so, there is usually a fundamental deficit in governance when it comes to dealing with the systemic dimension of risks; lack of adequate arrangements to take responsibility; failure to move from ”business as usual” to action; and lack of imagination and capacity to face unanticipated outcomes, especially with risk-averse political systems [27]. Moreover, governments may not actively undertake climate change policies in essential sectors for the country’s economy. For instance, the recent Zero Carbon Act in New Zealand covers only 5% of emissions from the agricultural sector in the country’s emissions trading scheme [28]. Thus, traditional political institutions would have to evolve into suitable machineries for tackling the peculiarities of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The idea of establishing a CCC or an expert committee on climate change is recognizable in the literature as a unique institution that is desirable for serious climate action [29]. Arguably, the central remit of a CCC is its evidence-based advisory role. This advisory capacity profits from thorough and high-quality research on multidimensional—scientific, socioeconomic, sociopolitical, legal and policy—issues on climate change [30]. Given this expectation, and the emergence of CCCs across multiple jurisdictions, we argue that governments and policymakers should also consider the disciplinary and multidisciplinary backgrounds of the members of the CCC. We believe that this particular character could potentially contribute to the efficacy of the CCC, as well as the robustness of its mitigation and adaptation policies, drawing from the rich repository of its multidisciplinary and multidimensional expertise.

A valid poser to the establishment of a CCC could be the existence of government ministries, departments and agencies with similar functions. However, appointments into these government positions are mostly political. We posit that a dedicated nonpolitical, independent, nonpartisan commission/committee may be better suited to inform better policymaking. We anchor this argument based on the robust knowledge derived from the nonpoliticized expertise of an independent evidence-based committee/commission [31]. The consideration of issues is likely to be more objective and expert-oriented, drawing from the expertise of different members of the committee/commission, as opposed to political appointees who may have limited technical knowledge on the different aspects and dimensions of climate issues. Consequently, we believe that the insights drawn from transnational circumstances and responses of leading climate experts would complement the growing literature on climate governance.

In addition, institutional inertia within traditional government ministries, departments and agencies can hamper the effective and timely response to climate change if left solely to state bureaucratic configurations [25]. No doubt, state bureaucratic and administrative arrangements are often relevant for driving governmental solutions to problems, but administrative and bureaucratic traditions and behaviours can negatively affect the efficacy of such institutional arrangements, especially for climate change governance [32,33]. This correlates with institutional inertia, which manifests through specific mechanisms with implications for effective climate governance—huge climate action costs framing, uncertainty in conceptualizing climate change to elicit potent action, organizational path dependency that resists change in the polity, incumbent power relations that support existing ineffective intuitional arrangements, and entrenching the legitimacy of incumbent norms and policies [34]. Thus, institutional inertia hinders the emergence of recalibrated and efficacious climate governance arrangements and underscores the suitability of establishing expert-driven CCCs and similar institutions that are well suited for delivering climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives

3.2. Materials and Methods

The key questions underpinning our study are as follows: (1) What are the current trends in the multidisciplinary composition of CCCs? (2) What is the rationale for the establishment of a CCC? (3) Does multidisciplinary expertise contribute towards the efficacy of a CCC? To answer these questions, we split our study methodology into two parts. The first part seeks to answer the first research question (RQ). This part is an analysis of the trends in the disciplinary composition of CCCs in the nations studied. Here, we used a qualitative approach to identify the disciplinary composition of the CCCs in 11 different countries that are all members of the UNFCCC and signatories to the 2015 Paris Agreement. As highlighted in the introduction, this limited number represents some—perhaps a majority—of the countries that have enacted dedicated climate change legislations, as well as established independent CCCs as part of their climate governance regimes.

Transnational qualitative trend analysis is not new in the literature. It has been widely applied over the years for studies such as migration [35] and political communication [36]. Recently, we have observed a transnational trend in the disciplinary composition of national CCCs as enshrined in new climate change legislations. Consequently, this observed trend challenges our assumptions on what disciplinary backgrounds should constitute a CCC. While it is uncertain as to whether this new trend will engender efficacious climate responses in the future, we believe that there is a need to investigate the issue to provide robust understanding for scholarship and policymaking. Accordingly, we first identified countries around the world that have established dedicated CCCs. Then, we studied the disciplinary, multidisciplinary (and possible industry-centric) components of the CCCs. These provided a useful understanding of trends in these countries (RQ 1).

The transnational trend analysis is complemented by the second part based on experts’ perspectives on the subject matter. This part seeks to answer RQs 2 and 3. The second part of our study is based on the expert-perspective method. According to this approach, results are obtained by capturing the views, assessments or opinions of competent experts in the subject domain to get a broader understanding of a problem from different angles [37]. This approach assumes that some people have a deeper understanding of a particular topic, compared to others. Consequently, if we acquire this knowledge from a pool of experts in the subject matter, the results will potentially exceed the outcomes collected from a single expert [38].

Generally, experts’ perspective on a topic is scoped through questionnaires to understand the subjective division or consensus of experts on a given topic [39]. Thus, this method can produce qualitative and quantitative results which can be used to support decisionmaking quickly. This feature makes this approach particularly suitable for our study as we seek to explore the current locus of agreement and disagreement within the climate change experts’ community on the disciplinary requirements of a CCC. In a bid to collect the perspectives of the experts on this issue, the second part of our study uses a structured survey to capture the views, assessments and opinions of competent experts on CCCs. The survey is composed of 10 questions from which we extracted both qualitative and quantitative data.

In the first question of the survey, we asked the respondents if they support the idea of a CCC in a country’s policy framework. In the second question, we asked them if they agree that a CCC can provide useful advisory services to the government. The third question seeks to understand the extent to which the respondents support the independence of a CCC. The first, second and third questions seek to understand the rationale for the establishment of a CCC (RQ 2). From the fourth to the eighth question, we focused specifically on questions related to subject disciplines. Specifically, we gauged the extent to which the respondents agree that a country’s CCC should include an expert in climatology, economics, environmental science, social issues and general scientific knowledge. These areas of expertise were selected based on their relevance in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation. For instance, climatology is a key area providing expert knowledge on the atmosphere and weather patterns over time, which is useful in supporting effective climate change response.

The ninth question seeks to bring everything together. We surveyed the respondents on their opinion on the collective inclusion of experts in the fields of climatology, economics, environmental science, social issues and scientific knowledge in a country’s CCC. Finally, in the tenth question, we inquired, in an open-ended fashion, what other specialized fields our respondents would suggest for a country’s CCC. This question was included to provide a platform for respondents to indicate those areas of expertise that they consider indispensable in a CCC. The fourth to the tenth questions seek to understand the contribution of multidisciplinary expertise towards the efficacy of a CCC (RQ 3). For a better understanding, the research and survey questions are provided in the supplemental online material (Supplementary Materials).

3.2.1. Participant Selection and Survey Administration

For the study participants, a purposive technique was used in selecting participants from academia, industry, civil societies, and government institutions. We also ensured that our respondents were pooled from diverse academic and professional backgrounds in order to get a balanced view of the subject matter, as would be appropriate [40]. In a similar bid, we ensured that the respondents were evenly distributed in terms of geographical location and national origin. While selecting respondents, we considered people with substantive and demonstrated experience in the issues of climate change at national and international levels. For example, the list of the IPCC lead authors for the sixth assessment report (AR6) served as a solid repository to select our respondents. We also considered climate change journal editors, authors of climate change-related articles from academic publications and project reports. We considered stakeholders that run climate change-related nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and for-profit industries with strong links to climate change initiatives.

We sent emails and direct messages to different experts via LinkedIn and requested their participation in the study through an attached web-link to the survey. A total of 150 survey invitations were sent to our respondents using an online web form. The questionnaire contained nine multiple-choice and one open-ended question. After a 21-day period, 129 anonymized and confidential survey responses were collated and, consequently, analyzed.

3.2.2. Method for Data Analysis

Data resulting from responses to questions 1 through 9 were analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify trends and commonalities. It is important to note that, because this study used a purposive nonprobabilistic sample, results cannot be generalized to a larger population. However, the sample gathered allowed us to identify, among respondents, some consistencies that are indicative of experts’ preferences and recommendations for the role and composition of CCCs.

Qualitative content analysis is used in analyzing the response to question 10 of the survey. This method allows for a systematic description and meaning of qualitative data [41]. Based on this method, we assigned each part of the material a coding frame. As

Table 1. Coding frame for the analysis of responses to question 10.

Category 1	Legal	i.e., law/policy/international relations
Category 2	Industry	i.e., energy/transport/agriculture/food
Category 3	Biosciences	i.e., biology/oceanography/biodiversity/biotechnology/Geography/geology/meteorology/hydrology/forestry
Category 4	Economics	i.e., finance/economic
Category 5	Planning	i.e., engineering/development/management
Category 6	Social Sciences	i.e., psychology/sociology/anthropology/history/political science/education
Category 7	Ethics	i.e., religion/philosophy/moral
Category 8	Governance	i.e., politicians/interest groups/community groups
Category 9	Health	i.e., medicine/public health/environmental health
Category 10	Communication	i.e., media/marketing
Category 11	Uncategorized

shows below, this was used in tabulating the calculated frequencies of each response and making empirical sense of the data collated.

Coding was conducted manually by two independent coders. Given the small sample of responses to be coded, intercoder reliability was assessed manually by an independent party on the entire data sample. Agreement was close to absolute (99.5%), and the one case of disagreement was resolved by assigning it a random value, per standard practice [42]. Results are available in full as supplemental online material (Supplementary Materials). Figure 1 shows the overview of the research methods adopted in this study.

4. Results

4.1. Transnational Trends

Here, we analyze legislative and institutional design trends across multiple countries regarding the establishment of CCCs. As earlier highlighted, we delimited our focus to only countries with specific CCCs or similar institutions in national climate change legislations and policy processes. Within this scope, we captured 11 countries, with predominance in Europe. We highlight these locations in Figure 2. For ease of presentation, we summarize the trends in these countries in

Table 2. Transnational trends on the composition of independent CCCs.

Country	Institution	Establishment	Summary of Objectives	Disciplinary Composition	Remarks
Australia	Climate Change Authority	Climate Change Authority Act 2011	Providing independent expert advice on climate policies. Conducting reviews to produce relevant reports. Assisting the Climate Change Minister to prepare government’s policy response. Researching matters related to climate change.	Not specifically prescribed. The law requires a Chair to head the Authority, a Chief Scientist and up to seven other members. However, at the time of writing, the Authority’s membership was composed of experts from the domains of public policy, energy, business and economics, agriculture, maritime science, numerical modelling, and engineering [43].	There is an opportunity to incorporate a wide multidisciplinary composition of experts, even as Australia considers a bill to abolish the existing Climate Change Authority for a new Climate Change Commission. The present Authority could be reconfigured to include more diversity of experts. Alternatively, the likely successor commission could also consider the results of this study.
Denmark	The Danish Council on Climate Change (The Climate Council)	Climate Change Act 2014 and the Climate Act 2019	Evaluating national climate objectives in line with international commitments. Analyzing potential transition pathways. Advisory services on potential transition mechanisms and scenarios. Stakeholders consultancy services.	Experts with broad expertise in energy, buildings, transport, agriculture, environment, nature, economy, climate science and behavioural research.	The Climate Council shows relevant multidisciplinary composition, but there remains an opportunity to incorporate a wide multidisciplinary composition of experts with other relevant skills.
Finland	Scientific Expert Body—Finland’s Climate Panel (The Finnish Climate Change Panel)	Climate Change Act 2015	Supporting the planning of climate change policy and the related decisionmaking. Researching and data collection on mitigation and adaptation.	Not specifically prescribed, but the law requires the representation of different fields of science in the expert body.	At the time of writing, the Panel’s members represented different branches of science from educational sciences to atmospheric sciences [44]. However, there is an opportunity for the law to specifically prescribe multidisciplinary fields of expertise.
France	High Council on Climate Change	Law No. 2019-1147 on Energy and the Climate and Executive promulgation in November 2018	Annually evaluating France’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trajectory. Assessing the implementation and effectiveness of policy measures decided by state and local authorities. Analyzing the socioeconomic, as well as environmental impacts of various public policies. Providing expert opinions on the national low-carbon strategy and carbon budgets.	Scientific, technical and economic expertise in the fields of climate and ecosystem sciences, the reduction of GHG emissions, adaptation and resilience to climate change.	The multidisciplinary character of the High Council on Climate Change aligns with the logic of an ideal framework, but needs broader multidisciplinary. composition for well-informed and efficacious policymaking.
Germany	Council of Experts on Climate Change	Climate Protection Act 2019	Examination of national emissions data. Examination of assumptions on GHG reduction underlying mitigation measures. Provision of expert opinion to the government before the implementation of mitigation measures.	Five specialized persons from the fields of climatology, environmental science and social matters; and possessing outstanding scientific knowledge and experience in required prescribed fields.	Similar to New Zealand’s CCC, Germany’s Council of Experts on Climate Change evinces an array of relevant multidisciplinary fields. This framework can also potentially support well-informed climate policy responses, although it is still possible to capture other multidisciplinary fields and industry components.
Ireland	The Climate Change Advisory Council	Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015	Advise and recommend national climate change mitigation and adaptation plans and policies.	Not prescribed, but the establishing law provides that, in constituting the membership of the Advisory Council, the Government shall have regard to the range of qualifications, expertise and experience necessary for the proper and effective performance of the functions of the Advisory Council.	There is a clear acknowledgement in the law of the need to appoint experts with requisite expertise and experience into the Climate Change Advisory Council. The lack of useful prescription of the required experts or fields of expertise presents a good opportunity for the Irish Republic to amend its climate change law. This study becomes useful in this respect.
New Zealand	Climate Change Commission	Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019	Providing a framework for the development and implementation of clear and stable climate change policies. Providing independent expert advice on mitigation and adaptation. Monitoring and review of progress towards achieving emissions reduction goals.	Understanding of climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as likely effects of policy responses; work experience with local and central governments; knowledge of public policy and regulatory processes; technical and professional skills, experience, and expertise in, and an understanding of innovative approaches relevant to the environmental, ecological, social, economic and distributional effects of policy interventions; sectoral representation at regional and local levels.	The multidisciplinary and multidimensional spectra of New Zealand’s CCC represent a robust framework for formulating well-informed climate policy responses.
Norway	Climate Risk Commission	Executive appointment pursuant to the Climate Act 2018	Assessing best approaches for analyzing and describing national-level climate risk. Identifying key global climate risk factors, and considering their importance for the Norwegian economy and financial stability. Provision of climate risk analytical framework/methodology to private and public sectors.	Not prescribed.	Not an ideal CCC that provides a living framework for continuous advisory functions. The Norwegian Climate Risk Commission seems to rather be a financial risk-prevention commission that was to deliver its recommendation on climate risks in Norway by 14 December 2018 [45].
Philippines	Climate Change Commission	Republic Act No. 9729 (Climate Change Act 2009)	Sole policymaking institution responsible for coordinating, monitoring and evaluating government mitigation measures.	Not prescribed. The establishment legislation presupposes an “independent autonomous” institution, but also requires the country’s President to serve as Chairman of the CCC. The President, as Chairman, can then appoint three Commissioners.	Two key areas in need of consideration include: the practical autonomy/independence of the CCC and capturing multidisciplinary fields.
Sweden	Climate Policy Council	Climate Act 2017 and the Swedish Climate Policy Framework	Providing independent assessment of how government’s climate policies are compatible with climate goals. Evaluating the GHG emission reduction trajectory (positive or negative) of various policy areas. Identifying policy areas in need of additional measures.	Not specifically prescribed. However, at the time of writing, the Council comprised members from the fields of political science, environmental social science, industrial energy policy, economics, climatology, and environmental history [46].	The absence of disciplinary composition requirements of the Climate Policy Council represents a policy gap. This can be filled by the prescription of suitable multidisciplinary fields.
United Kingdom	Committee on Climate Change	Climate Change Act 2008 (Amended in 2019)	Advisory functions on emissions reduction targets, carbon budgets, and reporting on progress.	Experience and knowledge in business competitiveness; climate policy and its national impact; climate science and other branches of environmental science; understanding of the peculiarities of the four British countries—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; economics analysis and forecasting; emissions trading; energy production and supply; financial investment; technology development and diffusion.	This premier climate governance framework provides an early insight for understanding the modalities for enacting a dedicated climate change legislation, as well as instituting a multidisciplinary CCC.

. In addition to our justification presented in Section 3, Figure 2 clearly shows a scanty global atlas on the establishment of CCCs. Given the evolving global trend of climate policy architecture, we suggest the possible establishment and proliferation of CCCs in more countries across different continents in the future. Consequently, our study provides a useful reference material to assist countries with the multidisciplinary composition of their CCCs.

4.2. Expert Survey Analysis

Experts’ acceptance rate for CCCs is significantly high as an overwhelming 98.5% of respondents supported the idea of a CCC in a country’s policy framework. Among them, 99% agreed that CCCs could provide useful advisory roles, with more than half of respondents (58.7%) expressing strong agreement. Furthermore, among those who supported the inclusion of CCCs in policy frameworks, 92% said that CCCs should be independent. The remaining 8% expressed only moderate support for the independence of CCCs. Notably, all respondents who supported the existence of CCCs also supported their independence. However, the slight reservation by some to have independence conferred on CCCs depicts a level of distrust in the ability of these commissions to provide objective services without being subject to some oversight from a prescribed supervisory body.

Regarding the inclusion of climatology experts in the CCC, those who support the existence of CCCs express overwhelming support for this inclusion, with 93.7% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing. Only 5.5% reported indecision and one respondent expressed opposition. The same level of support was documented for the inclusion of an expert in economics, with only 7.8% being ambivalent about it. Interestingly, 100% of those who were indecisive about the inclusion of an economics expert agreed to the inclusion of a climatology expert and, conversely, all of those who were ambivalent about including a climatology expert expressed significant agreement to the inclusion of an economics expert. This is exemplary of the well-documented disagreement between neoclassical economics and environmental economics [47,48,49,50]. It signals that CCCs might not make resolutions with an absolute consensus. Even if the goal is generally agreed upon, the path to the said goal is still very much a debate among experts.

A vast majority of our respondents (97.6% of those) who support CCCs also favour the inclusion of environmental science experts, while the remaining 2.4% expressed ambivalence. Although there was almost absolute agreement on the need to include social science experts (97.6%), the 2.4% who expressed opposition or ambivalence agreed (mostly highly) to the inclusion of climatology and general science experts in CCCs. Again, we see here a tendency to construe climate change as either social or a scientific issue.

Regarding the inclusion of experts possessing general scientific knowledge, 95% of those who support CCCs agreed with their inclusion. Surprisingly, the remaining 5% expressed either ambivalence or opposition towards the inclusion of members from the scientific community. Furthermore, this opposing 5% consistently supported (most of them strongly) the inclusion of environmental science, economics, social issues and climatology experts in CCCs. This opposition towards the inclusion of experts with general scientific knowledge is intriguing among respondents who had well-defined attitudes towards the inclusion of experts in all the other fields.

However, when we analyzed the responses provided to the open-ended question on what other specialized fields should be included in the CCCs, we noticed that most respondents in this subsample supported the inclusion of experts outside the realm of the hard sciences such as psychology, political economy, development, governance, policy and engineering. Thus, these contradictory responses among respondents in this subsample could be interpreted as expressing a preference for the inclusion of more experts from social sciences instead of strictly from the physical sciences.

Respondents who did not support the creation of CCCs do not represent a significant portion of the sample. Out of 129 experts surveyed, only two said they do not support the idea of a CCC in a country’s policy framework. The overwhelming support for the creation of CCC is a noteworthy finding and, although the small sample of experts consulted does not allow this study to generalize findings, it is a clear indication of experts’ dominant position when it comes to the need to include CCCs in policy frameworks.

Among those who opposed the creation of a CCC, some consistencies are worth noting. For instance, both respondents agreed that the CCC should include an expert in economics. Yet, they were ambivalent about including environmental science experts and in disagreement about including social issues experts. Finally, they both said they would probably not support a CCC that includes experts from all mentioned areas. Their answers to the open-ended questions provide a potential explanation for these findings. For instance, one of the respondents stated that CCCs should comprise “interest groups and not simply actors.” This response reflects the weight the respondent assigned to public representation in CCCs and hints at a concern that experts and political actors might overwrite public views in CCCs.

Similarly, the second respondent expressed scepticism about partisanship in a consolidated commission. In addition, the respondent expressed concern about the possibility that “expert voices in one area will be drowned out of compromise” by experts in other areas. Instead, this respondent proposed that the government receives advice from different experts on different issues without the need to constitute a commission. The issue of “weights” attached to expert advice or opinion is critical to climate change mitigation and adaptation, especially when measuring aspects like vulnerability and risk [51,52]. In practice, it is all but impossible for advice from experts to be considered “equal”. Generally, our hierarchical nature as humans creates varied levels of influence, power, dominance and skills, and the status associated with these traits [53]. Relatedly, metrics like years of experience, educational qualifications and certifications, the historical relevance of an expert’s alma mater, social standing and even political influence can—and in most cases will—affect the weight attached to the submissions individual experts make. Although this study did not survey the issue of the weighting of submissions, it is indicative of the enormity of the challenge it presents that experts have expressed their concerns without the need to be prompted.

The analysis of experts’ responses to what other specialized fields should be included in a CCC indicates mixed preferences among respondents, but it also points to some consistencies (Figure 3). Out of a sample of 221 recommendations to include a specific area of expertise in CCCs, 19.5% were suggestions to include experts in the legal field. Largely, law and policy experts were the most recommended, with 74.4% of responses in the legal category referring to law (41.8%) and policy (32.5%) as areas of expertise required in CCCs.

Similarly, 14.9% of responses suggested the inclusion of experts from the social sciences, out of which 38% mentioned political scientists, 27% mentioned psychology experts, 11% mentioned sociologists, and 5.5% anthropologists. Thus, legal and social sciences experts were the two most recommended categories. Industry experts follow these, with 14.9% of responses falling into this category. Out of these, energy emerged as the most recommended area of expertise, with 72.7% of responses in the category. Agriculture, in turn, received 21.2% of the responses in the category and transport only 12.1%.

The economics category received significant attention, considering that question 5 already covered the issue of whether a CCC should include experts in economics. Nonetheless, 10% of responses further emphasized the need to include this area of expertise when asked about other areas to be considered important in a CCC. These results show, with the limitations imposed by our sample size, the importance experts place on economics when it comes to the issue of climate policy framework and institutions. Another category that received considerable attention was, unsurprisingly, the one comprising all biosciences, with 10% of total responses falling into this category. Within this group, 27.2% of responses expressed the need to include geography experts, 13.6% suggested biology experts and 9% hydrology.

Experts from the planning category received lower endorsement, with only 7.7% of responses falling into this category. Nearly half of responses (47%) suggested the inclusion of engineers in CCCs. Planning was followed by health, with 6.3% of total responses and governance with 5.9%. Among the latter, the mention of interest and community groups is worth noting, with 30% of responses in the governance category referring to the importance of public involvement in CCCs. Finally, 4.1% of responses emphasized the importance of ethics, philosophy and religion in guiding CCCs towards their objectives.

The category that received the least number of responses was communication, with 2.7% of responses. Communication plays a key role in public engagement and adoption of climate change policies [54,55,56]. Therefore, it is surprising that experts do not assign more importance to communication, media and marketing as valuable skills in a country’s CCC. We reckon that this might be an oversight on the part of the experts. It might also have been a consequence of our sample size. In today’s world, it would be unfathomable to discount the role of communications in the advancement of nationwide climate change policies.

Another insight derived from the analysis of experts’ responses to what other specialized fields should be included in a CCC is the need to include people with transdisciplinary knowledge. As a respondent stated “…I would also suggest to include inter or transdisciplinary experts who can more easily bridge between different disciplines and bodies of knowledge”. Overall, the survey results conform to the fact that climate change is a multifaceted, interwoven issue that must be dealt with from varying angles, incorporating expertise and knowledge from diverse fields of endeavour

5. Discussion

Our discussion narrows the insights drawn from our study towards four specific themes. First, we synthesize the transnational trends on the multidisciplinary composition of CCCs, while paying attention to the perspectives of climate policy experts, analyzed in Section 4. Second, we reflect on some caveats regarding the multidisciplinary composition of CCCs. Third, we reflect on quasi-institutions, as well as their possible limitations regarding their suitability for addressing climate change. Fourth, we go further to provide some practical implications of the study.

5.1. A Synthesis

The disciplinary and multidisciplinary constituents of CCCs in countries studied are expectedly varied in terms of expert composition, stated objectives, age and legislative frameworks underlying them. As such, each CCC is better suited to tackle some, but not all, aspects of climate change on the agenda of their host nations.

The UK has the oldest CCC, taking into account the year of establishment in 2008, closely followed by the Philippines and Australia in 2009 and 2011, respectively. The other nations established theirs fairly recently, between 2014 and 2019. In the countries studied, CCCs emerged on a firm legislative basis, suggesting a strong political will to pursue climate action, in spite of the controversy surrounding climate change as a topic.

Our analysis reveals that most existing CCCs are narrowly focused with a few expert fields recurring across the board, namely: policy experts, social scientists, environmental scientists, climatologists, economic and financial experts. Other fields are specified in some but not all nations, namely: technical experts, governance experts, transport experts, agriculture experts, energy experts and others were rarely occurring only in one country (the UK): an environmental historian, an emissions trading expert and a numerical modelling expert.

Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom had the most robust CCCs in terms of specified expert fields needed to constitute one, while others were less robust. We consider statements such as “diverse scientific fields” to be ambiguous and detrimental to forming CCCs that encompass the requisite knowledge when compared to the detailed cum specific results of our research.

In addition to our results on the transnational trends analysis (Table 2), we summarize the dynamics identified amongst CCCs in

Table 3. Summary of dynamics of CCCs.

		Characteristics
Country	Age (Years)	IN	ES	AD	MI	EP
Australia	9	◯	◯	⊙	◯	☐
Denmark	6	⊙	◯	⊙	◯	⊙
Finland	5	⊙	☐	◯	◯	⊙
France	1	⊙	◯	◯	◯	⊙
Germany	1	◯	◯	◯	◯	☐
Ireland	5	⊙	☐	◯	◯	◯
New Zealand	1	◯	◯	◯	◯	☐
Norway	2	⊙	☐	⊙	◯	⊙
Philippines	11	◯	☐	◯	⊙	◯
Sweden	3	◯	◯	⊙	◯	☐
United Kingdom	12	⊙	◯	⊙	◯	⊙

Key: Yes = ◯, No = ☐, Unclear = ⊙, IN = Independent, ES = Expertise Specified, AD = Adaptation Focused, MI = Mitigation Focused, EP = Easily Politicized.

.

As Table 3 shows, mitigation emerged by far as the most common trend among nations with CCCs, with few outlining clear-cut adaptation objectives for their CCCs. Only France detailed resilience as a goal for its CCC. Most CCCs are delineated as providing advisory services, recommendations, research, reviews, evaluations and assessments.

A few fields were altogether neglected across the board including industry, forestry and land use, which constitute the two most neglected aspects of climate change mitigation and adaptation [57,58]. Therefore, we suggest that countries could consider incorporating these neglected fields, including the specific suggestions of surveyed experts into their CCCs.

Nonetheless, we note that disagreements and arguments are to be expected as they come with the climate governance domain, especially when debating complex and contentious issues. While there remains some logic in establishing multidisciplinary CCCs, the risk of “too many cooks spoiling the broth” is possible. Therefore, a solution could be forming CCCs that have independent workgroups much in line with the IPCC approach.

5.2. Caveats on CCCs and Their Multidisciplinary Composition

As the preceding analysis establishes, a CCC composed of experts drawn from different disciplinary backgrounds may be suitable for formulating informed, expert-based, and efficacious climate change mitigation and adaptation policies. However, we highlight some caveats regarding this assertion.

The first caveat relates to the nexus between a country’s climate performance and the justification for establishing a multidisciplinary CCC. This is premised on the notion that countries with or without a CCC may still perform highly in their climate performance rankings. To underscore this point, the 2020 Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI)—an initiative by a consortium of the Climate Action Network (CAN), GERMANWATCH and New Climate Institute—ranks countries’ aggregated CCPI based on four sets of weightings: GHG emissions, renewable energy, energy use and climate policy [59]. The 2020 results of the CCPI analyzed the climate performance of 57 countries and weighted their scores. Comparing that with the 11 countries we evaluated in this paper (Table 2), only the UK, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway were among the countries that had the top-tier weighting ranks [59]. Of the five, Sweden had the highest aggregate weighting (75.77%). Like Sweden, the UK (69.8%) and Norway (61.14%) had good performance indexes, despite the need for ensuring ideal multidisciplinarity in their CCCs. Likewise, Finland (63.25%) and Denmark (71.14%) also had top aggregate weightings, yet their CCCs need a clear delineation of multidisciplinary fields of expertise.

In contrast, New Zealand, which has a comparatively well-composed multidisciplinary CCC, ranked 37th in its CCPI (45.67%). However, it is important to concede that the New Zealand CCC was only recently established. Likewise, France is ranked in the yellow zone (57.9%) in terms of its CCPI, even though it has a High Council on Climate Change with a good measure of multidisciplinarity. Australia is ranked in the red zone at 56%, while the Philippines is not ranked altogether. The foregoing buttresses the point that multidisciplinary CCCs may not automatically translate to improved CCPI among countries.

The second caveat relates to country-level peculiarities necessary for actualizing an independent and multidisciplinary CCC. The political dynamics of countries differ remarkably. Thus, countries with governments influenced by authoritarian political ideologies or censorship to liberal ideas and scientific freedom are more likely to dis-incentivize the establishment of a multidisciplinary independent CCC or take its recommendations seriously. A related point is the desirability of political leadership in allowing a multidisciplinary and independent CCC. Most political leaders agree that climate change is a major concern but share different views regarding its threats and visions for solutions. Thus, if political leadership does not consider a multidisciplinary and independent CCC as salient in advancing its goals in the competitive global economy, it may be unsupportive for its establishment.

The third relates to the issue of science versus policymaking. Apart from the possibility that a multidisciplinary-composed CCC could translate to the classical case of “many hands spoiling the soup”, scientific reporting is often laden with technical jargons, clutters, and permutations that may be inconsequential for policymaking or political leadership. Thus, while the idea of multidisciplinary composition makes sense, the CCC’s scientific findings and reporting from its processes must be translatable to actionable policies.

5.3. Reflecting on Quasi-Institutions

Within the scope of our study, and as earlier highlighted, we describe all governmental departments, agencies or parastatals with skeletal climate action roles as “quasi-institutions.” They are not also explicitly established as dedicated CCCs. Sometimes, they can also include interministerial committees for climate change, and other similar political arrangements. Accordingly, quasi-institutions exist in many countries, if not almost all the countries in the world. However, these institutions may not provide bias-free advice and knowledge such as nonpolitical, independent and nonpartisan CCCs can do [25]. Independent institutions such as CCCs can create positive coordination by focusing on common and strategic policies rather than a narrow political agenda [60]. Having positive coordination for climate change policies at the national level leads to greater coordination at the regional and global levels. The European Commission for climate change adaptation discovered this fundamental gap among member states [61]. Thus, the Commission suggested more actions to solve this problem. Our study suggests that an independent and multidisciplinary CCC is a significant solution in this regard. Thus, 98.5% of experts in our survey supported the idea of CCC as part of a country’s policy framework. Among these respondents, 92% confirmed that the CCCs should be independent and no one was against the independence of the CCCs.

Having independent CCCs is significant to overcome the vulnerability of many quasi-institutions. As most of these institutions are state-centric and predominantly focus on the global agenda, they dismiss critical local aspects of climate policy, such as the prevalent socioeconomic situations in the country [62]. Our study also reflects this crucial point, as 97.6% of the respondents supported the inclusion of social science experts as part of CCCs. As earlier highlighted, the countries with independent CCCs and multidisciplinary experts are ranked among the top countries for the 2020 CCPI [59]. Three out of the four top countries have independent CCCs [59].

Simultaneously, as our results show, there is a considerable shift from quasi-institutions towards the establishment of independent CCCs. The factors for this shift vary among countries worldwide. Lack of or weak independence of the previous quasi-institution members was the primary factor for non-governmental organizations to insist on establishing an independent CCC in Ireland [63,64].

Moreover, our findings suggest that CCCs should comprise experts from various disciplines. Quasi-institutions may dismiss this useful character. For example, one of the weaknesses of the interministerial committees for climate change in some Southern African countries is missing cross-sectoral stakeholders with ignoring the social and cultural knowledge of indigenes [65]. However, “information, knowledge, tools, and skills” are considered as crucial elements for undertaking policy actions in climate change [66]. Hence, our findings are consistent with the literature.

5.4. Practical Implications

The transnational trends and perspectives of climate policy experts reported in the study show the propriety of establishing multidisciplinary CCCs to drive robust mitigation and adaptation policies. One key implication is the desirability of incorporating a broad spectrum of multidisciplinary categories—including law/legal, industry, energy, the physical sciences, engineering, biosciences, economics, planning, social sciences, ethics, governance, health, and communication. Countries without an existing CCC also have an ample opportunity to explore multidisciplinarity when establishing suitable institutions for climate governance. Relatedly, countries lacking sufficient personnel with requisite domains of expertise will need to support the development of local manpower to drive their climate policies and strategies [67].

In addition, we earlier noted the fragmentation of climate governance, as well as the existence of multilevel governance arrangements. Within this milieu, we identified the existence of global citizen deliberation. However, within the state level, it is important to underline the emergence of transnational climate change governance (TCCG), which occurs when networks operating in the transnational political sphere authoritatively steer constituents toward public goals [68,69]. An important point that has become evident in the literature is the need for legitimacy, authority and the ability of TCCG networks to steer constituents towards contributing to useful climate action [70,71]. Therefore, we believe that our study also has practical implications for the development of TCCG groups and other nonstate actors. Some key deductions in this regard include the need to ensure multidisciplinary pooling of relevant experts, capacity building and the dissemination of evidence-based information among actors and constituents. These features align with the necessity of building relevant competencies that support climate policies of countries [67]. Consequently, they could provide a formidable evidence base for strategic engagement with state actors and the wider community towards contributing to effective climate governance measures. Finally, they could also potentially contribute to well-informed rule-setting and the implementation of robust climate policies.

Nonetheless, we emphasize that the establishment of CCCs and their multidisciplinarity may not necessarily determine the climate performance index of countries, as our study has, in passing, highlighted diverse climate performance rankings of countries with these institutional arrangements. It is also important to consider the political and democratic peculiarities of countries while contemplating the establishment of independent multidisciplinary CCCs. This may not be feasible, for example, in jurisdictions with poor democratic norms. However, in jurisdictions with suitable democratic circumstances, it is desirable to entrench independent multidisciplinary CCCs. This feature potentially overcomes the institutional and operational limitations faced by quasi-institutions in countries’ climate governance arrangements.

6. Conclusions

This paper set out to inquire into the multidisciplinary requirements of a CCC and how multidisciplinarity can influence the efficacy of climate governance measures. Accordingly, we studied transnational trends and sampled the perspectives of climate policy experts on the disciplinary and multidisciplinary requirements for the composition of CCCs. One evident conclusion from transnational circumstances and the views of experts is the salience of multidisciplinarity in the composition of CCCs for efficacious climate change policies and strategies. Multidisciplinary CCCs essentially translate to countries “bringing their best foot forward” in dealing with and responding to climate change threats.

The study also highlighted the need for countries with quasi-institutions to engage experts and possibly establish multidisciplinary CCCs to circumvent the numerous challenges prevalent in contemporary political and administrative systems, as well as obviating the problem of institutional inertia in the climate governance process. Though a multidisciplinary CCC may not engender automatic changes in a country’s climate performance, its potential to drive optimal mitigation and adaptation goals in the long term underscores its relevance in countries’ climate governance configurations.

Furthermore, we acknowledge certain limitations in our study and suggest insights for future analysis. Firstly, this study predicated its analysis on a small subset of survey responses and the use of a purposive nonprobabilistic sample; hence, results cannot be generalized to a larger population. Repeating the analysis performed in this study in the future, using a broader dataset could provide insights that are more relevant for the multidisciplinary composition of CCCs. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the predominant focus of the study has been on the multidisciplinary composition of CCCs, and not necessarily their effectiveness. However, as countries intensify their mitigation and adaptation efforts, it is equally important to assess the effectiveness of climate governance interventions. Consequently, future studies could investigate the effectiveness of CCCs across multiple countries, as well as undertake a useful comparison with quasi-institutions. It is also worthwhile to examine how the influence of groups that fear adverse consequences of mitigation policies is combined with scientific uncertainty as well as the challenges posed by conflicts of power and interest in climate governance.