Knowledge-based approaches to the study of international environmental cooperation tend to treat knowledge as a single variable. It is more useful to distinguish between different types of information and to analyze their roles in policy formation separately. Disaggregating knowledge reveals important aspects of the interplay between knowledge, interests, and power which otherwise remain hidden, and helps solve empirical puzzles and theoretical contradictions. Its utility is illustrated in a comparison between two prominent cases of regime-making efforts: deforestation (non-regime) and ozone depletion (regime). The study relies on analysis of multilateral scientific assessments, observation of UN meetings, and interviews with scientists and policymakers. The evidence suggests that reliable information about the cross-border consequences of a problem is of critical importance in regime formation as it facilitates utility calculations and-the formation of interests. By contrast, other types of seemingly relevant scientific knowledge appear to be of far lesser importance. Moreover, contrary to power-over-knowledge theorizing, the state of knowledge cannot be easily explained with reference to political power.
