Arktisk råd i spennet mellom forskning, forvaltning og politikk

Abstract

Det som ofte har manglet i forskningslitteraturen om miljø-og klimautfordringer i Arktis, er undersøkelser av hva som betinger innflytelsen av vitenskapelig kunnskap i reguleringer av relevans for Arktis. I denne artikkelen er målet å analysere forholdet mellom arktisk kunnskapsproduksjon (inkludert policyanbefalinger) og norsk forvaltning (herunder Miljødirektoratet og Klima-og miljødepartementet). I artikkelen ser vi naermere på tre av arbeidsgruppene i Arktisk råd: 1) Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), 2) Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) og 3) Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME). Fokus er på kunnskapsstatus, grad av økonomisk og politisk kontrovers innenfor de gitte feltene, betydningen av offentlig og politisk oppmerksomhet og forvaltningsdesign.

Biodiversity governance under the Arctic Council: The role of science, business and NGOs

“…Conversely, they do not necessarily have prerequisites for formulating policies to follow up the scientific assessments, and they may also be reluctant to do so. This appears to be tacitly accepted by the AC and SAO in the absence of instructions to CAFF on police directions (Rottem, Prip, & Soltvedt, 2020).…”

“…A third parameter often mentioned is whether and how a given challenge features on the public and political agenda, as the degree of public and political attention will affect whether scientific knowledge is used. A fourth significant dimension concerns the precision of such information (or related recommendations) (Rottem, Prip, & Soltvedt, 2018). A defined area where the relationship between goal and means is clear will be more easily captured by policies.…”

“…However, it is noteworthy that the Council’s recommendations and actions on biodiversity are generally less prescriptive and broader than in its other fields of cooperation. They are often directed towards future AC scientific work rather than specific action by Arctic states in collaboration or individually (Rottem et al, 2018).…”

“…The main concepts in this context – biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services and mainstreaming – are in themselves so broad as to be less suited for targeted, tangible and measurable recommendations and provisions than other areas of Arctic cooperation, like short-lived climate pollutants, oil-spill preparedness, and response and search-and-rescue, where soft or hard law instruments have been concluded among the Arctic states. The most targeted CAFF recommendations have concerned the most demarcated areas of the biodiversity agenda, like the management of sea birds and the prevention of alien invasive species (Rottem et al, 2018).…”

Russia's Clashing Ambitions: Arctic Status Quo and World‐Order Revision

“…The Arctic Council chairmanship was finally transferred from Russia to Norway-in an online session-on 11 May 2023 (Staalesen, 2023b). The event was interpreted as the Western states' interest in keeping the Arctic Council operative and even keeping the door ajar for Russian participation sometime in the future (Rottem & Andreeva, 2023). The session was followed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's claim that "the expulsion of Russia from the [Arctic] Council had been made on an absolutely false pretext" and that the "situation in Ukraine was provoked by Western countries themselves" (Staalesen, 2023b).…”