The Use of Arctic Science: POPs, Norway and the Stockholm Convention

Abstract

The focus in this article is on how scientific knowledge on POPs in the Arctic has been used in international regulations, and can be used today. More specifically, I explore Norway's active (and successful) nominations over the past decade of new POPs to the Stockholm Convention, nominations that need a scientific knowledge basis, and where Arctic scientific knowledge has been a prerequisite for action. The article will first discuss the Stockholm Convention`s relation to other legal instruments on regulating POPs, and provide an introduction to how the Convention works. However, to obtain a more complete picture of how science travels into global governance we need to bring the State in. We need to know how scientific knowledge is used (or not used) at the national level. The question guiding the second part of this study is what has determined the use of scientific knowledge in Norwegian efforts leading to the nomination of new POPs to the Stockholm Convention. The focus is on environmental management design, state of knowledge, degree of political and economic controversy in the issue area, and the importance of the matter in public opinion and among policy makers. The conclusion is that Norway has had little to lose by initiating work on regulating new POPs and being active in the nomination of new POPs. Being green (or using scientific knowledge) in this case has been scientifically demanding, but politically easy.

Is Arctic governance research in crisis? A pathological diagnosis

“…The complementary fourth perspective is an inside-out approach where the level of analysis remains the international, but the unit of analysis is an Arctic actor (Arctic/ international). Rottem's discussion of how Norway has been successful in listing persistent organic pollutants to the Stockholm Convention with the objective of promoting Arctic environmental protection is a fitting example (Rottem, 2017).…”

Global Conventions and Regional Cooperation: The Multifaceted Dynamics of Arctic Governance

“…In any case, a study of the negotiation process for the convention does not show any evidence of specific Arctic collaboration (Karlaganis et al, 2001). Rather, the particular role of individual states stands out; for instance Norway, which has acted as a green ambassador in the negotiation process (Rottem, 2017).…”

Arktisk råd i spennet mellom forskning, forvaltning og politikk

“…Norske myndigheter har for eksempel nominert tre stoffer til Stockholm-konvensjonen de siste ti årene, og man har vaert helt avhengig av kunnskap fra blant annet AMAP. Baerende i arbeidet med POP-er har vaert å finne stoffer hvor kunnskapsstatusen har vaert entydig og presis (Rottem, 2017). Det har vaert bred enighet om at de stoffene som har blitt nominert, har egenskaper som gjør dem til POP-er, og at de er en fare for miljø og helse.…”

“…Poenget er at det ikke har vaert politisk kontroversielt å arbeide for å styrke av Stockholm-konvensjonen, som regulerer POP-er. Det har heller forholdt seg slik at den politiske innblandingen har vaert liten (Rottem, 2017). Den økonomiske dimensjonen er selvsagt naert koblet til det politiske.…”

“…Klima-og miljøutfordringer i Arktis har vaert høyt på den internasjonale forskningsdagsordenen de seneste år, og kunnskap om utviklingen i nord har spilt inn i internasjonal og nasjonal politikkutforming. Dette understøttes også av enkelte juridiske og samfunnsvitenskapelige analyser, som tyder på at «arktisk kunnskap» har gjort en forskjell (se Duyck, 2012;Kankaanpää & Young, 2012;Soltvedt & Rottem, 2016;Prip, 2016;Rottem, 2017;Soltvedt, 2017;Froukje, Steindal & Borch, 2018). I denne artikkelen ser vi naermere på den viktigste kunnskapsaktøren i Arktis -Arktisk råd -som gjennom en årrekke har satt dagsordenen for kunnskapsutviklingen i nord.…”