Search results

The Minamata Convention, which entered into force on 16 August 2017, is a global, legally binding instrument on mercury. The initiative on the Minamata Convention was mainly driven by research showing negative effects on human health and the environment in the Arctic. The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation on Arctic issues, and its Working Group, AMAP, played an important role in the process leading up to international negotiations on the Minamata Convention. This paper elucidates the evolutionary process in which scientific knowledge, herded by an intergovernmental, regional forum, is involved and forms the basis for a legally binding agreement. The paper provides new insight on multilevel governance of the mercury issue and unravels the role that AMAP has played in this dynamic process.

Rapid climate change in the Arctic triggers the remobilization of chemical pollution, increasing its exposure and potential impacts in the region. While scientific knowledge on multiple stressors, including the interlinkages between climate change and hazardous chemicals, is increasing, it has proven challenging to translate this knowledge into policy. This study analyzes the process of translating Arctic scientific knowledge on multiple stressors into global policy by focusing on the development of a guidance document under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Through document analysis and key informant interviews, we focus particularly on the role of the Arctic Council working group AMAP in synthesizing, translating and communicating science on multiple stressors to policy makers. We draw on the theoretical framework of formalization (how and by whom knowledge is summarized for policy) and separation (the relative distance between science and policy) to analyze the science-to-policy interface. Our analysis of the phases leading up to the guidance document show that AMAP has dynamically moved between different degrees of separation and formalization. Orchestrating the interplay between scientists and policy makers, the working group has put multiple stressors on the political agenda internationally. AMAP has thereby contributed to turn Arctic science into global policy through the guidance document. We conclude by illustrating several constraints in terms of the implementation of actual policy, which we argue is due to an increasing degree of formalization in the last phase and a general unreadiness of contemporary governance systems to address multiple stressors.