Suchergebnisse

Literaturangaben

A current ambition in welfare states across Europe and in the US is for political decision-making to be based on rigorous research (Bason 2010; Cartwright et al 2009; Mulgan 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008). Promoted as 'evidence-based policy-making', 'good analysis, or 'better governance' (Nilsson et.al. 2008) the aspiration finds its roots in the governance paradigm generally referred to as 'new public management' (Hartley 2005) and the central concern for developing a cost-effective and agile public sector (Rod 2010). . Sound as this ambition may seem, it has nevertheless been problematized from within the civil services and from the research community (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Cartwright et al. 2009; Elliott & Popay 2000; House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008; Whitty 2006; Rod 2010, Vohnsen 2011). Some warn that the term 'evidence-based' is used too lightly, and often in cases where 'evidence' has not fed into the policy processes but rather has been invoked after the fact to support already agreed upon policy (House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008); others warn that politics and science are – if not incompatible – then at odds with one another (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Whitty 2006). The article pin-points the friction points between science and policy-making and discuss why it is that evidence rarely feeds into policy-making and how the evidence-based paradigm effectively challenges the traditional craftsmanship of the civil service.

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 policy anbefalinger) og norsk forvaltning (herunder Miljødirektoratet og Klima- og miljødepartementet). I artikkelen ser vi nærmere 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.
Abstract in English:The Arctic Council Between Science, Managment and PolicyWhat has often been lacking in the scholarly literature on environmental and climatic changes in the Arctic are analyses addressing what determines the influence of scientific knowledge on regulations of relevance to the Arctic. The purpose of this article is to analyse the relationship between the production and systematisation of knowledge (including policy recommendations arising from this work) on Arctic issues and the Norwegian management system (overseen by, among other bodies, the Norwegian Environment Agency and Ministry of Climate and Environment). The article focuses on three of the Arctic Council's working groups. 1) Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP); 2) Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF); and 3) Protection of Arctic Marine Environment (PAME). The focus is on state of knowledge, degree of political and economic controversy in the issue area, the importance of the matter in public opinion and among policy makers, and management design.