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

• Author: Svein Vigeland Rottem
• Pages: 111-134

246

Arctic Review on Law and Politics

Vol. 8, 2017, pp. 246–269

*Correspond ence to: Svein Vigeland Rottem. Email: svr@fni.no

2017 S. V. Rottem. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third

parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given

credit, that the work is not used for commercial purposes, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of

this license are made clear.

Citation: S. V. Rottem. ‘‘The Use of Arctic Science: POPs, the Stockholm Convention and Norway’’ Arctic Review on Law and

Politics, Vol. 8, 2017, pp. 246–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v8.723

The Use of Arctic Science: POPs, the

Stockholm Convention and Norway

Svein Vigeland Rottem*

Senior Research Fellow, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway

Abstract

The focus i n this art icle is on how scientic k nowledge on POPs in t he Arctic ha s been used

in intern ational regu lations, and ca n be used today. More speci cally, I explore Norw ay’s active

(and successfu l) nominations ove r the past decade of new POPs to t he Stockholm Convent ion,

nomination s that need a scient ic knowledge bas is, and where Arc tic scienti c knowledge has

been a prerequ isite for action. The ar ticle will rst di scuss the Stockholm Convent ion`s relation to

other legal i nstrument s on regulati ng POPs, and provi de an introduct ion to how the Convention

works. However, to obtain a mo re complete picture of how sc ience travels into global gover nance

we need to bring t he State in. We need to know how scient ic knowledge is used (or not used) at t he

national level . The question guid ing the second par t of this study is what ha s determined the u se of

scientic k nowledge in Norweg ian efforts lea ding to the nomin ation of new POPs to the Stockhol m

Convention. The f ocus is on envir onmental mana gement design, st ate of knowledge, degr ee of

political a nd economic controve rsy in the issue a rea, and the imp ortance of the m atter in public

opinion and a mong policy makers . The conclusion is that Nor way has had little to lose b y initiating

work on regulat ing new POPs and be ing active in t he nomination of new P OPs. Being gre en (or

using scient ic knowledge) in this c ase has been scientica lly demanding, but polit ically easy.

Keyword s: Arctic; POPs; Norway; Stockholm Conventio n; science

Responsible Editor: Øyvind Ravna.

Received: April 2017; Accepted: November 2017; Published: December 2017

Introduction

Climatic change and environmental challenges in the Arctic have been high on the inter-

national research agenda for some years. Wide-ranging studies on Arctic1 climate change

and painstaking research on pollutants have informed numerous attempts by the inter-

national community to regulate emissions. There are also studies that say something

about whether and how this scientic knowledge has affected international environmen-

tal and climate policy.2 The evidence indicates that this repository of “Arctic knowledge”

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

247

has indeed made a difference. Nevertheless, what has often been lacking in the scholarly

literature is a ne-grained examination addressing what determines the inuence of sci-

entic knowledge on environmental regulations of relevance to the Arctic.

I want to examine how scientic knowledge of environmental challenges in the

Arctic has been used in international regulations, and can be used today. I will describe

the emergence of a specic environmental regime of relevance to the Arctic, i.e., the

regulation of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The story behind the international

POPs regime is, however, so complex and involves so many players that it is difcult

to provide more than an overview of the various causes of success and failure here.

This story has, moreover, been the subject of in-depth analyses by others.3 The focus

in this article is therefore narrower. I will discuss the Stockholm Convention`s relation

to other legal instruments and provide an introduction on how the Convention works.

Secondly, I will examine Norway’s place in this regime. The account of the emerging

POPs regime (with a specic focus on the Stockholm Convention) and Norway’s role

in it will prepare the ground for an analysis of how and why scientic knowledge on

environmental challenges in the Arctic succeeds or fails. More specically, I explore

Norway’s active (and successful) nominations over the past decade of new POPs for

the Stockholm Convention, nominations that require a scientic knowledge basis,

and where Arctic scientic knowledge has been a prerequisite for action.

Framing the research question

POPs are chemical substances that persist in the environment and are transportable

over long distances. Most POPs are created by humans in industrial processes (inten-

tionally or as byproducts). They are bio-accumulated in the food web and pose a risk

to the environment and human health. Exposure to POPs can, among other things,

disrupt reproductive and immune systems.4 One consequence of their transportabil-

ity is their accumulation in environments where they were never used or emitted, e.g.

the Arctic. Once in the Arctic, they tend to be “trapped” there, as cold temperatures

favor their persistence.5 This is why international mechanisms are needed that are

capable of addressing these environmental challenges. National measures and regu-

lations alone are not enough.

The global community has taken a number of steps to tackle the transbound-

ary movement of POPs and their management, including negotiating multilateral

environmental agreements. This article focuses on the Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants, and one important property of the convention in par-

ticular, the opportunity to propose or nominate new candidates to the list of already

regulated POPs. Adopted and opened for signature on 22 May 2001, the agreement

called for international action on 12 POPs (the “Dirty Dozen”) but recognizes that

regulating the Dirty Dozen is only the initial step. After the signing of the Stockholm

Convention, 14 new substances have been added to the list.6 The nomination proce-

dure takes place in the interface between science and policy. Norway, together with