Abstract
To distill the principal contributions of our work on governing Arctic seas, this concluding chapter focuses on two themes: the governance of ecopolitical regions and the practice of informed decisionmaking. We organize our discuss of governance around five key issues: (i) going beyond panaceas, (ii) dealing with institutional interplay, (iii) avoiding institutional rigidity, (iv) joining institutions and infrastructure, and (v) developing new tools. Our key observation regarding the practice of informed decisionmaking concerns the importance of developing an end-to-end relationship between analysts and practitioners. Whereas many discussions dealing with decision support tools focus on helping practitioners to assess the likely consequences associated with specific options, we broaden the discussion of the roles of science diplomacy to include contributions relating to the stages of the policy cycle dealing with agenda formation and the evaluation of the results arising from choices made in policy arenas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We are aware, of course, of the work of Kenneth Sherman and his colleagues on the idea of large marine ecosystems (LMEs) and of the effort of the Arctic Council’s Working Group on the Protection of the Marine Environment to apply this idea to Arctic marine systems (Sherman et al. 2009; PAME 2015). Our general view is that there is no standardized and agreed upon basis for specifying the boundaries of shared marine areas, a fact that accounts for differences in efforts to determine the precise boundaries of specific regions. For our purposes, however, the essential point is that there is a mismatch between political boundaries and biogeophysical boundaries.
References
Alter KJ, Raustiala K (2018) The rise of international regime complexity. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 14:18.1–18.21
Berkman PA, Vylegzhanin AN, Young OR (2016) Governing the Bering Strait region: current status, emerging issues and future options. Ocean Dev Int Law 47:186–217
Biermann F, Bauer S (eds) (2005) A world environment organization: solution or threat for effective international environmental governance. Ashgate, Aldershot
Jinnah S (2014) Post-treaty politics: secretariat influence in global environmental governance. MIT Press, Cambridge
Oberthür S, Gehring T (eds) (2006) Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. MIT Press, Cambridge
Oberthür S, Stokke OS (eds) (2011) Managing institutional complexity: regime interplay and global environmental change. MIT Press, Cambridge
Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach to going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:15181–15187
PAME (2015) Framework for a pan-Arctic network of marine protected areas. PAME International Secretariat, Akureyri
Pressman J, Wildavsky A (1973) Implementation. University of California Press, Berkeley
Raustiala K, Victor DG (2004) The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int Organ 55:277–309
Rockström J et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475
Schelling TC (1960) The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Schelling TC (1978) Micromotives and macrobehavior. W.W. Norton, New York
Sherman K, Aquarone MC, Adams S (eds) (2009) Sustaining the world’s large marine ecosystems. IUCN, Gland
Vylegzhanin AN, Young OR, Berkman PA (2018) Governing the Barents Sea region: current status, emerging issues and future options. Ocean Dev Int Law 49:1–27
Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of global environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press, Cambridge
Young OR (2011) The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:19853–19860
Young OR (2017) Governing complex systems: social Capital for the Anthropocene. MIT Press, Cambridge
Young OR (2019) Constructing diagnostic trees: a stepwise approach to institutional design. Earth Syst Gov. https://doi.org/10.1016/esg.2019.02.oo1
Young OR, Webster DG et al (2018) Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:9065–9073
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Young, O.R., Berkman, P.A., Vylegzhanin, A.N. (2020). Informed Decisionmaking for the Sustainability of Ecopolitical Regions. In: Young, O., Berkman, P., Vylegzhanin, A. (eds) Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea. Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25674-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25674-6_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25673-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25674-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)