Forsker
Elana Wilson Rowe
Kontaktinfo og filer
Sammendrag
Elana Wilson Rowe er forsker I på NUPI.
Hun har doktorgrad i geografi og polarstudier fra University of Cambridge (2006). Rowes ekspertområder inkluderer internasjonale relasjoner i Arktis, global styring, klimapolitikk og russisk utenriks- og nordområdepolitikk.
Du finner fulltekstversjoner av Rowes arbeid på Academia og Research Gate.
Ekspertise
Utdanning
2002-2006 PhD., geografi, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
2001-2002 M. Phil., geografi, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
1997-2001 B.A., Geografi/russisk, Middlebury College, Vermont, USA
Arbeidserfaring
2010- Professor II ved Nord universitet
2006- Seniorforsker/Forsker I, NUPI
2002-2006 Hjelpelærer/veileder, Institutt for Geografi, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Aktivitet
Filter
Tøm alle filtre
Styring av havet i ei tid med store globale endringar
Korleis kan vi sikre at hava blir styrte på ein sikker og berekraftig måte? Korleis kan kyststatar som Noreg bruke hava for å auke den økonomiske veksten sin? Velkommen til seminar og lansering av NUPIs nye senter for forsking på havpolitikk.
Improving Future Ocean Governance – Governance of Global Goods in an Age of Global Shifts
Japan’s G20 presidency in 2019 will take the lead in promoting environmentally sustainable economic growth and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As a gathering of coastal states, under Japan’s presidency the G20 will specifically work to reduce marine plastic pollution and support marine biodiversity. This policy paper highlights how oceans are governed spaces and points to the key role of the oceans in realizing the SDGs. We argue that the G20 can and should play an important role in addressing major governance gaps in ensuring the sustainable management of oceans. Recognizing that there are increased geopolitical tensions, and that we do indeed already have comprehensive multi-level governance systems in place to handle many aspects of the growing ‘blue economy’ and avoiding the tragedy of the commons, the G20 should primarily stress the need for full and effective implementation of existing instruments and measures at the national, regional and global levels and increased consistency across levels of governance. This would effectively address many of the challenges and make use of the opportunities of the oceans. However, the rapidly moving horizon of technological development and insufficient progress in mitigating global climate change represent new governance challenges that require renewed effort and innovative thinking for a sustainable future for the oceans. This policy paper provides recommendations as to how G20 states can: consolidate their own capacity and assist non-G20 states in taking responsibility for strengthening marine science and implementation of existing regulatory frameworks, exercise innovative global and regional leadership to address emerging opportunities and associated governance challenges and facilitate the meaningful involvement of the private sector and the public in ensuring a collective governance order around oceans.
The Arctic Council and US domestic policymaking
One widely recognized achievement of the Arctic Council and its various working groups has been the production of collectively generated assessments on Arctic problems. Assessment reports such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) provide an important baseline of shared knowledge for making collective circumpolar policy recommendations. But how does the knowledge produced through Arctic Council working groups figure into the policymaking of the Arctic states? This is an important question for understanding Arctic politics and the relationship between national decisionmaking and international relations more generally. Much of what the Arctic Council produces is in the form of recommendations, declarations of intent, and commitments to "best practices" in areas of shared interest and activity. While in recent years the Council has produced three binding agreements covering specific functional areas—search and rescue (2011), oil pollution preparedness and response (2013),and science cooperation (2017)—much ongoing Arctic collaborative work falls outside of these areas. This policy brief explores how science/policy outputs of and discussions at the Arctic Council fit into the Arctic political discourse of the USA, with an emphasis on key actors within the executive branch: the White House, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Same word, same idea? Sustainable development talk and the Russian Arctic
Sustainable development has become an ‘obligatory’ concept that can encompass many kinds of policies and practices, including in the Russian Arctic. Russia inherited a set of ‘home-grown’ science-policy vocabularies and practices relating to environmental risk and a strong focus on protected areas/national parks from the Soviet Union. Likewise, a preoccupation with questions of equality – particularly in response to obvious economic inequalities generated by natural resource extraction projects – is another trademark of the post-Soviet era in local debates. Therefore, while it is an easy assumption to make that ‘sustainability talk’ functions primarily to appeal to international financial institutions, mirror the Arctic policies of other Arctic states and/or mitigate the reputational risks of Russian and international extractive companies, these historical factors alone suggest that it is worth taking a look at the rhetorical work the concept does in a Russian policymaking context. This chapter examines kind of high-level political work the concept of sustainability is doing in Arctic policymaking in Moscow through an analysis of Russian policy documents and political statements and the statements of RAIPON, the organization for the indigenous peoples of the Russian North.
Sceptical diplomacy: Should heads of state bother to talk climate change science with Putin?
This policy brief illustrates how the Russian top leadership discusses climate change and responds to interventions and efforts made by other countries’ leaders and high-level diplomats on the topic of climate change. The policy brief presents one data set examining the distribution of the Kremlin’s attention to the issue and one illustration of Russian participation in international science diplomacy, using the example of the IPCC. The aim is to make recommendations as to how diplomats and politicians can, in order to foster more fruitful diplomatic exchange, better utilize the flexibility of climate change discourse within Russia and Russia/Soviet Union’s longstanding contributions to international climate science.
Valdai Paper #92: Russia’s Far East Initiatives in Troubled Geopolitical Times
The China–Russia rapprochement forms the centrepiece of Russia’s much hyped policy of a ‘turn to the East’, a policy aimed at transforming the Russian Far East from a territorial backwater into a new gateway to China, North-East Asia and beyond. In 2013, President Vladimir Putin declared the development of the Far East a ‘national priority for the entire twenty-first century’. Historically, the Russian Far East was rather a garrison on the distant frontier. But today there is a new development model for the region that is expected to turn it into the gateway to the East, the region of growth and cooperation aimed to reap the benefits of rising Asia, particularly China. New institutions, projects, and financing have been provided for this purpose. What progress has been made so far in implementing the Eastern vector in Russian domestic and foreign policy? Have the ambitious plans indeed borne fruits, like President Xi declared? And what are the main drivers behind the ‘turn to the East’? Do worsened geopolitical relations with Western European actors intensify the turn? Or is it driven by the perceptions of opportunities and long-term objectives in the Asia-Pacific region? The Valdai Paper #92 presents a critical and independent view on Russia’s Turn to the East by the European authors.
Codeword China
(Fra kronikk): When it comes to Arctic regional political governance and economic outlooks, the policy and academic communities have become good at asking ‘what about China’ and facilitating a conversation on several policy issues. All the main Arctic conferences have panels on China in the Arctic in some form or another and there is a small but strong and productive community of scholars analyzing how China approaches the Arctic.
Arctic Governance: Power in cross-border cooperation
This book seeks to pose and explore a question that sheds light on the contested but largelyl cooperative nature of Arctic governance in the post Cold-War period: how does power matter - and how has it mattered - in shaping cross-border cooperation and diplomacy in the Arctic? Each chapter functions as a window through which power relations in the Arctic are explored. Issues include how representing the Arctic region matters for securing preffered outcomes, how circumpolar cooperation is marked by regional hierarchies and how Arctic governance has become a global social site in its own right, replete with disciplining norms for steering diplomatic behaviour. This book draws upon Russia's role in the Arctic Council as an extended case study and examines how Arctic cross-border governance can be understood as a site of competition over the exercise of authority. The book was launched at the Stimson Center in Washington DC on 12 September 2018. Watch the launch seminar, Russia and Arctic Governance: Cooperation in Conflict, here: https://youtu.be/bQ0iKwUbims
The Market for Anarchy
Prosjektet skal finne ut om staters vurderinger av ulike typer risiko er preget av ikke-statlige aktører....