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.
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 filtreEcosystems and Ordering: A Dataset
Denne artikkelen undersøker hvordan globale økosystemer styres, og presenterer et datasett om samarbeidsinitiativer tilknyttet 221 grenseoverskridende økosystemer. Dette utvalget ble valgt fra en liste på 1525 “meta-økosystemer” fra World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) og et team av forskere (terrestriske økosystemer, [6]; ferskvannsøkosystemer, [2]; og marine økosystemer, [9]). De 221 økosystemene ble valgt fordi de deles av fire eller flere naboland. Med utgangspunkt i denne analyseenheten, undersøkte vi samarbeidsbasert grenseoverskridende styring forankret i hvert økosystem og kategoriserte disse basert på nivå og type samarbeid. I utarbeidelsen av datasettet var kodemetoden designet for også å fange opp tilfeller av manglende samarbeid: når vår søkeprotokoll ikke identifiserte noen initiativer for et økosystem, ble økosystemet kodet som en “null-variabel.” Når vi fant initiativer knyttet til økosystemene, klassifiserte kodingsmetoden samarbeidsinitiativer langs to dimensjoner: samarbeidets geografiske omfang og samarbeidets innholdsmessige omfang. Datasettet presenterer økosystem-forankrede samarbeidsinitiativer, samt bredere initiativer som kan adressere økosystemrelaterte spørsmål, for systematisk å belyse i hvilken grad og i hvilken form økosystemer addresseres i grenseoverskridende styringsarbeid. Datasettet muliggjør videre studier av mønstre innen økosystemstyring, og legger til rette for analyse av årsaker til og konsekvenser av samarbeid, ettersom det enkelt kan integreres med både økosystem- og statlige data. Datasettet presenteres i to .csv-filer og er behandlet med R-programvare for å kunne visualisere dataene.
The Arctic Barometer: Measuring Expert Predictions on the Arctic Region
Making predictions in a highly uncertain environment is always a hazardous enterprise. Confronted with global warming, the future of the Arctic region has been often debated, both in terms of the scope and the speed of expected changes, including the future of resource development, the opening of shipping routes, and the evolution of multilateral fora. These predictions have come from different sources: governments through different policy papers and statements, the media, civil society, and academics, to name but a few. It can be difficult to account for this vast and diverse array of predictions, considering that each actor has interests to promote. We decided to develop a survey asking different actors to make predictions about possible Arctic geopolitical developments. Instead of letting individuals make their own predictions on the topic of their choice, we selected plausible scenarios and prompted respondents to evaluate if these developments were likely or unlikely to happen. Scenarios were developed to be both visible and concrete: we can evaluate if the scenario unfolded or not during a certain time period. For example, we can observe if Russia violated the airspace of another Arctic state, if Greenland reached state sovereignty, or if the U.S. deployed a freedom of navigation operations in the Arctic region. In total, our scenarios covered two dimensions: governance and security. On governance, potential developments around diplomatic initiatives or multilateral cooperation were tested. On security, the possibility of military conflict in the region or of military intrusions were considered. Two main objectives justified this approach. First, we wanted to evaluate if experts were correct in their predictions. Related to this, we were curious to know which type of issues caused incorrect assessments. Second, we repeated the same scenarios in multiple waves: the objective was to analyze if specific geopolitical developments occurring between waves would change predictions, moving the needle on experts’ predictions
Arctic Climate Science: A Way Forward for Cooperation through the Arctic Council and Beyond
This brief is inspired and informed by a two-day workshop in Cambridge, Massachusetts entitled “The Future of Arctic Council Innovation: Charting A Course for Working-Level Cooperation” hosted by the Belfer Center’s Arctic Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School in collaboration with the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, the Center for Ocean Governance at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, and the Polar Institute at the Wilson Center. Participants included diverse representatives from civil society, academia, Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, and governments with deep knowledge of and experience with both the Arctic Council and other regional governance mechanisms.
Security realities of freezing politics and thawing landscapes in the Arctic
Russlands re-invasjon i Ukraina i 2022 har hatt umiddelbare og gjenværende effekter for arktisk sikkerhet og samarbeid i styring på både regionale...
Hvordan styre Arktis i hardt vær?
Options for Arctic governance in difficult weather
The Arctic continues to be transformed and impacted by global forces, from declining sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, through new summers of devastati...
Considering ecological security from the perspective of Arctic ecosystemic politics
This brief essay is part of a book forum on Matt McDonald's book (2021) presenting the idea of ecological security. In the essay, I reflect on progress and prospects for Arctic cooperation and governance in order to consider the promise and limitations of McDonald’s ecological security framework. The Arctic is an instructive example for such an exploration. The longstanding post-Cold War cooperation in the Arctic is strongly rooted in an appreciation of the interconnected nature of the Arctic ecosystem, even as the governance mechanisms remain far from what would qualify as an ecological security approach in McDonald’s sense. Nonetheless, I suggest that especially two aspects are instructive from the Arctic example. The first relates to how ecological security would potentially interface with an already quite full landscape of governance practices rooted in ecosystems, and associated power political genealogies and effects. The second point is a reflection on unfolding events, seeking to explore how continued inputs from other forms of security governance could impact on emerging or partial attempts to govern with an ecological security perspective. Here, the status of Arctic cooperative governance after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an illustrative example to consider. Both points can be read as impediments limiting the applicability of the ecological security framework. However, as McDonald argued, impediments are not the same as absolute limits (2021, 192) and potential obstacles are explored here in the spirit of advancing possibilities for ecological security.
Ecosystems and Ordering: Exploring the Extent and Diversity of Ecosystem Governance
This article argues that, to grasp how global ordering will be impacted by planetary-level changes, we need to systematically attend to the question of the extent to which and how ecosystems are being governed. Our inquiry builds upon—but extends beyond—the environmental governance measures that have garnered the most scholarly attention so far. The dataset departs from the current literature on regional environmental governance by taking ecosystems themselves as the unit of analysis and then exploring whether and how they are governed, rather than taking a starting point in environmental institutions and treaties. The ecosystems researched—large-scale marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems—have been previously identified by a globe-spanning, natural science inquiry. Our findings highlight the uneven extent of ecosystem governance—both the general geographic extent and certain “types” of ecosystems seemingly lending themselves more easily to ecosystem-based cooperation. Furthermore, our data highlight that there is a wider range of governance practices anchored in ecosystems than the typical focus on environmental institutions reveals. Of particular significance is the tendency by political actors to establish multi-issue governance anchored in the ecosystems themselves and covering several different policy fields. We argue that, in light of scholarship on ecosystem-anchored cooperation and given the substantive set of cases of such cooperation identified in the dataset, these forms of ecosystem-anchored cooperation may have particularly significant ordering effects. They merit attention in the international relations scholarship that seeks to account for the diversity of global ordering practices.
Sikkerhet i Arktis: kaldere fronter i varmere klima
Navigating Breakup: Security realities of freezing politics and thawing landscapes in the Arctic
Russlands storoffensiv i Ukraina i februar 2022 påvirket umiddelbart arktisk sikkerhet og samarbeid, både på regionalt og internasjonalt plan. Den arktiske regionen berøres av økte sanksjoner, at vestlige selskaper har trukket seg ut av Russland og at vestlige land har sørget for å ikke lenger være avhengige av russisk energi. Vi har også sett en økning i hybride sikkerhetshendelser. Samtidig fortsetter klimaendringene å forandre Arktis i stadig høyere hastighet. Rapporten «Navigating Breakup: Security realities of freezing politics and thawing landscapes in the Arctic» er skrevet som et innspill til det arktiske rundebordet (Arctic Security Roundtable, ASR) som skal holdes under Munich Security Conference 18. februar 2023. Rapporten forklarer hvordan både gamle og nye faktorer endrer i Arktis og sikkerhetspolitikken i regionen. Kapitlene handler om hvordan klimaendringer påvirker naturen, menneskelig sikkerhet og regionens militæroperasjonelle miljø. Den vurderer også den regionale sikkerhetspolitikken til stormaktene USA, Kina og Russland. Forskerne skriver at de ulike myndighetene må fortsette å vektlegge utfordringene knyttet til Arktis. De må jobbe mot å redusere og håndtere risiko, uavhengig av avsluttede samarbeid med Russland avsluttes andre usikkerhetsmomenter som former politikken.