We lay out a set of initial foundational constructs below that ground the work of the Working Group.  These are working definitions, meant as food for thought for early discussions.

    What is governance? 

Governance is the sets of rules, norms, shared practices (e.g., strategies and customs), decision-making mechanisms and regulatory processes, and the institutions through which rights- and stake-holders at all jurisdictional levels - from tribes, village corporations, communities up to municipalities, regions, nations and international bodies - influence environmental, political and socio-economic actions and outcomes.  

This broad understanding spans both non-Western worldviews and histories of Indigenous law and land stewardship, and Western science and legal practices, and moves beyond traditional conceptualizations of “government as governance.” 

Arctic governance is polycentric.  Actors beyond the state increasingly wield power in Arctic decision-making, inclusive of sovereign Indigenous communities and nations, industry, and non-profit organizations. Recognizing power dynamics is critical - they define both decision-making authority and the capacity to play an active role in decision-making. Governance is also multi-level, requiring engagement with decision-making entities and forums across geographic scales and jurisdictional boundaries, from local communities, regions, to states, Indigenous nations, to global entities (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006, p. 298).  

Both non-state and state actors are increasingly critical in Arctic governance.

While nation-states and international bodies like the Arctic Council continue to play critical roles in Arctic governance, the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic is changing. A narrow focus on top-down, nation-state-driven power dynamics is shifting to recognize the roles of diverse rights- and stake-holders within decision-making.  Governance thinking should be re-framed to engage effectively with the emergent roles of sovereign indigenous nations, as well as industry, funding entities and non-profits in decision-making.  

A goal is to create interconnected and equitable decision-making processes that work with - or despite - rapid changes in state-driven power dynamics. We need better understanding of possible pathways that effective governance actions can take - and equally - identify decision-making pathways that have not worked, or are no longer appropriate. 

Indigenous governance is resurgent.

Indigenous peoples are fighting for recognition as significant non-state rights-holders in Arctic governance.  Indigenous governance refers to the innumerable ways that Indigenous peoples have governed themselves and continue to do so despite historic and ongoing colonialism.  These governance practices are rooted in deep connections to land, sea, culture, and community. and emphasize the importance of Indigenous knowledge, sovereignty, and self-determination in shaping decision-making and relationships. Indigenous peoples have their own forms of governance and law. "Indigenous law originates in the political, economic, spiritual, and social values expressed through the teachings and practices of knowledgeable and respected individuals and elders. These principles are enunciated in the rich stories, ceremonies, and traditions within First Nations” (Borrows, 2002, p. 13). 

Histories of colonization stripped rights away from Indigenous peoples, and ongoing colonial practices continue to ignore and de-value Indigenous governance and ways of knowing. "This struggle continues to profoundly affect Indigenous peoples’ abilities to protect the lands and waters that are important to their ways of life, health, and culture” (Wilson 2018, p. xv).  Their efforts and successes in re-asserting these elements within local to global governance forums are transforming the way Arctic governance occurs.  The voices of Indigenous rights- holders are resurgent - enacting their sovereignty and re-establishing their rights to lead processes of governance and policymaking.  

What is a state?

“Rather than a thing, “states” can be understood as an ideological project that legitimizes a complex arrangement of government institutions and processes, which often have differing and contradictory agendas and interests" (Bridge, 2014; Harris, 2017; Nadasdy, 2017). "States are defined by the exertion of a monopoly on the legitimate use of force over a clearly defined territory and population” (Wilson 2019, p. 102).

   What is Multi-level Governance?

Multi-level governance is characterized by a complex system of nested actors whereby supranational institutions and sub-national level governments and entities from civil society are recognized as having increased influence in decentralized decision-making processes (Saito-Jensen 2015). The concept comprises numerous state and non-state actors (rights- and stake- holders) spanning local, regional, state/provincial (all sub-national), national and global (supranational) jurisdictions. 

    Polycentricity is a type of multi-level governance.

...in which processes are characterized by interactions between many rights- and stake- holders with no hierarchy or dominant central authority (Morrison et al., 2017).  Rather than clearly defined levels or hierarchies of decision-making, “polycentric” multi-level governance therefore operates with concepts such as “spheres of authority” (Rosenau 1997) or “complex overlapping networks” (Bache and Flinders 2004), which emerge in situations where territorial or non-territorial based networks negotiate, collaborate, and often disagree on agendas and decisions (Bulkeley 2003).

   Collective Action is critical for governance.

Aligning the priorities and actions of entities within and across diverse levels and scales are collective action problems (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006; York et al., 2021), where people come together to grapple with challenges.  Individual and group-level decisions that aggregate to collective action include actions like protest and organizing, voting, advocating, rebelling, creative agenda-setting, or creation/funding of forums that provide time and capacity for entities to convene.  Additional governance language that invokes and implies collective action is collaboration, cooperation, co-production of knowledge, diplomacy, networking or/and adaptive management.

Within the western, academic literature the focus sometimes is on why there is any collective action at all - or why it occurs beyond small groups with familial ties? Shifting focus towards alternative worldviews, ontologies, and epistemologies, we may instead wonder why is there a continued narrow focus on individuals as rational maximizers?  What are additional reasons and contexts that spark consensus and collective action?

   What constructs are missing from this list?