Kjell Harvold

Legitimacy building in weak institutional settings: climate change adaptation at local level in Denmark and Norway

Local strategies for adaptation to climate change in Denmark and Norway are discussed. In both countries, the national impetus for local adaptation is weak; it is largely left to local actors to take the initiative. The dynamics of the different approaches to climate-change adaptation at the local level are illuminated. Using decision-making and learning theory, we present an analytical framework to examine four cases, two in Norway and two in Denmark, which represent two different responses, i.e. anticipatory actions and obligatory actions. We find that, by bringing in knowledge and resources and engaging in persuasive communication across sectors, the presence of institutional entrepreneurs in the adaptation process plays a key role in building legitimacy for anticipatory action in the municipal organisation.

New approaches to managing protected areas in the Nordic countries

The five Nordic countries cover a vast area, 1.2 million square kilometres, not including Greenland and the Spitsbergen archipelago (Nordic Council of Ministers 2007), as much as Germany, France and Italy put together. With a population of only 25 million, the region has one of the lowest population densities in the world. Climate and soil quality determine how land is used. In Denmark, the most densely populated of the five, there are hardly any untouched natural areas left. Most of the scarce forest is concentrated in plantations, and around two-thirds of Denmark’s total area is farmed or given over to gardens and parks. In contrast, less than 10% of the land in the other Nordic countries is cultivated (Nordic Council of Ministers 2007). The first natural parks in Europewere established in 1909, when Sweden set up nine parks. By 2006 around 11.5% of Sweden was protected for nature conservation purposes, with 28 national parks and 2700 nature reserves (Norden 2006). Nature conservation entered the Finnish legal code in 1923. Today, around 10% of Finland is protected by law, in the form of 35 national parks, 19 large-scale, strictly managed nature reserves and close to 500 other nature reserves (see Statistics Finland 2006, see also http://www.metsa.fi). Norway’s first national park dates back to 1962. As of writing, Norway has 29 national parks and more than 2000 other protected areas of various sizes, either as (strictly managed) nature reserves or (less strictly managed) protected landscape areas (www.dirnat.no/ verneomrader, 15 September 2008). By 2007 14.3% of mainland Norway (i.e. not including Spitsbergen archipelago) was protected by the Nature Conservation Act (St. meld. no. 26 2006–2007). Denmark’s first nature protection law came into force in 1917 (Norden 2006), giving the country a long tradition of nature protection. However, it was only recently that Denmark got its first national park. Finally, 8.5% of Icelandic land is protected (Norden 2006). The Nordic countries share a long history of nature conservation, and compared with most other countries, the areas protected amount to a significant proportion. Nature conservation has traditionally been a central government responsibility in the Nordic countries. Protected areas and regulations were drawn up by state agencies within the scope of national and/or international conservation objectives. These decisions were based on scientific inquiries. However, as the four Nordic case studies presented in this issue show, changes are being made to this hierarchical mode of governing. Each case study has its own rationale and purpose. Put head to tail, two trends in the management of protected areas stand out: