Sissel Hovik

National environmental goals in search of local institutions

This paper is an examination of Norways national strategy for developing local environmental policies and institutions from the late 1980s to the present, and how this strategy has been influenced by changes in the dynamic between central government and local political institutions. It is argued that the strategy has changed during the period of study, shifting from a strong emphasis on the development of local institutions to an emphasis on the delegation of responsibilities from central government to local governing bodies. This new policy of delegation has been advanced at a time when municipalities are suffering from a weakened institutional capacity for environmental policy-making because of changes in the countrys overall regulatory approach. The authors argue that this approach, which first and foremost has been motivated by national, macroeconomic objectives and the role of local government in service production, is inconsistent with the governments ambitions of a more important role for local government in environmental policy. The nature of environmental challenges, which often cut across political and administrative borders and often involve conflicts between different levels of government, suggests that local institutions are crucially important within the environmental policy domain.

Local government and nature conservation in Norway: decentralisation as a strategy in environmental policy

The government in Norway transfers considerable powers in nature conservation management to local government, hoping to facilitate a wider local involvement in conservation policy. Decentralisation has proven to be a success in welfare policy but is rather controversial in environmental policy. Local councils do act in a double capacity, first as conduits of government policy and second as local political institutions in their own right. Conservation policy differs from welfare policy, as the first is marked by conflicting goals and interests between local and central governments. This is exacerbated by weak institutional arrangements for environmental policy enactment within local government. Given their stance on conservation issues, we would expect local councils to use their expanded powers to develop a local conservation policy that supported local rather than central goals and preoccupations. This article reports the findings of a study of two administrative trials, where local councils are responsible for the management of protected areas. The study finds, as anticipated, that local councils redefine national policy and implement management practices more attuned to local needs and interests. The study indicates that local governments play a different role in conservation policy than in welfare policy. Local implementation of national policy depends largely on the political and institutional characteristics of the actual policy area.

Decentralization of Conservation Management in Norway and Sweden—Different Translations of an International Trend

ABSTRACT International policy trends are always transformed and translated to fit the political and administrative systems in which they are introduced. An international trend of decentralization has resulted in conservation management systems in Sweden and Norway that differ, both in the choice of institutional solution and in the scope of change. This is surprising, as conservation management in the two countries was originally very similar. Nature conservation was managed through hierarchical systems dominated by bureaucratic experts. While Sweden has introduced co-management in a few protected areas only, Norway has devolved powers in all large conservation areas to intermunicipal management boards. Through document studies, we investigate how decentralization interacts with the broader systems of political actors and institutions of which nature conservation is a part.

Balancing local interests and national conservation obligations in nature protection. The case of local management boards in Norway

In 2010, Norway introduced local management of national parks and other large protected areas. Boards comprised of local politicians are delegated extended powers in the management of the protected areas. This paper examines how this system of local management deals with the conflicting dimensions of local interests versus national obligations, and conservation versus use. The study is based on data from surveys to protected area board members and other actors involved, and on case studies in two protected areas. The main finding is that the boards, accountable to central government but comprised of politicians accountable to the local voters, aim to balance local interests and national obligations, and conservation and use. Popular involvement and anchorage is, however, weak due to lack of mobilization and transparency. Furthermore, formal restrictions hindering the boards from dealing with local economic development could make the boards less attractive for the local political leadership.

Adaptation to climate change: professional networks and reinforcing institutional environments

The paper studies processes of adaptation to a changing climate in the water supply and wastewater sector in five Norwegian municipalities. Our case illustrates that the combination of characteristics of climate adaptation as a policy issue, institutional characteristics related to the vertical organization of the water sector in Norway, and characteristics of the professional network between local and national levels of governance seem to have been conducive to problem awareness and proactive approaches to problem solving. Our findings contradict the general picture drawn in the literature concluding that adaptation efforts are mainly reactive and internally related to the sector. We identify important mechanisms related to the production of policy solutions in governance networks mediating knowledge between different institutional levels. By these observations, the paper should contribute to the debate about the working of governance networks, and in particular to the knowledge about factors that are conducive to effective network governance.

Private–public partnership: An exceptional solution in nature conservation in Norway

Abstract In Norway, traditional nature conservation by government declaration is still the dominant way of protecting nature areas of national and international interest. This article presents some results from a case study of one exceptional case of private–public partnership in nature conservation. Strong opposition among local actors resulted in conservation by legal contracts between public and private actors. Discussing some possible explanations, the authors argue that a rather special network among the local community and central government and a rather creative combination of environmental and agricultural policy instruments were essential for this particular outcome.

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:

Implementing EUs Water Framework Directive in Norway: Can the New River Basin Districts Ensure Environmental Policy Integration?

This article is an empirical analysis of Norway’s implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Aiming at achieving good environmental status in all of Europe’s waters by 2015, the Directive is seen as a case of ‘environmental policy integration’ because it requires all relevant branches of government to comply with the provisions of the directive. Norway is currently in the process of finalizing the first comprehensive round of planning. Results from a survey in two rounds to key actors indicate that some branches of government seem to have made less progress than others in terms of achieving environmental policy integration. These differences are analyzed by reference to variations in the institutional set-ups and regulatory mechanisms available in each sector. The structural preconditions for effective environmental regulation appear to be highly varied, and this may affect the potential for achieving the aims of the directive related to all stressors to the aquatic environment. Keywords: Climate change adaptation; Policy innovation; Local government; Water framework directive