The Norwegian reform of protected area management: a grand experiment with delegation of authority?

Abstract

In 2009, the Norwegian Storting (Parliament) decided to embark on a reform of the governance of protected areas. The reform establishes more than 40 local management boards with extensive decision-making authority over much of Norway's protected areas. The boards have management authority over clusters of national parks, protected landscapes, and nature reserves. The reform was initiated in a situation of considerable conflict regarding protected areas and where the environment to be protected was deemed threatened in over one-third of the cases. This article examines the implementation of the reform and discusses the implications for the balance between local user interests and long-term environmental interests, finding that the reform is likely to reduce conflict levels and increase the weight given to local user interests. Policy measures are suggested for strengthening long-term environmental interests and issues for further research are identified.

Keywords:

• protected areas
• local governance
• management
• national parks
• delegation of authority
• environmental interests
• user interests

Notes

Act no. 100, 2009. English translation available at GOVERNMENT.NO (2009).

See St.prp. nr. 65 (2002–2003) Tilleggsbevilgninger og omprioriteringer i statsbudsjettet medregnet folketrygden 2003, pp. 140–153.

See MILJØSTATUS I NORGE (2011).

The West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord WORLD HERITAGE LIST (2012). In addition, Vegaøyan – the Vega Archipelago, listed as a Cultural Heritage Site – contains significant environmental elements and its management is largely based on a protected area.

See THE RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS (2012).

See OSPAR COMMISSION (2012).

Norwegian decisions establishing protected areas can be found at LOVDATA (2012) (in Norwegian only).

Innst. O. nr. 64 (1995–1996). “Clusters of protected areas” are groups of individually protected areas for which there exist separate decisions establishing the areas. Protected areas are grouped on the basis of geographical location and jurisdiction.

See the letter from the Ministry of the Environment to Norwegian municipalities, 14 December 2009, on file with authors.

Some local management boards have made these rules available, see, for example, FYLKESMANNEN.NO (2010) (in Norwegian only).

Relevant budgets can be found at MILJØVERNDEPARTEMENTET (2012) (Norwegian only). Prior to 2008, there was no separate heading for management of protected areas in the budgets. The figures for 2011 and 2010 include minor budget allocations for “value creation in the context of protected areas” (“verdiskaping i samband med verneområde”).

See FINANSDEPARTEMENTET 2011 (in Norwegian only).

See YTREHVALER.NO (2012), MIDTNORSKNATUR.NO (2012), and SVR.NO (2012) (mostly in Norwegian).

Act no. 31 of 2003. English translation at GOVERNMENT.NO (2003).

Letter on file with authors.

In his speech to a gathering of board members, the president of the Sami Parliament emphasised that representatives from the Parliament did not represent the Parliament as such and that the Parliament has no authority to instruct them (President Egil Olli, Røros, 2 March 2011, p. 5, SAMETINGET.NO (2011)).

Record of meeting in Breheimen Nasjonalparkstyre, 2 March 2011.

This was the case for Setesdal, Vesthei, and Ryfylkeheiane, decision on file with authors.

In 2008, environmental NGOs had 179 employees and 2081 volunteers, whereas cultural and recreational NGOs had 9082 employees and 63,067 volunteers, and business and professional NGOs had 7356 employees and 3962 volunteers: Statistics Norway. Statistics from 2007 show that environmental NGOs had significantly fewer members than other relevant categories of NGOs: less than 5% of the population above 16 years belonged to environmental NGOs, while 13% were members of recreational NGOs and 14% were members of various business NGOs (not including trade unions): STATISTICS NORWAY (2011) (in Norwegian).