Handling legitimacy challenges in conservation management: case studies of collaborative governance in Norway

Transcription

1 Norwegian University of Life Sciences Faculty of Landscape and Society Department of Urban and Regional Planning Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) Thesis 2017:49 Handling legitimacy challenges in conservation management: case studies of collaborative governance in Norway Å håndtere legitimitetsutfordringer i verneforvaltning: casestudier av samstyring i Norge Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg

2

3 Handling legitimacy challenges in conservation management: case studies of collaborative governance in Norway Å håndtere legitimitetsutfordringer i verneforvaltning: casestudier av samstyring i Norge Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) Thesis Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg Norwegian University of Life Sciences Faculty of Landscape and Society Department of Urban and Regional Planning Ås 2017 Thesis number 2017:49 ISSN ISBN

4 2

5 In memory of Eirin Hongslo ( ). For laughter, hugs, and coffee cups, for challenging discussions and co-production of knowledge, and for being my good friend, who I miss. 3

6 4

7 List of papers: This thesis builds on the studies undertaken in the following four appended papers: Paper 1: Eirin Hongslo, Sissel Hovik, Anna Zachrisson, and Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg (2016) Decentralization of conservation management in Norway and Sweden Different translations of an international trend. Society & Natural Resources, 29(8), doi: / Paper 2: Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg and Sissel Hovik. Different dimensions of legitimacy in decentralized conservation management in Norway. Manuscript submitted to the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. Paper 3: Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg. Gender equality in conservation management: reproducing or transforming gender differences through local participation? Manuscript submitted to Society & Natural Resources. Paper 4: Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg, Eirin Hongslo and Tim Richardson. The consequences of avoiding conflict: Lessons from conservation planning for Europe s last wild reindeer. Manuscript submitted to the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Paper 1 is reproduced with the permission of the publisher: Copyright 2016 Taylor & Francis Group. Contributions to co-authored papers: Paper 1: I contributed in developing the analytical framework and categorizing the document material from Norway, which the analysis draws on. I also contributed with some text in the description of the Norwegian context and mobilization of actors. Paper 2: I had the main responsibility for planning the field work and collaborated with Sissel Hovik in carrying it out. I was responsible for developing the theoretical framework and analyzing the qualitative material from the field work. The survey was developed together with Hovik and she had the main responsibility for analyzing and presenting the findings from the quantitative material. I was the main author of the paper, and Sissel Hovik contributed with inputs to the analytical framework and discussions of findings. Paper 4: I collaborated with Eirin Hongslo in planning and carrying out the field work and the document analysis was also done collaboratively with Hongslo. I had the main responsibility for analyzing the interview material, developing the theoretical framework, and I was the main author of the paper. Tim Richardson has contributed to writing the final manuscript. 5

8 6

9 Summary Decision making processes about use and protection of natural resources are often contested. Persistent conflict between actors with different interests and perspectives on nature conservation is a legitimacy challenge in these processes. Collaborative governance arrangements have been promoted and pursued as a way of handling legitimacy challenges better. Increased participation, decentralization of management authority and deliberative processes have been argued to improve the legitimacy of conservation management, which traditionally has been hierarchical and dominated by scientific knowledge. This thesis develops a broad approach to the concept of legitimacy, to examine how legitimacy challenges have been handled in Norwegian conservation management after recent governance changes. The broad approach includes critical perspectives on the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements, gender equality and recognition of conflicts. Through a multiple case study approach, with five case studies from Norway and one from Sweden, this thesis examines the constructed and contested nature of the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements in conservation management, at both local and national level. The overall contribution of the thesis is to show that despite decentralization and increased emphasis on local participation, recent governance reform in Norwegian conservation management has resulted in a continuation of hierarchical arrangements, rather than introduction of effective collaborative governance. The findings show that legitimacy continues to be constructed around traditional notions of democracy, framing local participation as indirect participation through representation by elected politicians, and relying on hierarchical accountability patterns. This has been at the expense of developing participatory and deliberative approaches, and the findings show a discrepancy between the intentions behind the reform and the weak formalization of direct stakeholder participation. Moreover, the local implementation of the reform has provided only modest opportunities for direct stakeholder participation. Bringing in gender perspectives, and framing underrepresentation of women as a legitimacy challenge for collaborative governance arrangements in nature conservation, this thesis contributes to challenging dominant gender-blind approaches to local participation in conservation management. The thesis represents a first step in developing a more gendersensitive approach within the field of nature conservation. Further, the thesis findings contribute to underlining the importance of handling persistent conservation conflicts through recognition and acknowledgment of different interests and perspectives. The consequence of not handling long lasting conflicts may be that the legitimacy of planning processes is drawn into doubt. Keywords: legitimacy; participation; conservation management, collaborative governance; gender; conflicts 7

10 Sammendrag Beslutningsprosesser om bruk og vern av naturressurser er ofte omstridte. Vedvarende konflikter mellom aktører med ulike interesser og perspektiver er en legitimitetsutfordring i disse prosessene. Samstyring (governance) har blitt fremhevet og implementert for å håndtere disse legitimitetsutfordringene bedre. Økt deltakelse, desentralisering av forvaltningsansvar og deliberative prosesser har blitt hevdet å styrke legitimiteten til verneforvaltningen, som tradisjonelt har vært hierarkisk og dominert av naturvitenskaplig kunnskap. Denne avhandlingen utvikler en bred tilnærming til legitimitetsbegrepet, for å undersøke hvordan legitimitetsutfordringer har blitt håndtert i norsk verneforvaltning etter nylige styringsreformer. Den brede tilnærmingen inkluderer kritiske perspektiver på legitimiteten i samstyringsformer, likestilling og anerkjennelse av konflikter. Gjennom en multippel casestudietilnærming, med fem casestudier fra Norge og en fra Sverige, undersøker avhandlingen legitimitetens konstruerte og omstridte natur i samstyringsordninger i verneforvaltningen, både lokalt og nasjonalt. Avhandlingens overordnede bidrag er å vise at til tross for desentralisering og økt fokus på lokal deltakelse, har nye styringsreformer i norsk verneforvaltning resultert i videreføring av hierarkiske styringsformer, snarere enn innføring av effektiv samarbeidsstyring. Funnene viser at legitimitet fremdeles blir konstruert rundt tradisjonelle demokratiforståelser, at lokal deltakelse blir forstått som indirekte deltakelse fra folkevalgte representanter og at hierarkiske ansvarsmønstre dominerer. Dette har gått på bekostning av å utvikle deltakende og deliberative tilnærminger, og funnene viser at det ikke er samsvar mellom intensjonene bak reformen og den svake formaliseringen av medvirkning. Videre har den lokale gjennomføringen av reformen kun gitt beskjedne muligheter for direkte deltakelse fra berørte aktører. Ved å inkludere kjønnsperspektiver og en forståelse av at underrepresentasjon av kvinner er en legitimitetsutfordring for samstyringsordninger i naturvernforvaltningen, bidrar denne avhandlingen til å utfordre de dominerende kjønnsblinde tilnærmingene til lokal deltakelse i verneforvaltningen. Avhandlingen representerer et første skritt i å utvikle en mer kjønnsbevisst tilnærming innen naturvern. Videre bidrar avhandlingens funn til å understreke viktigheten av å håndtere vedvarende naturvernkonflikter gjennom anerkjennelse av ulike interesser og perspektiver. Konsekvensen av å ikke håndtere langvarige konflikter kan være at beslutningsprosessenes legitimitet blir trukket i tvil. Nøkkelord: legitimitet; medvirkning; verneforvaltning; samstyring; kjønn; konflikt. 8

11 Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance, help, and support from numerous others. First I would like to thank the Norwegian University of Life Sciences for funding my research. I would also like to thank the people I have interviewed during these years for sharing their experiences, perspectives and time with me. Submitting this thesis and ending an almost six-year-long research process, one important person is missing. My friend and main supervisor, Eirin Hongslo, passed away only months before I now finalize the thesis. I am so grateful for having had the opportunity to work with, learn from, and laugh with Eirin, and so sad for not being able to continue doing all these things with her. Up until the very end, Eirin kept encouraging and motivating me. We had so many plans for our future work, starting with gendering the field of natural resource and wildlife management. I bring with me a commitment to carry on this work, while constantly asking difficult questions and dismissing simple answers. I am indebted to Tim Richardson and Kristina Grange for stepping in as supervisors at the end of the process. Thank you for listening, reading, and caring about me and my work. Thanks to Tim for creative writing exercises that contributed to clarity and Kristina for encouragement and support from a distance. My co-supervisor Sissel Hovik has contributed with continuity over these years and I am grateful for her sharp comments to my work. Participating in two research projects, I have had the pleasure of collaborating with and developing ideas in close dialogue with others during these years. I would especially like to thank Morten Clemetsen, Terje Skjeggedal, and Eva Falleth from the LOCALMAN research group and the REINMAN research project, headed by Bjørn Kaltenborn. Former Department for Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning (ILP) has been an inclusive and good working place and I would like to thank fellow PhDs both at Ormen Lange and KA for sharing ups and downs in the everyday PhD life. For the last year, I have had a home in Tromsø at Kvinnforsk the Center for Gender Studies, at UiT, the Arctic University of Norway as a guest researcher. Both the office and coffee machine have been essential for finishing the thesis, but the inclusive and supportive working environment has been equally important for which I would like to thank you all. A 9

12 special thanks to Hanne Haavind for challenging me to turn vague senses of gender into explicit gender perspectives and for making me see the importance of gender in my own work. I would also like to thank Siri Gerrard for inputs on the early ideas that eventually turned into paper 3. Thanks also to my new employer, Nordland Research Institute, for being patient and allowing me to finishing properly. A huge hug to my friends and family for love and support to my mother Tone and father Ole Kristian for always being there, my sister Silje for untiringly working to make the world better and greener, my brother Håvard for colorful illustrations and pink maps, and finally to my little sister Oda for putting things into perspective and always making me smile. The biggest thanks goes to my little family. To my two children Herman and Frans August, who came along the way, for laughter, love, and everyday chaos. And a special thanks to my best friend and wife Cathrine, for taking on such a heavy burden these last months, for managing everything wile I have been working, for encouragement, and always believing in me. I promise, now it is your turn to do the same! Tromsø, May 2017 Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg 10

13 Contents List of papers:... 5 Contributions to co-authored papers:... 5 Summary... 7 Sammendrag... 8 Acknowledgements Handling legitimacy problems through participation The background for developing the research focus Mobilizing legitimacy: Purpose, aim and research questions Research strategy The contribution of the thesis Organization of the thesis A changing context for nature conservation in Norway The history of Norwegian nature conservation policy The formative years: institutionalization and legal framework Increasing conflicts and politicization of nature conservation Today s system: Local conservation management through decentralization At a cross-roads: Towards co-management? Planning as a supplement to nature conservation Theoretical perspectives Collaborative modes of governance in nature conservation Constructing and contesting legitimacy Legitimacy as gender equality and recognition of conflict Gender inequality as a legitimacy problem in collaborative governance Recognition of conflict as a legitimacy challenge Developing a broad concept of legitimacy Methodology Research strategy A research project in close collaboration with others Research process and case descriptions Case study 1: Comparing the Norwegian and Swedish conservation management system Case study 2: Local conservation management of two protected areas

14 4.2.3 Case study 3: Regional planning of a protected water catchment Case study 4: Regional planning of two wild reindeer regions Case study 5: Gender equality in Norwegian conservation management Conducting the case studies Document studies Interviews Observations Survey Gender taxonomy Quality and ethical considerations Ethical considerations Presentation of papers Paper 1 Decentralization of Conservation Management in Norway and Sweden Different Translations of an International Trend Paper 2 Different dimensions of legitimacy in decentralized conservation management Paper 3 Gender equality in conservation management: reproducing or transforming gender differences through local participation? Paper 4 The consequences of avoiding conflict: lessons from conservation planning for Europe s last wild reindeer Difficult and persistent legitimacy challenges Participation institutionalized differently at both national and local level (RQ1) Traditional hierarchical constructions of legitimacy remain dominant (RQ2) Gender equality is a blind spot in understanding and acting on legitimacy in nature conservation (RQ3) Recognizing and articulating conflict is crucial to legitimacy (RQ4) The value of a broad conception of legitimacy Implications for conservation management practice Final reflections References Appendix Appendix 1 Information letter LOCALMAN Appendix 2 Information letter REINMAN Appendix 3 Overview of mother documents

15 Appendix 4 Overview of interviews Appendix 5 Overview of observations Appendix 6 Interview guide LOCALMAN The original Norwegian interview guide Appendix 7 Interview guide REINMAN The original Norwegian interview guide Appendix 8 Information letter surveys Appendix 9 Introduction to the surveys Appendix 10 Survey to members of the conservation boards Appendix 11 Publication from case study 3 not included in the thesis

16 14

17 1. Handling legitimacy problems through participation In conservation, conflicts occur when parties clash over differences about conservation objectives and when one party asserts, or at least is perceived to assert, its interests at the expense of another (Redpath, Gutiérrez, Wood, & Young, 2015, p. 4). During the past decades, there has been a substantial increase in collaborative governance arrangements within the field of nature conservation (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015; Holmgren, Sandström, & Zachrisson, 2016), with similar changes in natural resource management more broadly (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Traditional, hierarchical approaches to nature conservation, privileging scientific knowledge and expert solutions, have increasingly been complemented by collaborative approaches, emphasizing participation from affected communities and local actors in deliberative decision-making processes. The government s dominant role and the environmental agencies control over protected areas have been challenged at both an international and local level (Svarstad, Daugstad, Vistad, & Guldvik, 2006). Limited participation in nature conservation policy, even exclusion of the local population from decision-making processes, have resulted in a lack of support for national conservation policies in many communities around the world. Furthermore, ineffective policies and continued threats to the biodiversity and ecosystems, despite conservation efforts, have created a legitimacy crisis between the environmental bureaucracy and the wider public. Commentators have therefore argued the traditional, hierarchical approach is outdated and the conservation management system has been more than ready for change, with decentralization put forward as a solution to empower local actors and communities (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999). Fueled by the promises to increase the management system s legitimacy and improving the policies problem-solving capacity, while ensuring public support of nature conservation, collaborative governance of protected areas has been pursued in different countries and contexts (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015). The purpose of nature conservation has often been to change land-use practices that exploit natural resources and cause loss of ecosystems and biodiversity (Paloniemi & Vainio, 2011). Increasingly conservation efforts have expanded from protecting public land to include private land. This has usually involved restrictions on use, resulting in reallocation of rights to use 15

18 certain resources, affecting the relationship between the local population, ecosystems, and natural resources (Zachrisson, 2009a). The aim of conservation policies has also been to protect a representative selection of a country s ecosystems and biodiversity (Reitan, 2004). Protection of untouched wilderness has been a prominent ideal, which has involved developing objective and scientific criteria for assessing, valuing, and selecting nature of international and national importance. These processes have relied on the legitimacy of scientific knowledge and expert solutions. However, increasing politicization of conservation policy coupled with delegitimation of scientific expertise has challenged the hegemonic role of scientific knowledge (Engelen, Keulartz, & Leistra, 2008), calling for other ways of constructing legitimacy. Decision-making processes about use and protection of natural resources are often controversial, reflecting conflicts over values, political goals, and objectives, rather than disagreement about finding technical solutions to well-defined problems (Lundmark & Matti, 2015). This is not to say that establishing protected areas always has to create conflicts, and there are examples of designation processes that have been promoted and welcomed by the affected communities (Arnesen & Riseth, 2008). However, conflicts have often been the case; when national governments implement international obligations and reach national goals by establishing protected areas, local governments and stakeholders lose authority over future land-use development. Holmgren et al. (2016, p. 1) have explained these conflicts as one-side effect of the institutional change from a bottom-up to a top-down governance approach. In the management of protected areas, decision-making processes about seemingly small issues, as permits for snowmobiling or off-piste biking and horse riding, expansions of existing cabins, or path and trail marking have often resulted in contentious conflicts between the government s environmental bureaucracy and local authorities and user groups. Underneath these conflicts about the impacts of different initiatives on the protected areas are deeper value conflicts about use and protection of nature (Redpath et al., 2015), with cultural and political dimensions (Daugstad, Svarstad, & Vistad, 2006; Skogen, Olve, & Figari, 2013). Competing versions of the future for rural areas combined with different perceptions of what sustainable use entails have been at the heart of these conflicts (Kaltenborn, Qvenild, & Nellemann, 2011). Persistent conservation conflicts are thorny legitimacy challenges in nature conservation since they have 16

19 the potential to undermine the conservation objectives and the legitimacy of conservation policy. Handling such conflicts remain a central legitimacy challenge. The central concept in this thesis is legitimacy and how legitimacy challenges are handled in decision making about nature conservation. As for any political system, institution, or policy, legitimacy is essential for nature conservation and management of protected areas. Realizing conservation objectives depend on public support, acceptance and compliance with conservation policies. The term legitimacy is often used to refer to public acceptance for governments right to govern, make rules, and ensure these rules are followed. Engelen et al. (2008, p. 9) argue that legitimacy refers to the question of why the outcomes of binding collective decision making ought to be accepted by those whose interests are being harmed by the decision in question. Legitimacy is thus related to issues of obedience, compliance, trust, acceptance, confidence in institutions, and willingness to collaborate with other actors to realize common goals. Legitimacy is also closely associated with issues of power and how power can be legitimized. Promoted as better ways of coping with complex social, economic, and environmental problems, collaborative governance has raised the expectation of a sweet reward. As Ansell and Gash (2008 p. 561) write, It seems to promise that if we govern collaboratively, we may avoid the high costs of adversarial policy making, expand democratic participation, and even restore rationality to public management. Normative assumptions about the legitimacy and effectiveness of collaborative governance have often underlay the promotion of increased participation and decentralized environmental decision making (Lockwood, 2010). Normative assumptions about good governance of natural resource have contributed to drive governance change, and have been supported by international policies with the power to provide legitimacy to political actors or policy processes that follow or adhere to them (Hogl, Kvarda, Nordbeck, & Pregerning. 2012, p. 300). Lundmark and Matti (2015) have emphasized the dialectic relationship between research and policy change, arguing that research on the promises of collaborative and deliberative processes to both improve legitimacy and reduce conflicts have additionally contributed to governance change. In this thesis, I approach assumptions about improved legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements in conservation management as empirical questions. Through five case studies 17

20 and four appended papers, see Table 1, I explore the comprehensive changes of Norwegian conservation management in light of the goal to improve the management s legitimacy through collaborative and decentralized arrangements. Table 1 Overview of the case studies and papers. Faced with persistent conflicts between local and national government, combined with commitments in international conventions to increase affected actors participation (Council of Europe, 1979, 2000; UNECE, 1998), and criticism of the government s capacity to manage protected areas (Riksrevisjonen, 2007), the Norwegian Parliament in 2009 decentralized decision-making authority over national parks and landscape protected areas to local conservation boards (Prop. 1 ( )). Figure 1 presents a map of all the large protected 18

21 areas in Norway affected by the reform. Figure 1 Large protected areas in Norway 19

22 Drawing on experiments with different collaborative governance arrangements in four protected areas at the beginning of the 2000 s, see map in Figure 2 (section 2.1.2), management authority was moved from the county governor s environmental bureaucracy at the regional state level to conservation boards with locally and regionally elected politicians and, where relevant, representatives appointed by the Sami Parliament. This management reform ended two decades of political debate and controversy over how and by whom protected areas should be managed. As I am about to finish this thesis, and only eight years after the comprehensive reform in 2009, another governance experiment is being carried out. The Ministry of Climate and Environment 1 (MoCE) has initiated a trial with stakeholder representation in three conservation boards (see map in Figure 2, section 2.1.2). From 2017 to 2019, different stakeholders, such as landowners and environmental and Sami organizations, are included in the formal decision-making body for three protected areas, which up until now only have consisted of elected politicians. Opening and expanding the conservation boards of Jomfruland and Raet national parks and Trollheimen landscape protected area is a further step away from the traditional top-down management system towards co-management with direct participation from affected stakeholders. This reflects that Norwegian nature conservation continues to be an evolving policy field, affected by the continued quest for better collaborative governance arrangements. In response to the promotion and pursuit of collaborative governance arrangement in natural resource management, there has been a growth of interest in issues of legitimacy and accountability in the literature (Armitage, de Loë, & Plummer, 2012; Bäckstrand et al., 2010, Birnbaum, 2015; Hogl et al., 2012; Johansson, 2013; Plummer, Armitage, & de Loë, 2013). This body of literature has argued for the need to critically and empirically scrutinize assumptions about the capacity of collaborative governance arrangements to positively affect both the legitimacy of decision making in contentious policy fields, and the belief that increased participation and deliberation can solve the problems ascribed to traditional hierarchical governing. 1 After the 2013 election The Ministry of Environment (MoE) changed name to The Ministry of Climate and Environment (MoCE). In the thesis and papers, I use both names depending on whether I am referring to the ministry before or after

23 Although the arguments for increased participation have been compelling, Birnbaum (2015, p. 308) argues that the significance of collaborative governance approaches in natural resource management has been exaggerated, and the assumed benefits have been accepted uncritically as an established truth. Empirical studies have painted a mixed picture of how new modes of governance improve legitimacy and effectiveness (Bäckstrand et al., 2010; Hogl et al., 2012). There has been a call for context-specific approaches to explore how supposed transitions towards collaborative governance have taken place in different sectors and whether new governance arrangements actually produce the expected outcomes (Löf, 2014). In the literature, the legitimacy challenges new collaborative modes of governance create have also been highlighted (Connelly, Richardson, & Miles, 2006; Wallington, Lawrence, & Loechel, 2008). Since traditional roles between governmental and non-governmental actors are altered, simple sources of legitimacy as authority and hierarchical accountability through indirect participation derived from representative democracy are challenged. Moreover, this challenges elections as the main site and act of legitimization (Moug, 2011). Plummer et al. (2013, p. 3) have thus emphasized the need for broadening accountability and legitimacy from formal legal arrangements to reflect its pluralist forms and nonformal sources. In this thesis, I seek to contribute to this by developing a broad approach to legitimacy and exploring different aspects affecting the construction of legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements in nature conservation. In the following section, I describe how legitimacy came to be the central research focus of this thesis. 1.1 The background for developing the research focus When I began this research process in 2011, I came from a position as an environmental advisor in Norland County Council with responsibility for regional planning. During the public hearing of the Regional plan Climate challenges in Nordland (Nordland fylkeskommune, 2011) I organized a broad participation process, with the ambitious goals to increase public awareness and create dialogue with stakeholders, businesses, and local municipalities in the county. In the Norwegian government s guide to participation in local and regional planning this process was portrayed as a success story and used as an example of in-depth participation with high degree of public influence (Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet, 2014). However, as the administrator handling all the inputs to a four-week long participation tour, I experienced that it 21

24 was difficult to make the inputs fit the formal planning system. Either I translated them to make them plannable or I wrote them off as being outside the scope of the regional plan. In addition, I had been involved in creating regional development projects in municipalities affected by different nature conservation policies in Nordland. Trying to unite former opponents and developing a shared understanding of challenges and opportunities was particularly difficult in the Helgeland region, an area affected by two large national parks, coniferous forest protection, and protection of the river Vefsna from hydropower development. In a context with local opposition against national conservation policy and persistent conflicts, regional planning was brought in as a policy tool to solve conflicts and create adaptive and flexible management approaches. In the initial research proposal, I included the regional plan for Vefsna in Nordland as a potential case study of how contested conservation issues were brought into the planning system and where the regional planning authority had a key role of creating collective action among stakeholders with different interests. I combined this with a focus on the recent changes in the Norwegian conservation management system. In 2011 when I developed the PhD proposal, the management reform from 2009 for all large protected areas was being implemented and the Ministry of Environment had just established the first conservation boards. At local and regional level, there were many debates and high expectations about what would and should change with the new management system. In 2012, I became part of the research project Regional planning and wild reindeer management (REINMAN), about regional planning of wild reindeer areas, which was a new policy approach to make regional plans for ten wild reindeer regions (Kaltenborn, Hongslo, Gundersen, & Andersen, 2015). Through the participation in this project, my own research focus was broadened to include conservation management and regional planning. At the PhD start seminar in 2012, I framed the project through the title: Local and regional management models: Interaction and cooperation across levels and scales for a more sustainable resource management?. Colored by the experiences from regional planning in Nordland, the departure point for the research project was how different decentralized management models could bridge conflicting interests to balance use and protection of natural resources in a more sustainable way. Creating consensual decisions and resolving conflicts was 22

25 an important focus. As a human geographer, with a background in urban geography, management of protected areas, wild reindeer regions, and pristine nature was a new research context for me. However, shifting from urban to rural and peripheral areas of Norway, I discovered quickly that although this new sphere had different actors and issues, conflicting interests and views characterized decision making in this context as well. Gradually the focus of my research project changed from an emphasis on establishing consensual processes to how conflicts were recognized and approached in decision making. This more critical approach can in part be explained through empirical investigations in a field where management of protected areas is characterized by fierce and intertwined conflicts over local political autonomy, property rights, snowmobiling permits, large carnivores, restructuring of the agriculture sector and problems related to depopulation in many rural communities. Inspiration from critical theorists such as Flyvbjerg and Richardson (2001), Hillier (2002), Laclau and Mouffe (2001), and Mouffe (2005a,b) has also been important in trying to understand decision making in conflictual contexts. Exploring how legitimacy challenges are handled in conservation management reflects this development and although the project has changed during the last six years, my interest in participation and the contextual conditions that affect participation in public decision making have remained constant. 1.2 Mobilizing legitimacy: Purpose, aim and research questions The purpose of this thesis is to critically explore the expectations that collaborative governance arrangements involving increased public participation can improve the legitimacy of decisionmaking bodies and processes within the field of nature conservation. In studies of nature conservation, the concept of legitimacy is often invoked and the traditional hierarchical management system have been critiqued for its lack of legitimacy (Yaffee & Wondolleck, 2000). However, legitimacy and accountability are often used interchangeably. While accountability is important for legitimacy, it is only one possible way of constructing legitimacy (Dingwerth, 2007). Legitimacy is a concept with strong normative connotations and the contested and constructed nature of legitimacy makes it challenging to derive objective criteria for assessing the legitimacy of decision-making processes and bodies. Parkinson (2003) has argued that legitimacy cannot be fixed on a scale and that it should be approached as an ideal. Moug (2011, 23

26 p. 130) has underlined that Focusing on legitimacy cuts to the heart of power relations offering fresh insight into how context colors what is viewed as legitimate and how particular views and decisions prevail. Throughout this thesis, I will show that exploring questions related to legitimacy how it is constructed, contested, maintained and even taken for granted contribute to reveal how participation and deliberation in public decision making are valued, how conflicts are recognized and handled, and how power relations are altered through decentralization. The aim of this thesis is to develop a broad conception of legitimacy, to explore how collaborative governance arrangements handle legitimacy challenges in conservation management. The recent changes in Norwegian conservation management offer an opportunity to empirically investigate how the government has responded to international calls and local demands for increased participation in nature conservation, how legitimacy problems associated with traditional hierarchical management are handled, and how and what kind of legitimacy is constructed in practice. Through four research questions, I approach legitimacy from different angles to uncover how legitimacy problems associated with top-down management have been handled and how new legitimacy challenges arise in collaborative arrangements. In the following, I present each of the research questions and the motivation for asking them. RQ 1: How have new approaches to participation been institutionalized in collaborative governance arrangements in conservation management? The first research question (RQ1) offers a ground clearing by exploring how participation has been pursued and implemented through collaborative governance arrangements in conservation management. To understand if and how legitimacy problems associated with traditional topdown conservation management are handled and how new legitimacy challenges are created by collaborative governance arrangements, it is important to begin with describing how participation have been institutionalized. Central for asking RQ1 is an assumption that institutionalization of participation at the national level affects implementation at the local level and the actual possibilities for developing collaborative and deliberative processes between different stakeholders in decision-making processes. 24

27 Research question 1 is addressed in paper 1, through a comparative approach to Norwegian and Swedish conservation management at the overall level, and, in paper 2, with a focus on how participation has been implemented at the local level in two protected areas in Norway. RQ 2: How is legitimacy constructed, and of what kind, in collaborative approaches to conservation management? In research question 2 (RQ2), I bring in legitimacy by posing an open question about the legitimacy in collaborative arrangements in conservation management. This involves both an exploration of how the shift from government to governance in Norwegian nature conservation has been promoted at the overall level and implemented at the local level, emphasizing the contextual aspects of legitimacy. However, approaching the legitimacy of collaborative modes of governance empirically creates theoretical challenges of how to conceptualize and understand legitimacy. Approaching RQ2 therefore also involves investigating the theoretical underpinnings of the claim that collaborative modes of governance are more legitimate. Central for raising RQ2 is an understanding of legitimacy as constructed and essentially contestable, and that different dimensions and sources of legitimacy can be mobilized in collaborative governance arrangements in conservation management. On one side, new modes of governance have been argued to improve legitimacy by including a broader range of actors, representing a diversity of interests and contributing with different resources to decision making of public interest. Contrary to this, it has also been argued that since increased participation by non-governmental actors blur traditional sources of legitimacy, it may threaten the democracy. These actors are not accountable to the public as elected governmental representatives, and they may pursue specific interests contrary to the broader public interest. This illustrates that the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements can be approached differently, and to what extent an increased emphasis on participation shifts the construction of legitimacy from representative to deliberative norms of democracy is therefore important to explore. RQ2 is addressed in paper 2. The two following research questions contribute to deepening RQ2, by exploring legitimacy from different angles: RQ 3: How does the new collaborative governance approach handle gender? 25

28 Gender perspectives were not part of my initial approach to local participation in Norwegian conservation management, despite of a focus on legitimacy, participation, and power. I considered gender as not being central in my research, without really considering why. However, paper 2 uncovered striking gender differences in local participation and representation in conservation management. This led to the decision to introduce gender perspectives in research question 3 (RQ3), to explore claims about improved legitimacy through increased participation in collaborative governance arrangements. This research question is important to expose the dominant gender blindness in nature conservation literature, policies, and management practices, and to explore why underrepresentation of women is not generally regarded as a legitimacy problem. Focusing on gender directs attention to who participates and represents affected communities. Counting women and men, and mapping gender inequalities, challenge the hegemonic masculinity in the field by making gender differences visible. This research question thus contributes to developing a broad conception of legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements. RQ3 is addressed in paper 3. RQ 4: Can persistent conservation conflicts be better handled through their recognition in planning processes? Persistent conservation conflicts influence and affect decision making processes that transgress the boundaries of protected areas. How such conflicts are handled and recognized are vital for the construction of the legitimacy of these processes. Several commentators have argued that the planning system is a suitable arena for handling conflicts and recognizing different perspectives and interests as legitimate (Bond, 2011; McClymont, 2011; Pløger, 2004). In research question 4 (RQ4), I broaden the empirical focus of the thesis to include conservation planning of wild reindeer areas. The planning system has longer experience with collaborative approaches, and looking at how persistent conflicts about conservation issues have been handled in the planning system can provide valuable insight to how the conservation management system can approach similar legitimacy problems. RQ4 is addressed in paper 4. 26

29 1.3 Research strategy Nature conservation is a contested policy field and there are no reasons to expect shared understandings between different actors of how legitimacy challenges are handed. Recognizing the constructive and contestable nature of legitimacy calls for a context specific research strategy. Thus, I have chosen to investigate the four research questions through a multiple case study approach. See Table 1 for an overview of how they correspond to the four appended papers. Through a qualitative research strategy, using different methods of qualitative data collection and analysis, I have empirically investigated how recent changes towards collaborative governance in Norwegian nature conservation have been interpreted and implemented at both the national and local level. Case study 1 compares recent changes of Norwegian and Swedish conservation management system at an overall level. Case study 2 explores conservation management at the local level in the two protected areas Setesdal Vesthei, Ryfylkeheiane and Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella, see Figure 5 in section Case studies 3 and 4 both concern conservation planning at a regional level, and include regional planning processes for a protected river and its catchment area and wild reindeer areas, see Figure 6 and 7 in section Case study 5 examines gender equality in participation in Norwegian conservation management at both the overall and local level. Through a combination of document studies, interviews, observation, and surveys, the research questions have been explored in official accounts of decision-making processes and bodies, and I have also probed behind the official narratives in interviews and observations. In the conclusion, I move from the specific findings related to the cases to provide theoretical generalizations relevant for understanding complex and contested legitimacy problems in nature conservation in other contexts. 1.4 The contribution of the thesis This thesis is an empirical contribution to understanding recent changes in the Norwegian conservation management system. Drawing on extensive empirical material, this thesis shows the Norwegian conservation management system continues to construct legitimacy around traditional notions of legitimacy, framing local participation as representation by elected politicians, and relying on hierarchical accountability patterns. The findings in this thesis show a clear discrepancy between the political goals of increased legitimacy, ownership, and even 27

30 strengthening democracy, and how participation and collaboration actually have been institutionalized. The modest role deliberation and participation have had in local implementation of the management reform contribute further to reinforce this gap between intention and practice. The main contribution of this thesis is thus to show that the recent changes in Norwegian conservation management have resulted in hierarchical rather than collaborative governance arrangements. It is therefore questionable whether the legitimacy problems associated traditional with top-down approaches to nature conservation actually are handled. By comparing recent changes in the Norwegian and Swedish conservation management system, the thesis also contributes to a comparative perspective on how international trends towards collaborative governance are pursued differently and are affected by their broader national political contexts. The thesis contributes by demonstrating the importance of approaching collaborative governance in context both at the national and local level. Bringing in the concept of legitimacy, which often has been used interchangeably with accountability, the second main contribution of this thesis is a theoretical contribution to the field of nature conservation. Developing a broad conception of legitimacy and arguing that gender equality and recognition of conflicts are vital for the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements, this thesis introduces new perspectives to evolve our understanding of how legitimacy is constructed and contested. Mobilizing a broad conception of legitimacy, this thesis demonstrates the value of understanding and approaching legitimacy broadly to acknowledge the constructed and contested nature of the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements. In doing so, this thesis also contributes to the growing body of literature that critically explore issues of legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements in natural resource management more generally (Birnbaum, 2015; Hogl et al., 2012; Sandström & Lundmark, 2016). The third main contribution of this thesis is to introduce a gender perspective to research in the conservation management field. The few who have used gender perspectives in studies of conservation management, from developed countries, have found systematic gender differences in participation and representation, and a lacking awareness of gender equality in the environmental agencies responsible for conservation policy (Schmitt, 2014; Svarstad et al., 28

31 2006; Svarstad, Skuland, Guldvik, & Figari, 2009). In this thesis, I challenge the dominant gender-blind approach to local participation in conservation management, and I contribute to filling the knowledge gap in the literature by unveiling how gender differences are reproduced in collaborative arrangements in Norwegian conservation management; women continue to be underrepresented. This thesis is a first step in developing a more gender-sensitive approach to participation in conservation management. The thesis suggests there is a need for further empirical research to explore how gender, gender relations, and gender hierarchies shape and are shaped in decision making about use and protection of natural resources. The fourth main contribution of this thesis lies in its exploration of what conservation management might learn from how conservation conflicts are handled within the planning system. By analyzing the consequences of not handling critical perspective and persistent conflicts in a planning process of a wild reindeer area, the findings underline the importance of actively recognizing and engaging with conflicts. Avoiding or suppressing long-lasting conservation conflicts may contribute to reinforcing antagonisms, and the conflicts may reemerge in other contexts over time. Moreover, the findings in this thesis underscore the importance of writing conflicts into plans, and justifying in planning narratives why critical comments are left out. The conservation management system s capacity to work with and recognize conflicts as legitimate expressions of differences is vital for handling persistent conservation conflicts. 1.5 Organization of the thesis In the next chapter, the context is presented through a description of the historical development of nature conservation policy in Norway. In Chapter 3, I set out the theoretical perspectives and my main argument about the need to include critical perspectives on collaborative governance arrangements by bringing in legitimacy, participation, gender, and conflict. In Chapter 4, I present the research strategy and the methodological approach underpinning the research process. I present the five case studies, outlining the methods, empirical material, and analysis processes. I also discuss the quality and ethical considerations. In Chapter 5, I summarize the main findings from the four papers. In Chapter 6, I discuss the research questions and the empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions, before pointing to future research 29

32 needs and challenges for the Norwegian conservation management system. In closing the thesis, I reflect on how (well) the findings and contributions of the thesis answer the aim. 30

33 2. A changing context for nature conservation in Norway In this section, I describe the development of the Norwegian nature conservation policy with an emphasis on how the management system has changed. 2.1 The history of Norwegian nature conservation policy As in other countries, the main goal with the Norwegian conservation policy has been to conserve a representative selection of nature and landscapes for future generations (Reitan, 1997), while also protecting areas of particular importance for plants and animals and safeguarding international recognized nature values, such as Europe s last remaining wild reindeer herds. Wild, untouched nature has been the ideal, and reduction and fragmentation of habitats due to human development have been identified as the main threats against biological diversity. Influenced by the International Union of Conservation of Nature s (IUCN) (2017) categorization of protected areas, the Nature Diversity Act (2009) has specified the following categories: nature reserves (IUCN category Ia), national parks (IUCN category II), species management areas (IUCN IV), landscape protected areas (IUCN category V), marine protected areas, and other areas established after old legislation (Miljødirektoratet, 2009, 20.10). However, there has not been a corresponding category to the IUCN s category VI, where continued sustainable use of natural resources is one of the conservation objectives (NOU 2004:28, 2004). Protected areas are established through the Nature Diversity Act (2009) and it is the Norwegian Cabinet who passes the conservation regulations, which specify what is allowed and what is prohibited in each protected area, in light of the objectives of the specific areas. There has generally been a ban on building (cabins, houses, roads etc.) and on motorized traffic (snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and landing) in all areas, while hunting, fishing, and berry picking have been allowed (Falleth & Hovik, 2009). In a newly adopted White paper, the Parliament opened for allowing bike and horse-riding, which have been prohibited in most protected areas (St.meld 18, 2016). The Nature Diversity Act (2009) opens for making exemptions from the regulations and through management plans the overall regulations have been specified (Falleth & Hovik, 2009). Increasingly, such plans have become an important policy tool for specifying the conservation regulations. 31

34 Athe beginning of 2017, 17.1% of the Norwegian mainland was protected (Miljødirektoratet, 2016, ) and national parks constituted the majority of these areas. In December 2016, there were 39 national parks, with Jomfruland and Raet as the newest established one. In addition to these, 192 landscape protected areas, 2164 nature reserves, and 467 other protected areas (RAMSAR-areas, marine protected areas, and animal- and plant protected areas) have been established (Statistisk sentralbyrå, 2016). As Figure 1 in the introduction illustrated, alpine protected areas continue to dominate, but there has also been an increasing focus on marine and costal protected areas, of which the two newest national parks are examples The formative years: institutionalization and legal framework Historically, Norwegian untouched nature has been important for nation building and national identity, in addition to developing environmental consciousness (Reitan, 1997). The varied Norwegian landscape with mountains, fjords, lakes, waterfalls, and forests and its wilderness have been a driving force in the development of the environmental policy, which began with the conservation movement in the latter part of the 19 th century. Inspired by the British nobility who had begun to explore the Norwegian mountains in the 1820, the urban elite, many of whom where natural scientists, took an interest in conservation issues and preservation of the mountain landscapes in the 1870s and 1880s (Reitan, 2004). In 1910, the first Nature Preservation Act (Lov om naturfredning) was passed by the Parliament and authorized the establishment of an advisory body, The Council for Nature Conservation (Statens Naturvernråd), where environmental interests were given substantial influence and the council came to play a decisive role in defining and carrying out the new policy (Reitan, 2004). In 1954, a revised Nature Conservation Act was passed, which opened for establishing national parks and, in 1962, the first Norwegian national park was established in the mountain areas of Rondane (Julsrud, 2012). Compared to other countries, this was quite late. In Sweden, the first national park was established in From the 1960s and onward, the professional environmental bureaucracy grew and it was increasingly institutionalized. In 1972, the Ministry of Environment was establishment, which made nature conservation policy a higher priority (Julsrud, 2012). In 1982, regional environmental administrations were established at the county governor s offices and in 1985 the Directorate for Nature Management was established (Reitan, 2004). The professional 32

35 bureaucracy was given an increasingly important role in the field of nature conservation during the 1980s, and the management authority for protected areas was delegated from the Ministry of Environment to the respective county governors in 1983 (Miljøverndepartementet, 1983) Increasing conflicts and politicization of nature conservation In 1982, the Nature Conservation Council was given the task of developing a national plan for designation of new and larger conservation areas by the Ministry (St.meld. nr. 62 ( ), 1991). The final report was presented in 1986 (Reitan, 2004), and in the following years debates about the criteria for establishing protected areas and whether they could and should be established on private land was extensively debated. Who would be best suited to manage the protected areas was also part of the debate, and although the National Park Plan was passed by a large majority in the Parliament in 1992 (St.meld. nr. 62 ( ) 1991), Reitan (2004) has noted that the apparent consensus at the national level should not be mistaken for agreement, especially at the local level. The National Park Plan resulted in a substantial increase of protected areas, which at the time only covered 4% of the Norwegian mainland, including 16 national parks (Lundberg, Hongslo, Hovik, & Bay-Larsen, 2013). The National Park Plan identified areas of international and national importance, and the goal was to establish 40 new protected areas and extend ten existing national parks. The plan included both national parks and landscape protected areas. The National Park Plan resulted in a more ambitious conservation policy, targeting areas that were more productive not only in a biological but also in an economical sense. The new areas also, significantly, included more private land than protected areas designated earlier. Implementation of the plan had high priority in the Norwegian Environmental Agency and among the county governors responsible for carrying out local designation processes (Kaltenborn et al., 2011). This resulted in local disputes about the need for nature conservation policy, the nature and cultural values of each area, and the restriction level. Since the National Park Plan affected municipalities in most Norwegian counties, these processes resulted in conflicts across Norway throughout the 1990s, strengthening already existing lines of conflict between national environmental agencies on one side and local authorities and landowners on the other. Conflicts from the designation processes did not dissolve or fade away (Arnesen & Riseth, 2008). Rather, they resulted in lifting up demands for increased local participation and 33

36 emphasis on sustainable use to the national political agenda, and the Norwegian Parliament came to play a defining role in changing the management system. In 1996, the Parliament instructed the Ministry of Environment to initiate a trial of alternative governance arrangements (Innst. O. 64 ( ), 1996). Local management was introduced in four protected areas (Figure 2), allowing for different power-sharing arrangements between national and local authorities. In addition, frameworks for the inclusion of local stakeholders varied between the areas. In Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella, an intermunicipal board became responsible for the management (Ståvi, 2008). In Blåfjella-Skjækerfjella, the management responsibility was divided between the municipalities, the county governor, and the Reindeer Administration (Falleth, Sandström, & Hovik, 2008). In the two protected areas in Forollhogna and Setesdal Vesthei-Ryfylkeheiane, the municipalities were delegated management responsibilities directly (Falleth & Hovik, 2006; Skjeggedal, 2008). Coordination among the municipalities varied, with Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella standing out with the strongest intermunicipal collaboration in the Dovrefjell board. In contrast, management of the three other areas did not involve a formalized collaboration arena at the regional level. In an evaluation, Falleth and Hovik (2008) concluded the trials had been successful, and that in most cases the municipalities attended to their role as managers in a way that complied with the conservation regulations. The local political involvement was high, with an emphasis on developing opportunities for sustainable use beneficial for the affected communities. However, Falleth and Hovik (2008) identified important shortcomings in the different governance arrangements: limited coordination between the municipalities, few possibilities for sanctioning the municipalities that bypassed the conservation regulations, lack of skilled personnel with natural science competence in the municipal administrations, limited possibilities for real participation from local stakeholders and other governmental agencies and, finally, few arenas for conflict resolution. Moreover, they found that despite high local political commitment, the trials had failed to increase local support for protection policies in the affected communities. In other words, the existing critique against centralized governmental conservation management could also be applied to the four local management trials. 34

37 Figure 2 Trial with local management of four protected areas ( ) and trial with comanagement of three protected areas ( ). 35

38 Parallel with the local management trials, a discourse on the importance of value-creation and sustainable use of protected areas grew stronger in Norway. This issue was also lifted to the national level, and in 2003, the Parliament passed the Mountain Text (Fjellteksten) as part of the revised national budget (Prop. 65 ( )). The Mountain Text has been referred to as a political manifesto signaling a shift from a conservation path to a conservation-and-usepath (Fedreheim, 2013), emphasizing the importance of nature based tourism activities in and around the protected areas. Developing and strengthening the promotion of protected areas as attractive destinations was also emphasized in the Mountain Text, and this has been followed up through visitor strategies and marketing and branding efforts of protected areas, national park villages, and national park municipalities (Norges nasjonalparkkommuner og nasjonalparklandsbyer 2017). However, both researchers and different stakeholders have criticized the lack of funding and limited implementation of the ambitious goals in the Mountain text (Skjeggedal, Overvåg, Flognfeldt, & Ringholm, 2013). In light of the historical development of Norwegian nature conservation policy, Reitan (2004, p. 446) has argued the conservation management system has shifted from a system dominated by the politics of expertise to a process of politicization, enabled by the successful identification of these issues with more general, institutionalized conflicts within the political system. This has challenged the dominant position of the environmental bureaucracy and the legitimacy of scientific knowledge and expert solutions. As paper 1 shows, the broad actor mobilization, politicization of nature conservation policy, and the degree to which these issues have been on the national political agenda have been particular for the Norwegian context. The management reform passed by Parliament in 2010 further underlines the degree to which conservation policy has been politicized Today s system: Local conservation management through decentralization Drawing on the experiences from the different governance arrangements, the Parliament introduced a comprehensive management reform in 2009 (Prop. 1 ( )). It involved all large protected areas and management authority was moved from the county governor to conservation management boards. Since the reform was initiated, 42 boards have been established 2. The goal of the reform was three-fold: local management through local 2 January

39 participation and anchoring, comprehensive, predictable, and effective management, and knowledge-based management with inclusion of scientific and experience-based knowledge (Prop. 1 ( )). The reform was initiated as part of the national budget by the majority cabinet in 2010, and can be understood as a result of political negotiations resulting in a compromise combining local political involvement in conservation management with continued influence from the environmental bureaucracy (Skjeggedal et al., 2013). The boards are comprised of locally and regionally elected politicians, in addition to representatives appointed by the Sami Parliament where relevant. Three boards diverge from this, by including representatives from landowners, the wild reindeer association, and a Swedish Sami Town. Without these exceptions, the management authority has been transferred to elected representatives. Albeit an important goal with the reform, stakeholder involvement has been limited to participation in stakeholder groups, which I describe in more detail in paper 2. The reform also sought to improve coordination between the municipalities through administrative contact groups. Through the reform, protected area managers were employed, reporting to the boards. However, the county governors were to have the formal employment responsibility for the managers, and the managers are part for the governor s professional staff (Prop. 1 ( )). This caused some discussions about the managers loyalty in the initial phase of the reform. As Figure 3, shows, the NEA and county governors were the main actors in the former management system of In the management system of 2009 the conservation boards have been added as an additional management level, making the system threefold. As Figure 3 shows, the county governors continue to have an important control function in the management of protected areas. 37

40 Figure 3 The Norwegian conservation management system of 1983 and The same year as the new management reform was introduced, the Nature Diversity Act (2009) was passed by the Parliament. It replaced The Nature Consecration Act from 1954, broadening the act s scope and demanding that all public decisions affecting nature values have to be assessed according to the requirements in the act. However, area protection remains an important policy tool. The National Park Plan has largely been implemented. However, lack of local support led the Ministry of Environment to abandon the remaining four areas that had not been protected by 2015 (Muvrrešáhpi, Tysfjord/Hellemobotn and Treriksrøysa national parks and the extension of the existing Øvre Anarjohka national park) (Nystad, 2015, 16.12). In the ministry s decision to abandon these plans, the importance of local anchoring was emphasized. Abandoning these pans, marked the final shift from a focus on designation processes, which has characterized the policy field since the 1990s towards active management of the protected areas. 38

41 2.1.4 At a cross-roads: Towards co-management? As I am about to finish this thesis, a new development in the Norwegian conservation management system has just been implemented. The Ministry of Climate and Environment (2016) has initiated a co-management trial in three conservation boards from (Figure 2), in line with the political platform of the Solberg government from (Regjeringen Solberg, 2013). This last development reflects the positions the Conservative Party and Progress Party have held all along, arguing that landowners should be included on the boards. In the two boards for the newly established national parks in Raet and Jomfruland, local landowners will be represented, in addition to the political representatives. In the already existing conservation boards for Trollheimen landscape protected area, a broader range of local stakeholders are going to be included. The letter from the MoCE suggested the inclusion of non-governmental environmental and Sami organizations in addition to local landowners (Klima- og miljøverndepartementet, 2016). Deciding who to include in the board for Tollheimen has already caused local disputes, especially from some of the landowner representatives who have complained to the MoCE about the process and the selection of NGO representatives. 2.2 Planning as a supplement to nature conservation In recent years, there has been calls for approaching protected area problems at a landscapescale, recognizing the wider connectivity of protected areas and considering issues that transgress the boundaries of the protected areas (Lockwood, 2010, Overvåg et al. 2016). In Norway, regional planning has increasingly been used as an environmental policy tool to overcome fragmentation and reconcile use and protection of natural resources (Aarsæther et al., 2012). This has included regional plans for wild reindeer areas (Singsaas, 2014, 2015, Hongslo 2017), coastline areas (Hovik & Stokke, 2006), and a protected water catchment (Movik & Lundberg, 2013). The deliberative turn has influenced the planning system significantly in Norway, and participatory and collaborative approaches have defused from the planning system into the field of natural resource management (Aasetre & Gundersen, 2011; Fangel & Gundersen, 2012). Fangel and Gundersen (2012) have argued that deliberative ideals have resulted in a more decentralized, process oriented, and inclusive natural resource management. Inspired by deliberative ideals from the field of planning, two large research and development projects were carried out during the 2000s aiming at reducing conflicts and building consensus 39

42 between different actors in the management of wild reindeer (Andersen & Hustad, 2004) and large carnivores (Hustad, Andersen, & Linnell, 2005). The use of regional planning at a scale that transgress both the boarders of protected areas and established political administrative institutions, as municipalities and counties, creates both possibilities and challenges. Paper 4 investigates how planning at a regional level has been carried out to balance different interests in context with persistent conflicts about how to sustainably manage Europe s last wild reindeer herds, their habitats and at the same time create opportunities for rural development. 40

43 3. Theoretical perspectives The main discussions in this thesis are how legitimacy is constructed in collaborative governance arrangements in nature conservation and how legitimacy challenges are handled. The main discussions in the papers revolve around different aspects that affect the construction of legitimacy in practice. However, the emphasis on legitimacy varies in the papers: Paper 1 describes changes in accountability in decentralized conservation management, paper 2 develops an analytical framework for exploring different dimensions of legitimacy, paper 3 frames gender equality and underrepresentation of women as legitimacy challenges and paper 4 shows the importance of recognizing and articulating conflicts in decision-making processes about conservation issues. This chapter therefore addresses a need to develop some common ground for understanding legitimacy and legitimacy challenges in collaborative governance arrangements. First, the purpose with this chapter is to review how the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements have been understood by discussing limitations with simple legitimacy and highlighting important aspects with more complex understandings of legitimacy. Therefore, the chapter does not provide a comprehensive overview of the broad and complex literature surrounding the transition from government to governance. However, examining how collaborative modes of governance have been conceptualized in the literature is important for developing a backdrop to understanding how participation has been institutionalized in collaborative approaches to conservation management and how this has affected the construction of legitimacy. Second, the purpose of this chapter is to develop a broad approach to legitimacy, which I use in Chapter 6 to discuss the findings in the papers and their relevance for the thesis four research questions. I develop a broad approach by introducing new theoretical perspectives to frame the legitimacy challenges of collaborative governance arrangements in conservation management. In developing a broad conception of legitimacy, I respond to Plummer et al. s (2013) call for broadening the concept from formal and legal understandings to capture the complexities associated with legitimacy in collaborative approaches to nature conservation. It is not my intension to develop a new theoretical approach to legitimacy. Rather, I use this chapter to draw on existing literature to developing an approach to legitimacy that includes gender equality and 41

44 recognition of conflicts as essential issues of legitimacy in collaborative governance. Both these aspects need to be taken into account to understand whether legitimacy challenges are handled better through decentralized and collaborative approaches to nature conservation. In section 3.1, I briefly describe the shift from government to governance and how new collaborative modes of governance have been pursued within the environmental policy field, before I, in section 3.2, present how a growing body of literature has critically examined the legitimacy challenges of these governance arrangements. Due to the empirical focus of this thesis, I focus on studies of new collaborative governance within natural resource management and conservation management in turn. I end this section with discussing the challenges and tricky questions legitimacy poses when approaching collaborative modes of governance. In section 3.3, I develop a broad approach to legitimacy that includes gender perspectives and recognition of conflicts. In section 3.4, I give a summary of the theoretical perspective I use to explore the research questions in this thesis. 3.1 Collaborative modes of governance in nature conservation The concept of governance is broad and has been used as a contrast to government to describe a shift from old to new, less hierarchical, modes of collective steering that include a broad variety of governmental and non-governmental actors (Bäckstrand et al., 2010). Faced with complex societal, economic, and environmental problems often referred to as wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973), no single actor has the capacity, knowledge, or resources to effectively solve these problems and collective and collaborative forms of governing have thus been emphasized in theory and pursued in practice (Kooiman, 2003). Armitage et al. (2012, p. 252) argue that: Governance has become a major concern because of a desire to bring about change in the way decisions are made. Traditional, government-led approaches to decision making have not, and perhaps cannot, create the conservation outcomes that are desired because of the complexity and multiscale reality of most conservation problems, and because no one actor will be able to resolve these problems on their own. Contemporary environmental problems are complex and transboundary, with different temporal and spatial effects (Hogl et al., 2012). Further, they are characterized by a high degree of scientific uncertainty and risk (Lockwood, Davidson, Curtis, Stratford, & Griffith, 2010). Including non-governmental actors, private businesses, public institutions, and civil society 42

45 representatives in collaborative decision-making processes and drawing on their resources, governments seek to increase their capacity to solve complex environmental problems. In recent years, there has been a development towards a process-oriented understanding of governance. Torfing, Peters, Pierr, and Sørensen (2012, p. 14) express this as: the complex process through which a plurality of social and political actors with divergent interests interact in order to formulate, promote, and achieve common objectives by means of mobilizing, exchanging, and deploying a range of ideas, rules and resources. From such a perspective, governance is viewed as emerging from bottom-up or interactive processes, where participation is vital for legitimate policy outcomes (Johansson, 2013). Kooiman s (2003) basic distinction between three different modes of governance is a useful conceptualization to understand these recent changes. He separates private actors selfgovernance, state-private co-governance, and hierarchical governance by the state. These three basic modes of governance have been applied to conservation management, and the IUCN have further divided self-governance into private governance and community governance (Borrini- Feyerabend & Hill, 2015). However, these idealized modes of governance are in practice more complex, including hybrid governance arrangements where non-governmental actors play different roles (Armitage et al., 2012) and where the government s enabling role varies, with different power sharing between the involved actors, allowing for different constructions of legitimacy and accountability patterns (Holmgren et al., 2016). The continued importance of governments in nature conservation combined with the increase in non-governmental actors participation in conservation management, make Ansell and Gash s (2008) approach to collaborative governance useful in describing the space between hierarchical governance and co-governance. They define collaborative governance as A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 544). This understanding of collaborative governance implies that non-governmental actors are involved directly in decision-making processes, as opposed to merely being informed or consulted by the government. Relating collaborative governance to conservation management, Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill (2015, p. 181) argue that formal decision-making authority, 43

46 responsibility and accountability rest with one agency (for example, a national governmental agency), but the agency is required, by law or by policy, to collaborate with other stakeholders. They further argue that collaborative governance can have a strong or weak connotation, ranging from information and consultation to development of multi-party decisionmaking bodies. In this thesis, I approach the inclusiveness of these collaborative governance arrangements and the scope and depth of non-governmental actors participation as empirical questions (Birnbaum, 2015), which I pursue in all the papers; at national level in papers 1, 2 and 3, and at local level in papers 2 and 4. The important role governments play in facilitating collaborative governance processes is central in Ansell and Gash s (2008) definition above, which is particularly relevant in studies of collaborative arrangement in conservation management since this recognizes the continued importance of governments and environmental agencies, as recently underlined by Holmgren et al. (2016) and Hovik and Hongslo (2016). Several studies have shown that a sharp distinction between old and new modes of governance does not necessarily hold in practice (Bäckstrand et al., 2010; Hogl et al., 2012; Holmgren et al., 2016). Contrary to hollowing out of the state, it may well be the case that new collaborative modes of governance in nature conservation are rolling the state back in, and that the government seeks to govern better rather than less (Wallington et al. 2008, p. 3). Collaborative governance has been closely related to the deliberative turn in environmental policy making and implementation (Bäckstrand et al., 2010; Johansson, 2013). Ansell and Gash s (2008) definition highlights the importance of deliberative, consensus-oriented decisionmaking processes in collaborative governance. Within the environmental policy field and natural resource management, collaborative decision making has gained a particular foothold as a means to overcome barriers for handling persistent environmental problems and local disputes over natural resource use (Löf, 2014; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000; Yaffee & Wondolleck, 2000). Goodin (1992, in de Geus, 1996, p. 194) have noted that if there is anything truly distinctive about green politics, most commentators would concur, it must surely be its emphasis on decentralization. Decentralized decision making has been argued to be a more democratic approach to handling environmental problems and inclusion of affected actors (Agrawal & 44

47 Ribot, 1999). Therefore, experiments with different collaborative arrangements have been particularly pronounced within the environmental policy field (Kornsell & Bäckstrand, 2010). While some have explored the changing management practices, others have focused on the shift to different modes of governance, reflected in the myriad of approaches in studies of natural resource use, as co-management (Zachrisson, 2009b), government-community partnership (Harrington, Curtis, & Black, 2008), public-private partnerships (Pattberg, Biermann, Chan, & Mert, 2012), multi-stakeholder dialogues (Bäckstrand, 2006), private governance (Johansson, 2013) and network governance (Carlsson & Sandström, 2008). The conceptual diversity reflects the many debates, practices, and management approaches co-existing within the natural resource management field and it illustrates that researchers have approached recent changes in natural resource management from different disciplines, such as political science, geography, sociology, and law. 3.2 Constructing and contesting legitimacy Over a decade ago, Parkinson (2003, p. 182) argued that although the term legitimacy crops up often in the democratic literature, it is rarely defined except by implication. Since then, several authors have explored how legitimacy have been constructed and contested in new collaborative modes of governance in the environmental policy field (Birnbaum, 2015; Bäckstrand et al., 2010; Connelly et al., 2006; Hogl et al., 2012; Sandström & Lundmark, 2016; Turner et al., 2016; Wallington et al., 2008). These contributions can partly be seen as responses to normative notions for governance, which have emphasized collaborative decision making as something that should be pursued and achieved to enhance effectiveness, transparency, and accountability in public decision making. The starting point for the critical and still evolving literature has therefore been to scrutinize if and how the assumptions about improved legitimacy and effectiveness of environmental policymaking in collaborative governance arrangements hold in practice (Birnbaum, 2015). This has included a focus on how the legitimacy deficits associates with traditional top-down governmental approaches to environmental problems have been handled in collaborative modes of governance (Bäckstrand et al., 2010). Lack of public support, ineffective environmental policy, and rigid bureaucracy continued environmental problems and even deterioration of 45

48 nature values in protected areas. Persistent conflicts, and insensitivity to local knowledge and local contexts have been among these. However, the literature has also critically explored the legitimacy challenges that arise in new collaborative governance arrangements. As Wallington et al. (2008) have noted, including nongovernmental actors in decision-making processes, who can pursue their own interest at the expense of the public s interests without being accountable to the public, can hardly in itself be regarded as more legitimate or democratic. Moving decision-making power from elected councils to more closed networks, with limited transparency and horizontal accountability patterns have even been argued to undermine and threaten democracy (Boon, Nathan, & Lund, 2012). This underlines that the empirical focus has moved beyond simply comparing legitimacy in old hierarchical governance approaches to the legitimacy of new collaborative modes of governance. Rather, this strain of literature has emphasized the constructive nature of legitimacy, and that legitimacy is contestable, challengeable, and in need of maintenance in new governance arrangement (Connelly et al., 2006). Approaching legitimacy is, however, challenging and there are no singular or shared definitions of the concept within the social sciences (Paloniemi & Vainio, 2011). Hogl et al. (2012) have emphasized that the theoretical landscape is highly heterogeneous, including social, normative, evaluative, and even strategic approaches to studying legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements. Further, different sources and dimensions of legitimacy have been highlighted in the literature (Bäckstrand et al., 2010). As I describe in paper 2, Beetham s (2013) distinction between legality, justifiability, and consent has been a much-used conceptualization of legitimacy. Dingwerth s (2007) three dimensions of legitimacy, including participation, accountability, and deliberation have also been applied in several studies. Scharpf s (1999) emphasis on input and output legitimacy have been particularly influential in studies of legitimacy, which have been expanded to include throughput legitimacy in recent years to account for the process from the input to the output phase in public decision making (Engelen et al., 2008). The analytical framework I develop in paper 2 includes both sources of legitimacy (input and output legitimacy) and different dimensions of legitimacy (participation, accountability, and deliberation). 46

49 These distinctions can be analytically useful in describing different dimensions affecting constructions of legitimacy. However, it is empirically challenging to separate sharply between procedural and substantial sources of legitimacy, since they in practice are highly interrelated. A plan or policy is the final output of a decision-making moment, but simultaneously a reflection of the processes leading up to the decision. This underlines the dialectic relationship between input and output sources of legitimacy (Connelly et al., 2006), which paper 4 clearly shows. Overall legitimacy has been suggested as a way of recognizing that legitimacy judgments are based on both the processes and policies of a political system (Birnbaum, 2015; Bäckstrand et al., 2010). Although lacking a shared definition of legitimacy, there seems to be an agreement that old understandings of legitimacy are inadequate to grasp the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements (Connelly et al., 2006; Lockwood, 2010; Wallington et al., 2008). This has made Plummer et al. (2013) call for the need to broadening the approach to legitimacy. In traditional theories of representative democracy, legitimacy has been understood as the right to govern according to justifiable rules (Beetham, 2013). In this respect, the right to govern can be claimed through the ballot box. Voting has therefore been the strongest source of legitimacy and elections have been the most familiar method of legitimization (Moug, 2011). Through elections, prospective members go through a process of authorization and holding accountable and Moug (2011, p. 132) argues that this is the core of legitimization of democratic elected assemblies, their members, procedures, decisions, and actions. However, in collaborative governance arrangements the roles between governmental and nongovernmental actors are altered, which blur the hierarchical accountability patterns between elected politicians and their voters. This make the simple legitimacy of representative democracy insufficient and alternative ways of constructing legitimacy have to be pursued (Wallington et al., 2008). Through the concept of situated legitimacy, Connelly et al. (2006) have provided one answer to how legitimacy is constructed in collaborative governance arrangements. They have argued for the need to approach legitimacy as situated in specific contexts and decision-making processes, and also as affected by the issue in question: Understand how legitimacy is situated in other words how it is constructed in and through specific policy deliberations, how it is 47

50 defined and used in their own contest by actors in the rural governance and those affected by their deliberations (Connelly et al., 2006, p. 267). They emphasize the need to shift the focus from the legitimacy of the decision-making moment in the formal decision-making body, to how the stakeholders perceive legitimacy. Moreover, they argue for a broad approach, including all affected stakeholders regardless of whether they have participated in the decisionmaking process. Another approach to the construction of legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements is the inclusiveness and deliberative qualities of the decision-making processes. The emphasis on inclusion and deliberation are characteristic for deliberative democracy theorists approaches to legitimacy. Broadly, the label deliberative democracy theory has been used to distinguish a political approach focusing on improving the quality of democracy in response to declining voter turnouts, lack of interest in public life, combined with the elitism of political parties and governments (Held, 2006, p. 231). Seeking to revitalize the public deliberation, the inclusiveness of decision-making processes and the reasoned arguments and public reflections preceding the act of voting have been emphasized as the basis of legitimacy (Meadowcroft, 2004). Genuine inclusiveness has been seen as the key to legitimacy and reasoned arguments and public reflections proceed voting have thus been emphasized as the basis of legitimacy. According to Dryzek (2001, p. 651) outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subjected to the decision in question. This demonstrates the importance of inclusiveness, as opposed to interests representation. However, the emphasis on inclusion of all affected by a decision is impossible in practice, and Parkinson (2003) refers to this as the scalar problem, since those outside the deliberative process may consider the decision illegitimate since they did not participate, but including more than a few could make deliberation into simple speechmaking. To handle this dilemma, it has been suggested to modify inclusiveness to ensuring that all have the right to participate or that elected representatives should deliberate within without directly consulting the public. The analytical framework I develop in paper 2 includes the inclusiveness of the deliberative practices and assessing inclusiveness in practice becomes easily a question of degree, and also a balancing act between inclusiveness and effectiveness. 48

51 As I discuss in paper 2, despite increased participation and deliberative ideals in decision making, representative democracy s norms of constructing legitimacy continue to dominate (Behagel & Turnhout, 2011). Instead of portraying representative and deliberative notions of legitimacy as competing or mutually exclusive, I will argue it is more fruitful to approach them as supplementary and enrichening sources of legitimacy. In practice, public decision making takes place with combination of accountable elected representatives and assemblies, with interactive governance arrangements that open for developing deliberative practices. Different legitimacy claims may therefore co-exist about the same process and outcome; an important democratic right is to dispute decisions, even though the procedures and processes may be perceived as legitimate. As the discussion above shows, exploring the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements creates both theoretical and conceptual challenges. The constructed nature of legitimacy, as opposed to a given objective fact ensured through legal and formal arrangements, and recognizing the situatedness of legitimacy in specific contexts and processes, depending on the issue, does not make it easier. Parkinson (2003, p. 184) underlines that legitimacy is s regulatory ideal, not a fixed point on a scale and draws on Chambers (1996 cited in Parkinson, 2003, p. 184) to argue that Genuine legitimacy is built over time by the discursive, critical examination of institutions and their actions such that people actually consider institutional arrangement to be in their interests and such that institutional arrangements actually are in everyone s interest (original emphasis). Despite being difficult, I will argue that approach the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements is useful to understand the space between rhetorical and normative assumptions on one side and the actual performance of collaborative governance arrangements in practice on the other side. 3.3 Legitimacy as gender equality and recognition of conflict In this section, I develop a broad approach to legitimacy by including gender perspectives and framing gender equality as a legitimacy challenge to collaborative governance in nature conservation. I then argue that recognition and acknowledgment of conflicts in decision-making processes is central to legitimacy challenges for collaborative governance arrangements. 49

52 3.3.1 Gender inequality as a legitimacy problem in collaborative governance Underrepresentation of women in politics has been recognized as a democratic problem, threatening the legitimacy of the political system and its institutions (Dahlerup & Freidenvall, 2010). Different gender equality policies have been pursued to increase women s participation in decision-making processes and gender quotas have been adopted in different countries and sectors (Guldvik, 2008). As shown in paper 3, gender equality policies have been grounded in arguments of justice and equal opportunities for all to participate, women s and men s different and potentially conflicting interests, and the resources and experiences women contribute (Halrynjo & Teigen, 2016). Phillips (1998) has argued the strongest arguments of the three is the justice argument, which emphasizes equal opportunities for all, regardless of gender, to participate. Arguing for gender equality from this perspective, women do not need to evoke anything or prove to contribute to more effective or environmental friendly policy outcomes. This has made Phillips (1998, p. 232) suggest that what we can perhaps do is to turn the argument around, and ask by what natural superiority of talent or expertise men could claim a right to dominate assemblies? The burden of proof then shifts to the men. A central issue in debates about women s representation in politics generally has been whether men can adequately represent women s interests. Pitkin (1967) has dismissed mirrored notions of representation and warned against putting too much emphasis on who the political representatives are, arguing that how they act is most important. However, Phillips (1998) has underlined that interests are not always easily defined or depicted beforehand, and therefore it matters who the representatives are and it is difficult to separate between who and what is represented. Despite a widespread agreement that persistent gender differences in participation in politics is a legitimacy problem, women s underrepresentation in public and private decision-making bodies in natural resource management in developed countries has seldom been recognized (Richardson, Sinclair, Reed, & Parkins, 2011). While Agarwal (1992, 2010) and Baker-Médard (2016) have demonstrated the usefulness of applying gender perspectives to understand decision making about nature conservation in developing countries, gender differences in participation of local communities in nature conservation in developed countries have largely gone unnoticed in the literature (Schmitt, 2014; Svarstad et al., 2006). This is in stark contrast 50

53 to how scholars have described similar gender differences as one of the key axes of inequality (Reed and Christie 2008, p. 1) in studies of natural resource management from developing countries and shown that gender relations can contribute to unveil formal structures and unformal practices affecting how natural resources are valued, protected, managed, and used. Therefore, Reed and Christie (2009, p. 2) have opportunely asked: why is it, for example, that we look for the effects of gender relations in some places and not others, or have easy sympathy with feminist frameworks when understanding concerns of women excluded from protected natural areas in distant counties, bus dismiss such arguments made closer to home? Why gender differences in participation in decision making about natural resource have been explored and framed as a problem in some places and not in others is difficult to answer. Reed and Christie (2009) have suggested that debates about natural resource management from developing and developed countries have developed independently of each other, being published in different journals. Moreover, they have suggested that gender-based analysis have been regarded as a woman s issue and that there have been few female and feminist scholars in the environmental field. The literature is dominated by gender-neutral categories and there is a lack of reflexivity about how research primarily focusing on the experiences of white, well-educated middle and upper class male actors shape the understanding of environmental decision making and management practices (Reed & Christie, 2009). In paper 3, I argue this has led to the assumption that gender, gender relations, and gender hierarchies do not influence natural resource management in developed countries, and therefore gender is not a relevant factor to take into account when studying participation in decision-making processes. However, Reed and Mitchell (2003, p. 320) stress the contrary, since gender relations are often the most strongly embedded in the culture when they are the most invisible. As I show in paper 3, such processes contribute to reproducing the male dominance, which is taken for granted and the underrepresentation of women is not questioned. Turning to feminist theory and bringing in gender perspectives to explore the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements in conservation management opens the space for including different perspectives to analyzing issues of legitimacy such as hegemonic gender power and the gendering of skills and competences (Ellingsæter & Solheim, 2002), gender 51

54 hierarchies (Hirdman, 1988), and gender order (Gherardi & Poggio, 2001). Varghese and Reed (2012) have, for example, shown how the concept of gender order contributes to understanding the gender differences in participation in Canadian advisory committees for forest management, Vainio and Paloniemi (2013) have similarly used gender order to understand differences between female and male landowners participation in voluntary forest protection processes in Finland. Introducing gender perspectives in studies of legitimacy in new collaborative modes of governance prompt us to ask how and with whose participation decisions about environmental management are made, focusing on which interests have the power to be heard and addressed during planning and implementation processes (Reed & Mitchell, 2003, p. 331). By drawing attention to how local communities are represented and with what effect, gender perspectives can provide an alternative to the dominant stakeholder approach to participation within the natural resource management literature (Parkins & Mitchell, 2005). This approach has contributed to reducing participation to a limited set of interests, often comprised of those who have both a stake in and knowledge of natural resource management. Those involved have thus tended to be male actors with above-average education and income, and with experience from forestry, agriculture, or hunting. Collaborative and participatory approaches may run contrary to broadening the management system s knowledge base, contribute to reproduce, and even reinforce differences when social relations based on gender are ignored (Richardson et al., 2011) Recognition of conflict as a legitimacy challenge As described in section 3.1, consensus-oriented and deliberative decision making has been emphasized as key qualities of collaborative governance arrangements. However, decision making about the use and protection of natural resources is often highly conflictual, reflecting not only different interests but also values and worldviews. Underneath conflicts over the impacts of conservation policies on nature, society, and economical values, are persistent conflicts about issues related to different world views, issues of trust, power imbalances or latent historical issues issues that lie well outside the sphere of the natural sciences (Redpath et al., 2015, p. 3). 52

55 The conflicts are thus about much more than impacts and therefore not easily solved or settled through scientific approaches or technical solutions. Conservation conflicts are about power and how power relations are perceived differently depending on societal positioning (Skogen et al., 2013), but they are also about culture, place, and identity (Kaltenborn, Riese, & Hundeide, 1999). However, democracy is neither characterized by the absence of conflicts nor disputes. Differences and diversity are essential aspect of social life and the need to handle conflicts has been an important driving force for new collaborative governance approaches. Differences can be an important driving force for vital change and innovation in public decision making. How conflicts are recognized and handled in contested decision-making processes are therefore important for the legitimacy of the processes, decisions, and decision-making bodies. Increased participation and inclusion of different stakeholders has both the potential of stirring up incompatible and conflicting interests and developing common ground and shared understandings of challenges for protected areas. However, despite the growth in collaborative arrangements within conservation management, Madden and McQuinn (2014) argue the deeprooted conflicts among different stakeholders often are neglected. These conflicts are often limited to the present disputes, which may result in overlooking or even making underlying conflict more heated. Moreover, there has also been a tendency to negotiate short-term, superficial solutions to these complex conflicts. Madden and McQuinn (2014, p. 98) emphasize that: In many cases, this tendency is due to a lack of capacity for employing more comprehensive approaches, a lack of mandate or willingness to change existing methods, or a desire to avoid the messy complexity of conflict that, on the surface, may seem tangential or irrelevant to the conservation mandate. They suggest there is a need for developing a way of thinking about, understanding, and relating to conflicts (how identify, understand, prevent, and reconcile conflict.). However, conflicts are not necessarily expressed directly, and may be difficult to detect. The apparent absence of conflicts may reflect that more subtle mechanisms than explicit exercise of power or domination may be at work, affecting which issues are discussed and put on the agenda. Working with differences and recognizing conflict involves an awareness of both explicit and more subtle conflicts. 53

56 In paper 4, I explore conflicts about conservation issues within a planning context, which reflect that conflicts about use and protection of nature cannot be limited to the formal and legal framework for nature conservation. Rather, disputes over conservation issues spill over to other decision-making processes and arenas. 3.4 Developing a broad concept of legitimacy Through this chapter, I have argued for the need to empirically investigate assumptions about increased legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements in nature conservation and to approach the inclusiveness of such arrangements and the depth and scope of participation as empirical questions. I have also shown that examining legitimacy challenges that arise in collaborative arrangements accompanied with increased participation is vital. The multitude of meanings ascribed to the concept of legitimacy call for a broad approach to understand how legitimacy is both constructed and contested in collaborative decision making about conservation issues. In this chapter, I have developed a conception of legitimacy that includes gender perspectives and recognition of conflicts. Recognizing the constructed and contested nature of legitimacy is important to understanding how different and even competing versions of legitimacy are constructed and how trade-offs are made between different dimensions and sources of legitimacy. Approaching legitimacy empirically is challenging. However, a growing body of literature has shown the value of exploring legitimacy in context. In the next section, I describe the research strategy and case studies, giving an account of the contexts within which I have explored the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements. 54

57 4. Methodology This chapter presents the research strategy driving the work with this thesis. I begin in section 4.1 by describing the research strategy and how legitimacy came to the forefront in this thesis. In section 4.2, I describe how the research process has developed and I give a brief account of the reasoning behind the selection of the cases. A short presentation of the cases is also provided. In section 4.3, I describe how the case studies were carried out by outlining the methods, the empirical material, and the analysis. In section 4.4, I discuss research quality and ethical considerations in this research process. 4.1 Research strategy This research began with the purpose of exploring if and how collaborative governance arrangements and increased local participation contributed to create a more sustainable management of protected areas. As described in section 1.1, this initially involved a research focus on opportunities for consensus-building processes and conflict resolution through decentralization of power and authority from central government to local and regional decisionmaking bodies in natural resource management. Through a combination of empirical and theoretical work, this focus gradually shifted to an emphasis on how legitimacy was constructed in different decision-making processes aiming to balance use and protection of nature. As will be explained in the following sections in this chapter, I have used empirical work to establish and refine the research focus to determine theoretical perspectives and to assess and discuss the central theoretical debates and concepts the thesis focuses on A case study approach Approaching legitimacy as situated and issue dependent, as suggested by Connelly et al. (2006) and Wallington et al. (2008), made case study methodology a suitable research strategy, since this allowed for in-depth empirical investigations to understand how legitimacy was constructed in different contexts and through different decision-making processes. Case studies are particularly suitable for explorative approaches seeking to understand new phenomenon with limited prior knowledge (Yin, 1994). This was especially relevant for developing the methodological approach in this study since the Norwegian conservation management reform 55

58 had just been implemented when I began to frame the research project in I was interested in how the reform would work in practice, how opportunities for local participation would develop, and how this would affect the balance between use and protection of natural resources. Yin (1994, p. 18) argues case studies are the preferred approach when asking why and how questions about contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. The case study approach has enabled me to focus on creating thick descriptions of complex decision-making processes in the context they have occurred. This has involved an emphasis on the broader societal and historical context to understand the complex interactions shaping contemporary decision making about use and protection of natural resources. Further, I rely on multiple sources of data from documents, interviews, observations and online surveys, which have enabled me to explore the research questions from different perspectives and viewpoints. As the research process developed, I became increasingly aware of how different actors and stakeholders interpreted the legitimacy of decision-making bodies, processes, and final decisions differently. This realization led me to develop an approach that could embrace different dimensions and sources of legitimacy (paper 2). The overall governance system and policy-context affecting the relationship between actors at the local, regional, and national level became important to understanding how and what kind of legitimacy was constructed in the specific decision-making processes. For this reason, the research strategy has been to explore legitimacy from different perspectives, ranging from the overall level of the Norwegian conservation management system to local implementation and practices in specific cases. As stated in section 1.4, I have used a multiple case study approach in this thesis, drawing on five different case studies. In the literature, comparative and multiple case studies are often used as similar concepts to describe a research strategy with an explicit intention to compare across different cases (Yin, 1994). Single cases are selected because they belong to a specific collection of cases (Merriam, 2009). This has not been the overall purpose of my research; rather, the case studies have been selected for different reasons and with different focus, as I will elaborate further in the next section. Therefore, the papers in this thesis explore legitimacy in decision-making processes about natural resources from different angles, including accountability patterns and politicization (paper 1), different dimensions of legitimacy and 56

59 tensions between them (paper 2), underrepresentation of women and gender equality in participation (paper 3), and how conflicts are handled and recognized (paper 4) A research project in close collaboration with others I have had the opportunity to participate in two different research projects, both funded by the Norwegian Research Council s Environment 2015 program. This has had important implications for the research strategy and the research process. The first project I was involved in, Local ideals, models and practice in natural resource management: Does local management matter? (LOCALMAN), focused on different local management models ability to contribute to sustainable natural resource management. The second project, Regional planning and wild reindeer management (REINMAN), focused on the effects of introducing regional planning into traditional wild reindeer management. Participating in these two research projects has given me several opportunities that I otherwise would not have had. Collaborating with others has made it possible to carry out several in-depth case studies, which I probably would not have had the resources or time to do if I had been on my own. Working closely with others through the different phases of my own research process has contributed to creating a creative research approach, with ongoing discussions about the field and the case studies. Sharing interesting empirical findings, getting feedback on interpretations, and trying out preliminary analyses in project meetings have contributed to creating a dynamic research process. However, this has also resulted in a messy research process and, as Figure 4 shows, the research process has not been linear. Participating in the two research projects, I have not had complete control of how the research process has developed and I have had to follow the projects progression and deadlines. Therefore, I have been involved in and worked on different phases of several case studies at the same time, which has made the research process complex. As Figure 4 shows, the research process has developed through a parallel approach to local conservation management in case study 2 and regional planning in case studies 3 and 4. 57

60 Figure 4 The research process At times, the boundaries between my independent research project and the larger projects were blurry and instead of defining my own project clearly, I pushed this challenge ahead and focused on the common ground between my research interests and the focus of the two 58

61 projects. Adopting a comparative approach would perhaps have made this easier, through a focus on how similar issues and challenges were handled within the two management systems. Having defined more clearly which of the aspects in the case studies in REINMAN and LOCALMAN I was going to explore further could perhaps have contributed to limiting the empirical approach. But, the open, explorative approach in both research projects contributed to in-depth and complex analysis of the case studies. This enabled me to pursue questions of how conservation management and wild reindeer management were intertwined in practice. I also experienced that the actors on the ground did not sharply distinguish between the different decision-making bodies or processes. 4.2 Research process and case descriptions This thesis consists of five case studies that explore different dimensions of legitimacy (see Table 1 in Chapter 1). Case studies 1 and 5 focus on conservation management at the overall system level. Case study 2 is an in-depth exploration of conservation management in two protected areas. Case studies 3 and 4 explore how balancing conservation policy and rural development were handled within the planning system through two regional planning processes. The first case study was a comparative case study of the Norwegian and Swedish conservation management systems. This case study was central in developing an overview of the field and recent changes. Through the comparison with the Swedish management system, I began to develop an understanding for the particularities of the Norwegian context, which has been an important foundation for the subsequent case studies. Although this study did not explicitly focus on legitimacy, it revealed that Norwegian conservation management drew on dual accountability patterns, both upwards to the government and downwards to the affected communities, which contributed to focus my research approach on how potential tensions were expressed and experienced in practice. A strength with the parallel research approach to local conservation management (in case study 2) and regional planning (in case studies 3 and 4), was that empirical findings and insights from the three studies could inform each other. This proved to be particularly important in case study 2 and 4, since there were thematic and geographical overlaps between the cases. Regional planning for wild reindeer areas grew out of a recognition that conservation policy was 59

62 insufficient to protect these animals and their habitat, which have been an important conservation objective for the large protected areas in Sothern Norway (Andersen & Hustad, 2004). Thus, the regional plans concerned the buffer zones around the protected areas, with a goal to protect important wild reindeer habitat outside the protected areas and to create rural economic development profitable for the affected communities. In interviews, actors would typically talk about both conservation management and the regional wild reindeer planning processes, and they were often regarded as similar initiatives from above or outside the local communities. Some of the interviewees were involved in both conservation management and regional planning, and contributed in interviews with accounts of both. For example, one of the mayors I interviewed in case study 2, as a member of the conservation management board, had been the municipal representative in the steering committee for the regional wild reindeer plan in case study 4, and he had served on the regional wild reindeer board. Another example was that the conservation board in Dovrefjella- Sunndalsfjella National Park, in case study 2, held the ordinary board meeting before lunch, and after lunch, put on different hats and became the steering committee for the regional wild reindeer planning process for Dovre-Snøhetta. Although the latter was not part of my study, the interviewees accounts contributed to my understanding of the context and the ongoing debates and challenges. What became particularly clear was that conflicts regarding the establishment of the protected areas in the past continued to play a role and influenced the stakeholders perception of the legitimacy of both conservation management and regional planning. This was especially the case for one of the regional planning processes in case study 3, where former conflicts continued to shape the collaboration between municipalities and the county councils on one hand and the county governor and wild reindeer board on the other, which affected the planning process negatively (Singsaas, 2016). Moreover, local and regional politicians saw the regional planning process as an opportunity to challenge the balance between use and protection, and reduce the county governor s use of formal objections to local land-use planning in the buffer areas to the conservation areas (Singsaas, 2014). This shows that the non-linear research process was valuable to developing an understanding of how conservation management and regional planning in practice were intertwined. If I had not included regional planning, I might 60

63 not have understood the extent of how conservation management continued to be challenging and why historical conflicts continued to influence decision making. A realization that gender perspectives were relevant for my research grew gradually after having carried out the case studies. My personal experiences with how gender had come into play in interview settings, combined with a recognition of the gender gap in the literature, made me explore the gender balance on the conservation boards and among the stakeholder groups. At first, I did not anticipate this would turn into a case study. However, finding systematic gender differences in representation and participation made me realize gender perspectives were relevant for understanding legitimacy. Despite of this being late in the research process, I decided to develop this into a case study Case study 1: Comparing the Norwegian and Swedish conservation management system The decision to compare the Norwegian management system with the Swedish was based on observations of different responses in the two counties to the same international policy-trend of decentralization of conservation management combined with conflictual processes of establishing protected areas. These differences were especially interesting in light of the historical similarities in the management system in the two countries, with a top-down bureaucracy that privileged scientific knowledge Case study 2: Local conservation management of two protected areas The second case study was a single case study of local conservation management at a local level, with two protected areas as embedded cases. These were the Setesdal, Vesthei, and Ryfylkeheiane (SVR) landscape protected area and Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella national park (see Figure 5). The purpose with the overall case study, which was part of the LOCALMAN project, was to explore different aspects related to decentralized management authority and increased local participation. Therefore, the case study included two embedded cases and a survey covering 20 protected areas in the Southern Norway. The survey was developed after the embedded case studies had been carried out, and made it possible to explore themes and issues we found interesting in the two protected areas in 18 other areas. The survey is described further in section

64 Figure 5 The two protected areas in case study 2. 62

65 In the project group, the discussions about selecting cases revolved around the need to choose protected areas that had implemented the new management system early on after the reform in 2010 for there to be anything to investigate. We also discussed conservation objectives and classifications, restriction level and conflicts, the presence of Sami interests, and size of the protected areas. In addition, two of the researchers in the group had been involved in evaluating the management trial in SVR, as described in section 2.1.2, and therefore had knowledge about the context and contacts at the local level. There were several similarities between SVR and Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella that made them suitable for comparison. As large mountain ecosystems, with untouched and wild nature, they represented traditional conservation objectives, as described in section and wild reindeer had been a conservation objective in both areas. SVR covered eleven municipalities and three counties, while Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella covered eight municipalities and four counties. With 14 and 12 members, the two conservation boards were among the largest in Norway, which made the two cases special in one sense. However, since a purpose with the LOCALMAN project was to explore coordination among the different actors that were involved in conservation management, the two cases were useful. At the end, the most important selection criteria was that SVR and Dovrefell-Sunndalsfjella were among the first where the local management model was implemented during SVR and Dovrefell-Sunndalsfjella had been part of the trial period that resulted in the new management model in 2009 and the municipalities thus had experiences with local management, which we assumed would have made the transition easier. Compared to the other conservation boards, the former experiences with decentralized management systems made these two cases unique, since it would allow an investigation of the development of the conservation management system in these two different contexts Case study 3: Regional planning of a protected water catchment I selected the regional planning process of Vefsna in Nordland County as a case study to explore why and how regional planning was introduced as a policy tool for differentiated and adaptive management of a protected watercourse. The river Vefsna and its watercourse, which covers 4,231 km 2 in the three municipalities Hattfjelldal, Grane and Vefsn in Nordland, had been protected from large-scale hydropower development. This decision was taken through 63

66 negotiations between the parties in power (The Norwegian Labor Party, Socialist Left Party, and Center Party) after the national election in 2005, and ended a heated political discussion (Stoltenberg-regjeringen, 2005). However, when the Parliament protected the area in 2009 (Prop. 53 ( )), they also instructed the county to initiate a pilot project with regional planning to explore how protection could be combined with sustainable development beneficial for the affected municipalities. Since management of protected watercourses had been a governmental responsibility, with state regulations, this was a unique case with the possibilities to study how decentralized management was handled in a regional planning process. Initially, I planned this as an in-depth case study similar to the two regional planning processes in case study 4. My intention was to follow the planning process closely, to explore how the opposing interests and views between proponents for hydropower development and nature conservationists where handled in the planning process, to what extent the regional plan managed to unite the former opponents, and how conflicts were recognized in the plan. The planning process was in its early stage when I conducted interviews with local and regional authorities and different stakeholder in September The field work in 2012 included nine interviews (see Appendix 4) and I also participated in a workshop where eight representatives from the municipalities, county council, and other governmental agencies presented their views on the ongoing planning process. This workshop was arranged for the graduate-level student course Strategic landscape planning at NMBU, which did a project of Vefsna at the same time. This initial field work resulted in a publication (see Appendix 11) co-authored with Synne Movik (Movik & Lundberg, 2013), which was part of the WAPABAT 3 research project interested in coordination between the EU s water framework directive and the regional plan for Vefsna. I planned to revisit the interviewees after the planning process had ended and compare their perceptions of the process and the plan from the interviews in Through document studies, I also planned to explore how the plan had been shaped throughout the process and assess who had been influential in framing the result. However, after doing two interviews with the regional planning authorities in October 2014, shortly after the plan had been adopted, I made a 3 Water Pollution Abatement in a System of Multi-level Governance: A study of Norway s implementation of EUs Water Framework Directive. 64

67 pragmatic decision not to do follow-up interviews at the local level in the three municipalities. As the case study of regional wild reindeer planning had evolved, I realized how timeconsuming it would be to go deeply into the Vefsna process. In addition to this, I already had extensive empirical material from the other case studies (2 and 3). However, the experiences and impressions from this case study were important in my approach to case study 4. The conflict lines between proponents and opponents of hydro-power development were so strong. In the interviews with representatives for the regional planning authority, I was struck by how they openly they described these conflicts and recognized that they had to maneuver in a highly-contested context, with different and conflicting exceptions to the regional plan. The case study has therefore been relevant to include in this thesis, even though I have left out the paper published after the fieldwork from 2012 (Movik & Lundberg 2013) Case study 4: Regional planning of two wild reindeer regions This case study was part of the REINMAN project, were the purpose was to explore how regional planning contributed to a more comprehensive management of wild reindeer regions, see Figure 6. In the project group, we decided to select Rondane-Sønlklette and Setesdal Vesthei, Ryfylkeiane og Setesdal Austhei the Heiplan as cases since these were among the first planning processes the Ministry of Environment had prioritized after commissioning regional plans in the ten wild reindeer areas in 2007 (Miljøverndepartementet, 2007). Figure 7 presents the Heiplan planning area. We developed a comparative case study design with the purpose of comparing how the national planning initiative had been interpreted and carried out in these two regions. In both areas, initial dialogue meetings between national, regional, and local authorities had been carried out during 2008, but the planning programs were first adopted in 2010 (Bråtå, Ericsson, Reimers, & Skjeggedal, 2014). Therefore, the planning processes had been running for a while in both regions when we selected them as cases in 2012 and I followed the decision-making processes historically from 2008 and as they developed until the Ministry of Environment finally endorsed the regional plans in June and September

68 Figure 6 Wild reindeer areas in Norway (Retrived from In the REINMAN project, the two case studies were the regional planning processes for National wild reindeer area 1 and 2 (Setesdal Vesthei, Ryfylkeheiane og Setesdal Vesthei), and 19 and 20 (Rondane- Sølnkletten). 66

69 Figure 7 The regional plan for Setesdal Vesthei, Ryfylkeheiane og Setesdal Austhei. 67

70 The initial research approach to the two regional planning processes was similar. After having done interviews with actors at the regional level in both areas, a wind power project in Bygland municipality proved to be an opportunity to explore how the Heiplanen was used in local landuse planning. Figure 8 shows that the wind power proposal in Bygland is located in what the Heiplan defined as a National wild reindeer area. We therefore selected this as an embedded case study within the Heiplanen case, which would allow us to study how actors at the local level understood and perceived the regional plan. Together with Eirin Hongslo, I published a paper about the wind power project based on the initial analysis of this material (Hongslo & Lundberg, 2012). However, it took an additional four years until the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate s (2016a) decision to give the wind power company a license to build the wind power plant. This decision was appealed to the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (Norges vassdrags- og energidirektorat, 2016b) in October 2016 and the decisionmaking process was still not settled when I finalized the thesis. We decided not to look for additional local land-use decisions in the affected municipalities in Rondane-Sølnkletten, but rather focus on Bygland municipality and the wind power project. This was partly a pragmatic decision related to the resources available, the project s deadline, and the division of labor between the members in the project. While Eirin Hongslo and I focused on the Heiplanen process (see Hongslo 2017), Marianne Singsaas studied the Rondane- Sølnkletten process in detail (see Singsaas, 2014, 2015, 2016). Although this case study resulted in a paper (paper 4) that only covered the Heiplanen process and the embedded case from Bygland, the case study of Rondane-Sølnkletten contributed to contrast and confirm differences and similarities, which have been an important aspect of the analysis process of the Heiplanen process. In addition, I have supervised two master s students who studied perceptions about the planning process and future implementation in Stor-Elvdal municipality, affected by the Rondane-Sølnkletten plan (Tosterup, 2014) and the Odda municipality, affected by the Hardangervidda plan (Norén, 2013). This has given me additional insight into the relationships between local and regional authorities from two other planning processes, which has contributed to understand the Bygland case. 68

71 Figure 8 The wind power proposal in Bygland municipality. 69

72 4.2.5 Case study 5: Gender equality in Norwegian conservation management In the last case study, I focused on gender equality in local participation and representation in conservation management in Norway. Compared to the other case studies, the boundaries of this case are more difficult to establish, since it involves gender composition at the overall and the local level. The main unit of analysis is the 42 conservation boards in the Norwegian management system and the 34 stakeholder groups. The overall gender composition is complemented with in-depth study of gender differences in the two conservation boards and stakeholder groups in case study 2 (SVR and Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella). In the case study, I have reanalyzed data material from case study 2 in combination with a collection of new empirical material. The decision to include gender perspectives at a late stage in the research process had implications for how in-depth an understanding and analysis of gender and gender equality would be possible to develop. Therefore, the purpose of the case study was primarily to develop an overview of the current situation through a gender taxonomy of the conservation boards and stakeholder groups (further described in section 4.3.5). Mapping and comparing gender differences at the overall level was relatively easy. However, to examine how the gender quota requirements affected the boards composition, I decided to carry out two additional interviews with representatives from the NEA involved in appointment processes for these boards and to reanalyze the interview material from case study Conducting the case studies In the case studies, I have combined different methods with the purpose of illuminating the cases from different angles. Multiple methods can contribute to creating a more complete and meaningful understanding of a complex phenomenon. In this thesis, this has included document studies, semi-structured interviews, observations, surveys, and a gender taxonomy. Table 2 gives an overview of the methods used in the different case studies. Table 2 A summary of the methods used in the five case studies Methods Case study 1 Case study 2 Case study 3 Case study 4 Case study 5 Document studies x x x x Interviews x x x x Observations x x x Survey x Gender taxonomy x 70

73 As stated, I was participant in two research projects. Since both projects had a shorter life than my PhD research process, I became involved in fieldwork relatively early on. I made the first observations at a workshop held by the Association for Rural Municipalities (USS Utmarkskommunenes sammenslutning) in November 2011, two months after I had begun the PhD program. USS had been an active lobbyist for the new management reform and the workshop gathered a broad range of local and regional politicians, governmental agencies, and stakeholders. Through these encounters at the very beginning of the research process, I developed an impression of just how high the expectations to the new management model were among politicians and stakeholders. This also made me aware of the potential challenges and disputes, which contributed to shape my approach to the case studies. In January 2012, I collaborated in carrying out two explorative interviews with representatives from the Norwegian Environmental Agency (NEA). In one interview, we explored what three members of the National Park Department thought about the old and new management model and their expectations for how the new model would be implemented. In the second interview with a representative for the NEA with extensive experience with wild reindeer management, we discussed how the wild reindeer management at local and national level had developed, the background for introducing regional planning, and preliminary assessment of the different planning processes. These interviews were important in shaping the questions that drove the empirical investigations in the following case studies, but it also contributed to form my understanding of policy documents and historical changes in management of both protected areas and wild reindeer. Also of relevance for subsequent case studies was my involvement in a workshop with the NEA in December 2012, which gathered social science researchers who were involved in research projects about Norwegian conservation management after the reform and representatives from the NEA and Ministry of Environment. Inviting other researchers gave me an overview of who was working on similar issues and discussing these issues with other researchers and representatives from the NEA and MoE were fruitful. The workshop was summarized in a publication for which I had the main responsibility (Lundberg et al., 2013). 71

74 A common approach to conducting the case studies was to identify central documents and key actors. The fieldwork lasted from two days up to a week, depending on how many interview appointments we had. For case studies 2, 3, and 4, fieldwork had been carried out in several rounds Document studies Documents have been important data sources in all the case studies. Document studies have been central to understanding changes in the Norwegian conservation management system and how the regional planning processes have developed. All the case studies began with document studies, albeit with different purposes and focus. While document studies in case study 1 provided an understanding of changes of conservation management at the overall level in Norway and Sweden, document studies of the regional planning processes in case studies 3 and 4 have provided an in-depth understanding of how the planning processes evolved. Through governmental policy-documents, as white papers on the state of the environment (St.meld. nr. 21 ( ), 2005); St.meld. nr. 26 ( ), 2007), and conservation regulations, important guidelines for both the planning processes and conservation management have been expressed. Through these document studies, I have followed references in the central documents, which Lynggard (2012) refers to as mother documents that can be placed in a field of other documents (Appendix 3). This has resulted in a rich empirical material, especially from the regional wild reindeer planning processes in case study 4, which mirrors how comprehensive these planning processes have been and how many different actors have been involved. For all the three case studies of the Norwegian conservation management system, the National Budget for (Prop. 1 ( )), which described the management reform for the first time, became a main document, with references to other documents describing the development of the Norwegian conservation management system. This included the National park plan (St.meld. nr. 62 ( ), 1991), the evaluation reports of the trial periods (Falleth & Hovik, 2008) and the NEA s recommendations (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning, 2008) to the MoE based on these evaluations in addition to reports from the Office of the Auditor General of Norway (Riksrevisjonen, 2014). 72

75 Similarly, in approaching regional wild reindeer planning, the Ministry of Environment s commission letter from 2007, with a follow-up letter specifying the environmental authorities participation (Miljøverndepartementet 2007), became a central document with references to scientific reports (Andersen & Hustad, 2004) and governmental White Papers (St.meld. nr. 21 ( ), 2005); St.meld. nr. 26 ( ), 2007). Since the purpose of this case study was to explore how the regional wild reindeer planning processes had developed, I used the snowball method to collect documents by following references between the documents. For the Heiplanen process, all the central planning documents, summary of steering committee meetings and decisions, reports and formal statements from different stakeholders were accessible through a webpage ( while I had to ask to gain access to the same material for the process in Rondane-Sølnkletten. First, I made a record of the different documents, ordering them chronologically to see how the planning processes had proceeded. I then went through the document to understand how the processes had developed in light of the initial intentions (timelines, working groups, and participatory arrangements). The document records were updated as the planning process developed throughout 2012 and 2013 to when the ministry finally approved the plans in June In the embedded case study of the wind power project in Bygland municipality, other documents stood out as important for the analysis. Through a second phase of document studies, I focused on the documents that described Bygland municipality s participation and input to the regional planning processes, in combination with stakeholders from Bygland. Not all these documents were as easily accessible compared to those from the regional planning process. Through archives in the Bygland municipality, I received additional documents, such as summaries from public participation meetings and correspondence between these municipalities in the Setesdal region. However, the meeting minutes were not accurate reports from what had been said and by whom. Furthermore, the municipal official who made the account had already interpreted the different inputs. As already stated, the document studies had different purposes, which also reflect how they were analyzed. This ranged from gaining an overview of the process to develop a historical time line including the different events to more in-depth studies of the different documents at later stages. Except for case study 1, where public documents were the main data source, the 73

76 other case studies have involved combining document studies with interviews, observations, and surveys. While the document studies could give an account of how the processes had developed, interviews were important to put the documents into a broader context, which contributed to illuminate how the key actors themselves interpreted the documents and saw development over time. In addition to public documents, I searched for news articles related to case studies 2, 3, and 4 in local and regional newspapers, which gave me a sense of the ongoing debates. For a period between 2012 and 2014, the LOCALMAN project subscribed on the daily newspaper Nationen ( which covers different rural issues and states its purpose as to provide a voice and space for rural Norway. 4 Following debates about natural resource management from a rural point of view, I developed an understanding of the different but partly overlapping debates that were running. These were debates about large carnivores and wolves, municipal reforms, population decrease, and restructuring of the agriculture sector. Even though these issues did not directly concern the case studies, they were relevant for understanding the context of decision making about protected areas and wild reindeer Interviews Exploring questions related to participation and legitimacy within a policy field characterized by conflicting interests and perspectives made interviews an important approach. Through the interviews, I have had the opportunity to explore the actors own perceptions and how they have positioned themselves in relation to other actors. Explorative semi-structured interviews have offered an opportunity to probe behind the official narratives about the decision-making processes as presented in documents and plans, emphasizing the actors own perspectives on these processes. The actors perceptions of opportunities, barriers, and success criteria for increased local participation in conservation management could also be explored through interviews. The common criteria for selecting interviewees in all the case studies was that they were regarded as key actors in the different case studies. Therefore, I have mostly done a strategic selection of actors who had been involved in the decision-making processes. This was combined with a snowball approach, which was especially relevant in the embedded case study 4 ( ) 74

77 in Bygland in case study 5, where we had less of an overview of who the local stakeholders were and how they had participated in the planning process. I strove to include different actors who represented public, private, and civil society. Age, gender, and background were not an aspect, which has made the gender blindness particularly clear in the skewed data material in case study 2. I framed diversity as a question of actor representation and the perspectives these actors could contribute. How gender, age and their background might influence was not of interest. The material ranged from elite interviews with central politicians, such as mayors, county mayors, and committee leaders to more marginalized groups who have experienced exclusion. Although the interview guides were similar for all actors, in practice the actual interviews differed significantly. All the interviewees were given an information letter about the research project, including information about anonymity and how the information would be used (Appendix 1 and 2) prior to the fieldwork. The study was submitted and approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) prior to carrying out the fieldwork. Except for one, all interviews were taperecorded. The interview material consists of 57 interviews with 69 people, as shown in Appendix 4. The table also shows how many individual and group interviews were conducted. I have collaborated with other researchers in 48 interviews and carried out five interviews on my own and. Four of the 57 interviews were carried out by other researchers on the REINMAN and LOCALMAN project. However, I listened through the recorded interviews and made notes prior to reading the transcribed version of the interviews. This helped me to create a picture of the interviews before turning them into text for a more detailed analysis. Compared to what I might have obtained if I had planned and carried out all the interviews on my own, cooperation has been efficient and has allowed me to explore extensive interview material. Being involved in the two research projects had implications for how the interviews were prepared, carried out, and analyzed. Collaborating in making the interview guides made them broad and comprehensive, as seen in Appendices 6 and 7, and they covered issues I did not intend to go into. However, this approach opened the field, and allowed for investigations of how different issues were related, which was especially useful since I have studied changes at a point when the phenomenon was new and the context shifted. 75

78 Most interviews in case studies 2 and 4 I carried out together with other members from the two research projects (see Appendix 4). Eirin Hogslo, Sissel Hovik, and Terje Skjeggedal participated in interviewing in case study 2, and, in case study 4, Eirin Hongslo, Marianne Singsaas, and Eva Falleth also participated. In practice, we divided the responsibility for interviewing and making notes and the one who made these notes was responsible for transcribing the interviews afterwards. In interviews with local actors in case study 3, I collaborated with Synne Movik since we wanted to explore similar issues, albeit she had an interest in implementation and coordination with the EU s water framework directive in the regional planning process for Vefsna. Overall, I experienced it as a strength to interview in a team of two, since this made it possible for the one who made notes to ask follow-up questions and the one interviewing would always wrap up by asking the other if there were issues or questions that had not been covered. By becoming familiar with the interview guide, I gradually became more comfortable with the quiet moments during the interviews, which initially could feel awkward. After listening to the recordings from the first interviews, I realized that I often quickly filled these moments with new questions. Later, instead, I tried to take advantage of these moments and waited as long as possible for the interviewees to reflect and think. My interviewing skills developed in close collaboration with others and I experienced that different researchers had different approaches and interviewing styles. While some were persistent when they asked questions, others had a more relaxed approach to the interviewees and would make jokes more frequently. Some were even provocative when asking questions, trying to get the interviewees to respond to claims that were put somewhat extremely. These examples reflect how we as researchers contributed to shape the interview settings, affecting what the interviewees said and how. In the REINMAN-project, one ambition was to make a social network analysis of the key actors involved in wild reindeer management. Through standardized questionnaires, we tried to map the interviewees interaction with other central actors, paying attention to both official, formal contact but also unofficial and more informal contact. The idea was to visualize how the different actors where connected through social networks and if someone was more central than others, and explore how these networks affected the decision-making processes. However, this 76

79 proved to be difficult. A couple of the interviewees gave detailed accounts of who, when, and how they interacted with other actors. Interestingly, this included hunting and hiking, wine tasting, and other social activities of an informal character. However, many of the interviewees found it difficult to specify their contact pattern while some of the interviewees refused to talk about their contact pattern. Consequently, it became impossible to do a social network analysis. Nevertheless, these experiences contributed to my interest in transparency in decision-making processes and to shape an awareness of how closed the wild reindeer management had been. Afterwards we would always discuss the interviews, and I often experienced that we had noticed different things and that we interpreted things differently. Trying to make sense of the interviews through such discussions blurred the distinction between the generating data in the interview settings and the interpretive phase. There were no sharp boundaries between fieldwork and analysis. However, with distance from the context and the interviewees, the transcription from the interviews became the main source of data for analysis. In analyzing the interview material, I approached each interview with an emphasis on both the pre-defined themes from the interview guides and the themes and issues the interviewees had raised. In the first analysis approach, I made short summaries of the interviews, helping me to understand how the different actors had been involved in the different decision-making processes and whether they had experiences from both conservation and wild reindeer management. In the second phase, I approached the interviews more in-depth, using different colors to categorize the content of each interview. This helped me develop an understanding of recurring themes and arguments. What is more, the approach made it possible to identify missing issues and perspectives. In practice, I have gone back and forth between interview material from the different cases, since I have worked on several papers simultaneously. In the analysis, I have also shifted between the empirical work and theoretical perspectives, exploring how theory could contribute to understanding the interview material and how accounts from the interviews could elaborate on theory. In case study 5, I have gone back and reanalyzed the interview material from case study Observations Observations were also part of the data material (see Appendix 5). At the beginning of the research process, I participated in different meetings, workshops, and conferences held by 77

80 different actors in the field. It was interesting to notice how different stakeholders talked about the same issues, but in different ways and with different concepts. For example, the conservation management model was referred to as a regional as opposed to a local management model at meetings in the Association for Outdoor Municipalities (USS), which had lobbied for decentralizing the management responsibility directly to the municipalities. These observations contributed to my understating of the field, different stakeholder s positions, and the debates that were running, mostly relevant for case studies 1 and 2. Being part of the REINMAN project gave me access to a relatively closed forum that gathered key actors from the nine different planning processes twice a year. These meeting were initiated by and held at the Ministry of Environment. It gathered representatives from the regional planning authorities, the county governor, the NEA, and the project leaders responsible for the regional plans. Observations form these meetings were valuable for understanding what were the difficult issues in the planning processes, how the different actors collaborated, and how the processes proceeded. Some of the actors I previously had interviewed participated in these meetings, and I had an opportunity to get an impression of how the planning processes were developing since all the project leaders gave status reports Survey In case study 2, the two embedded case studies were supplemented with a survey. Drawing on the empirical material from the two embedded case studies, I participated in developing and carrying out a web-based survey to conservation boards, stakeholder groups, and municipal advisory groups in 20 areas, in addition to all protected area managers in Norway. The selection was limited to conservation boards that did not cover Sami interests, and where the conservation boards only consisted of local and regional politicians. This decision was primarily based on the purpose of the study, which was to get an overview of the situation and experiences from other comparable areas to the two we already had studied. Drawing on the interview material made it easier to develop the questions in the survey. However, it was a challenge to limit the focus and number of questions, a similar experience to developing the interview guide previously. We carried out pilot surveys on the other project members, which we probably could have expanded. 78

81 Gathering contact information for the respondents was a time-consuming job. Since the board members were local and regional politicians, their addresses were public. But, getting contact information for members in stakeholder groups and municipal advisory groups involved repeated requests to the protected area managers. While in most cases I got an overview of the members, the quality of these lists varied considerably and addresses were often missing. In some areas, the stakeholder groups had not been established and, in other areas, not all the stakeholders had appointed representatives. Despite these difficulties, the surveys were conducted between February and June In the invitation to the participants a short information text about the project followed (See Appendix 8) and each survey started with a standard text about anonymity, use and presentation of the date (see Appendix 9). Appendix 10 presents the survey sent to the members of the conservation boards. The three other surveys were developed around similar issues and questions. In paper 2, the response rates for each of the four surveys are described. I had the main responsibility for designing the survey, gathering contact information for the respondents and, sending the surveys. Sissel Hovik had the main responsibility for analyzing the data. The material from the surveys used in paper 2 reflect that I have not carried out indepth analyses, but rather used the survey material for simple statistical analysis such as distribution and percentage Gender taxonomy As suggested by Reed and Mitchell (2003), and as discussed in paper 3, making a gender taxonomy was an important method in case study 5. I counted and compared women s and men s representation the 42 conservation boards and 38 stakeholder groups. Through the national web-site ( for all the conservation boards, it was easy to get an overview of the conservation management boards, however only 23 stakeholder groups were accessible online, similar to the experiences from gathering contact information for the surveys. Therefore, I contacted the protected area managers directly. 4.4 Quality and ethical considerations How to establish and assess the quality of qualitative research remains debatable, and attracts continuous and repeated attention. Traditional criteria derived for standardized research miss the specific qualities of qualitative research. The appropriateness of concepts such as reliability 79

82 and validity have been disputed in the context of qualitative research. In short, these principles refer to the replicability of the study, its generalizability, and the credibility of the research findings. Reformulations of these principles, such as procedural reliability (Gibbs, 2007), communicative validation (Kvale, 2008), and alternative method-appropriate criteria have been put forward, such as trustworthiness, credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Gibbs (2007) stresses that qualitative researchers cannot escape the requirements of good-quality research, and Flick (2007) argues that the entire research process should be made the point of reference for quality issues. Focusing on the process as a whole makes transparency in planning, conducting, analyzing, and disseminating the research vital. Throughout the methodology chapter, I have therefore emphasized transparency by describing how decisions throughout the process have affected the research (for example, choosing appropriate methods and selecting documents and processes). Working closely with others in planning and carrying out the case studies, analyzing the data material, and presenting the findings have contributed to improving this study s research quality. Interviewing in pairs, as described above, made it easier to detect misunderstandings and omissions in the interview settings, and discussing issues related to interviewing techniques with different researchers contributed to developing my interviewing skills. Collaboration in the analysis process, with on-going discussions about the soundness of the interpretations, with researchers with different theoretical positions and disciplinary backgrounds has also contributed to quality. Triangulation has been an important approach to ensuring the trustworthiness of this study. I have combined multiple and diverse data sources to provide as full a picture as possible. This is not in the sense of checking the truth of these data. Rather, it serves to validate my interpretations and provide a rich account of the issues explored in the different case studies (Merriam, 2009; Seale, 1999). As I have shown, combining official planning documents and input from the affected municipalities and stakeholders in the document studies with interviews of local, regional, and national actors in case study 4 has been crucial to create a rich description of the process. It also ensures multiple and even opposing viewpoints. Exploring conflicts made it important to ensure diversity in the data and interview actors with different perspectives to avoid simplifications or biased presentations of the issues. 80

83 In conferences, workshops, and meetings, I have discussed findings and preliminary analyses with several of the interviewees in the case studies. In the writing process of paper 4, a draft was shown to the interviewees we quoted. A more systematic approach to exploring interpretations of the other case studies with interviewees, could have contributed further to checking how valid our analyses were. In the embedded case study in case study 4, I continued to follow the decision-making processes after the fieldworks in This enabled me to assess my interpretations in light of how the actors either opposed or supported the wind-power project through media coverage, meeting minutes, and written statements. Although this did not involve face-to-face checking with the interviewees, it has contributed to the trustworthiness of the analysis. A much-debated issue is to what extent case study research can contribute to generalizable knowledge (Gomm, Hammersley, & Foster, 2000). In this thesis, I approach this issue with an emphasis on the potential for drawing theoretical generalizations on the basis of case studies. In closing this thesis, in section 6.5, I move from the empirical findings in the cases to a more general level while being aware of the important limitations and contextual factors affecting such analytical generalization. Throughout the research process, I have tried to develop a self-critical awareness of how my positionality and presumptions about the field have influenced different aspects of the research process. Such reflexivity is related to research quality at a fundamental level, since the product of research inevitably reflects some of the background, milieu and predilections of the researcher (Gibbs, 2007, p. 91). For me, reflexivity has involved being aware of how my background, being active in a Norwegian environmental youth organization between 2000 and 2007, has contributed to shape my approach to the field and the research questions I have pursued. Having friends and family actively engaged in different Norwegian environmental organizations has contributed knowledge about ongoing discussions related to my research focus. For a while, I avoided being a paying member in any of the NGOs that were involved as stakeholders in the cases studies. However, being reflexive and acknowledging my own positionality, I realized that this neither improved the quality of my work, nor did it make me more neutral. Rather, accounting explicitly for my background, and my interest for 81

84 environmental politics and participation in practice, and actively reflecting on its influence on my research, has been a better strategy Ethical considerations In this research project, there have been several ethical considerations. I have followed the ethical principles and guidelines developed by the Norwegian National Research Ethic Committees (2014). The application process to the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) was an opportunity to reflect on ethical dilemmas related to consent, anonymity, confidentiality, and storage of personal data at an early stage. Throughout the process, ethical research considerations have especially related to interviewing people, handling personal information, and analyzing and presenting data material. As described in section 4.3, all the interviewees were given information about the project and provided consent prior to the interviews. Only one of the interviewees rejected the request to tape record the interview, which meant that we had to rely on notes for the analysis. On several occasions, I experienced that interesting reflections came after I had turned off the tape recorder. While some might have felt comfortable to speak more freely when not speaking on tape, others simply added additional accounts and anecdotes as the interview setting became more informal. However, I only treated the tape-recorded interviews as data material. The tape recording files and interview transcriptions were anonymized, and they were kept on a remote storage unit in a locked office at the university. Except for other researchers in the two projects, I did not share the interview or observation material with anyone. Ensuring the anonymity of the interviewees throughout the research process has had implications for how I have presented and written about the interviews in the papers. When using quotes from interviews, I have referred who the interviewee represented and how they had been involved in the case studies. Most were interviewed based on their role or position, either as a public official, politician, or stakeholder representative. Ensuring anonymity is, however, a question of how much information the reader already has about the case and the decision-making process in question, which makes it impossible completely to guarantee anonymity. Focusing on conflictual issues and asking questions about a decision-making process people have different perceptions of has also involved ethical questions. It has been important not to only interview people in positions who have had power and authority to affect the decision- 82

85 making processes. In some interviews, opponents were characterized negatively and individuals were even blamed as the reason for the conflicts and collaboration problems. For example, asking questions about the historical origin and the wilderness of the reindeer in the embedded case study from Bygland, in case study 3, created tensions in some interviews. After having presented preliminary findings from this case study at a conference held by the Ministry of Environment ( ), we were encouraged to avoid these issues, since they were irrelevant. We tried to use these events as opportunities to ask additional questions to get the actors to elaborate on their positions. Being part of a larger research group, having developed these analyses in collaboration with others, and having the possibility to debrief probably made these situations easier to handle. 83

86 5. Presentation of papers In this section, I describe each of the papers and relate them to the research questions. I begin each section by outlining the central questions the paper addresses, followed by a brief description of the empirical work and related theoretical perspectives. I conclude each section by presenting the findings of the research as they relate to each paper and how these finding have contributed to the research questions. In Chapter 6, I discuss the findings from the papers presented in this section. The findings and discussions presented in the papers inform each other. Consequently, the papers reveal a progression of the theoretical understanding of legitimacy challenges associated with increased participation and collaborative arrangements in conservation management through the different case studies described above. 5.1 Paper 1 Decentralization of Conservation Management in Norway and Sweden Different Translations of an International Trend. Paper 1: Eirin Hongslo, Sissel Hovik, Anna Zachrisson, and Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg (2016). Decentralization of Conservation Management in Norway and Sweden Different Translations of an International Trend. Society & Natural Resources, 29(8), The question that drove the study presented in paper 1 was how international policy trends in conservation management have been transformed and translated differently in Norway and Sweden. This question was pursued by comparing the conservation management system in each of the countries. Two counties had a similar management system, relying on top-down bureaucracy and scientific expertise and one could have expected that the two countries would have met international commitments and policy trends and persistent local conflicts similarly. The empirical work involving document analysis is described in section The paper focused on the introduction of new policy, and not the effects on conservation practices and thus provided an overview of how increased participation and collaboration in nature conservation have been pursued differently in Norway and Sweden. The analysis drew on Agrawal and Ribot s (1999) decentralization framework, distinguishing between democratic decentralization and deconcentration when governmental authority is diffused from centralized bureaucracy to lower levels of governance. In addition, we introduced 84

87 privatization or co-management as a third category to explore changes in the two countries. We focused the analysis on detectable changes in actors, powers, and accountability patterns, which Agrawal and Ribot (1999) have emphasized as important indicators of the democratic quality of decentralization. The findings showed how national policy context and actor mobilization affected the choice of collaborative arrangements and the scope of change differently in the two countries. In Sweden, this was found to result in co-management of four protected areas with different collaborative arrangements adapted to the local context, giving the involved actors different possibilities for participation and influence in decision making. The remaining national parks continue to be managed through traditional hierarchical modes of governance. In contrast, a national reform initiated by the parliament transferred management authority of all large protected areas in Norway from the county governor to local conservation boards with elected politicians. The comparative approach underlined that nature conservation has been a more politicized field in Norway, giving the Norwegian parliament a central role in shaping the management system at the overall level, whereas changes in the Swedish system have been driven forward by conflicts in a few local contexts and where the Swedish environmental protection agency has played a central role. For the thesis, paper 1 provides an overview of recent changes in Norwegian and Swedish conservation management, and how actors, powers and accountability patterns have been altered through the introduction of collaborative governance. Paper 1 primarily contributes to RQ1 by showing why and how shifting ideals for participation and collaboration in conservation management have been interpreted and implemented differently. This underlines the importance of understanding changes toward collaborative governance in nature conservation in context. Moreover, the findings reflect that, in practice, different and hybrid governance arrangements have been implemented based on the need for considering the national policy context and the broader systems of political actors and institutions of which nature conservation is a part. Paper 1 also contributes to RQ2 through a description of the altered accountability patterns in the Norwegian and Swedish conservation management system. 85

88 Aim: Develop a broad conception of legitimacy to explore how new collaborative governance arrangements handle legitimacy challenges. RQ 1: How have new approaches to participation been institutionalized in conservation management RQ 2: How is legitimacy constructed, and of what kind, in collaborative approaches to conservation management? Relevant findings Focusing on accountability patterns, the paper represents a traditional approach to legitimacy. Differences in Norway and Sweden: with democratic decentralization and hierarchical modes of governance in Norway and comanagement arrangements in some areas in Sweden. Different accountability patterns in the Norwegian and Swedish management system. In Norway, hierarchical accountability patterns. The conservation boars are primarily accountable upward to the government, and indirect accountable downward to the local community. Resulting in double and potentially conflicting accountability patterns. In Sweden, horizontal accountability patterns in the areas with co-management. Involved actors are accountable to their respective organizations, municipalities or governmental agency. 5.2 Paper 2 Different dimensions of legitimacy in decentralized conservation management. Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg and Sissel Hovik. Different dimensions of legitimacy in decentralized conservation management in Norway. Manuscript submitted to Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. The second paper presents the findings from case study 2, with the two protected areas Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella and Setsedal Vesthei Ryfylkeheiene as embedded cases, described in section The motivation for this study built on findings from paper 1, showing that the recent changes in Norwegian conservation management were based on principles for democratic decentralization. This opened the opportunity for investigating how legitimacy and accountability were constructed and the possibilities for direct participation in a management system rooted in principles from the representative democracy. 86

89 The point of departure for this paper was thus critical to exploring the assumptions that increased participation in collaborative governance arrangements could improve nature conservation s legitimacy and effectiveness and ultimately contribute positively in handling persistent conflicts. An analytical framework was developed, distinguishing between input and output sources of legitimacy and how the three dimensions of legitimacy contributed to these conflicts. Following Dingwerth (2007), the three dimensions were participation, accountability and democratic control, and deliberative qualities. This conceptual understanding of legitimacy was used as a lens for discerning the political intentions behind the reform as expressed in governmental documents in addition to exploring the involved actors perceptions and assessments of legitimacy. The results in paper 2 were founded on both document studies, semi-structured interviews, and a survey. The findings showed that the political goals behind the reform were increased input and output legitimacy, improved effectiveness, and more comprehensive and coherent management practice. However, the findings demonstrated these goals were primarily sought through indirect representation by local and regional politicians in the conservation boards. Contrary to how the ideals about increased legitimacy, local support, ownership, and inclusion of local knowledge imply inclusiveness and collaborative efforts, the results in paper 2 show that participation and deliberation have been weakly formalized in the Norwegian conservation management. The findings also showed the extensive power the conservation boards have in determining which stakeholders should participate and how. Moreover, the findings uncovered that, at the local level in the management of the two protected areas, there had been few attempts to developing deliberation between different stakeholders, suggesting that participation was reduced to information sharing and consultation. The survey material contributed to confirming this impression and showed that there had been limited contact between the members of the conservation boards and different stakeholders. The findings gave reason to question how new the management reform really was. Despite the emphasis on co-management and collaborative modes of governance of protected areas in international conventions and the literature, the Norwegian reform did not formalize such principles of inclusion and direct participation from stakeholders. The paper thus highlighted 87

90 the discrepancies between the high expectations and goals behind the reform, and how participation and stakeholder involvement have been pursued in practice. For the thesis, the analytical framework developed in paper 2 contributes to exploring how and what kind of legitimacy the Norwegian conservation management system enables at the overall level and how local interpretations and implementations in two protected areas further affects and shapes legitimacy. The reliance on accountability and democratic control reflects that even in collaborative modes of governance, legitimacy has been constructed around norms of old approaches. Aim: Develop a broad conception of legitimacy to explore how new collaborative governance arrangements handle legitimacy challenges. RQ 1: How have new approaches to participation been institutionalized in conservation management RQ 2: How is legitimacy constructed, and of what kind, in collaborative approaches to conservation management? Relevant findings The analytical framework developed includes different sources and dimensions of legitimacy. Participation framed as representation by elected local and regional politicians in conservation boards. Weak formalization of participation at both the overall and local level. Legitimacy is primarily constructed through hierarchical accountability patterns. Pursuing deliberative goals, but relying on representative democracy and in-direct participation to realize them. Limited transparency in decision making and infrequent contact with local and regional councils. Modest contact between board members and members of stakeholder groups. Those who can hold the board members accountable at the local level have limited insight and access to the decision making. Among the board members, an awareness of potentially conflicting expectations between national and local level. Upward accountability to the government stronger than downward accountability. 88

91 5.3 Paper 3 Gender equality in conservation management: reproducing or transforming gender differences through local participation? Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg. Gender equality in conservation management: reproducing or transforming gender differences through local participation? Manuscript submitted to Society and Natural Resources. The work presented in paper 3 reflects a turn in my initial approach to studying local participation in conservation management, which did not include gender perspectives, as described in section 4.2. The skewed gender balance in the data material in case study 2, combined with a general impression that Norwegian natural resource management has been dominated by men, motivated me to approach local participation from a gender perspective. The questions that drove this study were how and where to start developing a gender perspective on my own research and how gender differences in participation in the conservation boards and among the stakeholder groups could be explained. The theoretical framework presented in the paper builds on Reed and Mitchell s (2003) four approaches to exploring the relationship between gender, power, and participation within natural resource management. I primarily used the first approach by mapping and visualizing gender differences, but I supplemented this with a focus on gender relations as they were expressed in interviews. The paper combined an overview of gender differences among the members of the 42 Norwegian conservation boards and among the stakeholder groups, with semi-structured interviews with actors at the local and national level. The analysis drew on a reanalysis of the interview material used in paper 2 from case study 2, as described in section 4.2.5, with two additional interviews with representatives from the Norwegian Environmental Agency (NEA). The paper identified a knowledge gap in the literature about gender and gender equality in participation in conservation management in developed countries, and natural resource management more broadly. The findings suggested that while there were gender differences in representation and distribution of positions on the conservation boards, gender issues were not regarded relevant by local or national actors. Further, the paper showed that gender equality was reduced to a technicality, reachable through complying with gender quotas. The uneven gender balance was not considered a problem, and the male dominance was taken for granted. 89

92 The paper underlined the need for further research on how gender, gender relations, and gender hierarchies influence decision making about nature conservation. In relation to RQ3, these findings contribute to question the assumption that increased participation through collaborative arrangements contributes to increase legitimacy since women are underrepresented, and their perspectives are thus not necessarily recognized as distinct and even potentially conflicting with men s. Aim: Develop a broad conception of legitimacy to explore how new collaborative governance arrangements handle legitimacy challenges. RQ 3: How do the new collaborative governance approaches handle gender? Relevant findings: Gender not seen as a legitimacy question in research, literature, policy and management practices. Gender inequalities have not been seen as a legitimacy problem. Raising gender issues and framing underrepresentation of women as a legitimacy challenge, contribute to mobilizing a broad conception of legitimacy. Numerical and descriptive effects of gender quotas on women s representation. Gender differences reproduced, rather than transformed Gender equality as a technicality, possible to solve bureaucratically. 5.4 Paper 4 The consequences of avoiding conflict: lessons from conservation planning for Europe s last wild reindeer. Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg, Eirin Hongslo and Tim Richardson. The consequences of avoiding conflict: lessons from conservation planning for Europe s last wild reindeer. Manuscript submitted to Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. The fourth paper presents the work from case study 4, as described in section 4.2.4, and extends the empirical focus to include regional planning. Motivating this paper was the desire to explore how conservation conflicts associated with protection of wild reindeer habitats were handled within the planning system. These conflicts transgress the boundaries of protected areas, and, through regional planning processes, the aim has been to combine protection with local development. Exploring how conservation issues have been framed in the planning system, 90

93 paper 4 contributes to show that conflicts about protected areas affect subsequent decisionmaking processes and that conservation conflicts are relevant for decision making outside protected areas. The planning process for the regional wild reindeer plan the Heiplan was used as a case and a proposed wind power project in Bygland municipalities, which was defined as a National Wild Reindeer Area in the regional plan, gave me an opportunity to explore the legitimacy of the regional plan. The wind power project came to the fore at the very end of the planning process, and unveiled, contrary to the dominant story about consensus and the planning process success, different and conflicting views on both the plan and future land-use development. I approached this atypical case wanting to explore different perceptions of the regional plan and to understand what affected the local opposition in Bygland. The material was a combination of document studies and semi-structured interviews with central actors at the regional and local level. The theoretical perspective presented in the paper is inspired by a postpolitical critique from the planning literature (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2012; Raco & Lin, 2012) and Chantal Mouffe s (2005a,b, 2013) critique of consensus-based decision making due to the inherent exclusion and suppression of conflicts in these processes. Recognition of conflicts have received renewed attention in the planning literature in urban contexts (Gualini 2015; Gualini, Mourato & Allegra 2015) and the paper seeks to extend this focus to conservation planning in rural contexts, where the focus currently has been more pragmatically to manage and mediate conflicts towards agreement and to improve processes and practices. As described in the paper, local opposition and disputes over the wildness of the reindeer and the inclusion of the eastern part of Setesdal in the regional plan were not discernible in the formal documents. Although local actors had expressed these critical perspectives throughout the planning process, and as such, these conflicts were not unknown to the regional planning authorities, they were not mentioned in interviews with actors holding central positions in the planning process. Findings show that reaching a regional consensus resulted in limiting the scope of planning and also led to the exclusion of difficult issues and opposing views. Not recoding or visualizing how these conflicts were handled undermined the legitimacy of the planning process and the final plan. The paper shows that the landowners actively lobbied a 91

94 national wind power company and promoted the location as suitable for wind-power development, despite being defined as a National Wild Reindeer Area in the regional plan. Not engaging actively with the conflicts, the critique was framed as unplannable and not regarded as legitimate. The findings in paper 4 emphasize that recognizing different perceptions and knowledge sources and actively engaging with them is vital for the legitimacy of conservation planning and the outcomes of such processes. Instead of avoiding, suppressing, or excluding conflicts, the findings emphasize the need to write them into the plans and also to justify if and why critical perspectives are left out. Moreover, the findings demonstrate that distinguishing between how the planning process and outcome of a process affects the construction of legitimacy might be difficult in practice since the plan is assessed in light of the process. Aim: Develop a broad conception of legitimacy to explore how new collaborative governance arrangements handle legitimacy challenges. RQ 4: Can persistent conservation conflicts be better handled through their recognition in planning processes? Relevant findings Recognition and acknowledgment of conflicts as legitimate expressions of difference Institutionalized participation and different knowledge sources in the planning system. Recognizing conflicts as legitimate expressions of difference. How to work with conflicts. Legitimacy challenges unavoidable. Need to reflect and visualize conflicts in the final planning document and document how conflicts are handled. Exclusion of issues and perspectives, not of actors. 92

95 6. Difficult and persistent legitimacy challenges In this chapter I return to the four research questions posed in section 1.2 and set out my findings. For each research question (sections 6.1 to 6.4), I discuss the empirical and theoretical contributions this thesis makes to the field of conservation management and to the broader field of natural resource management. In section 6.5, I return to the two-fold aim of the thesis by discussing the value of developing a broad conception of legitimacy and how this approach has given a new perspective on how legitimacy challenges are handled. In section 6.6, I reflect on the thesis implications for how the Norwegian conservation management system can pursue participation and collaboration in handling legitimacy problems. Section 6.7 closes the thesis with some final reflections. 6.1 Participation institutionalized differently at both national and local level (RQ1) Findings from paper 1 and 2 contribute to answering RQ1 and show that institutionalization of participation in collaborative governance arrangement in nature conservation varies at both the national and local level. As others have noted, this reflects the hybrid as opposed to idealized modes of governance (Armitage et al., 2012). The comparative study, in paper 1, shows that faced with similar challenges and demands for increased local participation in conservation management, Norway and Sweden have responded differently to the international policy trend towards collaborative governance. Similarly, findings from paper 2 demonstrate that local participation in Norwegian conservation management has been pursued differently at the local level, affecting local actors and affected communities possibilities of influencing conservation management in practice. These findings underline the importance of approaching and exploring collaborative modes of governance in context, with an emphasis on both formal governance arrangements at the overall level and implementation at the local level. Holmgren et al. (2016) have called for comparative approaches that recognize how contextual factors and different conceptions of what sustainable use entails in governance arrangements in different countries and its effect on nature conservation and local development. This thesis shows the importance of including the broader political-administrative context and level of politicization of nature conservation in such comparative approaches. Several studies have already compared Swedish and Norwegian 93

96 nature conservation (Fauchald, Gulbrandsen, & Zachrisson, 2014; Hovik, Sandström, & Zachrisson, 2010; Sandström et al. 2008). Expanding such comparative approaches to include countries outside Scandinavia, as Getzner, Lange Vik, and Lane (2014) have done, can contribute further to advancing our understandings of how different contexts shape hybrid modes of governance, and how this in turn effects participation and construction of legitimacy. As described in papers 1, 2, and 3, the institutional framework for conservation management in Norway has changed considerably after the reform in Moving management authority from the county governor to conservation boards with elected politicians has contributed further to the transition from a policy dominated by expertise to a process of politicization (Reitan, 2004; Reitan & Holm, 2012). However, findings from paper 2 make it opportune to question the novelty of these changes, and to what extent the new management system constitutes a shift from hierarchical to collaborative modes of governance in nature conservation. As shown in paper 1 and 2, participation, understood as direct public participation and inclusion of stakeholders, has been weakly formalized. Rather, local participation has primarily been framed as representation by elected local and regional politicians in conservation boards. Participation has thus been institutionalized along representative lines of democracy with indirect participation through the members in the conservation boards. This underlines the considerable power the conservation boards have in formalizing and facilitating participation in the management of each protected area. Not specifying who and how many to include in the stakeholder groups opens the possibility for locally adapted solutions, taking into account the conservation objectives, the user groups, and the challenges each protected area faces. Moreover, rendering the conservation boards with power to make decisions about who and how stakeholders participate is a central aspect of moving management authority. However, findings from paper 2 illustrate that at the local level in the management of the two protected areas Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella and SVR, participation has primarily resulted in information sharing and consultation based on the management s need to obtain local information and knowledge in specific decision-making processes. This echoes the critique about limited possibilities for real participation in the evaluation of the four trials with different collaborative arrangements up until the 2000s (Falleth & Hovik, 2008, 2009). 94

97 Contrary to the emphasis on broad participation through different co-management arrangements in the literature and international conventions (Zachrisson, 2009a), traditional roles between elected representatives and the local community persist in the Norwegian conservation management system. Compared to the collaborative governance arrangement in the four protected areas in Sweden, as described in paper 1, the Norwegian conservation management system may still be described as a hierarchical mode of governance, relying on hierarchical accountability patterns. This raises the caution that simply assuming decentralization of conservation management is legitimate is highly problematic. 6.2 Traditional hierarchical constructions of legitimacy remain dominant (RQ2) Answering how legitimacy is constructed, and of what kind, in the Norwegian conservation management system since the 2009 reform is closely related to the discussion in the previous section. Although approaching legitimacy as situated in specific contexts and decision-making processes, findings from papers 1 and 2 reflect that the institutional framework and the government s choice of participatory design have had important consequences for what kind of legitimacy is made possible in specific contexts. Most important for answering RQ2 are the findings from paper 2, which show that legitimacy is primarily constructed around traditional notions of legitimacy as authority, accountability, and democratic control. Even in new governance arrangements, legitimacy has been constructed around norms of old arrangements. Decentralizing the management authority to locally and regionally elected representatives has in some sense avoided the legitimacy challenges associated with inclusion of non-governmental actors in co-management of protected areas. The conservation board members are accountable to their respective constituencies, and legitimacy is constructed around simple or traditional sources of legitimacy, enabled by elections and processes of holding the board members accountable. Findings from paper 1 and 2 underline, however, that the accountability patterns are not as straightforward, highlighting the possible shortcomings with the limited inclusiveness and deliberative qualities and problems with the reliance on accountability as a simple legitimacy source. It is therefore not clear whether new approaches have the capacity to solve the legitimacy problems associated with traditional top-down management. Compared to the 95

98 conservation boards upward accountability to the government, the downward accountability to the affected communities is weak. The limited contact between board members and members of the stakeholder groups, and the modest involvement of the local and regional councils, make it questionable how well downward accountability functions in practice. As suggested by Andersen Bay-Larsen, Øian and Fangel (2013), the legitimacy of the conservation boards is constructed and assessed differently compared to how the NEA or the county governors previously constructed the legitimacy of nature conservation. Due to other expectations from the stakeholders and local communities, the legitimacy of the boards depends on their ability to represent and promote local needs and at the same time fulfill national obligations. How the county governors, NEA and MoCE, which all have authority to interfere with the boards decision making, perceive the legitimacy of the boards may differ to that of stakeholders and local communities. Within this space, the legitimacy of the conservation boards will be both constructed and contested. As described in paper 2, the newest experiment with co-management of three protected areas challenges hierarchical accountability as the main dimension of legitimacy. Moreover, it demonstrates limitations with relying on traditional sources of legitimacy. Although the elected politicians remain in majority in the three boards, the inclusion of some stakeholders in the decision-making bodies makes it questionable how legitimacy will be constructed. Giving only some stakeholders access to the conservation boards makes the transparency of decision making even more crucial for the construction of legitimacy. This may add to the legitimacy of the boards, as allowing more actors to participate directly has the potential for increasing public debate and awareness in the affected communities. The discussion in paper 2 illustrates the discrepancies between the ambitious goals motivating the reform and the actual emphasis on participation, inclusion, and deliberation in the management of the two protected areas (SVR and Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella). I argue it is difficult to see how the ambitious goals about increased legitimacy, ownership, and public supports even a strengthened democracy can be realized with limited deliberation and collaboration at the local level. As the board members anticipated, it is likely that awareness and public discussion will increase conflicting issues and decision-making processes. Contrary to waiting for these conflicts to occur, developing more deliberative practices and arenas for 96

99 expression of different perspectives could be an approach for strengthening the management system s capacity to handle conflict. It is also a way to construct legitimacy in practice. Findings from paper 2 show that the involved actors expected decentralized conservation management would result in other decisions, understanding and taking local considerations into account. However, the conservation boards have to follow the same conservation regulations as the county governors did and so far the boards mandate has not included promoting local development or facilitating nature-based tourism in the protected areas. Hovik and Hongslo (2016) have argued for the need to extend the boards mandate to include development issues. The findings in this thesis suggest decentralizing management authority primarily has sought to legitimize national conservation policy. Although the boards have a scope of action when making decisions, local participation may become more symbolic than real. Mobilizing broader public discussions about decision making in the conservation boards may contribute to mobilize local resources and unveil local interests. This could prove to be useful in shaping the conservation boards scope of action to include a greater focus on development issues, both inside and outside the boundaries of the protected areas. 6.3 Gender equality is a blind spot in understanding and acting on legitimacy in nature conservation (RQ3) A simple way of answering RQ3 is that underrepresentation of women in decision making in nature conservation has not been recognized as a legitimacy problem. Paper 3 shows that gender differences have long gone without being noticed or acknowledged as a legitimacy challenge. Simply by raising gender equality as an issue in local participation in conservation management, this thesis contributes to filling the knowledge gap in the literature and genderblindness in the field of conservation management. The NEA s enforcement of the Norwegian Gender Equality Act (2007) in the appointment of the conservation boards has increased women s participation. However, findings from paper 3 reveal gender balance at the overall level in the boards conceals structural gender differences in representation and women systemically hold less powerful positions compared to men. Paper 3 shows that expanding the Gender Equality Act into the field of nature conservation has contributed to reproducing, rather than transforming, male dominance within the field. 97

100 Among stakeholder groups, where the Gender Equality Act does not apply, the gender differences in representation are even more striking. This suggests that neither the stakeholders, conservation boards, NEA, or MoCE recognize underrepresentation of women as a legitimacy problem for conservation management. These findings confirm earlier research from community participation in Canadian forest management that has shown how the maledominated culture and masculine norms in the organizations and institutions involved in forest management contribute to reproducing gender differences in local participation (Reed & Varghese, 2007; Richardson et al., 2011; Varghese & Reed, 2012). Studies from Norway have shown that while women s and men s activity level in outdoor recreation are relatively equal, there are gender differences in what kind of activities women and men are involved in (Dervo et al., 2014). Men dominate activities such as fishing and hunting, while women are more active berry and mushroom pickers. It is likely that personal experiences with different activities shape what is considered important in decision-making processes. Moreover, how gender influences how different skills and competences are valued (Ellingsæter & Solheim, 2002) may affect how knowledge is ascribed value and what kind of knowledge is emphasized and given priority in decision making about natural resources (Reed & Mitchell, 2003). While this gives reason to believe that women and men may contribute with different values, perspectives, and concerns about use and protection of natural resources, I want to stress the need to approach potential differences without resorting to simplified explanations or essentialist claims about women s or men s inherent nature or dispositions for conservation issues. As Vainio and Paloniemi (2013) have shown, erroneous claims about the typical conservationist being a woman may contribute to conceal how gender comes into play and effects decision-making processes. In the context of forestry, they argue for the value of giving voice to women and making otherness and marginality a research focus to understand how gender and gender relations affect voluntary forest conservation. Extensions of gender quotas into the field of natural resource management has so far not attracted similar public or scholarly interest as expanding gender quotas into the private sector in 2003 (Alsos et al., 2015; Halrynjo & Teigen, 2016). A starting point can therefore be to look to studies from the private sector, which have suggested increased professionalization of 98

101 boardroom activities with women s increased participation, but also that gender has been downplayed and not ascribed importance by the board members (Bjørkhaug, 2011; Bjørkhaug & Brandt, 2015; Bjørkhaug & Øyslebø Sørensen, 2012). Dahlerup and Freidenvall (2010) have emphasized the importance of understanding the substantive and symbolic dimensions of increasing women s representation in politics. However, this thesis only shows the descriptive effects of expanding gender quotas into the field of nature conservation and there is thus a need for further empirical work focusing on the substantive and symbolic effects of women s representation. Inspired by Reed and Mitchell (2003) and Reed and Christie (2009), the analytical framework I develop in paper 3 contributes methodologically to show how and where to begin to include gender perspectives in studies of participation in conservation management in developed countries. As I argue in the paper, further conceptual and empirical work is needed to enable more complex understandings of how gender is given meaning in different contexts and the effect this may have on decision making about natural resources. Moreover, there is also a need to recognize that both women and men are gendered, opening for studying gender identities that also include masculinities (Brandth & Haugen, 2005; Bye, 2009). Looking to and learning from how gender issues have been approached in studies of conservation management in developing countries can also provide a useful way forward (Agarwal, 1992, 2010; Baker-Médard, 2016). Concepts as gender blindness, which I use in paper 3, and gender neutrality, contribute to understand the processes creating and sustaining the gender gap in the literature and the absence of gender in empirical studies. However, Sullivan and Tuana (2007) have argued that such knowledge gaps are not only accidental by-products, but produced and sustained through active processes of not knowing and even not wanting to know. They argue for tracing what is not known and the processes of such ignorance that produce and maintain knowledge gaps. Franzway, Sharp, Mills, and Gill (2009) have shown how this approach can identify different processes resulting in the denial of gender and avoidance of gendered power relations when explaining underrepresentation of women. Similarly, the concept of ignorance may provide an opening for exploring how and why a discussion of gender issues is missing in studies and why underrepresentation of women in this field seldom is recognized as a legitimacy challenge. I will argue that the findings in this thesis call for greater reflexivity of researchers in the field of 99

102 natural resource management, including emphasizing gender conditions when they appear to be relevant and avoiding the reproduction of asymmetric gender relations and conserving traditional concepts of gender (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). 6.4 Recognizing and articulating conflict is crucial to legitimacy (RQ4) The discussion so far has focused on legitimacy challenges within the conservation management system. As paper 4 shows, however, handling conservation conflicts are not limited to formal decision making about protected areas. Protecting the habitat for Europe s last wild reindeer have called for governance approaches at a scale that transgress the boarders of protected areas in Norway. Exploring how legitimacy challenges related to conservation issues are handled in planning of such soft spaces (Haughton, Allmendinger, Counsell, & Vigar 2009), paper 4 opens the discussion for learning from how the planning system acknowledges and recognizes conflicts and how this affects the legitimacy of these decision-making processes. Working with conflicts in contested decision-making processes is challenging. Findings in paper 4 underlines the importance of approaching and acknowledging such conflicts actively, contrary to avoiding or suppressing them. Although critical perspectives were expressed at different stages throughout the Heiplan planning process, they were excluded from the final plan and there were few records of how or if the planning authorities had dealt with them. Aiming at consensus, the planning authorities limited the scope of planning and local opposition was not addressed. Neglecting to recognize the critical perspectives contributed to undermine the regional plan through the promotion of the wind power project in Bygland municipality. Although the planning system formally enables expression of different perspectives through participation schemes, paper 4 underlines the importance of acknowledging these different interests as legitimate. Visualizing and documenting these conflicts are essential, allowing them to come to the surface, contrary to dismissing or simply ignoring them. However, conflicts are difficult, since they have a destructive potential that could undermine the entire planning effort. It may potentially be easier to write off troublesome inputs as outside the formal frames of the process and the mandate of the planning authorities. However, the findings in paper 4 clearly show the flaws with such an approach in terms of the legitimacy of the planning process 100

103 and the final plan. Critical positions in the Heiplan process were framed as unplannable, and thus easy to disregard. However, this did not imply that the opposition went away. It surfaced in a different context. The belief in the planning system s capacity to handle use and protection of natural resources, and to include a broad range of actors and knowledge sources have caused Skjeggedal, Overvåg, and Riseth (2016) to suggest management of protected areas should be included in the planning system in Norway. They have argued that replacing the Nature Diversity Act (2009) and incorporating nature conversation into the planning system can contribute to overcome challenges of fragmentation and improve coordination, and at the same time empower local authorities. However, paper 4 contributes to nuance the assumption that the planning system offers a better framework for handling conservation issues. Rather, I argue that there is a need to recognize and acknowledge the existence of different perspectives and values regardless of the legal framework the decision-making process follows. Moreover, there is a need to record and show how different inputs have been handled in the process. There might be good reasons for leaving certain comments and perspectives out, but then there is a need justify these decisions and to show how these decisions have been made. This may contribute to both the legitimacy and transparency of the decision-making process. Although it may be effective to strive for a consensus in the short term, such an agreement may prove to be very fragile if resting on exclusion of both actors and perspectives. The promotion and lobbying of the wind power project in Bygland municipality directly undermining the Heiplan reflect the importance of approaching and handling conflicts for the decision making processes long term legitimacy. 6.5 The value of a broad conception of legitimacy The aim of this thesis was twofold; first to develop a broad conception of legitimacy and, second, to use this broad approach to explore how legitimacy challenges were handled in collaborative governance approaches to nature conservation. Legitimacy challenges in decision making about use and protection of natural resources are essentially unavoidable. These processes involve and affect actors differently, and are often about trade-offs between different interests that may be equally legitimate. The constructed and contestable nature of legitimacy underscores that different and possibly competing perceptions of the legitimacy of these 101

104 processes may exist side by side. Moreover, different views on what constitute a legitimacy problem may also co-exist. What is recognized or framed as a legitimacy problem, in need of addressing, will thus vary. A broad conception of legitimacy may contribute to recognize these complex processes in practice. The broad approach to legitimacy I have developed in this thesis has emphasized gender equality and acknowledgment of conflicts as vital for the construction of legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements. Further, the broad approach to legitimacy has made it possible to combine a focus on the national and local level to understand how overall institutional change and implementation at local level affect the construction of legitimacy in practice. Moreover, the broad approach has also enabled investigating how different actors perceive the decision-making bodies, processes, and outcomes of collaborative governance arrangements. It has, however, not been within the scope of this thesis to assess the environmental outcomes of these processes. Future research should therefore address the environmental effects of decentralized and collaborative conservation management in Norway, as Johansson (2013) has demonstrated the value of doing in the context of private governance arrangements in forest conservation in Sweden. Understanding if and how the conservation objectives and nature values are affected by local participation and decentralized conservation management are important for future experiments with different governance arrangements in conservation management. Moreover, future studies should also including how scientific and local knowledge sources are valued and used in decision making processes. The second part of the thesis aim was to apply a broad conception to legitimacy to explore how legitimacy challenges were handled in collaborative governance approaches in conservation management. First, I have used the broad conception to legitimacy to show traditional hierarchical constructions of legitimacy continue to dominate Norwegian conservation management. Hierarchical accountability and democratic control in the conservation boards has remained the most important dimension of constructing legitimacy. I argue this has gone on at the expense of developing participatory approaches and deliberative practices in the stakeholder groups, which also could have contributed to adding to the conservation boards legitimacy. Even in new governance arrangements, legitimacy has been constructed around traditional 102

105 norms of legitimacy. First, this reflect the dominant position representative notions of democracy has and, second, the difficulties associated with pursuing participation and deliberation in practice (Behagel & Turnhout, 2011). This gives reason to question if and how legitimacy problems associated with top-down management actually are handled and whether the management is getting better at handling former legitimacy problems. It is hardly a surprising conclusion that persistent conservation conflicts and thorny legitimacy problems do not simply disappear through decentralization of management authority, from the environmental bureaucracy to local and regional politicians. Finding that ambitious goals about increased input and output legitimacy have been difficult to realize in practice, this thesis contributes to nuance assumptions about the benefits of decentralized and collaborative governance in nature conservation, which often are taken for granted. However, I will emphasize that since direct participation and inclusion of stakeholders have been modest, these findings show the discrepancy between ambitious goals motivating the reform and the actual formalization and value ascribed to participation and deliberation. This contributes to highlight the differences between pursuing participation to optimize the management process, that is, to be efficient on reaching certain management goals or to promote democracy by enabling improved influence by various affected interests (Kaltenborn et al., 1999, p. 53). In light of this, decentralization may first and foremost contribute to legitimize national conservation policies, reflecting an instrumental and strategic use of participation. In this thesis, the broad conception of legitimacy has included gender equality in participation. However, it is not the nature of gender or the effects of gender relations and gender hierarchies on decision making about nature conservation that I have studied. Rather, I have unveiled systematic gender differences in participation in Norwegian conservation management at the overall level. I have also argued that this is a legitimacy problem that researchers, decisionmakers, and practitioners need to recognize. Social relations based on gender have largely gone unacknowledged in natural resource management and the skewed gender balance in representation has seldom been problematized (Richardson et al., 2011). This thesis has provided a first step in developing more gender-sensitive approaches to studying participation and representation in conservation management and contributed to developing a point of 103

106 departure for theorizing the relationship between gender and legitimacy in future empirical studies. Through the broad conception of legitimacy, I have explored how the handling of persistent conflicts affects the construction of legitimacy of conservation planning. Although a collaborative governance arrangement may successfully establish a consensus between central and influential actors, this agreement may be fragile if underlying conflicts have not been addressed throughout the decision making process. The findings in this thesis show that the consequences of not actively engaging with conflicts may be that such conflicts reappear in other contexts, and reinforce controversies in other decision making processes. Transferring these findings to conservation management underline that it is vital to engage actively with disputes, and to document how different inputs from participatory processes have been handled. There are no reasons to assume that the historical conflicts establishing of protected areas have caused simply dissolve in future decision making processes. 6.6 Implications for conservation management practice The findings of this thesis establish some ground for reflection on the future development of Norwegian conservation management, and in particular on the co-management trials in three protected areas. The development of the Norwegian management system can be described as a series of experiments with different collaborative modes of governance, resulting in incremental steps towards co-management. The newest experiment, expanding the conservation boards from locally and regionally elected representatives to including different stakeholders, immediately causes legitimacy challenges associated with who to include and exclude from the formal decision-making body. If and how this experiment will result in co-management of all large protected areas in Norway depends partly on the evaluation of the trial and how the conservation objectives are affected in the three areas. However, this is often difficult to assess and the evaluation of the four trials in 2008 (Falleth & Hovik, 2008) was used to both promote and oppose decentralization of conservation management to the municipalities. This gives reason to expect that the results of the current trial will be equally contested, resulting in different claims about the legitimacy of the boards with and without stakeholder representation. 104

107 Due to the politicization of nature conservation, future changes of the management system will be influenced by who holds the political majority in the Norwegian Parliament and the power in the Ministries of Climate and Environment, Agriculture, and Local Government and Modernisation. The composition of the parliament will especially affect the power balance between the parties traditionally promoting landowners interests and their direct participation in the conservation boards and other parties. However, I argue that once opening for broader participation, assuming the boards operate within the conservation regulations, it may be difficult for the other parties to reverse the trial and limit stakeholder participation. A possible scenario for the Norwegian conservation management system after this trial ends in 2019 could therefore be a compromise resulting in stakeholder representation in the conservation boards, but with elected politicians still holding the majority of the positions. A central focus of this thesis has been to examine how institutional change in the Norwegian management system has affected the construction of legitimacy and possibilities for participation. This approach coincided with the emphasis on institutional change in the literature about nature conservation, as developed by Elinor Ostrom (1990) as well as others (Carlsson, 2008; Fedreheim, 2013; Zachrisson, 2009a). Moreover, it also reflects that the Norwegian government has responded to legitimacy problems and persistent conflicts with structural reform. However, management cultures and practices are also important for handling problems of legitimacy. A hard institutionalized approach in practice and theory may neglect the importance of culture in developing the management s capacity to include local actors, recognize different knowledge sources, and acknowledge conflicts in decision-making processes. Westberg and Powell (2015) have shown that attitudes to participation and deliberation within the Swedish environmental agencies followed a gendered pattern and the skills of facilitating participatory processes were feminized and ascribed less value compared to scientific expertise. This highlights the importance of approaching institutional change with an emphasis on exploring the soft components as well. These may be transformed by overall change; however, they may also remain unaffected by institutional change, shaping how institutional change is carried out in practice. Returning to the newly-initiated governance experiment in the management of Jotunheimen, Raet and Jomfruland protected areas, the findings in this thesis underscore that persistent 105

108 conflicts need to be recognized and handled openly, and the inputs form different stakeholders need to be addressed in a transparent manner. This is both time and resource consuming, and the period for the current co-management trial ( ) may be too short to develop participatory and deliberative qualities that can contribute to the strengthening of legitimacy. In terms of gender equality in new governance arrangements, I will emphasize that it is not sufficient that the conservation boards simply comply with the requirements in the Gender Equality Act (2013). The systematic gender differences in representation and stakeholder participation is a legitimacy problem for conservation management and natural resource management more broadly. Underrepresentation of women need to be addressed as a legitimacy challenge by actors at both local and national level, while creating equal opportunities for influence, regardless of gender. In doing so, stakeholders with different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives may be mobilized to participate in future decision making about use and protection of important natural resources. Conservation boards have the opportunity to play a proactive role in this. 6.7 Final reflections In closing, I would like to create a space for self-reflection about the findings in this thesis and how (well) I have been able to shed light on the aim of the thesis. First, if legitimacy had been the starting point of this thesis, the research focus and strategy would have been different and a more comparative approach to exploring the situatedness of legitimacy in different contexts and decision-making processes in nature conservation could have been possible. Moreover, if I had been aware of the gender gap in the literature and the persistent underrepresentation of women in local participation in Norwegian conservation management form the beginning, I would have been able to develop a more complex understanding of how gender, gender roles, and gender hierarchies affect decision making about nature conservation. However, it was not possible to derive the lack of gender equality from the literature prior to the empirical investigations. Similarly, different knowledge claims and persistent conflicts about the wildness of the wild reindeer in case study 4 were not possible to depict from formal planning documents or interviews with actors who had been influential in the planning process. This illustrates that understanding how different aspects such as conflicts and gender affect the construction of legitimacy. Such an understanding requires access and insight into the decision-making 106

109 processes and how different actors develop legitimacy claims. This cannot be done at an abstract level or at a distance. As such, this is an argument for qualitative approaches and engagement on the ground. At an overall level, it is possible to depict and describe alterations of formal structural change, but how deliberative practices are developed and how different interests and perspectives are expressed, contested, and acknowledged, and how conflicts are handled, need to be studied in specific contexts, following the processes over time. Therefore, this thesis represents a time-consuming research approach to understand complex and challenging real world problems. 107

110 7. References Aarsæther, N., Falleth, E., Nyseth, T., & Kristiansen, R. (2012). Utfordringer for norsk planlegging: kunnskap, bærekraft, demokrati. Kristiansand: Cappelen Damm Høyskoleforl. Aasetre, J., & Gundersen, V. (2011). Planlegging for friluftsliv mellom store vyer og strenge standarder. Utmark (1 2). Agarwal, B. (1992). The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies, 18(1), doi: / Agarwal, B. (2010). Gender and green governance: The political economy of women s presence within and beyond community forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African cases. The Journal of Developing Areas, 33(4), Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2012), Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37: Alsos, G., Bjørkhaug, H., Bolsø, A., & Ljunggren, E. (2015). Kjønn og næringsliv i Norge. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research (2 nd ed.). London: Sage. Andersen, O., Bay-Larsen, I., Øian, H., & Fangel, K. (2013). Naturmangfoldlovens virkninger i kommunene. En gjennomgang av kommunale erfaringer med loven. NINA Rapport 964. Trondheim: Norsk institutt for naturforskning. Andersen, R., & Hustad, H. (2004). Villrein og samfunn. En veilder til bevaring og bruk av Europas siste villreinfjell. NINA Temahefte 27. Trondheim: Norsk institutt for naturforskning. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), doi: /jopart/mum032 Armitage, D., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), Arnesen, T., & Riseth, J. Å. (2008). Konfliktfyllda naturskyddsprocesser i Norge. In C. Sandström, S. Hovik, & E. Falleth (Eds.), Omstridd Natur. Trender och utmaningar i nordisk naturförvaltning (pp ). Umeå: Borá Bokförlag. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16, Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. (2010). Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Baker-Médard, M. (2016). Gendering marine conservation: The politics of marine protected areas and fisheries access. Society & Natural Resources, doi: / Beetham, D. (2013). The legitimation of power (2 nd edn.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Behagel, J., & Turnhout, E. (2011). Democratic legitimacy in the implementation of the water framework directive in the Netherlands: Towards participatory and deliberative Norms? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(3), doi: / x Birnbaum, S. (2015). Environmental co-governance, legitimacy, and the quest for compliance: When and why is stakeholder participation desirable? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, doi: / x Bjørkhaug, H. (2011). Flere kvinner i styrerom katalysator for profesjonalisering av styrearbeid? Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning, 35(03), Bjørkhaug, H., & Brandt, B. (2015). Litt Jane og litt Tarzan: Om makt og innflytelse i landbrukssamvirkets styrerom. In G. Alsos, H. Bjørkhaug, A. Bolsø, & E. Ljunggren (Eds.), Kjønn og næringsliv i Norge. (pp ). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Bjørkhaug, H., & Øyslebø Sørensen, S. (2012). Feminism without gender? Arguments for gender quotas on corporate boards in Norway. In F. Engelstad & M. Teigen (Eds.), Firms, boards and gender 108

111 quotas: Comparative perspectives comparative social research, Volume 29 (pp ). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bond, S. (2011). Negotiating a democratic ethos. Planning Theory, 10(2), doi: / Boon, T. E., Nathan, I., & Lund, D. H. (2012). The national park process in Denmark: a network governance approach to democratize nature policy-making? In K. Hogl, E. Kvarda, R. Nordbeck, & M. Pregernig (Eds.), Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness (pp ). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., & Hill, R. (2015). Governance for the conservation of nature. In G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary, & I. Pulsford (Eds.), Geoconservation in protected areas (pp ). Canberra: Canberra: ANU Press. Brandth, B., & Haugen, M. S. (2005). Doing rural masculinity From logging to outfield tourism. Journal of Gender Studies, 14(1), doi: / Bråtå, H. O., Ericsson, B., Reimers, E., & Skjeggedal, T. (2014). Regionale planer for bruk og vern av villreinfjellene. Evaluering av prosess og planer. (Vol. ØF-rapport 2/2014). Lillehammer: Østlandsforskning. Bye, L. M. (2009). How to be a rural man : Young men s performances and negotiations of rural masculinities. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(3), doi: Carlsson, L. (2008). Omstridd natur i teori och praktik. In C. Sandström, S. Hovik, & E. Falleth (Eds.), Omstridd natur: Trenden och utmaningar i Nordisk naturforvaltning. (pp ). Umeå: Borea. Carlsson, L., & Sandström, A. (2008). Network governance of the commons. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), Connelly, S., Richardson, T., & Miles, T. (2006). Situated legitimacy: Deliberative arenas and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), doi: Council of Europe. (1979). The Bern Convention - The European treaty for the conservation of nature. Retrived from Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Convention Florence, 20.X.2000 ETS No Retrived from Dahlerup, D., & Freidenvall, L. (2010). Judging gender quotas: Predictions and results. Policy & Politics, 38(3), doi: / x Daugstad, K., Svarstad, H., & Vistad, O. I. (2006). A case of conflicts in conservation: Two trenches or a three-dimensional complexity? Landscape Research, 31(1), doi: / De Geus, M. (1996) The ecological restructuring of the state. In B. Doherty & M. de Geus (Eds.), Democracy and green political thought: Sustainability, rights, and citzenship. (pp ). London: Routhledge. Dervo, B. K., Skår, M., Köhler, B., Øian, H., Vistad, O. I., Andersen, O., & Gundersen, V. (2014). Friluftsliv i Norge anno 2014 status og utfordringer. NINA Rapport Lillehammer: Norsk institutt for naturforskning. Dingwerth, K. (2007). The new transnationalism: Transnational governance and democratic legitimacy. Basingstone: Palgrave Macmillian. Direktoratet for naturforvaltning. (2008). Lokal Forvaltning av Verneområder en Evaluering av Delegering. Direktoratet for naturforvaltnings tilrådning til Miljøverndepartementet. Trondheim: Direktoratet for naturforvaltning. Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), Ellingsæter, A. L., & Solheim, J. (2002). Den Usynlige hånd?: kjønnsmakt og moderne arbeidsliv. Makt- og, demokratiutredningen. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. 109

112 Engelen, E., Keulartz, J., & Leistra, G. (2008). Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy: Case studies in multilevel governance (Vol. 14). Dordrecht: Springer. Falleth, E., & Hovik, S. (2006). Lokal forvaltning av store verneområder: evaluering av kommunal forvaltning i Setesdal Vesthei-Ryfylkeheiane. Oslo: NIBR. Falleth, E., Sandström, C., & Hovik, S. (2008). Blåfjella - Skjækerfjella/Låarte - Skæhkere: Evaluering av et lokalt forvaltningsforsøk i en nasjonalpark. Oslo: NIBR. Falleth, E., & Hovik, S. (2008). Lokal forvaltning av store verneområder: Erfaringer fra fire forsøk (Vol. 2008:11). Oslo: Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning. Falleth, E., & Hovik, S. (2009). Local government and nature conservation in Norway: Decentralisation as a strategy in environmental policy. Local Environment, 14(3), doi: / Fangel, K., & Gundersen, V. (2012). Rovviltforvaltningen i et planteoretisk perspektiv [Management of large carnivores from a planning theory perspective]. Utmark(1). Fauchald, O. K., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Zachrisson, A. (2014). Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: Examining pathways of influence in similar countries. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 10(3), doi: / Fedreheim, G. E. (2013). Value creation on Norway s green gold : An analysis of policy formulation and implementation in the field of nature conservation. (PhD Thesis), Falkultetet for samfunnsvitenskap, Universitetet i Nordland, Bodø. Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research (Vol. 1). London: SAGE. Flyvbjerg, B., & Richardson, T. (2001). Planning and Foucault: In search of the dark side of planning theory. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory (pp ). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Franzway, S., Sharp, R., Mills, J. E., & Gill, J. (2009). Engineering ignorance: The problem of gender equity in engineering. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 30(1), doi: /fro Gender Equality Act (2013). Lov om likestilling mellom kjønnene (likestillingsloven). Retrivd from Getzner, M., Lange Vik, M., Brendehaug, E., & Lane, B. (2014). Governance and management strategies in national parks: Implications for sustainable regional development. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 6(1-2), Gherardi, S., & Poggio, B. (2001). Creating and recreating gender order in organizations. Journal of World Business, 36(3), doi: Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). London: SAGE. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study method: Key issues, key texts. London: SAGE Publications. Gualini, E. (2015). Planning and conflict: critical perspectives on contentious urban development. London: Routledge. Gualini, E., Mourato, J. M., & Allegra, M. (2015). Conflict in the city: contested urban spaces and local democracy. Berlin: Jovis. Guldvik, I. (2008). Gender and qouta discourses in Norwegian politics. In E. Magnusson, M. Rönnblom, & H. Silius (Eds.), Critical studies of gender equalities. Nordic dislocations, dilemmas and contradictions. (pp ). Göteborg: Makadam Publishers. Halrynjo, S., & Teigen, M. (2016). Ulik likestilling i arbeidslivet. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Harrington, C., Curtis, A., & Black, R. (2008). Locating communities in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10(2), Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., Counsell, D., & Vigar, G. (2009). The new spatial planning: Territorial management with soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries. London: Routledge. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3 rd edn.). Cambridge: Polity. Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of power: An allegory of prudence in land-use planning. London: Routledge. 110

113 Hirdman, Y. (1988). Genussystemet reflexioner kring kvinnors sociala underordning. Tidsskrift för Genusvetenskap, 3, Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., & Pregerning, M. (2012). Environmental governance: The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Holmgren, L., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2016). Protected area governance in Sweden: New modes of governance or business as usual? Local Environment, doi: / Hongslo, E. (2017). Background information or future vision? Mapping wild reindeer landscapes in a planning process. Landscape Research, 42(4), doi: Hongslo, E., & Lundberg, A. K. A. (2012). Regional planlegging i villreinområder arealplanlegging som nytt virkemiddel? Kart og plan 4, Hovik, S., & Hongslo, E. (2016). Balancing local interests and national conservation obligations in nature protection. The case of local management boards in Norway. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, doi: / Hovik, S., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2010). Management of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: Challenges in combining central governance and local participation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(2), doi: / Hovik, S., & Stokke, K. B. (2006). Regional kystsoneplanlegging: t redskap for integrert kommunal kystsoneplanlegging? (Vol. 2006:119). Oslo: Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning. Hustad, H., Andersen, R., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2005). Rovvilt og Samfunn (RoSa) Akseptable kompromissløsninger for framtidig rovviltforvaltning? Oppsummering av RoSas aktivitet i forbindelse med St.meld. nr. 15 ( ) Rovvilt i norsk natur. Trondheim: Norsk institutt for naturforskning. Innst. O. 64 ( ). (1996). Innstilling fra energi- og miljøkomiteen om lov om statlig naturoppsyn. Oslo: Energi- og miljøkomiteen. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2017). Protected Areas Categories. Retrived from Johansson, J. (2013). Constructing and contesting the legitimacy of private forest governance. (PhD Thesis), Statsventenskapliga institutionen, Umeå universitet, Umeå. Julsrud, O. (2012). Mellom himmel og jord. Glimt fra miljøverndepartementes 40 år. Oslo: Unipub. Kaltenborn, B., Qvenild, M., & Nellemann, C. (2011). Local governance of national parks: The perception of tourism operators in Dovre-Sunndalsfjella National Park, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65(2), doi: / Kaltenborn, B., Riese, H., & Hundeide, M. (1999). National park planning and local participation: Some reflections from a mountain region in southern Norway. Mountain Research and Development, 19(1), doi: / Kaltenborn, B., Hongslo, E., Gundersen, V., & Andersen, O. (2015). Public perceptions of planning objectives for regional level management of wild reindeer in Norway. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(5), doi: / Klima- og miljøverndepartementet. (2016). Forsøksordning med partssammensatte nasjonalpark- og verneområdestyrer. Brev av 30. mars Oslo: Klima- og miljøverndepartementet. Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet. (2014). Veileder Medvirkning i planlegging. Hvordan legge til rette for økt deltakelse og innflytelse i kommunal og regional planlegging etter plan- og bygningsloven. Oslo: Kommunal og moderniseringsdepartementet Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage. Kornsell, A., & Bäckstrand, K. (2010). Rationalities and forms of governance: A framework for analysing the legitimacy of new modes of governance. In K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, A. Kronsell, & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Environmental politics and delibrative democracy. Examining the promise of new modes of governance. (pp ). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 111

114 Kvale, S. (2008). Doing Interviews Qualitative Research Kit. London: SAGE. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (2 nd edn.). London: Verso. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). The only generalization is: There is no generalization. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method. Key Issues, key Texts (pp ). London: SAGE. Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), doi: Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2010). Governance principles for natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 23(10), doi: / Lundberg, A. K. A., Hongslo, E., Hovik, S., & Bay-Larsen, I. (2013). Hva skjer i den nye lokale forvaltningsmodellen for verneområder? En forskningsstatus. Tidsskriftet Utmark, 13(1). Lundmark, C., & Matti, S. (2015). Exploring the prospects for deliberative practices as a conflictreducing and legitimacy-enhancing tool: The case of Swedish carnivore management. Wildlife Biology, 21(3), doi: /wlb Lynggard, K. (2012). Dokumentanalyse. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder. Empiri og teoriutvikling. (pp ). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Löf, A. (2014). Challenging adaptability: Analysing the governance of reindeer husbandry in Sweden. (PhD Thesis), Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Umeå universitet, Umeå. Madden, F., & McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation s blind spot: The case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation, 178, doi: McClymont, K. (2011). Revitalising the political: Development control and agonism in planning practice. Planning Theory, 10(3), doi: / Meadowcroft, J. (2004). Delibrative democracy. In R. F. Durant, D. J. Fiorino, & R. O Leary (Eds.), Environmental governance reconsidered. Challenges, choices and opportunities. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Miljødirektoratet (2009, ). Verneformer. Retrived from Miljødirektoratet (2016, 18.03). Vernet natur. Retrived from Miljøverndepartementet (1983). Forskrift om overføring av forvaltningsansvar for naturvernområder. Delegering av forvaltningsansvar til fylkesmannen. Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. Miljøverndepartementet (2007). Fylkesdelplaner for bruk og vern av prioriterte fjellområder - fastsetting av nasjonale villreinområder. Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. Mouffe, C. (2005a). On the political. Thinking in action. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Mouffe, C. (2005b). The democratic paradox (Reprint ed.). London: Verso. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: thinking the world politically. London: Verso. Moug, P. (2011). Decisions, dilemmas and deliberation: Exploring the legitimacy of the organisation and design of a stakeholder workshop in an environmental research project. Local Environment, 16(2), doi: / Movik, S., & Lundberg, A. K. A. (2013). Å følge vannets vei. Erfaringer fra Nordland med EUs vanndirektiv og samordning med andre regionale planprosesser. [Following the water s course. Experiences from Nordland with the EU s water framework directive and coordination with other regional planning processes] Kart og plan 5, Nature Diversity Act. (2009). Lov om forvaltning av naturens mangfold (naturmangfoldloven). Retrieved from 112

115 Nordland fylkeskommune (2011). Regional plan Klimautfordringene i Nordland. Bodø: Nordland fylkeskommune. Norén, I. (2013). Naturmangfoldloven i Regional plan for Hardangervidda og konsesjonsbehandling av fem småkraftverk i Valldalen, Odda kommune. (Master Thesis), Institutt for landskapsplanlagging, Norges miljø- og biovitenskaplige universitet, Ås. Norges nasjonalparkkommuner og nasjonalparklandsbyer. Nasjonalparkkommuner og nasjonalparklandsbyer (2017). Retrived from Norges vassdrags- og energidirektorat (2016a). Bakgrunn for vedtak Hovatn Aust vindkraftverk Bygland kommune i Aust-Agder fylke. Oslo: Norges vassdrags- og energidirektorat. Norges vassdrags- og energidirektorat. (2016b). Oversendelse av innsigelse og klager på vedtak om konsesjon til Hovatn Aust vindkraftverk med tilhørende nettilknytning av Oslo: Norges vassdrags- og energidirektorat. Norwegian National Research Ethic Committees (2014). General guidelines for research ethics. Oslo: NNREC. NOU 2004:28. (2004). Lov om bevaring av natur, landskap og biologisk mangfold (Naturmangfoldloven). Oslo: Departementenes servicesenter, Informasjonsforvaltning. Nystad, M. E. (2015, 16.12). Regjeringen skrinlegger nasjonalparkplanene i nord. Retrived from Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paloniemi, R., & Vainio, A. (2011). Legitimacy and empowerment: Combining two conceptual approaches for explaining forest owners willingness to cooperate in nature conservation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 8(2), doi: / x Parkins, J. R., & Mitchell, R. E. (2005). Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 18(6), doi: / Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), doi: / Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., & Mert, A. (2012). Public-private partnerships for sustainable development Emergence, influence and legitimacy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Phillips, A. (1998). Feminism and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley, Calif: University of California. Plummer, R., Armitage, D., & de Loë, R. C. (2013). Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 21. Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), doi:doi: / Prop. 1 ( ). (2009). Statsbudsjettet for budsjettåret Oslo: Finansdepartementet. Prop. 53 ( ). (2009). Verneplan for vassdrag avsluttande supplering. Oslo: Olje- og energidepartementet. Prop. 65 ( ). (2003). Tilleggsbevilgninger og omprioriteringer i statsbudsjettet medregnet folketrygden Oslo: Finansdepartementet. Redpath, S., Gutiérrez, R., Wood, K., & Young, J. (2015). Conflicts in conservation: Navigating towards solutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reed, M. G., & Christie, S. (2009). Environmental geography: We re not quite home reviewing the gender gap. Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), Reed, M. G., & Mitchell, B. (2003). Gendering environmental geography. The Canadian Geographer, 47(3), Reed, M. G., & Varghese, J. (2007). Gender representation in Canadian forest sector advisory committees. The Forestry Chronicle, 83(4),

116 Regjeringen Solberg. (2013). Politisk plattform for en regjering utgått av Høyre og Fremskrittspartiet. Sundvolden: Statsministerens kontor. Raco, M., Lin, W-I (2012). Urban Sustainability, Conflict Management, and the Geographies of Postpoliticism: A Case Study of Taipei, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 30 (2): Reitan, M. (1997). Norway: A case of splendid isolation. In M. Skou Andersen & D. Liefferink (Eds.), European environmental policy. The pioneers (pp ). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Reitan, M. (2004). Politicisation and professional expertise in the policy of nature conservation. Local Environment, 9(5), doi: / Reitan, M., & Holm, F. E. (2012). Staten, kommunene og Trillemarka: Lokal mobilisering forankret i nasjonale politiske konfliktlinjer. In M. Reitan, J. Saglie, & E. Smith (Eds.), Det norske flernivådemokratiet. (pp ). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag AS. Richardson, K., Sinclair, A. J., Reed, M. G., & Parkins, J. R. (2011). Constraints to participation in Canadian forestry advisory committees: A gendered perspective. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 41(3), Riksrevisjonen (2007). Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av bærekraftig arealplanlegging og arealdisponering i Norge. Oslo: Riksrevisjonen. Riksrevisjonen (2014). Riksrevisjonens undersøking av forvaltninga av nasjonalparkar. Oslo: Riksrevisjonen. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, Sandström, A., & Lundmark, C. (2016). Network structure and perceived legitimacy in collaborative wildlife management. Review of Policy Research, 33(4), doi: /ropr Sandström, C., Hovik, S. & Falleth, E. (2008) Omstridd natur: Trenden och utmaningar i Nordisk naturforvaltning. Umeå: Borea. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? New York: Oxford University Press. Schmitt, M. (2014). Gender awareness in European alpine protected-area management: Achievements, shortcomings, and the way forward. Mountain Research and Development, 34(3), doi: /mrd-journal-d Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage. Singsaas, M. (2014). Villrein i politiske landskap: Regional planlegging i Rondane. [Wild reindeer in a political landscape: Regional planning in Rondane]. Kart og plan 2, Singsaas, M. (2015). Regional planlegging som institusjon for kollektiv handling i fjellområdene. Utmark (1&2). Singsaas, M. (2016). Regional planlegging som redskap for helhetlig arealforvaltning i villreinfjellene. (PhD Thesis), Institutt for landskapsplanlegging, Norges miljø- og biovitenskaplige universitet, Ås. Skjeggedal, T. (2008). Lokal forvaltning av verneområdene i Forollhogna. Sluttrapport fra evaluering av forvltningsforsøket. Steinkjer: Trøndelag Forskning og Utvikling. Skjeggedal, T., Overvåg, K., Flognfeldt, T., & Ringholm, T. (2013). Ti år med «fjellteksten». Utmark(1). Skjeggedal, T., Overvåg, K., & Riseth, J. Å. (2016). Land-use planning in Norwegian mountain areas: Local development or nature protection? European Planning Studies, 24(2), doi: / Skogen, K., Olve, K., & Figari, H. (2013). Ulvekonflikter. En sosiologisk studie. Oslo: Akademika forlag. Statistisk sentralbyrå (2016). Vernede områder Foreløpige tall. Retrived from 114

117 St.meld. nr. 18 ( ). (2016). Friluftsliv Natur som kilde til helse og livskvalitet. Oslo: Klimaog Miljøverndepartementet. St.meld. nr. 62 ( ). (1992) Ny landsplan for nasjonalparker og andre større verneområder. Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. St.meld. nr. 21 ( ). (2005) Regjeringens miljøvernpolitikk og rikets miljøtilstand. Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. St.meld. nr. 26 ( ). (2007) Regjeringens miljøpolitikk og rikets miljøtilstand. Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. Stoltenbergregjeringen (2005). Plattform for regjeringssamarbeidet mellom Arbeiderpartiet, Sosialistisk Venstreparti og Senterpartiet Soria Moria: Regjeringen. Ståvi, J. M. (2008). Evaluering av prøveprosjekt med lokal forvaltning av Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella nasjonalpark og tilliggende verneområder. Sandvika: Asplan Viak AS. Sullivan, S., & Tuana, N. (2007). Race and epistemologies of ignorance. Itacha: State University of New York Press. Svarstad, H., Daugstad, K., Vistad, O. I., & Guldvik, I. (2006). New Protected Areas in Norway: Local Participation without Gender Equality. Mountain Research and Development, 26(1), doi: / (2006)026[0048:npainl]2.0.co;2 Svarstad, H., Skuland, S., Guldvik, I., & Figari, H. (2009). Fraværet av likestilling i lokal naturforvaltning: Nasjonalparkplanen som eksempel. NINA Rapport 432. Oslo: Norsk institutt for naturforskning. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierr, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance Advancing the paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tosterup, J. (2014). Regional plan for Rondane-Sølnkletten Planprosessens betydning for planresultat og gjennomføring. (Master thesis), Institutt for landskapsplanlegging, Norges miljø- og biovitenskaplige universitet, Ås. Turner, R. A., Addison, J., Arias, A., Bergseth, B. J., Marshall, N. A., Morrison, T. H., & Tobin, R. C. (2016). Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecology and Society, 21(3):18. doi: /es UNECE (1998). Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters done at Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Retrieved from Vainio, A., & Paloniemi, R. (2013). Adapting to the gender order: Voluntary conservation by forest owners in Finland. Land Use Policy, 35, doi: Varghese, J., & Reed, M. G. (2012). Theorizing the implications of gender order for sustainable forest management. International Journal of Forestry Research, doi: /2012/ Wallington, T., Lawrence, G., & Loechel, B. (2008). Reflections on the legitimacy of regional environmental governance: Lessons from Australia s experiment in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10(1), doi: / Westberg, L., & Powell, S. (2015). Participate for women s sake? A gender analysis of a Swedish collaborative environmental management project. Society & Natural Resources, 28(11), doi: / Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work. Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Yaffee, S. L., & Wondolleck, J. M. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from a comprehensive assessment of over 200 wideranging cases of collaboration in environmental management. Conservation in Practice, 1(1), doi: /j tb00156.x Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2 nd ed., vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. 115

118 Zachrisson, A. (2009a). Commons protected for or from the people? Co-management in the Swedish mountain region? (PhD Thesis), Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Umeå universitet, Umeå. Zachrisson, A. (2009b). The designation of Fulufjället National Park: efficient co-management through downward accountability? Local Environment, 14(3), doi: /

119 Appendix 117

120 118

121 Appendix 1 Information letter LOCALMAN UNIVERSITETET FOR MILJØ- OG BIOVITENSKAP INSTITUTT FOR LANDSKAPSPLANLEGGING POSTBOKS ÅS TELEFON: E-POST: EIRIN.HONGSLO@UMB.NO Lokal forvaltning av verneområder informasjon om prosjektet DATO Institutt for landskapsplanlegging ved Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap gjennomfører i samarbeid med Østlandsforskning og Høgskolen i Oslo Akershus en undersøkelse om lokal forvaltning i verneområder. Prosjektet fokuserer på i hvilken grad ulike former for lokal forvaltning bidrar til en bærekraftig forvaltning. Dette inkluderer både verneområder, regionale parker og nasjonallandsbyer. Undersøkelsen finansieres av Norges forskningsråd og forskningsprogrammet «Miljø 2015». Prosjektet avsluttes i desember Vi vil intervjue representanter fra lokale lag og foreninger, næringsdrivende, myndigheter og rettighetshavere i fjellområdene knyttet til Setesdal-Vesthei Ryfylkeheiane landskapsvernområde, Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella Nasjonalpark, Valdres Natur- og Kulturpark og Nærøyfjorden Verdsarvpark. I tillegg vil vi studere dokumenter som angår forvaltningen og delta på møter i forvaltningsarbeidet. Bakgrunnen for prosjektet er vi ser at Norge får flere nye institusjoner i utmarka. Lokal forvaltning er innført i norske nasjonalparker, og regionalpark er en institusjon som får mer støtte både regionalt og fra staten. Nye virkemidler, samarbeidsformer og aktører vil påvirke arealforvaltningen og vi vil undersøke: I hvilken grad får de nye institusjonene betydning for forholdet mellom bruk og vern, og løsninger for arealforvaltning Hvilke kunnskapsgrunnlag, interesser og verdier som påvirker forvaltningen av områdene, hvilke kontaktformer det er mellom de ulike aktørene og hvordan deltar ulike interessegrupper og aktører med ulike rettigheter i forvaltningen. Vi ønsker å intervjue deg. Deltakelsen er frivillig og det er anledning til å trekke seg fra undersøkelsen uten begrunnelse. Intervjuet er basert på spørsmål med åpne svar. Referat og fra intervjuet og eventuelle opptak vil bli renskrevet og lagret på låst datamaskin på universitetet i prosjektperioden. Etter prosjektavslutning vil rådata bli lagret av universitetet på låste områder på ubestemt tid som sikkerhet mot forskningsjuks. Dette materialet er ikke tilgjengelig for noen, og vil kun kunne bli åpnet av universitets ledelse ved mistanke om forskningsjuks. Etter at prosjektet er avsluttet vil all informasjonen om hvem som er intervjuet slettes. Det er kun prosjektmedarbeidere som har tilgang på informasjonen i prosjektperioden. Disse er 119

122 underlagt taushetsplikt og behandler data konfidensielt. Prosjektet er meldt til Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste AS. Alle informantene vil være anonymisert i formidling av prosjektet. Vi vil arrangere et seminar avslutningsvis i prosjektet der du blir invitert dersom du ønsker det. Fra Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap deltar Aase Kristine Lundberg, Morten Clemetsen og Eirin Hongslo. Fra Østlandsforskning deltar Terje Skjeggedal. Fra Høgskolen i Oslo Akershus deltar Sissel Hovik. Prosjektet avsluttes Med vennlig hilsen Eirin Hongslo Post doc og prosjektleder Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg PhD student 120

123 Appendix 2 Information letter REINMAN UNIVERSITETET FOR MILJØ- OG BIOVITENSKAP INSTITUTT FOR LANDSKAPSPLANLEGGING POSTBOKS ÅS TELEFON: E-POST: EIRIN.HONGSLO@UMB.NO DATO Regional planlegging av villreinområder informasjon om prosjektet Institutt for landskapsplanlegging ved Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap (ILP/UMB) gjennomfører en undersøkelse om regional planlegging og villreinforvaltning. Prosjektet fokuserer på regional planlegging som nytt virkemiddel i villreinforvaltningen. Undersøkelsen finansieres av Norges forskningsråds forskningsprogram «Miljø 2015», og prosjektet avsluttes i desember Vi er spesielt opptatt av i hvilken grad regional planlegging er et bærekraftig virkemiddel for villrein og bygdene der villreinen har sine leveområder. Vi vil gjennomføre en spørreskjemaundersøkelse og intervjue representanter fra lokale lag og foreninger, myndigheter og rettighetshavere i Setesdal Vesthei, Setesdal Authei og Ryfylke og Rondane/Sølnkletten. Vi vil også se på dokumenter som angår forvaltningen og delta på møter i planarbeidet. Bakgrunnen for prosjektet er at regional planlegging er innført i villreinforvaltningen. Nye virkemidler, samarbeidsformer og aktører vil påvirke villreinforvaltningen. Vi vil undersøke: I hvilken grad dette får betydning for forholdet mellom bruk og vern, og løsninger for arealforvaltning i villreinens leveområde. Hvilke kunnskapsgrunnlag, interesser og verdier som påvirker forvaltningen av områdene, hvilke kontaktformer det er mellom de ulike aktørene og hvordan ulike interessegrupper og aktører med ulike rettigheter deltar i forvaltningen. I hvilken grad planlegging tar hensyn til de mest sårbare delene av villreinens leveområde ved hjelp av Geografiske Informasjonssystemer. 121

124 Vi ønsker å intervjue deg. Deltakelsen er frivillig og det er anledning til å trekke seg fra undersøkelsen uten begrunnelse. Intervjuet er basert på spørsmål med åpne svar, men unntak av et par avslutningsvise spørsmål der vi har faste svarkategorier. Referat og fra intervjuet og eventuelle opptak vil bli renskrevet og lagret på låst datamaskin på universitetet i prosjektperioden. Etter prosjektavslutning vil rådata bli lagret av universitetet på låste områder på ubestemt tid som sikkerhet mot forskningsjuks. Dette materialet er ikke tilgjengelig for noen, og vil kun kunne bli åpnet av universitets ledelse ved mistanke om forskningsjuks. Etter at prosjektet er avsluttet vil all informasjonen om hvem som er intervjuet slettes. Det er kun prosjektmedarbeidere som har tilgang på informasjonen i prosjektperioden. Disse er underlagt taushetsplikt og behandler data konfidensielt. Prosjektet er meldt til Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste AS. Alle informantene vil være anonymisert i formidling av prosjektet. Vi vil arrangere et seminar avslutningsvis i prosjektet der du blir invitert dersom du ønsker det. Med vennlig hilsen Eirin Hongslo Aase Kristine Lundberg Eva Falleth Marianne Singsaas Post doc PhD student Professor PhD student 122

125 Appendix 3 Overview of mother documents The following documents have been important mother documents in the document studies, with references to other documents that have been included in the studies. Date Title Author Type of document 2004 Wild reindeer and Norwgian Report society (VISA report) Institute for Nature Research 2005 St.mld. nr The Government's environmental policy and national state of the environment 2007 Commissioning letter from the Ministry of Environment to counties about Regional plans for use and protection of important mountain areas - setting boundaries for National Wild Reindeer Areas 2007 Letter about participation in the planning process 2007 St.mld. nr The Government's environmental policy and national state of the environment Local management of protected areas an evaluation of delegation. The Norwegian Ministry of Environment Ministry of Environment Ministry of Environment Ministry of Environment The Norwegian Environmental Authority White paper Governmental letter Governmental letter White paper Governmental report Recipients Public agencies, municipalities, stakeholders and researchers. The Norwegian Parliament County councils County councils, County Governors and wild reindeer boards The Norwegian Parliament Ministry of Environment Case studies and 2 123

126 Environmental Agency s recommendations to the Ministry of Environment National budget (Prop. 1 ( ), 2009) 2010 Regional plan for Setesdal Vesthei Ryfylkeheiane ogsetesdal Austhei. Planning program Regional Plan Input to the ongoing planning process from Bygland, Valle and Bykle municipalities in Setesdal 2011 Working draft Regional plan for Setesdal Vesthei, Ryfylkeheiane and Setesdal Austhei (Heiplanen) 2012 Regional plan for Setesdal Vesthei, Ryfylkeheiane and Setesdal Austhei (Heiplanen). Ministry of Finance Aust-Agder, Vest-Agder, Rogaland, Hordaland and Telemark county council Homme, private consultant. Aust-Agder, Vest-Agder, Rogaland, Hordaland and Telemark counties Aust-Agder, Vest-Agder, Rogaland, Hordaland and Telemark counties Governmental document Report The Noregian Parliament Municipalities, stakeholders, private actors and public agencies County councils Planning draft 4 Final planning document 1, 2 and

127 Appendix 4 Overview of interviews People interviewed 1 1 Norwegian Environmental Agency 2 3 Norwegian Institution Position/role Where Interviewers Date Case study Environmental Agency 3* 1 Rogaland County Council 4* 1 Rogaland County Council 5* 2 Aust-Agder County Council 6 1 Aust-Agder County Governor 7 1 Vest-Agder County Governor 8 1 Vest-Agder County Council 9 1 Hedmark County Council 10 1 Hedmark County Governor 11 1 Oppland County Council 12 1 Oppland County Governor Senior advisor, game Trondheim AKAL, EH, MS management Advisors, Trondheim AKAL, EH, and 2 national park MS section Project leader Stavanger EF, EH County planner Stavanger EF, EH and 4 County planning Arendal EF Game Arendal EF management AKAL Game Kristiansand AKAL, EH management County planning Kristiansand AKAL, EH and 4 County planning Hamar AKAL, MS Game management Hamar AKAL, MS Project leader Lillehammer AKAL, EH, MS Game management Lillehammer AKAL, EH, MS

128 13 1 Oppland County Council County planning Lillehammer AKAL, EH, MS Land owner, Bygland AKAL, EH former mayor Mayor Bygland AKAL, EH Bygland municipality 16 1 Setesdal Regional Head Bygland AKAL, EH Council 17 1 Bygland Municipal Bygland AKAL, EH municipality planner 18 3 Land owners Bygland AKAL, EH Local politician Bygland AKAL, EH Bygland municipality 20 2 Setesdal wild reindeer board 21 1 Wind power company 22 1 Aust-Agder County Council 23 1 Bygland municipality 24 2 Ministry of Environment 25 2 Ministry of Environment 26 1 Ministry of Environment 27 1 Nordland County Council Local Bygland AKAL, EH representative Head Oslo AKAL, EH Regional Telephone AKAL, EH politician Former mayor Telephone AKAL, EH Advisors, Natural resource Oslo AKAL, EH, MS and 4 management Advisors, Oslo AKAL, EH, Regional MS planning Advisor, Oslo AKAL, EH, and 4 Regional MS planning Project leader Trofors AKAL, SM

129 28 1 Grane local development Member of working group 29 1 Vefsn Municipality Municipal planner 30 1 Vefsn Municipality Agricultural and forest management Trofors AKAL, SM Mosjøen AKAL, SM Mosjøen AKAL, SM Statsskog SF Member of Mosjøen AKAL, SM working group 32 1 Helgelandskaft Member of Mosjøen AKAL, SM working group 33 2 Hattfjelldal Mayor and Mosjøen AKAL, SM Municipality municipal planner Project leader Mosjøen AKAL, SM Nordland County Council 35 1 Aust-Agder County Council 36 1 Dovrefjell- Sunndalsfjella National Park 37 1 Dovrefjell- Sunndalsfjella National Park 38 1 Friends of the Earth (NGO) County Mayor Arendal AKAL National park manager National park manager Member of stakeholder group 39 1 Oppdal municipality Municipal planner 40 1 Oppdal municipality Mayor, board member Hjerkinn AKAL, SH and 4 Hjerkinn AKAL, SH Oppdal AKAL, SH Oppdal AKAL, SH Oppdal AKAL, SH

130 41 1 Oppdal municipality and Snøhetta- Knutshø wild reindeer board 42 1 Dovre municipality Mayor, board member 43 1 Dovre municipality Municipal planner Member of stakeholder group 44 1 Dovre mountain board, Snøhetta- Knutshø wild reindeer board 45 1 Local tourism company Secretary Oppdal AKAL, SH and 4 Member of stakeholder group 46* 2 SVR Landscape Protected area protected Area manager and board member 47 1 Setesdal wild Representative reindeer board for Sirdal municipality and local politician 48 1 Sira-Kvina Environmental electricity company advisor 49 2 Sirdal Municipality Municipal planners 50 1 SVR Landscape Protected area protected Area manager 51 1 Åseral Municipality Municipal planner 52 1 Åseral Municipality Mayor, board member Dovre AKAL, SH and 4 Dovre AKAL, SH and 4 Dovre AKAL, SH and 4 Dovre AKAL, SH Sola EH, TS Sirdal AKAL, EH, TS Sirdal AKAL, EH, TS and and 4 Sirdal AKAL, EH AKAL, EH Åseral AKAL, EH and 4 Åseral AKAL, EH

131 53 1 Farmer association Stakeholder Åseral AKAL, EH group member 54 2 Nordland County Regional Bodø AKAL Council politician and 55 1 Nordland County County planner Bodø AKAL Council 56 1 Norwegian Trondheim AKAL Environmental Agency 57 1 Norwegian Total 69 Environmental Agency Head of National park section Senior advisor, game management Trondheim AKAL Notes: (*) Interviews I did not take part in conducting. Abbreviations interviewers: AKAL: Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg EH: Eirin Hogslo MS: Marianne Singsaas SH: Sissel Hovik SM: Synne Movik TS: Terje Skjeggedal 129

132 Appendix 5 Overview of observations When What Where Which case relevant November 2011 Meeting, USS (Association for Oslo Case study 1 and 2 outdoor/rural municipalities). November 2011 Project leader meeting, Oslo Case study 4 Ministry of Environment February 2012 Workshop, USS (Association for outdoor/rural municipalities). April 2012 General assembly, USS. Hell Case study 1 and 2 April 2012 Project leader meeting, Oslo Case study 4 Ministry of Environment August 2012 National Park conference, Norwegian Environmental Otta Case study 1, 2 and 4. Agency September 2012 Workshop Vefsna Trofors Case study 3 and 4 October 2012 Regional wild reindeer Drammen Case study 4 planning conference, Ministry of Environment November 2012 Workshop initiating Kristiansand Case study 2 and 4 development of management plan for SVR landscape protected area December 2012 Workshop on research on Oslo Case study 2 Norwegian conservation management, Norwegian Environmental Agency April 2013 Project leader meeting, Ministry of Environment Oslo Case study 4 130

133 Appendix 6 Interview guide LOCALMAN This is a translated version of the Norwegian interview guide for the LOCALMAN research project (used in case studies 1, 2 and 5). The original Norwegian interview guide is presented on page ) Sustainable development of the area - What kind of advantage does this area have? (Nature and culture) - How can the area best be protected? - How do these values comply with the conservation regulations? In the management plan and in practice? - What values do you want to develop? In what way? - What are the main threats to the (protected) area? Give examples. - What activities do you think should be combined with protection of this area? - In what ways do you actively work with use of the protected area? - Is the protected area/regional park considered as an advantage? In what way? 2) Fair distribution of burdens and benefits - Who has benefitted mostly on protecting the area? - Who has had most difficulties associated with the protection? - Who are the main users of the protected area/regional park? o Agriculture/forestry o Hunting/fishing/harvesting o Recreational activities o New outdoor industries o Tourism - Have there been any discussions about the consequences of the protection on these user groups and activities? - Are burdens and benefits justly distributed among the different actors? - Is there anything they do today that they should not have had access to? - Is there something they should have access to that they do not have? - Has the protection had greater consequences for some municipalities than others? 3) Local anchoring - What is important in the composition of the conservation board? (Gender, party, experience, knowledge, etc.) - How has the selection process been? - Do the board members take up matters in the municipal council/county council in advance before meetings? - Do the representatives report back to the municipality/county after the meetings? - Have the board members initiated issues in the direct extension of his position on the boards? Do you have any contact with affected actors, stakeholders or communities? If so, how? - Important competences in the administration of the protected area: o Formal (length and type) o Organizational 131

134 o Understanding of political processes o Local knowledge o Business development o Other 4) Results and effects after the reform - Have new management plans been made or have they been initiated? How is/was the process? - How are new management plans different from those previously created? - Do the boards want to take an active role in what is happening outside the boundaries of the individual municipalities and the protected areas? - How are planning issues in the buffer areas handled? - Have planning in and outside the protected area become more consistent? - Have management practices changed after the reform and how? o Snowmobiling o Development o Marking of trails o Other - Have you developed new contacts or venues for collaboration after the reform? - Are there any contacts that have become less important? 5) Responsibility and coordination between different management levels - Can you point to specific experiences - decisions or actions - implemented after the reform which you think would have been difficult to implement if governmental management? - To what extent does local government have sufficient authority / is it given sufficient opening for the use of local judgment in relation to regulating or allowing / prohibiting use? - Can you mention things that the conservation board should decide that they cannot determine today? - Can you mention things and cases where the room for local judgment is too big? - Is it as you experience it, ambiguities or disagreements about the boundaries between the board's authority and the county governor's and NEA's authority? - Have you experienced that the county governor has appealed a decision in the board or possibly "threatened" with this? If yes, what things? - What constitutes the greatest limitation in relation to implementing necessary management measures? o Economic resources o Competences o Authority to decide - Is the allocation of responsibilities between the boards and other actors appropriate (municipalities/sno/mountain boards/national park center/county governor)? - Do you have examples of cases where it is inappropriate? 6) Training program of the board (To the board members) - Have you participated in the training program? 132

135 - How useful do you think this training program was in relation to your role as a member of the National Park Board? - What was the most useful? o Information and knowledge of laws and regulations o Information and knowledge about natural values, ecosystems o Other - To what extent do you think this training program is an interference in their roles as local representative in the boards? 133

136 The original Norwegian interview guide Bærekraftig utvikling, bruk og vern: Hva er de viktigste faktorene for å få til en bærekraftig utvikling i tilknytning til dette verneområdet? Hvilke natur (kultur?) verdier er det viktigst å verne her? Hvordan er vern av disse verdiene ivaretatt i vernebestemmelsene? Og i praksis? Hva er de viktigste truslene mot verneområdet? Gi eksempler. Hvilke aktiviteter bør kunne kombineres med vern av dette området? Har du eksempler på at for mye har blitt vernet? Evnt for strengt? Gi eksempler. Har du eksempler på at for lite har blitt vernet? Ikke vernet strengt nok? Gi eksempler. Hvordan blir vernet skjøttet? Hvorfor? Penger? Hvordan blir lokalt næringsliv oppfordret til aktivitet i disse områdene? Hva slags type aktivitet? Hvor? Rettferdig fordeling: Er byrder og goder rettferdig fordelt mellom ulike berørte (på tvers av geografiske skiller, brukergrupper el.a)? Da måle, finne fram til oppfatning av om byrdefordeling og nyttefordeling er rettferdig (spørre kommunene og nasjonalparkforvalterne). Hvem er de viktigste brukerne av verneområdet? o Lokale turgjengere o Friluftsinteresserte langveisfarende o Reiselivsnæringen/Turistforeningen o Miljøvernere o Jegere/fiskere o Andre Hvilke rettigheter har disse brukerne? Hvilke plikter har de? Er det noe de gjør i dag, som de ikke burde ha hatt tilgang til? Er det noe de burde ha tilgang til som de ikke har? Hvem har vernet gått hardest utover? Er dette endret med den nye forvaltningen? Har noen kommuner blitt møtt større konsekvenser av vernet enn andre? Hvilke? Lokal forankring - kartlegge kommunestyrenes og fylkestingenes involvering: Hvilke saker som angår nasjonalparkforvaltningen får fylkesting/kommunestyrer rutinemessig til behandling? Hvordan rapporteres aktiviteten i nasjonalparkstyret til fylkesting / kommunestyre? Har du blitt stilt spørsmål eller bedt om å orientere fylkesting/kommunestyre om virksomheten i nasjonalparkstyret/-forvaltningen? Har du selv tatt initiativ til å diskutere «nasjonalparksaker» i fylkesting/kommunestyre? 134

137 Har det vært diskusjon / politisk uenighet i fylkesting / kommunestyret om kommunens standpunkt i saker som berører nasjonalparkstyret / - forvaltningen? Opplever du at du får klare politiske signaler fra fylkesting / kommunestyret i hvordan du skal opptre som (fylkes-)kommunens representant i nasjonalparkstyret? (Hvis ja, konkretiser). Hender det at du får henvendelser fra berørte / brukere / andre i kommunen om saker som er oppe i nasjonalparkstyret (eller forslag til saker som bør tas opp)? Hvor ofte? Hvilke saker? Fra hvem? Har du blitt intervjuet i lokalpresse/ -media i forbindelse med ditt verv som medlem av nasjonalparkstyret? Refererer lokalmedia fra møter i nasjonalparkstyret / tar de opp saker som dreier seg om nasjonalparkforvaltning? I hvilken grad er det debattinnlegg el.l i lokalpressa om forvaltning av nasjonalparken? Spørre nasjonalparkforvalter eller leder av nasjonalparkstyret: Er sakskart, innstillinger og saksdokumenter og referater fra møtene i nasjonalparkstyrene åpne? Er møtene i nasjonalparkstyrene åpne? Regler og rutiner for rapportering fra nasjonalparkstyret til DN: Hva rapporteres og hvor ofte. Er rapportene offentlig tilgjengelige? Organisasjonsstrukturen og beslutningsprosess: Hvilke saker behandles i styret? Hvordan er beslutningsprosessen (normalt) lagt opp? o Hvem initierer sakene? Tar styret opp saker som andre initierer (brukere/søkere, forvalter, DN), eller initierer styret også selv saker? (I så fall hvilke?) o I hvilken grad belyses sakene administrativ/ faglig utredning og høring blant berørte? o Hvilke saker sendes rutinemessig til høring blant (hvilke) berørte? o I hvilken grad er det uenighet om vedtak blant medlemmer i nasjonalparkstyret? I hvilke saker er det ulike oppfatninger? Diskuterer dere dere fram til enighet eller er det flertallsavgjørelser? Arbeidsdeling mellom Nasjonalparkforvalter og nasjonalparkstyre: Hvilke saker behandler styret? Hvilke saker kan forvalter ta seg av? Er det opprettet administrativt kontaktutvalg? Når/i hvilke saker blir de trukket inn? Faglig rådgivende organ (referansegruppe): o Hvordan er denne satt sammen og organisert? o Hvor ofte møtes den? o Hvilke saker tas opp? o Hvor mye vekt legges på deres råd / uttalelser? o Finnes det høringsordninger utenom møtene i dette rådgivende organet? 135

138 Spørre representanter fra brukere /berørte om erfaringer fra faglig rådgivende organ, om informasjon om forvaltningen og egen deltakelse: Deltatt på møter i faglig rådgivende organ? o Vurdering av relevansen til sakene som tas opp. o Vurdering av informasjonen som gis om sakene på forhånd. o Er møtene preget av at ulike grupper legger fram sitt syn / argumentasjon for ulike syn, eller er møtene preget av ønske om å komme fram til enighet / felles råd til nasjonalparkstyret? o Oppfatning av om nasjonalparkstyret tar hensyn til synspunkt som kommer fram i rådgivende organ? Har organisasjonen / personen avgitt skriftlig høring i saker som har vært oppe i nasjonalparkstyret? Har organisasjonen / personen søkt om tillatelse / dispensasjon for bruk av nasjonalpark? Har organisasjonen / personen tatt direkte kontakt med en representant i nasjonalparkstyret for å fremme sitt syn i aktuell sak? Hvis ja, i hvilken sak / hvilke saker? Har organisasjonen / personen deltatt i debatt om vern og forvaltning av nasjonalparken som er arrangert av andre enn nasjonalparkstyresmaktene (i aviser, i lokale debattmøter, )? Nettverk og samarbeid med andre aktører Hvilke personer, organisasjoner og myndigheter samarbeider du med i fjellforvaltningen? På hvilke arenaer foregår dette samarbeidet? Hvilke aktører har du tillitt til og hvorfor? o tillit til ryddig og åpne prosesser (ikke bak rygg) o tillit til at dere har felles forståelse av utfordringene o tillit til at fellesskapets beslutninger følges opp o tillit til det ikke blir omkamper Ranger inntil de fem viktigste personene i hver av disse temagruppene knyttet til regional plan: o miljø- og friluftsliv o jakt og fiske o Landbruks- og grunneierinteresser o reiseliv og hytteutvikling o politikere o offentlige myndigheter o oppsyn o andre Hvor ofte har du omtrent kontakt med den enkelte o hver uke, hver måned, 1-2 ganger i året, sjeldnere, aldri Kunnskap, hvilken type kunnskap oppfatter du som sentral 136

139 o Lokal, ekspert, hvem produserer Nasjonalparkstyremedlemmenes beslutningsgrunnlag. Hvilke aktører eller grupper er det viktigst å ta hensyn til i beslutningene som tas i nasjonalparkstyret? Hvem konfererer du mest med i jobben din? Hvorfor? Har du kontakt med dem i forkant av styremøtene? Hva snakker dere om da? Hvor søker du oftest kunnskap i ditt daglige virke? (Ranger) o Egen erfaringsbasert kunnskap o Statlige styresmakter DN, MD osv. o FOU-miljøer (universiteter og forskningsinstitutter/villreinsenteret) o Interesseorganisasjoner o Lokalt berørte grupper Ulike oppfatninger / diskusjoner innen forvaltningen og blant berørte, og konflikthåndtering: Hva er den eller de klarest uttrykte diskusjonene (eller konfliktene) i nasjonalparkforvaltningen? (Be om konkretisering av tema, argumenter og parter) I hvilken grad kommer disse diskusjonene / uenighetene til syne i: o I nasjonalparkstyret o Mellom styre og forvalter / FM / DN o Mellom ulike berørte/brukergrupper Hvordan håndteres slike uenigheter? o Prøver en å diskutere seg fram til enighet eller kompromiss? o Bestemmer flertallet (eller nasjonalparkstyret eller miljøvernmyndighetene)? o Søker en mer kunnskap og informasjon (utredninger)? I hvilken grad kan ulik bruk av nasjonalparken stå i motsetning til hverandre eller til vernehensyn/ i hvilken grad kan interessene til ulike brukergrupper være motstridende? (Konkretiser til saker og bruk/ brukergrupper. Eks. tradisjonell beitenæring versus moderne turisme, eller miljøhensyn versus brukshensyn som villrein versus ferdsel). (Hvordan) prøver dere (normalt) å løse slike konflikter? o I samtale og samarbeid med og mellom brukerne? o Gjennom vedtak i nasjonalparkstyret? o Ved administrativ beslutning av nasjonalparkforvalter? Opplæringsprogrammet - spørre nasjonalparkstyremedlemmene: Har du deltatt i opplæringsprogrammet? Hvor nyttig mener du dette opplæringsprogrammet var i forhold til din ivaretakelse av rollen som medlem av nasjonalparkstyret? (Evt. hva var mest lærerikt: Informasjon og kunnskap om lover og regelverk? Informasjon og kunnskap om naturverdier, økosystem?) 137

140 I hvilken grad mener du dette opplæringsprogrammet er en utilbørlig innblanding i deres rolle som lokal representant i nasjonalparkstyret? Ansvars- og myndighetsfordeling mellom forvaltningsnivåene dvs. mellom nasjonalparkstyrene og DN / statlig naturforvaltning. Kan du peke på konkrete erfaringer beslutninger eller tiltak som er gjennomført under lokal forvaltning, og som du mener vanskelig hadde vært gjennomført dersom statlig forvaltning? I hvilken grad har lokal forvaltning tilstrekkelig myndighet / er det gitt tilstrekkelig åpning for bruk av lokalt skjønn i forhold til å regulere eller tillate/ forby bruk? o Kan du nevne saker nasjonalparkstyret burde bestemme og som de per i dag ikke kan bestemme? (Saker der det burde vært gitt større rom for lokalt skjønn / større handlingsrom for nasjonalparkstyret?) o Kan du nevne saker der rommet for lokalt skjønn er for stort? Er det, slik du opplever det, uklarheter eller uenigheter om hva som er grensene mellom nasjonalparkstyrets myndighet og Fylkesmannens og DNs myndighet? Hvis ja, konkretiser. Har dere opplevd at FM har påklaget beslutning i NP-styret, evt. «truet» med dette? Hvis ja, i hvilke saker? Har dere blitt instruert av staten? Hvis ja, i hvilken sak? Hva utgjør den største begrensningen i forhold til å gjennomføre nødvendige skjøtseltiltak? Økonomiske ressurser, kompetanse eller myndighet til å bestemme? Når det gjelder ansvars- og arbeidsdelingen til andre aktører som er involvert i forvaltningen av nasjonalparken eller fjellområdene som SNO, Fjelllstyrer, Nasjonalparksentre/ informasjonssentre, - er denne hensiktsmessig? Dvs. kan du nevne eksempler på saker / tilfelle der du mener ansvarsdelingen er uklar eller uhensiktsmessig? Konkrete resultater av lokal forvaltning Har forvaltningen av området blitt endret etter overgang til lokal forvaltning? Hvordan er nye forvaltningsplaner forskjellige fra de som er laget tidligere? Har du fått nye kontakter eller arenaer for samarbeid etter at lokal forvaltning ble innført? Hvilke? Om hva? Outcome: Har forvaltningspraksis endret seg etter ny forvaltningsform? o motorferdsel, o utbygging, o merking av stier/løyper o Økt skjøtselstiltak? Hvilke? Forholdet til randsonen? Er nasjonalparkforvaltningen tettere knyttet til forvaltningen av randsonen? Hvordan? 138

141 Appendix 7 Interview guide REINMAN This is a translated version of the Norwegian interview guide for the REINMAN research project (used in case study 4). The original Norwegian interview guide is presented on page 142. Translated interview guide Background information 1. Formal role in the regional planning process 2. Are you involved in other activities affecting the mountain area? a. Formal planning and management processes b. Partners, cooperation arenas c. Formal duties in the management of the mountain area Historical about the area 3. Management of the area in a historical perspective a. Plans, measures and strategies historical b. Who has been in charged? c. Central actors, as public bodies, authorities and organizations The regional planning process 4. Describe the planning process and disagreements in the different phases a. Planning program b. Planning draft c. Consultation phase d. Adoption phase 5. What has been achieved with the plan? What are the biggest limitations? a. Ensuring wildlife b. Ensuring local development c. Ensuring cooperation between municipalities d. Ensuring comprehensive management within and outside protected areas 6. Formal challenges and formalities a. Roles and tasks between the actors b. formal challenges related to planning tools (such as planning regulations) 7. What have been the areas/issues of conflicts in the planning process? a. How have these conflicts been handled? And by whom? 8. How do you want to characterize the cooperation on plan in the project group? a. roles and positions, places etc b. Steering group/board, AU, planning network, project manager 9. Does regional planning work affect how you collaborate with others, who and how? 10. How do you assess the potential for implementing Heiplanen successfully? a. Tools they choose to use / do not use 11. Are there any interests that are not targeted / have their spokespersons? Or is it really weak? 12. Are there anyone who do not hold a central role in the mountain administration? 139

142 Other management relevant for the area 13. Knowledge, what kind of knowledge do you perceive as central? a. Local, expert b. Who produces 14. Management of the mountain area a. other regional measures and plans b. municipal area planning, construction c. financial resources, development programs, etc. d. other projects 15. Public debate a. what, where, how, who 16. Special interests, organizations and individual actors - their standpoint, perspective, etc. a. Business b. State environmental authorities c. Landowners and agricultural organizations d. The municipality e. Environmental and recreational organizations Opportunities and challenges in the wild reindeer area 17. Specific conflicts in the management of the mountain area describe 18. Is there a common understanding of the management of the mountain area? Changed over time? 19. What is the threat of wildlife, has it changed over time? And the local community? 20. What should be united with wildlife interests, which in practice can not be united now? 21. What are the five most important threats to the wildlife habitat? Collaboration with others 22. Which people, organizations and authorities do you cooperate in the mountain administration? 23. In which arenas is this cooperation going on? 24. What actors do you trust and why? a. Trust in transparent and open processes (not behind back) b. Trust that you have a common understanding of the challenges c. Confidence that decisions and plans are followed up 25. Rank up to the five most important people in each of these theme groups linked to regional level: a. Wild reindeer b. Environment and recreational organizations c. Hunting and fishing d. Agricultural and landowner interests e. Tourism and cottage development f. Politicians g. Public authorities 140

143 h. SNO i. Others 26. How often do you have close contact with the individual? a. every week b. each month c. 1-2 times a year d. less often e. never Other questions 27. To what extent is the planning effort locally anchored? 28. Are vertical steering axes so strong that horizontal coordination is difficult? 29. Other conservation issues than wildlife considered in the plan? 141

144 The original Norwegian interview guide BAKGRUNNSPØRSMÅL 1. Formell rolle i det regionale planforsøket 2. Hvilken andre aktivitet er du med i tilknyttet fjellområdet? a. Formelle planleggings- og forvaltningsprosesser b. Samarbeidsparter, samarbeidsarenaer c. Formelle verv i forvaltning av fjellområdet HISTORISK OM OMRÅDET 3. Forvaltning av området i et historisk perspektiv a. Planer, tiltak og strategier historisk b. Hvem har stått for arbeidet? c. Offentlige organer, myndigheter og organisasjoner som er sentrale DEN REGIONALE PLANPROSESSEN (HEIPLANEN) 4. Beskriv planprosessen, og uenigheter i de ulik faser a. Planprogram b. Planutarbeidelse c. Høringsfase d. Vedtaksfase 5. Hva har man oppnådd med planen? Hva er de største begrensingene? o sikre villreinen o sikre lokalutvikling o binde kommuner o sikre samarbeid mellom kommuner o sikre helhetlig forvaltning i og utenfor verneområder o bruk av muligheten for bindende arealplaner 6. Formelle utfordringer /formalia o roller og oppgaver mellom aktørene o formelle utfordringer knyttet til planredskaper (for eksempel planbestemmelser) 7. Hva har vært arealkonfliktene i planprosessen? Hvordan har disse konfliktene blitt håndtert? Og av hvem? 8. Hvordan vil du karakterisere samarbeidet om plan i prosjektgruppen? o roller og posisjoner, ståsteder etc o styringsgruppe/styret, AU, planfaglig nettverk, prosjektleder 9. Har regionale planarbeidet påvirket hvordan du samarbeider med andre, hvem og hvordan 10. Hvordan vurderer du potensialet for iverksetting av Heiplanen? Virkemidler de velger å bruke/ikke bruke (FM, FK, kommunen, villreinnemnd/utvalg, andre) 142

145 11. Er det noen interesser som ikke målbæres/har sin talspersoner? Eller står reelt svake? Er det noen som deltar som ikke innehar en sentral rolle i fjellforvaltningen? ANNEN FORVALTNINGEN AV OMRÅDET 12. Kunnskap, hvilken type kunnskap oppfatter du som sentral Lokal, ekspert, hvem produserer 13. Forvaltning av fjellområdet - andre regionale tiltak og planer - kommunenes arealplanlegging, byggesaker - økonomiske midler, utviklingsprogrammer etc - andre prosjekter 14. Offentlige debatt - hva, hvor, hvordan, hvem 15. Særinteresser, organisasjoner og enkeltaktører - deres ståsted, perspektiv etc - Næringslivet - Statlige miljømyndigheter - Grunneier- og landbruksorganisasjoner - Kommunen - Miljø- og friluftorganisasjoner MULIGHETER OG TRUSLER I VILLREINOMRÅDET 16. Konkret konflikter i forvaltningen av fjellområdet beskriv 17. Er det en felles forståelse om forvaltningen av fjellområdet? Endret seg over tid? 18. Hva er trusselbildet for villreinen, har det endret seg over tid? Og lokalsamfunnet? 19. Hva bør la seg forene med villreininteresser som i praksis ikke lar seg forene nå? 20. Hva er de fem viktigste truslene mot villreinens leveområde (ranger)? SAMARBEID MED ANDRE 21. Hvilke personer, organisasjoner og myndigheter samarbeider du med i fjellforvaltningen? 22. På hvilke arenaer foregår dette samarbeidet? 23. Hvilke aktører har du tillitt til og hvorfor? 143

146 - tillit til ryddig og åpne prosesser (ikke bak rygg) - tillit til at dere har felles forståelse av utfordringene - tillit til at fellesskapets beslutninger følges opp - tillit til det ikke blir omkamper 24. Ranger inntil de fem viktigste personene i hver av disse temagruppene knyttet til regional plan: - villrein -miljø- og friluftsliv - jakt og fiske - Landbruks- og grunneierinteresser - reiseliv og hytteutvikling - politikere - offentlige myndigheter (F, FK, FM, DN, MD) - oppsyn - andre 25. hvor ofte har du omtrent kontakt med den enkelte - hver uke - hver måned ganger i året - sjeldnere - aldri ANNET I hvilken grad er planarbeidet forankret, eller faller det på siden av det etablerte Vertikale styringsakser så sterke at horisontal samordning er vanskelig Andre vernehensyn enn villrein vurdert i planen? 144

147 Appendix 8 Information letter surveys This is the information letter included in the sent to the respondents in the survey in case study 2. Spørreundersøkelse om lokal verneområdeforvalting Vi gjennomfører for tiden en studie av lokal verneområdeforvaltning. Studien inngår i samarbeidsprosjektet Idealer, modeller og praksis i naturressursforvaltning: Hva er betydningen av lokal forvaltning?» mellom Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap (UMB), Høyskolen i Oslo og Akershus (HiOA) og Østlandsforskning, og finansieres av Norges forskningsråds Miljø 2015 program. Dine erfaringer som medlem av verneområdestyret (verneområdeforvalter / medlem av faglig rådgivende utvalg / medlem av administrativt kontaktutvalg) kan gi oss større innsikt og kunnskap om utfordringene man står overfor i forvaltningen, og hvordan organiseringen kan forbedres. Vi ber deg derfor bruke litt tid på denne korte spørreundersøkelsen, ved å klikke deg inn på linken under. [Link] Med vennlig hilsen Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg PhD-student Institutt for landskapsplanlegging Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap E-post: aase.kristine.lundberg@umb.no Telefon: Mobil: Appendix 9 Introduction to the surveys All the surveys in case study 2 were introduced with the following information: Spørreundersøkelse om lokal verneområdeforvaltning Opplysningene som blir samlet inn gjennom denne spørreundersøkelsen vil bare bli framstilt i anonymisert form, ved bruk av figurer og tabeller hvor alle innkomne svar presenteres samlet. Ingen enkeltpersoner vil kunne gjenkjennes i publiseringer fra prosjektet. Undersøkelsen er meldt inn til Personvernombudet hos Norsk Samfunnsvitenskapelig Datatjeneste (NSD) og blir gjennomført i henhold til UMBs forskningsetiske normer. Prosjektet varer ut Deltagelse i undersøkelsen er selvfølgelig frivillig. Vi vil samtidig oppfordre alle mottagere til å bidra på denne måten til å styrke kunnskapsgrunnlaget om lokal forvaltning av verneområder i Norge. 145

148 Appendix 10 Survey to members of the conservation boards In case study 2, different surveys were developed and sent to four groups: members of conservation boards, members of stakeholder groups, members of administrative contact groups and protected area managers. Here, the survey to the conservation boards members are presented. 146

149 Spørreundersøkelse om lokal verneforvaltning - Verneområdestyret Opplysningene som blir samlet inn gjennom denne spørreundersøkelsen vil bare bli framstilt i anonymisert form, ved bruk av figurer og tabeller hvor alle innkomne svar presenteres samlet. Ingen enkeltpersoner vil kunne gjenkjennes i publiseringer fra prosjektet. Undersøkelsen er meldt inn til Personvernombudet hos Norsk Samfunnsvitenskapelig Datatjeneste (NSD) og blir gjennomført i henhold til UMBs forskningsetiske normer. Prosjektet varer ut Deltagelse i undersøkelsen er selvfølgelig frivillig. Vi vil samtidig oppfordre alle mottagere til å bidra på denne måten til å styrke kunnskapsgrunnlaget om lokal forvaltning av verneområder i Norge. Bakgrunnsinformasjon 1) Posisjon i fylkesting/kommunestyre Ordfører Varaordfører Kommunestyre-/Fylkestingsmedlem Annet 2) Hvilket parti representerer du? Det norske arbeiderpartiet Fremskrittspartiet Høyre Kristelig folkeparti Senterparitet Sosialistisk Venstreparti Venstre Lokal liste Annet 3) Er du... Kvinne Mann 4) Hva er din høyeste utdanning? Grunnskole (inntil 10 år) 147

150 Videregående skole (inntil 12 år) Inntil tre års høgere utdanning Høgere utdanning ut over tre år Om arbeidet i verneområdestyret 5) Er du medlem av arbeidsurvalget (AU) for verneområdestyret? Ja Nei 6) Hvor ofte har du deltatt på møter i verneområdestyret siste året (2013)? (Oppgi antall) Fysiske møter Telefonmøter/videokonferanser E-postmøter Befaringer/temadager el 7) Ved uenighet om en avgjørelse i verneområdestyret, hvordan håndteres denne? Av og Ikke Ofte til Aldri relevant Vi diskuterer oss fram til enighet Vi lar flertallet bestemme gjennom avstemning Vi utsetter saken for å hente inn mer dokumentasjon 8) Hvor ofte har du kontakt med følgende aktører / grupper i din rolle som medlem av verneområdestyret? Sjelden, Vet 1-2 Av Ofte, ca ikke / ganger og en gang i Svært ikke Aldri i året til måneden ofte relevant Fylkesmannens stab Statlig miljøvernforvaltning forøvrig 148

151 (Miljøverndepartementet, Miljødirektoratet) Andre med forvaltningsansvar i området (SNO, Fjellstyret, Villreinnemnd, el) 149

152 150

153 diskusjoner og vedtak i verneområdestyret Erfaringer med lokal forvaltning av verneområde(r) 11) Hvor enig eller uenig er du i følgende påstander? Helt Delvis Verken Delvis Helt Vet enig enig eller uenig uenig ikke Deltakelse fra politikere er viktig for å lykkes med en bærekraftig forvaltning av området Verneområdeforvaltningen er tilstrekkelig lokalpolitisk forankret (på kommunenivå) Verneområdeforvaltningen er tilstrekkelig politisk forankret på fylkesnivå 12) Hvor enig eller uenig er du i følgende påstander? Vet ikke Helt Delvis Verken Delvis Helt /ikke enig enig eller uenig uenig relevant Lokalpolitikerne har ikke tilstrekkelig avstand til søkerne til å ivareta verneforskriftene Lokal forvaltning bidrar til å balansere bruks- og vernehensyn på en god måte Lokal forvaltning bidrar til å se områdene innenfor og utenfor vernegrensene i større sammenheng Verneområdestyret oversvømmes av enkeltsaker, vi har ikke tid og rom for å drive utviklingsarbeid Skillet mellom verneområdestyrenes lederfunksjon og fylkesmannens arbeidsgiveransvar overfor verneområdeforvalterne er problematisk Lokal forvalting har bidratt til at statlige 151

154 152

155 153

156 Appendix 11 Publication from case study 3 not included in the thesis Movik, S., & Lundberg, A. K. A. (2013). Å følge vannets vei. Erfaringer fra Nordland med EUs vanndirektiv og samordning med andre regionale planprosesser. [Following the water's course. Experiences from Nordland with the EU's water framework directive and coordination with other regional planning processes] Kart og plan (5),

157 «Å følge vannets vei» Erfaringer fra Nordland med EUs vanndirektiv og samordning med andre regionale planprosesser Synne Movik og Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg Vitenskapelig bedømt (refereed) artikkel Synne Movik and Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg: «Following the Water s Flow»: Experiences with implementing the EU Water Framework Directive in Nordland County and coordination with other planning processes KART OG PLAN, Vol. 73, pp , POB 5003, NO-1432 Ås, ISSN This article examines the process of implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Norway. The WFD introduces the notion of «ecosystem-based management». The question is how this plays out in the Norwegian context and how it influences other regional planning processes. Drawing on theories of regionalisation and institutional fit, and using Nordland as a case study, the article traces the implementation process and elaborates on the dynamics of the process. Special attention is given to how these processes mesh with other ongoing regional planning processes, focusing on three key elements: drawing up of boundaries, gathering and interpretation of information, and decision-making authority. While there are clearly potential synergies due to plans being aligned with hydrological boundaries, problems arise with respect to temporal fit. Moreover, the ambit of authority is sometimes ambiguous due to differing views of the mandate of the regional level planning authority versus the national level, with regard to implementation of the WFD. Keywords: Water Framework Directive, ecosystem-based management, regional planning, Nordland Synne Movik, Researcher, Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, POB 5003, NO-1432 Ås. synne.movik@umb.no Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg, PhD-student, Institute of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, POB 5003, NO-1432 Ås. aase.kristine.lundberg@umb.no Innledning I 2000 innførte EU et nytt vanndirektiv som skulle bli den nye standarden for helhetlig vannforvaltning i Europa. Med vanndirektivet introduserte man tanken om at vann skal forvaltes på grunnlag av nedbørsfelt og at alle påvirkningsfaktorer og sektorer skulle sees i sammenheng. Innføringen av direktivet markerte et skifte fra «government» til «governance», altså fra at vann først og fremst var et nasjonalt anliggende, til å invitere til mer inkluderende samarbeidsformer hvor andre forvaltningsnivåer og aktører ble representert. I Norge valgte man å gjøre vannforvaltningen til et regionalt, snarere enn et statlig, anliggende, slik man for eksempel gjorde i Danmark, Polen og Latvia (Hedin et al. 2007). Innføringen av vanndirektivet i Norge i form av vannforskriften åpner for spørsmål om hvordan implementeringen av en ny måte å tenke forvaltning på, basert på nedbørsfelt og med vekt på samarbeid på tvers av sektorer og ulike brukerinteresser, vil arte seg. Hvilke utfordringer oppstår i planlegging i henhold til vannforskriften? Og hva er effektene for samordning med ulike regionale planprosesser? Artikkelen baserer seg på funn fra prosjektet «WAPABAT» 1 og vi diskuterer utfordringer knyttet til implementeringen av vanndirektivet som en regional planleggingsprosess og samordning med andre regionale prosesser, og ser særlig på grensedragning, kunnskapshåndtering og myndighetsutøvelse. Det geografiske fokuset er Nordland, og de andre aktuelle regionale planprosessene er regional plan for småkraft og regional plan for Vefsna som begge er relevante for vannforvaltning. Vi har valgt å se på planleggingsprosessene fordi implemente- KART OG PLAN

158 Bedømt (refereed) artikkel Synne Movik og Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg ringen av vanndirektivet impliserer en ny dimensjon i regional planleggingspraksis i Norge, bl.a. grunnet fokuset på økosystembaserte grenser. Andre aspekter ved EU-direktivet har blitt studert, som f.eks. medvirkning (Hanssen og Hovik, dette nr.), og hvordan ulike sektorinteresser blir håndtert (Klausen 2012), men regional samordning har ikke vært et sentralt tema, og vi mener det er interessant å se hvordan implementeringen av vanndirektivet griper inn i prosessene med regionale planer. Nordland var et av de fire casestudiene som inngikk i WAPA- BAT-prosjektet og fremsto som den mest interessante regionen å studere pga. de mange regionale planprosessene som er i gang her og som har en direkte berøring med vannforvaltning. Det at Nordland fylkeskommune i stor grad overlapper med vannregionen, gjør oss i stand til å fokusere mest mulig på de regionale planprosessene. Artikkelen er en casestudie av arbeidet med tre regionale planer i Nordland og bygger på intervjuer gjort på nasjonalt, regionalt og lokalt nivå. Semi-strukturerte intervjuer ble gjort i Nordland i perioden september og desember 2012, samt deltagende observasjon på møter i vannregionutvalget i Nordland i desember. Totalt har vi intervjuet et tyvetalls personer disse inkluderte folk fra fylkeskommunen, fylkesmannen, prosjektledere på vannområdenivå og folk i ulike sektororganisasjoner og kommuneadministrasjonene. Vi trekker veksler på intervjumaterialet andre medlemmer av prosjektet har gjort på nasjonalt nivå, dermed blir det empiriske materialet betydelig større. Relevante plandokumenter, møtereferater, vedtak og høringsuttalelser fra de tre planprosessene er også sentralt materiale. Analysen av intervjumaterialet og dokumentene er basert på tematisk innholdsanalyse. Vi begynner med å presentere teoretiske perspektiver på regioner og regional planlegging, samt fremveksten av idealer om helhetlig og integrert forvaltning. Deretter følger en presentasjon av det empiriske grunnlaget og en presentasjon av prosessene med å innføre vannforskriften i Norge og de andre vannrelaterte regionale planprosessene. Vi diskuterer noen av hovedpoengene som fremkom under undersøkelsene og avslutter med noen oppsummerende betraktninger. Presentasjon av sentrale begreper Regioner og regional planlegging Ordet «regional» stammer fra det latinske ordet «regio», som betyr å styre eller regjere (Langeland 2012). Blant de ulike geografiske nivåforståelsene er region kanskje den mest upresise og ofte vagt definerte (Herod 2011). Region kan bety mange forskjellige ting, og det brukes om alt fra landskap til forvaltningsenheter og forvaltningsnivåer, samt om diffuse historiske identitetsområder. En «region» kan referere til en politisk-administrativ region, økonomisk region, funksjonell region, naturregion eller kulturell region (Hanssen et al. 2012). I en norsk plansammenheng er forståelsen av region knyttet til fylket som politisk-administrativ enhet, og fylkeskommunen er regional planmyndighet med fylkestinget som øverste organ. Helt siden dagens fylkeskommuner ble etablert på midten av 1970-tallet, har samordning og samarbeid vært sentrale virkemidler for å skape regional utvikling. Det har likevel skjedd en betydelig dreining i fylkesplanleggingen fra det som ifølge Arbo (2005) i begynnelsen ikke var annet enn en samling utbyggingsorienterte sektorplaner med lav grad av politisk deltakelse, til dagens regionale planlegging basert på partnerskap og gjensidig samarbeid mellom offentlige og private aktører. En rekke evalueringer av fylkesplanleggingen (se for eksempel Falleth & Johnsen 1996; Higdem 2001; Nenseth & Naustdalslid 1992; Skjeggedal et al. 2003; Vabo 1995) har reist spørsmål om 1. WABABAT står for «Water Pollution Abatement in a System of Multilevel Governance». Prosjektet studerer ulike aspekter ved gjennomføringen av EUs vanndirektiv i Norge og er ledet av Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning, i samarbeid med UMB ved Institutt for landskapsplanlegging, Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus, Norsk institutt for vannforskning og Universitetet i Oslo. Prosjektet er finansiert av Norges forskningsråd, programmet Miljø2015 og Miljøverndepartementet. Prosjektet startet i 2011 og avsluttes nå i Vi vil gjerne takke prosjektmedlemmene for innspill underveis, spesielt Knut Bjørn Stokke og Marthe Indset. To fagfeller kom med svært konstruktive tilbakemeldinger som var med på å forbedre artikkelen betydelig. Takk også til Cathrine Bjerknes for redigeringshjelp. 334 KART OG PLAN

159 «Å følge vannets vei» den reelle samordningsfunksjonen, og metaforer som «å ro uten årer» eller «å seile uten vind» (Arbo 2005 s. 16) har blitt tatt i bruk for å karakterisere fylkesplanleggingen. I forarbeidet til plan- og bygningsloven (PBL) 2008 ble både fylkeskommunens manglende instruksjonsmuligheter, behovet for vertikal og horisontal koordinering, samt fleksibiliteten i det regionale plansystemet forsøkt håndtert (NOU 2001). På miljøområdet har flere oppgaver og mer myndighet blitt overført fra regional stat til fylkeskommunen gjennom forvaltningsreformen i 2010, jf. Ot. prp. 10 ( ), og et av forvaltningsansvarene som ble overført fra fylkesmannen til fylkeskommunen var vannregionmyndigheten. Men som regional planmyndighet har ikke fylkeskommunen virkemidler til å binde andre sektorer og aktører, og de er enda mer avhengig av andre aktører og myndigheter i vannplanleggingen, mens de i sin egen regionale planlegging kan velge å ta i bruk regionale planbestemmelser (noe som er et tema i Vefsna-arbeidet). Helhetlig og integrert forvaltning Parallelt med disse regionaliseringstrendene har det også vært en sterkt voksende tendens til å se på «helhetlig» og «integrert» miljøforvaltning som et ideal. Disse begrepene kan oppfattes som ganske synonyme «integrert» viser til at noe er samordnet, eller koblet, mens med «helhetlig» forstår man at noe bør betraktes som en del av et større hele. 2 Helhetlig og integrert vannressursforvaltning basert på nedbørsfelt har i løpet av de siste tjue årene fått svært stor innflytelse og blitt det dominerende paradigmet innen vannforvaltning (Conca 2006; Global Water Partnership 2000; Molle 2008). Det har også blitt et mer markert behov for å fokusere på interaksjonene mellom mennesker og deres naturmiljø, konseptualisert i rammeverket «social-ecological systems» (Folke 2006; Galaz et al. 2008; Young & Young 2008). Sentralt i denne litteraturen er begrep som «scale, fit og interplay» (Moss 2008; Moss 2004) som henspiller på i hvilken grad institusjoner er tilpasset ressursen(e) de skal forvalte. Et hovedpoeng i denne litteraturen er at for å oppnå samordning og helhetlig forvaltning, må man ha institusjoner som i størst mulig grad speiler ressursens karakteristikker. Dette har ført til fremveksten av «river basin agencies» i en rekke land, og EUs vanndirektiv fremhever også behovet for «river basin management plans». Oppfordringen til å etablere institusjoner som følger nedbørsfeltgrensene er sterk, selv om den ikke er et krav. «Institutional fit» går både på det romlige og det tidsmessige; man må ha institusjoner som er godt tilpasset ressursen som skal forvaltes både i tid og rom og begrepet «scale» er her et viktig aspekt. Når det gjelder «interplay» så henspiller dette på hvordan institusjoner overlapper (eller ikke) med hverandre, og hvordan man samordner ulike forvaltningsoppgaver på tvers av institusjonelle grenser. Det er to tydelige trender her, altså, en sterkere grad av desentralisering fra statlig til regionalt nivå, og også en økende tendens til å tenke helhetlig og økosystembasert forvaltning. Spørsmålet er hvordan slike trender oppleves i praksis, og hva slags utfordringer det medfører knyttet til samordning av aktiviteter. Vi mener at innsikten som institutional fit og integrert vannressursforvaltningslitteraturen har åpnet for når det gjelder institusjonell tilpasning til ressurser er verdifulle, men at den i overraskende liten grad tar for seg temaer som kunnskap og myndighet og hva dette har å si for samordning. Vi har derfor funnet det hensiktsmessig å fokusere på tre hovedelementer når det gjelder regional samordning, nemlig grensedragning, kunnskapshåndtering og myndighetsutøvelse og se på hvordan disse elementene påvirker samordning mellom regionale planprosesser. Vannforskriften og prosessen så langt i Norge Hensikten med EUs vanndirektiv er å oppnå god tilstand i alle vannforekomster grunnvann, innsjøer, elver og kystvann innen Et sentralt begrep i vanndirektivet er 2. Ifølge Oxford English Dictionary menes det med «integrated» at noe er «linked» eller «coordinated», mens «holistic» henspiller på «the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole». KART OG PLAN

160 Bedømt (refereed) artikkel Synne Movik og Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg «økosystembasert forvaltning», dvs. at forvaltningen skal organiseres på basis av nedbørsfelt, heller enn politisk-administrative grenser. I Norge trådte vannforskriften, som er det norske lovverket som styrer gjennomføringen av vanndirektivet her til lands, i kraft i Som en følge av dette har det skjedd omfattende endringer i norsk vannforvaltningspraksis. Landet er delt inn i 11 nedbørsbaserte vannregioner, og hver region er igjen delt i mindre vannområder. Miljøverndepartementet er øverste myndighet etter vannforskriften, og innenfor hver vannregion er det nå fylkeskommunen som er vannregionmyndighet (VRM). I tillegg til vannregionmyndigheten er det et vannregionutvalg (VRU), hvor representanter for forvaltningen, sektorene og andre interesser sitter, samt at det også er en referansegruppe på regionnivå. Vannforskriften er hjemlet i tre lover; vannressursloven, forurensingsloven og planog bygningsloven. Det er noen spesielle føringer i den delen av plan- og bygningsloven som omhandler regional planlegging i tilknytning til plansystemet som er skissert i vannforskriften. I PBL 8-1, andre ledd, heter det at Kongen kan gi pålegg om å utarbeide regionale planer for spesielle temaer, og i 8-4 heter det at i slike tilfeller ligger vedtakskompetansen ikke hos regional planmyndighet, slik den gjør for andre regionale planer, men hos nasjonale myndigheter. Vannforskriften er et slikt «spesielt tema», og derfor skjer endelig vedtak av vannregionenes forvaltningsplaner gjennom kongelig resolusjon. Regionale vannforvaltningsplaner behandles altså på lik linje med andre regionale planer i tråd med retningslinjene gitt i PBL, men med to vesentlige unntak: Vannregionenes forvaltningsplaner vedtas i fylkestingene, men endelig vedtak fattes ved kongelig resolusjon. Der andre regionale planer har et handlingsprogram, har regionale vannforvaltningsplaner et tiltaksprogram som er en oppsummering av alle relevante tiltak som er fastsatt i medhold av gjeldende lover og forskrifter. Men i motsetning til regionale handlingsprogrammer, kan ikke fylkeskommunen holdes ansvarlig for gjennomføringen av tiltaksprogrammet fordi tiltaksprogrammet er en liste med tiltak fattet av ulike ansvarlige myndigheter, og hvor det er de ulike ansvarlige myndighetenes plikt å påse at tiltakene blir fulgt opp (Klausen 2012). Ansvaret for å implementere vannforskriften ble opprinnelig lagt til fylkesmannen fordi innføringen av forskriften i utgangspunktet ble sett på som en statlig oppgave. Men siden man valgte å bruke plan- og bygningsloven som planverktøy, var det i forbindelse med forvaltningsreformen naturlig å legge ansvaret til fylkeskommunen, som fikk denne nye rollen i 2010 (intervju MD ). I det følgende tar vi for oss implementering av vanndirektivet og regional planlegging i Nordland. Implementering av vannforskriften i Nordland Nordland har en befolkning på mennesker og strekker seg ca. 500 km fra Troms i nord til Nord-Trøndelag i sør, med Bodø som administrativt senter. Regionen er kjent for sin vakre natur og en kyst preget av mange fjorder. Nordland har et parlamentarisk system med seks fylkesråder, og med sine 44 kommuner er Nordland et utpreget distriktsfylke med lange plantradisjoner og plankompetanse på regionalt nivå. Siden 2010 er det fylkeskommunen, i kraft av sin rolle som vannregionmyndighet, som har hatt det formelle ansvaret for å lede og koordinere planprosessen mens fylkesmannen har det overordnete faglige ansvaret. Vannregionutvalget er VRMs samarbeidsorgan, og består av representanter for VRM, fylkesmannen i Nordland og berørte sektormyndigheter som de regionale representantene for NVE, Statens Vegvesen, Mattilsynet og Fiskeridirektoratet mfl. (se appendiks for fullstendig oversikt). Vannforskriften legger opp til at sektorene har ansvar både for å følge opp når det gjelder kunnskap om vannmiljøet og forslag til tiltak i samarbeid med kommunene. Fordi det er 44 kommuner i hele vannregionen har man valgt en løsning er målet for EU-landene. Målet for Norge etter vannforskriften er 2021, med mulighet for forlengelse til 2027 og KART OG PLAN

161 «Å følge vannets vei» med at de sju regionrådene i Nordland representerer kommunene i VRU, noe som bidrar til å komplisere samordning. På grunn av størrelsen på VRU er det nedsatt et arbeidsutvalg (AU) som jobber etter mandat fra VRU. I tillegg er det en regional referansegruppe hvor representanter fra frivillige organisasjoner og andre interesserte er med. Nordland er godt i gang med andre fase av planarbeidet, etter å ha gjennomført et pilotprosjekt i Ranfjorden (2007 til 2009). Det er tre hovedmål i plansyklusen planprogram, dokumentet «Vesentlige vannforvaltningsspørsmål», og forvaltningsplan med tilhørende tiltaksprogram. Dokumentet «Vesentlige vannforvaltningsspørsmål» 4 skisserer de største påvirkningsfaktorene for de enkelte vannområdene i Nordland: reguleringer i forbindelse med vannkraft, miljøgifter, landbruk, gruvedrift, avløp og akvakultur er viktige temaer, hvor akvakultur er særlig aktuelt fordi det hersker uenighet mellom fylkesmannen og Fiskeridirektoratet/fylkeskommunen om hvor stor miljøpåvirkning sektoren forårsaker (Nordland fylkeskommune 2012). Under høringsrunden kom det inn mange innspill til dokumentet, og et sentralt poeng gikk bl.a. på nødvendigheten av å prioritere utfordringene avhengig av alvorlighetsgrad. I løpet av 2013 skal det så utarbeides regional forvaltningsplan og tiltaksprogram, som skal vedtas av fylkestinget og godkjennes av nasjonale myndigheter i løpet av 2014 (se tabell 1). Tabell 1 fremdriftsplan (kilde: Vesentlige vannforvaltningsspørsmål Nordland 2012) Andre regionale planprosesser Regional plan for småkraft Utbygging av ny fornybar energi har vært et høyt prioritert nasjonalt mål, og i 2008 startet planarbeidet med en regional plan for små vannkraftverk i Nordland. Målsetningen er at utbygging skal tilsvare 1,3 TWh innen 2025, en økning på ca. 8 % fra Planen uttrykker regional politikk og prioriteringer og har en tidshorisont på 12 år. En rekke aktører har vært involvert i planprosessen, som har vært politisk styrt av fylkesrådet. Prosjektgruppa bestod av fylkesmannen i Nordland, representanter fra KS, NHO, NVE, reindriftsforvaltningen, Sametinget, samt administrasjonen fra fylkeskommunen. Planen ble enstemmig vedtatt av fylkestinget i februar I planen er det laget 20 overordnede strategier som blant annet peker på hvilken type utbyggingsprosjekter som bør gis prioritet og som det forventes at NVE skal ta hensyn til i sin 4. Vedtatt juni 2012, på høring til januar KART OG PLAN

162 Bedømt (refereed) artikkel Synne Movik og Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg behandling, hvordan man tenker seg at kommunene skal forholde seg til planen, hva slags kunnskapsgrunnlag som skal legges til grunn, samt krav om avbøtende tiltak. Småkraft er ikke ukontroversielt, og det er uenighet om hva som er mest miljøvennlig av stor og liten kraftproduksjon (se Knudsen mfl., dette nr.). I høringsrunden til småkraftplanen kom det fram en god del innvendinger, ikke overraskende fra miljøorganisasjoner som Forum for natur og friluftsliv i Nordland (FNF Nordland) og Miljøvernforbundet. FNF Nordland trekker frem at kunnskapsgrunnlaget når det gjelder biologisk mangfold er til dels svært dårlig, og poengterer at føre-var-prinsippet bør gjelde i saker der man ikke har tilstrekkelig kunnskap om effektene på naturmangfoldet. Manglende kunnskapsgrunnlag er også et tema for kraftprodusentene. Småkraftplanen følger prinsippet om økosystembaserte grenser slik det er lagt opp til i vannforskriften, og kapitlene i faktadelen følger derfor vannområdeinndelingen. For å kartlegge tilstanden i områdene trekker planen veksler på noe av kunnskapsgrunnlaget som ble utarbeidet i forbindelse med en regional vindkraftplan i 2009, men det ble også gjort nye utredninger i forbindelse med fisk og fiske, sårbare høyfjellsområder og fjordlandskap i tillegg til metodeutvikling for å håndtere sumvirkninger (Erikstad mfl ). Tanken er at planen skal ta inn ny informasjon som blir innhentet som følge av arbeidet med vannforskriften for å bedre belyse pågående diskusjoner om prioriteringer, og også at relevant kunnskap fra utredningene som skal gjøres kan tas inn i arbeidet med vannforvaltningsplanen. Utredningen om «sumvirkninger», i forbindelse med småkraftprosjekter er for øvrig en klar refleksjon av perspektivet om «helhetlig forvaltning», og dette er også i tråd med NVEs nye praksis med å behandle saker innenfor et avgrenset område samlet, for bedre å kunne si noe om potensielle sumvirkninger. Regional plan for Vefsnavassdraget Vefsnavassdraget har vært gjenstand for diskusjoner mellom utbyggingsinteresser og naturvernere i en årrekke. I 2009 ble Vefsna formelt vernet (St.prp. nr ) og Stortinget vedtok at det skulle settes i gang et regionalt prøveprosjekt for helhetlig vannforvaltning i Vefsna, ledet av fylkeskommunen. Ved å oppheve den øvre grensa (1 MW) for vannkraftutbygging i verna vassdrag, har Stortinget åpnet for at det gjennom det regionale planarbeidet kan tillates «... mindre, skånsam kraftproduksjon i sidevassdrag, der dette ikkje i nokon grad er i strid med verneverdiane» (St.prp. nr s. 4). Planarbeidet skal skje innenfor rammene av vanndirektivet, sees i lys av rikspolitiske retningslinjer for verna vassdrag (RPRVV), samt Vefsnas status som nasjonalt laksevassdrag. På bakgrunn av Stortingsvedtaket meldte fylkestinget i Nordland planoppstart for den regionale planen i februar Fylkestinget understreket at planarbeidet om mulig også skulle koordineres med utarbeidelsen av lokale arealplaner i de berørte kommunene, som alle har gått imot vernet. I løpet av høringsperioden for planprogrammet kom det over 50 innspill til planarbeidet, og det gis uttrykk for at det er store forventninger til prøveprosjektet disse er imidlertid til dels motstridende. Fylkesrådet vedtok planprogrammet for den regionale planen i mai 2012, og planprosessen er politisk ledet av fylkesrådet. Arbeidet drives fremover av en prosjektgruppe bestående av fylkesråden for kultur, miljø og folkehelse, ordførerne i de tre berørte kommunene, representanter fra fylkesmannen i Nordland, NVE og reindriftsforvaltningen, samt NHO og LO. Videre er det satt ned to faggrupper for kultur og miljø og næring og samfunn. Planprosessen har hele tiden vært knyttet til fremdriften for arbeidet med vannforskriften, og i planprogrammet var målsettingen at planen skulle vedtas i fylkestinget ved utgangen av På grunn av forsinkelser i innhentingen av kunnskap etter vannforskriften har imidlertid planarbeidet for Vefsna-vassdraget blitt utsatt i tid. Per i dag forventes det at planen 5. F.eks. i tilknytning til verdifulle landskapselementer, biologisk mangfold, og naturtyper og friluftsliv. Se for mer detaljer om utredninger. 338 KART OG PLAN

163 «Å følge vannets vei» legges ut til offentlig ettersyn i løpet av desember 2013, med sluttbehandling i fylkestinget våren Å følge vannets vei: perspektiver på grenser, kunnskap og samordning/myndighet I det foregående har vi skissert i grove trekk de ulike prosessene med å få på plass en forvaltningsplan for vannregionen, en regional plan for småkraftverk samt den regionale planen for Vefsna, og beskrevet hovedformålet og de viktigste trekkene ved de ulike planene. Felles for de tre planene er at vann er et hovedanliggende. Forvaltning dreier seg om å trekke opp grenser og om å planlegge og samordne, og spørsmålet blir hvordan dette gjøres i de tre ulike prosessene når planleggingen skal ta hensyn til vannforskriftens premisser. Helhetlig forvaltning og grensedragning Det finnes en stor og voksende litteratur på begrepet «grenser». Ifølge James Scott er det å trekke opp grenser en del av en prosess for å gjøre noe leselig («legible»), en måte for staten å kontrollere uregjerlig natur på (Scott 1998). Grensedragning har blitt et stadig mer tverrfaglig felt, hvor fokuset er mer på hvordan ulike praksiser produserer grenser, snarere enn grensene per se (Tuathail et al. 1998). Grenser tvinger oss til å tenke på en bestemt måte, og vektleggingen av det territorielle kan være begrensende på fantasien og den politiske viljen til handling (Agnew 2008). Vannforskriften brakte med seg en relativt ny måte å tenke helhetlig forvaltning på ved at man la opp til en regioninndeling ved å trekke opp grenser basert på «naturlige» geografiske elementer som nedbørsfelt. Nettopp fordi slike grenser ikke følger politiskeadministrative grensedragninger, kan det være til dels problematisk (Klausen 2012; Moss 2008; Nielsen et al. 2013), og det kreves nyetablering eller tilpasning av eksisterende forvaltningsinstitusjoner for å oppnå en best mulig «institutional fit» i tilknytning til de nye grensene. Men til tross for dette syntes det som om det er bred enighet på regionalt nivå om at dette er et godt utgangspunkt for mer helhetlig forvaltning, selv om noen mener at ambisjonsnivået er vel høyt. Vannregion Nordland sammenfaller stort sett med den politisk-administrative organiseringen i fylkeskommunen, med unntak av et lite område som deles med Sverige, mens dette kan være mer komplisert i andre sammenhenger. F.eks. fremhever Indset et al at vannregioner som er store kan gi vannregionutvalg med stor representasjon, slik tilfellet er for Vannregion Glomma/Indre Oslofjord, hvor forsamlingen omfatter representanter fra opptil 101 kommuner, 8 fylkeskommuner og et titalls sektormyndigheter noe som gjør det til et forum det er vanskelig å samle og lite operativt. Ellers så oppleves det som utfordrende blant prosjektlederne på vannområdenivå i Nordland å skulle avgrense «forvaltningsbare» områder (utsagn diskusjon VRU-møte 4. desember 2012). Å trekke opp grenser på et kart, for å si hvilke arealer som skal inngå i en regional plan og hvilke som faller «utenfor», er hverken en nøytral eller en uproblematisk øvelse (Paasi et al. 2012). Når det gjelder arbeidet med den regionale småkraftplanen følger den grensedragningspraksisen basert på økosystemprinsippet, samtidig som planen spiller sterkt på den regionale grensedragningen og regional identitet og utviklingspotensialet med utsagn som «Nordland er et av de fremste kraftfylkene i Norge». Regional plan for Vefsna slår klart fast at prinsippet om økosystembaserte grenser skal følges, men hvordan grensene skal trekkes opp er et sentralt og omdiskutert tema fordi det eksisterer ulike forståelser av hensikten med planen. I St. prp. 53 ( ) pekes det på at verneverdiene i Vefsnavassdraget er komplekse og ujevnt fordelt. Dette, i tillegg til den store variasjonen i hvor påvirket vassdraget er av tekniske inngrep, gjør behovet for differensiert forvaltning tilsvarende stort, og differensiert forvaltning som målsetting kommer tydelig frem av planprogrammet. Men en annen forståelse av planarbeidet kommer også til uttrykk i flere av intervjuene våre, hvor den regionale planen knyttes til de politiske dragkampene innad i Stoltenberg I-regjeringen, og planen forstås som et kompromiss som kunne forene de to KART OG PLAN

164 Bedømt (refereed) artikkel Synne Movik og Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg ytterpunktene i vernedebatten. Et eksempel er Grane kommunes (2012) høringsuttalelse til planprogrammet: «Det er vannstrengen og arealene nærmest denne, som skal omfattes av forvaltningsplan, ikke hele Vefsnavassdragets nedbørsfelt». I de to faggruppene har dette vært et sentralt tema, og det har tydelig kommet frem et ønske om å trekke plangrensa så nær vassdraget som mulig for å minimere planområdet. Dette forklares dels med en generell motvilje mot regionale føringer og frykt for ytterligere begrensninger på det kommunale handlingsrommet, men også med en manglende forståelse av hva en slik plangrense vil innebære i praksis. Selv om grensedragningen er basert på noe som tilsynelatende oppfattes som naturgitte elementer, som nedbørsfelt/vassdrag, så vitner diskusjonen om at slike tilsynelatende «naturlige» geografiske grenser er gjenstand for politisk tautrekking. Der hvor dette øyensynlig oppleves som relativt uproblematisk i småkraftplanen, er det gjenstand for heftige diskusjoner når det gjelder Vefsnavassdraget. Kunnskapshåndtering Vannforskriften stipulerer at alle vannforekomster skal karakteriseres 6 og den økologiske tilstanden klassifiseres i henhold til en gitt skala (svært god, god, moderat, dårlig og svært dårlig). Det har vært uklarheter rundt både karakteriserings- og klassifiseringsarbeidet, særlig i tilknytning til effektene av påvirkning fra akvakultur. 7 Det er fylkesmannen som har det overordnete faglige ansvaret for denne kunnskapsinnhentingen. Selv om fylkeskommunen har ansvaret for å koordinere prosess, så er det fortsatt fylkesmannen som kan noe om miljøpåvirkninger innad i fylket og har den nødvendige kompetansen. Denne «splittingen» står ikke veldig klart i vannforskriften, den forklares gjennom forventningsbrevet til fylkeskommunen og Ot. prp. 10, slik at de ulike koordineringsoppgavene er presisert ulike steder (intervju KLIF, ). I Nordland har prosjektlederne på vannområdenivå blitt koblet aktivt inn i karakteriseringsarbeidet for å få fortgang i arbeidet, mens fylkesmannen fungerer som kvalitetssikrer. Men enkelte instanser mener at dette strider mot prinsippet om sektoransvar, f.eks. mener Fiskeridirektoratet region Nord at det er deres, og ikke fylkesmannen eller prosjektledernes, ansvar å legge inn informasjon i Vann-Nett. 8 Fylkesmannens respons er at Fiskeridirektoratet kun er myndighet på rømt fisk, ikke på utslipp fra oppdrett. Dette illustrerer kampen om kunnskapshåndteringen mellom sektorene som forsøkes samordnet gjennom den regionale planprosessen. Målsettingen om at dette kunnskapsgrunnlaget også skal legges til grunn for andre regionale planer, som småkraftplanen, viser dessuten at uenigheter mellom aktører og sektorer i arbeidet med vannforskriften vil kunne ha konsekvenser for de andre regionale planprosessene. De gode intensjonene med samordnede prosesser for kunnskapshåndtering i de ulike regionale planene har vist seg å være utfordrende å få til i praksis. Forsinkelser i arbeidet med kunnskapsinnhenting etter vannforskriften forsinket også arbeidet med Vefsnaplanen: Det var uheldig at karakteriseringsarbeidet i vannplanleggingen ble forlenget med 6 måneder. I Vefsnaplanarbeidet har vi lagt opp til et samordnet løp med vannarbeidet. Nå fikk vi plutselig et halvt års forskyving. Vesentlige vannspørsmål burde ha vært avklart når vi setter i gang arbeidet med konsekvensutredning av innspill til tiltakene. Men så blir en del av kunnskapsgrunnlaget ikke ferdig (...) Jeg skjønner at en nasjonalt ikke trenger å tenke så veldig på å prioritere, men det kunne jo vært greit og i hvert fall hatt en dialog for å se på eventuelle avbøtende tiltak. (intervju seksjonslederen, fylkeskommunens seksjon for plan og miljø ). 6. I begrepet «karakteriseres» ligger det at man skal kartlegge vannforekomstens beliggenhet og avgrensning, fysiske og kjemiske egenskaper (tidevann, salinitet, strøm, bølger middeltemperatur, dyp etc.), vesentlige menneskeskapte belastninger/påvirkninger, og vurdere risiko for ikke å oppnå miljømålene Vann-Nett er databasen hvor all informasjonen fra karakteriserings- og klassifiseringsarbeidet leges inn se KART OG PLAN

165 «Å følge vannets vei» Dette viser at prøveprosjektet med helhetlig vannforvaltning av Vefsnavassdraget kompliseres av beslutninger fattet utenfor fylkeskommunens myndighet en sentral utfordring for kunnskapshåndtering på tvers av de regionale planene er manglende samordning i tid. På et mer overordnet plan er kunnskapshåndtering generelt en svært krevende oppgave. Fra Miljøverndepartementets side ser man at det er veldig ressurskrevende og at det også kan by på samordningsproblemer, f.eks. er spørsmålet om hvordan usikkerhet skal håndteres et diskusjonstema. Norge har svært mange vannforekomster, og det er verken realistisk eller god ressursbruk å overvåke alle de ca vannforekomstene. Samtidig er det riktig at vi må øke kunnskapsnivået framover. Men det betyr ikke at vi ikke har kunnskap om vann i Norge. Vi har mye kunnskap om vann i Norge, både basert på overvåking, men også på mer generell ekspertkunnskap. Videre har kunnskap om en vannforekomst overføringsverdi for sammenlignbare vannforekomster med tilsvarende påvirkningsbilde. I tillegg kommer føre-var-prinsippet inn: Hvis det ikke er tilstrekkelig kunnskap må det handles med sikte på å unngå mulig vesentlig skade på vannmiljøet. Det kan for eksempel bety at en vannforekomst ut fra et kjent påvirkningsbilde må settes i risiko selv om man ikke er sikker på at tilstanden ikke er god. Her er det rom for skjønn, og vektleggingen av usikkerheten kan være gjenstand for diskusjon. (Intervju, MD ). Et sentralt spørsmål er i hvilken grad det er mulig å forvente en felles problemforståelse og koordinering knyttet til kunnskapsgrunnlaget på et lavere forvaltningsnivå når nivået over ikke er samordnet (se også Stokke og Indset 2012). I våre intervjuer med MD kommer det frem at det har vært et omfattende samarbeid mellom Fiskeri- og kystdepartementet og Miljøverndepartementet den siste tiden for å få en omforent forståelse av kunnskapsgrunnlaget, men dette arbeidet er ennå ikke helt i mål. Myndighetsutøvelse Innføringen av vannforskriften førte til at det ble diskusjoner rundt hvilket departement forskriften skulle sortere under, noe som bl.a. er et resultat av at norsk miljøforvaltning er preget av et sektorbasert system. Det er to «hovedsegmenter» som dominerer, MD-segmentet og OED-segmentet (Knudsen og Ruud 2011), hvor vannressurser og verneplaner hører inn under det første, mens kraft inkludert vannkraft har vært under OEDs domene. 9 Vannforskriften endte altså opp med å sortere under MD siden den er tilknyttet et miljødirektiv. Men forskriften krever at åtte forskjellige departementer samordner seg, og det har vist seg å være svært utfordrende (Indset et al. 2010; Stokke & Indset 2012). Derfor ble det opprettet en departmentsgruppe hvis oppgave det er å samordne de ulike departementene i tilknytning til vannforskriften. Hovedansvaret for den faglige koordineringen ligger hos en egen direktoratsgruppe, ledet av Miljødirektoratet (tidligere Direktoratet for naturforvaltning). Det kan virke som departementene har en tendens til å «sende det litt ut i systemet» og håpe at det går seg til, i stedet for å samordne seg. Miljøverndepartementet har påpekt i intervju at det i en del tilfeller kan være lettere å finne konkrete løsninger lokalt eller regionalt, uten å måtte ta de store prinsipielle avklaringene. Men kan ikke saken løses på den måten, må den opp til nasjonale myndigheter i første omgang direktoratsgruppa. Hvis ikke direktoratene kan løse saken, må den opp til departementene. Departementet er fortsatt i en startfase i dette arbeidet, og ikke alle prinsipielle utfordringer er løst ennå. I Nordland ble dette opplevd som utfordrende for arbeidet. Man oppfattet det dithen at arbeidet led under det at departementene ikke er i stand til å samordne seg. I tillegg opplevde man det som et problem at fylkeskommunens myndighet ble vingestekket 9. Men dette er en overforenkling, og ikke helt riktig: det er OED som har ansvar for verneplanene for vassdrag. MD har ansvar for Samlet Plan. OED har ansvar for vannressurser, MD for vannmiljø. OEDs ansvar etter vannressursloven omfatter langt mer enn vannkraft. KART OG PLAN

166 Bedømt (refereed) artikkel Synne Movik og Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg ved at de ikke har endelig beslutningsmyndighet. Jeg mener at departementene måtte ha, burde ha tatt stilling til hvordan denne planprosessen skulle være. Skal det være en statlig plan, eller skal det være en regional plan fullt ut slik plan- og bygningsloven 8-4 definerer det. Nå velger en å lage det som en regional plan, men så skal en til syvende og sist ha beslutningsmyndigheten selv. (Intervju, seksjonsleder, plan og miljøseksjonen, Nordland fylkeskommune ) Når det gjelder samordning og myndighet på tvers av de regionale planprosessene var de som er ansvarlige for oppfølgingen av planene ansatt i samme seksjon i kultur- og miljøavdelingen (under fylkesråd for kultur, miljø og folkehelse). Den samme seksjonen har også ansvaret for andre regionale planer som vindkraft og klima. De opplevde derfor at det var relativt enkelt å få til en samordning av prosesser der. De hadde også god kontakt med prosjektlederne for Vefsnaplanen. De så det som en fordel at informasjon er tilgjengelig i Vann-Nett, fordi dette da gjorde dem i stand til å kunne si noe om sårbare områder i forbindelse med andre planprosesser og arealavklaringsspørsmål, noe som gjør at de i større grad kan komme med innspill. Men det ble likevel opplevd som et problem at forvaltningsplanen ikke er ferdig det er jo den som skal legge føringer for regional virksomhet og planlegging. Før den er på plass har man ikke konkrete miljømål å vise til for de enkelte vannforekomster, og heller ikke et instrument eller grunnlag for innsigelser. Felles for alle de tre regionale planene er at de på ulike områder og i ulik grad er avhengig av andre statlige myndigheter for å gjennomføres, altså at det er en sterk grad av «institutional interplay». Selv om fylkestinget i sitt vedtak av den regionale småkraftplanen forutsatte at den ble en del av NVEs beslutningsgrunnlag i sin saksbehandling av småkraftsaker i Nordland, er det likevel et åpent spørsmål om og hvordan dette vil skje. Videre er NVE også en sentral aktør for gjennomføringen av både Vefsnaplanen og forvaltningsplanen for vannregionen. Et annet interessant aspekt er om NVEs deltakelse i de tre ulike planprosessene kan ha bidratt til å øke forpliktelsen til å gjennomføre planen. Har eksempelvis NVEs pågående deltakelse i VRU bidratt til at regional stat har blitt mer forpliktet til å gjennomføre den regionale planen enn tidligere, eller er det snarere slik at oppfølging fra nasjonalt nivå har bidratt positivt? Fordi de hydrologiske grensene for vannregionen Nordland i stor grad sammenfaller med de politisk-administrative grensene til fylkeskommunen, er det kanskje ikke så rart at det som fremheves som spesielt utfordrende er samordningen på nasjonalt nivå. I motsetning til andre vannregioner, hvor arbeidet kompliseres av at flere fylkeskommuner må samordne seg, er det først og fremst (manglende) samordning på det nasjonale nivået som påvirker planarbeidet i Nordland, koblet med det faktum at de regionale planene har ulik status og derfor også ulike tidsrammer som gjør samordning i tid problematisk. Konkluderende kommentarer Tanken om helhetlig forvaltning og det å følge nedbørsfeltbaserte prinsipper for grensedragning har ført til at samordningen på tvers av regionale planleggingsprosesser har en potensiell positiv effekt. Kunnskapsinnsamlingen i forbindelse med regional plan for vannforvaltning har helt klart potensiale for også å komme de andre prosessene til gode. Men samtidig er det rom for forbedring både innad og på tvers av planleggingsprosessene. Det kanskje største problemet er at de tre planene har noe ulik status. Dette oppleves som problematisk av dem som har ansvaret for planleggingen. Der hvor «Regional plan for små vannkraftverk» og «Regional plan for Vefsna» er «ordinære» tematiske og geografiske regionale planer, er regional plan for vannforvaltning annerledes, fordi den er den eneste av de tre planene som må vedtas på nasjonalt hold. Det at man opplever å ikke ha kontroll på prosesser rent tidsmessig temporal fit skaper problemer for samordningen med andre regionale planpro- 342 KART OG PLAN

167 «Å følge vannets vei» sesser, spesielt med hensyn til kunnskapshåndtering. I tillegg er den pågående diskusjonen omkring sektoransvar i tilknytning til kunnskapsgrunnlag og tiltak en potensiell kilde til samordningsproblemer og fremtidige utfordringer med oppfølgingen av planen. Slik sett kan det diskuteres om det finnes andre løsninger på utfordringen med å implementere EUs vanndirektiv enn å organisere arbeidet som en slags «kvasiregional» plan som skal samordnes med andre regionale planer, men hvor fylkeskommunens myndighet er svært begrenset. Appendiks Representanter i Nordland Vannregionutvalg (VRU) Fiskeridirektoratet Region Nordland Kystverket Nordland Mattilsynet Region Nordland NVE Region Nord Statens Vegvesen Region Nord Fylkesmannen i Nordland Nordland fylkeskommune (plan og miljø) Nordland fylkeskommune (kulturminner) Nordland fylkeskommune (næring og regional utvikling) Statens kartverk Direktoratet for mineralforvaltning Jernbaneverket Forsvarsbygg Avinor Helgeland regionråd Indre Helgeland regionråd Sør-Helgeland regionråd Ofoten regionråd Vesterålen regionråd Salten regionråd Lofotrådet Reindriftsforvaltningen Nordland Sametinget Representanter i det regionale arbeidsutvalget (AU) Fiskeridirektoratet Mattilsynet NVE Nordland fylkeskommune Fylkesmannen i Nordland Representanter fra de 10 vannområdene (i noen tilfeller er det 1 representant for flere vannområder) Bindalsfjorden, Vefsn-/Leirfjorden, Rødøy/Lurøy, Sør-Salten Skjerstadfjorden, Nord-Salten, Ofotfjorden, Lofoten, Vesterålen, Ranfjorden Referanser Agnew, J. (2008). Borders on the mind: re-framing border thinking. Ethics & Global Politics, 1 (4). Arbo, P. (2005). Fylkesplanlegging og regional samstyring. Evaluering av felles fylkesplan for Nord-Trøndelag, Sør-Trøndelag og Trondheim. Alta: Norut NIBR Finnmark. Conca, K. (2006). Governing Water: Contentious Transnational Politics and Global Institution Building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Erikstad, L., Hagen, D., Evju, M. & Bakkestuen, V. (2009). Utvikling av metodikk for analyse av sumvirkninger for utbygging av små kraftverk i Nordland forprosjekt naturmiljø. NINA rapport 506. Falleth, E.I. & Johnsen, V. (1996). Samordning eller retorikk? Evaluering av fylkesplanene NIBR-rapport 1996:20. Oslo: NIBR. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16 (3): Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C. & Swedin, U. (2008). The Problem of Fit among Biophysical Systems, Enviroenmtnal and Resource Regimes and Governance Systems: Insights and Emerging Challenges. I: Young, O.B., King, L.A. & Schroeder, H. (red.) Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers, s Cambridge, MA. and London, UK: MIT Press. Global Water Partnership. (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. TAC Background Papers no. 4. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership. Grane kommune. (2012). Høringsuttalelse vedr. planprogram til Regional plan for Vefsna. Trofors: Grane kommune. Hanssen, G.S., Klausen, J.E. & Langeland, O. (2012). Det Regionale Norge Oslo: Abstrakt forl. 356 s. Hedin, S., Dubois, A., Ikonen, R., Lindblom, P., Nilsson, S., Tynkkynen, V.-P., Viehhauser, M., Leisk, Ü. & Veidemane, K. (2007). The Water KART OG PLAN

168 Bedømt (refereed) artikkel Synne Movik og Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg Framework Directive in the Baltic Sea Region Countries-vertical implementation, horizontal integration and transnational cooperation. Nordregio Report 2007:2. Stockholm. Herod, A. (2011). Scale. London: Routledge. XVII, 294 s. : ill. s. Higdem, U. (2001). Planlegging på fylkesnivå. I: Aarsæther, N. & Hagen, A. (red.) Planlegging.no!: innføring i samfunnsplanlegging, s Oslo: Kommuneforlaget. Indset, M., Naustdalslid, J. & Stokke, K.B. (2010). Kollektiv handling fullt og helt, eller stykkevis og delt?: pilotstudie om helhetlig vannforvaltning, b. 2010:3. Oslo: NIBR. 111 s. s. Klausen, J.E. (2012). Økosystembasert regionalinndeling. I: Hanssen, G.S., Klausen, J.E. & Langeland, O. (red.) Det regionale Norge 1950 til 2050, s Oslo: Abstrakt forlag. Langeland, O. (2012). Regioner og regionalisering. I: Hanssen, G.S., Klausen, J.E. & Langeland, O. (red.) Det regionale Norge 1950 til 2050, s Oslo: Abstrakt forlag. Molle, F. (2008). Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: Insight from the water sector. Water Alternatives, 1 (1): Moss, B. (2008). The Water Framework Directive: Total environment or political compromise? Science of The Total Environment, 400 (1 3): Moss, T. (2004). The governance of land use in river basins: prospects for overcoming problems of institutional interplay with the EU Water Framework Directive. Land Use Policy, 21 (1): Nenseth, V. & Naustdalslid, J. (1992). Evaluering av fylkesplanene NIBR-notat 1992:119. Oslo: Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning. Nielsen, H.Ø., Frederiksen, P., Saarikoskib, H., Rytkönen, A.-M., Frederiksen, H.S., Anne-Mari Rytkönen, & Branth Pedersen, A. (2013). How different institutional arrangements promote integrated river basin management. Evidence from the Baltic Sea Region Land Use Policy, 30: Nordland Fylkeskommune. (2012). Vesentlige vannforvaltningspørsmål for Vannregion Nordland. Nordland: Nordland Fylkeskommune. NOU. (2001). Bedre kommunal og regional planlegging etter plan- og bygningsloven. Planlovutvalgets første delutredning. Miljøverndepartementet. Oslo. Ot.prp. nr. 10. ( ). Om lov om endringer i forvaltningslovgivning mv. (gjennomføring av forvaltningsreformen). Oslo: Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet. Paasi, A., Johnson, N., Schein, R. & Winders, J. (2012). Borders and border-crossings. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Cultural Geography: Scott, J.C. (1998). Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Skjeggedal, T., Revdal, E. & Sletterød, N.A. (2003). Den planlagte Namdalen? Steinkjer: Nord- Trøndelagsforskning. St.prp. nr. 53. ( ). Verneplan for vassdrag avsluttande supplering. Oslo: Olje- og energidepartementet. Stokke, K.B. & Indset, M. (2012). Møtet mellom EUs vanndirektiv og statlig sektoransvar. Helhetlig vannforvaltning gjennom konsensusbygging og nettverk? Kart og Plan, 72: Tuathail, G.Ó., Dalby, S. & Routledge, P. (1998). The geopolitics reader [electronic resource]: Psychology Press. Vabo, S.I. (1995). Forskning om fylkeskommunen en kunnskapsstatus. NIBR-notat 1995:137. Oslo: NIBR. Young, O. & Young, O.R. (2008). Institutions and Environmental Change: MIT PRESS. 344 KART OG PLAN

169 Paper 1: Decentralization of Conservation Management in Norway and Sweden Different Translations of an International Trend.

170

171 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 2016, VOL. 29, NO. 8, Decentralization of Conservation Management in Norway and Sweden Different Translations of an International Trend Eirin Hongslo a, Sissel Hovik b, Anna Zachrisson c, and Aase Kristine Aasen Lundberg a a Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, Norway; b Department of Public Administration, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway; c Department of Political Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden 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. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 27 June 2014 Accepted 13 July 2015 KEYWORDS actor mobilization; conservation management; decentralization; institutions; policy change Traditional hierarchical or top-down nature conservation management has been strongly criticized over the past few decades (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997; Zachrisson 2009a). This has caused an international policy trend promoting decentralization of nature conservation management, following a normative pathway (Fauchald, Gulbrandsen, and Zachrisson 2014). The Biodiversity Convention, Agenda 21, and IUCN (UNCED 1992; IUCN 2015) introduce nonbinding norms soft law for direct public participation and community involvement, as well as for a range of scientists and practitioners, in nature conservation management (for a review see Reed 2008). These conventions and organization do not formulate a solution or model, but rather communicate an idea for the democratization of natural resource management a process often fraught with conflict and lacking legitimacy which each country must operationalize and fill with content. Most of the research on decentralization of nature conservation management investigates cases from developing countries (Agrawal and Ribot 1999; Ribot 2004; Larson and Soto 2008). Many of the studies from developed countries cover co-management specifically (Jentoft 1998; Riseth 2003; Zachrisson 2009a; 2009b; 2009c), and to a lesser extent the relationship between these initiatives and the wider policy context. A few papers focus on other Scandinavian decentralization initiatives. Falleth and Hovik (2009) and Hovik et al. (2010) discuss the relationships between the central government and municipalities in nature conservation management in Norway and Sweden, respectively. Fauchald CONTACT Eirin Hongslo eirin.hongslo@nmbu.no Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Aas, Norway Taylor & Francis

172 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 999 et al. (2014) discuss how Norway and Sweden fulfill their international obligations through nature conservation in general, while Fauchald and Gulbrandsen (2012) raise concerns about the ability of the new Norwegian model to fulfill conservation objectives in large conservation areas. Sandström, Hovik, and Falleth (2008) focus on local contexts to explain the emergence of self-organized local management in Sweden, while Zachrisson and Beland Lindahl (2013) show that collaboration is much more unlikely in forest conservation due to the strong economic interests involved. In this article, we study the choice of institutional design for decentralized conservation management in Norway and Sweden. We are interested in the introduction of new policy and not in the effects of the new models as such. Scandinavian countries have a long tradition of decentralized management in other policy fields (Sellers and Lidström 2007), notably welfare policies. Extensive decentralization is also found within environmental policies in both Norway and Sweden (Christiansen 1996; Hovik and Reitan 2004; Lundqvist 2004). Until recently, however, conservation area management in both countries was centralized, but now both countries have decentralized nature conservation management (Zachrisson 2009c; Fauchald and Gulbrandsen 2012). One motivation for these policy changes has been a series of conflicts between central and local governments in relation to conservation management (Falleth and Hovik 2009; Hovik, Sandström, and Zachrisson 2010; Reitan 2004). Another motivation has been to respond to international policy trends. Both nations have signed international conventions that promote decentralization of natural resource management (Hovik, Sandström, and Zachrisson 2010). The literature on comparative public policy, policy change, and policy transfer emphasizes the importance of considering the national policy context when explaining a country s response to international trends (Béland 2009; Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005). None of the aforementioned studies on natural conservation management has considered such contextual factors when analyzing the implementation of new conservation policies. In this article, we ask how Norway s and Sweden s responses to the international soft law demanding decentralization are influenced by their respective policy context. We compare the Norwegian and Swedish models and describe their differences by characterizing them based on Agrawal and Ribot s decentralization framework (1999). Further, when explaining the differences, we focus both on the formal institutional structure of the policy systems and on the actor mobilization behind the idea of decentralization in the two countries. Theoretical Framework The international decentralization trend accompanies a change in perceptions of nature conservation management. While people and governments previously considered conservation as a matter of managing nature and protecting it from human activity, they increasingly acknowledge a more complex relationship between nature and society and consider the social and cultural consequences of nature conservation and the ways in which biodiversity and natural qualities can depend on human activity (Cash et al. 2006). Three Types of Decentralization The concept of decentralization is ambiguous, and in this article we use Agrawal and Ribot s definition of decentralization as any act in which a central government formally

173 1000 E. HONGSLO ET AL. cedes powers to actors and institutions at lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy (1999, 475). They distinguish between two types of decentralization: (1) democratic decentralization and (2) deconcentration. Democratic decentralization implies that a politically elected and downwardly accountable body, for instance, a municipality, is granted new powers. In deconcentration, power is ceded to local offices of central government agencies, all upwardly accountable in a hierarchical system. Furthermore, Ribot (2004) outlines a third type, (3) privatization, which occurs when power is devolved to customary authorities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), or individuals/ corporations. Agrawal and Ribot (1999) consider democratic decentralization more appealing than deconcentration and privatization because it empowers local people and prioritizes their needs and preferences. Agrawal and Ribot (1999) propose that decentralization requires detectable changes in actors, power, and accountabilities. First, it matters which actors powers are transferred to. Actors may be elected members of political institutions, or representatives of commons, NGOs, and village associations. All of these have particular positions in their communities in terms of power, ideology, and social status. They also have different objectives for their participation in local management. Consequently, any combination of these actors will lead to a specific outcome different from all others and will be accountable to a different set of people or institutions (Agrawal and Ribot 1999). Second, Agrawal and Ribot distinguish between four types of power: (1) the power to create rules or modify old ones, (2) the power to make decisions about how a particular resource or opportunity is to be used, (3) the power to implement and ensure compliance to the new or altered rules, and (4) the power to adjudicate disputes that arise in the effort to create rules and ensure compliance. (1999, 476) The room to maneuver will depend on the kind of power the management body holds. Lastly, Agrawal and Ribot consider accountability to be relational and to be seen as a counter-power to balance arbitrary actions (1999, 478). In decentralization, downward accountability where public actors can be held accountable by local constituencies is central because it broadens participation through the involvement of local actors. However, accountability goes both ways, and is directed upward when actors are responsible to institutions higher in the hierarchy. Accountability is exercised in a number of ways (in both directions): through elections, referenda, legal recourse, the media, NGOs, political pressure, and so on (Agrawal and Ribot 1999). The Policy Context As the international decentralization trend cannot explain the differences between Norway and Sweden (Fauchald et al. 2014), other domestic factors deserve attention. The literature on policy convergence and policy change holds that international policy trends are always modified through domestic policy processes, in order to fit into the national institutional context (Béland 2009; Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005). Bureaucratic and organizational actors center their policy choices on an already existing repertoire of institutional procedures, technologies, and organizational forms (Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005; March and Olsen 1989; Lindblom 1959); institutional patterns that challenge established forms and procedures are likely to be considered unfit. In other

174 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 1001 words, institutional path dependencies are important constraints to policy change (Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005). Decentralization necessarily means deviation from the hierarchical structure, but the changes can vary in both kind and scope, as well as in the challenge they pose to existing policy. The sectors rarely initiate policy changes that deviate radically from dominating policy paradigms. Such changes require mobilization of outside actors (Béland 2009; Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005; Hall 1993). In order to explain variation in both kind and scope of decentralization, we therefore look outside of the nature conservation sector and focus on whether and how actors and structures surrounding the sector influence the countries responses to the decentralization trend. Institutional Settings As stated previously, international organizations, like the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU), and expert communities have all promoted the idea of decentralization in nature conservation management. Béland (2009, ) suggests that implementation of international policy ideas in national policy goes through a process of symbolic and institutional translation. The policy alternatives must be adaptable to a particular institutional context to be promoted to the public. As institutions provide the context in which policy changes are defined, there needs to be an institutional fit between existing institutional arrangements and the institutional implications of the new policy (Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005, 801 2). This is also in line with arguments in neo-institutional organizational theory, which argue that modern organizational trends (or myths ) are translated to the receiving organization (Røvik 2007). Furthermore, the final policy design will be constrained by the policy style of the country (Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005). Policy styles are characteristics of a nation s political administrative system that spans various policy areas. Several of the classical studies of comparative environmental policy argue that characteristics of the political administrative system are decisive to the approach to new environmental policy (Lundqvist 1980; Vogel 1986; Christiansen 1996). Following this trail, we argue that the adoption of decentralization will reproduce the dominant pattern of integration of local government and affected interests into other policy processes (Lundqvist and Christiansen 1996). We argue that municipalities are more likely to be considered relevant bodies of power in nature conservation management in systems where they have power in related issues, whereas countries with a salient tradition of administrative corporatism will find local participation through co-management more attractive than countries with a less corporatist tradition. Actor Mobilization The actors that participate in the policy process and the arenas in which deliberations and decisions take place influence the choice of type of decentralization. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on agenda-setting or framing (Jones and Baumgartner 2012; Béland 2009). Periods of stability in policy are disrupted by the entry of new policy ideas (True, Jones, and

175 1002 E. HONGSLO ET AL. Baumgartner 2007) or new framings of existing ideas (Béland 2009). New ideas or framings may mobilize new actors and connect the issue to new policy arenas (Béland 2009; True, Jones, and Baumgartner 2007). Radical change in institutional design requires that the matter is lifted to the agenda of national politicians (Béland 2009; Hall 1993; Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005; True, Jones, and Baumgartner 2007). Actors ability to frame the issue along more stable political cleavages, such as between center and periphery, between urban and rural areas, and between labor and capital, will determine their success (Rokkan and Lipset 1967; Rokkan et al. 1970; Ekengren 2012). Based on these theoretical considerations, we make the following assumptions that we investigate in this article: First, the design of the political administrative structure will influence the decision processes, the decision outputs, and the actor mobilization (Egeberg 1999). Thus, countries with strong professional autonomy are likely to consider the organization of nature conservation management to be a question for professional bureaucracy, while countries with strong political government are likely to view it as matter for political consideration. Likewise, countries where local government has ample responsibility for natural resource management will be more likely to consider municipalities an addressee for other decentralized tasks. Furthermore, we expect that actor mobilization influences the scope of change. Local politicians with considerable responsibility for natural resource management will presumably mobilize for decentralization in that field, while such mobilization is unlikely in a corporate structure. In a system of political governance, there is also presumably a shorter distance between the local and central levels, through the party organizations. Thus, we expect institutional settings to produce a pattern of actor mobilization, which reproduces the institutional settings. Method The main data sources for this comparative case study are public documents, which describe either the processes resulting in decisions of decentralized management models or the policy context, such as the division of responsibility between central, regional, and local levels of government. For Norway, the processes took place at a national level and led to systemic solutions. In Sweden, there were different processes for each national park. The documents are listed in the References section. The majority of the documents covering these processes were collected during previous studies conducted by some of the authors, but (re-)analyzed for the purpose of this study. This analysis is complemented by secondary data reported in other previous studies (see References section) of these processes, including both documents and interviews. In a similar vein, the description of the policy context is partly based on public documents and partly on secondary data (see References section), both collected for this study. Previous studies have thoroughly documented and described the general political administrative systems and the division of responsibility between levels of government in Sweden. In the case of Norway, a public review from 2000 (NOU 2000: ) is complemented by a review of current relevant legislation. In this study, we analyze processes and trends from a systemic perspective. Our aim is to analyze the importance of structural and political features of the political administrative context, and we believe our study unveils important and interesting findings.

176 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 1003 Results The New Management Models: A Similar Point of Departure Sweden designated the first European national parks in 1909, while the first Norwegian national park was designated in The two countries have similar institutional structures. The authority to designate national parks and other large conservation areas rests with the central government (the King in Norway and the parliament in Sweden). Both historically and presently, designations are based on scientific assessments and professional recommendations made by central government agencies (Swedish Environment Agency [SEPA] and Norwegian Environment Agency [NEA]) and the regional branches of central government (county administrative boards [CAB] in Sweden and county governor in Norway) (Nature Protection Act of ; Swedish Government Bill 2008; SEPA 2008; Nature Diversity Act of ). Until recently, the management of conservation areas also reflected these similarities. We believe our study unveils important and interesting findings, as central government agencies (SEPA and NEA) had the main responsibility for protected areas, while regional agencies (CAB and county governors) had the management responsibility. Despite their similar points of departure, Norway and Sweden have responded differently to international demands for decentralization of nature conservation management, in both scope and kind. The following comparison is based on Agrawal and Ribot s three dimensions: actors, powers, and accountability, summarized in Table 1. Norway Political Decentralization Through a Comprehensive Reform In 2009 Norway launched a comprehensive reform, including all national parks and large conservation areas (St. prp ). The Ministry of Environment invited all affected municipalities to participate on conservation area boards, and the majority, 150 municipalities in 16 counties, accepted (Lundberg et al. 2013). By the end of 2014, the Ministry of Environment had appointed 37 boards (Norges nasjonalparker 2015). The most comprehensive change in composition of actors is the transfer of responsibility for the day-to-day management from the county governor to these local conservation area boards. These boards include elected politicians from affected municipalities and counties (St. prp ). Regarding powers, while municipalities commission the board members, the Ministry of Climate and Environment 1 formally appoints them (Nature Diversity Act of ). The boards have the power to compose and revise management plans, but the plans must be approved by the Norwegian Environment Agency (NEA 2015). In addition to the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the area, the boards have dispensing power. Board decisions may be appealed to the NEA (Nature Diversity Act of ). As formally appointed by and directly subordinated to the Ministry of Climate and Environment, the boards are primarily accountable to the state (Nature Diversity Act of ), but because the members are elected politicians, the board is also indirectly accountable to the local people. Thus, the reform represents a step toward democratic decentralization (see Table 1). 1 The Ministry of Environment changed its name to Ministry of Climate and Environment in 2014.

177 1004 E. HONGSLO ET AL. Table 1. Actors Board Management Rights holders and other affected actors Powers The power to create new rules The power to make decisions The power to execute and monitor The power of adjudication Accountability Comparing decentralized management models in Sweden and Norway. Sweden a Norway b The boards are comprised of representatives of public and private organizations, e.g., municipal officers/politicians, regional officers, Sami communities, fisher associations, and environmentalists. The CAB/the boards (Tyresta and Laponia) are responsible for the management. Right holders and other affected actors are represented on the board. The Parliament establishes national parks and the SEPA decides on the conservation regulations. Nature reserves are established by the CAB, who also decides on their regulations. The SEPA decides on the management plans for national parks and the CAB for nature reserves. The boards are responsible for management, and for issuing information to landowners, rights holders, users, and organizations. The CAB make decisions on dispensations. The manager/management board reports violation of rules to the police. Guards employed by the CAB are responsible for surveying and controlling that conservation regulations are followed. The Cabinet has the power of adjudication for national park management plans, the Land and Environmental Court in issues concerning the day-to-day management. Municipal representatives are accountable to the municipality and indirectly through local elections. CAB representatives are accountable to the CAB. NGO/Sami representatives are accountable to their respective boards and members. The boards are comprised of elected politicians from all municipalities and counties with land inside the conservation area, and where relevant representatives from the Sami parliament. Local managers employed by the county governor and subordinated to the board are responsible for the management. Right holders and other affected actors are members of an adversary group appointed by the board. The Cabinet (the King) establishes conservation areas and adopts conservation regulations and the mandate of the management board. The board develops the management plan, which must be approved by the NEA. The boards are responsible for management, and for issuing information to landowners, rights holders, users, and organizations. The boards make decisions on dispensations. The management board reports violation to the government or to the police. The Norwegian nature surveillance (central government agency) is responsible for surveying and controlling such that conservation regulations are followed. The Ministry of Climate and Environment has the power of adjudication in all matters. The boards are appointed by the Ministry of Climate and Environment and are thus primarily accountable to the state. The board members are politically elected local and regional representatives, nominated by the municipal or county councils. Thus, they are indirectly accountable to voters in their municipality. a The description of the Swedish case is based on Zachrisson (2009a; 2009b) and Morf (2006). As there is no unified Swedish model, there are some exceptions to the main picture described in the table. For instance, Tyresta National Park is organized as a foundation. b The description of the Norwegian case is based on St.prp.no 1 ( ) and the Nature Diversity Act. Sweden Privatization Through Ad Hoc Partnership Processes Since the mid-1990s, Sweden has taken small steps toward decentralization. The scope is limited and largely restricted to 7 of 29 national parks (Fulufjället: Zachrisson 2009c; Tyresta: SEPA and Stiftelsen Tyrestaskogen 2013; Koster: Morf 2006; and the four parks within the World Heritage Site (WHS) Laponia: Zachrisson 2009b).

178 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 1005 Regarding actors, both public and private actors were represented and had some degree of influence in the designation processes. The processes of Laponia WHS and Koster National Park (NP) resulted in management regimes that can be characterized as co-management. The boards consist of representatives of municipalities (officers or politicians), officers from the CAB, and vested interests such as Sami communities, fishers, and environmentalists, and in Laponia the SEPA is represented (Laponiatjuottjudus 2011; CAB Västra Götaland 2009a; 2009b). In Fulufjället, however, private actors are only represented through a consultative management council and a group that deals with tourism issues (Olofsson 2012). Tyresta is a peculiar case in the Swedish context and only includes official representatives. Representatives from CAB and SEPA as well as politicians from the municipalities are represented in the management board (SEPA and Stiftelsen Tyrestaskogen 2013). Regarding powers, SEPA adopts management plans for national parks after consultation with the CAB, the affected municipalities, and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (Swedish Government Regulation 1987). Dispensing power rests with the CAB, and decisions can be appealed to the Land and Environmental Court in Sweden (Environmental Code Chapter 7, Section 7; National Park Regulation NF 1987:38, Section 5). Day-to-day management is delegated to the boards (Laponia Regulation 2011; CAB Västra Götaland 2009b; SEPA and Stiftelsen Tyrestaskogen 2013). Finally, accountability is primarily directed upward towards the respective CAB and the SEPA. However, because board members are appointed by their respective organizations, they are individually accountable to their constituencies (municipalities, NGO members, etc.). In Laponia where the municipal representatives are officers (Laponiatjuottjudus 2015), they are indirectly accountable to the population in the constituency. Using Agrawal and Ribot s terms, the Swedish models can be labeled a mix of deconcentration and privatization. The Emergence of the Models Norway Institutional Setting The central government of Norway is often characterized as a system of ministerial government (Christensen 2004). The ministries are relatively strong, with a weaker cabinet, and the ministers are active and direct in their steering, leaving less autonomy for the professional bureaucracy in the ministries and subordinated agencies. One may also characterize the Norwegian political administrative system as decentralized, with strong municipal government at both local and regional (county) levels. Alongside broad responsibilities for welfare services, the municipalities and county municipalities have broad responsibilities for local and regional development (NOU 2000: ). Starting in the 1960s, there has been a continuous trend of democratic decentralization to local municipalities, first within welfare services, and subsequently within development issues. The Planning and Building Act of 1985 gave extensive discretion to municipalities in land use planning and management inside as well as outside of the built-up areas (settlements), and the Planning Act of 2008 maintained and even increased these responsibilities. Municipalities are delegated responsibilities for the day-to-day management of forestry, agriculture, and wildlife (the Agriculture Act of 1995, the Forestry Act of 1965, and the Wildlife Act of 1981, with later revisions). The Motorized Traffic in Outlying Fields Act of 1977 assigns municipalities power

179 1006 E. HONGSLO ET AL. to give allowances and dispensations. The Pollution Regulation Act of 2003 continued a trend of decentralization within that policy field. Concurrently, industrial development has been an important municipal responsibility and a core interest of local politicians, especially in district areas facing depopulation (NOU 2000: ). At the regional level, the relationship between the elected county municipality and the county governor is balanced (Baldersheim 2004, 187). During the last decade, the counties role in developmental issues has become stronger (Amdam, Halvorsen, and Bakke 2014). The administrative reform of 2008 (Ot.prp.nr ) resulted in the decentralization of responsibilities within a range of sectors: aquaculture, research, innovation, transport (roads), watershed management, wildlife and inland fishing, and, to a small extent, agriculture. Alongside the already wide responsibilities within regional planning and industrial development, these changes aimed to strengthen the developmental role of the counties. As we have shown, local and county municipalities have broad responsibilities within land use, natural resource management, 2 and industrial development, and there are several examples of collaborative projects on sustainable development involving local and county municipalities and private actors (see Hovik 2008; Falleth, Hovik, and Saglie 2008). Within this tradition of democratic decentralization, farmers, landowners, and other stakeholders at local and regional levels work closely with municipal government. Actor mobilization In Norway, local and regional responsibility for the management of conservation areas has been a topic of discussion for decades. In the late 1970s, the debate focused on whether to place the regional environmental agency with the county governor or the county municipality (Jansen and Osland 1996). In 1982, it was placed with the state governor s office. In the early 1980s, local management of conservation areas appeared on the political agenda again with the establishment of Hardangervidda National Park (Reitan 2004). Rights holders organizations and municipalities demanded influence on park management. Local institutions were given some power in issues concerning tourism, development, and agriculture, but the major management responsibilities remained with the county governor. In 1980, the Ministry of Environment initiated a general plan for the designation of new large protected areas. This National Park Plan was presented in 1986 (NOU 1986: ), and approved by the Parliament in 1992 (St.meld. no ). With the aim of protecting a representative sample of Norway s natural heritage (Reitan 2004), the plan recommended the designation of numerous new national parks and large protected landscape areas. This proposal triggered local rights holders and politicians around the country to lobby members of parliament. In their consideration of the National Park Plan, the Parliamentary Standing Committee called for more local participation in national park management (Innst. S. nr ), and subsequently local responsibility for managing smaller protected areas became an option. This was, however, not the end of the story. When the parliament discussed the government proposal to establish a national surveillance agency in 1995 (Innst. O. nr ), the parliamentary majority requested that the government initiate decentralization of management responsibility to municipalities on an experimental basis. The 2 Except in reindeer husbandry.

180 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 1007 non-socialist majority opposition in parliament followed up a year later. During the government s preparation for the designation of a large protected area in Setesdal-Vesthei, Members of Parliament (MPs) from the affected counties issued a private proposition, demanding that this plan be subjected to parliamentary consideration (Dok 8: ). The Parliament subsequently requested that the government initiate an administrative trial in three national parks and large protected areas under designation (Innst. S. nr ). A parliamentary majority of non-socialist parties thereby forced the Labor minority government to initiate decentralization reform, despite objections from the professional administration. The Parliament requested an independent evaluation of the trials (Falleth and Hovik 2008). The experiences from the trials were crucial for the comprehensive reform launched in The chosen model, combining local participation and central control, represented a compromise between the advocates for local management and a somewhat sceptical environmental bureaucracy. This story illustrates what Reitan (2004, 439) calls a process of politicization in nature conservation policy in the wake of the National Park Plan, namely, a transfer of power from the bureaucratic to the political arena. The discussions around decentralization of nature conservation management were central to this process. Local governments and interest organisations had been involved in the debate since the treatment of the National Park Plan and made strong claims for local participation in management (Reitan 2004, 443). The process of politicization, as well as the success of local lobbying, should be understood against the backdrop of more general political cleavages in the Norwegian polity. The cleavage between the center and the periphery is significant in Norwegian politics (Rokkan et al. 1970), and local resistance against central authority is at the core of the nature conservation management debate (Reitan 2004, 446). Because the National Park Plan also affects private land and agricultural interests, the politicization can be interpreted as a result of a conflation of the center periphery conflict and issues related to private ownership articulated along the left right dimension (Reitan 2004, ). Sweden Institutional Setting The Swedish public administration is often labeled administrative corporatism (Christensen 2004). It combines professional autonomy and correspondingly weak ministerial power with close linkages between the professional bureaucracy and organizational interests. The SEPA is subordinated to the Cabinet and is given wide professional discretion in the implementation of the political goals set by the National Assembly and Cabinet. Politicians, the professional bureaucracy, and interest organizations are linked through the SEPA transparency board (Insynsråd: SEPA 2014). Sweden has a long history of local governance where municipalities have a constitutional responsibility to attend to the interests and welfare of their inhabitants, and therefore strong powers of taxation. Municipalities also have a monopoly on planning for land use, natural resources, and the built environment (Lundqvist 2004). In the 1970s, municipalities became responsible for water supply, sewage treatment, and waste management (Corell and Söderberg 2005). Decentralization continued in the 1980s with the transfer of the authority to issue environmental permits to medium-sized and small plants and facilities to the municipalities. In 1991 local government in Sweden was

181 1008 E. HONGSLO ET AL. reorganized. This weakened the municipalities, as environmental functions were diffused into other, structurally stronger local administrations (Lundqvist 2004). Consequently, CAB handles natural resource issues, while municipalities have limited mandates. The competence of the elected county municipal authority is limited to welfare services (Norén Bretzer 2010). Actor Mobilization In Sweden, decentralization of nature conservation management has arguably been ad hoc and restricted to particularly challenging designation processes. The SEPA launched a national park plan in 1989 and subsequently initiated a number of designation processes. A limited number of SEPA and CAB officials drive these processes, with input from the concerned municipalities. In some cases, local resistance has been substantial; for example, national park processes stalled in both Kiruna and Southern Jämtland (Sandell 2005a; 2005b). In Fulufjället, Koster, and the Laponia World Heritage Site the processes developed into close collaboration after lengthy conflicts (Morf 2006; Zachrisson 2009c; Hovik, Sandström, and Zachrisson 2010). In the case of Tyresta National Park CAB, SEPA and the municipalities jointly developed a trust fund to rescue the process from funding constraints (SEPA and Stiftelsen Tyrestaskogen 2013). As shown earlier, these management regimes differ in organization and in composition of actors. Their concerns were addressed locally and never reached the national agenda, although the Ministry of Environment was called upon in the Laponia case (Green 2009). At the national level, local dialogue and participation in nature conservation management were first emphasized in a government communication in 2001 (Swedish Government Bill 2001). In 2008 another government bill follows up (Swedish Government Bill 2008), although participation seems to regard landowners rather than the public or natural resource users. The bill includes a proposal that all national parks should have advisory management boards (Zachrisson 2009a), but this has not yet been implemented. The current National Park Plan emphasizes participatory designation processes as key to building local support, while it prescribes management to the CAB (SEPA 2008). Rural and sparsely populated regions have lost political influence in Sweden, and their representation in Parliament is decreasing. Their diminishing power has not yet significantly affected the political cleavages in Sweden, where the left right dimension still dominates. The urban rural, land industry, and center periphery cleavages exist and have to some extent been mobilized in relation to the wolf issue, which from time to time reaches the national agenda, but there are no signs that they have become more important over the last decades (Ekengren 2012). Comparing Norway and Sweden As shown in the previous section, Norway and Sweden has taken different paths in their decentralization of conservation management. While Norway has chosen what Agrawal and Ribot (1999) label democratic decentralization for all large conservation areas, Sweden has opted for deconcentration/privatization in a few. We argue that a combination of two factors may explain these differences: institutional setting and actor mobilization. While the differences in governance structures between the two countries can account for

182 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 1009 differences in kind of management, the differences in actor mobilization can account for differences in both kind and scope of change. Institutional Settings and Kind of Decentralization Our overarching assumptions stated that the political administrative structure of a country strongly influences the kind of decentralization it implements. While both Norway and Sweden s nature conservation management were previously centralized and exhibited many of the same traits, there are important differences in the organization of public government that may explain the different outcomes of the decentralization processes. In the Swedish tradition, there are close linkages between central agencies and interest organizations and private actors. This laid the foundation for co-management or privatization-like models with management boards consisting of private and public actors. In Norway, however, there is a strong tradition of political governance of natural resources, at both the national and municipal level, which catered to boards with only political representation. These results confirm the assumption that in a context of strong professional autonomy (Sweden), the professional bureaucracy is strengthened through decentralization, while in a context of political governance (Norway), local politicians are strengthened. The distribution of power and responsibilities between the tiers of government represents another difference between the two countries institutional settings. This also confirms our initial assumption. Swedish municipalities have no responsibility for nature management issues, while Norwegian municipalities have wide responsibilities in natural resource and land use management. This difference may explain why decentralization to the municipal government was never considered in Sweden while it seemed like the natural choice in Norway. Actor Mobilization Explaining Kind and Scope of Change Our data also confirm our assumption that political mobilization by actor groups depends on structural features. The institutional setting of the two countries influences which actors adopt the idea of decentralization and start mobilizing behind it. As described in earlier discussion, local politicians already lifted local management to the national political agenda in Norway in the 1980s. Nature conservation management represents a direct encroachment on municipal powers, particularly local spatial planning, and local politicians actively sought the responsibility for management of large conservation areas. In Sweden, the traditions of administrative corporatism and professional autonomy laid the foundation for deconcentration/privatization arrangements between local rights holders and the professional bureaucracy (CAB), and there was no pressure from local actors for democratic decentralization. This confirms our assumption that local politicians engage in decentralization debates when it concerns responsibilities that are similar to those they already have. In addition, the differences in actor mobilization can also partly explain the differences in the scope of change between Norway and Sweden. Because municipal and regional politicians in Norway were successful in lifting the issue to the national policy agenda, they were able to instigate an all-encompassing reform of nature conservation management despite a reluctant or even resistant bureaucracy. Moreover, local involvement in protected

183 1010 E. HONGSLO ET AL. area management has a much longer history in Norway. In Sweden, policy experts and local interest groups have dominated the process. We thus argue that the new policies follow familiar paths in both countries. Concluding Remarks The existing literature on nature conservation management design often focuses on the features of the resource system and its users and rarely considers the constraints on the choice of institutional design for nature conservation management that broader national policy context represents. Our study confirms the notion that existing institutional settings condition institutional changes (Lenschow, Liefferink, and Veenman 2005). When facing demands for change, organizations tend to choose well-known solutions that easily fit within the broader political administrative system. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the type of decentralization chosen in Sweden and Norway are adapted to each country s general political administrative system. The comparatively wider geographical scope of the decentralization in Norway compared to Sweden is the greatest difference between the two countries. In addition, a larger number of local politicians are involved in Norway, which creates a potential for democratizing nature conservation management. The advantage of the Swedish privatization-like model, where directly concerned interests have seats on the boards and participate in deliberations, may be that social learning increases consensus on the fulfillment of conservation objectives (Zachrisson 2009a). In addition, because each institutional solution in Sweden is designed for a particular conservation area, the models are presumably better adapted to the socioecological context. Our study unveils a complex relationship between actors and institutions. We find support for our expectation that actor mobilization is crucial for the scope of change as mobilization of political actors seems to be necessary to devolve power to local political institutions. There are also reasons to believe that institutional setting influences actor mobilization. For instance, the division of responsibility between central and local government can partly explain why local politicians and local government gain influence in nature conservation management in Norway, and not in Sweden. Thus, different institutional settings lead to differences in degree of politicization of nature management in the two countries, while actor mobilization reinforces the existing power structure. In this case, democratic decentralization secures the influence of local politicians (Norway), while co-management secures the influence of the national bureaucracy and local stakeholders (Sweden). Comparative studies including other countries would further explore how different national policy contexts condition different countries responses to international policy trends. Furthermore, comparative studies of the different solutions in Sweden, Norway, and other countries would contribute to the scrutiny of Agrawal and Ribot s (1999) hypothesis that democratic decentralization to locally elected politicians is more democratic than deconcentration and privatization. Our study opens the door for a competing hypothesis, that what is more important is how the type of decentralization fits a broader national institutional setting, that is, that the Norwegian and Swedish models might be equally effective and democratic. Acknowledgments

184 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 1011 We thank three anonymous reviewers and participants at the panel Partnership for rural sustainable development in the era of Anthropocene at the Nordic Environmental Social Science Conference in Copenhagen 2013 for critical reading and useful comments. Funding This article is part of the project LOCALMAN funded by the Research Council of Norway. References Agrawal, A., and J. Ribot Accountability in decentralization: A Framework with South Asian and West African cases. Journal of Developing Areas 33(4): Amdam, J., L. J. Halvorsen, and G. K. Bakke Alternativer for regionalt folkevalgt nivå. Vol. nr. 58. Volda, Norway: Møreforsking. Baldersheim, H Nordic regions in a European perspective. In Nordic politics. Comparative perspectives, ed. K. Heidar Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Béland, D Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European Public Policy 16(5): doi: / CAB Västra Götaland. 2009a. Inrättande av Kosterhavsdelegationen i Västra Götalands län samt fastställande av arbets respektive handläggningsordning för denna. Decision, registration nr l Vänersborg, Sweden. CAB Västra Götaland. 2009b. Kosterhavsdelegationens sammansättning. Decision, registration nr l Vänersborg, Sweden. Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, et al Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2):8. Christensen, T Modern state reforms. In Nordic politics. Comparative perspectives, ed. K. Heidar Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Christiansen, P. M. ed Governing the environment: Politics, policy, and organization in the Nordic countries, Vol. 1996:5. København, Denmark: Nordisk Ministerråd. Corell, E., and H. Söderberg Från miljöpolitik till hållbar utveckling: En introduktion. Malmø, Sweden: Liber. Dok 8: Forslag fra stortingsrepresentantene Eva R. Finstad, Gunnar Fatland, Tore A. Liltved og Ansgar Gabrielsen om at verneplan for Setesdal-Vesthei-Ryfylkeheiene legges frem for Stortinget til behandling. Egeberg, M The impact of bureaucratic structure on policy making. Public Administration 77 (1): Ekengren, A.-M Vargfrågan och politiska skiljelinjer. Intressemobilisering i Sverige. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift 114(4). Falleth, E. I., and S. Hovik Lokal forvaltning av store verneområder: Erfaringer fra fire forsøk, Vol. 2008:11, NIBR-rapport. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for by og regionforskning. Falleth, E. I., and S. Hovik Local government and nature conservation in Norway: Decentralisation as a strategy in environmental policy. Local Environment 14(3): doi: / Falleth, E. I., S. Hovik, and I.-L. Saglie Samförvaltning av fjällområden i Norge. In Omstridd natur. Trender och utmaningar i nordisk naturförvaltning, ed. C. Sandström, S. Hovik, and E. I. Falleth Umeå, Sweden: Borea. Fauchald, O. K., L. H. Gulbrandsen, and A. Zachrisson Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: Examining pathways of influence in similar countries. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 10(3): doi: /

185 1012 E. HONGSLO ET AL. Fauchald, O. K., and L. H. Gulbrandsen The Norwegian reform of protected area management: A grand experiment with delegation of authority? Local Environment 17(2): doi: / Ghimire, K. B., and M. P. Pimbert Social change and conservation: Environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. London, UK: Earthscan. Green, C Managing Laponia: A World Heritage Site as arena for Sami ethno-politics in Sweden. PhD dissertaion, Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Hall, P. A Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25(3): doi: / Hovik, S Governance networks promoting rural sustainable development in Norway. In In pursuit of sustainable development, ed. S. Baker and K. Eckerberg London, UK: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Hovik, S., and M. Reitan National environmental goals in search of local institutions. Environment and Planning C, Government and Policy 22(5): doi: /c0302j Hovik, S., C. Sandström, and A. Zachrisson Management of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: Challenges in combining central governance and local participation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 12(2): doi: / Innst. O. nr Innstilling fra energi- og miljøkomiteen om lov om statlig naturoppsyn [Recommendation from the Standing Committee on Energy and the Environment on the Nature Surveillance Act]. Innst. S. nr Innstilling fra kommunal- og miljøvernkomiteen om ny landsplan for nasjonalparker og andre større verneområder i Norge [Recommendation from the Standing Committee on Local Government and the Environment: New national plan for national parks and other larger conservation areas] Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. IUCN Global protected areas programme. Priority area 4. IUCN. programmes/gpap/home/gpap_people (accessed January 20, 2015). Jansen, A.-I., and O. Osland Norway. In Governing the environment: Politics, policy, and organization in the Nordic countries. Nord 1996:5, ed. P. M. Christiansen. Jentoft, S Commons in a cold climate: Coastal fisheries and reindeer pastoralism in North Norway: The co-management approach. New York, NY: Parthenon. Jones, B. D., and F. R. Baumgartner From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal 40 (1):1 20. doi: /j x Laponia Regulation Swedish Government Regulation, Laponiaförordningen, SFS 2011:840. Laponiatjuottjudus Stadgar för föreningen Laponiatjuottjudus. uploads/2014/08/stadgar-laponiatjuottjudus.pdf (accessed January 12, 2015). Laponiatjuottjudus Laponiatjuottjudusa stivrra/laponiatjuottjudus styrelse. om-oss/styrelsen/ (accessed October 8, 2015). Larson, A. M., and F. Soto Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33(1): doi: /annurev.energy Lenschow, A., D. Liefferink, and S. Veenman When the birds sing. A framework for analysing domestic factors behind policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy 12(5): doi: / Lindblom, C. E The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19(2): doi: / Lundberg, A. K. A., E. Hongslo, S. Hovik, and I. A. Bay-Larsen Hva skjer i den nye lokale forvaltningsmodellen for verneområder? En forskningsstatus. Tidsskriftet Utmark 13(1). Lundqvist, L The hare and the tortoise: Clean air policies in the United States and Sweden. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

186 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 1013 Lundqvist, L Sweden and ecological governance: Straddling the fence. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Lundqvist, L., and P. M. Christiansen Governing the environment: Politics, policy, and organisation in the Nordic countries. In Governing the environment: Politics, policy, and organisation in the Nordic countries, ed. P. M. Christiansen. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. March, J. G., and J. P. Olsen Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York, NY: Free Press. Morf, A Participation and planning in the management of coastal resource conflicts. PhD dissertation, School of Global Studies, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden. Nature Diversity Act of Lov om forvaltning av naturens mangfold (naturmangfoldloven). Vol. nr 52 ( ). Oslo, Norway: Regjeringen. Nature Protection Act of [NORGE. Lover. Naturvernloven. 1954]: lov av 1. desember 1954 om naturvern. Oslo, Norway: Grøndahl. NEA Forvaltning av verneområdene. Forvaltning-av-verneomradene (accessed January 20, 2015). Norén Bretzer, Y Sveriges politiska system. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Norges nasjonalparker Norges nasjonalpark- og verneområdestyrer. no (accessed January 20, 2015). NOU 1986: Ny landsplan for nasjonalparker. NOU 1986:13. Oslo, Norway: Departementenes servicesenter, Informasjonsforvaltning. NOU 2000: Om oppgavefordelingen mellom stat, region og kommune. NOU 2000:22. Oslo, Norway: Statens forvaltningstjeneste. Olofsson, K communication with the president of Transtrands Sockenförening, December 5, Ot.prp.nr Om lov om endringer i forvaltningslovgivningen mv. (gjennomføring av forvaltningsreformen). Reed, M. S Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10): doi: /j.biocon Reitan, M Politicisation and professional expertise in the policy of nature conservation. Local Environment 9(5): doi: / Ribot, J Waiting for democracy: The politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute. Riseth, J. Å Sami reindeer management in Norway: Modernization challenges and conflicting strategies. Reflections upon the co-management alternative. In Indigenous peoples: Resource management and global rights, ed. S. Jentoft, H. Minde, and R. Nielsen Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon Academic Publishers. Rokkan, S., A. Campbell, P. Torsvik, and H. Valen Citizens, elections, parties: Approaches to the comparative study of the processes of development. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Rokkan, S., and S. M. Lipset Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives. New York, NY: Free Press. Røvik, K. A Trender og translasjoner: Ideer som former det 21. Århundrets organisasjon. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforl. Sandell, K. 2005a. Access, tourism and democracy: A conceptual framework and the non establishment of a proposed national park in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 5(1): doi: / Sandell, K. 2005b. Reservatsdilemman eller utvecklingsområden? En syntesdiskussion och två fallstudier: Torneträsk biosfärområde och Södra Jämtlandsfjällens nationalparksförslag In Mountain mistra. Umeå, Sweden: Sverige lantbruksuniversitet. researchgate.net/profile/klas_sandell/publication/ _reservatsdilemman_eller_utveckling somrden_en_syntesdiskussion_och_tv_fallstudier_tornetrsk_biosfromrde_1986_-_2004_och_ Sdra_Jmtlandsfjllens_nationalparksfrslag_1995_-_2000/links/0deec51fcc1a7b964b pdf (accessed October 12, 2015). Sandström, C., S. Hovik, and E. I. Falleth eds Omstridd natur: Trender & utmaningar i nordisk naturförvaltning. Umeå, Sweden: Boréa bokförlag.

187 1014 E. HONGSLO ET AL. Sellers, J. M., and A. Lidström Decentralization, local government, and the welfare state. Governance 20(4): doi: /j x SEPA Nationalparksplan för sverige. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. SEPA Insynsråd. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Stockholm, Sweden: SEPA. SEPA and Stiftelsen Tyrestaskogen Tio år med Tyresta nationalpark en unik förvaltningsmodell. Tyresta. St. prp Statsbudsjett for budsjettåret Miljøverndepartementet. Oslo, Norway: Regjeringen. St.meld. no Ny landsplan for nasjonalparker og andre større verneområder i Norge. Vol. nr 62 ( ). Oslo, Norway: Regjeringen. Swedish Government Bill En sammanhållen naturvårdspolitik. Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of Environment. Swedish Government Bill Hållbart skydd av naturområden. Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of Environment. Swedish Government Regulation Nationalparksförordning, NF 1987:38 (legal reference; National Park Regulation). True, J. L., B. D. Jones, and F. R. Baumgartner Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In Theories of the policy process, ed. P. A. Sabatier Boulder, CO: Westview Press. UNCED Agenda 21 reproduced in an abridged form in The Earth Summit. London, UK: Regency Press. Vogel, D National styles of regulation: Environmental policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Zachrisson, A. 2009a. Commons protected for or from the people? Co-management in the Swedish mountain region?. PhD dissertation, Samhällsvetenskaplig fakultet, Statsvetenskap, Umeå universitet. Zachrisson, A. 2009b. Conflict resolution mechanisms in co-management: The Laponia World Heritage Site. In Commons protected for or from the people? Co-management in the Swedish mountain region. PhD thesis, Umeå universitet, Samhällsvetenskaplig fakultet, Statsvetenskap, Umeå, Sweden. Zachrisson, A. 2009c. The designation of Fulufjället National Park: Efficient co-management through downward accountability? Local Environment 14(3): doi: / Zachrisson, A., and K. Beland Lindahl Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies. Forest Policy and Economics 33: doi: /j.forpol

188

189 Paper 2: Exploring different dimensions of legitimacy in decentralized conservation management in Norway. 2

190 3

191 Exploring different dimensions of legitimacy in decentralized conservation management in Norway. Authors: First author: Aase Kristine Lundberg (corresponding author), Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway. (New affiliation from May 2017: Nordland Research Institute, Bodø, Norway). Contact details. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postboks 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway. Second author: Sissel Hovik, Department of Public Administration, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Postboks 4 St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway. sissel.hovik@hioa.no Acknowledgement. This paper is an output from the research project Local ideals, models and pratice in natural resource management. Does local management matter?'. This work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council, as a part of the 'Environment 2015' programme, project number

192 Exploring different dimensions of legitimacy in decentralized conservation management in Norway. Abstract In 2009, the Norwegian government decentralized conservation management to conservation boards comprised of locally and regionally elected politicians. In this study, we explore how the ambitious goals to improve input and output legitimacy through increased local participation have been realized in practice. Drawing on findings from two case studies, documents, interviews, and surveys, we argue that the Norwegian conservation management system primarily constructs legitimacy through hierarchical accountability and democratic control. Participation has been pursued through a reliance on representative democracy and indirect participation on conservation boards, while stakeholder participation and deliberation have been modest. Our findings underline tensions between different dimensions of legitimacy, suggesting that accountability may be at the expense of broad participation and deliberation. Keywords: legitimacy; accountability; decentralization; conservation management; Norway. 5

193 Introduction Conservation management has traditionally been a governmental responsibility, relying on top-down bureaucratic approaches, privileging scientific knowledge over local and experience-based knowledge (Sandström, Hovik & Falleth, 2008). This top-down approach has been criticized for insensitivity to local knowledge and local needs, causing a lack of legitimacy and local support (Lane & Corbett, 2005; Zachrisson, 2009). Moreover, disputes over the validity of the scientific knowledge behind policies have resulted in increased politicization of decision-making processes and conflicts (Engelen, Keulartz, & Leistra, 2008). To handle legitimacy challenges, reduce conflicts, and improve effectiveness, hierarchical top-down approaches to conservation management have gradually been complemented by collaborative governance arrangements (Holmgren, Sandström, & Zachrisson, 2016). Under different labels such as co-management, community-based conservation, public-private partnerships, and network-based management, different approaches to stakeholder collaboration have been pursued (Armitage, de Loë, & Plummer, 2012). However, local participation takes different forms, ranging from simple information sharing and consultation to deliberation and partnership (Reed, 2008). Different degrees of power sharing between central and local governments, private actors, and stakeholders create distinct legitimacy challenges in the different governance arrangements. In this paper, we approach recent changes in the Norwegian conservation management system as an opportunity to empirically examine if assumptions about the improved legitimacy of decentralized conservation management and increased local participation hold in practice. After persistent conflicts about the distribution of power between local and national government in Norway, a comprehensive management reform of large protected areas was initiated in 2009 (St.prp.no.1, ). The Norwegian parliament decentralized management responsibility for national parks and landscape protected areas from the county governor s bureaucracy to conservation boards comprised of local and regional politicians. Landowners, private actors, public agencies, and other stakeholders were given the opportunity to participate in stakeholder groups. Proponents referred to it as a local management reform, arguing that decentralizing authority closer to the affected communities would be more democratic (Miljøverndepartementet, 2009a). Opponents described the change as a risky experiment with internationally recognized nature values, fearing that user interests would be favored at the expense of international commitments to protect biodiversity (Fauchald & Gulbrandsen, 2012; Skogen, 2013). 6

194 In the literature on collaborative governance arrangements in natural resource management, several authors have identified legitimacy and accountability as central issues (Behagel & Turnhout, 2011; Birnbaum, 2015; Bäckstrand, Khan, Kronsell, & Lövbrand, 2010; Hogl, Kvarda, Nordbeck, & Pregerning, 2012; Lockwood, Davidson, Curtis, Stratford, & Griffith, 2010; Plummer, Armitage, & de Loë, 2013; Sandström & Lundmark, 2016; Wallington, Lawrence, & Loechel, 2008). Increased participation from non-governmental actors in decision-making processes blurs traditional roles and sources of legitimacy attributed to elected governments. The new modes of governance cannot solely rely on the ballot box for legitimacy. Rather, legitimacy has to be constructed through the democratic quality of the decision-making process including fairness, inclusiveness, openness and accountability and on the problem-solving capacity and effectiveness of the decision. Behagel and Turnhout (2011, p. 300) have argued for the need to look closely at how and what kind of legitimacy is constructed' to understand the democratic value of participatory approaches. Compared with other European countries which have reformed traditional top-down nature conservation through different co-management arrangements (Getzner, Lange Vik, Brendehaug, & Lane, 2014; Hongslo, Hovik, Zachrisson, & Lundberg, 2016), the Norwegian management system has been described as a rather unique case due to the combination of both centralized and decentralized management (Sandström et al., 2008; Hovik & Hongslo, 2016). The conservation boards are governmental bodies, appointed by the Ministry of Climate and Environment (MoCE) and expected to fulfill national conservation policy; however, at the same time, the board members are local and regional politicians, elected by and accountable to their constituencies. Although few studies have examined how this has affected the construction of legitimacy after the 2009 reform, the conservation boards double accountability both upward to the government and downwards to the local communities has been emphasized as potentially challenging (Hovik & Hongslo, 2016). Moreover, Andersen, Bay-Larsen, Øian, and Fangel (2013) have suggested that the conservation boards legitimacy is constructed through mechanisms other than the environmental bureaucracy s legitimacy. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to explore how decentralization and increased participation in Norwegian conservation management has affected the construction of legitimacy and it asks the following questions: How has the Norwegian government s approach to local participation in the decentralized conservation management system affected the construction of legitimacy? How has local implementation of local participation affected the construction of legitimacy in practice? 7

195 We develop an analytical framework that distinguishes between input and output legitimacy (Scharpf, 1999) and how different dimensions of legitimacy can contribute to these two sources of legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements. In this paper, we combine document studies, surveys distributed to involved actors (e.g., board members, stakeholders, protected area managers, and municipal officials), and two case studies from two protected areas. The case studies include 18 interviews. The findings highlight central tensions between different dimensions of legitimacy, reflecting the need to approach assumptions about the legitimacy of decentralized conservation management critically. Exploring how legitimacy is constructed in practice, this paper responds to calls for empirical and context-specific studies to understand how collaborative governance arrangements affect the legitimacy of natural resource management (Birnbaum, 2015; Hogl et al., 2012). The next section gives a brief background to Norwegian conservation management, followed by a presentation of the analytical framework with its distinction between input and output legitimacy and different dimensions of legitimacy. The third section describes the methods used and the empirical findings are presented in the fourth section. The fifth section discusses these findings in the light of ambitions to increase both input and output legitimacy in Norwegian conservation management. The paper ends with some concluding remarks. Decentralized conservation management in Norway As in other western countries, Norwegian conservation management has been statecentered and hierarchically structured, with scientific knowledge and expert solutions having a dominant position (Hovik, Sandström, & Zachrisson, 2010). Reitan (2004) has argued that conservation policy in Norway has increasingly been politicized at the expense of the historical domination of the environmental bureaucracy. This has giving the parliament a defining role in formulating policies and designing the management system. Through several experiments with different governance arrangements, the management system has developed towards increased local participation and collaboration between different stakeholders, public agencies, and private businesses. During the 2000s, the management of four protected areas was decentralized to the local level, but with different degrees of power sharing between affected municipalities, the county governors, and stakeholders (Falleth & Hovik, 2008). In two protected areas, the municipalities were given the management authority and in a third area, the authority was shared between the municipalities, the county governor, and the reindeer administration. In the fourth area, the authority was transferred to an inter-municipal board with local and regional politicians. The trials were evaluated and showed that, for most 8

196 part, the municipalities fulfilled their responsibilities as managers (Falleth & Hovik, 2008). A discussion followed reflecting different views on local authorities ability to manage protected areas of national and international importance. In 2009, the parliament initiated a comprehensive management reform in the national budget (St.prp.no.1, ) for all large protected areas. Conservation boards were established, with locally and regionally elected politicians from the affected municipalities and counties, in addition to representatives appointed by the Sami Parliament when relevant. The boards were given responsibility for creating stakeholder groups and inter-municipal advisory groups to ensure participation from a wide range of actors. From 2010 to 2016, 42 conservation boards were appointed. Employment of protected area managers was also part of the reform, with offices located in the affected municipalities. Even though management authority was decentralized, the Norwegian Environmental Agency (NEA) and county governors have the possibility to make formal objections to the boards decisions and funding continues to be under governmental control. Legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements Arguments about the increased legitimacy, effectiveness, and performance of environmental policies through collaborative modes of governance have been compelling and there has been a marked growth of collaborative decision making in the field of natural resource management (Ansell & Gash, 2004). However, commentators have pointed to discrepancies between the high expectations and real-world challenges associated with stakeholder involvement (Bäckstrand et al., 2010; Hogl et al., 2012). A growing body of literature has emphasized legitimacy as a key challenge for collaborative and participatory approaches in natural resource management (Behagel & Turnhout, 2011; Birnbaum, 2015; Bäckstrand et al., 2010; Hogl et al., 2012; Sandström & Lundmark, 2016; Wallington et al., 2008). Collaborative modes of governance challenge traditional roles between elected and electors and simple ways of constructing legitimacy have been argued to be insufficient. Increased participation from non-governmental actors in formulating and implementing public policies makes authority and accountability unclear and Connelly, Richardson, and Miles (2006) have argued that diffusion of authority requires a refocusing from the formal, explicit exercise of power, to a broader definition of policy-making processes to understand how legitimacy is constructed. They underlined that the vital question affecting stakeholders perception of legitimacy can no longer conform to the classical formulation of do we accept this body as appropriate to make decisions that affect us? Rather, it becomes do we 9

197 accept this process as an appropriate way to make policy here, now? with the corollary how seriously should we therefore treat its outcomes as a guide to our actions and decisions (Connelly et al., 2006, p. 270). This underlines the importance of approaching legitimacy and accountability of collaborative governance arrangements broadly and not limiting this to formal institutional arrangements or legal frameworks. Although legitimacy and accountability are related, Plummer et al. (2013) have emphasized the need to approach the two as distinct concepts in order to understand the complexities associated with both. They argue that legitimacy involves the power to influence others and approval of an institution or actor by an entity subject to its actions, encompassing procedural (how decisions are made) and substantive (morals, values, beliefs) dimensions within a socially constructed context. According to Plummer et al. (2013, p. 3), accountability refers to the responsible exercise of power (through standards and systems) as entities (individual, organizations, and agencies) acknowledge and assume responsibilities of actions and determine outcomes. In this paper, we apply Plummer et al. s (2013) distinction between legitimacy and accountability. Despite increased participation from non-governmental actors in problem framing and implementation of environmental policies, democratic norms originating from representative democracy are widely accepted. Behagel and Turnhout (2011) argue that it is not self-evident that the introduction of new modes of governance, with increased collaboration and participation, is accompanied by a shift towards more participatory and deliberative norms in the construction of legitimacy. Rather, they underline that deliberative ideals are difficult to put into practice and, perhaps more importantly, that the well-established basis of legitimacy is grounded in representation and the aggregative model is not easily challenged. They therefore emphasize that: both the democratic norms of formal consultation and interest representation, as the democratic norms of participation and deliberation, can be drawn upon in the construction of democratic legitimacy in governance processes (Behagel & Turnhout, 2011, p. 300). This may contribute to explaining why different perspectives on legitimacy can be found to apply to the same decision-making process and outcome. Moreover, this underlines that there is a need to explore how representative and deliberative norms interact with and affect legitimacy in practice. Different sources and dimensions of legitimacy To explore how legitimacy is constructed in collaborative arrangements in nature conservation management, Scharpf s (1999) influential distinction between input and output 10

198 legitimacy is useful. While input legitimacy rests on procedural logic and the policy process s inclusiveness, fairness, and participatory qualities, output legitimacy focuses on the problemsolving capacity of the result and, thus, rests on consequential logic (Kornsell & Bäckstrand, 2010). Input legitimacy is often referred to as government by the people and legitimacy judgments concern questions about how inclusive, transparent, and accountable the decisionmaking processes are, and if and how affected actors have been allowed to participate throughout the process. Both direct public participation and indirect participation, through representation by elected politicians or others, can contribute to input legitimacy. However, Kornsell and Bäckstrand (2010) emphasize that inclusiveness, fairness, and the quality of participation are morally important in their own right, reflecting the importance of direct public participation. In contrast, output-oriented legitimacy refers to government for the people and the policy output or the performance of the governance arrangements is the main source of legitimacy (Scharpf, 1999). In this view, decisions are legitimate if they effectively solve a policy problem and support the common good of the community (Engelen et al., 2008). Although contestable, achieving goals and solving policy problems could be a sufficient source of legitimacy, without public participation on the input side. In this study, we develop an analytical framework that draws on the work of Kornsell and Bäckstrand (2010) and Hogl et al. (2012); see Table 1. The framework supplements the traditional notion of legitimacy as accountability, reflecting that the legitimacy of decentralized conservation management is more than the elected representatives responsiveness to their constituencies and authorization through elections. Table 1: Dimensions of input and output legitimacy (inspired by Kornsell and Bäckstrand (2010, p. 43) and Hogl et al. (2012, p. 16)). Sources of legitimacy Dimensions of legitimacy Input legitimacy Output legitimacy Participation Access Voice Equal and balanced representation Awareness Support Inclusion of local knowledge 11

199 Accountability and democratic control Transparency Open information flows Responsiveness Political anchoring Deliberative quality Inclusiveness Co-decision Unconstrained and open dialogue Mutual respect and understanding Learning Following Kornsell and Bäckstrand (2010), we identify three dimensions of legitimacy: participation; accountability and democratic control; and deliberative quality. Using these three dimensions, our framework enables an analysis of how representative and deliberative norms interact in constructing legitimacy in collaborative governance arrangements. In line with Hogl et al. s (2012) approach, we explore the input and output legitimacy of these three dimensions, which makes it possible to avoid reducing output legitimacy to a question of measuring effectiveness. The reform of Norwegian conservation management has primarily altered by whom and how decisions are made; therefore, we focus on the input side, but also include achievements on the output side. The first dimension of legitimacy participation and inclusion draws attention to the scope and depth of participation after decentralizing conservation management. On the input side, we focus on access (who participates), voice (how stakeholders participate and in what phase of the decision-making processes), and equal and balanced representation (whether the stakeholders have the same opportunities to participate and to what extent those affected by the decisions are represented). On the output side of participation, we focus on awareness, support, and inclusion of local knowledge in decision-making processes. The second dimension accountability and democratic control relates to how those governing are subjected to control and held accountable and whether they are responsive to the interests of the affected communities. Kornsell and Bäckstrand (2010) emphasize that sanctions, such as removing someone from their position, have to be available to turn accountability into legitimacy. Accountability can be both hierarchical and horizontal nonhierarchical, and becomes complex when including private actors and stakeholders in public decision making. Whether or not accountability patterns are altered is therefore important to understanding how accountability contributes to legitimacy. On the input side, we focus on 12

200 the management system s transparency, accessibility, and openness of information flows; and on the output side, we explore responsiveness, accountability patterns, and political anchoring. The third dimension deliberative quality and argumentative practice addresses if and how ideals of deliberative democracy have been captured. Is deliberative rationality used, including inclusiveness, open dialogue, and free and public reasoning among equal individuals? What is the quality of the deliberation and does it allow for argument rather than bargaining? On the input side, we focus on the management s inclusiveness and the composition of the stakeholder groups; opportunities for co-decisions; and open, unconstrained dialogue between different stakeholders. On the output side, we explore the possibilities for developing mutual respect and shared understanding, and the opportunities for collective learning. However, we want to underline that in practice it may be difficult to clearly distinguish between input and output legitimacy and Connelly et al. (2006) have argued that there is a dialectic relationship between process and product. The concept of overall legitimacy offers a solution to this problem by emphasizing that legitimacy rests on combining effective environmental problem-solving (reducing negative environmental impacts) with fair, accountable, inclusive and transparent procedures (Kornsell & Bäckstrand, 2010, p. 39). Method In this study, we approach legitimacy in Norwegian conservation management through a focus at both national and local levels. We have analyzed governmental policy documents describing the reform, with an emphasis on how the goals were expressed and the choice of collaborative arrangements. The main sources for the document analysis are the national budget for 2009, where the reform was announced and outlined, and letters from the MoCE to affected municipalities specifying the implementation of the reform. We further focus on how the reform has been implemented at the local level and how this has affected participation, accountability, and possibilities for deliberation in practice. We carried out case studies in two protected areas. We chose two protected areas that were among the first conservation boards which were appointed by the MoCE after the reform in In addition, the two areas were part of a trial period with delegated management authority, prior to today s management system. Therefore, the majority of the interviewed actors have had experiences with local conservation management since the beginning of the 2000s. The two case areas were 13

201 Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella National Park which was established in 2002 and covers five municipalities in three counties and Setesdal, Vesthei, Ryfylkeheiane (SVR) Landscape Protection Park which was established in 2000 and covers 11 municipalities in three counties, as illustrated in Figure 2. Both protected areas are large mountain areas with diverse landscapes, biodiversity, and cultural heritage. In addition to this, both areas are important habitats for the last European wild reindeer herds, which Norway has international obligations to protect through the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats of 1979 (Council of Europe, 1979). From January to March 2013, we conducted 17 interviews (with 19 participants), including representatives from the conservation boards, stakeholder groups, municipalities, protected area managers, and county governors. Based on the case studies, we developed and sent web-based surveys to the four groups involved in the management of 20 conservation boards in the mid and southern parts of Norway. This included conservation board members, members of stakeholder groups, and members of inter-municipal groups. We limited the scope of this survey to conservation areas in southern Norway. In the analysis, we primarily draw on findings from the survey to board members and members of the stakeholder groups. The surveys reported here were conducted between February and June 2014 and the response rates are reported in Table 2. Table 2: Response rates for the four surveys Number of distributed surveys Response rate (percent) Conservation board members Stakeholder group members Inter-municipal adversarial group members Protected area managers We have used rich empirical material based on different methods of data collection and covering different actors perspectives. However, the data was collected just three to four years after the management reform was initiated in Therefore, our findings reflect initial effects and perceptions about legitimacy in the management system. 14

202 Figure 1: Localization of the two case areas in Norway. 15

203 Findings In this section, we first present how the Norwegian government expressed the goals of the reform and how the choice of collaborative arrangements at the overall level affected the three dimensions of legitimacy. We then present findings from the interview and survey materials to show how local perceptions of legitimacy and implementation of the reform have affected the three dimensions of legitimacy in practice. Ambitious goals but weak formalization of participation In the national budget (St.prp.no.1, ), the government argued that conservation management was best carried out with knowledge about the local context, and that it was desirable to devolve governmental responsibilities to locally elected bodies. In the policy documents, increased participation and local anchoring, coherent management practices, and knowledge-based management were emphasized as the goals. Integration of scientific and local knowledge was also emphasized as an ambition. This shows that the intentions were both improved input and output legitimacy. The following quote illustrates how local anchoring was seen as a remedy to fulfill different goals related to legitimacy: Proximity, identity, belonging and increased democracy will in both the short and the long term strengthen the management of the areas. It is necessary to achieve greater local ownership of the protected areas. The management of national parks and large protected areas should therefore be anchored locally (St.prp.no.1, , p. 222 our translation). Arguing that the reform could contribute to strengthening democracy in a broad sense illustrates that decentralization of conservation management was viewed as a democratization process. Interestingly, legitimacy was not used as a concept in any of the policy documents (Miljøverndepartementet, 2009a, 2009b; St.prp.no.1, ). Rather, increased local anchoring was used to describe the desired effect of the management reform related to increased participation. Amdam (2016) argues that in the Norwegian public debate, anchoring and legitimacy have been used interchangeably to describe similar issues. However, as previously argued, political anchoring can be viewed as one dimension contributing to legitimacy. The goal of strengthening democracy in the short and long term creates high expectations as to the results of the reform and implies more than information sharing or consultation. Moreover, the ambitions to increase local communities ownership, identity, and 16

204 belonging to the protected areas reflect the importance ascribed to participation and inclusion in conservation management. However, in the policy documents, the newly established conservation boards received considerably more attention than stakeholder participation and the development of deliberative practices. Conservation boards should comprise of locally and regionally elected politicians, representing municipalities and counties with large protected areas within their territory. The responsibility for nominating the board members was given to the municipal and county councils. It was stated that conservation management demanded cooperation with a wide range of actors to succeed and public agencies, landowners, private companies, and interests groups were mentioned (St.prp.no.1, ). Therefore, the conservation boards needed to facilitate collaboration processes and coordinate between different actors. Yet, the only specification of how such public participation should take place was that the boards were responsible for establishing stakeholder groups and they should have annual dialogue meetings. Meeting just once a year implies that primarily information sharing takes place between the boards and stakeholders, affecting the scope and quality of participation and rendering, for example, co-decision making difficult. This demonstrates that despite emphasis on local participation and ambitious goals, only limited efforts were made to formalize stakeholders participation and deliberation in conservation management. Rather, locally and regionally elected politicians on the conservation boards should ensure the representation of the interests of local stakeholders and affected communities. As such, the reform drew on representative ideals of democracy, with indirect participation through representation of elected politicians. Conservation management remained under democratic control after the reform, since authority was decentralized to conservation boards comprising elected politicians. The boards are formally appointed by the NEA and considered to be upwardly accountable governmental bodies, which are expected to follow national policies and priorities. This shows that the management reform created hierarchical accountability patterns. However, as locally and regionally elected politicians, they are also downwardly accountable to the affected communities. Therefore, the management system draws on both upward and downward accountability, which is negotiable in practice; i.e., between expectations at national level and desires to pursue local interests (Andersen et al., 2013). In the literature, downward accountability has been emphasized as important for securing legitimacy when decentralizing conservation management (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Holmgren et al., 2016). In light of the persistent conflicts between actors at the local and national levels, it is easy to imagine 17

205 situations that can put conservation boards in a challenging position due to their dual accountability. In the following sections, we will explore how this was experienced in practice. Participation through political representation The reform has empowered locally and regionally elected politicians on conservation boards, who have been the primary recipients of management authority, while stakeholders have gained access through stakeholder groups. Each of the municipalities and counties in the two case studies had one representative on the board, regardless of how large their share of the total protected area was. The majority of board members representing the municipalities were mayors in both case studies and, furthermore, the municipal representatives were in a majority on both conservation boards. Findings from the two case studies reflected that stakeholder participation varied considerably. In SVR, the stakeholder groups had eight members: four representing local industries and landowners, three representing public agencies (the wild reindeer board, mountain board, and Norwegian state-owned land and forest enterprise) and only one NGOrepresentative from the regional branch of the Norwegian Trekking Association. Interestingly, the conservation board in SVR chose not to include representatives from any environmental organizations in the region. Furthermore, three of the stakeholder group members respectively represented all of the affected landowners, mountain boards, and electricity companies in the area. In Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella, the stakeholder group consisted of no less than 37 members. Seven mountain boards, three electricity companies, 20 landowner associations, and eight farmer associations were represented in the stakeholder group. In addition, five regional tourism organizations, four environmental-ngos, and three regional branches of the same trekking association as in SVR were represented. Apart from a more diverse and inclusive stakeholder group, all of the mountain boards, landowner associations, local industries, etc. were represented, contrary to how the stakeholder group was comprised in SVR. Among the interviewees, our impression was that the majority considered that the conservation boards ensured local participation in conservation management in a good way. One protected area manager said: The mayors are used to taking different concerns into consideration and making decisions when there are conflicting interests and concerns. In most cases, they are good at balancing between different interests. That is the advantage with politicians (pers.comm., 15 January 2013). 18

206 The board members themselves also expressed this in similar ways. However, whether indirect representation through the politicians on the boards could actually be understood to be local participation was also questioned. Recognizing that the board members, as mayors, probably received many inputs from the local community, one municipal official said: If it is only one man from each municipality whether it is a mayor or an executive officer from Lillehammer [the county governor] it does not really matter. It is only one person and that is not local management. It is a board, but it is not local management. I think they should share the responsibility more maybe not the formal, but more people ought to be involved (pers.comm., 17 January 2013). As the quote illustrates, the interviewee questioned how local management could be reduced to participation through the conservation boards and he called for more extensive involvement of local stakeholders. The stakeholder representative we interviewed had a waitand-see attitude to their own participation and the board members did not problematize local participation or stakeholder involvement. However, common to all the interviews with board members, stakeholders, and municipal officials was the belief and hope that local management would lead to different decisions, with the inclusion of local knowledge and increased proximity between decision-makers, protected area managers, and the affected communities. One municipal official said this about the benefits: It is not easy to answer what the benefit with local management will be... I guess it has to do with local ownership and attachment, and developing increased understanding of the conserved areas, to see that there is a good reason for why they are protected and, therefore, that there are restrictions, but that there also are opportunities for local value creation and development (pers.comm., 16 January 2013). The board members interviewed also shared this belief and said that local conservation management could contribute to developing a better understanding of the conservation regulations, increased local support, and compliance with the regulations. They emphasized that this depended on the board s abilities to balance conservation regulations and local concerns. Information sharing and increased knowledge about international and national recognized nature values were seen as important. However, they recognized that as politicians their job would also be to take decisions that could be unpopular and that they would have to explain and even defend these in the local community. 19

207 In interviews, protected area managers in both case studies recognized the need to include local actors and emphasized that they believed their own presence in the communities, which is closer than the county governor s offices, contributed positively to the inclusion of local actors. Furthermore, they thought it would be easier for them to know who to ask, since they knew what was going on in the municipalities and who had coffee with who and where, as one of the protected area managers said in an interview. Each of the four protected area managers viewed themselves as an important link between the conservation management systems, central government, and local user groups. However, in spite of this, none of them mentioned facilitating for local participation or inclusion of stakeholders when we asked about what their job involved. We have studied the contact pattern between board members and stakeholder group members. Direct contact can contribute to the construction of legitimacy in several ways. The board members receive inputs in decision-making processes and feedback on management practices. Moreover, this can contribute to including local experience-based knowledge. In addition, board members can be held directly accountable for decision-making on the boards, having to explain and justify decisions. Through contact, stakeholders can express their consent or opposition to these decisions. Since the board members are local and regional politicians from the affected communities, one would expect that it would be easier to contact them compared with the earlier arrangement when the county governor was responsible for the management. We have mapped the frequency of contact between board members and stakeholders as reported by both board members and stakeholder group members. Thus, we have not only mapped contact initialized by stakeholders since it may be difficult for the respondents to distinguish between the frequency of contact initiated by themselves or the other party. 20

208 NGOs Industry Land owner and other right holders Once a month or more Less frequent Never Figure 3: Board members contact with interest groups. Percentage. N= A majority of the board members had some contact with all three interest groups. Only a few, however, had frequent contact. The board members were reported to be more frequently in contact with landowners and other right holders than the other two interest groups, but the difference was minor. Around 30% reported that they had never been in contact with representatives of local industry or environmental NGOs, while 20% reported to have never been in contact with landowners or other right holders. These findings further contribute to the warnings from the critics of the management reform, who feared that the close contact between local politicians and private actors, as landowners, would favor some user groups at the expense of others and nature values. 21

209 Contact with board members once a moth or more frequent Less frequent Never Figure 4: Stakeholder groups contact with conservation board members and council members. Percentage. N=85. Stakeholder group members representing non-governmental organizations had less frequent contact with board members than stakeholder group members representing local industry and public government. Two out of 10 NGO-representatives had never been in contact with board members. There seems to have been more direct contact between the board members and governmental actors and local industry than civil society organizations. In the interviews, members of the stakeholder groups in both case areas said that geographical proximity to the board members and protected area managers was positive. They believed it would be easier to directly contact the board members, compared with the county governor or NEA. Both stakeholders and protected area managers emphasized the importance of personal networks and acquaintances. However, the findings from the survey indicate that despite geographical proximity, direct contact between board members and stakeholders was modest. 22

210 Accountability and political anchoring In the interviews, the board members problematized the dual accountability and possible challenges associated with their intermediate position between national and local levels. As elected representatives for the municipalities, with responsibilities for performing national conservation policies, they expected challenging situations to arise and that they would have to make decisions that could be unpopular. Drawing boundaries between use and protection was emphasized as an issue that was a never-ending discussion. One board member said that: I have heard that some people say that we should not put on our municipal hat when serving on the conservation management board. However, if I as mayor cannot balance local interests against conservation interests, who is going to do that? There is not just one way to do conservation management; it is not a blueprint (pers.comm., 14 March 2013). While emphasizing his role as municipal representative, this board member also stated that he might not be re-elected, since I might have to take unpopular decisions that not all would agree with decisions that respect the limitations in the conservation regulations. This shows how the board members were aware of challenges in both satisfying local expectations and meeting governmental conservation policies. How board members involve the municipal and regional councils in issues concerning management of the protected areas sheds light on how downward accountability works in practice. Through discussions with other local and regional politicians, the board members can receive inputs relevant to the decision-making processes and, thus, strengthen output legitimacy through policy effectiveness. They can also explain and justify decisions made by the board, giving the councils an opportunity to hold the board members accountable. Moreover, the involvement of the municipal and regional councils in decision-making processes concerning the protected areas gives an impression of transparency and information flow in the management system. 23

211 reports from board meeting to the council 42 discuss matter with other councl members 24 recieve signals from the council Series 1 Figure 5: Percentage of conservation board members who always or sometimes take these actions (N=59 62). More than half of the board members reported that they regularly receive signals from the council before the board decides on matters of importance for the municipality or county. Only 42% regularly reported to the council from discussions and decisions by the board. Even fewer only 24% discussed matters with fellow politicians on the councils. These findings indicate that inclusion of local and regional councils in conservation management has been modest. Interviews with board members and municipal officials in the case studies confirmed that conservation management was not a topic for the municipal councils. However, the board members expected that this could change for controversial issues. The board members we interviewed said that they did not get questions from members of the councils. This could reflect that issues about conservation management were of limited interest to the councilors. However, since only 42% reported that they regularly reported about decisions made by the conservation board, information flow and transparency were limited. When asked about the involvement of the municipal council, one of the board members recognized that he could have informed the other councilors better; however, he emphasized that this was probably the case with other issues and boards where he represented the municipality as mayor. To explore perceptions about the effects of decentralizing management authority to elected politicians in the survey, we asked the different actors to assess the conservation management s local political anchoring. Based on the reported interaction board members had 24

212 with local and regional councils and members of stakeholder groups, the board members assessment of the political anchoring of the conservation management is rather surprising. Conservation management is sufficiently political anchored 80 At municipal level Protected area managers Stakeholder group members Intermunicipal adversary group Board members Figure 6: Assessment of sufficiency of political anchorage at municipal level by board members, stakeholder group members, inter-municipal advisory group members, and protected area managers. Percentage partly or completely agreeing that the anchorage is sufficient (N=62/90/43/20). Figure 6 shows that the board members were much more positive than the stakeholders in their assessments of the political anchoring. The protected area managers agreed with the board members and, in their opinion, the conservation management was sufficiently politically anchored, while around 60% of the inter-municipal advisory group members regarded the political anchoring at municipal level to be sufficient. Inclusion and deliberation in stakeholder groups Compared with the management system prior to the reform in 2009, stakeholders now have a formalized arena for participation in conservation management. As noted above, the inclusiveness of stakeholders varied in the two case studies, as did meeting frequency, affecting the possibilities for developing deliberative practices. In SVR, the stakeholder board met half a year after the board was established in March 2012, and has met regularly since then. At the time we conducted the interviews in Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella (January 2013), there had not been any meetings of the stakeholder group, even though the conservation board 25

213 was one of the first appointed by the MoCE in November However, they planned to gather all the stakeholders in a workshop during the spring of When asked about this in interviews, the protected area managers in Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella explained that there had been too much to do and that they had not prioritized this, faced with more pressing deadlines and preparations for formal decision-making processes by the conservation board. The two areas had in common an informal use of stakeholder groups and intermunicipal advisory groups. The protected area managers instigated direct contact with stakeholders and municipalities on a case-by-case basis and, according to the protected area managers, local actors dropped by their offices to discuss cases. However, our impression from the interviews was that this contact was largely based on the protected area managers need to obtain information about specific parts of the protected areas when they prepared decision-making processes for the boards. This shows that the stakeholders contributed with local knowledge and that this was something the managers actively sought. This could contribute to increasing the management s output legitimacy understood as effectiveness since the managers could clarify and ask for further information from local actors. As such, local knowledge could be included in the decision-making processes. On the other side, an instrumental use of participation could reduce the deliberative qualities and the possibilities of developing shared understandings between stakeholders with different views. The managers informal and personal contact also raises questions about management s transparency to the broader public and, thus, accountability because it may become unclear how different stakeholders affect decision-making and who these stakeholders are. Compared with formal meetings in stakeholder groups or inter-municipal advisory groups, notes are usually not taken at informal encounters. In the survey, we asked the board members and the stakeholder group members to assess the role of the stakeholder groups. The questions related to how the stakeholder groups contribute to different goals, ranging from simple information sharing and the promotion of stakeholders interests to increased understanding and reduced conflicts. 26

214 to reduce conflicts and coordinate interests create understanding for the intersts and opinipns of other users to promote opinions and views from local users Stakeholder group members Board members to gain knowledge from local users a channel of information from the board to user groups / stakeholders Figure 7: Board members and stakeholder group members assessment of the role of stakeholder groups in the management of the protected area (Percentage answering that the stakeholder plays this role to a large or quite a large degree (4 or 5 on a five-point scale). N=56/84 87). As Figure 7 shows, the board members assessments of the function of the stakeholder groups were much more positive than the assessment by the group members themselves. The NGO representatives tended to assess the groups more positively than the other stakeholders. Interestingly, the public government representatives (such as regional wild reindeer boards and mountain boards) were more positive about how the stakeholder groups functioned as an arena for creating mutual understanding among different stakeholder groups. The representatives from local industry tended to be most critical, but as the number of respondents was low, emphasis should not be placed on these small differences. Discussion Decentralizing the management authority to conservation boards has changed the Norwegian management system considerably, giving elected politicians access to and power over decision-making formerly held by the county governors environmental bureaucracy. As emphasized in the literature, we found that formerly closed state arenas have been opened up for local actors, creating new opportunities for participation, deliberation, and inclusion of local knowledge (Bäckstrand et al., 2010; Hogl et al., 2012). These new collaborative arrangements have the potential to develop broad acceptance and support for conservation policies, while at the same time raising awareness for different interests and the local actors 27

215 preferences. The goals of increasing ownership, belonging, and even strengthening democracy create high expectations about the depth and scope of participation and deliberation in Norwegian conservation management after the reform. Our findings show that participation has been pursued through a reliance on representative democracy and indirect participation on the conservation boards. Through the reform, legitimacy has primarily been constructed around the second dimension of legitimacy accountability and democratic control whereas direct participation and development of deliberative practices have contributed only modestly to the construction of legitimacy. These findings confirm Hogl et al. s (2012) observation that accountability has become standard for participatory governance arrangements, while stakeholder participation and influence in decision-making has been more difficult to realize. In the literature on decentralization of natural resource management, downward accountability has been argued as being vital for ensuring the legitimacy of both processes and policy outcomes (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Holmgren et al., 2016; Skjeggedal & Clemetsen, 2017). As governmental boards appointed by the MoCE, the conservation boards are expected to comply with national conservation policies. The government has retained several control mechanisms to ensure that this happens and the county governors and NEA receive reports from board meetings. As local and regional politicians accountable to the affected communities, the board members are regarded as legitimate representatives of the local communities. As local political leaders, they are also in a position where they may have to justify and defend decisions and explain limitations and restrictions because of conservation regulations, which in turn may contribute to greater understanding. Through elections, constituencies can hold the board members accountable for their actions. Thus, mechanisms for sanctions are in place, ensuring that accountability can be transferred into legitimacy (Kornsell & Bäckstrand, 2010). However, transparency, access to information, and open information flows are equally important for how accountability contributes to legitimacy in practice (Drake, 2012). Our findings show that among the actors who can hold the boards accountable for their decisions the municipal and regional councils there seems to be limited discussion of conservation management. Moreover, our findings also demonstrate that there was limited contact between board members and stakeholder group members. In light of these findings, it is questionable whether the local communities have the same opportunity for holding the boards accountable both in terms of the boards openness and the public s access to information about decision-making. The findings illustrate that the board members are well aware of the potential tension between local and national expectations. Andersen et al. (2013) have emphasized the boards 28

216 ability to fulfill local needs as being central to the construction of their legitimacy. This suggests that the boards responsiveness towards local needs and interests is crucial for how accountability contributes to legitimacy. However, the management reform did not affect the conservation regulations and the boards operate within the same formal framework as the county governors did (Fedreheim, 2013). The MoCE and the NEA have so far been reluctant to expand the boards mandate to include local development work, facilitating nature-based tourism. How the board members navigate between local and national demands will both affect how legitimacy is constructed and contested in practice. Further empirical work is needed to understand how this affects the assessment of legitimacy at both local and national levels. Findings from the surveys and the two case studies raise a number of critical questions about how participation and deliberation can contribute to improved input and output legitimacy in practice. As the results show, the board members were far more positive about the stakeholder groups, compared with those who actually participated in them. In SVR, the stakeholder group comprised an exclusive selection of eight members who were supposed to represent all the stakeholder interests in the areas. While this might contribute to effectiveness, since it is easier to gather eight representatives compared with the 37 in Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella, it involves exclusion and reduces inclusiveness. Contrary to this, the stakeholder group in Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella included all interests, but only met once a year, which implies that the stakeholder group had become an information channel and limits the stakeholders influence in the ongoing decision-making processes. Moreover, this may reduce the possibilities for developing deliberative practices, since it is more likely that stakeholder involvement primarily involves interest representation and agenda setting (Parkins & Mitchell, 2005). Because the stakeholder group meets only once a year, it is crucial that the protected area managers develop direct patterns of communications with local actors to include local knowledge in the management of the areas. Our findings show that the protected area managers strive to include local knowledge in the decision-making process and recognize the value of such knowledge. As such, this may improve the output legitimacy of participation. However, such participation is largely instrumental, based on one-way communication from the protected area managers to selected stakeholders, and the effects on the input side of legitimacy may be restricted. The differences between the board members and the stakeholders assessment of both the stakeholder groups performance clearly reflect different perceptions of stakeholder participation and deliberation in practice. We want to emphasize the conservation boards and 29

217 protected area managers crucial role in enabling broad participation and facilitating collaboration between different stakeholders in practice. Developing deliberative practices depends on the conservation boards willingness and efforts to include the stakeholder groups in decision-making beyond mandatory annual meetings. In light of the board members and protected area managers assessment of political anchoring, they may not regard this as a problem. However, conservation boards may find themselves in a situation where critiques of the centralized environmental bureaucracy may be extended to them due to limited participation and modest possibilities for developing deliberative practices. A development that may bring the lines of conflict into greater focus is a trial of comanagement in three conservation management boards, planned for 2017 to 2019, initiated by the MoCE (Klima- og miljøverndepartementet, 2016). How inclusion of some stakeholders on the conservation management boards will affect the construction of legitimacy remains to be seen. However, this alters the hierarchical accountability pattern and challenges democratic control as the main dimension contributing to the legitimacy of the conservation boards. Concluding remarks Through the decentralization of Norwegian conservation management to conservation boards with locally and regionally elected politicians, legitimacy has been constructed in the form of the representative ideals of democracy. Accountable to the constituencies and representing the local communities, the board members contribute to the conservation management s legitimacy through hierarchical accountability. However, the upward accountability to the government makes accountability as a dimension of legitimacy complex. Moreover, stakeholder participation has been restricted and the possibilities for developing deliberative practices in the stakeholder groups have been found wanting. The discrepancies between the high hopes for the legitimacy of collaborative governance arrangements and the hard realities affecting the implementation of participation and deliberation in practice are recurrent issues in empirical studies (Bäckstrand et al., 2010; Hogl et al., 2012). Similarly, we found a divergence between the government s ambitious goals of increased input and output legitimacy and the actually formalization of stakeholder participation. We argue that handling persistent conflicts, creating understanding and mutual respect, developing ownership and belonging, require extensive participation in both scope and depth from affected communities and stakeholders. Instrumental goals about inclusion of local knowledge, proximity, and effectiveness may be easier to realize through the reform and the protected area manager s instrumental use of participation. 30

218 Despite obvious differences between goals and reality in the pursuit of more legitimate and efficient environmental policy, Bäckstrand et al. (2010) have underlined the value of deliberative encounters as they may contribute legitimacy to decision-making processes rooted in representative democracy. In closing, we emphasize the conservation boards power to enable or limit broad stakeholder participation in decision making. Taking on an enabling role and contributing to mobilization of local actors may add to the legitimacy of the conservation boards. References Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African cases. The Journal of Developing Areas, 33(4), Amdam, R. (2016). Planlegging, forankring og legitimitet. PLAN, 47(03 04), Andersen, O., Bay-Larsen, I., Øian, H., & Fangel, K. (2013). Naturmangfoldlovens virkninger i kommunene. En gjennomgang av kommunale erfaringer med loven. Trondheim: NINA. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), doi: /jopart/mum032 Armitage, D., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), Behagel, J., & Turnhout, E. (2011). Democratic legitimacy in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands: Towards participatory and deliberative norms? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(3), doi: / x Birnbaum, S. (2015). Environmental co-governance, legitimacy, and the quest for compliance: When and why is stakeholder participation desirable? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(3), doi: / x Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. (2010). Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Connelly, S., Richardson, T., & Miles, T. (2006). Situated legitimacy: Deliberative arenas and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), doi: Council of Europe. (1979). The Bern Convention - The European treaty for the conservation of nature. 31

219 Drake, A. (2012). Locating accountability. Conceptual and categorical challenges in the literature. Stockholm: ENTWINED. Engelen, E. J., Keulartz, F. W. J., & Leistra, G. (2008). European nature conservation policy making; from substantive to procedural sources of legitimacy. In J. Keulartz & G. Leistra (Eds.) Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy Case studies in multilevel governance (pp. 3 21). Heidelberg: Springer. Falleth, E., & Hovik, S. (2008). Lokal forvaltning av store verneområder: erfaringer fra fire forsøk (Vol. 2008:11). Oslo: NIBR. Fauchald, O. K., & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2012). The Norwegian reform of protected area management: A grand experiment with delegation of authority? Local Environment, 17(2), doi: / Fedreheim, G. E. (2013). Value creation on Norway s green gold: An analysis of policy formulation and implementation in the field of nature conservation. (PhD thesis). Universitetet i Nordland, Norway. Getzner, M., Lange Vik, M., Brendehaug, E., & Lane, B. (2014). Governance and management strategies in national parks: Implications for sustainable regional development. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 6(1 2), Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., & Pregernig, M. (2012). Environmental governance. The challanges of legitimacy and effectiveness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Holmgren, L., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2016). Protected area governance in Sweden: New modes of governance or business as usual? Local Environment, doi: / Hongslo, E., Hovik, S., Zachrisson, A., & Lundberg, A. K. A. (2016). Decentralization of conservation management in Norway and Sweden different translations of an international trend. Society & Natural Resources, 29(8), doi: / Hovik, S., & Hongslo, E. (2016). Balancing local interests and national conservation obligations in nature protection. The case of local management boards in Norway. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, doi: / Hovik, S., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2010). Management of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: Challenges in combining central governance and local participation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(2), doi: / Klima- og miljøverndepartementet. (2016). Forsøksordning med partssammensatte nasjonalpark- og verneområdestyrer. Brev av 30. mars Oslo: Klima- og miljøverndepartementet. 32

220 Kornsell, A., & Bäckstrand, K. (2010). Rationalities and forms of governance: A framework for analysing the legitimacy of new modes of governance. In K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, A. Kronsell, & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Environmental politics and delibrative democracy. Examining the promise of new modes of governance (pp ). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lane, M. B., & Corbett, T. (2005). The tyranny of localism: Indigenous participation in community-based environmental management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(2), doi: / Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2010). Governance principles for natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 23(10), doi: / Miljøverndepartementet. (2009a). Etablering av ny modell for forvaltning av verneområder invitasjon til å delta i nasjonalpark-/verneområdestyrer. Brev av Oslo. Miljøverndepartementet. (2009b). Kommunene inviteres til å delta i forvaltningen av nasjonalparkene [Press release] Parkins, J. R., & Mitchell, R. E. (2005). Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 18(6), doi: / Plummer, R., Armitage, D., & de Loë, R. C. (2013). Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 18. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), doi: /j.biocon Reitan, M. (2004). Politicisation and professional expertise in the policy of nature conservation. Local Environment, 9(5), doi: / Sandström, A., & Lundmark, C. (2016). Network structure and perceived legitimacy in collaborative wildlife management. Review of Policy Research, 33(4), doi: /ropr Sandström, C., Hovik, S., & Falleth, E. (2008). Omstridd natur. Tendenser och utmaningar i nordisk naturförvaltning. Umeå: Boréa Bokförlag. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? New York: Oxford University Press. Skjeggedal, T., & Clemetsen, M. (2017). Integrated and decentralised protection and development of mountain landscapes. Landscape Research, doi: / Skogen, K. (2013). Lokal Naturforvaltning [Local Nature Protection]. Fjell og Vidde(4). 33

221 St.prp.no.1. ( ). Statsbudsjettet for budsjettåret 2010 [National Budget]. Oslo: Finansdepartementet. Wallington, T., Lawrence, G., & Loechel, B. (2008). Reflections on the legitimacy of regional environmental governance: Lessons from Australia's experiment in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10(1), doi: / Zachrisson, A. (2009). Commons protected for or from the people? Co-management in the Swedish mountain region? (PhD Thesis). Umeå University, Umeå. 34

222 35

223 PAPER 3: Gender Equality in Conservation Management: Reproducing or Transforming Gender Differences Through Local Participation?

224 2

225 Gender Equality in Conservation Management: Reproducing or Transforming Gender Differences Through Local Participation? Author: Aase Kristine Lundberg (corresponding author), Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway. (New affiliation from May 2017: Nordland Research Institute, Bodø, Norway). Contact details. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postboks 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway. Acknowledgment: This paper is an output from the research project Local ideals, models and practice in natural resource management: Does local management matter? This work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council, as a part of the 'Environment 2015' programme, under project number

226 Gender Equality in Conservation Management: Reproducing or Transforming Gender Differences Through Local Participation? Abstract Underrepresentation of women in local participation in conservation management challenge the assumption that increased community involvement can improve the legitimacy of conservation policies. However, gender differences are often neglected in studies of local conservation management from developed countries. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether increased local participation in Norwegian conservation management has reproduced or transformed male dominance. This paper combined a quantitative overview of gender differences on conservation boards and among stakeholder groups with qualitative interviews. The findings revealed that gender balance at the overall level in the conservation boards conceal systematic gender differences in representation and distribution of positions. Moreover, actors at the local and national level do not regard gender issues as relevant and male dominance is taken for granted. This paper challenges the dominant gender-blindness in the literature and policies, and argues for including gender perspectives in future research. Keywords Gender; gender equality; conservation management; participation; protected areas; Norway. 4

227 Introduction It is widely recognized that increased local participation and community involvement in conservation management can improve legitimacy and reduce conflicts between different governmental levels and stakeholder groups (Plummer, Armitage, & de Loë, 2013). When admitted as participants, the local community can develop stronger ownership of national policies, and inclusion of local, experience-based knowledge can strengthen the management system s problem-solving capacities (Wondolleck & Yaffe, 2000). Through different participatory approaches, as co-management, community-based conservation and collaborative management, decentralization of authority have been pursued in different contexts (Holmgren, Sandström, & Zachrisson, 2016). However, such approaches have lacked attention to gender equality in representation of local communities (Richardson, Sinclar, Reed, & Parkins, 2011). Women continue to be underrepresented in natural resource management and lack influence in both public and private decision-making bodies. This is a democratic problem in terms of justice and equal opportunities for all to participate, but also in terms of representation of diverse and potentially conflicting interests, and the resources both women and men bring into decision-making processes. A broad range of research shows that gender is an aspect of how nature is used and experienced, and there is evidence to support that this in turn may affect values, interests, and preferences differently, with consequences for decision-making about natural resource management (Dervo et al., 2014). Without an emphasis on gender, the complex and heterogeneous character of local communities are only partly recognized (Schmitt, 2014). Contrary to broadening the base of local inputs, increased local participation in conservation management may contribute to reproduce gender differences and power imbalances based on social differences. While scholars like Bjørkhaug and Brandt (2015), Varghese and Reed (2012), and Neis, Gerrard, and Power (2013) have demonstrated the relevance of employing gender perspectives in studies of agriculture, forestry, and fishery, gender is strikingly absent in most studies of natural resource management from developed countries (Reed & Mitchell, 2003). The literature is dominated by gender-blind categories, and there is a lack of reflexivity about how research that primarily focuses on the experiences of white, well-educated middle- and upper-class male 5

228 actors shape the understanding of environmental decision-making and management practices (Reed & Christie, 2009). In 2009, the Norwegian Parliament decentralized management authority of large protected areas from the regional state level to politically appointed conservation boards (St. prp. 1 ( )). The boards consisted of local and regional politicians, in addition to representatives from the Sami Parliament who are relevant governmental bodies that must comply with gender quota requirements stipulated in the Gender Equality Act of 1978 (2013). The reform has therefore increased women s participation in protected area management. The purpose of this paper is to explore if and how this has reproduced or transformed traditional male dominance within the field. By developing a gender perspective on local participation in conservation management, the purpose of this paper is to also provide a point of departure for future research that includes gender in studies of natural resource management. This paper makes gender a primary focus on local participation in Norwegian conservation management by questioning whether recent gender equality policies have actually transformed, or rather reproduced, current masculine hierarchies. Given this focus, the following research questions have been identified: What is the gender composition on the conservation boards and among the stakeholder groups? How are leadership positions on the boards distributed between women and men? How do actors at the local and national level understand gender issues and gender equality? Through examples from the literature and empirical findings from the Norwegian context, this paper will show that gender is a non-issue in relation to participation and community involvement in conservation management. While recognizing that the empirical material gives limited insight into how gender was played out in decision-making processes on the conservation boards, the paper is a valuable starting point to develop more gender-sensitive and reflexive approaches to public participation in conservation management in a Global North context. This paper contributes to a new research agenda for studies of local participation in conservation management by making gender inequalities visible and challenging the masculine hegemony. To explore whether or not local participation contributes to improved legitimacy and effectiveness, gender perspectives need to be included. This research agenda stretches beyond management of protected areas, since gender perspectives have broad relevance for questions of participation, representation, legitimacy, and power in natural resource 6

229 management. In the following section, this paper will identify a knowledge gap in the literature considering these issues, before developing a framework for how gender can be conceptualized and handled in studies of local participation in conservation management. In the methodology section, the paper will describe when and how the empirical material was developed, before the recent changes in the Norwegian conservation management system are described. In the next section, the findings are presented, and in the final section, these findings and their implications for future research are discussed. Gender in Research on Conservation Management Reed and Mitchell (2003) argued that there is a gender gap in social scientists approaches to natural resource management and decision-making. Most scholars omit gender as an analytical concept, and if they include gender, it is often treated superficially or left unanalyzed. This has resulted in a lack of attention to women as stakeholders, and how gender contributes to shaping political, economic, social, and cultural processes, which in turn affects natural resource management in practice (Reed & Christie, 2009; Reed & Mitchell, 2003). How this influences the complex processes of how natural resources are interpreted, managed, protected, used, and developed remain unexplored in many studies. This is also the case for recent publications about decentralizing Norwegian conservation management. While Brown et al. (2015) briefly discussed gender in a study of how ecosystems are valued, the majority of publications omit gender and gender issues from local participation in Norwegian conservation management (Fauchald & Gulbrandsen, 2012; Fauchald, Gulbrandsen, & Zachrisson, 2014; Getzner, Lange Vik, Brendehaug, & Lane, 2014; Hausner, Brown, & Lægreid, 2015; Hongslo, Hovik, Zachrisson, & Aasen Lundberg, 2016; Hovik & Hongslo, 2016; Overvåg, Skjeggedal, & Sandström, 2016; Risvoll, Fedreheim, Sandberg, & BurnSilver, 2014). However, there is some gender-sensitive research on conservation management in developed countries. In a previous research project on local participation in establishing new protected areas in Norway, Svarstad, Daugstad, Vistad, and Guldvik (2006) found gender imbalance and the lack of women participating to be one of the most striking aspects in two case areas. They therefore made gender a primary focus in the study and found that underrepresentation of women partly arose because women rarely were asked to participate on 7

230 boards and committees. However, they argued that the most important explanation for gender imbalance was found at the national level, since the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and the Norwegian Environmental Agency (NEA) had neglected to take responsibility for gender equality. They had not considered gender equality relevant for these decision-making bodies, even though they had been set up to represent the local communities. Svarstad, Skuland, Guldvik, and Figari (2009) expanded the two case areas to include all local reference groups involved in the implementation of the National Park Plan in Norway, and found a systematic under-representation of women. This led to the conclusion that conservation management was most likely one of the areas where Norwegian gender equality policies were most absent. Despite knowing about the gender imbalance in local natural resource management, the MoE had not prioritized resources for gender equality in their budget, nor were gender issues included in research initiatives funded by the MoE. Svarstad et al. (2009) argued that the Ministry s responsibility for gender mainstreaming within the environmental sector had simply crumbled away. In a similar study from conservation management in the Alps, Schmitt (2014) showed that despite general support for gender equality and openness for greater considerations of gender issues among practitioners, they saw this as optional rather than as a requirement. Schmitt stressed the need to raise awareness of the wider implications of gender perspectives, as they are central to securing social justice at a basic democratic level and not limited to conservation policies. As an analytical category, Schmitt argued that gender can expose barriers that prevent sustainable regional development, and warned against gender-blind approaches to local communities, since internal social differentiation, unequal power relations within the group, and differential participation in development processes are ignored (p. 295). Westberg and Powell (2015), Davidson and Black (2001), and Apple (1996) studied how gender was perceived in environmental agencies, and although they did not specifically focus on conservation management, their findings highlighted the extent and consequences of a male-dominated culture within the agencies that are responsible for protected areas. Apple (1996) showed how a masculine culture developed in the U.S. environmental agencies since these organizations traditionally had employed white males. Davidson and Black (2001) painted a similar picture in a study of women and men employed in Australian national parks and wildlife agencies. They demonstrated how typecasting (what roles were viewed suitable for women and men) resulted in 8

231 women having a higher risk of being channeled into lower-rank positions than men, preventing them from taking roles with higher status and power. Similarly, Westberg and Powell (2015) explored how competencies and tasks were valued within the Swedish environmental agencies. They found that expert knowledge and scientific top-down approaches to environmental management were valued higher than collaborative approaches. They also found that facilitating participatory processes was considered feminine and concluded that these competences could become women s tasks within the agencies. Albeit few, these studies demonstrate that developing a gender perspective in conservation management can provide a critical approach to interoperating previous research, as well as a deeper understanding of how gender and gender relations create and reproduce hierarchies that affect management practices. Developing a Framework for Gender Perspectives Gender studies is a broad theoretical tradition that includes a wide range of theoretical perspectives and approaches to understand how gender is interwoven into complex social, economic, cultural, and environmental processes (Lykke, 2010). Understandings of what gender is and how it affects social practice are not fixed. Rather, they are constantly evolving, and there is no consensus on how gender should be understood or studied. A basic idea has been that since women and men have different experiences and resources to contribute, a greater gender diversity is profitable for the public and private sector (Bjørkhaug & Brandt, 2015). In the debate about gender equality, three different arguments have been used: justice, resources, and interests (Halrynjo & Teigen, 2016; Hernes, 1987). Arguments about justice emphasize equality independent of gender, and women s and men s equal right and opportunity to participate. Dahlerup (2011) argued that Women, thus, do not have to prove whether they are similar or different or whether they will make a difference (p. 148). However, Phillips (1998) underlined that the justice argument involves a shift from descriptive analyses of women s underrepresentation in politics to an analysis of structural discrimination and its injustice. The resource argument relates to diversity and the need to take advantage of both women s and men s potentials, while the interest argument underlines that women s and men s interests often are different, and equal participation can secure that both interests are represented and voiced. 9

232 Visualizing Gender Differences Reed and Mitchell (2003) emphasized four different approaches to developing a feminist framework for studies of natural resource management: counting women, emphasizing gender relations, exploring gender identity, and critically questioning epistemologies. These four approaches can be seen on a continuum from descriptive analysis to critical epistemological queries, questioning the knowledge production in both management practices and scholarly disciplines. Since the dominant research approach to local participation in conservation management is gender-blind, there is a need to begin with the first approach in order to fill the knowledge gap previously identified. Following, this paper will focus on the two first approaches, since these provide a point of departure for the inclusion of gender perspectives by showing how and where to begin. The first approach, to count women in, contributes to revealing systematic exclusion of women in decision-making processes. By making a gender taxonomy, it is possible to demonstrate these structural differences that affect women s and men s opportunities to participate in public debate and policy-making differently. Emphasizing women s participation in environmental policy-making and comparing their representation to men make gender imbalance visible and challenges the use of gender-blind categories, such as stakeholders, hunters, managers, or industry. As Reed and Mitchell (2003) argued, this forces us to gender our data material by including women as actors in the analysis and to not only make their participation (or non-participation) explicit, but also by challenging the privileged male representatives. This is a well-known approach within different social sciences and general studies of women s representation in politics (Egge-Hoveide, 2013; Folkestad, Saglie, & Segaard, 2016; van der Ros, Johansen, & Guldvik, 2010; Wide, 2012). Such studies contribute to making women s relative lower representation in political decision-making visible, and to discussing explanatory factors at different levels. van der Ros et al. (2010) argued that balanced gender representation through gender quotas has to be complemented with an emphasis on integration and redistribution of leadership positions through the concept of gender power balance. While gender balance is reached at the overall level in Norwegian municipal councils or governmental 10

233 appointed committees, they show that men continue to dominate political leadership positions. Focusing on the gendered distribution of political authority, van der Ros et al. (2010) provided a more comprehensive picture of power imbalance, compared simply to examining the gender proportion among elected representatives. However, it is a challenge to avoid assuming uniform conditions for all women, and to reduce women and men to their gender categories. Making women into an explicit focus of the analysis, and emphasizing their representation or non-representations may restrict them in their gender category, since women are always regarded as women representatives or women leaders (Ellingsæter & Solheim, 2002). A problem is that women are ascribed less authority, and their opinions are characterized as something particular that differs from the apparently generic and universal, but male viewpoint. The masculine hegemony is thus not challenged. Furthermore, this approach has also been criticized for resulting in simple corrections to existing practices, rather than fundamental changes to underlying social structures. However, Reed and Mitchell (2003) argued that counting women in is not simply a liberal exercise to extend power to women. Inequities in representation and political participation result in gender-blindness and bias, so issues that affect women differentially are not adequately represented, conceptualized, or addressed in decision-making arenas regarding policy and programs (p. 320). The second approach, focusing on gender relations, opens for a more dynamic and complex perspective on gender compared to the fist approach. It considers the social relationships between women and men, assuming that women s disadvantages arise because of differences between institutions that are numerically and more importantly culturally maledominated. Emphasis shifts from focusing on women and men as individuals to the formal structures and informal practices that affect the relationships between and among them. The descriptive analysis provided by counting and comparing women s position to men s is taken furtherer to explore how social structures and institutions create inequalities. In studies on natural resource management, Reed and Mitchell (2003) argued that this implies a focus on how and by whom practices and policies are established, whether tools and techniques used in the management favor some groups over others. It turns attention to the social institutions (sets of rules and codes of social institutions) that establish resource management practices and lead to different outcomes for men and women (p. 320). 11

234 However, gender is not the only dimension affecting these relationships, and how gender intersects with class, age, ethnicity, abilities, and sexual orientation are included in the third approach through a focus on gender identities. The fourth approach concerns questions related to the theory of science, and can be seen in relation to feminist insight regarding the importance of critically exploring epistemology, with concepts like situated knowledge and partial perspective (Engelstad & Gerrard 2005). The analytical model represents a simplification useful in demonstrating how and where scholars can begin to develop a more gender-sensitive analysis. Reed and Mitchell (2003) located the four approaches in time, and argued for the need to move from simply counting women s representation toward studies of gender roles and identities in different contexts and situations of various environments. However, they recognized that these approaches often coexist within the same research project. This opens for an understanding of the four approaches as different steps in a discovery process of the complex ways gender is played out in different contexts, and how gender is given meaning in different situations. In line with Reed and Mitchell, the first and perhaps simpler or structural approaches need to be carried out before a more complex gender analysis can be mobilized. Even though conceptually simple, the first two approaches make it possible to unveil structural differences that affect women s and men s opportunities to participate in public debate and policy-making. Method The empirical material in this study was developed over a period of 3 years, from 2013 to The study combined a quantitative overview of gender balance on conservation boards and among stakeholder groups with 20 quantitative interviews with local and national actors involved in conservation management. It was easy to get an overview of the gender distribution in the boards and stakeholder groups ( A pattern of gender differences was quickly discovered. Interview material was re-analyzed from a case study of local conservation management in Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella National Park and Setesdal-Vesthei, Ryfylkeheiane (SVR) Landscape Protected Area. At that time, I did not reflect on the skewed gender balance among the interviewees, or the consequences this had for the perspectives of legitimacy, participation and power, which were the research foci. In 18 interviews with 19 local actors, only one was a woman. The majority were middle-aged men with influential positions. I 12

235 had been concerned with covering a wide range of actors as board members, protected area managers, stakeholders, and municipal officials. In this paper, I have supplemented this material with two interviews of representatives from the NEA. These were conducted in 2016; through a relatively open interview guide, I explored how the two representatives understood gender equality and how they interpreted the gender quota requirements. Context: A Local Management Reform of Protected Areas in Norway In 2009, the Norwegian Parliament launched a comprehensive management reform, including all national parks and large conservation areas (St. prp. 1 ( )). Management authority was moved from the County Governor to local conservation boards. All affected municipalities were invited, and a majority 150 municipalities in 16 counties accepted the invitation (Lundberg, Hongslo, Hovik, & Bay-Larsen, 2013). A strong political signal from the MoE has been the desire for the municipalities to nominate politicians with central positions, signaling a high political priority for this policy field. The NEA has appointed 42 conservation boards who are responsible for clusters of national parks, landscape protected areas, and nature reserves. The boards are appointed for a 4-year period and consist of local and regional elected politicians, and Sami representatives where relevant. The only formal criteria the NEA has to follow when appointing the conservation boards is that they have to meet the gender quota requirement in the Gender Equality Act of 1978 (2013), specifying that at least 40% of the members of politically appointed committees, governing bodies, and councils have to be drawn from each sex (Guldvik, 2008). Therefore, the municipalities, counties, and Sami Parliament nominate a male and female candidate; based on these nominations, the NEA appoints a board that meets the gender quota requirements. Through the reform, local stakeholder groups were established to facilitate broad public participation from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private business, and other public agencies. However, they do not have any formal decision-making power. The conservation boards are responsible for appointing these groups, and it is up to the boards who to include and how the stakeholders are involved. 13

236 Women s participation in outdoor activities in Norway has increased since the 1970s, and today the activity level among women and men is approximately equal (Vaage, 2015). However, there remain considerable gender differences in the use of nature (Dervo et al., 2014; Odden, 2009). Men continue to dominate traditional outdoor activities such as fishing and hunting, and adventure seeking activities such as alpine skiing, cycling, climbing, glacier hiking, snowmobiling, and sailing, while women are more active berry and mushroom pickers (Vaage, 2015). Furthermore, men go on longer hikes in the forest and mountains, while women more frequently take shorter trips in outdoor areas in the local community. Results In this section, I first present findings from the quantitative material about gender balance and distribution of positions in the 42 conservation boards, and gender composition among the 35 stakeholder groups, before presenting how actors at national and local levels understood gender and gender equality. Gender Differences Hidden Behind Gender Balance In total, there were 276 members in the 42 conservation boards. The boards size depends on how many municipalities and counties are affected and whether or not the protected areas involve Sami interests. For the period between , 130 of the board members were women (47.1 %). In comparison, 39 % of the Norwegian municipal council members were women after the 2015 local election (Folkestad et al., 2016). However, a closer look at the gender composition among municipal and county representatives challenges this overall gender balance. As Table 1 shows, only 36.8 % of the municipal board members were women. The gender composition among the county representatives was the opposite: 71.2 % of them were women. This demonstrates that there was a systematic gender difference in representation from the municipalities and counties across the 42 boards. Moreover, the demand for gender equality at the overall level was reached through the imbalanced gender composition among municipal and county representatives. 14

237 Table 1 The Gender Composition of the Conservation Boards Representation Men Women Total by Institution Municipality (63.2 %) (36.8 %) County (28.8 %) (71.2%) Sami Parliament (46.2%) (53.8 %) Other 1 1 (25 %) 3 (75 %) 4 Total Out of 40 board leaders, 11 were women (27.5 %) and the remaining 29 were men (72.5%). In comparison, the female proportion of deputy-leaders was somewhat bigger: 14 were women (36.8 %) and 24 were men (63.2 %). Even in boards where women were a majority, the board leader and the deputy-leader representing the municipalities were men. Only one board had a female county representative as the board leader. The stakeholder groups varied considerably in size: In some areas they were small, while others included over 30 representatives from different NGOs, private business, and public agencies. Out of 492 stakeholder group members, only 126 were women (25.6 %). This striking gender imbalance suggests that although gender equality is an issue at the overall level in the composition of the conservation boards, this is not of importance for the stakeholder groups. Gender Equality Seen from the Local Level The conservation boards in the two case areas of Dovrefjell- Sunndalsfjella and SVR reached gender quota requirements and had an uneven gender balance among the municipal and county representatives. Moreover, leaders and deputy leaders were all men and the gender 1 Other interests are represented in three boards: one landowner s association, a Swedish Sami village, and a wild reindeer board. 15

238 imbalance in the stakeholder groups were found in both areas. Across the 18 interviews in the two areas, the commonality was that participation, inclusion of local knowledge, and the management s system legitimacy were not seen in relation to gender equality. The interviewees did not problematize who participated and how the community was represented. The four board members who were interviewed, all male mayors, referred consequently to the local community as a whole and only differentiated when they believed that not all shared their opinions. On two occasions, the interviewees brought up gender. One of them was a female municipal official in one of the municipalities and had an administrative role in the regional wild reindeer management. She drew a parallel to increased women s participation in the wild reindeer boards, and said that she believed it was positive that more women were involved in decision-making processes about natural resource management, and that this increased the diversity among the board members. This could have been an opportunity to explore recent changes due to gender quotas and their effects on gender imbalance, but this was not explored more deeply during this study. Gender Equality Seen from the National Level The starting point for the NEA representatives was that they wanted to respect the municipalities, counties, and Sami Parliament nominations, while at the same time comply with gender quota requirements in each conservation board. In most cases, the NEA received a prioritized order between the main representative and the substitute from the municipalities, counties, and Sami Parliament. If the suggested composition of the entire board did not meet with the gender quotas, the NEA made changes. One of the interviewees estimated that they had made changes in approximately 10 out of the 42 boards for the period. While they had situations where the suggested majority of the board members were women, most cases concerned too many nominated male representatives. One executive officer was responsible for the appointment process of the 42 boards, and this included contacting protected areas managers, municipalities, and counties if they had to make changes. However, direct contact was rare. There were no formal guidelines describing what they should emphasize when changing the nominations, but the interviewee described the approach they had developed: We are not 100% clear about it, but usually it is the country representatives that are changed, or municipalities that are peripheral and that only have a small part of the 16

239 protected area. The municipalities with the largest share of the protected area get their first choice. If the municipalities nominate the mayor, we always try to include the mayors. We would rather change the ranking of ordinary municipal councilors. This is our underlying policy. (Representative for the NEA in interview, September 14, 2016) The interviewee underlined that the MoE had made it clear that they should prioritize board members with central political positions, as mayors and deputy-mayors, in the appointment process. Later in the interview, he also emphasized that they took into account reelection of board members to ensure continuity between the old and new board. However, he stressed that it was only if the board did not comply with the gender quotas that they made changes; unbalanced party composition or a large proportion of new board members were not reasons to make changes. In the interviews, the two representatives repeated that they thought it was not problematic to comply with the gender quota requirements, and that they made changes when needed. When asked about what consequences gender balance had, and told that more women participate in conservation management compared to earlier times, one of them said, I do not want to speculate. I do not have the qualifications to do that. I do not dare to make assumptions about that [gender] (Representative for the NEA in interview, September 14, 2016). This statement reflected that the representative primarily emphasized gender as a question of reaching the gender quota requirements, referred to as the 40% demand throughout the interview. So far, this had been easily solvable through making changes among county representatives, as one representative expressed. My impression from these interviews was that the interviewees framed gender and gender equality as a technical issue: Either the boards complied with the gender quotas or they did not; and if they did not, the NEA had to make changes. The interviewees did not reflect on gender and gender equality in a broader sense, and furthermore they did not mention the unbalanced distribution of leadership positions. Discussion The findings show that visualizing gender difference, as argued by Reed and Mitchell (2003), is a useful point of departure to challenge the dominant gender-blindness in studies of local participation in conservation management. As shown, the conservation boards complied 17

240 with the gender quota requirements in the Gender Equality Act of 1978 (2013); compared to other findings (Svarstad et al., 2006; Svarstad et al., 2009). This unveils that there has been a positive development resulting in increased gender equality regarding local participation in conservation management. Bråtå, Alnes, and Lerfald (2011) found a similar development in the regional wild reindeer boards after a reform of the management system that made these boards into governmental bodies with similar appointment processes as the conservation boards. This demonstrates the importance of introducing the Gender Equality Act of 1978 (2013) in the field of natural resource management, and applying it to the NEA s appointment processes. Despite development towards gender equality in the conservation boards, conservation management continues to be a male-dominated field: Men are in majority in most conservation boards, and they hold the majority of leadership positions. The systematic gender imbalance among municipal and county representatives contributes to reproducing male dominance. To put it simply, the conservation boards consist of local men who represent influential municipalities, and non-local women representing remote counties both geographically and politically. It was the municipalities and not the counties that were the most significant actors in the public debate resulting in the management reform of Due to the central position, the municipalities comprised the majority in all the conservation boards. The result is thus that men primarily represent the most significant actors on the boards, while women represent the less influential counties. The systematic gender imbalance in distribution of positions on conservation boards follows a general pattern of gender power imbalance in distribution of positions in Norwegian municipalities (van der Ros et al., 2010; Wide, 2012). Discrepancies between the proportion of women elected to municipal councils and leadership positions has remained constant during the last 30 years in Norway at around 15%, compared to approximately 20% in the conservation boards. van der Ros et al. (2010) explained municipal variances with the proportion of women in local councils as party ideology and party-based gender sensitivity. However, contextual features like region, size, and centrality were also important. In rural municipalities where less gendersensitive parties were in majority, men were favored when assigning political positions. They concluded that gender equality was a modern project, and that the central-peripheral dimension in Norwegian politics affected the gender distribution of political leadership positions. Therefore, 18

241 it is not surprising that the majority of board leaders were men, since the majority of municipalities with large protected areas are rural. Although unintended, I will argue that the MoE s explicit desire for the municipalities to nominate board members that were mayors and deputy mayors, has additionally contributed to reinforce these gender differences. In contrast to the overall gender balance on conservation boards, the gender imbalance in the stakeholder groups was also striking. This demonstrated that natural resource management continues to be a male dominated field, and confirmed persistent gender differences in participation and representation at the local level, in line with other findings (Svarstad et al., 2006; Svarstad et al., 2009). In addition, the gender imbalance shows that gender is not an issue when it comes to who represents the local communities and how the interests of the community best can be reflected. Rather, representation is framed as a question of inclusion for different stakeholder groups and governmental agencies. Diversity is reached through a mix of different interests and user groups. Diversity is not framed in terms of gender and the different interests and resources women and men can contribute. Despite considerable gender differences in participation in local conservation management, neither actors at the local level nor representatives from the NEA considered these important in the context of local management of protected areas. This demonstrates my initial gender-blindness and failure to explore gender issues; when two of the interviewees actually brought them up, they also uncovered gender-blindness as a broader societal phenomenon within the field of natural resource management. Even though I asked the interviewees about participation, community involvement, inclusion of local knowledge, legitimacy, and success criteria for local management, gender equality was not regarded as a relevant issue. This underlines that they did not consider gender imbalance in participation and distribution of positions as problematic, and further, they did not question male dominance. Rather, the masculine hegemony was taken for granted. This demonstrates that gender-blindness is not limited to the institutions in the management system (i.e., the NEA or local authorities); rather, it is a societal challenge, since systematic gender imbalance and under-representation of women seems to be unproblematic. Gender imbalance is not framed as a challenge for the local management system s legitimacy; the possible resources, alternative perspectives and agendas, experiences, and questions women could have contributed remain absent. This reflects a 19

242 dominant masculine hegemony, where existing gender differences in the use of nature (e.g., hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling) contribute to reinforce the status quo. The legal framework has increased women s representation and contributed to gender balance. However, the NEA s practice of it remains indifferent. Reaching the 40% demand has been unproblematic, according to the interviewees, which shows that gender equality does not have wider implications. The gender imbalance in the stakeholder groups and in leadership serves as an illustration of the opposite. The conservation boards do not take an active role in ensuring gender equality. I will argue that if the NEA had taken their responsibility for gender mainstreaming more seriously, a striking gender imbalance in the groups intended to represent and reflect the local community would have been a concern. Reducing gender equality to a technicality reachable through compliance with gender quotas illustrates Alnebratt and Rönnblom's (2016) argument about how gender equality has been de-politicized and handed over to bureaucrats. The paradox is that while everyone agrees on the need for gender equality, the underlying mechanisms crating these inequalities are not addressed. Although the NEA takes gender quota requirements seriously, the activity requirement in the Gender Equality Act of 1978 (2013) is disregarded, which states that Public authorities shall make active, targeted, and systematic efforts to promote gender equality. In the view of the representatives from the NEA, gender equality is limited to the appointment process of the boards that take place every fourth year. This paper draws primarily on quantitative material that gives an overview of the gender differences on conservation boards and stakeholder groups. While the interview material to some extent contributes to understanding these gender differences, there are limitations with this overall approach in this study. An important constraint is that visualizing gender differences provides few opportunities to explore and explain why these differences occur in different local contexts. Moreover, studying how gender has been played out in specific decision-making processes has not been possible. Emphasizing men and women as distinct categories is the opposite of a flexible and relational understanding of gender, as West and Zimmerman (1987) so influentially have argued. The need for relational and contextual understanding of gender in natural resource management must be broadly emphasized. 20

243 Conclusion This paper provided a point of departure for theorizing and exploring gender in the context of local participation in conservation management. By making persistent gender differences visible, this paper challenged the gender-blindness of both scholars and practitioners. The gender gap that I have identified in the literature, combined with the fact that local and national actors take the masculine hegemony for granted, underline the need to make gender a primary focus in future research. Furthermore, I believe Reed and Mitchell s (2003) fourth approach can be of particular importance to critically and reflexively question knowledge production within the field. Feminist scholars have debated epistemological issues extensively, and concepts such as situatedness and partial perspectives (Engelstad & Gerrard, 2005) can provide useful insights to critically approach questions of whose knowledge is included in conservation management, and how local and experience-based knowledge is valued and assessed in relation to scientific knowledge. Further empirical work is needed to explore how conservation management and decisionmaking on the boards are affected by increased women s participation. Questions that remain unanswered are: How does the domination of men impact on natural resource management? Do management practices change, or are women forced into existing masculine structures and social norms already established in the field? Does a more diverse composition in conservation boards and among stakeholder groups challenge the masculine hegemony, or does it prevail despite gender balance? The systematic gender differences found in this study show that, despite gender quotas, gender inequality and the masculine hegemony in the field are reproduced rather than transformed. Reducing justice, interests, and resource arguments for gender equality to a technicality solvable through complying with a fixed percentage makes it difficult to see how gender inequality regarding local participation in conservation management will be addressed, both at local and national level. Putting gender equality on the agenda and inviting other researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers into conversations about the broad value of gender perspectives in natural resource management is an important first step. 21

244 References Alnebratt, K., & Rönnblom, M. (2016). Feminism som byråkrati. Stockholm: Leopard förlag. Apple, D. (1996). Changing social and legal forces affecting the management of national forests. Women in Natural Resources, 18(1), Bjørkhaug, H., & Brandt, B. (2015). Litt Jane og litt Tarzan: Om makt og innflytelse i landbrukssamvirkets styrerom. In G. Alsos, H. Bjørkhaug, A. Bolsø, & E. Ljunggren (Eds.), Kjønn og næringsliv i Norge. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Brown, G., Hausner, V. H., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Olszańska, A., Peek, B.,... Lægreid, E. (2015). Cross-cultural values and management preferences in protected areas of Norway and Poland. Journal for Nature Conservation, 28, doi: /j.jnc Bråtå, H. O., Alnes, P. K., & Lerfald, M. G. (2011). Villreinnemndene: en evaluering av deres struktur og funksjon. Lillehammer: Østlandsforskning. Dahlerup, D. (2011). Engendering representative democracy. In S. Alonso, J. Keane, & W. Merkel (Eds.), The Future of Representative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Davidson, P., & Black, R. (2001). Women in natural resource management: Finding a more balanced perspective. Society & Natural Resources, 14, Dervo, B. K., Skår, M., Köhler, B., Øian, H., Vistad, O. I., Andersen, O., & Gundersen, V. (2014). Friluftsliv i Norge anno 2014 status og utfordringer. NINA Rapport Lillehammer: NINA. Egge-Hoveide, K. (2013). Indikatorer for kjønnslikestilling i kommunene. Likestilling avhengig av hvor vi bor. Samfunnsspeilet (3), Ellingsæter, A. L., & Solheim, J. (2002) Den Usynlige hånd? Kjønnsmakt og moderne arbeidsliv. Makt- og demokratiutredningen. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Engelstad, E., & Gerrard, S. (2005). Challenging situatedness: Gender, culture, and the production of knowledge. Delft: Eburon. Fauchald, O. K., & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2012). The Norwegian reform of protected area management: A grand experiment with delegation of authority? Local Environment, 17(2), doi: / Fauchald, O. K., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Zachrisson, A. (2014). Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: Examining pathways of influence in similar countries. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services, & Management, 10(3), doi: / Folkestad, B., Saglie, J., & Segaard, S. B. (2016). Kvinner i lokalpolitikk En statusevaluering. Oslo: Institutt for samfunnsforskning. Gender Equality Act of June nr. 45 (2013). 22

245 Getzner, M., Lange Vik, M., Brendehaug, E., & Lane, B. (2014). Governance and management strategies in national parks: Implications for sustainable regional development. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 6(1 2), Guldvik, I. (2008). Gender and quota discourses in Norwegian politics. In E. Magnusson, M. Rönnblom, & H. Silius (Eds.), Critical Studies of Gender Equalities: Nordic Dislocations, Dilemmas and Contradictions (94 111). Göteborg: Makadam Publishers. Halrynjo, S., & Teigen, M. (2016). Ulik likestilling i arbeidslivet. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Hausner, V. H., Brown, G., & Lægreid, E. (2015). Effects of land tenure and protected areas on ecosystem services and land use preferences in Norway. Land Use Policy, 49, doi: /j.landusepol Hernes, H. M. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Holmgren, L., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2016). Protected area governance in Sweden: New modes of governance or business as usual? Local Environment, 22(1), doi: / Hongslo, E., Hovik, S., Zachrisson, A., & Aasen Lundberg, A. K. (2016). Decentralization of conservation management in Norway and Sweden: Different translations of an international trend. Society & Natural Resources, 29(8), doi: / Hovik, S., & Hongslo, E. (2016). Balancing local interests and national conservation obligations in nature protection: The case of local management boards in Norway. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, doi: / Lundberg, A. K. A., Hongslo, E., Hovik, S., & Bay-Larsen, I. (2013). Hva skjer i den nye lokale forvaltningsmodellen for verneområder? En forskningsstatus. Tidsskriftet Utmark, 13(1). Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology, and writing (Vol. 1). New York: Routledge. Neis, B., Gerrard, S., & Power, N. G. (2013). Women and children first: The gendered and generational social-ecology of smaller-scale fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador and Northern Norway. Ecology and Society, 18(4), pp. 64. doi: /es Odden, A. (2009). Hva skjer med norsk friluftsliv? En studie av utviklingstrekk i norsk friluftsliv Trondheim: NTNU, Fakultet for samfunnsvitenskap og teknologiledelse, Geografisk institutt. Overvåg, K., Skjeggedal, T., & Sandström, C. (2016). Management of mountain areas in Norway and the persistence of local national conflicts. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(7), doi: / Phillips, A. (1998). Feminism and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Plummer, R., Armitage, D., & de Loë, R. C. (2013). Adaptive co-management and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 18(1):21. 23

246 Reed, M. G., & Christie, S. (2009). Environmental geography: We're not quite home reviewing the gender gap. Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), Reed, M. G., & Mitchell, B. (2003). Gendering environmental geography. The Canadian Geographer, 47(3), Richardson, K., Sinclar, A. J., Reed, M. G., & Parkins, J. R. (2011). Constraints to participation in Canadian forestry advisory committees: A gendered perspective. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 41(3), Risvoll, C., Fedreheim, G. E., Sandberg, A., & BurnSilver, S. (2014). Does pastoralists' participation in the management of national parks in Northern Norway contribute to adaptive governance? Ecology and Society, 19(2). doi: /es Schmitt, M. (2014). Gender awareness in European alpine protected-area management: Achievements, shortcomings, and the way forward. Mountain Research and Development, 34(3), doi: /mrd-journal-d St. prp. 1 ( ). Statsbudsjettet for budsjettåret Oslo: Regjeringen. Svarstad, H., Daugstad, K., Vistad, O. I., & Guldvik, I. (2006). New protected areas in Norway: Local participation without gender equality. Mountain Research and Development, 26(1), doi: / (2006)026[0048:npainl]2.0.co;2 Svarstad, H., Skuland, S., Guldvik, I., & Figari, H. (2009). Fraværet av likestilling i lokal naturforvaltning: Nasjonalparkplanen som eksempel NINA Rapport 432. Oslo: Norsk institutt for naturforskning. Vaage, O. F. (2015). Fritidsaktiviteter Barn og voksnes idrettsaktiviteter, friluftsliv og kulturaktiviteter. Resultater fra Levekårsundersøkelsene. Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyrå. van der Ros, J., Johansen, V., & Guldvik, I. (2010). Fra folkevalgt til utvalgt: Kjønn, makt og kjønnsmaktbalanse. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 2010, 51(2), Varghese, J., & Reed, M. G. (2012). Theorizing the implications of gender order for sustainable forest management. International Journal of Forestry Research, pp doi: /2012/ West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), Westberg, L., & Powell, S. (2015). Participate for women's sake? A gender analysis of a Swedish collaborative environmental management project. Society & Natural Resources, 28(11), doi: / Wide, J. (2012). Kvinnorepresentationen i Norges kommuner Vad förklarar den rumsliga variationen? Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 53(3), Wondolleck, J.M. & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington DC: Island Press 24

247 PAPER 4: The consequences of avoiding conflict: lessons from conservation planning for Europe s last wild reindeer.

248 2

249 The consequences of avoiding conflict: lessons from conservation planning for Europe s last wild reindeer. Authors: First author: Aase Kristine Lundberg (corresponding author), Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway. (New affiliation from May 2017: Nordland Research Institute, Bodø, Norway). Contact details. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postboks 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway. aase.kristine.lundberg@nmbu.no. Second author: Eirin Hongslo (deceased). Formerly at Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway. Third author: Tim Richardson, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway. Contact details. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postboks 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway. tim.richardson@nmbu.no. Acknowledgement. This paper is an output from the research project 'Regional planning and wild reindeer management'. This work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council, as a part of the 'Environment 2015' programme, under project number

250 Abstract This paper seeks to contribute to debates on the potential for conservation planning to engage actively with conflict. Current research in conservation planning generally approaches conflict by concentrating on the challenges of securing agreement and consensus. Recent planning literature advocates approaches that are more open to conflict. In the analysis of a Norwegian regional planning process for wild reindeer conservation, Heiplan, we examine how planning authorities handled conflict, and in particular how planning documents portrayed conflicts expressed during the planning process. Findings show that the aim of reaching regional consensus limited the scope of planning, and led to the exclusion of difficult issues and opposing views. Instead of engaging actively with conflict, the planning authority framed opposing positions as unplannable, and failed to recognise them as legitimate. This contributed to weakening of the legitimacy of the regional plan when put to the test. Keywords Conflict; soft spaces; conservation planning; regional planning; Norway 4

251 1. Introduction: new legitimacy concerns in conservation planning One of Norway s most intractable conservation conflicts relates to its wild reindeer population. Whilst strongly protected inside national parks, wild reindeer have been adversely affected by development pressures and human activity outside them. This has led to the creation of regional plans for the long-term protection of wild reindeer in Norway s mountain areas. In this paper, we analyse one of these regional planning processes, to contribute to broader debates about how conflict might be more adequately understood, and more explicitly acknowledged, in conservation planning. Recognition of and engagement with conflict is receiving renewed attention in planning literature. This attention revolves around an increasingly prevalent postpolitical critique, that planning processes involving deliberation and participation oriented towards consensus actually contribute to the depoliticisation of planning, marginalising conflicts by choreographing, or suppressing and displacing them (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2012; Raco & Lin, 2012; Žižek, 1999). From this kind of perspective, what appears as consensus in planning may be the result of political acts of exclusion, rather than the product of rational deliberation (Mouffe, 1999), and may contribute to conflicts becoming persistent, and surfacing elsewhere, beyond the institutions and processes of planning. In response, recent contributions by Gualini and colleagues (Gualini, 2015a; Gualini et al., 2015) suggest that planning, and planners, need to reintroduce conflict, in a repoliticisation of planning. Rather than constructing processes, or otherwise acting, to mediate or avoid conflicts, professional planners should engage directly with conflict. They should seek to reactivate conflict within planning, whilst recognising the complex relations between the handling of conflict in planning, and the manifestation of conflicts through insurgent practices and movements in society more generally. Though conflict has been a familiar and longstanding focus, this kind of postpolitical critique has been focused very much on urban contexts, and on spatial planning systems generally, and has so far attracted limited attention in the rather different context of nature conservation planning. Current research generally approaches conflict by concentrating more pragmatically on the challenges of managing and mediating conflict towards agreement and consensus. The 5

252 tendency, based on analysis of processes and conflicts, has been to argue for better understanding of conflicts, to more effectively manage or resolve them, often through improved participatory or deliberative approaches (e.g. Mann & Absher, 2008; Nepal & Weber, 1995; Redpath et al., 2015; Stepanova, 2013). The focus has been very much on how process and practice can be improved. In view of this, we identify a need for research that examines the relevance of the kinds of critique introduced above, to the handling of contemporary challenges in nature conservation planning. Here we see two key characteristics of conservation planning that intersect when seeking to understand conflict from such a critical perspective. These concern, firstly, the very particular governance arrangements for formal protected areas, and, secondly, the need to work beyond the limits of these areas when handling many actual conservation challenges, necessarily engaging with spatial governance systems that are weaker and not necessarily well designed for such purposes. The first characteristic, then, is the existence of much more rigid frameworks for management and planning of protected areas, regulated by law, given high national and international status, and informed by expert knowledges of ecology and landscape. Contemporary democratisation and governance reforms introduce new challenges of representation and participation to the institutions governing protected areas. A notable contribution here is Celata and Sanna s (2012) analysis of protected area planning in the Galápagos Islands. They posit protected areas as paradigmatic examples of post-political spaces where universal moral imperatives and the overwhelming role of scientific knowledge reduce the possibility for disagreement, and make traditional political means useless (2012: 977). This line of inquiry leads to fresh empirical questions about whether politics and conflict are suppressed and displaced, in struggles between traditional expert-driven, top-down approaches and experiments in participatory governance. The second characteristic concerns the question of scaling of governance attention. Conservation planning, in part, seeks to handle conservation issues at scales that transgress the borders of protected areas for example protecting dispersed and fragmented habitats for migrating wildlife. Here, when the strong(er) powers of protected areas cannot be brought to bear on protecting habitat across large territories, there may be recourse to more general 6

253 planning approaches, which may be less well tuned to act on conservation issues, or less strongly institutionalised 1. The issue, then, is of what in spatial planning literature has been referred to as planning for soft spaces (Haughton et al., 2010), understood as newly created subnational spatial identities around which new possibilities for planning are being explored. Soft spaces, then, are seen in contrast to hard spaces of planning, which are aligned with formal boundaries of government. Within conservation planning we can understand formally protected areas as hard conservation planning spaces, and initiatives across boundaries at larger scales, as soft conservation planning spaces. Institutional arrangements in soft planning spaces are generally fuzzy in nature, often informal, perhaps experimental, reliant on collaborative governance, and often rather opaque in practice. These twin characteristics combine to create thorny legitimacy problems for nature conservation governance. The governance of formal protected areas is increasingly subject to a strong critique, internationally, because of its hierarchical imposition of expert driven knowledge, and exclusion of the voices and interests of many stakeholders and communities in decision-making. This has led, in many countries, to governance reforms towards more locally accountable and participatory structures. Yet, planning in soft spaces leaves these new structures behind, and takes place under less well-defined arrangements, where it is much less clear what processes are in play, and who is collaborating on what. This leads to different kinds of legitimacy concerns, particularly concerning accountability. When conservation planning takes place across these kinds of hard and soft spaces, multiple legitimacy challenges are raised. From a postpolitical perspective the concern is that, whether conservation planning is expert-driven and hierarchical, or participatory and deliberative, conflict may be either suppressed, or facilitated out in the mediated search for consensus. And when this happens in soft spaces, these effects may be even less open to participation and scrutiny. Although planning systems in principle open for expression of different views through formalised participation schemes, in practice this openness depends on whether these interests are regarded as legitimate by plan makers, and how they are handled throughout the decision- 1 See also Skjeggedal & Clemetsen, 2017, for a discussion of this issue in a Norwegian context, with reference to protected areas and regional parks. 7

254 making process. Even if a planning process fulfils all formal participatory requirements, there are risks both for explicit and implicit exclusion of actors as well as topics (Connelly & Richardson, 2004). This underlines the need to study specific planning contexts in detail, and not make prior assumptions about inclusion or exclusion based only on the presence or absence of participatory schemes. Rather, it is necessary to examine the fine grain of participatory practice. This suggests a need for in-depth research on how conservation conflicts are handled across complex conservation governance settings. Here, we see a need for research that examines the practices of mediation, suppression and avoidance of conflict, but is also sensitive to the possibility, on the other hand, that conflict may be explicitly accepted and tolerated (Gill et al., 2012). More particularly, across the literature introduced so far, there has been less attention on how the conflicts that are present in planning events get communicated in documents that are generated in these planning processes; on how conflicts are handled in the writing of plans. Are differences, antagonisms, agonisms and conflicts written explicitly into working documents, draft and final plans, or are they erased as consensual narratives are assembled? The aim of this paper is to contribute to the literature on conflict in conservation planning, through empirical analysis of the subtle mechanisms of exclusion and power operating in soft conservation planning. In the analysis of a regional planning process for wild reindeer conservation ( Heiplan ), we focus on how actors explicitly express conflict, and how the planning authorities handle these expressions in terms of active engagement or simple suppression. In particular, we examine how planning documents portray and reflect conflicts expressed during the planning process. This kind of research, that broadens its scope beyond protected areas, and engages with multiple levels of governance, has been called for by Overvåg et al. (2016). Overall, we are interested in the conservation planning system s capacity to engage actively with conflict and, perhaps, how conflict can be understood a productive and transformative force, rather than as a destructive and paralysing social phenomenon that must be fixed or removed. 8

255 2. Background: regional planning in Norway, and Heiplan The Heiplan case is located in the Setesdal (see Figure 1), in southern Norway; an area with a history of controversial nature protection processes, and a legacy of unresolved conflict (Falleth & Hovik, 2006, 2013; Hongslo & Lundberg, 2012). We selected the Heiplan case since it was one of the first Norwegian regional conservation planning processes, initiated in This provided the opportunity to follow a regional planning process to its completion in 2012, and to explore its subsequent interpretation and application in local land use planning. Shortly after the Heiplan was adopted in 2012 (Aust-Agder County et al., 2012b), plans to develop a wind power project - in what the regional plan defined as the strictest zone - challenged the plan. The wind power project stirred up a conflict about the reindeers wildness, which actors in the region had brought to the surface at different stages during the wild reindeer planning process. We analysed these two episodes: first, the making of the Heiplan regional plan for wild reindeer conservation, and second, the handling of the windfarm development proposal. Through detailed analysis of these two planning episodes, we consider the capacity for regional conservation planning in Norway to handle conflict, and its ability to recognise conflicts and disputes when documenting decision-making processes. 9

256 Figure 1 The regional plan for Setesdal Austhei, Ryfylkeheiane and Setesdal Austhei the Heiplan with the wind power proposal in Bygland municipality 10