LAND: Local ideals, models and pratice in natural resource management. Does local managmenet matter?

LOCALMAN addresses several forms of local government in Norway. There is an international trend towards decentralization of natural resource management. This trend has reached Norway, and it has impact on local administrative forms. In our project, we analyze two recent examples of decentralization, namely the local management model for Norwegian protected areas and regional parks. The local management model for Norwegian protected areas is a model for management of large conservation areas, previously managed by the state. Regional parks are the result of initiatives that have come from below, and the goal is to achieve more cooperation between municipalities on place-based economic development. We have preliminary results on several levels in LOCALMAN. A comparative study of Swedish and Norwegian national park management, we find that although the national management in Norway and Sweden were similar before decentralization, the decentralization in both countries have rendered them quite different in recent years. Firstly, the extent of decentralization in Norwegian protected areas much larger than in Sweden. Currently, three Swedish protected areas added on to local government, while Norway carried out a reform that includes all large protected areas. Second, the form the decentralization has taken differ. In Norway, the management is decentralized to boards consisting of politicians from affected municipalities and counties. Sweden, on the other hand has chosen a privatized decentralization. Local management boards include political representatives from both municipalities and from the county, but they also encompass representatives from industry and other private actors. The Swedes thus have a co-management model that is different from the Norwegian model. Through Localman we have conducted a study on how local management of protected areas in Norway play out in practice. Although management is decentralized, conservation boards have received limited authority, and conservation regulations are unchanged. Nevertheless, local and regional politicians participating on the boards express great satisfaction that management with decentralization. In addition, people in rural areas find that it makes sense that management is at the regional level (in cooperation between politicians), and not by the county governor/NEA. There are some reefs in the sea, however. A major challenge has been that boards have spent considerable time on pure administrative tasks (snowmobile permits and building permits) and much less on strategic work (management plans and business development). We have also examined the democratic anchoring of the new management model. At the local level, politicians hold that the work in the conservation area boards are well anchored locally, despite the fact that they have little consultation with the rest of the council and seldom orients them afterwards. Organizations and others (who do not sit on the boards) do not experience that the model is well anchored. At county level, the picture is slightly different. Here both politicians and other stakeholders perceive that the model is poorly anchored in the county council. This may affect the success of the model in the future. Researchers in the project have studied the differences and similarities between regional parks in Norway and Switzerland. In Norway, regional parks have emerged as local and regional initiatives to place-based economic development, but has not gained a place in the management structure. In Switzerland, however, regional parks are more established. There, regional parks were included in a new Nature Diversity Act in 2008, which has resulted in regional parks as well as business development in connection with conservation areas a higher status. Finally, one of our studies look at how future management of mountain areas can contribute to more comprehensive and dynamic local economic development. Two case studies from regional parks and two from large protected areas show that both management models are visible in mountainous areas, but only to a certain extent. The study proposes three changes in management that can make the management regimes more visible and lead to lasting changes. Firstly, one should include local economic development as a specific objective in conservation regulations. Secondly, one should transfer the conservation part of the Nature Diversity Act (NDA) to the Planning and Building Act (PBA). And finally, one may use regional parks as a framework for integrated and decentralized development within the frameworks of NDA and PBA.

Nature resource management is often characterised with high level of conflicts.There are strong tensions between the local and (inter)national level in management and between interest groups in interpreation of sustainable developent and was does local pa rticiaption means. However, neither local participation nor sustainable development are clearly and well defined terms. This project aims to develop new knowledge on local managament, compare local management models and develop models for adaptiv manageme nt. We ask: What forms of local management approach is to be found in international literature? What are the advantages and drawbacks of different models? To what extent does local management manage to solve conflicts and find a sustainable balance betw een protection and development? How can new and dynamic models based on adaptive management improve local management, sustainable development and participation? The research is interdisiplinary and includes a post doctor fellowship. The research group is mulit-disiplinary. In the empirical research we will compare different management models such as local regional parks and local management of protected areas in mountain regions in Norway. The cases will be compared with co-management models as in Alaksa and local participation in state management as in Sweden and regional parks/adaptiv management in Switzerland. The research is organized in three modules: A critical approach to different management models; A comparison of management models and its prac tice in Norway and Sweden; where we also learn from adaptive models in Switzerland; Development of adaptive management models. The project gives high attention to dissemination. The dissemation of the researh will cover scientific articles, popular articl es, training of all user groups and students as well as arrangement of/particiaption in conferences and seminars.