Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries

Ole Kristian Fauchald; Lars H. Gulbrandsen; Anna Zachrisson

doi:10.1080/21513732.2014.938122

Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries

Fauchald, Ole Kristian; Gulbrandsen, Lars H.; Zachrisson, Anna 2014-07-03 00:00:00 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2014 Vol. 10, No. 3, 240–252, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.938122 Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries a a b Ole Kristian Fauchald *, Lars H. Gulbrandsen and Anna Zachrisson a b Fridtjof Nansen Institute, P. O. Box 326, 1326 Lysaker, Norway; Department of Political Science, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden This study examines differences in how international regimes for the establishment and management of protected areas have been implemented in Norway and Sweden. We focus on regulatory and normative pathways of international influence, which mirror the distinction between legal and non-legal regimes in international environmental law. Sweden and Norway have essentially responded similarly to the regulatory regimes that apply to both countries. The more normative regimes have influenced them in different ways – primarily by strengthening traditional nature conservation norms in Sweden, and norms about sustainable use by local communities in Norway. The findings indicate that the normative pathway is important mainly as a support for domestic policies that correspond to existing national norms and discourses, and they support the proposition that a high degree of regulatory hardness contributes to increase the level and consistency of implementation. Keywords: international agreements; local management; nature conservation; Norway; protected areas; Sweden 1. Introduction humans is minimized through central management. Increasingly, however, it is recognized that local popula- The aim of this article is to examine differences and tions need to be involved (see, e.g., Agrawal & Ribot similarities in how international regimes for the establish- 1999; Lane 2001; Zachrisson 2009a). International con- ment and management of protected areas have been imple- ventions and decisions highlight the importance of local mented in Norway and Sweden, and to discuss how participation in protected area management (e.g. Article regulatory and normative regimes influence national pol- 8(j) of the CBD), and the IUCN has promoted the use of icy decisions. Several international conventions promote various modes of governance and the recognition of the the conservation of biodiversity through the designation of rights of local communities (IUCN 2013b). But a major protected areas. The most important at the global level is challenge remains: how to combine the safeguarding of the UN Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992). long-term conservation values with the rights and interests Further, the Ramsar Convention (1971) concerns the pre- of local communities and other groups? There is still a servation of important wetlands, the World Heritage long way to go before appropriate management structures Convention (WHC, 1972) provides for the conservation are in place that can satisfy the diverging needs placed on of natural heritage for future generations, and the Bern many landscapes (Hovik et al. 2010; Fauchald & Convention (1979) establishes duties for European coun- Gulbrandsen 2012). Specifically, not enough is known tries to conserve natural habitats of wild flora and fauna. about the influence of international commitments on The EU Natura 2000 network follows up the Bern domestic policy change. While questions of traditional Convention. These conventions set legal obligations to nature conservation and participation by local commu- establish protected areas and to achieve effectiveness of nities have been much discussed, there have been few protected areas as measured against conservation objec- studies that attempt to assess how states interpret and tives. In addition, more extensive political commitments implement international commitments in these issue-areas. have been undertaken under these agreements. For Our study seeks to address this research lacuna by instance, the CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets prescribe examining international influences on domestic policy that 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10% change in Sweden and Norway. We have selected these of coastal and marine areas, should be ‘conserved through two neighbouring Scandinavian countries not only effectively and equitably managed, ecologically represen- because of their many similarities, but also in view of tative and well-connected systems of protected areas’ by the palpable differences concerning the development of 2020 (Target No. 11). Moreover, the International Union protected area policies and the fact that Sweden is a for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is highly influential in member of the EU and required to implement Natura setting conservation standards, not least through its classi- 2000 while Norway is not. The two countries share habi- fication system for protected areas, recognized by the UN tats for many species and have fairly similar political and and by many national governments (IUCN 2013a). administrative systems. Historically, the management of Traditional nature conservation policy has aimed to protected areas was centralized in both countries; goals preserve an ideal state of nature where interference by *Corresponding author. E-mail: okf@fni.no © 2014 Taylor & Francis International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 241 were set by the Ministry of the Environment and imple- on the influence of international regimes on domestic mented by national and regional state authorities. This has policies. been changing in both Sweden and Norway over the past two decades (Hovik et al. 2010), but not in the same way. Sweden was a frontrunner in establishing protected 2. Two pathways of international influence on areas and has a rather good record in adopting interna- domestic policies tional protection status. Europe’s first national parks were According to the literature on the effectiveness of interna- established in Sweden in 1909, and much of the protected tional environmental regimes, pathways of international area surface in Sweden is under internationally recognized influence on domestic policy change may be understood protection. But Sweden has been rather slow in imple- as being regulatory, normative or cognitive (e.g. menting local management, at least in comparison with Hasenclever et al. 1997; Breitmeier et al. 2006). These Norway. A mere 13.4% of Sweden’s protected areas were pathways of influence may occur simultaneously or inde- in 2011 registered as managed by a municipality, an asso- pendently. By pathway of influence we mean the way ciation or foundation (Statistics Sweden 2012), and in only international environmental regimes influence domestic a few cases have representatives of local communities rules and management systems for protected areas. In been involved, as with the designation of Fulufjället our definition, such pathways may work through formal National Park (Zachrisson 2009b). This contrasts with adoption of international commitments by a state party or the expectations of the Swedish people: a survey con- through more informal adoption of international guidelines ducted in 2004 showed that 65% supported local or co- and recommendations. Hence, we focus on what we here management of protected areas (Zachrisson 2008). refer to as the regulatory and normative pathways, which Norway established its first national park only in 1962, mirror the distinction between legal (‘hard law’) and non- but has since established a large number of protected legal (‘soft law’) norms in international environmental law areas. It has been quick to ratify relevant conventions, This may also serve as a (see, e.g., Bodansky 2010). but sometimes slow to implement them. With regard to template for examining the influence of international local participation, Norway has become a frontrunner in regimes pertaining to protected areas – here understood devolving responsibility for protected areas, with manage- as global and regional conventions and institutions estab- ment extensively delegated to political bodies at the muni- lished by the conventions – on domestic rules and man- cipal and regional levels (Fauchald & Gulbrandsen 2012). agement systems for protected areas. An international To what extent and how do the different approaches to regime may have both regulatory and normative effects, the establishment of and management of protected areas and their relative importance will vary among regimes. relate to international commitments? One objective of the present study is to describe differences in how interna- tional commitments, which demand both conservation by 2.1. The regulatory pathway means of protected areas and devolution of their manage- ment, are interpreted and implemented in Norway and The regulatory pathway highlights the influence of binding Sweden. Another objective is to examine why such differ- rules in global and regional regimes (Hasenclever et al. ences occur, and thus to contribute to the understanding of 1997). The logic of this pathway is that states can be expected how states respond to international commitments. to comply with international conventions to which they have In investigating international influence on domestic given their formal consent. Compliance may be ensured by policy change, we adopt a three-pronged approach. First, enforcement or facilitation, or by a combination of the two we examine international legal obligations and political approaches. In the literature on international environmental commitments pertaining to protected area management in regimes, a distinction is frequently made between the enfor- Sweden and Norway, ranking them in terms of their legal cement approach and the managerial approach to compliance ‘hardness’. Second, we systematically examine Swedish with international conventions. Proponents of the enforce- and Norwegian reports to the relevant international institu- ment approach argue that compliance with international con- tions, to determine what is reported, and how. Third, we ventions must be enforced through systems of monitoring, examine domestic laws and regulations as well as nature reporting and verification and some form of punitive action protection inventories and reports to supplement the ana- for noncompliance. By contrast, proponents of the manage- lysis of national reports to the international institutions. rial approach argue that information sharing, technical and The archival research includes detailed examination of financial assistance, implementation support, systems of relevant international conventions and institutions, implementation review and the like will be just as effective national reports to the international institutions, domestic in eliciting compliance as strict enforcement of conventions laws and regulations, and nature protection inventories in (Chayes & Chayes 1995). As noted by Breitmeier et al. Sweden and Norway. We also draw on relevant literature (2006, p. 155), the imposition of penalties or the provision on nature protection and protected areas. While this study of rewards may prove effective in eliciting compliance at the is based on both legal and policy analysis, our analytical margins, but ‘even well-endowed public authorities would approach builds primarily on political science perspectives run into trouble right away unless most subjects complied 242 O.K. Fauchald et al. with the relevant conventions most of the time without regard by many of the same institutional and procedural manage- to the impact of punishments and rewards’. rial mechanisms as regulatory approaches. Strong interna- Regardless of the different approaches to enforcing or tional institutions have established ambitious targets and facilitating compliance, international conventions can be communicate clearly what is necessary to achieve these. expected to exert a ‘compliance pull’ of their own because By contrast, weak international institutions are lacking in they have emerged as the result of legitimate processes terms of clear targets or in communicating what they based on state consent and international law (Franck 1990; ultimately want to achieve. In such cases there are no Bodansky 2010). Moreover, international conventions mechanisms in place to facilitate compliance. usually have elaborate mechanisms for monitoring, report- States frequently accept more detailed and far-reaching ing and verification of implementation by state parties. commitments in the form of soft law than in the form of Hence, based on the regulatory pathway, states can be binding convention obligations (Bodansky 2010). More expected to comply with international conventions specifically related to the relationship between the regula- because of their formal consent and the conventions’ tory and normative pathways, we expect non-binding com- mechanisms for enforcing or facilitating compliance. mitments to carry less weight in domestic discussions of More specifically, we expect that a high degree of regula- policy measures and priorities than binding commitments. tory hardness will increase the level and consistency of This is because, first, soft law is not subject to extensive and implementation owing to extensive and formalized con- formalized consent procedures at the domestic level and, sent procedures at the domestic level and the elaborate second, systems for monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms for ensuring compliance. are often lacking or not relevant in the case of soft law. 2.2. The normative pathway 3. Participation in international regimes The normative pathway highlights the influence of the non- 3.1. International obligations and commitments binding norms and principles that emerge from policy pro- cesses within the regimes. Such norms define appropriate International legal obligations and political commitments and inappropriate behaviour, prescribe and proscribe pertaining to protected areas concern the establishment of courses of action, and legitimate particular policies (March protected areas, the management of such areas, and mon- &Olsen 1989; Hasenclever et al. 1997). The logic of this itoring and follow-up of such areas. The general approach pathway is that international norms and principles (‘soft is facilitative, in the sense that conventions and the institu- law’) influence domestic policy discourses and decisions- tions they establish focus on assisting countries to comply makers’ perceptions of appropriate policies and behaviours. with obligations and commitments, rather than on punish- The focus is on what decision-makers believe states should ing noncompliance. do in the light of international cooperation. Such considera- Some of the conventions and institutions studied in tions of appropriate behaviour are often linked to decision- this article are mature in the sense that they have existed makers’ perceptions of their state’s identity and role in since the 1970s (the WHC, the Ramsar Convention, the world politics (Finnemore & Sikkink 1998). For example, Bern Convention and the UNESCO Man and Biosphere compliance with environmental soft law can be important Programme (MAB)), and have had many years to build for states concerned with gaining or maintaining a reputa- institutional, regulatory and normative frameworks. tion as environmental frontrunners, even when they have Indeed, for several of these conventions and institutions not formally consented to be legally bound by such norms. we find quite extensive and advanced frameworks that A key expectation from institutional theory is that provide detailed guidance on how obligations and commit- decision-makers may internalize norms about appropriate ments are to be implemented. Examples include the man- conduct in particular roles and situations. From this per- agement of World Heritage Sites under the WHC, the spective, the internalization of norms constitutes the prime management of Wetlands of International Importance causal mechanism connecting international soft law with under the Ramsar Convention, and the Emerald Network domestic policy changes (March & Olsen 1989). This established according to Article 4 of the Bern Convention. mechanism may work directly through domestic deci- The states’ broad margins of appreciation under the con- sion-makers’ participation in international processes, or ventions have been significantly circumscribed. Natura indirectly through NGO pressure or pressure from other 2000 is in a special position, with its elaborate obligations states. For example, international soft law can be mediated and implementation and enforcement mechanisms. by domestic authorities such as environmental protection The biosphere reserves under the MAB programme agencies (Risse-Kappen 1995), and NGOs can undertake a remain inherently non-binding, as this is not based on range of strategies to encourage states to follow interna- any convention. The CBD can be placed somewhere tional soft law (Keck & Sikkink 1998; Gulbrandsen 2010). between the conventions that establish international status Whereas both the enforcement and managerial for protected areas and the MAB biosphere reserves, given approach to compliance apply to international conven- the broad margin of appreciation under Article 8 and the tions, only the managerial approach applies to non-binding ‘softness’ of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas commitments Normative approaches may be accompanied (PoWPA). International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 243 Closer examination of the WHC, the Ramsar areas. Such acceptance and participation can be character- Convention and the Emerald Network under the Bern ized in terms of the extent to which a country plays an Convention shows that they all contain legal obligations active part at the international level, especially as regards to conserve the environmental qualities of certain areas, undertaking international commitments and dedicating and that these obligations have been further developed human and economic resources to international coopera- through practice under these conventions. Although none tion, and the extent to which a country ensures prompt and of these conventions contains clear obligations to ensure effective implementation of international commitments at conservation through establishment of protected areas, the the domestic level. In this section, we trace how Norway link between conservation and protected areas has become and Sweden have participated in conventions and institu- essential in practice, since most countries ensure conserva- tions. We return to implementation issues in Section 4. tion by establishing protected areas (Patry 2008, pp. 144– Norway participates in four regimes that assign inter- 145; Ramsar Secretariat 2008). All three conventions con- national status to protected areas: the World Heritage tain ‘obligations of result’ as regards the management of Convention, the Ramsar Convention, the Bern sites that have obtained international status. The WHC and Convention’s Emerald Network, and the UNESCO the Ramsar Convention have also developed quite elabo- Biosphere Reserves. Currently, Norway has seven sites rate norms concerning the management measures to be listed as World Heritage Sites, of which one is listed as taken. However, these norms remain ‘soft’, essentially in natural heritage (West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord the form of guidelines (e.g. the Operational Guidelines of and Nærøyfjord). In addition, two sites that are listed as the WHC, and the Ramsar Handbooks for the wise use of cultural heritage contain significant environmental compo- wetlands). The Emerald Network has not yet established nents (Vegaøyan, Røros Mining Town). Norway has 63 such norms. The WHC and the Ramsar Convention have Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar also established mechanisms to ensure compliance, Convention, covering an area of 8869 km . Most of this through listing of and follow-up procedures regarding area, almost 7000 km , is located in the Arctic sites deemed endangered. In extreme situations, sites Archipelago of Svalbard (Ramsar Secretariat 2013). may lose their international status. The mechanism of the At present, there is no Biosphere Reserve in Norway. WHC is somewhat more facilitative and ‘soft’ than that of The one that was established (North-east Svalbard) was the Ramsar Convention (see the Operational Guidelines of withdrawn in 1997 because it did not fulfil the criteria for the WHC and Articles 2.5 and 4.2 of the Ramsar being listed (see Article 4 of the Statutory Framework for Convention). Biosphere Reserves, UNESCO 1996). Norwegian partici- Against this background, we propose the following pation in the Emerald Network, which was established in ranking of the regimes according to their level of 1989 and effectively started operation in 1996, has had ‘hardness’: meagre results thus far (Fauchald & Gulbrandsen 2012). Norway nominated 11 pilot areas covering 25 protected (1) Natura 2000 (applies to Sweden and is by far the areas in 2008, but these could not be accepted as part of ‘hardest’ of the regimes); the Network until a comprehensive list of areas is pre- (2) The Ramsar Convention; sented to the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. According to the Calendar for the Implementation of the (3) The WHC (comparable to the Ramsar Convention, but we consider the Ramsar Convention to be Emerald Network, designation of the Emerald Network in slightly ‘harder’); Norway is expected by the end of 2016 (doc. T-PVS/PA (4) The Emerald Network of the Bern Convention (2010)8rev). In February 2013, Norway identified 886 (applies to Norway and is significantly ‘softer’ areas as potential Emerald Network Sites (Directorate for than the Ramsar Convention and the WHC); Nature Management 2013). (5) Obligations and commitments under the CBD As regards direct participation in the institutions exam- related to protected areas; ined here, Norway is represented by a non-governmental (6) Biosphere reserves under the UNESCO MAB pro- individual in the International Coordinating Council of gramme. MAB (2011–13). In Norway’s most recent national report to MAB Norway (2011), the Norwegian representative While three of these regimes rely essentially on a regula- said that ‘[w]e have had some difficulties communicating tory pathway (Natura 2000, Ramsar and the WHC), the the suitability of such [biosphere] reserves to the relevant others (Emerald Network, the CBD and biosphere authorities in Norway’, and that ‘[w]hen we presented reserves) rely more on a normative pathway. Norway’s candidature for election [to the International Coordinating Council] it was in part in order to boost the understanding of MAB in our country’ (MAB Norway 3.2. Acceptance of conventions and participation in 2011). With the Emerald Network, Norway has two gov- institutions ernmental representatives in the Group of Experts on Acceptance of conventions and participation in their asso- Protected Areas and Ecological Networks under the Bern ciated institutions is indicative of the degree to which a Convention Standing Committee. Norway is well repre- country has accepted internationalization of its protected sented in the IUCN World Commission on Protected 244 O.K. Fauchald et al. Areas, with several protected area professionals having political attention (Zachrisson 2009b; Fauchald & served as members over many years. The UNESCO Gulbrandsen 2012). World Heritage Committee comprises representatives In Norway, protected areas are established on the basis from 21 countries. The Nordic countries collaborate in of Chapter V of the 2009 Nature Diversity Act (Act no. proposing candidates; Sweden served most recently on 100), which in general operates with the same categories the Committee (see below), and Norway served prior to of protected areas as previous legislation. To date, 16.9% Sweden. of the land area of the Norwegian mainland has been Sweden is also active in all the protected area institu- assigned protected area status (environment.no 2013, tions examined here. It has 15 World Heritage Sites but Protected Areas) – which means that Norway has in prac- only one is natural and one is mixed; another two have tice already fulfilled Aichi Biodiversity Target no. 11, to significant environmental values, although they are listed protect 17% of its terrestrial area by 2020. Norway has as cultural heritages sites: Southern Öland and the High established national parks (IUCN category II) in 57% of Coast/ Kvarken archipelago (WHC List 2014). Sweden the protected area, protected landscapes (IUCN category has 66 Wetlands of International Importance under the V) in 32% of the protected area, and nature reserves Ramsar Convention, covering almost 6517 km (Ramsar (IUCN category Ia) in 10% of the protected area Secretariat 2013), and five biosphere reserves under (miljøstatus.no 2013). The Nature Diversity Act defines UNESCO’s MAB), all designated since 2005 (Swedish the purposes of protected areas in general (sections 33 and MAB 2013). One additional earlier reserve (Lake Torne 34) and of the specific categories of protected areas (sec- Area) was withdrawn in 2010. As a member of the EU, tions 35–39); furthermore, it contains general rules on Sweden has designated more than 3500 Natura 2000 areas permitted and prohibited activities within protected areas, covering more than 60,000 km (SEPA 2013). and regulates decision-making as to the governance of Sweden’s involvement in international regimes is also such areas. evident in its direct participation in the relevant institu- A major recent reform of Norwegian protected areas tions. Sweden was represented in the UNESCO World transferred core decision-making authority from the County Heritage Committee by the Swedish Environmental Governors Offices (the government representatives at the Protection Agency (SEPA) and the National Heritage regional level) to local management boards composed of Board 2007–2011 (SNHB and SEPA 2008). The SEPA politicians – mainly local mayors. When this reform is representative is also a member of the World Commission implemented, approximately 75% of the protected area in on Protected Areas, which is administered by the IUCN. Norway will be under such local management (Fauchald & Swedish nationals have taken active part in the MAB, Gulbrandsen 2012). This local management reform has holding the presidency of the International Coordinating been adopted without amending existing legislation or reg- Committee 2006–2008 (UNESCO 2006) and organizing ulations of individual protected areas, and a priority has and hosting workshops and meetings (Swedish MAB been to adopt and update relevant management plans 2012). (Miljøverndepartementet 2009–2010, p. 223). However, Thus we see that both Norway and Sweden score our examination of existing management plans shows that relatively high on international participation. It is also such plans are still lacking or are outdated for many of the clear that Sweden has a higher score than Norway in this protected areas that come under this reform. regard, due mainly to Sweden’s participation in MAB and At the general regulatory level, Section 40 of the Natura 2000. Moreover, while Norway and Sweden have Norwegian Nature Diversity Act states: ‘The King may approximately the same number of Ramsar Sites, the area make regulations granting a protected area special status covered by such sites on the Norwegian mainland is far under an international convention on the protection of the below the comparable Swedish area. natural or cultural environment. The effect that the con- vention in question attributes to such status also applies as Norwegian law’. As yet, no regulations have been adopted to implement this provision, even though 25 areas have 4. Implementation of international commitments been added to the Ramsar List since the Act entered into 4.1. Introduction force in 2009. We focus on three aspects of national implementation of In Sweden, Chapter 7 of the Environmental Code international commitments: those regarding the manage- (1998:808) regulates the establishment and management ment of protected areas (where hard law commitments are of protected areas, including the purposes for which they significant), those regarding delegation to and involvement can be established and under which categories. As of the of local communities (where soft commitments are most end of 2012, 13% of the land area of Sweden had been important) and those regarding degree of representative- assigned protected area status (SEPA 2013). The most ness of protected areas (where commitments are essen- important categories are national parks (IUCN category tially soft). These three categories of commitment are all II, comprising 16% of the total formally protected area) areas where international commitments may play an and nature reserves (mostly IUCN category Ib, about 81%) important role, where both Norway and Sweden face sig- (SEPA 2002), such as World Heritage Sites or Ramsar nificant challenges, and that have received significant Sites. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 245 The case studies of the Fulufjället National Park reason for the poor performance (Riksrevisjonen 2005– (Zachrisson 2009b), the Koster Sea National Park (Morf 2006 pp. 11 and 15–16). 2006) and the Laponia World Heritage Site (Zachrisson These assessments give rise to serious questions 2009a) indicate that Sweden develops an ad hoc partner- regarding the effectiveness of the Norwegian management ship model of decentralization of protected areas. Also the system for protected areas. On the other hand, the relia- case of the Tyresta National Park is probably identified bility of these assessments may be limited, given the lack with this model (see www.tyresta.se). These areas consti- of systematic data regarding the environmental status of tute somewhat less than 20% of the total protected area. protected areas. According to Norway’s report to the CBD The partnership model implies that the regional state (CBD 4th National Report Norway 2009, p. 69), ‘a system authority (the County Administrative Boards (CABs)) for following up and monitoring of protected areas on the delegates limited responsibility (primarily as regards day- basis of concrete conservation goals for protected areas is to-day management) to partnership organizations. being established (2007–2011)’. Moreover, Norway's Representatives of concerned municipalities and CABs, Action Plan (CBD Action Plan Norway 2012,p.10) as well as other relevant stakeholders (e.g. reindeer-herd- states: ‘A national management system/framework for ing units, fishermen organizations and village associa- protected areas is under implementation. The system tions) participate. SEPA is represented in some includes management plans with conservation objectives, partnership organizations (CAB Västra Götaland 2009; management measures (practical management), monitor- Laponiatjuottjudus 2011; Tyrestaskogen 2013). ing and reporting’. A database which will contain the National committees are recommended for some of the protection targets and which will serve as a basis for international regimes studied here. Norway has established local monitoring of protected areas is still under prepara- a UNESCO Commission that focuses, inter alia, on world tion. Three national thematic monitoring schemes have heritage (www.unesco.no), but has not yet designated any been established: forest in protected areas, marshland NGO focal point under the Ramsar Convention. Sweden (remote monitoring, not focused on protected areas) and had a National Ramsar Committee where several involved areas not covered by forests (remote monitoring, not NGOs were represented (Ramsar Report Sweden 2002, Part focused on protected areas) (e-mail from the Directorate 2, p. 24), but it no longer exists (Ramsar Report Sweden of 16 May 2013, on file with authors). When Norway 2012) and a NGO focal point has been established. There is designed its Nature Index, a process intended to document an active MAB Programme Committee, now led by SEPA overall trends for the state of major ecosystems throughout and with representatives of the municipalities and research the country, it was not designed to trace the status and institutions (Swedish MAB 2013). The WHC work is done development of protected areas (Directorate for Nature by SEPA and the National Heritage Board (NHB 2013). Management 2011). The research for the Nature Index There is also an NGO where all Swedish World Heritage did not focus on protected areas, and cannot serve as a Sites are members, which functions as an informal network basis for tracing the development of the environmental for national, regional and local authorities as well as land- status of such areas. owners and user groups (ViS 2013). As to protected areas with international status, the share of Ramsar Sites in which the environment is con- sidered to be threatened is very high: 74%. In only 14% of the areas was the environment considered not to be threa- 4.2. Commitments regarding the management of tened, and information was lacking for 12% of the areas. protected areas For Ramsar Sites, only 37% of the protected areas have On a general level, states have undertaken hard law com- management plans. In its report under the Ramsar mitments regarding management of protected areas in Convention, Norway noted ‘lack of capacity – manpower Article 8(c) of the CBD, and softer commitments in – to follow up on Ramsar issues’ and ‘moderate resources Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 and PoWPA. Commitments only for management and mapping/monitoring of Ramsar regarding the management of protected areas are particu- Sites’ as the two main difficulties in implementing the larly strong where such areas are covered by the WHC, the Convention (Ramsar Report Norway 2012, p. 9). Ramsar Convention, Natura 2000 and the Emerald According to the report, basic information seems to be Network. Softer commitments exist for the MAB bio- available but this information is not sufficiently system- sphere reserves. atized and analysed with a view to determining in a Available assessments indicate that the share of scientifically sound manner the ecological status of Norwegian protected areas involving threatened environ- Norway’s Ramsar Sites. Norway has not submitted any ments had increased from 18% in 1995 to 38% in 2008 report regarding its natural World Heritage Site (WHC (Miljøverndepartementet 2009–2010, pp. 219–220). A fol- State of Conservation 2014). Our examination of regula- low-up examination of the status of protected areas in tions and management plans of protected areas found few 2011 showed that this figure has not changed (e-mail references to the international status of protected areas in from the Directorate of 16 May 2013, on file with these key documents. authors). The Auditor-General singled out the failure to In Sweden, SEPA has been working on developing a plan for the management of protected areas as the main comprehensive monitoring system. In 2010, overall 246 O.K. Fauchald et al. guidelines were adopted as well as specific manuals are expected for the annual sessions, but the Swedish (Haglund 2010), and a national report on status and trends report from 2012 was very brief (only one page) and for outdoor life, habitat types and species is to be pub- focused on how the idea of biosphere reserves had been lished every year from 2012. The reports are also to promoted (Swedish MAB 2012). In regard to the World discuss reasons in cases of poor status (Haglund 2010, Heritage Convention, the state of conservation of the pp. 7–8, 10). This development has been driven largely Swedish site Laponia was reported as adequate (WHC by the demands for follow-up of the EU initiative Natura 2006, p. 145). It was noted that Laponia lacks a buffer 2000 (CBD Thematic Report on Protected Areas Sweden zone, but that was not deemed necessary, since the regula- 2004; Haglund 2010). This monitoring system is intended tions set by Swedish national legislation are regarded as to provide regional and national compilations on status equally effective (WHC 2006, p. 128). None of the and trends, which would allow sufficient data to report Swedish sites has ever been reported as being under threat, according to the Habitats Directive (Haglund 2010, p. 10). so no State of Conservation Reports has been submitted Sweden has submitted two reports to the European (WHC State of Conservation 2014). Commission so far (submissions every seven years; results According to Swedish legislation, management plans are summarized in Sohlman 2007 and Eide 2014), which are required only for nature and culture reserves have been used for reporting to the CBD and the Ramsar (Områdesskyddförordning 1998:1252, Section 3). The Convention. Both reports show that habitats currently with SEPA may issue management plans for national parks a favourable conservational status are found mainly within (NF 1987:938, Section 7). For Natura 2000 sites, the the northern mountain ranges and in rocky areas through- CABs are to adopt ‘conservation plans describing the out the country. These areas also host the great majority of protected habitats and species in order to facilitate possible the protected areas. Many grassland habitats and forests environmental impact assessments and management fail to achieve favourable conservational status. None of needs’ (Områdesskyddförordning, section 17). In regard the reports include data on how Natura 2000 areas con- to areas with international status, there are conservation tribute to the conservational status of habitats (Sohlman plans for 97–98% of the Natura 2000 sites (e-mail from 2007; Eide 2014). In the budget proposal for 2013, the the SEPA of 13 December 2013, on file with authors) and government concluded that it would not be possible to all Ramsar Sites have management plans (Ramsar Report achieve the national environmental quality objective of Sweden 2012). The Swedish mixed World Heritage Site biodiversity until 2020, and that the work with formal (Laponia) has a management plan (SEPA 2012b), and for protection must be strengthened and made more effective the High Coast one is under preparation (CAB (Swedish Government 2012, pp. 49–50). However, in the Västernorrland 2013). For Sweden’s biosphere reserves, latest report to the CBD (CBD 4th National Report there is one management plan as well as two action Sweden 2009), this work was held forth as an example plans and two vision documents. of successful implementation. For both Norway and Sweden, there seems to be some The work with protected areas has been subject to discrepancy between the actual management and conser- criticism on at least two occasions in recent years by the vation status of protected areas and the information pro- vided in reports to under the conventions. This is Swedish National Audit Office. In 2006, SEPA was criti- particularly the case for Norway, which has indicated cized for not following up sufficiently on county manage- ment of protected areas; instructions were not sufficiently significant reforms and initiatives but subsequently failed clear and detailed and there was no plan for how regularly to follow up. Sweden has come further regarding manage- SEPA would follow up (Riksrevisionen 2006). In 2010, ment plans. Both countries suffer from significant lack of the Swedish National Audit Office further questioned information on the environmental status of protected areas. SEPA’s monitoring of the annual reports on funding for nature conservation management from the CABs (Riksrevisionen 2010). 4.3. Commitments regarding delegation to and According to the 2012 report under the Ramsar involvement of local communities Convention (Ramsar Report Sweden 2012), the ecological values of Swedish Ramsar Sites had not changed notably With the exception of the general and qualified rule on during the previous three years, and the status of protected participation of local communities in Article 8(j) of the wetlands was better than for wetlands in general. A wet- CBD, international commitments regarding delegation of land inventory was initiated in 1981 and completed in management to local authorities or stakeholders are essen- 2004. In all, 10% of the land area has been surveyed, tially soft. Under the CBD, the Aichi Biodiversity Target covering the entire country except the mountain regions. 18 and the PoWPA follow up and specify Article 8(j) as This inventory has not been used to detect changes or to related to protected areas. Local management is on the compare protected wetlands with non-protected agenda of the WHC (see World Heritage Resource (Gunnarsson & Löfroth 2009). In regard to biosphere Manual 2012,p.28–34), the Ramsar Convention (2008 reserves, no periodic reviews have been submitted yet: Changwon Declaration on human well-being and wet- this is to be done only every ten years, and the oldest lands) and MAB biosphere reserves (Article 4.6 of the Swedish reserve was established in 2005. General reports Statutory Framework). International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 247 Norway’s local management reforms involve delega- Agency for Marine and Water Management tion of authority in two important respects: the elaboration (Nationalparksförordning, Section 7). Applications for of management plans, and decisions on specific activities exemptions from protected area regulations must be allowed within protected areas. According to the rules of approved by the CABs or the municipalities (depending on procedure for the local management boards, management which of these entities designated the area), in case of ‘spe- plans must be approved by the Norwegian Environment cial circumstances’ (Environmental Code Chapter 7, Section Agency. Many of the protected areas subject to the local 7; Nationalparksförordning, Section 5). In Laponia WHS and management reform do not yet have such plans in place. Tyresta NP, the management boards have some power to Even if such plans must respect the general management influence these procedures (Tyrestaskogen 2013). In prac- framework established by the protected area regulations, tice, almost no authority is delegated to the partnership preparing such plans gives local management boards sig- organizations (Zachrisson 2009a). Transparency is ensured nificant opportunities to influence the long-term develop- by requiring that all management plans and decisions on ment of the protected area. delegating management responsibilities for nature reserves Specific decisions regarding activities allowed in pro- be sent to SEPA (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 28). tected areas are based either on the general exception SEPA, the National Heritage Board, the Forestry Agency clause of Section 48 of the Nature Diversity Act or on and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water specific rules in the regulations of the protected area in Management may also issue appeals in matters concerning question. In general, Section 48 of the Act and the pro- protected areas (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 40). tected area regulations provide the boards with significant In the nature reserves under Sweden’s local manage- opportunities to allow a range of activities in protected ment model, all authority is delegated: the municipalities areas, including construction, use of motorized vehicles, make and revise management plans, handle applications hunting and forestry. For example, the regulations con- concerning activities otherwise not allowed in the pro- cerning a core protected area within one of the Norwegian tected area, and are responsible for management activities World Heritage Sites, Geiranger–Herdalen Landscape for maintaining the status of the protected area Protection Area, which is also subject to the local manage- (Environmental Code Chapter 7, Sections 4–7). ment reform, admits 16 categories of exceptions, including Municipal decisions in matters concerning protected construction of new buildings and transport infrastructure, areas can be appealed to the CAB by anyone within the protected area. Decisions of local management (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 41). In practice, the boards can be appealed to the Ministry of the extent of delegation in the Swedish model is delimited Environment, which may annul or revise the decision of by management plans (Steinwall Forthcoming). the local management board. In addition, the legality of In at least some of Sweden’s partnership cases, inter- decisions may be challenged in court. However, in practice national influences are apparent. In Fulufjället, collabora- the threshold is high for bringing such cases before tion with PAN Parks was an important inspiration Norwegian courts (Fauchald 2010). (Zachrisson 2009b) and in Laponia, a letter to UNESCO The Budget Proposition on the local management from the Sami communities requesting that WH status be reform mentions obligations in relation to the Sami indi- withdrawn served to fuel compromises (Green 2009). genous population under ILO Convention no. 169 con- Norway has undertaken more far-reaching local man- cerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent agement reforms than has Sweden. Commitments under Countries (1989) and CBD’s PoWPA as reasons for carry- the CBD have been part of the justification for the ing out the reform (Miljøverndepartementet 2009–2010, p. Norwegian reforms. Ramsar Sites have been excluded 222). Wetlands on the Ramsar List have not been included from the reform, as far as we can see probably due to in the reform (Miljøverndepartementet 2009–2010, fears that they might not be properly managed by local p. 225). authorities. Also in Sweden, participation in international In Sweden’s evolving partnership system, management regimes has been important for greater involvement of responsibility over nature reserves can be delegated to ‘other local populations. authorities, legally responsible persons or land owners’ (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 21). Such decisions can 4.4. Commitments regarding degree of be appealed to the government by anyone representativeness of protected areas (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 41). Authority is retained by the CABs, who still decide on management plans (nor- The main global commitment regarding representativeness of mally at the same time as the designation is adopted) and any protected areas follows from Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, revisions. The CABs formally manage national parks, except which refers to ‘ecologically representative and well-con- Tyresta (Nationalparksförordning NF 1987:938, Section 3), nected systems of protected areas’, followed up through although this responsibility is shared with the management more specific commitments in PoWPA. On the regional board in the cases of Koster and Laponia under delegation level, commitments regarding representativeness follow from from the CABs (CAB Västra Götaland 2009;SEPA 2012b). Natura 2000 (for Sweden: see Article 3 of the Habitats National park management plans are adopted by SEPA, after Directive, 92/43/EEC) and the Emerald Network (for consultation with the CAB, the municipality and the Swedish Norway: see doc. T-PVS/PA(2010)12). Representativeness is 248 O.K. Fauchald et al. also emphasized in Section 2.1.iv of the Ramsar Strategic Plan with the authors), so their representativeness is rather 2009–2015: ‘Contracting Parties [shall] have considered des- similar. Only the mountain region is considered suffi- ignating Ramsar Sites from among wetland types under-repre- ciently and almost representatively protected. About 7% sented in the Ramsar List [by 2015]’. of the forest land is formally protected, but since 77% of According to Norway’s most recent report to the CBD this land area is located close to the mountain region, the (CBD 4th National Report Norway 2009, p. 70), the major protection is not representative. Also the protection level effort to ensure representativeness regarding protected of wetlands and agricultural lands is not considered suffi- areas is based on three approaches: thematic protection cient (SEPA 2012a). Wetlands are protected to a higher plans, the national parks plan and provincial protection extent in the southern parts of Sweden, according to the plans; furthermore, ‘work on the great majority of provin- Swedish Ramsar report in 2008. As peatlands and water- cial protection plans is now completed.’ The same applies courses in the north are under-represented, it was proposed to the national parks plan (Miljøverndepartementet 2013– in 2011 that 15 new Ramsar Sites be designated in the 2014, p. 240). It also follows from the report (p. 69) that northern areas (Ramsar Report Sweden 2012). The same is representativeness will be a significant element of the true for biosphere reserves, as four of five are located in process of establishing the Emerald Network in Norway. the south of the country. Whether Norway can fulfil expectations regarding repre- The Swedish report to the CBD (CBD 4th National sentativeness in this respect will be clear only by the end Report Sweden 2009) explains that the target of represen- of phase II of the Emerald Network nomination process. tativeness (target 1.1: at least 10% of each of the world’s As noted, almost 17% of the land surface in Norway is ecological regions effectively conserved) will not be met, protected, but research regarding the representativeness of as that is not part of the national objectives. Sweden Norwegian protected areas shows that much remains to be expects instead that ‘the majority of ecosystems and habi- done. A scientific assessment of terrestrial protected areas tats will be conserved through sustainable use’ (p. 101). has documented inadequate protection of lowland areas However, the 2008 national park plan includes a goal of and productive forests as well as gaps in coverage of representativeness: national parks should ‘represent the several important nature types and living areas for threa- different landscape types and their variations’, but this tened and protected species: although the protected area in does not mean an ‘objective to accommodate a certain Norway is ‘extensive … with an overall balance in its share of the country’s nature or of the country’s protected cover of the natural variation’, almost half is situated in nature in national parks’ (SEPA 2008, p. 16). The optimal mountain areas more than 900 m above sea level potential for meeting national and international demands (Framstad et al. 2010, p. 6). According to this assessment, on national parks is found in the mountains and the forests the low proportion of protected areas for lowlands and lying in close proximity to the mountains, due to the productive areas in southern Norway means that protected higher occurrence of ‘natural landscapes of high biological areas have a skewed coverage of natural variation. The value’ (SEPA 2008, p. 15). The plan thus acknowledges report recommends additional protected areas, particularly that Sweden’s national parks are unequally distributed, in the lowlands and along the coast of southern Norway, to being heavily concentrated in the northernmost county. ensure better coverage of productive forests and important Norway and Sweden seem to differ on how they com- municate to the international institutions the challenges nature types and habitats for threatened and protected species. involved in achieving representativeness. While Norway Norway’s Action Plan under PoWPA (CBD Action has indicated willingness to undertake activities, painting Plan Norway 2012) highlights achievements in protection, an optimistic picture of the current situation, Sweden has but hardly mentions the considerable challenges with communicated a more realistic picture of the current situa- regard to ensuring representativeness. The submission tion and the prospects of fulfilling its commitments. Both simply states (p. 2) that there is ‘an overall balance in countries have been diligent in following up their commit- [the] cover of the natural variation’, although noting that ments regarding representativeness under the Ramsar ‘there are some gaps with inadequate coverage of lowland Convention. areas and productive forest, as well as several important nature types and living areas for threatened and protected 5. Discussion species’. Beyond this, no mention is made of the low proportions of protected areas for lowlands and productive While both Sweden and Norway are slowly but steadily areas in Norway. accepting internationalization of protected areas through In Sweden, the protected land surface includes national international regimes, they differ in regard to the extent parks, nature reserves, biotope conservation areas, Natura and type of internationalization. Concerning the regulatory 2000 areas, Ramsar areas and land protected through pathway, we have seen more areas with international pro- nature conservation agreements. Some 80–90% of the tection status in Sweden than in Norway. A key explana- area of national parks and nature reserves lies in the north- tory factor is Swedish participation in the EU Natura 2000 ern parts of the mountain ranges (SEPA 2009). About 75% network, where Sweden has established more than 3500 of the Natura 2000 sites overlap with national protection such areas. Natura 2000 is also the only international status (e-mail from the SEPA, 13 December 2013, on file protected area regime that has generated detailed International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 249 provisions in the Swedish Environmental Code, where it is reports of Norway and Sweden to the CBD, and Norway’s clearly stated that management plans (called ‘conservation participation in the Emerald Network. Concerning bio- plans’) are required. Otherwise, Swedish legislation sphere reserves, we find significant differences between requires management plans only for nature reserves, Sweden and Norway: Sweden has five MAB biosphere whether they have international protection status or not. reserves and participates actively through public authori- Our enquiries concerning the Ramsar Convention, which ties, whereas Norway has no such areas and has delegated is also more regulatory, show that Sweden and Norway have participation to a non-governmental entity. Norwegian protected about the same number of Wetlands of reports to the CBD have expressed high hopes in manage- International Importance. However, Ramsar Sites on the ment and monitoring reforms, but there is little evidence Norwegian mainland are generally far smaller than the that the reforms have produced the desired results. Swedish sites, and the total area of sites on the mainland is Sweden, by contrast, seems to have been more realistic less than a third of the corresponding Swedish area. In regard in its reporting. Finally, although Norway has been com- to management, Norway has failed to adopt management mitted since 1996 to implementing the Emerald Network, plans for most Ramsar Sites, but the regulatory regime is participation has as yet had little effect on its policies otherwise comparable to that of Sweden. Concerning the concerning protected areas. WHC, Sweden and Norway have implemented this conven- The importance of the normative pathway in Norway tion in a comparable manner as regards natural world heri- seems related mainly to the local management discourse, tage. We thus find that the regulatory influence is higher in which resonates well with Norwegian decision-makers’ Sweden primarily because of its EU membership. In addi- perceptions of Norway as a guardian of local democracy, tion, the regulatory influence as regards Ramsar Sites seems although decentralization traditionally has been more con- to be stronger in Sweden than in Norway. troversial in environmental policy than in other areas such Concerning management of protected areas, our compar- as welfare policy (Hovik & Reitan 2004; Falleth & Hovik ison has shown that Sweden has adopted far more manage- 2009). Norway has gone much further than Sweden in ment plans than Norway. Moreover, Sweden has delegating decision-making authority. While it is the incorporated the traditional international nature conservation CABs that usually decide on management plans and their discourse emphasizing strict user regulations and ‘wilder- revisions in Sweden, local management boards have been ness’ to a much higher degree than Norway, as seen for granted significant decision-making authority in Norway. instance in the distribution of IUCN categories. Most of the This key difference can partly be explained by the weight protected area surface in Sweden is inscribed as the strictest given to local user interest in Norway (Fauchald & Ia and Ib categories, whereas less strict categories (II and V) Gulbrandsen 2012) as opposed to the priority given to dominate in Norway. It could be asked whether there is a link wilderness conservation in Sweden (Mels 2002). Local between the more extensive adoption of management plans management in Sweden would appear threatening since and stricter protection categories found in Sweden, on the it is usually suspected to lead to increased use and less one hand, and Sweden’s higher degree of international reg- wilderness. By contrast, Norway has traditionally sought ulatory commitments on the other. We have not found evi- to combine nature protection with sustainable use by local dence of linkage from the higher degree of international communities, tourists, hunters, fishermen and other stake- commitments to the stricter protection categories, but there holders (Hovik & Reitan 2004; Falleth & Hovik 2009). seems to be a link to the more extensive adoption of manage- The recent Norwegian local management reform has ment plans, due mainly to Natura 2000. accentuated the difference in the priority accorded to tradi- The differences between Norway and Sweden as tional wilderness conservation in Sweden and local user regards the regulatory pathway seem in essence to relate interests in Norway. This difference helps to explain why to Sweden’s EU membership. In addition, Sweden’s parti- Sweden has gone further in the internationalization of its cipation in international regimes and involvement of civil protected areas. With greater weight given to traditional society in national implementation may be a factor con- nature conservation, it might be easier to accept interna- tributing to explaining the differences that we have seen. tionalization of protected areas if this implies stricter reg- Otherwise, Norway and Sweden have responded similarly ulations on use. Conversely, with greater weight given to to the regulatory regimes. These findings confirm our local user interests, it might be harder to accept interna- proposition that a high degree of regulatory hardness con- tional protection status and the implications for potential tributes to increasing the level and consistency of users, but easier to adapt to international pressure for implementation. delegation of management authority. In regard to the normative pathway, the slow imple- The difference in local management may also contribute mentation of the Emerald Network in Norway as com- to explaining why Norway has achieved the Aichi Target of pared to Sweden’s implementation of Natura 2000 protection of 17% of its land area while Sweden has not: it is indicates that this pathway has less impact than the reg- easier to protect nature if current use-patterns are allowed to ulatory one. This observation is supported by our finding continue. However, protected areas appear to be more threa- that the normative pathway provides countries with greater tened in Norway. Norway’s protected cultural landscapes flexibility in determining how to implement soft commit- require more extensive management than Sweden’s wilder- ments – as indicated by the MAB biosphere reserves, the ness areas, where natural development is the dominant 250 O.K. Fauchald et al. management strategy. This may also be one explanatory Notes factor behind the difference in adoption of management 1. We have not considered the cognitive pathway because this would require interview data not collected for this study. plans: in Norway, such plans require more extensive and 2. Authors’ calculation based on adding the protected areas of time-consuming balancing of conservation objectives and Laponia (940,000 ha (www.Laponia.nu 2013)) and Koster, user interests than is the case in Sweden. Fulufjället and Tyresta (38,878 ha, 38,500 ha and 1964 ha, To summarize, there are significant differences respectively (SEPA 2013)), divided by the total formally between Norway and Sweden as regards the normative protected area in Sweden (5,195,537 ha (SEPA 2009)). 3. See Articles 4–6 and 11 of the WHC, Articles 3 and 4 of the pathway. These differences can be explained by divergent Ramsar Convention, and Article 4 of the Bern Convention. views on and policy choices regarding the purpose of 4. Based on information in www.naturbase.no. As of 31 May protected areas and local self-governance, especially the 2013, the environment was considered threatened in 83 out emphasis on wilderness conservation in Sweden as of 113 protected areas listed as Ramsar Sites. Management opposed to the greater emphasis on sustainable use of plans were lacking for 38 of these protected areas. 5. Based on information in www.naturbase.no. As of 31 May protected areas in Norway. The differences observed 2013, 41 out of 113 protected areas listed as Ramsar Sites between Norway and Sweden thus reflect the degree of had management plans. flexibility provided by the normative pathway. These find- 6. According to information received from the Directorate for ings support our proposition that non-binding commit- Nature Management, management plans have been finalized ments carry less weight in domestic discussions of policy for 657 out of 2762 protected areas. Management plans are planned for another 761 protected areas. Priority is given to measures and priorities than binding commitments. protected areas subject to local management reform and Ramsar Sites. E-mail from the Directorate of 16 May 2013, on file with authors. 7. See Section 1.3 of Forskrift om vern av Geiranger–Herdalen 6. Conclusions landskapsvernområde, Stranda og Norddal kommunar, Møre This study has examined how Norway and Sweden have og Romsdal, adopted 8 October 2004, no. 1310. responded to key international legal and political protected area commitments. We find that Sweden and Norway have essentially responded similarly to those regulatory regimes References that apply to both countries. The main difference relates to Agrawal A, Ribot JC. 1999. Accountability in decentralization: a the fact that Sweden is subject to Natura 2000, whereas framework with South Asian and West African cases. J Dev Areas. 33:473–502. Norway, as a non-member of the EU, is not bound by this Bodansky D. 2010. The art and craft of international environ- regulatory framework. mental law. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. By contrast, the more normative regimes have influ- Breitmeier H, Young OR, Zürn M. 2006. Analyzing international enced Sweden and Norway in different ways – primarily environmental regimes: from case study to database. by strengthening traditional nature conservation norms in Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. CAB Västernorrland. 2013. Höga Kusten – Ett världsarv. Sweden and norms about sustainable use by local commu- Summary [Sammanfattning] [Internet]. Härnösand: nities in Norway. Our findings indicate that the normative Länsstyrelsen Västernorrland [County Administrativ Board pathway is important mainly as a support for domestic Västernorrland]; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. policies that correspond to existing national norms and highcoast.net/sve.html discourses, and they support our proposition that a high CAB Västra Götaland. 2009. Decision no. l00-103265-2009. Gothenborg: Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland [County degree of regulatory hardness contributes to increase the Administrative Board Västra Götaland]. level and consistency of implementation. CBD 4th National Report Norway. 2009. Fourth national report Our study of the internationalization of protected areas [Internet]. Oslo: The Norwegian Ministry of the in Norway and Sweden took as its point of departure an Environment; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. examination of international commitments under interna- cbd.int/doc/world/no/no-nr-04-en.pdf CBD 4th National Report Sweden. 2009. Fourth national report tional regimes. As suggested, not least by our discussion [Internet]. Stockholm: The Swedish Ministry of the of the normative pathway of influence, we need in-depth Environment; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. studies that pay greater attention to domestic factors to cbd.int/doc/world/se/se-nr-04-en.pdf better explain differences in protected area policies in the CBD Action Plan Norway. 2012. CBD Notification 2012 18- two countries. This indicates new avenues for research that contribution from Norway [Internet]. Oslo: The Norwegian Ministry of the Environment; [updated 2012 Apr 17; cited focus on the interactions of international demands and 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.cbd.int/database/attach- domestic protection politics. ment/?id=1575 CBD Thematic Report on Protected Areas Sweden. 2004. Thematic report on protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity Acknowledgements [Internet]. Stockholm: The Swedish Ministry of the This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway Environment; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. project Managing Protected Areas in a Time of cbd.int/doc/world/se/se-nr-pa-en.pdf Internationalization (grant number 204420/E40) at the Fridtjof Chayes A, Chayes AH. 1995. The new sovereignty: compliance Nansen Institute. The authors are grateful to the editors and the with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge (MA): anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Harvard University Press. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 251 Directorate for Nature Management. 2011. The Norwegian Lane M. 2001. Affirming new directions in planning theory: Nature Index 2010, DN-report 1-2011 [Internet]. comanagement of protected areas. Soc Nat Resour. 14:657– Trondheim: Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management; 671. doi:10.1080/08941920118212. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.miljodirektoratet. Laponiatjuottjudus. 2011. Stadgar för föreningen no/old/dirnat/attachment/2246/DN-Report-1-2011.pdf Laponiatjuottjudus [Statutes for the Laponia Partnership Directorate for Nature Management. 2013. Norsk natur på eur- Organization] [Internet]. Jokkmokk: Laponiatjuottjudus; opeisk smaragdliste [Internet]. Press release. Trondheim: [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.laponia.nu/ Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management; [cited 2014 wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Stadgar-Laponiatjuottjudus.pdf Jun 17]. Available from: www.miljødirektoratet.no/ Mels T. 2002. Nature, home, and scenery: the official spatialities no/Nyheter/Nyheter/Nyhetsarkiv/2013/2/Norsk-natur-pa- of Swedish national parks. Env Plan D: Society and Space. europeisk-smaragdliste/ 20:135–154. Eide W, editor. 2014. Arter och naturtyper i habitatdirektivet – March J, Olsen JP. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: the organi- bevarandestatus i Sverige 2013. Uppsala: ArtDatabanken zational basis of politics. New York (NY): Free Press. SLU. miljøstatus.no. 2013. vernet natur. Miljøstatus i Norge [Status of environment.no. 2013. State of the environment Norway. the Environment in Norway] [Internet]. Trondheim: The Protected areas [Internet]. Oslo: The Norwegian Norwegian Environment Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Environment Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: Available from: www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Naturmangfold/ www.environment.no/Topics/Biological-diversity/Protected- Vernet-natur/ areas/ Miljøverndepartementet. 2009–2010. Prop. 1 S (2009–2010). Falleth EI, Hovik S. 2009. Local government and nature con- Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. servation in Norway: decentralisation as a strategy in envir- Miljøverndepartementet. 2013–2014. Prop. 1 S (2013–2014). onmental policy. Local Environ. 14:221–231. doi:10.1080/ Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. 13549830802692849. Morf A. 2006. Participation and planning in the management of Fauchald OK. 2010. Environmental justice in courts – a case coastal resource conflicts [PhD thesis]. Göteborg: study from Norway. Nordisk Miljörättslig Tidskrift. 1:49–67. Gothenburg University. Fauchald OK, Gulbrandsen LH. 2012. The Norwegian reform of NHB. 2013. Världsarv. Världsarv [World Heritage] [Internet]. protected area management: a grand experiment with delega- Stockholm: The Swedish National Heritage Board; [cited tion of authority? Local Environ. 17:203–222. doi:10.1080/ 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.raa.se/om-riksantikvar- 13549839.2012.660910. ieambetet/fragor-svar/varldsarv/ Finnemore M, Sikkink K. 1998. International norm dynamics MAB Norway. 2011. Norway report under agenda point 6: and political change. Int Organ. 52:887–917. doi:10.1162/ reports on actions undertaken by member states in the con- text of MAB [Internet]. Gland: Norwegian National Framstad E, Blindheim T, Erikstad L, Thingstad PG, Sloreid S-E. Committee; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. 2010. Naturfaglig evaluering av norske verneområder. NINA unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/ Rapport 535. Oslo: Norsk institutt for naturforskning MAB_national_report_Norway_MABICC23_en.pdf (NINA). Patry M. 2008. World heritage and IUCN categories, In: Dudley, N, Franck TM. 1990. The power of legitimacy among nations. New Stolton, S, editors. Defining protected areas: an international York (NY): Oxford University Press. conference in Almeria, Spain, p. 142–146. Gland: IUCN. Green C. 2009. Managing Laponia: a world heritage site as arena Ramsar Report Norway. 2012. National report on the implemen- for Sami ethno-politics in Sweden [PhD thesis]. Uppsala: tation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands: Norway Uppsala University. [Internet]. Trondheim: Norwegian Directorate for Nature Gulbrandsen LH. 2010. Transnational environmental govern- Management. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. ance: the emergence and effects of the certification of forests ramsar.org/pdf/cop11/nr/cop11-nr-norway.pdf and fisheries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ramsar Report Sweden. 2002. National planning tool for the Gunnarsson U, Löfroth M. 2009. Våtmarksinventeringen – resul- implementation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands tat från 25 års inventeringar. Report 5925. Stockholm: [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Environment; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from www. Haglund A. 2010. Uppföljning av skyddade områden i Sverige. ramsar.org/pdf/cop8/cop8_nrs_sweden2.pdf Report 6379. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Ramsar Report Sweden. 2012. National report on the implemen- Agency. tation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands: Sweden Hasenclever A, Mayer P, Rittberger V. 1997. Theories of inter- [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection national regimes. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.ramsar. Press. org/pdf/cop11/nr/cop11-nr-sweden.pdf Hovik S, Reitan M. 2004. National environmental goals in search Ramsar Secretariat. 2008. Wetlands of international importance and of local institutions. Environ Plann C. 22:687–699. the IUCN system of protected area management categories. In: doi:10.1068/c0302j. Dudley N, Stolton S, editors. Defining protected areas: an Hovik S, Sandström C, Zachrisson A. 2010. Management of pro- international conference in Almeria, Spain. Gland: IUCN; p. tected areas in Norway and Sweden: challenges in combining 137–141. central governance and local participation. J Environ Policy Ramsar Secretariat. 2013. The list of wetlands of international Plann. 12:159–177. doi:10.1080/15239081003719219. importance [Internet]. Gland: Ramsar Secretariat; [cited 2014 IUCN. 2013a. Dudley N, editor. Guidelines for applying pro- Jun 17]. Available from: www.ramsar.org/pdf/sitelist.pdf tected area management. Gland: IUCN. Riksrevisionen. 2006. Granskning av medel för skötsel av sky- IUCN. 2013b. Global protected areas programme [Internet]. ddade områden m.m. Audit report 32-2005-0734. Priority area 4. Gland: IUCN; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Stockholm: Riksrevisionen [Swedish National Audit Office]. Available from: www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpa- Riksrevisionen. 2010. Löpande granskning 2009. Audit Report p_home/gpap_people/ 32-2009-0586. Stockholm: Riksrevisionen [Swedish Keck ME, Sikkink K. 1998. Activists beyond borders: advocacy National Audit Office]. networks in international politics. Ithaca (NY): Cornell Riksrevisjonen. 2005–2006. Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av myn- University Press. dighetenes arbeid med kartlegging og overvåking av biologisk 252 O.K. Fauchald et al. mangfold og forvaltning av verneområder. Dokument nr. 3:12. Swedish MAB. 2013. The official homepage of Swedish MAB Oslo: Riksrevisjonen [Norwegian National Audit Office]. [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish National Committee; [cited Risse-Kappen T, editor. 1995. Bringing transnational relations 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.biosfaromrade.org/ back in: non-state actors, domestic structures and international mab2009/index.php?option=com_content&view=category& institutions. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. layout=blog&id=36&setLang=en-GB&Itemid=71 SEPA. 2002. Redovisning av svenska naturskyddade områden med Tyrestaskogen S. 2013. Stadgar [Statutes] [Internet]. Tyresta by; tillämpning av Internationella Naturvårdsunionens (IUCN: s) [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.tyresta.se/om-tyr- skyddskategorier. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental esta/forvaltning/stadgar/ Protection Agency. UNESCO. 1996. Biosphere reserves: the Seville strategy and SEPA. 2008. Nationalparksplan för Sverige: långsiktig plan. the statutory framework of the world network. Paris: Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. UNESCO. SEPA. 2009. Svenskt naturskydd 100 år. Stockholm: Swedish UNESCO. 2006. Report from the nineteenth session of the Environmental Protection Agency. international coordinating council of the Man and the SEPA. 2012a. Sveriges arbete med bevarande av biologisk Biosphere (MAB) programme, SC-06/CONF.202/16. Paris: mångfald utifrån bevarandemål för landmiljön i den strategiska UNESCO. planen för biologisk mångfald som antogs vid CBD: spartsmöte ViS. 2013. The association world heritage sites in Sweden. World i Nagoya 2010, Skrivelse nr NV-00477-12 (2012 March 30). heritages in Sweden [Internet]. Världsarv i Sverige; Stockholm: Swedish Environment Protection Agency. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: worldheritagesweden. SEPA. 2012b. Laponia world heritage in Swedish lapland. se/en/ Management plan [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish WHC. 2006. Sub-regional periodic reports for Europe, 30th Environment Protection Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Session of the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO Available from: www.laponia.nu/wp-content/uploads/2013/ Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural 09/F%C3%B6rvaltningsplan-Laponia-120117.pdf and natural heritage, Vilnius 8–16 July [Internet]. Paris: World Heritage Committee; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available SEPA. 2013. Skydd av natur [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. from: whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf11Ae. Available from: www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-sam- pdf hallet/Miljoarbete-i-Sverige/Uppdelat-efter-omrade/Naturvar WHC List. 2014. UNESCO, World heritage convention [Internet]. d/Skydd-av-natur/ World heritage list. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: whc. SNHB and SEPA. 2008. Sweden in UNESCO’s World Heritage unesco.org/en/list Committee [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish National Heritage WHC State of Conservation. 2014. UNESCO, World heritage Board and Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; [cited convention. State of conservation [Internet]. Paris: World 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.raa.se/publicerat/ Heritage Centre; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: whc. br2008_5.pdf unesco.org/en/soc/ Sohlman A, editor. 2007. Arter och naturtyper i habitatdirektivet World Heritage Resource Manual. 2012. Managing natural world – tillståndet i Sverige 2007. Uppsala: ArtDatabanken SLU. heritage [Internet]. Paris: UNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOS/ Statistics Sweden. 2012. Skyddad natur 31 dec 2011 [Protected IUCN; [cited 2014 Jun 18]. Available from: http://whc. Nature 2011], Sweden’s Offical Statistical Messages MI 41 unesco.org/en/managing-natural-world-heritage/ SM 1201, corrected version [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Zachrisson A. 2008. Who should manage protected areas in the Available from: http://www.scb.se/Statistik/MI/MI0603/ Swedish mountain region? A survey approach to co-manage- 2011A01/MI0603_2011A01_SM_MI41SM1201.pdf ment. J Environ Manage. 87:154–164. doi:10.1016/j. Steinwall A. Forthcoming. Naturalness or biodiversity: conflicting jenvman.2007.01.010. discourses in Swedish protected area management. Environ Val. Zachrisson A. 2009a. Commons protected for or from the com- Swedish Government. 2012. Prop. 2012/13:1 Utgiftsområde 20. mons: co-management in the Swedish mountain region? Förslag till statens budget. Stockholm: Swedish Government. [PhD thesis]. Umeå: Department of Political Science, Umeå Swedish MAB. 2012. Report from Swedish MAB [Internet]. University. Paris: Swedish National Committee; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Zachrisson A. 2009b. The designation of Fulufjället National Available from: www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/ Park: efficient co-management through downward account- MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/MAB_national_report_Sweden_ ability? Local Environ. 14:259–271. doi:10.1080/ MABICC24_en.pdf 13549830802693177. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Taylor & Francis http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/internationalization-of-protected-areas-in-norway-and-sweden-examining-i4NnP9FgpN

Loading next page...

References (67)

H. Breitmeier, O. Young, M. Zürn (2006)
Analyzing International Environmental Regimes: From Case Study to Database
A. Aamodt, O. Borgan, G. Harbitz, T. Hoyland (1995)
073097 (E61) - National report — Norway
Insurance Mathematics & Economics, 17
(2006)
Available from: www.ramsar.org/pdf/sitelist.pdf Riksrevisionen
(2007)
Arter och naturtyper i habitatdirektivet -tillståndet i Sverige
T. Franck (1990)
The Power Of Legitimacy Among Nations
(2013)
Världsarv. Världsarv [World Heritage
Stockholm: The Swedish National Heritage Board
(2009)
Commons protected for or from the commons: co-management in the Swedish mountain region?
(2010)
The art and craft of international
(2008)
World heritage and IUCN categories
N. Dudley, P. Shadie, S. Stolton (2013)
Guidelines for applying protected area management categories including IUCN WCPA best practice guidance on recognising protected areas and assigning management categories and governance types
Sissel Hovik, C. Sandström, Anna Zachrisson (2010)
Management of Protected Areas in Norway and Sweden: Challenges in Combining Central Governance and Local Participation
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12
(2010)
Directorate for Nature Management
Erik Framstad, T. Blindheim, Lars Erikstad, P. Thingstad, Svein Sloreid (2010)
Naturfaglig evaluering av norske verneområder
Thomas Risse-Kappen (1995)
Bringing Transnational Relations Back in: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions
Urban Gunnarsson, Michael Löfroth (2009)
Våtmarksinventeringen : resultat från 25 års inventeringar : nationell slutrapport för våtmarksinventeringen (VMI) i Sverige
(2009)
Decision no. l00-103265-2009. Gothenborg: Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland
O. Fauchald (2016)
Environmental Justice in Courts – a Case Study from Norway
S. Haggard, B. Simmons (1987)
Theories of international regimes
International Organization, 41
S. Schneebaum (1995)
The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements
, 29
Global protected areas programme
(2013)
The association world heritage sites in Sweden
(2013)
Stadgar [Statutes
(2009)
Löpande granskning
(2009)
Svenskt naturskydd 100 år
Francesca Polletta, M. Keck, Kathryn Sikkink (1998)
Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics
Contemporary Sociology, 28
Sissel Hovik, Marit Reitan (2004)
National Environmental Goals in Search of Local Institutions
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22
M. Finnemore, Kathryn Sikkink (1998)
International Norm Dynamics and Political Change
International Organization, 52
L. Gulbrandsen (2010)
Transnational Environmental Governance
(2013)
Höga Kusten -Ett världsarv
Available from: whc. unesco.org/en/soc/ World Heritage Resource Manual. 2012. Managing natural world heritage
Swedish National Committee
(2012)
Report from Swedish MAB [Internet
(2012)
Skyddad natur 31 dec 2011 [Protected Nature 2011], Sweden’s Offical Statistical Messages MI 41 SM 1201, corrected version [Internet
Åsa Jardeby, J. Benson, Oskar Räftegård (2015)
National Report Sweden
(2013)
Skydd av natur [Internet
(2010)
Uppföljning av skyddade områden i Sverige
(2010)
Sveriges arbete med bevarande av biologisk mångfald utifrån bevarandemål för landmiljön i den strategiska planen för biologisk mångfald som antogs vid CBD: spartsmöte i Nagoya
(2013)
Uppsala: ArtDatabanken SLU. environment.no. 2013. State of the environment Norway
Rolf Löfgren (2008)
Nationalparksplan för Sverige : langsiktig plan
(2008)
Sweden in UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee [Internet
(2013)
Available from: www.biosfaromrade.org/ mab2009/index
L. Gulbrandsen (2010)
Transnational Environmental Governance: The Emergence and Effects of the Certification of Forests and Fisheries
(2001)
Stadgar för föreningen Laponiatjuottjudus [Statutes for the Laponia Partnership Organization
(2012)
Laponia world heritage in Swedish lapland
Tom Mels (2002)
Nature, Home, and Scenery: The Official Spatialities of Swedish National Parks
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20
(1996)
Biosphere reserves: the Seville strategy and the statutory framework of the world network
C. Green (2009)
Managing Laponia : A World Heritage Site as Arena for Sami Ethno-Politics in Sweden
(2002)
Redovisning av svenska naturskyddade områden med tillämpning av Internationella Naturvårdsunionens (IUCN: s) skyddskategorier
(2012)
Naturalness or biodiversity: conflicting discourses in Swedish protected area management. Environ Val. Swedish Government
Anna Zachrisson (2009)
The designation of Fulufjället National Park: efficient co-management through downward accountability?
Local Environment, 14
N. Dudley (2008)
Guidelines for applying protected area management categories
Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
M. Lane (2001)
Affirming New Directions in Planning Theory: Comanagement of Protected Areas
Society & Natural Resources, 14
E. Falleth, Sissel Hovik (2009)
Local government and nature conservation in Norway: decentralisation as a strategy in environmental policy
Local Environment, 14
(2006)
Report from the nineteenth session of the international coordinating council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme
(2005)
Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av myndighetenes arbeid med kartlegging og overvåking av biologisk mangfold og forvaltning av verneområder. Dokument nr. 3:12. Oslo: Riksrevisjonen
Anna Zachrisson (2008)
Who should manage protected areas in the Swedish mountain region? A survey approach to co-management.
Journal of environmental management, 87 1
(2014)
Arter och naturtyper i habitatdirektivet – bevarandestatus i Sverige 2013 . Uppsala : ArtDatabanken SLU . environment . no . 2013 . State of the environment Norway . Protected areas [ Internet ]
(2002)
National planning tool for the implementation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands
A. Agrawal, J. Ribot (1999)
Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African cases
Journal of Developing Areas, 33
Granskning av medel för skötsel av skyddade områden m
O. Fauchald, L. Gulbrandsen (2012)
The Norwegian reform of protected area management: a grand experiment with delegation of authority?
Local Environment, 17
J. March, Johan Olsen (1989)
Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics
A. Morf (2006)
Participation and Planning in the Management of Coastal Resource Conflicts. Case Studies in West Swedish Municipalities
(2011)
Norway report under agenda point 6: reports on actions undertaken by member states in the context of MAB
(2004)
Available from: www. cbd.int/doc/world/se/se-nr-04-en.pdf CBD Action Plan Norway. 2012. CBD Notification 2012 18-contribution from Norway

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Copyright: © 2014 Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 2151-3732
eISSN: 2151-3740
DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2014.938122
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2014 Vol. 10, No. 3, 240–252, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.938122 Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries a a b Ole Kristian Fauchald *, Lars H. Gulbrandsen and Anna Zachrisson a b Fridtjof Nansen Institute, P. O. Box 326, 1326 Lysaker, Norway; Department of Political Science, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden This study examines differences in how international regimes for the establishment and management of protected areas have been implemented in Norway and Sweden. We focus on regulatory and normative pathways of international influence, which mirror the distinction between legal and non-legal regimes in international environmental law. Sweden and Norway have essentially responded similarly to the regulatory regimes that apply to both countries. The more normative regimes have influenced them in different ways – primarily by strengthening traditional nature conservation norms in Sweden, and norms about sustainable use by local communities in Norway. The findings indicate that the normative pathway is important mainly as a support for domestic policies that correspond to existing national norms and discourses, and they support the proposition that a high degree of regulatory hardness contributes to increase the level and consistency of implementation. Keywords: international agreements; local management; nature conservation; Norway; protected areas; Sweden 1. Introduction humans is minimized through central management. Increasingly, however, it is recognized that local popula- The aim of this article is to examine differences and tions need to be involved (see, e.g., Agrawal & Ribot similarities in how international regimes for the establish- 1999; Lane 2001; Zachrisson 2009a). International con- ment and management of protected areas have been imple- ventions and decisions highlight the importance of local mented in Norway and Sweden, and to discuss how participation in protected area management (e.g. Article regulatory and normative regimes influence national pol- 8(j) of the CBD), and the IUCN has promoted the use of icy decisions. Several international conventions promote various modes of governance and the recognition of the the conservation of biodiversity through the designation of rights of local communities (IUCN 2013b). But a major protected areas. The most important at the global level is challenge remains: how to combine the safeguarding of the UN Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992). long-term conservation values with the rights and interests Further, the Ramsar Convention (1971) concerns the pre- of local communities and other groups? There is still a servation of important wetlands, the World Heritage long way to go before appropriate management structures Convention (WHC, 1972) provides for the conservation are in place that can satisfy the diverging needs placed on of natural heritage for future generations, and the Bern many landscapes (Hovik et al. 2010; Fauchald & Convention (1979) establishes duties for European coun- Gulbrandsen 2012). Specifically, not enough is known tries to conserve natural habitats of wild flora and fauna. about the influence of international commitments on The EU Natura 2000 network follows up the Bern domestic policy change. While questions of traditional Convention. These conventions set legal obligations to nature conservation and participation by local commu- establish protected areas and to achieve effectiveness of nities have been much discussed, there have been few protected areas as measured against conservation objec- studies that attempt to assess how states interpret and tives. In addition, more extensive political commitments implement international commitments in these issue-areas. have been undertaken under these agreements. For Our study seeks to address this research lacuna by instance, the CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets prescribe examining international influences on domestic policy that 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10% change in Sweden and Norway. We have selected these of coastal and marine areas, should be ‘conserved through two neighbouring Scandinavian countries not only effectively and equitably managed, ecologically represen- because of their many similarities, but also in view of tative and well-connected systems of protected areas’ by the palpable differences concerning the development of 2020 (Target No. 11). Moreover, the International Union protected area policies and the fact that Sweden is a for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is highly influential in member of the EU and required to implement Natura setting conservation standards, not least through its classi- 2000 while Norway is not. The two countries share habi- fication system for protected areas, recognized by the UN tats for many species and have fairly similar political and and by many national governments (IUCN 2013a). administrative systems. Historically, the management of Traditional nature conservation policy has aimed to protected areas was centralized in both countries; goals preserve an ideal state of nature where interference by *Corresponding author. E-mail: okf@fni.no © 2014 Taylor & Francis International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 241 were set by the Ministry of the Environment and imple- on the influence of international regimes on domestic mented by national and regional state authorities. This has policies. been changing in both Sweden and Norway over the past two decades (Hovik et al. 2010), but not in the same way. Sweden was a frontrunner in establishing protected 2. Two pathways of international influence on areas and has a rather good record in adopting interna- domestic policies tional protection status. Europe’s first national parks were According to the literature on the effectiveness of interna- established in Sweden in 1909, and much of the protected tional environmental regimes, pathways of international area surface in Sweden is under internationally recognized influence on domestic policy change may be understood protection. But Sweden has been rather slow in imple- as being regulatory, normative or cognitive (e.g. menting local management, at least in comparison with Hasenclever et al. 1997; Breitmeier et al. 2006). These Norway. A mere 13.4% of Sweden’s protected areas were pathways of influence may occur simultaneously or inde- in 2011 registered as managed by a municipality, an asso- pendently. By pathway of influence we mean the way ciation or foundation (Statistics Sweden 2012), and in only international environmental regimes influence domestic a few cases have representatives of local communities rules and management systems for protected areas. In been involved, as with the designation of Fulufjället our definition, such pathways may work through formal National Park (Zachrisson 2009b). This contrasts with adoption of international commitments by a state party or the expectations of the Swedish people: a survey con- through more informal adoption of international guidelines ducted in 2004 showed that 65% supported local or co- and recommendations. Hence, we focus on what we here management of protected areas (Zachrisson 2008). refer to as the regulatory and normative pathways, which Norway established its first national park only in 1962, mirror the distinction between legal (‘hard law’) and non- but has since established a large number of protected legal (‘soft law’) norms in international environmental law areas. It has been quick to ratify relevant conventions, This may also serve as a (see, e.g., Bodansky 2010). but sometimes slow to implement them. With regard to template for examining the influence of international local participation, Norway has become a frontrunner in regimes pertaining to protected areas – here understood devolving responsibility for protected areas, with manage- as global and regional conventions and institutions estab- ment extensively delegated to political bodies at the muni- lished by the conventions – on domestic rules and man- cipal and regional levels (Fauchald & Gulbrandsen 2012). agement systems for protected areas. An international To what extent and how do the different approaches to regime may have both regulatory and normative effects, the establishment of and management of protected areas and their relative importance will vary among regimes. relate to international commitments? One objective of the present study is to describe differences in how interna- tional commitments, which demand both conservation by 2.1. The regulatory pathway means of protected areas and devolution of their manage- ment, are interpreted and implemented in Norway and The regulatory pathway highlights the influence of binding Sweden. Another objective is to examine why such differ- rules in global and regional regimes (Hasenclever et al. ences occur, and thus to contribute to the understanding of 1997). The logic of this pathway is that states can be expected how states respond to international commitments. to comply with international conventions to which they have In investigating international influence on domestic given their formal consent. Compliance may be ensured by policy change, we adopt a three-pronged approach. First, enforcement or facilitation, or by a combination of the two we examine international legal obligations and political approaches. In the literature on international environmental commitments pertaining to protected area management in regimes, a distinction is frequently made between the enfor- Sweden and Norway, ranking them in terms of their legal cement approach and the managerial approach to compliance ‘hardness’. Second, we systematically examine Swedish with international conventions. Proponents of the enforce- and Norwegian reports to the relevant international institu- ment approach argue that compliance with international con- tions, to determine what is reported, and how. Third, we ventions must be enforced through systems of monitoring, examine domestic laws and regulations as well as nature reporting and verification and some form of punitive action protection inventories and reports to supplement the ana- for noncompliance. By contrast, proponents of the manage- lysis of national reports to the international institutions. rial approach argue that information sharing, technical and The archival research includes detailed examination of financial assistance, implementation support, systems of relevant international conventions and institutions, implementation review and the like will be just as effective national reports to the international institutions, domestic in eliciting compliance as strict enforcement of conventions laws and regulations, and nature protection inventories in (Chayes & Chayes 1995). As noted by Breitmeier et al. Sweden and Norway. We also draw on relevant literature (2006, p. 155), the imposition of penalties or the provision on nature protection and protected areas. While this study of rewards may prove effective in eliciting compliance at the is based on both legal and policy analysis, our analytical margins, but ‘even well-endowed public authorities would approach builds primarily on political science perspectives run into trouble right away unless most subjects complied 242 O.K. Fauchald et al. with the relevant conventions most of the time without regard by many of the same institutional and procedural manage- to the impact of punishments and rewards’. rial mechanisms as regulatory approaches. Strong interna- Regardless of the different approaches to enforcing or tional institutions have established ambitious targets and facilitating compliance, international conventions can be communicate clearly what is necessary to achieve these. expected to exert a ‘compliance pull’ of their own because By contrast, weak international institutions are lacking in they have emerged as the result of legitimate processes terms of clear targets or in communicating what they based on state consent and international law (Franck 1990; ultimately want to achieve. In such cases there are no Bodansky 2010). Moreover, international conventions mechanisms in place to facilitate compliance. usually have elaborate mechanisms for monitoring, report- States frequently accept more detailed and far-reaching ing and verification of implementation by state parties. commitments in the form of soft law than in the form of Hence, based on the regulatory pathway, states can be binding convention obligations (Bodansky 2010). More expected to comply with international conventions specifically related to the relationship between the regula- because of their formal consent and the conventions’ tory and normative pathways, we expect non-binding com- mechanisms for enforcing or facilitating compliance. mitments to carry less weight in domestic discussions of More specifically, we expect that a high degree of regula- policy measures and priorities than binding commitments. tory hardness will increase the level and consistency of This is because, first, soft law is not subject to extensive and implementation owing to extensive and formalized con- formalized consent procedures at the domestic level and, sent procedures at the domestic level and the elaborate second, systems for monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms for ensuring compliance. are often lacking or not relevant in the case of soft law. 2.2. The normative pathway 3. Participation in international regimes The normative pathway highlights the influence of the non- 3.1. International obligations and commitments binding norms and principles that emerge from policy pro- cesses within the regimes. Such norms define appropriate International legal obligations and political commitments and inappropriate behaviour, prescribe and proscribe pertaining to protected areas concern the establishment of courses of action, and legitimate particular policies (March protected areas, the management of such areas, and mon- &Olsen 1989; Hasenclever et al. 1997). The logic of this itoring and follow-up of such areas. The general approach pathway is that international norms and principles (‘soft is facilitative, in the sense that conventions and the institu- law’) influence domestic policy discourses and decisions- tions they establish focus on assisting countries to comply makers’ perceptions of appropriate policies and behaviours. with obligations and commitments, rather than on punish- The focus is on what decision-makers believe states should ing noncompliance. do in the light of international cooperation. Such considera- Some of the conventions and institutions studied in tions of appropriate behaviour are often linked to decision- this article are mature in the sense that they have existed makers’ perceptions of their state’s identity and role in since the 1970s (the WHC, the Ramsar Convention, the world politics (Finnemore & Sikkink 1998). For example, Bern Convention and the UNESCO Man and Biosphere compliance with environmental soft law can be important Programme (MAB)), and have had many years to build for states concerned with gaining or maintaining a reputa- institutional, regulatory and normative frameworks. tion as environmental frontrunners, even when they have Indeed, for several of these conventions and institutions not formally consented to be legally bound by such norms. we find quite extensive and advanced frameworks that A key expectation from institutional theory is that provide detailed guidance on how obligations and commit- decision-makers may internalize norms about appropriate ments are to be implemented. Examples include the man- conduct in particular roles and situations. From this per- agement of World Heritage Sites under the WHC, the spective, the internalization of norms constitutes the prime management of Wetlands of International Importance causal mechanism connecting international soft law with under the Ramsar Convention, and the Emerald Network domestic policy changes (March & Olsen 1989). This established according to Article 4 of the Bern Convention. mechanism may work directly through domestic deci- The states’ broad margins of appreciation under the con- sion-makers’ participation in international processes, or ventions have been significantly circumscribed. Natura indirectly through NGO pressure or pressure from other 2000 is in a special position, with its elaborate obligations states. For example, international soft law can be mediated and implementation and enforcement mechanisms. by domestic authorities such as environmental protection The biosphere reserves under the MAB programme agencies (Risse-Kappen 1995), and NGOs can undertake a remain inherently non-binding, as this is not based on range of strategies to encourage states to follow interna- any convention. The CBD can be placed somewhere tional soft law (Keck & Sikkink 1998; Gulbrandsen 2010). between the conventions that establish international status Whereas both the enforcement and managerial for protected areas and the MAB biosphere reserves, given approach to compliance apply to international conven- the broad margin of appreciation under Article 8 and the tions, only the managerial approach applies to non-binding ‘softness’ of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas commitments Normative approaches may be accompanied (PoWPA). International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 243 Closer examination of the WHC, the Ramsar areas. Such acceptance and participation can be character- Convention and the Emerald Network under the Bern ized in terms of the extent to which a country plays an Convention shows that they all contain legal obligations active part at the international level, especially as regards to conserve the environmental qualities of certain areas, undertaking international commitments and dedicating and that these obligations have been further developed human and economic resources to international coopera- through practice under these conventions. Although none tion, and the extent to which a country ensures prompt and of these conventions contains clear obligations to ensure effective implementation of international commitments at conservation through establishment of protected areas, the the domestic level. In this section, we trace how Norway link between conservation and protected areas has become and Sweden have participated in conventions and institu- essential in practice, since most countries ensure conserva- tions. We return to implementation issues in Section 4. tion by establishing protected areas (Patry 2008, pp. 144– Norway participates in four regimes that assign inter- 145; Ramsar Secretariat 2008). All three conventions con- national status to protected areas: the World Heritage tain ‘obligations of result’ as regards the management of Convention, the Ramsar Convention, the Bern sites that have obtained international status. The WHC and Convention’s Emerald Network, and the UNESCO the Ramsar Convention have also developed quite elabo- Biosphere Reserves. Currently, Norway has seven sites rate norms concerning the management measures to be listed as World Heritage Sites, of which one is listed as taken. However, these norms remain ‘soft’, essentially in natural heritage (West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord the form of guidelines (e.g. the Operational Guidelines of and Nærøyfjord). In addition, two sites that are listed as the WHC, and the Ramsar Handbooks for the wise use of cultural heritage contain significant environmental compo- wetlands). The Emerald Network has not yet established nents (Vegaøyan, Røros Mining Town). Norway has 63 such norms. The WHC and the Ramsar Convention have Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar also established mechanisms to ensure compliance, Convention, covering an area of 8869 km . Most of this through listing of and follow-up procedures regarding area, almost 7000 km , is located in the Arctic sites deemed endangered. In extreme situations, sites Archipelago of Svalbard (Ramsar Secretariat 2013). may lose their international status. The mechanism of the At present, there is no Biosphere Reserve in Norway. WHC is somewhat more facilitative and ‘soft’ than that of The one that was established (North-east Svalbard) was the Ramsar Convention (see the Operational Guidelines of withdrawn in 1997 because it did not fulfil the criteria for the WHC and Articles 2.5 and 4.2 of the Ramsar being listed (see Article 4 of the Statutory Framework for Convention). Biosphere Reserves, UNESCO 1996). Norwegian partici- Against this background, we propose the following pation in the Emerald Network, which was established in ranking of the regimes according to their level of 1989 and effectively started operation in 1996, has had ‘hardness’: meagre results thus far (Fauchald & Gulbrandsen 2012). Norway nominated 11 pilot areas covering 25 protected (1) Natura 2000 (applies to Sweden and is by far the areas in 2008, but these could not be accepted as part of ‘hardest’ of the regimes); the Network until a comprehensive list of areas is pre- (2) The Ramsar Convention; sented to the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. According to the Calendar for the Implementation of the (3) The WHC (comparable to the Ramsar Convention, but we consider the Ramsar Convention to be Emerald Network, designation of the Emerald Network in slightly ‘harder’); Norway is expected by the end of 2016 (doc. T-PVS/PA (4) The Emerald Network of the Bern Convention (2010)8rev). In February 2013, Norway identified 886 (applies to Norway and is significantly ‘softer’ areas as potential Emerald Network Sites (Directorate for than the Ramsar Convention and the WHC); Nature Management 2013). (5) Obligations and commitments under the CBD As regards direct participation in the institutions exam- related to protected areas; ined here, Norway is represented by a non-governmental (6) Biosphere reserves under the UNESCO MAB pro- individual in the International Coordinating Council of gramme. MAB (2011–13). In Norway’s most recent national report to MAB Norway (2011), the Norwegian representative While three of these regimes rely essentially on a regula- said that ‘[w]e have had some difficulties communicating tory pathway (Natura 2000, Ramsar and the WHC), the the suitability of such [biosphere] reserves to the relevant others (Emerald Network, the CBD and biosphere authorities in Norway’, and that ‘[w]hen we presented reserves) rely more on a normative pathway. Norway’s candidature for election [to the International Coordinating Council] it was in part in order to boost the understanding of MAB in our country’ (MAB Norway 3.2. Acceptance of conventions and participation in 2011). With the Emerald Network, Norway has two gov- institutions ernmental representatives in the Group of Experts on Acceptance of conventions and participation in their asso- Protected Areas and Ecological Networks under the Bern ciated institutions is indicative of the degree to which a Convention Standing Committee. Norway is well repre- country has accepted internationalization of its protected sented in the IUCN World Commission on Protected 244 O.K. Fauchald et al. Areas, with several protected area professionals having political attention (Zachrisson 2009b; Fauchald & served as members over many years. The UNESCO Gulbrandsen 2012). World Heritage Committee comprises representatives In Norway, protected areas are established on the basis from 21 countries. The Nordic countries collaborate in of Chapter V of the 2009 Nature Diversity Act (Act no. proposing candidates; Sweden served most recently on 100), which in general operates with the same categories the Committee (see below), and Norway served prior to of protected areas as previous legislation. To date, 16.9% Sweden. of the land area of the Norwegian mainland has been Sweden is also active in all the protected area institu- assigned protected area status (environment.no 2013, tions examined here. It has 15 World Heritage Sites but Protected Areas) – which means that Norway has in prac- only one is natural and one is mixed; another two have tice already fulfilled Aichi Biodiversity Target no. 11, to significant environmental values, although they are listed protect 17% of its terrestrial area by 2020. Norway has as cultural heritages sites: Southern Öland and the High established national parks (IUCN category II) in 57% of Coast/ Kvarken archipelago (WHC List 2014). Sweden the protected area, protected landscapes (IUCN category has 66 Wetlands of International Importance under the V) in 32% of the protected area, and nature reserves Ramsar Convention, covering almost 6517 km (Ramsar (IUCN category Ia) in 10% of the protected area Secretariat 2013), and five biosphere reserves under (miljøstatus.no 2013). The Nature Diversity Act defines UNESCO’s MAB), all designated since 2005 (Swedish the purposes of protected areas in general (sections 33 and MAB 2013). One additional earlier reserve (Lake Torne 34) and of the specific categories of protected areas (sec- Area) was withdrawn in 2010. As a member of the EU, tions 35–39); furthermore, it contains general rules on Sweden has designated more than 3500 Natura 2000 areas permitted and prohibited activities within protected areas, covering more than 60,000 km (SEPA 2013). and regulates decision-making as to the governance of Sweden’s involvement in international regimes is also such areas. evident in its direct participation in the relevant institu- A major recent reform of Norwegian protected areas tions. Sweden was represented in the UNESCO World transferred core decision-making authority from the County Heritage Committee by the Swedish Environmental Governors Offices (the government representatives at the Protection Agency (SEPA) and the National Heritage regional level) to local management boards composed of Board 2007–2011 (SNHB and SEPA 2008). The SEPA politicians – mainly local mayors. When this reform is representative is also a member of the World Commission implemented, approximately 75% of the protected area in on Protected Areas, which is administered by the IUCN. Norway will be under such local management (Fauchald & Swedish nationals have taken active part in the MAB, Gulbrandsen 2012). This local management reform has holding the presidency of the International Coordinating been adopted without amending existing legislation or reg- Committee 2006–2008 (UNESCO 2006) and organizing ulations of individual protected areas, and a priority has and hosting workshops and meetings (Swedish MAB been to adopt and update relevant management plans 2012). (Miljøverndepartementet 2009–2010, p. 223). However, Thus we see that both Norway and Sweden score our examination of existing management plans shows that relatively high on international participation. It is also such plans are still lacking or are outdated for many of the clear that Sweden has a higher score than Norway in this protected areas that come under this reform. regard, due mainly to Sweden’s participation in MAB and At the general regulatory level, Section 40 of the Natura 2000. Moreover, while Norway and Sweden have Norwegian Nature Diversity Act states: ‘The King may approximately the same number of Ramsar Sites, the area make regulations granting a protected area special status covered by such sites on the Norwegian mainland is far under an international convention on the protection of the below the comparable Swedish area. natural or cultural environment. The effect that the con- vention in question attributes to such status also applies as Norwegian law’. As yet, no regulations have been adopted to implement this provision, even though 25 areas have 4. Implementation of international commitments been added to the Ramsar List since the Act entered into 4.1. Introduction force in 2009. We focus on three aspects of national implementation of In Sweden, Chapter 7 of the Environmental Code international commitments: those regarding the manage- (1998:808) regulates the establishment and management ment of protected areas (where hard law commitments are of protected areas, including the purposes for which they significant), those regarding delegation to and involvement can be established and under which categories. As of the of local communities (where soft commitments are most end of 2012, 13% of the land area of Sweden had been important) and those regarding degree of representative- assigned protected area status (SEPA 2013). The most ness of protected areas (where commitments are essen- important categories are national parks (IUCN category tially soft). These three categories of commitment are all II, comprising 16% of the total formally protected area) areas where international commitments may play an and nature reserves (mostly IUCN category Ib, about 81%) important role, where both Norway and Sweden face sig- (SEPA 2002), such as World Heritage Sites or Ramsar nificant challenges, and that have received significant Sites. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 245 The case studies of the Fulufjället National Park reason for the poor performance (Riksrevisjonen 2005– (Zachrisson 2009b), the Koster Sea National Park (Morf 2006 pp. 11 and 15–16). 2006) and the Laponia World Heritage Site (Zachrisson These assessments give rise to serious questions 2009a) indicate that Sweden develops an ad hoc partner- regarding the effectiveness of the Norwegian management ship model of decentralization of protected areas. Also the system for protected areas. On the other hand, the relia- case of the Tyresta National Park is probably identified bility of these assessments may be limited, given the lack with this model (see www.tyresta.se). These areas consti- of systematic data regarding the environmental status of tute somewhat less than 20% of the total protected area. protected areas. According to Norway’s report to the CBD The partnership model implies that the regional state (CBD 4th National Report Norway 2009, p. 69), ‘a system authority (the County Administrative Boards (CABs)) for following up and monitoring of protected areas on the delegates limited responsibility (primarily as regards day- basis of concrete conservation goals for protected areas is to-day management) to partnership organizations. being established (2007–2011)’. Moreover, Norway's Representatives of concerned municipalities and CABs, Action Plan (CBD Action Plan Norway 2012,p.10) as well as other relevant stakeholders (e.g. reindeer-herd- states: ‘A national management system/framework for ing units, fishermen organizations and village associa- protected areas is under implementation. The system tions) participate. SEPA is represented in some includes management plans with conservation objectives, partnership organizations (CAB Västra Götaland 2009; management measures (practical management), monitor- Laponiatjuottjudus 2011; Tyrestaskogen 2013). ing and reporting’. A database which will contain the National committees are recommended for some of the protection targets and which will serve as a basis for international regimes studied here. Norway has established local monitoring of protected areas is still under prepara- a UNESCO Commission that focuses, inter alia, on world tion. Three national thematic monitoring schemes have heritage (www.unesco.no), but has not yet designated any been established: forest in protected areas, marshland NGO focal point under the Ramsar Convention. Sweden (remote monitoring, not focused on protected areas) and had a National Ramsar Committee where several involved areas not covered by forests (remote monitoring, not NGOs were represented (Ramsar Report Sweden 2002, Part focused on protected areas) (e-mail from the Directorate 2, p. 24), but it no longer exists (Ramsar Report Sweden of 16 May 2013, on file with authors). When Norway 2012) and a NGO focal point has been established. There is designed its Nature Index, a process intended to document an active MAB Programme Committee, now led by SEPA overall trends for the state of major ecosystems throughout and with representatives of the municipalities and research the country, it was not designed to trace the status and institutions (Swedish MAB 2013). The WHC work is done development of protected areas (Directorate for Nature by SEPA and the National Heritage Board (NHB 2013). Management 2011). The research for the Nature Index There is also an NGO where all Swedish World Heritage did not focus on protected areas, and cannot serve as a Sites are members, which functions as an informal network basis for tracing the development of the environmental for national, regional and local authorities as well as land- status of such areas. owners and user groups (ViS 2013). As to protected areas with international status, the share of Ramsar Sites in which the environment is con- sidered to be threatened is very high: 74%. In only 14% of the areas was the environment considered not to be threa- 4.2. Commitments regarding the management of tened, and information was lacking for 12% of the areas. protected areas For Ramsar Sites, only 37% of the protected areas have On a general level, states have undertaken hard law com- management plans. In its report under the Ramsar mitments regarding management of protected areas in Convention, Norway noted ‘lack of capacity – manpower Article 8(c) of the CBD, and softer commitments in – to follow up on Ramsar issues’ and ‘moderate resources Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 and PoWPA. Commitments only for management and mapping/monitoring of Ramsar regarding the management of protected areas are particu- Sites’ as the two main difficulties in implementing the larly strong where such areas are covered by the WHC, the Convention (Ramsar Report Norway 2012, p. 9). Ramsar Convention, Natura 2000 and the Emerald According to the report, basic information seems to be Network. Softer commitments exist for the MAB bio- available but this information is not sufficiently system- sphere reserves. atized and analysed with a view to determining in a Available assessments indicate that the share of scientifically sound manner the ecological status of Norwegian protected areas involving threatened environ- Norway’s Ramsar Sites. Norway has not submitted any ments had increased from 18% in 1995 to 38% in 2008 report regarding its natural World Heritage Site (WHC (Miljøverndepartementet 2009–2010, pp. 219–220). A fol- State of Conservation 2014). Our examination of regula- low-up examination of the status of protected areas in tions and management plans of protected areas found few 2011 showed that this figure has not changed (e-mail references to the international status of protected areas in from the Directorate of 16 May 2013, on file with these key documents. authors). The Auditor-General singled out the failure to In Sweden, SEPA has been working on developing a plan for the management of protected areas as the main comprehensive monitoring system. In 2010, overall 246 O.K. Fauchald et al. guidelines were adopted as well as specific manuals are expected for the annual sessions, but the Swedish (Haglund 2010), and a national report on status and trends report from 2012 was very brief (only one page) and for outdoor life, habitat types and species is to be pub- focused on how the idea of biosphere reserves had been lished every year from 2012. The reports are also to promoted (Swedish MAB 2012). In regard to the World discuss reasons in cases of poor status (Haglund 2010, Heritage Convention, the state of conservation of the pp. 7–8, 10). This development has been driven largely Swedish site Laponia was reported as adequate (WHC by the demands for follow-up of the EU initiative Natura 2006, p. 145). It was noted that Laponia lacks a buffer 2000 (CBD Thematic Report on Protected Areas Sweden zone, but that was not deemed necessary, since the regula- 2004; Haglund 2010). This monitoring system is intended tions set by Swedish national legislation are regarded as to provide regional and national compilations on status equally effective (WHC 2006, p. 128). None of the and trends, which would allow sufficient data to report Swedish sites has ever been reported as being under threat, according to the Habitats Directive (Haglund 2010, p. 10). so no State of Conservation Reports has been submitted Sweden has submitted two reports to the European (WHC State of Conservation 2014). Commission so far (submissions every seven years; results According to Swedish legislation, management plans are summarized in Sohlman 2007 and Eide 2014), which are required only for nature and culture reserves have been used for reporting to the CBD and the Ramsar (Områdesskyddförordning 1998:1252, Section 3). The Convention. Both reports show that habitats currently with SEPA may issue management plans for national parks a favourable conservational status are found mainly within (NF 1987:938, Section 7). For Natura 2000 sites, the the northern mountain ranges and in rocky areas through- CABs are to adopt ‘conservation plans describing the out the country. These areas also host the great majority of protected habitats and species in order to facilitate possible the protected areas. Many grassland habitats and forests environmental impact assessments and management fail to achieve favourable conservational status. None of needs’ (Områdesskyddförordning, section 17). In regard the reports include data on how Natura 2000 areas con- to areas with international status, there are conservation tribute to the conservational status of habitats (Sohlman plans for 97–98% of the Natura 2000 sites (e-mail from 2007; Eide 2014). In the budget proposal for 2013, the the SEPA of 13 December 2013, on file with authors) and government concluded that it would not be possible to all Ramsar Sites have management plans (Ramsar Report achieve the national environmental quality objective of Sweden 2012). The Swedish mixed World Heritage Site biodiversity until 2020, and that the work with formal (Laponia) has a management plan (SEPA 2012b), and for protection must be strengthened and made more effective the High Coast one is under preparation (CAB (Swedish Government 2012, pp. 49–50). However, in the Västernorrland 2013). For Sweden’s biosphere reserves, latest report to the CBD (CBD 4th National Report there is one management plan as well as two action Sweden 2009), this work was held forth as an example plans and two vision documents. of successful implementation. For both Norway and Sweden, there seems to be some The work with protected areas has been subject to discrepancy between the actual management and conser- criticism on at least two occasions in recent years by the vation status of protected areas and the information pro- vided in reports to under the conventions. This is Swedish National Audit Office. In 2006, SEPA was criti- particularly the case for Norway, which has indicated cized for not following up sufficiently on county manage- ment of protected areas; instructions were not sufficiently significant reforms and initiatives but subsequently failed clear and detailed and there was no plan for how regularly to follow up. Sweden has come further regarding manage- SEPA would follow up (Riksrevisionen 2006). In 2010, ment plans. Both countries suffer from significant lack of the Swedish National Audit Office further questioned information on the environmental status of protected areas. SEPA’s monitoring of the annual reports on funding for nature conservation management from the CABs (Riksrevisionen 2010). 4.3. Commitments regarding delegation to and According to the 2012 report under the Ramsar involvement of local communities Convention (Ramsar Report Sweden 2012), the ecological values of Swedish Ramsar Sites had not changed notably With the exception of the general and qualified rule on during the previous three years, and the status of protected participation of local communities in Article 8(j) of the wetlands was better than for wetlands in general. A wet- CBD, international commitments regarding delegation of land inventory was initiated in 1981 and completed in management to local authorities or stakeholders are essen- 2004. In all, 10% of the land area has been surveyed, tially soft. Under the CBD, the Aichi Biodiversity Target covering the entire country except the mountain regions. 18 and the PoWPA follow up and specify Article 8(j) as This inventory has not been used to detect changes or to related to protected areas. Local management is on the compare protected wetlands with non-protected agenda of the WHC (see World Heritage Resource (Gunnarsson & Löfroth 2009). In regard to biosphere Manual 2012,p.28–34), the Ramsar Convention (2008 reserves, no periodic reviews have been submitted yet: Changwon Declaration on human well-being and wet- this is to be done only every ten years, and the oldest lands) and MAB biosphere reserves (Article 4.6 of the Swedish reserve was established in 2005. General reports Statutory Framework). International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 247 Norway’s local management reforms involve delega- Agency for Marine and Water Management tion of authority in two important respects: the elaboration (Nationalparksförordning, Section 7). Applications for of management plans, and decisions on specific activities exemptions from protected area regulations must be allowed within protected areas. According to the rules of approved by the CABs or the municipalities (depending on procedure for the local management boards, management which of these entities designated the area), in case of ‘spe- plans must be approved by the Norwegian Environment cial circumstances’ (Environmental Code Chapter 7, Section Agency. Many of the protected areas subject to the local 7; Nationalparksförordning, Section 5). In Laponia WHS and management reform do not yet have such plans in place. Tyresta NP, the management boards have some power to Even if such plans must respect the general management influence these procedures (Tyrestaskogen 2013). In prac- framework established by the protected area regulations, tice, almost no authority is delegated to the partnership preparing such plans gives local management boards sig- organizations (Zachrisson 2009a). Transparency is ensured nificant opportunities to influence the long-term develop- by requiring that all management plans and decisions on ment of the protected area. delegating management responsibilities for nature reserves Specific decisions regarding activities allowed in pro- be sent to SEPA (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 28). tected areas are based either on the general exception SEPA, the National Heritage Board, the Forestry Agency clause of Section 48 of the Nature Diversity Act or on and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water specific rules in the regulations of the protected area in Management may also issue appeals in matters concerning question. In general, Section 48 of the Act and the pro- protected areas (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 40). tected area regulations provide the boards with significant In the nature reserves under Sweden’s local manage- opportunities to allow a range of activities in protected ment model, all authority is delegated: the municipalities areas, including construction, use of motorized vehicles, make and revise management plans, handle applications hunting and forestry. For example, the regulations con- concerning activities otherwise not allowed in the pro- cerning a core protected area within one of the Norwegian tected area, and are responsible for management activities World Heritage Sites, Geiranger–Herdalen Landscape for maintaining the status of the protected area Protection Area, which is also subject to the local manage- (Environmental Code Chapter 7, Sections 4–7). ment reform, admits 16 categories of exceptions, including Municipal decisions in matters concerning protected construction of new buildings and transport infrastructure, areas can be appealed to the CAB by anyone within the protected area. Decisions of local management (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 41). In practice, the boards can be appealed to the Ministry of the extent of delegation in the Swedish model is delimited Environment, which may annul or revise the decision of by management plans (Steinwall Forthcoming). the local management board. In addition, the legality of In at least some of Sweden’s partnership cases, inter- decisions may be challenged in court. However, in practice national influences are apparent. In Fulufjället, collabora- the threshold is high for bringing such cases before tion with PAN Parks was an important inspiration Norwegian courts (Fauchald 2010). (Zachrisson 2009b) and in Laponia, a letter to UNESCO The Budget Proposition on the local management from the Sami communities requesting that WH status be reform mentions obligations in relation to the Sami indi- withdrawn served to fuel compromises (Green 2009). genous population under ILO Convention no. 169 con- Norway has undertaken more far-reaching local man- cerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent agement reforms than has Sweden. Commitments under Countries (1989) and CBD’s PoWPA as reasons for carry- the CBD have been part of the justification for the ing out the reform (Miljøverndepartementet 2009–2010, p. Norwegian reforms. Ramsar Sites have been excluded 222). Wetlands on the Ramsar List have not been included from the reform, as far as we can see probably due to in the reform (Miljøverndepartementet 2009–2010, fears that they might not be properly managed by local p. 225). authorities. Also in Sweden, participation in international In Sweden’s evolving partnership system, management regimes has been important for greater involvement of responsibility over nature reserves can be delegated to ‘other local populations. authorities, legally responsible persons or land owners’ (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 21). Such decisions can 4.4. Commitments regarding degree of be appealed to the government by anyone representativeness of protected areas (Områdesskyddförordning, Section 41). Authority is retained by the CABs, who still decide on management plans (nor- The main global commitment regarding representativeness of mally at the same time as the designation is adopted) and any protected areas follows from Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, revisions. The CABs formally manage national parks, except which refers to ‘ecologically representative and well-con- Tyresta (Nationalparksförordning NF 1987:938, Section 3), nected systems of protected areas’, followed up through although this responsibility is shared with the management more specific commitments in PoWPA. On the regional board in the cases of Koster and Laponia under delegation level, commitments regarding representativeness follow from from the CABs (CAB Västra Götaland 2009;SEPA 2012b). Natura 2000 (for Sweden: see Article 3 of the Habitats National park management plans are adopted by SEPA, after Directive, 92/43/EEC) and the Emerald Network (for consultation with the CAB, the municipality and the Swedish Norway: see doc. T-PVS/PA(2010)12). Representativeness is 248 O.K. Fauchald et al. also emphasized in Section 2.1.iv of the Ramsar Strategic Plan with the authors), so their representativeness is rather 2009–2015: ‘Contracting Parties [shall] have considered des- similar. Only the mountain region is considered suffi- ignating Ramsar Sites from among wetland types under-repre- ciently and almost representatively protected. About 7% sented in the Ramsar List [by 2015]’. of the forest land is formally protected, but since 77% of According to Norway’s most recent report to the CBD this land area is located close to the mountain region, the (CBD 4th National Report Norway 2009, p. 70), the major protection is not representative. Also the protection level effort to ensure representativeness regarding protected of wetlands and agricultural lands is not considered suffi- areas is based on three approaches: thematic protection cient (SEPA 2012a). Wetlands are protected to a higher plans, the national parks plan and provincial protection extent in the southern parts of Sweden, according to the plans; furthermore, ‘work on the great majority of provin- Swedish Ramsar report in 2008. As peatlands and water- cial protection plans is now completed.’ The same applies courses in the north are under-represented, it was proposed to the national parks plan (Miljøverndepartementet 2013– in 2011 that 15 new Ramsar Sites be designated in the 2014, p. 240). It also follows from the report (p. 69) that northern areas (Ramsar Report Sweden 2012). The same is representativeness will be a significant element of the true for biosphere reserves, as four of five are located in process of establishing the Emerald Network in Norway. the south of the country. Whether Norway can fulfil expectations regarding repre- The Swedish report to the CBD (CBD 4th National sentativeness in this respect will be clear only by the end Report Sweden 2009) explains that the target of represen- of phase II of the Emerald Network nomination process. tativeness (target 1.1: at least 10% of each of the world’s As noted, almost 17% of the land surface in Norway is ecological regions effectively conserved) will not be met, protected, but research regarding the representativeness of as that is not part of the national objectives. Sweden Norwegian protected areas shows that much remains to be expects instead that ‘the majority of ecosystems and habi- done. A scientific assessment of terrestrial protected areas tats will be conserved through sustainable use’ (p. 101). has documented inadequate protection of lowland areas However, the 2008 national park plan includes a goal of and productive forests as well as gaps in coverage of representativeness: national parks should ‘represent the several important nature types and living areas for threa- different landscape types and their variations’, but this tened and protected species: although the protected area in does not mean an ‘objective to accommodate a certain Norway is ‘extensive … with an overall balance in its share of the country’s nature or of the country’s protected cover of the natural variation’, almost half is situated in nature in national parks’ (SEPA 2008, p. 16). The optimal mountain areas more than 900 m above sea level potential for meeting national and international demands (Framstad et al. 2010, p. 6). According to this assessment, on national parks is found in the mountains and the forests the low proportion of protected areas for lowlands and lying in close proximity to the mountains, due to the productive areas in southern Norway means that protected higher occurrence of ‘natural landscapes of high biological areas have a skewed coverage of natural variation. The value’ (SEPA 2008, p. 15). The plan thus acknowledges report recommends additional protected areas, particularly that Sweden’s national parks are unequally distributed, in the lowlands and along the coast of southern Norway, to being heavily concentrated in the northernmost county. ensure better coverage of productive forests and important Norway and Sweden seem to differ on how they com- municate to the international institutions the challenges nature types and habitats for threatened and protected species. involved in achieving representativeness. While Norway Norway’s Action Plan under PoWPA (CBD Action has indicated willingness to undertake activities, painting Plan Norway 2012) highlights achievements in protection, an optimistic picture of the current situation, Sweden has but hardly mentions the considerable challenges with communicated a more realistic picture of the current situa- regard to ensuring representativeness. The submission tion and the prospects of fulfilling its commitments. Both simply states (p. 2) that there is ‘an overall balance in countries have been diligent in following up their commit- [the] cover of the natural variation’, although noting that ments regarding representativeness under the Ramsar ‘there are some gaps with inadequate coverage of lowland Convention. areas and productive forest, as well as several important nature types and living areas for threatened and protected 5. Discussion species’. Beyond this, no mention is made of the low proportions of protected areas for lowlands and productive While both Sweden and Norway are slowly but steadily areas in Norway. accepting internationalization of protected areas through In Sweden, the protected land surface includes national international regimes, they differ in regard to the extent parks, nature reserves, biotope conservation areas, Natura and type of internationalization. Concerning the regulatory 2000 areas, Ramsar areas and land protected through pathway, we have seen more areas with international pro- nature conservation agreements. Some 80–90% of the tection status in Sweden than in Norway. A key explana- area of national parks and nature reserves lies in the north- tory factor is Swedish participation in the EU Natura 2000 ern parts of the mountain ranges (SEPA 2009). About 75% network, where Sweden has established more than 3500 of the Natura 2000 sites overlap with national protection such areas. Natura 2000 is also the only international status (e-mail from the SEPA, 13 December 2013, on file protected area regime that has generated detailed International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 249 provisions in the Swedish Environmental Code, where it is reports of Norway and Sweden to the CBD, and Norway’s clearly stated that management plans (called ‘conservation participation in the Emerald Network. Concerning bio- plans’) are required. Otherwise, Swedish legislation sphere reserves, we find significant differences between requires management plans only for nature reserves, Sweden and Norway: Sweden has five MAB biosphere whether they have international protection status or not. reserves and participates actively through public authori- Our enquiries concerning the Ramsar Convention, which ties, whereas Norway has no such areas and has delegated is also more regulatory, show that Sweden and Norway have participation to a non-governmental entity. Norwegian protected about the same number of Wetlands of reports to the CBD have expressed high hopes in manage- International Importance. However, Ramsar Sites on the ment and monitoring reforms, but there is little evidence Norwegian mainland are generally far smaller than the that the reforms have produced the desired results. Swedish sites, and the total area of sites on the mainland is Sweden, by contrast, seems to have been more realistic less than a third of the corresponding Swedish area. In regard in its reporting. Finally, although Norway has been com- to management, Norway has failed to adopt management mitted since 1996 to implementing the Emerald Network, plans for most Ramsar Sites, but the regulatory regime is participation has as yet had little effect on its policies otherwise comparable to that of Sweden. Concerning the concerning protected areas. WHC, Sweden and Norway have implemented this conven- The importance of the normative pathway in Norway tion in a comparable manner as regards natural world heri- seems related mainly to the local management discourse, tage. We thus find that the regulatory influence is higher in which resonates well with Norwegian decision-makers’ Sweden primarily because of its EU membership. In addi- perceptions of Norway as a guardian of local democracy, tion, the regulatory influence as regards Ramsar Sites seems although decentralization traditionally has been more con- to be stronger in Sweden than in Norway. troversial in environmental policy than in other areas such Concerning management of protected areas, our compar- as welfare policy (Hovik & Reitan 2004; Falleth & Hovik ison has shown that Sweden has adopted far more manage- 2009). Norway has gone much further than Sweden in ment plans than Norway. Moreover, Sweden has delegating decision-making authority. While it is the incorporated the traditional international nature conservation CABs that usually decide on management plans and their discourse emphasizing strict user regulations and ‘wilder- revisions in Sweden, local management boards have been ness’ to a much higher degree than Norway, as seen for granted significant decision-making authority in Norway. instance in the distribution of IUCN categories. Most of the This key difference can partly be explained by the weight protected area surface in Sweden is inscribed as the strictest given to local user interest in Norway (Fauchald & Ia and Ib categories, whereas less strict categories (II and V) Gulbrandsen 2012) as opposed to the priority given to dominate in Norway. It could be asked whether there is a link wilderness conservation in Sweden (Mels 2002). Local between the more extensive adoption of management plans management in Sweden would appear threatening since and stricter protection categories found in Sweden, on the it is usually suspected to lead to increased use and less one hand, and Sweden’s higher degree of international reg- wilderness. By contrast, Norway has traditionally sought ulatory commitments on the other. We have not found evi- to combine nature protection with sustainable use by local dence of linkage from the higher degree of international communities, tourists, hunters, fishermen and other stake- commitments to the stricter protection categories, but there holders (Hovik & Reitan 2004; Falleth & Hovik 2009). seems to be a link to the more extensive adoption of manage- The recent Norwegian local management reform has ment plans, due mainly to Natura 2000. accentuated the difference in the priority accorded to tradi- The differences between Norway and Sweden as tional wilderness conservation in Sweden and local user regards the regulatory pathway seem in essence to relate interests in Norway. This difference helps to explain why to Sweden’s EU membership. In addition, Sweden’s parti- Sweden has gone further in the internationalization of its cipation in international regimes and involvement of civil protected areas. With greater weight given to traditional society in national implementation may be a factor con- nature conservation, it might be easier to accept interna- tributing to explaining the differences that we have seen. tionalization of protected areas if this implies stricter reg- Otherwise, Norway and Sweden have responded similarly ulations on use. Conversely, with greater weight given to to the regulatory regimes. These findings confirm our local user interests, it might be harder to accept interna- proposition that a high degree of regulatory hardness con- tional protection status and the implications for potential tributes to increasing the level and consistency of users, but easier to adapt to international pressure for implementation. delegation of management authority. In regard to the normative pathway, the slow imple- The difference in local management may also contribute mentation of the Emerald Network in Norway as com- to explaining why Norway has achieved the Aichi Target of pared to Sweden’s implementation of Natura 2000 protection of 17% of its land area while Sweden has not: it is indicates that this pathway has less impact than the reg- easier to protect nature if current use-patterns are allowed to ulatory one. This observation is supported by our finding continue. However, protected areas appear to be more threa- that the normative pathway provides countries with greater tened in Norway. Norway’s protected cultural landscapes flexibility in determining how to implement soft commit- require more extensive management than Sweden’s wilder- ments – as indicated by the MAB biosphere reserves, the ness areas, where natural development is the dominant 250 O.K. Fauchald et al. management strategy. This may also be one explanatory Notes factor behind the difference in adoption of management 1. We have not considered the cognitive pathway because this would require interview data not collected for this study. plans: in Norway, such plans require more extensive and 2. Authors’ calculation based on adding the protected areas of time-consuming balancing of conservation objectives and Laponia (940,000 ha (www.Laponia.nu 2013)) and Koster, user interests than is the case in Sweden. Fulufjället and Tyresta (38,878 ha, 38,500 ha and 1964 ha, To summarize, there are significant differences respectively (SEPA 2013)), divided by the total formally between Norway and Sweden as regards the normative protected area in Sweden (5,195,537 ha (SEPA 2009)). 3. See Articles 4–6 and 11 of the WHC, Articles 3 and 4 of the pathway. These differences can be explained by divergent Ramsar Convention, and Article 4 of the Bern Convention. views on and policy choices regarding the purpose of 4. Based on information in www.naturbase.no. As of 31 May protected areas and local self-governance, especially the 2013, the environment was considered threatened in 83 out emphasis on wilderness conservation in Sweden as of 113 protected areas listed as Ramsar Sites. Management opposed to the greater emphasis on sustainable use of plans were lacking for 38 of these protected areas. 5. Based on information in www.naturbase.no. As of 31 May protected areas in Norway. The differences observed 2013, 41 out of 113 protected areas listed as Ramsar Sites between Norway and Sweden thus reflect the degree of had management plans. flexibility provided by the normative pathway. These find- 6. According to information received from the Directorate for ings support our proposition that non-binding commit- Nature Management, management plans have been finalized ments carry less weight in domestic discussions of policy for 657 out of 2762 protected areas. Management plans are planned for another 761 protected areas. Priority is given to measures and priorities than binding commitments. protected areas subject to local management reform and Ramsar Sites. E-mail from the Directorate of 16 May 2013, on file with authors. 7. See Section 1.3 of Forskrift om vern av Geiranger–Herdalen 6. Conclusions landskapsvernområde, Stranda og Norddal kommunar, Møre This study has examined how Norway and Sweden have og Romsdal, adopted 8 October 2004, no. 1310. responded to key international legal and political protected area commitments. We find that Sweden and Norway have essentially responded similarly to those regulatory regimes References that apply to both countries. The main difference relates to Agrawal A, Ribot JC. 1999. Accountability in decentralization: a the fact that Sweden is subject to Natura 2000, whereas framework with South Asian and West African cases. J Dev Areas. 33:473–502. Norway, as a non-member of the EU, is not bound by this Bodansky D. 2010. The art and craft of international environ- regulatory framework. mental law. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. By contrast, the more normative regimes have influ- Breitmeier H, Young OR, Zürn M. 2006. Analyzing international enced Sweden and Norway in different ways – primarily environmental regimes: from case study to database. by strengthening traditional nature conservation norms in Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. CAB Västernorrland. 2013. Höga Kusten – Ett världsarv. Sweden and norms about sustainable use by local commu- Summary [Sammanfattning] [Internet]. Härnösand: nities in Norway. Our findings indicate that the normative Länsstyrelsen Västernorrland [County Administrativ Board pathway is important mainly as a support for domestic Västernorrland]; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. policies that correspond to existing national norms and highcoast.net/sve.html discourses, and they support our proposition that a high CAB Västra Götaland. 2009. Decision no. l00-103265-2009. Gothenborg: Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland [County degree of regulatory hardness contributes to increase the Administrative Board Västra Götaland]. level and consistency of implementation. CBD 4th National Report Norway. 2009. Fourth national report Our study of the internationalization of protected areas [Internet]. Oslo: The Norwegian Ministry of the in Norway and Sweden took as its point of departure an Environment; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. examination of international commitments under interna- cbd.int/doc/world/no/no-nr-04-en.pdf CBD 4th National Report Sweden. 2009. Fourth national report tional regimes. As suggested, not least by our discussion [Internet]. Stockholm: The Swedish Ministry of the of the normative pathway of influence, we need in-depth Environment; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. studies that pay greater attention to domestic factors to cbd.int/doc/world/se/se-nr-04-en.pdf better explain differences in protected area policies in the CBD Action Plan Norway. 2012. CBD Notification 2012 18- two countries. This indicates new avenues for research that contribution from Norway [Internet]. Oslo: The Norwegian Ministry of the Environment; [updated 2012 Apr 17; cited focus on the interactions of international demands and 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.cbd.int/database/attach- domestic protection politics. ment/?id=1575 CBD Thematic Report on Protected Areas Sweden. 2004. Thematic report on protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity Acknowledgements [Internet]. Stockholm: The Swedish Ministry of the This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway Environment; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. project Managing Protected Areas in a Time of cbd.int/doc/world/se/se-nr-pa-en.pdf Internationalization (grant number 204420/E40) at the Fridtjof Chayes A, Chayes AH. 1995. The new sovereignty: compliance Nansen Institute. The authors are grateful to the editors and the with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge (MA): anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Harvard University Press. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 251 Directorate for Nature Management. 2011. The Norwegian Lane M. 2001. Affirming new directions in planning theory: Nature Index 2010, DN-report 1-2011 [Internet]. comanagement of protected areas. Soc Nat Resour. 14:657– Trondheim: Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management; 671. doi:10.1080/08941920118212. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.miljodirektoratet. Laponiatjuottjudus. 2011. Stadgar för föreningen no/old/dirnat/attachment/2246/DN-Report-1-2011.pdf Laponiatjuottjudus [Statutes for the Laponia Partnership Directorate for Nature Management. 2013. Norsk natur på eur- Organization] [Internet]. Jokkmokk: Laponiatjuottjudus; opeisk smaragdliste [Internet]. Press release. Trondheim: [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.laponia.nu/ Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management; [cited 2014 wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Stadgar-Laponiatjuottjudus.pdf Jun 17]. Available from: www.miljødirektoratet.no/ Mels T. 2002. Nature, home, and scenery: the official spatialities no/Nyheter/Nyheter/Nyhetsarkiv/2013/2/Norsk-natur-pa- of Swedish national parks. Env Plan D: Society and Space. europeisk-smaragdliste/ 20:135–154. Eide W, editor. 2014. Arter och naturtyper i habitatdirektivet – March J, Olsen JP. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: the organi- bevarandestatus i Sverige 2013. Uppsala: ArtDatabanken zational basis of politics. New York (NY): Free Press. SLU. miljøstatus.no. 2013. vernet natur. Miljøstatus i Norge [Status of environment.no. 2013. State of the environment Norway. the Environment in Norway] [Internet]. Trondheim: The Protected areas [Internet]. Oslo: The Norwegian Norwegian Environment Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Environment Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: Available from: www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Naturmangfold/ www.environment.no/Topics/Biological-diversity/Protected- Vernet-natur/ areas/ Miljøverndepartementet. 2009–2010. Prop. 1 S (2009–2010). Falleth EI, Hovik S. 2009. Local government and nature con- Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. servation in Norway: decentralisation as a strategy in envir- Miljøverndepartementet. 2013–2014. Prop. 1 S (2013–2014). onmental policy. Local Environ. 14:221–231. doi:10.1080/ Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet. 13549830802692849. Morf A. 2006. Participation and planning in the management of Fauchald OK. 2010. Environmental justice in courts – a case coastal resource conflicts [PhD thesis]. Göteborg: study from Norway. Nordisk Miljörättslig Tidskrift. 1:49–67. Gothenburg University. Fauchald OK, Gulbrandsen LH. 2012. The Norwegian reform of NHB. 2013. Världsarv. Världsarv [World Heritage] [Internet]. protected area management: a grand experiment with delega- Stockholm: The Swedish National Heritage Board; [cited tion of authority? Local Environ. 17:203–222. doi:10.1080/ 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.raa.se/om-riksantikvar- 13549839.2012.660910. ieambetet/fragor-svar/varldsarv/ Finnemore M, Sikkink K. 1998. International norm dynamics MAB Norway. 2011. Norway report under agenda point 6: and political change. Int Organ. 52:887–917. doi:10.1162/ reports on actions undertaken by member states in the con- text of MAB [Internet]. Gland: Norwegian National Framstad E, Blindheim T, Erikstad L, Thingstad PG, Sloreid S-E. Committee; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. 2010. Naturfaglig evaluering av norske verneområder. NINA unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/ Rapport 535. Oslo: Norsk institutt for naturforskning MAB_national_report_Norway_MABICC23_en.pdf (NINA). Patry M. 2008. World heritage and IUCN categories, In: Dudley, N, Franck TM. 1990. The power of legitimacy among nations. New Stolton, S, editors. Defining protected areas: an international York (NY): Oxford University Press. conference in Almeria, Spain, p. 142–146. Gland: IUCN. Green C. 2009. Managing Laponia: a world heritage site as arena Ramsar Report Norway. 2012. National report on the implemen- for Sami ethno-politics in Sweden [PhD thesis]. Uppsala: tation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands: Norway Uppsala University. [Internet]. Trondheim: Norwegian Directorate for Nature Gulbrandsen LH. 2010. Transnational environmental govern- Management. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www. ance: the emergence and effects of the certification of forests ramsar.org/pdf/cop11/nr/cop11-nr-norway.pdf and fisheries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ramsar Report Sweden. 2002. National planning tool for the Gunnarsson U, Löfroth M. 2009. Våtmarksinventeringen – resul- implementation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands tat från 25 års inventeringar. Report 5925. Stockholm: [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Environment; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from www. Haglund A. 2010. Uppföljning av skyddade områden i Sverige. ramsar.org/pdf/cop8/cop8_nrs_sweden2.pdf Report 6379. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Ramsar Report Sweden. 2012. National report on the implemen- Agency. tation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands: Sweden Hasenclever A, Mayer P, Rittberger V. 1997. Theories of inter- [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection national regimes. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.ramsar. Press. org/pdf/cop11/nr/cop11-nr-sweden.pdf Hovik S, Reitan M. 2004. National environmental goals in search Ramsar Secretariat. 2008. Wetlands of international importance and of local institutions. Environ Plann C. 22:687–699. the IUCN system of protected area management categories. In: doi:10.1068/c0302j. Dudley N, Stolton S, editors. Defining protected areas: an Hovik S, Sandström C, Zachrisson A. 2010. Management of pro- international conference in Almeria, Spain. Gland: IUCN; p. tected areas in Norway and Sweden: challenges in combining 137–141. central governance and local participation. J Environ Policy Ramsar Secretariat. 2013. The list of wetlands of international Plann. 12:159–177. doi:10.1080/15239081003719219. importance [Internet]. Gland: Ramsar Secretariat; [cited 2014 IUCN. 2013a. Dudley N, editor. Guidelines for applying pro- Jun 17]. Available from: www.ramsar.org/pdf/sitelist.pdf tected area management. Gland: IUCN. Riksrevisionen. 2006. Granskning av medel för skötsel av sky- IUCN. 2013b. Global protected areas programme [Internet]. ddade områden m.m. Audit report 32-2005-0734. Priority area 4. Gland: IUCN; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Stockholm: Riksrevisionen [Swedish National Audit Office]. Available from: www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpa- Riksrevisionen. 2010. Löpande granskning 2009. Audit Report p_home/gpap_people/ 32-2009-0586. Stockholm: Riksrevisionen [Swedish Keck ME, Sikkink K. 1998. Activists beyond borders: advocacy National Audit Office]. networks in international politics. Ithaca (NY): Cornell Riksrevisjonen. 2005–2006. Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av myn- University Press. dighetenes arbeid med kartlegging og overvåking av biologisk 252 O.K. Fauchald et al. mangfold og forvaltning av verneområder. Dokument nr. 3:12. Swedish MAB. 2013. The official homepage of Swedish MAB Oslo: Riksrevisjonen [Norwegian National Audit Office]. [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish National Committee; [cited Risse-Kappen T, editor. 1995. Bringing transnational relations 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.biosfaromrade.org/ back in: non-state actors, domestic structures and international mab2009/index.php?option=com_content&view=category& institutions. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. layout=blog&id=36&setLang=en-GB&Itemid=71 SEPA. 2002. Redovisning av svenska naturskyddade områden med Tyrestaskogen S. 2013. Stadgar [Statutes] [Internet]. Tyresta by; tillämpning av Internationella Naturvårdsunionens (IUCN: s) [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.tyresta.se/om-tyr- skyddskategorier. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental esta/forvaltning/stadgar/ Protection Agency. UNESCO. 1996. Biosphere reserves: the Seville strategy and SEPA. 2008. Nationalparksplan för Sverige: långsiktig plan. the statutory framework of the world network. Paris: Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. UNESCO. SEPA. 2009. Svenskt naturskydd 100 år. Stockholm: Swedish UNESCO. 2006. Report from the nineteenth session of the Environmental Protection Agency. international coordinating council of the Man and the SEPA. 2012a. Sveriges arbete med bevarande av biologisk Biosphere (MAB) programme, SC-06/CONF.202/16. Paris: mångfald utifrån bevarandemål för landmiljön i den strategiska UNESCO. planen för biologisk mångfald som antogs vid CBD: spartsmöte ViS. 2013. The association world heritage sites in Sweden. World i Nagoya 2010, Skrivelse nr NV-00477-12 (2012 March 30). heritages in Sweden [Internet]. Världsarv i Sverige; Stockholm: Swedish Environment Protection Agency. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: worldheritagesweden. SEPA. 2012b. Laponia world heritage in Swedish lapland. se/en/ Management plan [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish WHC. 2006. Sub-regional periodic reports for Europe, 30th Environment Protection Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Session of the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO Available from: www.laponia.nu/wp-content/uploads/2013/ Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural 09/F%C3%B6rvaltningsplan-Laponia-120117.pdf and natural heritage, Vilnius 8–16 July [Internet]. Paris: World Heritage Committee; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available SEPA. 2013. Skydd av natur [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. from: whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf11Ae. Available from: www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-sam- pdf hallet/Miljoarbete-i-Sverige/Uppdelat-efter-omrade/Naturvar WHC List. 2014. UNESCO, World heritage convention [Internet]. d/Skydd-av-natur/ World heritage list. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: whc. SNHB and SEPA. 2008. Sweden in UNESCO’s World Heritage unesco.org/en/list Committee [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish National Heritage WHC State of Conservation. 2014. UNESCO, World heritage Board and Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; [cited convention. State of conservation [Internet]. Paris: World 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: www.raa.se/publicerat/ Heritage Centre; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Available from: whc. br2008_5.pdf unesco.org/en/soc/ Sohlman A, editor. 2007. Arter och naturtyper i habitatdirektivet World Heritage Resource Manual. 2012. Managing natural world – tillståndet i Sverige 2007. Uppsala: ArtDatabanken SLU. heritage [Internet]. Paris: UNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOS/ Statistics Sweden. 2012. Skyddad natur 31 dec 2011 [Protected IUCN; [cited 2014 Jun 18]. Available from: http://whc. Nature 2011], Sweden’s Offical Statistical Messages MI 41 unesco.org/en/managing-natural-world-heritage/ SM 1201, corrected version [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Zachrisson A. 2008. Who should manage protected areas in the Available from: http://www.scb.se/Statistik/MI/MI0603/ Swedish mountain region? A survey approach to co-manage- 2011A01/MI0603_2011A01_SM_MI41SM1201.pdf ment. J Environ Manage. 87:154–164. doi:10.1016/j. Steinwall A. Forthcoming. Naturalness or biodiversity: conflicting jenvman.2007.01.010. discourses in Swedish protected area management. Environ Val. Zachrisson A. 2009a. Commons protected for or from the com- Swedish Government. 2012. Prop. 2012/13:1 Utgiftsområde 20. mons: co-management in the Swedish mountain region? Förslag till statens budget. Stockholm: Swedish Government. [PhD thesis]. Umeå: Department of Political Science, Umeå Swedish MAB. 2012. Report from Swedish MAB [Internet]. University. Paris: Swedish National Committee; [cited 2014 Jun 17]. Zachrisson A. 2009b. The designation of Fulufjället National Available from: www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/ Park: efficient co-management through downward account- MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/MAB_national_report_Sweden_ ability? Local Environ. 14:259–271. doi:10.1080/ MABICC24_en.pdf 13549830802693177.

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jul 3, 2014

Keywords: international agreements; local management; nature conservation; Norway; protected areas; Sweden

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries

Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries

Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries

References (67)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies