Luke Luobio 14 2020.Pdf (1.346Mt)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 14/2020 Local knowledge in nature conservation management Situation in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands Marjatta Hytönen (ed.) Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 14/2020 Local knowledge in nature conservation management Situation in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands Marjatta Hytönen (ed.) Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki 2020 Recommended citation: Hytönen, M. (ed.). 2020. Local knowledge in nature conservation management : Situation in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 14/2020. Natural Resources Institute Finland. Helsinki. 66 p. Recommended citation for a single article: Hytönen, M., Tuulentie, S. & Nikula, A. 2020. Finland. In publication: Hytönen, M. (ed.). 2020. Local knowledge in nature conservation management : Situation in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 14/2020. Natural Resources Institute Finland. Helsinki. pp. 8–18. ISBN 978-952-326-924-8 (Print) ISBN 978-952-326-925-5 (Online) ISSN 2342-7647 (Print) ISSN 2342-7639 (Online) URN http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-326-925-5 Copyright: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) Authors: Marjatta Hytönen (ed.) Publisher: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki 2020 Year of publication: 2020 Cover photo: Ari Nikula Printing house and publishing sales: PunaMusta Oy, http://luke.juvenesprint.fi Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 14/2020 Abstract Marjatta Hytönen1, Thorvardur Arnason2, Ragnheiður Bogadóttir3, Gestur Hovgaard3, Ari Nikula1, Rannveig Ólafsdóttir2, Hans Holt Poulsen4, Per Sandström5, Stefan Sandström5, Marita Svartá3, Seija Tuulentie1, Karl Zinglersen6 1Luke, 2University of Iceland, 3University of Faroe Islands, 4Qeqqata municipality, 5SLU, 6GINR This review was compiled within the project “Building Shared Knowledge capital to support natural resource governance in the Northern periphery – BuSK” (2016-2019) financed by the Interreg North- ern Periphery and Arctic Programme (2014-2020). The chapters of the review give an overview of collaborative nature protection practices of state agencies at national and local level in Finland, Swe- den, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Faroe Islands. A few innovative non –governmental arrange- ments are also described. In Finland, the state forest management agency Metsähallitus has played a central role in the evolu- tion of public participation procedures with the help of development projects and planning systems. At local level, the reform of the Finnish Land Use and Building Act in 1999 has led to significant strengthening of stakeholder involvement in planning. According to researchers, participation in in- ternational nature conservation negotiations has been important for increasing involvement of local people in Sweden. In northern Sweden, the Laponia process within the Laponia World Heritage Site is an innovative effort based on cooperation involving indigenous Sami people. In Norway, political pro- cesses have led to decentralisation of nature conservation management through the establishment of local protected area management boards and advisory councils. There exist numerous Norwegian studies dealing with these recent nature conservation reforms. Debates dealing with energy develop- ment proposals, nature conservation and tourism have been common in Iceland during recent dec- ades. An Icelandic speciality is the abundance of potential geotourism destinations. Public participa- tion practices are evolving within the three UNESCO World Heritage Sites established recently in Greenland. The sites have been planned cooperatively, and the documents compiled for UNESCO con- tain a lot of up-to-date information, and enable follow up and monitoring. Debates dealing with natu- ral resource governance between planning authorities, local actors and stakeholders are common in the Faroe Islands. The Faroese land use problems are often connected to fishing, aquaculture and tourism. The Sami Parliaments in Finland, Sweden and Norway play an important role in decision-making pro- cesses in the Sami areas. Finland and Sweden are members in the European Union. Natura 2000 Network and Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) are EU-wide systems with a participatory dimension. The developments within Natura 2000 Network are important for public participation because most of the nature conservation areas in the EU member countries belong to the Network. The directive- based MSP–process is applying cutting edge public participation procedures in preparing maritime spatial plans by the year 2021. The new maritime spatial plans are required to be integrated with the more established land use plans to include the “land-sea interaction” aspect into planning. The es- tablishment of international UNESCO networks of World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves and Ge- oparks has also increased local involvement in natural resources management. The importance of land use planning legislation in enhancing public involvement is a common feature in the BuSK countries. Out-migration from rural areas is a problematic trend in all the regions includ- ed in this report. This has led to increased discussion on the role of nature conservation areas in local economy and to efforts to develop nature-based tourism. Keywords: nature conservation, livelihoods, participation, governance, decision-making 3 Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 14/2020 Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................7 2. Finland .....................................................................................................................................8 2.1. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2. Nature protection areas in Finland ..................................................................................................... 8 2.3. Use of local knowledge by Metsähallitus; participatory tools and methods ...................................... 8 2.3.1. Guidelines ......................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2. Natural resource planning ............................................................................................................... 13 2.3.3. Management planning .................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.4. Landscape ecological planning ........................................................................................................ 14 2.4. Use of local knowledge by regional authorities; participatory tools and methods .......................... 14 2.4.1. Regional authorities ........................................................................................................................ 14 2.4.2. Regional and local land use planning .............................................................................................. 15 2.4.3. Maritime spatial planning ............................................................................................................... 16 2.4.4. Natura 2000 master plans ............................................................................................................... 17 2.5. Concluding remarks, trends and challenges ..................................................................................... 17 3. Sweden ..................................................................................................................................19 3.1. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2. Nature protection areas in Sweden .................................................................................................. 19 3.3. Use of local knowledge by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA); participatory tools and methods ................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.1. Environmental Code ........................................................................................................................ 19 3.3.2. National Park Plan ........................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.3. Management plans for national parks ............................................................................................ 20 3.3.4. Laponia process ............................................................................................................................... 21 3.4. Use of local knowledge by regional authorities; participatory tools and methods .......................... 22 3.4.1. Regional authorities ........................................................................................................................ 22 3.4.2. Regional and local land use planning .............................................................................................. 22 3.4.3. Maritime spatial planning ............................................................................................................... 23 3.4.4.