POLICYMIX Case Study Description: NORWAY
The following is a short description of policy and research questions in the Norwegian case study of
POLICYMIX. This page will be continually updated as the case study focus is developed. Assessments
of economic instruments in their policymix in case studies will take place in 2011-2013.
1. Introduction
In June 2009, Norway established a Nature Diversity Act,
which includes all previous laws related to land use and
biodiversity in one act. This act is the most important
legal framework for all future regulatory and economic
instruments in the area of forest and biodiversity
conservation – both inside and outside protected areas.
Forests cover around 20% of the Norwegian land area of
which only around 10% are owned by the state or
municipalities
i. The rest is owned privately or by localii, while a much citediii. The
2. National level case study
2.1 Main economic instruments in use in forest/biodiversity conservation and related
regulatory instruments
Traditionally, the main regulatory instrument has been state appropriation of private forest land for
forest reserves against compensation based on the value of the standing timber. This is sometimes
termed “forced conservation”, and was the source of serious conflicts between forest owners, the
state and environmental NGOs in the 1990s. This can be viewed a “command-and-control”
instrument, despite the monetary transfers involved.
In 2000, the national forest owner association proposed a new voluntary conservation approach,
where forest owners report to the association areas available for protection, which is then
negotiated with the state (or county). The rules of compensation are quite similar, though the
compensation payments seem to somewhat higher under the voluntary approach
main difference compared to “forced conservation” seems to lie in the process. Since 2003, nearly all
new conservation processes have been in the voluntary form (with one important exception – see
case site 1 below). The voluntary conservation approach may be viewed as more similar to a
standard economic instrument.
There are currently few, if any, “pure” economic instruments in use in forestry conservation, or
biodiversity conservation more generally, in Norway. Compensation (at the county level) can be
obtained for setting aside areas of ‘Complementary Hotspot Inventory’ (“MiS” in Norwegian). Forest
Forest and conservation areas in
Southern and Central Norway, including
proposed local case study sites #1-#3.
owners with biodiversity hotspots covering at least 1% of the productive forest area in their property
can receive compensation (generally small amounts). Recently, forest owners with large areas of MiS
can propose the establishment of a nature reserve on their property as part of the voluntary
conservation approach and receive full compensation if the forest area fulfills the criteria for
protection as a nature reserve. A large part of forests that are actively managed are under
certification (Norwegian “Living Forests”, under the European Program for the Endorsement of
Forest Certification Schemes) Certification is primarily a market-driven process, though government
has to some extent been involved in setting the criteria.
Other direct regulations or wider economic instruments may also be important. There are a range of
economic support schemes for forestry (and agriculture in forest areas) that potentially run counter
to conservation objectives (e.g. planting exotic tree species, forest road construction, harvesting in
difficult terrain). There is also a lack of integration of forest in environmental impact assessment in
other sectors (e.g. of small scale hydropower development). Other direct regulation that affect
biodiversity, include the forestry law and planning, building and other acts concerning land use and
the right to environmental information act (which opens up for previously confidential biological and
management information from private forest owners).
iv. However, the
2.2 New instruments under consideration or to be assessed
The new Nature Diversity Act provides the general framework for economic instruments affecting
biodiversity and forests for the near to medium term. Other economic instruments may be
conceivable for the longer term.
The relatively recent voluntary conservation approach is and will continue to be the backbone of
government policy to increase forest conservation. More generally under the act, if the protection
makes ongoing use more difficult, or if the protection prohibits ongoing use and the owner or the
rights holders can document financial losses, this loss will be compensated by the Government.. All
forestry is classified as ongoing use and will be compensated if the protection makes the use more
difficult or if the use is prohibited. The compensation rules have been simplified and better
standardized (e.g. for different protection categories). Previously around 30% of the costs were due
to lawyers and external experts (e.g. land valuations). There has been a small increase in the budget
for protected areas, especially for operational management measures, which has received little
emphasis until now. However, the main current impediment to voluntary conservation is generally
low budgets for compensation payments
in our national and local case study assessments.
In addition, grant schemes are proposed under the act outside protected areas to stimulate the
conservation of what the act terms “priority species” and sustainable use of “selected habitat types”.
This is not compensation, but “positive incentives” that are meant to stimulate landowners, rights
holders, organizations and municipalities to take care of these species and habitat types. The funds
will go to measures to maintain priority species and selected habitat types, through active
operational management or other measures that will help to maintain or restore the ecology of the
area. These support schemes will be new economic instruments which we will consider in our case
study.
Finally, there is no allowance under the act for general compensation – fiscal ecological transfers – to
municipalities affected by protected areas. This was decided by the Government when they passed
the Nature Diversity Act , without objection from the Norwegian Parliament
instruments that the government wants to use are grant schemes and compensation to landowners
and right holders. However, a local development fund was set up previously when the last, large
forced protected area (Trillemarka – see below) was established, so as an ad hoc tool it may be
conceivable in future. Some funds have been set aside for 2010 to support local pilot projects to
stimulate income generating activities based on protected area/national park activities, e.g. smallscale
ecotourism operations. For the longer term, at least four other economic instruments may be
worth sounding out and assessing in the project:
iv. The voluntary forest protection approach will be centralv. The main economic
•
more cost effective conservation
Public auctioning of conservation contracts (as has been tested e.g. in Finland) to achieve
•
recreational home development and other economic activities in proximity of PAs, to
overcome local resistance.
Combination of compensation for protected area establishment and allowing (limited)
•
plots to be protected together.
Agglomeration bonus under the voluntary conservation scheme to encourage adjacent forest
•
values – important for stimulating better long-term “management investment” decisions.
Grant/compensation schemes that not only reward high timber values, but high biological
3. State and local case studies
Based on the types of instruments and ecosystem services of interest, three geographical areas have
been identified as relevant for local level policy impact assessments in the second local level phase of
the case studies. One case will be chosen for in-depth assessment, 2-3 considered for inclusion as
brief case illustrations in the national level assessment.
3.1 Site option #1: Trillemarka-Rollag Østfjell
protected area in Buskerud county
Introduction
The area lies within three municipalities in
Buskerud County in south-Eastern Norway. Part of
the area, consisting of two nature reserves
totalling 47 km
Protection Act. The area protected by law was in
2008 extended with approximately 100 km
some termed the last “forced” protected forest
area in Norway. The area houses a high diversity of
red-listed species and is characterized by various
hot spot areas with high conservation values.
Buskerud County is typical of forestry areas in
Southern Norway, with extensive mainly nutrient poor to intermediate boreal coniferous forest, and
limited agricultural activity. Impacts on forest biodiversity are mainly from regular commercial
forestry activities in well-established and long regulated areas.
Site option #1: Trillemarka-Rollag Østfjell
protected area in Buskerud county
2, is protected under the Nature2. It is by
Main ecosystem services under evaluation:
•
Biodiversity (primary, independent of role for ecosystem services)
•
Recreation and ecotourism (secondary)
•
Various cultural heritage, educational and aesthetic values (secondary)
Main actors/stakeholders:
•
Private forest owners
•
Representatives of 3 municipalities
•
Local development interests/associations
•
General public, researchers, environmental NGOs
Main economic instruments in use in forest/biodiversity and related regulatory instruments:
•
“Forced conservation” and compensation scheme combined with local development fund
•
Other (support for MiS registration, certification schemes)
•
Land-use laws and practices, coordination between municipalities and county/national levels
New instruments under consideration or to be assessed:
•
Voluntary conservation schemes nearby
•
to protected area (recreational home construction, ecotourism and cultural heritage
activities)
Combination of more protection combined with local development opportunities in relation
3.2 Site option #2: Oslomarka forest complex,
in municipalities surrounding Oslo
Introduction
The area consists of the forests to the north, southwest
and south-east of the capital Oslo, shared
between 19 municipalities and five counties. Less
than 30% is owned by the state/government;70% is
owned by around 2000 private forest owners, of
which one owns 25% of the total area of 1720 km
is mostly coniferous, though have many areas of
mixed and deciduous trees. Oslomarka is by far the
most important recreation area in the country. It is
protected by a special law for Oslomarka
(“Markaloven”) and special regulations related to forestry activities. There are a few forest reserve
areas, of relatively small sizes. There is also some limited voluntary conservation. The area houses
important biodiversity. Due to the importance of primary-like forests (“fairy-tale forests”) for
recreation, there are ongoing conflicts between interests of conservation, traditional and more
activity-based recreation, and forestry and other direct economic uses.
Site option #2: Oslomarka forest complex,
in municipalities surrounding Oslo
2. It
Main ecosystem services under evaluation:
•
Recreation and ecotourism (primary)
•
Biodiversity (primary, independent of role for ecosystem services)
•
Various cultural heritage, educational and aesthetic values (secondary)
•
Water quality regulation for Oslo (secondary)
Main actors/stakeholders:
•
Recreationists (a heterogeneous group)
•
Private forest owners (especially one)
•
Municipality and county representatives
•
Population of Oslo, and adjacent areas
•
Researchers, environmental NGOs
Main economic instruments in use in forest/biodiversity and related regulatory instruments:
•
Support for MiS registration, certification schemes
•
Land-use laws and practices, coordination between municipalities and county levels
•
Most recent “forced conservation” and related compensation processes
New instruments under consideration or to be assessed:
•
Voluntary conservation schemes
•
Grant schemes for “priority species” and “selected habitat types”
•
plots to be protected together.
Agglomeration bonus under the voluntary conservation scheme to encourage adjacent forest
•
ecosystem service justifying protected area status in the Nature Diversity Act.
Newly introduced, special law for Oslomarka, which recognizes “fairytale forests” as an
•
Information instruments
3.3 Site option #3: Aamli and Drangedal
protected areas in counties of Aust-Agder
and Telemark
Introduction
The area consists of two municipalities in the
southern part of Norway, in the transition zone
between boreal and temperate forest. Drangedal is
situated in Telemark county, while Åmli is in the
neighboring Aust-Agder county. One or both
municipalities can be used for a case study area,
and if a continuous area is needed, the municipality
of Nissedal located between Åmli and Drangedal,
can be included. Forestry is an important part of the
economy in these municipalities. The area is also
within the part of Norway with a high occurrence of
red-listed species in special hotspot-habitats.
Site option #3: Aamli and Drangedal
protected areas in counties of Aust-Agder and
Telemark
Several large and small protected forest areas with high biodiversity is present, including a number of
voluntarily protected areas
Main ecosystem services under evaluation:
•
Biodiversity (primary, independent of role for ecosystem services)
•
Recreation and ecotourism (secondary)
Main actors/stakeholders:
•
Private forest owners
•
Municipality representatives
•
Local development interests/associations
•
General public, researchers, environmental NGOs
Main economic instruments in use in forest/biodiversity and related regulatory instruments:
•
Support for MiS registration, certification schemes
•
Land-use laws and practices, coordination between municipalities and county levels
•
Most recent “forced conservation” and related compensation processes
New instruments under consideration or to be assessed:
•
Voluntary conservation schemes
•
Public auctioning of conservation contracts to achieve more cost effective conservation
•
Grant schemes for “priority species” and “selected habitat types”
•
plots to be protected together.
Agglomeration bonus under the voluntary conservation scheme to encourage adjacent forest
i
Store Norske Leksikon:-http://www.snl.no/Norge/skogbruk
ii
The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management: http://www.dirnat.no/content.ap?thisId=500040201
iii
Framstad, E. et al. (2002) ”Evaluering av skogvernet i Norge”. – NINA Fagrapport 54: 146s.
iv
NIBR/NINA 2010.
Skjeggedal, T. et al. (2010) ”Frivillig vern av skog – evaluering av arbeidsformen”. Samarbeidsrapport
v
Presentation to POLICYMIX kick-off seminar, Oslo, May 2010.
Lange, T. (2010) ”An introduction to Norway’s Nature Diversity Act and some policy instruments”.
common property institutions. Currently 1.8% of
productive forests are protected
biological evaluation recommended 4.6% as a minimum
to achieve biodiversity/landscape protection goals
main challenge in Norway is thus to create incentives for
private forest owners to take biodiversity and ecosystem
services into account, beyond what they would
otherwise do, in their forestry and other land-use
activities.