Knowledge-based management of protected areas and hydropower: the case of Norway
- 65 Downloads
How has ecological knowledge been applied in Norwegian management of hydropower and protected areas? By recognizing a diversity of environmental ‘knowledges’ and science as potentially subordinated to political and economic interests, we explain the link between ecological knowledge and management by the state and scale of knowledge, political conflict and international commitments. The analysis is guided by case-study methodology. We find that ecological knowledge has had weak impact in the management reform of protected areas and been reduced as a decision-making premise in hydropower management. Differing combinations of case-specific factors have produced these outcomes. In the case of protected areas, ecological knowledge was suppressed mainly by opposing economic interests. The hydropower case showed how competing environmental knowledge and international commitments related to renewable energy and climate change overshadowed nature management concerns. These observations highlight the importance of differentiating between types of environmental knowledge and between knowledge and interests in the study of nature management.
KeywordsScience policy Nature management International commitments Water resource management Environmental knowledge Renewable energy
Funding was provided by Norges Forskningsråd (Project No. 230374).
- Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. C. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African Cases. Journal of Developing Areas, 33(Summer), 473–502.Google Scholar
- Andresen, S., & Rosendal, G. K. (2017). The panel on climate change and the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. ASJP African and Francophone Air and Space Power Journal, 8(2), 45–61.Google Scholar
- Andresen, S., Rosendal, G. K., & Skjærseth, J. B. (2017). Designing knowledge-based, integrated management systems for environmental governance. In Ariel Dinar (Ed.), Natural resources and environmental policy in the era of global change (pp. 439–456). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
- Bjørnes, T., & Lafferty, W. (2000). Miljøvernlederstillinger og Lokal Agenda 21. Hva er status? Report 1/2000, SUM, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
- Buan, I. F., Eikeland, P. O., & Inderberg, T. H. (2010). Rammebetingelser for utbygging av fornybar energi i Norge, Sverige og Skottland: Sammenligning av faktorer som motiverer og modererer investeringer ‘Framework Conditions for Development of Renewable Energy in Norway, Sweden and Scotland: Comparison of Factors that Motivate and Moderate Investments), In Norwegian, FNI Report 6/2010, Lysaker: FNI.Google Scholar
- DN (Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management). (2008). Lokal forvaltning av verneområder. En evaluering av delegering, Tilrådning til Miljøverndepartementet. Trondheim: DN.Google Scholar
- EC. (2008). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. European Communities/Wesseling: Welzel and Hardt.Google Scholar
- Eikeland, P. O & Schei, P. J. (2019). Use of research-based ecological knowledge in national resource management: The case of Norwegian hydropower management. FNI report, forthcoming 2019. Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
- Falleth, E.I. & Hovik, S. (2008). Lokal forvaltning av store verneområder. Tidsskrift for utmarksforskning 1. http://utmark.nina.no/portals/utmark/utmark_old/utgivelser/pub/2008-1/art/Falleth_Hovik_2_Utmark_1_2008.html.
- FAO. (2009). State of the world’s forests. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
- Fauchald, O. K. & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (forthcoming 2019). Reforming protected area management in Norway: What role for knowledge? Working paper, Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
- Fauchald, O. K., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Zachrisson, A. (2014). Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 10(3), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.938122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- GEO. (2012). Global environmental outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.Google Scholar
- IEA (2012). Technology Roadmap Hydropower. Paris: IEA, https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/2012_Hydropower_Roadmap.pdf.
- Innst. O. nr. 64, 1995–1996. The Norwegian Parliament. Oslo, energi- og miljøkomiteen, den 29. mai 1996.Google Scholar
- IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014. Synthesis Report. WHO/UNEP. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/. Accessed December 01, 2017.
- IUCN (2011). Guidelines for protected areas legislation, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 81. IUCN Publication service: Gland.Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Josefsson, H. (2015). Good Ecological Status—Advancing the Ecology of Law, Dissertation University of Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
- L’Abée-Lund, J.H. & J.O. Villar, (2017). Start-stop practice in small Norwegian hydropower plants, NVE Report 9/17, Oslo: Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.Google Scholar
- March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., & Carlin, E. M. (2002). Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- NEA, Norwegian Environment Agency. (2012). Miljøstatus.no—vassdragsregulering (the State of the environment), http://www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Ferskvann/Vassdragsregulering/.
- Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. (2015). Fakta—Energi og vannressurser i Norge (Facts—Energy and water resources in Norway), Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/fd89d9e2c39a4ac2b9c9a95bf156089a/1108774830_897155_fakta_energi-vannressurser_2015_nett.pdf.
- Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. (2009–2010). Prop. 1 S (2009–2010). Oslo: Det kongelige miljøverndepartement.Google Scholar
- Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration. (1993). Inngrep i vassdrag; konsekvenser og tiltak—en kunnskapsoppsummering. Publ. nr. 13/1993. Oslo: Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration.Google Scholar
- Rosendal, G. K. (2004). Biodiversity: international bungee jump—domestic bungle. In J. B. Skjærseth (Ed.), International Regimes and Norway’s Environmental Policy: Crossfire and Coherence (pp. 161–194). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Skjærseth, J. B. (2004). International regimes and Norway’s environmental policy: Crossfire and coherence. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Smith, S. R., & Ingram, H. (2002). Policy tools and democracy. In Lester Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 565–584). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Stauffer, R.B (1957). Haeckel, Darwin, and ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology, 32 (2), 138–144 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2816117.
- TEEB. (2010). The Economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Geneva: Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Thompson Hobbs, N. (2003). Challenges and opportunities in integrating ecological knowledge across scales, Forest Ecology and Management, 3 August, 223–238.Google Scholar
- Underdal, A. (2000). Science and politics: The anatomy of an uneasy partnership. In S. Andresen, T. Skodvin, A. Underdal, & J. Wettestad (Eds.), Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- Underdal, A., & Hanf, K. (Eds.). (2000). International environmental agreements and domestic politics: The case of acid rain. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- UNEP. (2009). The natural fix: The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation. Cambridge: UNEP.Google Scholar
- White Paper. (2006–2007). Regjeringens miljøpolitikk og rikets miljøtilstand. St.meld. 26. Miljøverndepartementet, Oslo.Google Scholar
- White Paper. (2013). Naturens goder—om verdier av økosystemtjenester (Nature’s benefits—on the value of ecosystem services). NOU 2013:10, Miljøverndepartementet, Oslo.Google Scholar
- White Paper. (2015–2020). Natur for livet. (Nature for life). Meld. St. 14. Klima og miljødepartementet, Oslo.Google Scholar
- Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar