The national park pilot process introducing new forms of governance in Danish nature politics
View/ Open
Date
2009Author
Boon, TE
Lund, DH
Nathan, Iben
Type
Technical ReportLanguage
enMetadata
Show full item recordAbstract
The present report constitutes part of the Danish contribution to the European research project
New Modes of Governance for Sustainable Forests in Europe (GoFOR). It builds on the
conceptual framework developed during the GoFOR project and is structured according to the
corresponding Terms of Reference.
The National Park Pilot Process (NPP) was to identify options for establishing national parks in
Denmark. The expected output was a non-binding input to policy formulation.
The Minister of Environment (MoE) enquired counties and municipalities of six areas whether
they were interested in hosting a pilot project. The Outdoor Council, an umbrella NGO for
outdoor and environmental NGOs, entered the political arena, adding 2 ½ million Euro to the
project and entered into an agreement with the Minister of Environment regarding how to
implement the pilot projects, and it was decided to support pilot projects in seven areas.
In the following phase, the MoE initiated the process by sketching out rough guidelines for the
organisation of the pilot projects to the counties and municipalities. The pilot projects were to
elaborate a report with recommendations on how to organise a prospective National park.
Locally, the pilot projects were led by steering committees headed by (in most cases) mayors
from the municipality assisted by the local state forest districts and with representatives from a
broad range of organisations. At the national level a national advisory group was set up with
members representing different Ministries, NGOs and the chairmen of the seven steering
committees. The purpose of this committee was to assist in carrying out relevant investigations
and to compile the reports from the seven pilot projects elaborating one final report to be
submitted to the MoE. So far the process has resulted in the elaboration of a draft proposal for a
National Park Act.
From the initiation and onwards, the Government rhetoric was dominated by wanting a voluntary
approach, extensive participation by landowners and other local stakeholders, and an intersectoral
solution. Along with a participatory approach, expert knowledge was attributed a
significant role.
Participation
The NPP was initiated and framed ‘from above’, and can best be characterised as a governance
process induced and embraced by Government. The identification and appointment of the pilot
project areas was a bilateral communication between the MoE and the mayors of the
municipalities. If a municipality did not want to join, that area was omitted. From a local
perspective this may be fair insofar as the mayors are elected representatives of the local
population. But it also meant that possible areas of national interests were omitted without
national stakeholders having a say in it.
Within this government induced process, the pilot projects took a bottom-up approach. In pilot
project ‘Kongernes Nordsjælland’ the steering committee initiated the establishing of thematic
groups which prepared a number of proposals which were brought up at a citizen summit for
(what was intended as a socio-demographically representative) deliberating dialogue and voting
procedure. There was a high degree of transparency and information, tending towards
information overflow in the pilot projects.
The process managed to involve new stakeholders, notably the local mayors, who traditionally
have not been involved in nature policy, since nature and agriculture was beyond the jurisdiction
of the municipalities, until the Structural Reform in 2007. But the organisers of the process, the
Forest and Nature Agency found it difficult to mobilise the ‘ordinary citizens’ despite active
efforts.
iv
Experiences from pilot project ‘Kongernes Nordsjælland’ indicated that the NPP had problems
dealing with minority viewpoints: The one main conflict was that Agriculture wanted to restrict
the national park area to already publicly owned areas, whereas the proposal that evolved from
the steering committee included corridors on privately owned land. The Agricultural
organisations played a hesitant role in the process and left at the end, proposing their own
suggestion for demarcation.
Intersectoral coordination
There is tradition for involving interest groups from different sectors in decision-making in
Denmark, yet the ISC was more formalised and deliberately emphasised in this process than
formerly, and as a new thing, the local level was involved. Prior to the Structural Reform 2007,
nature policies related to the national and county level, and agricultural policies entirely to EU
and the national level. By establishing a discussion at local level too, the ‘column-like’ character
of the nature and agricultural sectors was partly dissolved.
Multilevel governance
The degree of Multi-level governance varies with the phase we look at. Seen as a whole, the NPP
was a top-down governed process. The pilot project phase was bottom-up with active
involvement of local levels, but the pilot projects were evaluated by the national advisory group,
and the parliamentary statement and draft Act on National parks was prepared by the National
Forest and Nature Agency for the Minister of Environment.
It appears the decision-making power lies with the MoE, the National Forest and Nature Agency
and the Outdoor Council.
Expertise
There was a focus on the need to investigate specified topics, defined by the MoE/NFNA. Many
experts participated from various research institutions, consultancy firms, counties and NFNA.
In principle there was rich opportunity for contesting viewpoints. In practice, it was division of
work within strictly limited time. The final expert reports were not included in the discussions
for time reasons. Still, the new thing was that experts got closer to the public, i.e. experts were
asked to report on their methods towards the broad public, possibly strengthening accountability.
A report about biodiversity came up in the middle of the process, showing that the chosen pilot
projects were not optimal from a (insect) biodiversity perspective. This information was
deliberately set aside by most stakeholders, even the Danish Society of Nature Conservation.
Adaptive and iterative planning
The aim of the process was to decide if and how National parks should be established. In that
sense the process was part of and adaptive, iterative planning process, because this question was
addressed at national, local and then again national level. There was a great degree of complexity
and uncertainty, as during the pilot project phase it was uncertain if pilot projects would ever be
implemented.
Citation
Boon, T. E., Lund, D. H., & Nathan, I. (2009). The national park pilot process introducing new forms of governance in Danish nature politics. research report 1-2009, Vienna: Institute of Forest, Environmental and Resource Policy, Universität für BodenkulturPublisher
University of Nairobi. Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies
Collections
- Faculty of Agriculture [224]