(Norwegian tranlastion )

Around the world, protected area (PA) management agencies struggle to obtain the funding necessary to undertake their desired planning, development, and management activities. Though this problem plagues rich and poor countries alike, richer countries generally fund their agencies at relatively high levels. Therefore, it is curious that Norway, which is one of the world's richest countries on a per capita basis, funds PA management at a level more commonly found amongst middle-income countries. When one considers the importance of "district policy" and rural development in Norway, as well as changing visitor use patterns, this situation is even more remarkable.

This Commentary presents an "outsider's" view on this issue, based on the author's personal experience while living in Norway over a two-year period, as well as discussions with various laymen and professionals in the field. It is not intended as an authoritative analysis, but rather as a perspective that may stimulate discussion on the topic. The focus is on the lack of management (and funding) of public protected areas, such as national parks, with particular attention to visitor management, as opposed to broader conservation management.

The viewpoint presented here is based on the assertion that current levels of funding in Norway are inadequate. Anderssen (2001) notes that the majority of Norway's 18 national parks are "paper parks" and recommends that the country invest more in management. He observes that Jotunheimen National Park is one of the most famous and visited PAs in the country, yet had only 3 person-years of staff allocated to it, much less than the 66 person-year average amongst European national parks. James (1999) provides corroborative data from a survey of protected area systems around the world, as shown in the table below (only European and selected other countries presented).

Country	Protected area km2	Budget 1996 US$ per km2	Staff per 1000 km2
EUROPE
Austria	23135	990
Croatia	3929	428	64
Czech Rep	12806	1020	78
Denmark	2522	19414
Estonia	4233	81
Finland	27782	457
France	47088	2331	24
Greece	11830	482	9
Hungary	1907	3162	252
Iceland	3148	1159	56
Latvia	602	3539
Lithuania	927	667
Luxembourg	660	1426	20
Macedonia	1083	717	216
Netherlands	6850	32533
Norway	20677	833	3
Poland	67773	182
Portugal	5107	4280	72
Slovak Rep	1976	564	132
Sweden	35143	1032
UK	59394	3402	41
OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
USA	693765	2358	33
Canada	295345	1017	13
Australia	445600	359	6
New Zealand	89978	898	15

These figures indicate that Norway has one of the lowest levels of funding and especially staffing of any comparable PA agency. At US$833 per km2, Norwegian funding is well above the developing country average of $157, but well below the developed country average of $2,058.

As Dybwad and Reite (2000) observe, such comparisons are misleading given that responsibilities for and within Norwegian national parks go well beyond Statens Naturoppsyn (SNO), with large and expanding roles for local government and non-governmental organizations. Nonetheless, the financial and human resources dedicated to managing PAs in Norway remain noticeably lower than in many comparable countries. One result is less recreation/tourism planning and management, as well as fewer "on the ground" services and facilities, such as guided walks or visitor centers.

One might reasonably ask whether funding should be increased beyond current levels; that is, funding is low, but is it inadequate? The answer depends on whether one perceives the need for additional 1) services or facilities, 2) planning and management, 3) research, or 4) other outcomes of greater spending. The desirability of such activities and outcomes varies across individuals, but one might identify at least three relevant stakeholder groups: 1) Norwegian citizens as a whole, 2) citizens living near PAs, and 3) visitors to PAs.

At the most fundamental level, one might argue at least for greater research funding because the preferences of stakeholder groups can evolve over time, and probably are not well understood. Although valuable social science research on this topic, including both visitor and general public surveys, has occurred in Norway, it remains a young and underfunded research field there relative to some other countries. For example, the United States Forest Service (USFS), which manages national forests in that country, has a research branch (Research & Development) with its own funding. Within that branch, there are approximately 12 social scientists who conduct recreation research, while within the agency as a whole an estimated $3.15 million is spent annually on recreation research, not including additional local contracts with universities. There are both more visitors and more areas in the US than in Norway, but the above figures are only for one agency and are complemented by funding by the National Park Service and many other agencies.

Though the author, as a researcher, clearly has a bias in favor of research, it appears self-evident that monitoring and understanding stakeholder preferences is vital if PAs are to be managed in accordance with those preferences - and the PAs are, after all, "owned" by the citizens of Norway. The desirability of additional services and facilities, or planning and management, seems less clear. There are indications that there have been changes on both the demand and supply side of natural area visitation in Norway. For example, there have been increased 1) visitor numbers, 2) diversity in visitor origins and preferences (e.g., increasingly urban and/or foreign), and 3) diversity in activities (e.g., increased mountain biking) (MD 2001; Teigland 2000; Vorkinn 2001). Such trends can be expected to continue given the Norwegian Tourist Council's use of nature in its overseas marketing and branding strategy.

"Traditional Norwegian outdoor recreation" includes DNT (Den Norske Turistforening) facilities, but otherwise tends not to involve facilities, services, or glaringly modern equipment. However, increased diversity in visitor origins can lead to increased diversity in preferences. As noted by Vistad and Vorkinn (1995), foreigners are more used to such facilities, and this leads to tourism industry pressure to expand them in Norway in order to enhance attractiveness for visitors and to increase opportunities to economically benefit from them.

These benefits can accrue not only to the tourism industry in general, but to local communities in particular. For example, Flæte (2000:8) observed that "[i] Sogn og Fjordane vert det stadig færre gardsbruk, og i dag er det få gardsbruk der garden er einaste inntektskjelde.... Reiseliv er viktig for randsonene [og] [n]aturen er den viktigaste attraksjonen." At the site-specific level, the Jotunheimen National Park management plan (p. 28) notes that "Det er riktig at bygdene som ligg inntil ein nasjonalpark som Jotunheimen på ulike måtar drar nytte av denne også i reiselivsamanheng."

Planning and management is important not only for the development of services and facilities, if that is pursued, but also for reducing the negative impacts of increased numbers or activities on the natural environment or the visitor experience. For example, zoning approaches can be used to separate potentially conflicting user groups, while interpretation can be used to reduce negative environmental impacts. Indeed, effective planning and management may be required before increased numbers or new activities are even allowed in natural areas. As a result, components of each of the above stakeholder groups can benefit from the additional funding necessary to develop services and facilities, or to implement planning and management. These components include visitors engaging in non-traditional activities, as well as other citizens, local or otherwise, who benefit from tourism to PAs.

Thus, there seems to be at least a prima facie (apparent) case for funding additional research to understand stakeholder preferences, and potentially for funding to respond to these preferences, assuming they differ from the status quo. Why, then, does there remain so little PA management funding in Norway? Given that Norway is one of the world's richest countries (with BNP per capita of 324,000 kr in 2000), and apparently the country with the greatest government budget surplus (the "oil fund" is estimated to stand at 1.5 trillion kr in 2005), the problem is not lack of money (Stoltenberg 2001).

Rather, PA funding appears to suffer in part from general factors, including the government's hesitance to increase spending for fear of inflation and distrust amongst some Norwegians of governmental power and the effect of its use. To an outsider, and particularly an American, this distrust is understandable, yet also curious. There is much more governmental and bureaucratic control of personal life in Scandinavia than in the US, so the desire to retain independence in the outdoor recreation context is not surprising - nature is one of the arenas in which Norwegians largely escape governmental influence. However, it is curious to an American given how much influence Norwegians grant the government over their private lives. Americans generally tolerate a relatively large amount of development and regulation of recreation in many natural settings, but strongly resist governmental intrusions in personal matters.

Moving from general fiscal and state-citizen issues, there is the strong Norwegian tradition of allemannsrett, which some feel would be threatened by increased management (in reality, allemannsrett has involved providing certain rights, but constraining others, and thus is a form of management, one that even has been codified into Norwegian law ). There are related issues as well. For example, utmark is viewed as a geographic and conceptual space that does not require management or associated funding. Likewise, despite the presence of DNT and other facilities in many natural areas, there is a traditional preference for minimal infrastructure development and use of "modern" equipment in natural areas (though this may be changing, as discussed in Vorkinn 2001).

Should this situation change? Should Norway accept, and indeed pursue, greater natural area management? That is a decision for Norwegians, not foreigners. Many Norwegians doubt that change is either necessary or desirable. However, there are indications that such sentiments are not universal. As noted above, some members of relevant stakeholder groups may desire change. Research and management planning processes enable these preferences to enter into the discussion and debate. Decisions arising from such discussion presumably will reflect "the greatest good," such that any management actions that generate costs to one group will bring even greater benefits to others.

However, such research and planning processes require funding. If Norway continues to "starve" its relevant agencies of funding, the result likely will be a continuation of the status quo, which may not be the optimal path given preferences for change amongst some groups in society. Put simply, citizens who prefer an alternative to "traditional Norwegian outdoor recreation" may be ignored, their voices may not be heard. This would be a unfortunate in a country like Norway that prides itself on its egalitarianism and willingness to protect the interests of minority groups. Another possible outcome, equally undesirable, would be development and management that attempts to please diverse interests, but in an uncoordinated manner.

In short, from an outsider's perspective, current Norwegian funding of natural area management is inadequate to understand and address the challenges and opportunities that increasingly face these areas, particularly within the recreation and tourism context. One can understand the resistance to an even greater government role in Norwegian society, especially in an arena (nature) that both is central to Norwegian identity and has largely escaped tangible government involvement in the past. But management can be beneficial, which presumably is why it exists in so many other areas of Norwegian life. Given the changes described above, perhaps the time has come for Norwegians to consider a greater role for management, at least in terms of providing a forum for understanding and discussing evolving preferences regarding the use of Norwegian natural areas.

References