Under the heading “A crossroads for nature protection in Norway,” in Dagbladet, 20. november expresses several engo’s concern for land management and nature protection in Norway. There they have every reason to. As arealplanleggere in two utkantkommuner we have seen enough to characterize the plan – and building act and the associated management as a game for the gallery.
school hours is a key tool to ensure that the areas in Norway are managed sustainably. We should not consume and destroy nature, they who come after us will also have development opportunities, but it must also be nature again. On the basis of this law draws up the municipalities legally binding plans which shall govern the arealbruken in the respective municipality. What a land area can be used to often involves a significant financial values, an example is the old villahager that changes to the apartment complexes. Not infrequently goes to the new land use out of the change that does not have a price tag, there can be areas to endangered species or landskapsverdier that are affected by the hytteutbyggingen by the coast and in the mountains.
In 2007, Beyond a major study of the sustainability of this land management really was. The conclusion was that the values and principles that Parliament has intended this law to ensure, were not attended to. In the eleven years that have elapsed we will claim that there is little that has led to an improvement – rather the contrary.
Soon more common with a cottage than with stand-alone cabins dinside
The wish and needs for the coming years will be guaranteed through the kommuneplanen. This general plan is a comprehensive process in the communities, with the participation both of the residents, the builders, the politicians and us who work for rådmannen. Need the municipality more residential? Is it enough næringsareal available? Where should it be placed? These are some of the questions that kommuneplanen to say something about, it is thus an important management tool. But followed it?
In their zeal by to ensure local government finances and employment, says politicians like to yes to the plans and ideas that might show up. This happens despite the fact that they are not in accordance with kommuneplanen and perhaps not in line with regional and national interests. Helhetstankegang being sacrificed for the builders who are pushing on, property, profit and lack of integrity and willingness to prioritize. That politicians themselves may have utbyggingsinteresser is also not unknown. There are circumstances that are difficult to prove, but something we are hands-on processes with us.
What do we do when the mountain is full? Dagbladet Plus
When we as planners point out that the measure will be in conflict with a plan the politicians themselves have adopted, fits poorly with the political discretion and is usually considered to be debris in the machinery. The mantra is progress and eternal growth. Just fully express Jan Tore Sanner in a press release from the government the confidence that “(…) the municipalities are making good reviews in local matters”. For our part, trust is strained.
Who shall fit on the municipalities? It to the County governor and other state fagmyndigheter make sure. The county governor shall terminate the gaze of the individual kommunegrense and see the region’s needs under one. The strongest tool he has to resort to is objection. Legally, this means that the municipality is deprived of the authority to adopt a decision and that the authority be transferred to the Municipal and moderniseringsdepartementet.
As pointed out in the Review and in the April issue of Aftenposten Insight, was the ability to use this tool heavily restricted in the 2014. The result is that the state’s extended arm now limits itself to words like “strongly recommend” and “advise against” – the statements of developers and the politicians neglect. The county pretends to be the bad wolf and a municipality shall take omkampen with.
Will build 3000 cottages in the mini-commune
Among the hyttekommunene knives about reiselivsdestinasjoner and regulated hyttetomter in their thousands. In each of the counties pushing Ringebu municipality, for several cabins near the habitat for wild reindeer. When the County governor for a rare once promoted the counter-notification, the municipality refused to bow to this. The case was in april sent to the Municipal and moderniseringsdepartementet for final decision. Then it is a little reassuring that the parliamentary ombudsman in august suggested that the ministry had forgotten the nature diversity act and put too much emphasis on the municipal selvstyret on Karmøy. The examples could have been many more. We ask: Where is the safety valve for the sustainable land management?
Ola Elvestuen claimed recently in the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen that “We have good management of the nature in Norway, a lot of knowledge and a good law”. Our contention is that the local selvstyret many places are not able to see the consequences of what it’s doing. A multitude of laws, white papers, guides, etc. that will ensure a “sustainable management” maintains the illusion that everything goes right for him. Under the strengthened local can mostly be turned and to be turned on in order to find the answer the developers and the politicians want. Naturverdiene our is the big loser, and is built down, bit by bit – without a general and long-term thinking, yes, without thinking whatsoever?
* Kronikkforfatterne want to be anonymous.
