REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 1 (73) 103-03188-2006 Swedish National Heritage Board Proposals for Implementation of the European Landscape Convention in Sweden Translation of final report Swedish National Heritage Board Box 5405 S-114 84 Stockholm Visiting address: Storgatan 41 Tel Fax E-mail Website 08 - 5191 8000 08 - 660 72 84 riksant@raa.se www.raa.se Corporate ID No 202100 - 1090 Plusgiro 59994- 4 Bankgiro 5052-3620 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 2 (73) 103-03188-2006 Contents Part 1 Conclusions and proposals................................................................. 5 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 Current status in Europe................................................................................... 5 Description of the commission ........................................................................ 7 Action options .................................................................................................. 7 The Swedish National Heritage Board’s proposals and recommendations ..... 9 Ratify the European Landscape Convention as soon as possible ................ 9 Create a holistic landscape policy ................................................................ 9 Recognise landscape in law ....................................................................... 10 Emphasise the landscape as an asset in local and regional development .. 11 Strengthen participation ............................................................................. 12 Safeguard the provision of knowledge....................................................... 12 Develop international involvement ............................................................ 14 Highlight the landscape perspective in research and education................. 14 Analysis of consequences .............................................................................. 15 Social consequences................................................................................... 15 Consequences for the environment ............................................................ 16 Consequences for the work of the authorities ............................................ 16 Economic consequences ............................................................................ 17 Part 2 Challenges and visions ..................................................................... 18 Challenges in the landscape of the future ...................................................... 18 Negotiations on the everyday landscape .................................................... 18 Climate change, energy policy and the landscape ..................................... 19 From participant to observer of the rural landscape................................... 21 Consumption patterns and ecological footprints in the landscape ............. 22 Landscape 2020 – a vision ............................................................................. 23 The relationship between the ELC and other conventions and directives ..... 24 Part 3 The Swedish National Heritage Board’s analysis and argument. 27 Landscape in law............................................................................................ 27 Present conditions and problems................................................................ 27 The landscape is omitted, and application varies................................... 27 Weak management and development perspectives................................ 29 Proposed actions ........................................................................................ 30 A comprehensive landscape policy................................................................ 32 Present conditions and problems................................................................ 32 A complex jigsaw puzzle ....................................................................... 32 Policies at different levels ...................................................................... 32 Landscape objectives and environmental objectives ............................. 35 Proposed actions ........................................................................................ 36 Landscape policy control measures ............................................................... 39 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 3 (73) 103-03188-2006 Present conditions and problems................................................................ 39 Strong sectoral authorities...................................................................... 39 The landscape is invisible in the appropriation directions ..................... 40 How can existing control measures interact?......................................... 41 Without landscape policy – no interaction............................................. 41 Proposed actions ........................................................................................ 42 Participation and increased awareness ........................................................... 43 Present conditions and problems................................................................ 43 Proposed actions ........................................................................................ 46 Identification and assessment......................................................................... 48 Present conditions and problems................................................................ 48 Unclear terms ......................................................................................... 49 Specialisation, for better and worse ....................................................... 49 Who should do what?............................................................................. 50 Monitoring and assessment of the landscape ......................................... 51 Proposed actions ........................................................................................ 53 Education and research .................................................................................. 55 Present conditions and problems................................................................ 56 Sectorisation........................................................................................... 57 Education ............................................................................................... 58 Proposed actions ........................................................................................ 58 International cooperation ............................................................................... 61 Present conditions and problems................................................................ 61 Proposed actions ........................................................................................ 62 Glossary......................................................................................................... 64 References ..................................................................................................... 65 Published.................................................................................................... 65 Unpublished ............................................................................................... 72 Electronic resources ................................................................................... 72 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 4 (73) 103-03188-2006 Note to readers The final report of this commission consists of three parts: ƒ ƒ ƒ Part 1 Conclusions and proposals Part 2 Challenges and visions Part 3 The Swedish National Heritage Board’s analysis and arguments Part 1 presents the Swedish National Heritage Board’s conclusions and proposals on how the European Landscape Convention could be implemented in Sweden. This part explains the measures that are necessary, as well as the consequences of their implementation. Part 2 discusses the benefits of the European Landscape Convention for Sweden. It outlines a number of major challenges in future landscape-related issues, and presents a vision for the implementation of the Convention. It also summarises how it relates to other conventions and directives. Part 3 consists of an in-depth analysis of the conditions necessary for implementation of the European Landscape Convention and of the need for change in order to achieve its intentions. The measures proposed in Part 1 are based on this analysis. The analysis takes as its starting point a number of themes that have been judged to be central to the Landscape Convention and that are mentioned in several of its chapters: Landscapes in law; A comprehensive landscape policy; Landscape policy control measures; Participation and increased awareness; Identification and assessment; Education and research; and International cooperation. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 5 (73) 103-03188-2006 Part 1 Conclusions and proposals Introduction The landscape1 is the entirety of our surroundings, where everything happens. It is the foundation of a good living space for man and of biodiversity, and it constitutes capital in business sector development and in local and regional development. The landscape is society’s own shared resource and living archive. It is invaluable in helping us understand and explain our history. Out of the forty-six member states of the Council of Europe, twenty-nine countries have already ratified the European Landscape Convention (ELC)2. This shows that there is broad unity on the significance of the landscape. It also shows that the need to coordinate different sectors exists in most countries, and that these countries see the ELC as an opportunity to unite various interests from a landscape perspective. By implementing the European Landscape Convention, Sweden can move towards a more comprehensive perspective and reduce the cost of lack of coordination and conflicting interests at national and regional level. Sweden has the opportunity to take a leading role in international cooperation, promoting increased democratic influence for inhabitants and socially sustainable development where the potential for change is high. In order for the ELC to gain acceptance and legitimacy at national level, it is important that as many as possible participate in the implementation process and that the relevant parties take on responsibility on a broad basis. Therefore, the Swedish National Heritage Board’s proposals in terms of implementation of the ELC focus on creating understanding for the underlying motives, pointing out the potential of the ELC, and illustrating the shortcomings that exist in current landscape management. The Swedish National Heritage Board has sought to propose measures that can be developed step by step, in broad collaboration with other relevant parties. Current status in Europe The European Landscape Convention was opened for signature in 2000 and entered into force in 2004 when ten countries in the Council of Europe had decided to ratify it. Since then, a further nineteen countries have ratified the The meaning of the term landscape should be understood here and in the rest of the report as an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors (ELC, article 1). 2 European Landscape Convention (ELC) 2000. European Treaty Series – No. 176. 1 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 6 (73) 103-03188-2006 ELC. That means that twenty-nine of the Council of Europe’s forty-six member states have both signed and ratified the convention.3 Six countries have only signed the ELC, of which Sweden is one. Of the Nordic countries, Norway, Denmark and Finland have both signed and ratified the ELC. Thus far, Iceland has neither signed nor ratified the ELC. The Nordic Council of Ministers has given priority to the ELC.4 Given that the European Landscape Convention is a relatively new convention, the level of acceptance thereof can be considered good. There is a general understanding of the significance of the ELC and great interest in pursuing the convention among the states of Europe, despite the fact that in many countries, particularly in the former Eastern Bloc, it implies major challenges.5 In many of the countries that have not yet adopted the ELC, there are processes working towards ratification, regardless of whether the country concerned has signed the convention or not. Figure 1. The status of the European Landscape Convention in Europe, 31/12/2007. The reasons why certain countries have not yet ratified the ELC vary within Europe. In states with a strong federal structure, such as Germany, the reasons are mainly constitutional. Factors such as level of ambition and views on the scope of the process needed to make decisions surrounding ratification are also significant. For example, the UK has been a driving force in developing 3 4 Status report according to the Council of Europe, 31/12/2007 (www.coe.int). Nordic Council of Ministers 2005. 5 T-FLOR (2007) 14. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 7 (73) 103-03188-2006 the ELC at European level, but it only chose to sign and ratify the ELC in 2006. Before then it did not have enough domestic political support.6 Description of the commission In 2006, the Swedish Government commissioned the Swedish National Heritage Board to develop a proposal for national implementation of the European Landscape Convention. The commission included an overview of the division of responsibility between government agencies in terms of landscape issues.7 The issue of division of responsibility is central to the proposal for implementation of the ELC. As such, it is not dealt with as a separate issue, but as an all-pervading aspect of the proposal. Implementation Evaluation and feedback Political prioritisation Commission to Swedish National Heritage Board Decision on ratification Recommendation Status quo De minimis Consistent implementation Choosing action options Figure 2. The limits of the Swedish National Heritage Board’s work to develop a proposal for national implementation of the European Landscape Convention. Action options It is possible to identify three main action options in response to the European Landscape Convention. These options are based on a pilot study carried out Michael Dower, expert advisor to the Council of Europe’s Working Group for the European Landscape Convention 1995–1998. Verbal information on 19/11/2007, European Landscape Convention – Expert seminar, Sheffield University. 7 Appropriation directions for budget year 2006, concerning the Swedish National Heritage Board. 6 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 8 (73) 103-03188-2006 by the UK in 20038, prior to implementing the ELC, but the principles are applicable to all countries considering the possibility of ratification. 1. Status quo. This option is to refrain from ratifying the ELC. So far, no European countries have officially chosen this option. The Swedish National Heritage Board does not consider this to be an option for Sweden, partly based on the way the commission from the government was formulated. It is clearly stated that the task is to develop a proposal for how the ELC could be implemented in Sweden, not whether it should be implemented. The Swedish National Heritage Board has therefore chosen not to discuss this option in its proposal for national implementation of the ELC. 2. De minimis. This option means that the ELC is ratified, but with the lowest possible level of ambition. Little or no changes are made in legislation or in praxis. In general, the only action taken is to complete the formalities that are necessary in order to ratify. Several countries, for example in Eastern Europe, have chosen variants of this option. The advantage is a fast, cheap process, and the disadvantage is that the convention risks being perceived as meaningless and not as an opportunity. The Swedish National Heritage Board does not consider this to be an option for Sweden, since we would then have to refrain from taking the opportunity to reform and develop our management of landscape issues in Sweden. The Swedish National Heritage Board has therefore chosen not to discuss this option in its proposal for national implementation of the ELC. 3. Consistent implementation of the ELC. This means that the ELC is ratified and that measures are taken above and beyond the measures taken in option 2, in order to raise awareness of and support for landscape issues in the work for sustainable societal development. In Sweden’s case, this option would mean that the ELC would supplement the political and administrative changes discussed in recent years9 and that landscape issues would become a matter of concern for several policy areas. This demands resources, but also offers more opportunities and effects. 8 9 IEEP 2003. SOU 2007:10 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 9 (73) 103-03188-2006 The Swedish National Heritage Board’s proposals and recommendations Ratify the European Landscape Convention as soon as possible The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes that Sweden ratifies the European Landscape Convention as soon as possible and undertakes an implementation as outlined in option 3. The Swedish National Heritage Board believes that an immediate ratification is possible, and that Sweden would, from a European perspective, be in a good position to achieve the intentions of the ELC. It is important that Sweden adopts the ELC as soon as possible, not least because that will strengthen the status of the convention in Europe. The Swedish National Heritage Board also believes Sweden should have a high level of ambition in the implementation of the ELC and as a result, along with other countries that have welldeveloped environmental work, set a good example on landscape issues. Create a holistic landscape policy The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes the creation of a commission charged with drawing up a national landscape policy. Its task should include developing a national landscape strategy with proposed measures to facilitate coordination of landscape-related work carried out by different government agencies and to monitor and evaluate landscape policy. There is a need for a national landscape policy that can work as an umbrella structure for coordination of the many national, regional and municipal policy areas that affect the landscape. This kind of policy should take the form of a national landscape strategy10 that can function as a platform for developing national landscape-related objectives and visions as well as regional and municipal strategies and programmes. The strategy should also outline how the importance of the landscape could be made clear in other policy areas. It should develop ways of relating in order to balance conflicting objectives and propose principles for how participation in landscape-related issues could be developed at different levels. 10 In Norway there is an equivalent national landscape strategy, which links the comprehensive landscape policy to the Norwegian Environmental Objectives, known as the agricultural policy objectives (Norwegian Directorate for Culture Heritage 2007). REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 10 (73) 103-03188-2006 Other strategies should also be affected by the new conditions that come about as a result of implementing the ELC. This includes the National Strategy for Sustainable Development and the action strategy on Sustainable Management of Land, Water and the Built Environment. One important task for this commission would be to propose measures to improve coordination of landscape issues between government agencies, and to monitor landscape policy. One possible solution could be to introduce a council or other body with responsibility for coordination and monitoring. All government agencies that manage objectives, resources, and landscaperelated work should be charged with drawing up the role and responsibility of their own agency as part of a comprehensive, national landscape policy. This also includes reviewing and adapting economic control measures for different policy areas, to ensure that they work as a team from a landscape perspective. A particular effort should be made to develop control measures that stimulate management and development of the landscape. Recognise landscape in law The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes the creation of an interdepartmental working group to review how the intentions of the European Landscape Convention could be introduced and clarified in relevant legislation. The ELC demands that the landscape be recognised as a crucial element in the surroundings of mankind, as an expression of diversity in their shared natural and cultural heritage and as a foundation for their identity. The ELC both recognises the significance of the landscape for the wellbeing of mankind, and contributes to safeguarding the democratic process. In order to achieve the intentions of the ELC, actively applied laws and regulations are needed in order to prevent unacceptable changes in landscape. Proactive, effective control measures must stimulate the protection, management or development of all kinds of landscape, in rural areas and in cities and urban areas. The Swedish National Heritage Board therefore proposes the creation of an interdepartmental working group to review how the intentions of the ELC could be introduced and clarified in relevant legislation. The Swedish National Heritage Board believes that particular emphasis should be placed on the portal paragraphs of the Environmental Code and the Planning and Building Act. Relevant sectoral laws should also be reviewed to investigate how to design detailed legislation and its application in a way that ensures that the value of the landscape can be safeguarded and developed. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 11 (73) 103-03188-2006 Emphasise the landscape as an asset in local and regional development The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes that all counties/regions develop regional landscape strategies. Regional and local authorities have a key role in the ELC. They are expected to participate in the implementation of the convention, not least by developing regional and local objectives and visions for the landscape and its development.11 One way to underline the significance of the landscape for regional and local development is to draw up regional landscape strategies. The Swedish National Heritage Board believes that in terms of the ELC intentions, there are several criteria that should serve as guiding principles in these regional landscape strategies. The strategies should: • have genuine legitimacy with objectives and visions that have strong political support, • be able to serve the needs of regional and municipal planning work, • have a strongly cross-sectoral perspective on landscape, covering the social, environmental and economic dimensions, • cover the entire county/region, • be connected to national objectives (national landscape strategy) and • form the basis for development of landscape issues within Regional Development Programmes (swe. RUP). This implies that these landscape strategies should be developed in close cooperation between regional bodies, county councils and municipalities, and that the strategies should be based on foundations that combine environmental and regional development policy. Increased integration between regional development programmes, sectoral programmes and plans, cross-sectoral planning according to the Planning and Building Act, and infrastructure planning would be of major significance for the overall progress of landscape-related issues. For example, this could contribute to comprehensive assessments of environmental conditions, division of responsibility, allocation of funds, and physical structures. As such, regional development programmes would gain more substance and more direct links to municipal physical planning. This would also increase the chances of reaching more precise spatial definition of regional environmental objectives.12 11 12 ELC, article 5c: Subsidiarity should also be a guiding principle (ELC, article 4). SOU 2007:10. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 12 (73) 103-03188-2006 Strengthen participation The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes that requirements for participation and use of local knowledge should be strengthened as part of the work to protect, manage and develop the landscape. According to the ELC, each party commits to introduce procedures for the participation of the general public, local and regional authorities, and other parties with an interest in the landscape. This is a way of clarifying elements such as politicians’ and civil servants’ responsibility for ensuring that people can participate and are regarded as actors in all processes, both in directly landscape-related processes and in processes that have indirect consequences for the landscape. Increased participation should be a horizontal goal for the authorities concerned with landscape issues, at central, regional and municipal levels. One possible measure would be to demand that experts in public sector administration (planners, advisors, rural developers, project managers etc) should be trained in, or offered training in methods for participation. The Leader Method13, which is a way of utilising local knowledge in rural development, should be applied and developed as part of the work to implement the ELC. Landscape interpreters as seen in the Danish model constitute another creative way of stimulating and raising awareness of landscape issues.14 Experience from pilot schemes with regional landscape strategies should form the basis of continuing to develop methods for participation and cooperation. Västerbotten County Administration, for example, has developed a collaboration model that could be successfully used in other consultation situations.15 Safeguard the provision of knowledge The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes the creation of an appropriate system to provide information and data to form the basis for protection, management and development of the landscape at national, regional and municipal level. One precondition for the implementation of the ELC is the existence of a functioning channel to provide the necessary information and data for the broad landscape perspective of the convention. In order to ensure that landscape-related knowledge and information is provided, theres is a need for initiatives that will develop new perspectives and methods, as well as initia- 13 14 The Department of Agriculture 2007; The European Council 2005. Olwig 2007a. 15 County Administrative Board in Västerbotten. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 13 (73) 103-03188-2006 tives that guarantee that essential information on which to base planning decisions is available wherever and whenever needed. There is a need for a renewed discussion surrounding the format, focus and content of such information, in which the academic community, authorities, municipalities, organisations and individuals participate. It is also important to clarify the aims of various types of analysis and link these to existing instruments in terms of protection, planning and development of the landscape in Sweden. The starting point should be oriented towards practical applications and should be based on existing contexts. Priority areas are landscape analysis in planning and infrastructure projection; in municipal planning; in ecological landscape planning, and in planning for regional growth and development. In order to safeguard the provision of knowledge, the Swedish National Heritage Board proposes: ƒ clarification of the division of responsibility and labour between central authorities, county councils and municipalities, in terms of provision of the information needed for the sustainable management of the landscape’s resources, and specifically, the content, quality and relevance of this information, ƒ that a study of needs and shortcomings be carried out in order to review what documentation and analysis initiatives are needed and on what scale, and ƒ that a study of needs and shortcomings be carried out in order to review the type of methodology, data and IT systems needed to support documentation and analysis of the landscape. The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes that existing monitoring systems should be coordinated to ensure more comprehensive and appropriate landscape monitoring, based on the need for a holistic perspective on landscape. Sweden is way ahead in terms of having the conditions to be able to achieve good monitoring and evaluation of landscape issues. The main problem is not a lack of data, but a lack of coordination and of a comprehensive overview. Most monitoring and evaluation programmes that relate to landscape have been designed for specific purposes and specific issues and are rarely based on the landscape as a whole. As such, there is a need for an overview of how the existing monitoring systems that have been developed in different sectors could be coordinated and used to give more comprehensive and appropriate monitoring of landscape issues, based on the need for a holistic perspective on landscape. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 14 (73) 103-03188-2006 The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes that the relevant central authorities work together to develop shared structures for systematic, regular national analyses of the socioeconomic conditions that act as driving forces for change in the landscape. In order to satisfy the growing need to monitor and understand the processes of change that are at work in the landscape, monitoring of the landscape should be combined with studies of the socioeconomic conditions that act as driving forces for change in a landscape context. There is a natural connection to Statistics Sweden (swe. SCB) in this regard, as its mission is to develop, interpret and communicate national statistics, and as such, close cooperation between SCB and the relevant authorities is essential. Develop international involvement The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes that Sweden take an active and driving role in terms of international involvement in landscape issues and the European Landscape Convention. Sweden has the opportunity to take a leading role in international cooperation, to promote democracy and participation for inhabitants and socially sustainable development where there is the potential for major change. This means that Sweden’s participation in cooperative bodies and networks relating to European landscape issues, primarily within the EU, the Council of Europe and the Nordic Council of Ministers, should be strengthened. Sweden should also take the initiative to create multilateral and bilateral research and cooperation projects on landscape in Europe. This also includes transfrontier cooperation with our neighbouring countries. The relevant authorities have a responsibility to ensure that an international perspective on landscape issues is integrated into the skills development of their employees. Cooperation between authorities should also be developed in this area. Highlight the landscape perspective in research and education The Swedish National Heritage Board proposes more investment in applied research and education relating to landscape, and that the landscape perspective should be integrated into all planning and environmental courses, both at upper secondary school level and at university level. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 15 (73) 103-03188-2006 Any country that ratifies the ELC commits to promoting education relating to protection, management and planning of the landscape. This applies to both university and college courses, as well as advanced training for professionals. The Swedish National Heritage Board believes that landscape as a discipline should be integrated more deeply into courses relating to planning and environmental science, at upper secondary and university levels. In terms of the need for further training for professionals, the Swedish National Heritage Board is of the opinion that the relevant central authorities that have sectoral responsibility for landscape issues should implement measures to raise skills in this area, in order to promote a landscape perspective in their respective sectors. In order to be able to promote courses on landscape, applied research in this area should also be strengthened. Solid and dynamic landscape research is necessary in order to be able to create relevant courses in this area. As part of this work, authorities that offer research grants (sectoral research grants) should contribute actively to stimulating more cross-sectoral landscape-related research and development projects. Another possible measure would be to introduce a Nordic landscape research and education institute tasked with increasing exchange of knowledge between researchers and representatives of the authorities, which would also function as a hub for further education of professionals in the landscape area. Examples of important research areas include the links between landscape, economy and consumption patterns, and research relating to production methods and technology in the agricultural sciences in order to facilitate better integration between production and care for the environment. Analysis of consequences Social consequences At a fundamental level, implementation of the ELC strengthens democracy. By demanding procedures for participation from the general public, local and regional authorities, and other parties interested in developing and implementing landscape policy, the conditions are created for increased participation in issues relating to landscape and the local environment. The explicit focus of the ELC on the significance of the landscape for the wellbeing and economic development of mankind contributes to highlighting the social and economic dimensions of working towards sustainable development. The ELC supports the direction of current rural policy, which emphasises the importance of shared resources, such as the power of aesthetic REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 16 (73) 103-03188-2006 attraction of the landscape, and the goal of increased participation in urban development policy. Consequences for the environment The ELC brings about positive impact for the environment. The convention increases our chances of achieving the national environmental objectives, and the development of a holistic landscape policy would broaden the work to achieve sustainable development in Sweden. The main focus is on developing a comprehensive spatial perspective and a new kind of social and environmental thinking in societal planning, in environmental and climate-related work, and in urban and rural development. One general consequence is that no single claim to use of the landscape will be able to take over in a one-sided way. Rather, different interests will have to be weighed up. The ELC also places demands on what it calls the ‘everyday landscape’, and states that the individual’s experiences should be considered and appreciated. Therefore, long-term consequences should include that the landscape as it is experienced will be taken into consideration, and that environmental issues will not fall between the areas of responsibility of different authorities. The ELC puts Sweden in a position where it can become more pro-active in its international involvement in landscape issues and the work surrounding the ELC, which will benefit trans-frontier environmental cooperation. Consequences for the work of the authorities The relevant authorities will achieve strengthened and extended responsibility for landscape issues, to be divided over sectoral boundaries. The workload of central and regional authorities can therefore be expected to increase, to begin with during the implementation phase. The National Heritage Board does not propose the creation of a new authority, and the work to coordinate across sectoral boundaries must therefore take place within existing structures. In order to facilitate the coordination work, we propose a coordinating role be created, with an overall perspective and influence over the various sectors that have an impact on the environment. Expanding landscape-related work will require the development and testing of new methods and perspectives, which may temporarily reduce the effectiveness levels of the authorities involved. For example, municipalities and relevant authorities need to increase participation and utilisation of local knowledge in terms of protection, management and development of the landscape. Changes in legislation lead to changes in its application and new praxis must develop as a result. In the long term this could increase effectiveness, since increased participation contributes to increasing the legitimacy of the decision-making process. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 17 (73) 103-03188-2006 Economic consequences Implementation of the ELC does not entail any significant additional expenditure for the state, municipalities or private bodies. To a major degree, the measures proposed relate to changing the existing structures and systems, not introducing new ones. The benefit of improved coordination between sectors and more proactive landscape-related work is expected to create space for essential investments in developing knowledge and new tools. Changes in legislation entail a revaluation of the landscape, but do not imply any compulsory costs. Viewed from a more long-term perspective, the economic benefits of introducing the ELC outweigh the investments. At a national level, the increased demand for cross-sectoral work in landscape-related issues will cause an initial increase in costs, but it should be possible to spread these costs over several years and manage them within existing frameworks. It should be possible to prepare and introduce a coordination role for landscape issues and a secretariat for the ELC with a minor initial cost, which can then be managed within the framework for existing government budget. There are some initial increased costs relating to the creation of an appropriate system for the provision of information, data and knowledge for the protection, management and development of the landscape. The current lack of such a system causes work to be duplicated, with a suboptimal division of responsibility between the municipal, regional and national levels. As such, in the long term, a system like this is expected to lead to more cost-effective work. It should be possible to fund essential investments in research and education in accordance with the ELC within the existing framework for education and research grants. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 18 (73) 103-03188-2006 Part 2 Challenges and visions This section discusses the benefits of the ELC in Sweden. A number of major challenges in future landscape-related work are outlined, and vision for implementation of the ELC is presented. The relationship between the ELC and other conventions and directives is also presented. Challenges in the landscape of the future The ELC involves commitments and requirements, but it also offers opportunities for countries that adopt it. There is a major need for the ELC in Sweden, and from a long-term perspective, the beneficial effects of implementing the convention greatly outweigh the necessary investments. Even now, we can see the contours of a long series of revolutionary processes that will have an impact on the landscape of the future. Implementing the ELC is a way of preparing ourselves for the challenges of the future. Some of the most important of these challenges relate to: • • • • Negotiations on the everyday landscape Climate change, energy policy and the landscape From participant to observer of the rural landscape Consumption patterns and ecological footprints in the landscape Negotiations on the everyday landscape The landscape can be compared to a complex web of rights, where private ownership and use must be in balance with collective benefits and government demands. Protection, management and planning of the landscape involves a constant negotiation process – negotiation between different parties such as individuals, interest groups, landowners, companies, municipalities, regions or the government. This negotiation may relate partly to how natural resources are to be allocated and used, and partly to how the balance between individual economic interests and the wider interests of society is to be maintained. In the context of this system, the Swedish government has traditionally maintained a strong position. Through legislation and a variety of protective instruments, the government is able, in different ways, to regulate use of areas that are judged to be so valuable that they must be protected, or where the public interest is so important that it has to be put before the interests of individuals. However, only a very small percentage of the landscape is covered by the government’s absolute right of disposition. The majority of the landscape is made up of what is called ‘everyday landscape’, where people generally live and work, and where the influence of the government and the municipality is REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 19 (73) 103-03188-2006 reduced to managing certain issues as part of their general planning. This applies to both rural and urban landscapes. It is on this everyday landscape that claims will increase in the future, and it is also here that the practice of negotiating is at its most complex. Put simply, the reality has become more crowded and more complicated. No one person owns the landscape, and no one person has all the answers. More people want to have an influence over the same landscape, and different challenges accumulate. These do not only relate to spatial perspectives. They are just as much to do with perspectives on collaboration, democracy, management, use, protection, planning, knowledge and experiences. The ELC has an important role to play here. It gives weight and legitimacy to the holistic territorial perspective that we need in our current circumstances. The ELC offers general principles for negotiations on the use of the everyday landscape. Its starting point is that the landscape is an element of individual and social well-being, and as such, it concerns everyone. The right to play a part in decisions that affect the landscape where people live and work also entails a shared responsibility for ensuring that these decisions rest on sustainable foundations. Climate change, energy policy and the landscape The Commission on Climate and Vulnerability recently presented its final report, in which the threats and opportunities of the impending climate change are outlined.16 The landscape is affected both directly and indirectly. The direct effects include flooding, landslides, subsidence, changes in vegetation, and changing conditions for land use and construction. The indirect changes relate to new ways of organising society, in order to minimise our contribution to global warming. From a global perspective, the consequences of climate change are already having a major impact on the very poorest people in the world.17 Until the early 20th century, almost the entire population of Sweden worked in agriculture, and the landscape was formed using hard physical labour. Social infrastructure, settlement structure and land use were shaped by the transport options of the day, which were mostly based on transportation on foot, by boat, or by horse and cart. In those days the cities were small and compact, which limited the need for transport within cities. Fossil fuels and electricity brought a new landscape paradigm over the course of the 20th century. With the help of the tractor, the landscape’s resources could be utilised in a way that had not previously been possible. Longdistance transport also became profitable, which resulted in the production landscape going from a local scale to a global scale. Mobility increased, and 16 17 SOU 2007:60 Human development report 2007/08. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 20 (73) 103-03188-2006 both physical and mental horizons were broadened. It was no longer necessary to live and work in the same place. The cities grew and changed, not only because of the extensive migration from rural areas, but also because life in the city was no longer defined by short distances. It became possible to construct more spacious cities, and urban development expanded far beyond the boundaries of the old city centres. Over the course of one hundred years, the landscape was utterly transformed. Today, we face another large-scale change of the landscape, caused by the need to reduce consumption of coal and oil, thus reducing their harmful effects on the environment. The energy recovery that has for a long time taken place deep under the earth’s surface will move up and out into the landscape to an increasing degree. Energy forests, energy crops, wind power and hydropower will replace coal and oil. New dimensions of conflict will arise, not only because production of energy and food must now share the same landscape, but also because more and more demands will be made on the collective benefits of the landscape in the form of experiences, recreation and biodiversity. The demand for reduced energy consumption will also influence the infrastructures and urban environments of the future. Figure 3. Energy paradigms in the landscape. A = pre-modern: a landscape powered by, and adapted to, the use of muscular energy. B= modern: a landscape powered by, and adapted to, the use of fossil fuel. C= post-modern: a landscape powered by, and adapted to, the use of renewable energy. The ELC demands that a landscape perspective be included in all the policy areas that concern the landscape, whether directly or indirectly. This gives us the chance to notice and deal with any divergent demands and conflict situations at an early stage. Balancing divergent demands is an important role of REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 21 (73) 103-03188-2006 politics, particularly in a situation where one environmental concern risks coming into conflict with another. In order to be able to make progress on these issues in the political arena, the consequences of different routes of action must be clarified. The landscape is the arena where all individual policy areas eventually come to overlap, and that is why good solutions must be formed on the basis of a landscape perspective. From participant to observer of the rural landscape Over time, humankind’s relationship with the landscape has changed. The majority of those who populated rural areas a hundred years ago were directly employed in the agriculture and forestry sectors, and in this way they were physically bound to the ‘workshop’ constituted by the landscape.18 Claims to the landscape were characterised by the economic relationships in play between the farmer and his or her land. Today, only a small percentage of the population are employed in agriculture. Land and forest ownership is concentrated in considerably fewer hands than it was a hundred years ago, and many land and forest owners no longer live on or close to their land. The city has replaced rural areas as the ‘everyday environment’. Figure 4. The number of people who have the landscape as their workplace has declined dramatically in the last hundred years. Today, the majority of the population are ‘observers’. Although the majority of the population now live in urbanised areas, claims on the rural landscape have not reduced. They have, however, taken on new 18 Bucht 2004. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 22 (73) 103-03188-2006 forms. The majority of the population have gone from being direct participants in the rural landscape to being observers.19 The claims now made concern access to recreation, outdoor pursuits and natural and cultural experiences. In other words, the significance of the landscape as a collective asset has increased. However, the aesthetic attraction of the rural landscape is still based on the premise that the traditional agricultural industry continues to function, keeping the landscape open, populated and stimulating. One of the basic objectives of the ELC, people’s right to use and enjoy the landscape, is already covered by the Swedish right of common access (swe: allemansrätt). This too is an important and much-appreciated expression of trust between people. However, the right to roam is based on balancing individual interests against the public interest, which can often be a difficult balancing act. There is a major political challenge in achieving a balance between these different types of claims. On the one side there is a growing segment of the population making demands on how the landscape should develop, despite the fact that they do not have any direct ownership of the land. On the other side there is a shrinking segment of people who, through agriculture and forestry, contribute to creating and maintaining the qualities of the landscape. Consumption patterns and ecological footprints in the landscape Lifestyles and consumption patterns have a major effect on the landscape. Politics can exert some influence over the direction in which the landscape develops, through various types of regulations and taxes. However, the choices made by consumers are also crucial in determining what, where and how food is produced. As a result, the landscape is a reflection of the production that we, as consumers, demand. During the 20th century, we have moved towards operational rationalisation and towards a landscape that is increasingly intertwined with the global market. The increasing demand for ethanol in Sweden affects the Brazilian landscape. When we replace the corks in our wine bottles with plastic, the maintenance of Portugal’s several hundred-year-old oak landscape changes as a result. Since the 1990s, we as consumers have become more aware that we do not always pay the real price for the goods we buy.20 Interest has grown in organic food products, which are usually more expensive. This shows that we 19 20 Bucht 2004. SOU 2005:51. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 23 (73) 103-03188-2006 are prepared to take a personal responsibility for the environment in which they are produced – the landscape becomes a part of the value of the product. In recent years, several successful concepts have been developed to clarify the links between patterns of consumption and environmental impact. In the context of climate change, the term ‘ecological footprint’ has quickly gained ground. Put simply, the footprint is an estimation of the amount of land needed for one person’s consumption, housing and waste dumping. Another term that has appeared in the context of discussions on biodiversity is ‘ecosystem services’. Ecosystem services are the vital benefits and products that nature provides, such as water purification, pollination of crops, and natural pest control. By putting a price on these services, their value can be expressed in monetary terms. Sustainable development of society requires sustainable patterns of consumption.21 In this context, knowledge is of crucial importance – the knowledge that enables the individual to make socially conscious choices. There is a need to put a price on the experiences and social and health-related benefits that the landscape ‘produces’. The ELC helps to put these issues in focus. Landscape 2020 – a vision In the light of the challenges that have been sketched out above, the Swedish National Heritage Board has created a number of objectives for the implementation of the ELC. Our vision is that the ELC should contribute to ensuring: …a wider perspective on the landscape The landscape is seen as a necessary foundation for a good living space, for participation and for biodiversity, but also as capital in the business sector and for local and regional development and growth. The landscape is seen as one of the conditions for development that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable on all levels. It is widely accepted that the landscape is society’s shared archive, invaluable in helping us understand and explain our history. …a fully holistic view of the landscape The landscape perspective helps to make potential conflicts between different policy areas visible and manageable at an early stage. There is a coherence in the tasks given to different sectoral authorities, which helps ensure robust and effective coordination of landscape-related government initiatives. Cooperation between different authorities has been strengthened and municipal and regional representatives have a clear and stimulating role. Spatial planning is made more effective as a result of strategic landscape issues being dealt with 21 Sweden’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Skr 2001/02:172. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 24 (73) 103-03188-2006 in programmes and plans. Societal development is characterised by innovative thinking and solutions that take the landscape as their starting point. …that the landscape engages The work to manage the resources of the landscape and to ensure sustainable development draw in a host of different parties and interests. People feel commitment and appreciate participation in issues concerning protection, planning and development of the landscape. People make an active contribution to formulating shared visions for the landscape. …that the landscape is seen as an element of development In Sweden, it is clear that economic growth and care for the landscape go hand in hand. Through innovative thinking and entrepreneurship, the landscape’s resources are turned into sought-after goods and services. Through cooperation between authorities, universities and the business sector, effective environmental technology solutions have been developed to ensure environmentally and economically sound agricultural methods. …increased international involvement Sweden is an active participant in, and initiator of, international cooperation on landscape issues on Nordic, European and global levels. Sweden is also a driving force in developing European cooperation based around the ELC. Swedish authorities, regions and municipalities are sought-after partners in international cooperation projects and exchanges of experience on landscape, both because they provide useful knowledge and because they themselves are keen to listen and learn. The relationship between the ELC and other conventions and directives International law is based on agreements between countries. These international rules and regulations are called conventions or treaties. They are primarily intended to apply to states or intergovernmental organisations, and they become applicable to individuals through each state’s internal legal system. International non-governmental organisations or NGOs often participate in the arena of international law, promoting humanitarian, economic, scientific or environmental interests. The legal system of the European Union, EC law, has brought a new dimension of supranational authority, which is a level above traditional international legal agreements. The EU, like its member states, signs conventions and can pass laws for implementation of these conventions within the EU. The end goals of EU directives are binding for member states, but each country can, to a certain extent, decide on the methods to be used to reach the goals. This means that member states must pass national laws or other binding regula- REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 25 (73) 103-03188-2006 tions that fulfil the requirements of the directive, within a given time frame. The authorities of member states are obliged to observe the demands of the directive, even if these demands have not been fully implemented at national level. In certain sectors – primarily agriculture, transport and competition – the EU issues EU regulations that are directly binding for all member states. In such cases, national laws are only partly required for implementation. Individuals can invoke the rights conferred by EU regulations, directly. Decisions made by the Commission can be directed to member states as well as individual legal entities. Conventions that are issued by the Council of Europe or the UN differ from the EU’s legal framework in the sense that they are only directed to member states, and sanctions are rarely attached to their jurisdiction. The only real pressure that can be exerted is criticism, lobbying and possible exclusion from membership. Individuals cannot invoke conventions in national judicial processes. In order for a convention to have the desired effect on a country, it must be ratified, or approved, by the government and parliament. Thereafter, the countries’ laws, regulations and directives must be adapted in accordance with the convention. It is sometimes the case that certain conventions are perceived as more important than others. Although some fundamental conventions on human rights etc can be regarded as particularly high priority for political reasons, all other conventions have the same status. The political significance a particular issue may develop only becomes clear at the time of implementation of the convention, in the choice of control measures to be applied. For example, there is no difference between the Council of Europe’s Landscape Convention, and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). However, the CBD precedes the ELC chronologically, and has already been incorporated into EU directives and as such gained mandatory legal effect. In addition, significant economic control measures have been linked to biodiversity, so the current impact of the CBD is considerably stronger than that of a convention that has not yet been ratified. The question of which control measures may be linked to the ELC is a political issue. The ELC expressly states that its provisions have taken a series of other conventions into account. As such, the ELC is not conflict with the following conventions. In fact, it can be considered to strengthen them to a high degree: ƒ ƒ ƒ The Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 19 September 1979), The Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (Granada, 3 October 1985), The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe (revised) (Valletta, 16 January 1992), REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 26 (73) 103-03188-2006 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ The European Framework Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (Madrid, 21 May 1980), and supplementary protocols, The European Charter of Local Self-government (Strasbourg, 15 October 1985), The Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio, 5 June 1992), The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris, 16 November 1972), and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice on Environmental Matters (Aarhus, 25 June 1998). As such, it is appropriate to ascertain to what degree control measures from these conventions can be used, possibly after some modernisation, in order to support the implementation of the ELC. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 27 (73) 103-03188-2006 Part 3 The Swedish National Heritage Board’s analysis and argument This section constitutes an in-depth analysis of the conditions for implementation of the ELC, as well as the need for change in order to achieve the intentions of the ELC. The analysis provides the foundation for the measures suggested in Part 1. The analysis is based on a number of themes that are judged to be central in the ELC and that are repeated in several of its articles: Landscape in law; A comprehensive landscape policy; Landscape policy control measures; Participation and raised awareness; Identification and assessment; Education and research; and International cooperation. Landscape in law According to the ELC, the landscape should be recognised as an important component in people’s surroundings, as an expression of the diversity of their shared natural and cultural heritage, and as a basis for their identity.22 It is a legal framework that both recognises the significance of the landscape for the well-being of humankind, and safeguards the democratic process. In order to achieve its intentions, actively applied laws and rules of consideration are needed to prevent unacceptable changes in the landscape. Proactive, robust control measures must stimulate the protection, management, restoration or development of all kinds of landscape, in rural and urban areas alike. Present conditions and problems The landscape is omitted, and application varies In Sweden, we come across the term ‘landscape’ in the Environmental Code, the Planning and Building Act, the Roads Act, and the Law on the Construction of Railways23. The meaning of the term varies in these different laws. The term is usually used to mean nature or the image of the landscape in an aesthetic sense. Emphasis is placed on the top of the landscape pyramid, which contains selected, protected areas. There is no mention of the significance of the landscape for people – in other words, no emphasis on the emo22 “…to recognize landscapes in law as an essential component of people`s surroundings, an expression of the diversity of their shared cultural and natural heritage, and a foundation of their identity” (ELC, article 5). 23 Environmental Code (1988:808); Planning and Building Act (1987:10); Roads Act (1971:948); Law (1995:1649) on construction of railways. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 28 (73) 103-03188-2006 tional value of the landscape. There is nothing to prevent a broader outlook in the law, but neither is there any direct support for application of a holistic view of the landscape that includes cultural, environmental, economic and social perspectives. When decisions are made according to the Environmental Code, the Planning and Building Act and the other sectoral laws, the decision-making process and the application of legislation is strongly sectorised.24 Subsets of the landscape are handled without any overall coordination. Laws that regulate utilisation of the landscape are primarily based on a combination of land and biotope perspectives on the landscape. Forests, water, agricultural land and houses are treated as isolated objects, which promotes a static attitude to the landscape. Conflicts of interest often arise in the interface between different types of land, because of unclear or overlapping laws. The legislation also contains a problematic division into urban and rural areas, where built-up areas are treated differently from the rest of the landscape25. Figure 5. The landscape pyramid. The same applies to the environmental quality objectives, structural fund projects, regional development programmes and various government-funded subsidies. There is an absence of clear legislation stating that the landscape’s significance for people should permeate decisions in different policy areas or laws at the same level as, for example, sustainable development, which is regulated in the Constitution of Sweden26. 24 25 Lerman 2006. Reiter 2004:61. 26 Instrument of Government, section 2. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 29 (73) 103-03188-2006 The Environmental Code lacks provisions on general identification and evaluation of the landscape, however, information on parts or aspects of the landscape is required to be drawn up in connection with environmental impact assessments (EIAs). The Planning and Building Act also lacks clear, overall formulations on the landscape in accordance with the ELC. It is true that it is possible to make particular values of the landscape and the everyday landscape visible in planning charts and provisions, but the application of these instruments varies widely between different municipalities. The term ‘landscape’ is not mentioned in the Cultural Heritage Act nor in the Forestry Act27, although the latter does emphasise the subsets of nature and culture for certain types of measures. However, the two sectoral laws for infrastructure are clearer on landscape than both the Environment Code and the Planning and Building Act. Weak management and development perspectives There are several ways in which Swedish law can be used for protection, but regulations on management and development are not as prominent. References to conservation in the Environmental Code primarily concern valuable natural areas. At the same time, there is the option of steering landscape management through use of rules of consideration. However, the landscape perspective is not so clearly expressed that it is possible to talk about explicit landscape management. There is a lack of instruments for development or restoration. The Planning and Building Act provides instruments for various types of planning, the basis of which is that all changes in land usage must be planned. As a rule, the landscape is characterised in these plans as an area for unchanged usage or for continuation of land usage28. The comprehensive plan, which is not legally binding, can nonetheless make the everyday landscape visible and contribute to protection, management and development. Consideration of national interests is included in the comprehensive plan, but this instrument does not approach the landscape as an entirety. Rather, it focuses on limited subareas. Local plans may contain provisions on protection, but these are primarily intended to prevent or allow changes in appropriate land usage, following consideration. Both local plans and area provisions can provide a framework for development of an area. Decisions in accordance with the Forestry Act may affect public interests in the landscape, but rules of consideration only exist for certain parts of it. Application of the legislation for the transport sector focuses more on limiting damage than on implementing the intentions of the ELC on protection, management and development. 27 28 Cultural Heritage Act (1988:950); Forestry Act (1979:429). Reiter 2004:61. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 30 (73) 103-03188-2006 The Cultural Heritage Act contains regulations for preservation of ancient remains, particularly valuable buildings, church buildings and burial grounds that have been in existence since prior to 1939. Management regulations are also to be drawn up in relation to selected and protected objects. There are no provisions for restoration and development whatsoever. Proposed actions Recognition of the landscape and its significance for people and society in the various laws that govern land usage, building, planning and management of natural resources and cultural environments is an important step in the implementation of the ELC. If the landscape is included in the constitution, as is the case in several other countries29, this can function as a basis for all sectoral decisions and decisions in all policy areas. This would give the landscape perspective the same status as sustainable development. The term ‘landscape’ should be introduced and clarified in the portal paragraphs of the Environmental Code and the Planning and Building Act as well as in relevant sectoral laws. If the landscape concept is introduced according to the definition in the ELC in the portal paragraphs of the laws mentioned, the following will be the consequences: – In the Environmental Code, the landscape concept will be able to permeate application of both the second chapter of the Code and the many related laws, such as the requirements for environmental impact assessments. – In the Planning and Building Act, the landscape concept will permeate both physical planning and construction. The huge amount of knowledge accumulated in many environmental impact assessments could also be put to better use. – In the context of relevant sectoral laws, several of the intentions of the ELC could be fulfilled. Connections would become clearer between the portal paragraph of the Forestry Act, the portal paragraph, agricultural provisions and general rules of consideration of the Environmental Code, and comprehensive planning under the Planning and Building Act. The current consideration for the urban and rural landscape included in the Roads Act and the Law on the Construction of Railways could be developed. In addition, if the landscape is included as a condition for transport infrastructure planning according to the four step principle (swe: Fyrstegsprincipen)30, even investment deci29 30 Lerman 2006; T-FLOR 3 (2003) 11 rev. Swedish Road Administration 2002:72. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 31 (73) 103-03188-2006 – sions in national and regional plans could have a clearer landscape basis. In the Cultural Heritage Act, the connections between the public interests in the Environmental Code and the Planning and Building Act would be strengthened and the importance of cultural heritage objects to the landscape as a whole would be clarified. Legislation and the detailed application thereof should be designed to facilitate the preservation, use and development of the values of the landscape. If rules of procedure referring to procedures for cooperation, participation, raised awareness, education, goal creation, identification and evaluation, as well as instruments for protection, governance, management and development of the landscape, were included in the relevant laws, then implementation and application of the ELC’s intentions would be made easier. If requirements for follow-up of various decisions relating to protection, governance, management and development were introduced, then knowledge of the consequences for the landscape would increase, thus giving a better basis for future decisions. If procedures for protection were supplemented by procedures for management and restoration, the potential to manage the landscape under the Environmental Code would be increased. The rules for environmental impact assessments (EIAs) of plans and programmes31 that form part of the Environmental Code should also be reviewed and supplemented so that they include the landscape as a whole and are applied in full to all policies, plans and programmes that affect the landscape. If comprehensive plans and regional plans are required to be documents containing information on and objectives for the landscape, this will be extremely significant for all municipalities that take these plans into account in their decision-making. If requirements for the contents of comprehensive plans were supplemented for landscape that is judged to have particular qualities and/or value for the municipality, then objectives and visions for the protection, management and development of landscape qualities can be drawn up. According to the Environmental Code and the Planning and Building Act, the responsibility to provide municipalities with planning documentation lies with the county administrative board. If this responsibility is made clearer, it could also include a landscape characterisation. If the landscape is included in the regulations on Regional Development Programmes (RUP), then interaction with municipal comprehensive planning could be developed. 31 Environmental Code (1988:808), chapter 6, sections 11–18. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 32 (73) 103-03188-2006 A comprehensive landscape policy The ELC presupposes that the domestic politics will establish basic priorities and general principles, as well as making strategic choices, to govern all work that has an impact on the landscape32. The policy should be formulated by national, regional and local political bodies working together, and should be implemented by authorities at the equivalent levels. The ELC also presupposes broad participation from the general public, both in the formulation and the implementation of landscape policy.33 Present conditions and problems A complex jigsaw puzzle There is no explicit landscape policy in Sweden, apart from the landscape being seen as a part of environmental policy and of the work to ensure sustainable development. The policy branches off at national level, into a long series of different policy areas. Many policy areas affect the landscape, directly or indirectly and to varying extents. The landscape concept is used extremely rarely in political objectives – the landscape is simply implied. This makes it difficult to get an overview of landscape issues and contributes to a situation in which the different policy areas and objectives create a complex jigsaw, where the overall picture of the landscape is, in practice, either invisible or unclear. Without a comprehensive landscape policy with clearly defined landscape objectives, it is difficult to predict and evaluate conflicting objectives and estimate the significance of indirect or cumulative effects on the landscape. Policies at different levels Regional growth and development, entrepreneurship and increased employment have become buzzwords in recent years. Regional growth and development in Sweden is strongly dependent on the EU’s cohesion policy, fisheries policy and rural policy. Bodies at national, regional and local levels have a responsibility for undertaking initiatives that are significant for regional growth and development. This brings demands in terms of functioning cooperation processes and dialogue, sectoral coordination, and active municipal comprehensive planning. During the current programme period, 2007-2013, strategies and tangible projects have been, or should be, drawn up at these different levels. According to the definition in the ELC, the landscape is not currently salient, but conscious action in preparation for the next programme 32 “..establish and implement landscape policies aimed at landscape protection, management and planning through the adoption of the specific measures set out in Article 6”. 33 Lerman 2006. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 33 (73) 103-03188-2006 period should bring major potential to clarify the significance of the landscape in the governing documents from the EU. Geographical scale EU level National level Application EU regulations for different policy areas National strategy for regional competitiveness, entrepreneurship and employment etc National structural fund programme for regional competitiveness and employment (ESF) etc 8 regional structural fund programmes, ERDF 8 regional plans, ESF Regional development strategies, 21 RDS Regional growth programmes, 21 RGP Municipal comprehensive plans Multi-county level County level Municipal level Table 1. Summary of political levels and application The system is built so that the important issues for the policy area are taken up at EU level, in order to permeate the entire implementation process and be evaluated retrospectively. The landscape is currently in the background. Valuable nature and culture is mentioned, as are attractive landscapes, but not the everyday landscape. Here are examples of whether or how the landscape is affected at different levels. EU level Rural development forms a special policy area within the EU, with close connections to agricultural policy. The physical environment or landscape is not mentioned directly in the cohesion policy guidelines, but there is an indirect, underlying ambition to achieve attractive regions, to increase cooperation between regions with similar conditions, and to support both urban and rural areas. In the 1999 European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), a joint effort was made to interconnect regional development and physical planning. National level The landscape as a concept is not mentioned in the National Strategy for Regional Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Employment 2007-2013, but the significance of innovative and attractive environments and decentralised implementation is emphasised. Projects linked to the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF, provide a clear example of a decision-making process where the landscape is relevant but is concealed in different wording. Among the guidelines for the national European Social Fund programme (ESF), no link is made to the physical environment, but the policy areas that are seen as important for implementation include regional development pol- REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 34 (73) 103-03188-2006 icy, metropolitan policy, and rural policy, all of which have a clear link to the landscape. The implementation processes are similar to those proposed in the ELC. The guiding principles for operational programmes linked to the European Fisheries Fund do not contain any direct references to the landscape. The Rural Development Programme is the EU policy with the clearest focus on the landscape, however, it only covers rural areas. Regional level The Regional Development Programme (swe: RUP) should form a basis for various regional and local action programmes. The programme is to be drawn up by regional cooperation bodies, regional self-governing bodies, and county administrative boards. The process is to be conducted in broad partnership with regional and local bodies. Within the RUP, economic and employmentrelated issues should be supplemented by environmental and social perspectives on regional development34. According to the regulation35, municipal comprehensive plans should be taken into account. In practice, there is a major need to develop methods that help integrate the landscape and introduce environmental impact assessments to the RUP processes. Alongside regional bodies, the county administrative board has an important role to play in the regional work and in RUP-related work, as a source of knowledge and a link to the government. As in the context of municipal planning, the county administrative board should safeguard and weigh up government interests and national objectives. It is primarily the Planning and Building Act that formally regulates physical regional planning36. Essentially, public interests must be handled in the same way as in comprehensive planning, but with a focus on the need for coordination. The landscape concept is not used in the laws that are applied for national and regional infrastructure planning37. However, this work does involve an assessment that includes a report on the effects on the transport policy objectives, one of which is A good environment. As such, landscape issues can be introduced to the planning process indirectly. Another example of regional planning is the Water Directive that is being implemented in Sweden in the form of water planning for every drainage basin. Water planning is based on a landscape perspective, but only the aspect of water management. Other environmental aspects are given lower priority in order to ensure a good water status. As a result, water planning could come into conflict with management of other landscape values. In general, the water planning process is similar to the process proposed in the ELC38. 34 35 The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, 2007. Regulation (2007:713) on regional development. 36 Planning and Building Act. 37 Regulation (1989:67) on Trunk Railway Plan; Regulation (1997:262) on National Road Scheme; Regulation (1997:263) on County Plans for Regional Infrastructure. 38 The Water Authority is working on a ‘water planning cycle’ (Environmental Code (1988:808), chapter 5; Regulation (2002:660) on Management of the Water Environment). REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 35 (73) 103-03188-2006 Municipal level There is strong potential to include a general statement of purpose for the landscape, as well as more tangible objectives on the use and protection of the landscape, in the municipal comprehensive plan. Within the framework for the comprehensive planning process, identification, analysis and creation of objectives would be carried out. Thus far, however, few municipalities have used the comprehensive plan in this way39. The municipalities need a regional planning level to interact with, and regional planning documentation that supports their own planning work in terms of landscape. Development programmes that, from a regional perspective, describe the qualities of the landscape as well as objectives and strategies for the protection, management and development of these, could support more in-depth landscape-related work at municipal level. As such, it is important to clarify the reciprocal roles of RUP and the comprehensive plan, as gathering information for decision-making on changes in land use that impact the landscape. Landscape objectives and environmental objectives The ELC demands national and programmatic landscape objectives to be given by the national landscape policy, as well as more applied, local landscape objectives40. The relevant existing national goals are primarily the Swedish environmental quality objectives. The generational goals and interim targets are based on five basic values which can be expressed as follows: promote human health, safeguard biodiversity, preserve cultural heritage values, conserve the long-term production capacity of the ecosystem, and maintain good management of natural resources41. These five basic values coincide with the basic view of the ELC42. There are no contradictions between national environmental quality objectives and the aims of the ELC. However, some aspects of the ELC are not covered. For example, the idea of landscape having independent value does not appear in the environmental quality objectives, and neither is there any overall objective for landscape quality43. The landscape-related environmental objectives are divided into its natural value, cultural value, and useful39 40 Lerman 2006. Lerman 2006. 41 Government Bill 2004/05:150. 42 “Concerned to achieve sustainable development based on a balanced and harmonious relationship between social needs, economic activity and the environment; Noting that the landscape has an important public interest role in the cultural, ecological, environmental and social fields, and constitutes a resource favourable to economic activity and whose protection, management and planning can contribute to job creation.” (ELC, preamble). 43 Tema Nord 2003:550; Government Bill 2004/05:150. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 36 (73) 103-03188-2006 ness for experience and for outdoor pursuits. As such, there is a potential risk for conflict within the same objective as well as between different objectives. Proposed actions In order for the landscape to become a fundamental issue at a political level, a separate landscape policy is needed, as well as a landscape perspective in all relevant policy areas. A commission should be created and tasked with drawing up a national landscape policy. The task should include drafting a national strategy and proposing national landscape objectives. If a national landscape policy is to function as an umbrella for coordination of the many national, regional and municipal areas that affect the landscape, it should be expressed in a national landscape strategy44. A strategy of this nature can create a platform for the development of national objectives and visions for the landscape as well as regional and municipal strategies, programmes and plans. The strategy can also outline how the landscape perspective should be made clear in different policy areas. It should develop an approach for dealing with conflicting objectives, and suggest principles to help increase participation in landscape issues at different levels. This strategy development work should be integrated with work on the action strategy for management of land, water and the built environment. The landscape policy should be clarified through landscape objectives. They should provide support in finding and evaluating conflicting policy areas and indirect and cumulative effects. Far-sighted management of shared goals and of conflicting objectives is extremely important. Growing knowledge of global climate change brings with it potential conflicts in objectives, between for example food policy and rural policy on one side and the policy for a sustainable energy system on the other. From a landscape perspective, it is necessary to balance objectives that view the landscape as a source of social well-being, with objectives relating to renewable energy sources that are based on extensive cultivation of biomass and large-scale wind farms. The objectives for the landscape should provide guidance for all work and action that affects the landscape, and as such they should be drawn up in collaboration with relevant bodies, including the local population45. The goals should describe: • the main content of the landscape policy 44 In Norway there is a similar national strategy for the landscape that links overall landscape policy with the Norwegian environmental objectives (Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage 2007). 45 Lerman 2006. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 37 (73) 103-03188-2006 • • • the fundamental characteristics of the landscape and the qualities to be achieved which subsets of the landscape should be objects for preservation, control or recreation, as well as the funds to be used to achieve the objectives. The landscape objectives can form a framework around the environmental quality objectives, thereby giving the concept of sustainable development a clear, holistic, spatial perspective, as a complement to the relatively sectorised and detailed objectives and interim targets that exist currently. The National Strategy for Sustainable Development should be revised on the basis of the new conditions that result from the implementation of the ELC. If landscape according to the ELC is included in the National Strategy for Sustainable Development, greater consideration can be given to the significance of people’s surroundings and the physical and emotional environment in ensuring that regional development is sustainable. Every year since 1997, the Swedish government has drawn up a national strategy for sustainable development, stating how the three dimensions of economic, social and environmental sustainability should be managed in society. So far, environmental protection and ecology issues have dominated the environmental dimension of sustainable development. Twelve main indicators of sustainable development have been created, but only greenhouse gases and hazardous substances are measured for the environmental dimension. The relevant authorities should be tasked with promoting the concept of landscape in programmes at European, national, regional and local levels, in preparation for the next EU programme period. In the context of the regional development programmes, the focus of different projects or processes governed by different EU funds should be appraised. Regular consultations between the authorities responsible for the administration of different EU programmes – the Swedish ESF Council, the Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Agriculture – should discuss how these programmes can support each other in the case of applications that fall into a grey area between different programmes. If landscape issues are included in these discussions, then the connections between growth, aesthetic appeal, recreation, tourism, attractive housing and employment environments, and effects and consequences for the landscape – including urban and metropolitan landscapes – could become clearer. Emphasise the landscape as an asset in local and regional development, through development of regional landscape strategies. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 38 (73) 103-03188-2006 The ELC contains an explicit requirement for regional and local authorities to participate in its implementation, not least by drafting regional and local visions for the landscape and its development46. Increased integration between regional development programmes, sectoral programmes and plans, crosssectoral physical planning according to the Planning and Building Act, and infrastructure planning, would be extremely significant for the landscape. For example, this could contribute to comprehensive assessments of environmental conditions, division of responsibility, allocation of funding and physical structures. As a result, regional development programmes would gain more substance and would be linked more directly to municipal physical planning, entirely in accordance with the intentions of the ESDP47. This would also increase the potential of reaching a spatial definition of regional environmental objectives48. In 2006-2007, several counties ran a trial project with regional landscape strategies for biodiversity, as part of developing sustainable use of natural resources and a holistic view of the landscape49. Trial projects are a natural starting point for the development of the environmental and landscape-related content of the regional development programmes (swe: RUP). This work has been linked to the strategy for management of land, water and the built environment, and to the interim target on sustainable management within the environmental objective of ‘A rich diversity of plant and animal life’. The purpose of this has been, from a holistic perspective, to integrate and streamline the action needed for sustainable use of the landscape’s natural resources, biodiversity and historical value. The strategies can form a basis for consultation in planning processes and environmental impact assessments, and for the regional development programmes. If these landscape strategies are developed in collaboration between regional bodies, county administrative boards and municipalities, the right conditions will be created to give the ELC substance and legitimacy at regional and municipal levels. The strategies could also constitute a valuable source of support for landscape-related issues at municipal level, in a planning context. 46 47 ELC, article 5c; The subsidiarity principle should also be respected (ELC, article 4). European Spatial Development Perspective; Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2007:10. 48 Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2007:10. 49 These trial projects have recently reported back to the government (County Administrative Board in Dalarna County 2007; County Administrative Board in Kalmar County 2007; County Administrative Board in Skåne County 2007; County Administrative Board in Stockholm County 2007; County Administrative Board in Västerbotten County 2007; County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland County 2007; County Administrative Board in Östergötland County 2007. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 39 (73) 103-03188-2006 The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is to develop general guidelines for regional landscape strategies, in consultation with other relevant authorities, over the course of 2008. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is also considering revising the concept of regional landscape strategies for biodiversity50. The Swedish National Heritage Board believes that, with regard to the commitments of the ELC, there are a number of criteria that should be central to developing regional landscape strategies. They should: • have a strong legitimacy, with objectives and visions that have political support, • be able to respond to the needs of regional planning and municipal comprehensive planning, • have a strong cross-sectoral perspective of the landscape, covering social, environmental and economic dimensions, • embrace the entire county/region, • be linked to national objectives (national landscape strategy) and • form a basis for greater inclusion of landscape issues in regional development programmes. In order to achieve these criteria, the strategies need to be developed in close collaboration between regional bodies, county administrative boards and municipalities. Another precondition is that the landscape strategies should be built on a combined foundation of environmental and regional development policy concerns. Landscape policy control measures In order to implement a landscape policy in practice at different levels of society, it needs to be supported with economic instruments. These may be government funding allocations in areas like transport policy, regional growth, food policy, urban and rural policy, and forestry policy. They could also be taxes and charges, or other forms of control measures that are adjusted according to the market. All control measures have one thing in common – they aim, in different ways, to influence the choices made by citizens and organisations in the short and long term, in order to ensure that landscape policy objectives can be achieved. The policy is put into effect by sectoral authorities, who also manage the control measures as defined by politicians. Present conditions and problems Strong sectoral authorities Landscape issues are relevant to many different sectors. In general, broad issues that cover a number of sectors require a clear division of responsibility 50 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2007. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 40 (73) 103-03188-2006 in order to be managed in an effective way, particularly in the context of a sectorised administration structure like the Swedish one. The problems that often arise are either issues that overlap, where work is duplicated, or issues that quite simply ‘fall between two stools’51. In the context of landscape issues in Sweden, both problems exist in parallel. Creating of a new authority with overall responsibility for landscape issues is not a desirable route for achieving effectiveness and coordination benefits. With this course of action, there is a risk that the landscape would become just another sector alongside those that already exist. Strong authority sectors can affect the potential of citizen participation in the decision-making process. Authorities are often given preference in interpretation of important issues, which leads to a situation where the perspective of public institutions is given more weight than the compound problems that face citizens in their daily lives. It has also proved difficult to achieve coordination between political decision-makers, executive authorities and different private bodies on a voluntary basis52. The landscape is invisible in the appropriation directions Use of government funded control measures is regulated by specific regulations and by the authorities’ appropriation directions. It is interesting to review how the landscape concept is used in these documents. A review of all appropriation directions for 200753 shows that the landscape concept is only mentioned in four cases, namely in the appropriation directions for the county administrative boards54, the Swedish Board of Agriculture55, the Environmental Protection Agency56, and the Swedish National Heritage Board57. Most of these are references to the agricultural landscape and initiatives linked to the work on environmental quality objectives ‘A varied agricultural landscape’ and ‘Thriving wetlands’. Other references relate to the National Inventory of the Landscape in Sweden (NILS), regional landscape strategies, proposals for national implementation of the ELC and preservation of ancient monuments and cultural landscapes. The fact that the agricultural landscape is given attention in the appropriation directions for the Board of Agriculture is natural. The control measures handled by this authority are directed towards actors in agricultural industries, which both change the landscape and are important in its preservation and 51 52 Swedish Agency for Public Management 2005. Swedish Agency for Public Management 2005. 53 Swedish National Financial Management Authority, online Register of Appropriations. 54 Appropriation directions for budget year 2007 for the County Administrative Boards. 55 Appropriation directions for budget year 2007 for the Swedish Board of Agriculture. 56 Appropriation directions for budget year 2007 for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 57 Appropriation directions for budget year 2007 for the Swedish National Heritage Board. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 41 (73) 103-03188-2006 management. The important role of agriculture as a landscape manager manifests itself through the different types of agro-environmental subsidies for preservation and management of landscape qualities, such as meadow and pastureland and valuable natural and cultural environments. In the light of this, one would expect the landscape concept to have a more prominent place in those appropriation directions. Appropriation directions to, for example, the National Board of Forestry, the National Road Administration, the National Rail Administration, the Swedish Energy Agency, and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, do not mention the landscape concept at all. This can be perceived as a shortcoming, as these authorities handle objectives, funding and activities that both change the landscape and offer the potential for preservation, management and development. How can existing control measures interact? Thus, the landscape is relatively invisible in the authorities’ appropriation directions. This is a result of the above-mentioned fragmentation of the landscape concept into different policy areas58. In the appropriation directions, the landscape is hidden in terms such as environment, biodiversity, cultural environment, forestry and agricultural landscape, etc. In the light of the intentions of the ELC, this fragmentation can be perceived as a serious shortcoming, particularly when it is so clear among the authorities that manage control measures and activities that have a direct effect on the landscape. Each has responsibility for its own subset, but no-one has responsibility for the entirety – the landscape as a whole. For there to be effective interaction, there must be a balance between different types of economic control measures for protection, management, planning, etc. It is difficult to get an overview of how this balance functions at present, but a general assessment is that there is a lack of economic control measures that stimulate active management and development of the landscape from a holistic perspective. Without landscape policy – no interaction Many of the economic control measures currently in use are significant for implementing the ELC’s intentions on protection, management and planning of the landscape. However, these instruments need to be updated and supplemented in parallel with the implementation of the ELC, with clear objectives set for the landscape. This kind of landscape policy would coordinate policy areas that have an impact on the landscape and show how potentially conflicting objectives within and between policy areas can be managed59. This in turn is a prerequisite for authorities and control measures to be able to interact effectively in order to reach the objectives for the landscape. As this is not the 58 59 See section on A Comprehensive Landscape Policy. See section on A Comprehensive Landscape Policy. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 42 (73) 103-03188-2006 case at the moment, it is difficult to say whether the current economic control measures work together from a landscape perspective or not. A landscape policy is also needed in order to make clear what additional control measures are needed. Proposed actions An advisory body should be introduced that coordinates the authorities’ landscape-related activities and follows up and evaluates landscape policy. There is a need for better coordination between authorities dealing with landscape issues. A cornerstone in the coordination of all the issues relating to the landscape is a comprehensive landscape policy, with appropriate objectives and strategies. Alongside this, the authorities’ work on landscape issues should be moved forward, and the observance and effects of the landscape policy should be followed up and evaluated at national level. The Swedish National Heritage Board believes that the responsibility for this could be placed on a special advisory body placed within the Government Offices, for example, a council. The suggested tasks of this body include to facilitate coordination between the ministries and authorities responsible, to function as a central cooperation forum, and to take responsibility for evaluation of landscape policy. This body should have a broad composition including representatives of central and regional authorities, municipalities, NGOs, universities and the private sector. All authorities that deal with objectives, funding and activities that have an impact on the landscape should be tasked with formulating the role and responsibilities of their own authority in the context of a comprehensive, national landscape policy. Clear wording on roles and responsibility should be included in each authority’s appropriation directions. If the authorities that deal with objectives, funding and measures that have an impact on the landscape make their own role and responsibilities clear, all joint landscape-related work can be spread across different levels – national, regional and local. One important issue, for example, is access to landscaperelated expertise. Such expertise is needed in the assessment and evaluation of how different plans and programmes affect the landscape. They are also needed in implementing measures and projects or awarding grants that affect the landscape. It is vitally important that landscape experts are involved in the entire process: • before – in pilot studies or when decisions are being made about different types of support and grants, • during – implementation of projects and measures, drafting of requirements for funding applications, etc. • after – follow-up and evaluation, did it turn out as planned? REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 43 (73) 103-03188-2006 Economic control measures for different policy areas should be reviewed and adapted so that they work together from a landscape perspective. A special effort should be made to develop control measures that stimulate management and development of the landscape. If the desired effects on the landscape are to be achieved, it is important to coordinate different control measures for protection, management and planning of the landscape. These may relate to funding allocations in the government budget, taxes and charges, or other forms of control measures that are adjusted according to the market. In order to get a clearer picture of how current economic control measures work in relation to preservation, protection and planning, more in-depth analysis of the various control measures affecting the landscape is required. By way of suggestion, an analysis of this type could build on compilations and analyses carried out by the Control Measures Group60, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency61, and the Swedish Energy Agency62. Participation and increased awareness Each signatory to the ELC commits to introducing processes for participation from the general public, local and regional authorities and other parties with an interest in the landscape63. This is a way of clarifying the responsibility of politics and the public sector for ensuring that people are able to feel involved and be seen as actors in all processes, both those that are directly related to the landscape and those that have indirect consequences for the landscape. However, in order for the general public, private organisations, and public authorities to be able to act, there is a need for increased awareness of the value of the landscape, of the role they can play, and of change in the landscape – something that the countries that ratify the ELC also commit to promoting64. This process includes both horizontal integration, between different perspectives and different policy areas in the same decision-making process, and vertical integration between existing levels, from local and regional levels to the national and international arena65. Present conditions and problems Creating involvement and increased awareness brings up questions on how the landscape should be dealt with in different sectors and administrative bod60 61 Control Measures Group, 2007. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2003. 62 Swedish Energy Agency and Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2006. 63 … establish procedures for the participation of the general public, local and regional authorities, and other parties with an interest in the definition and implementation of the landscape policies mentioned in paragraph b above (ELC, article 5c). 64 …increase awareness among the civil society, private organizations, and public authorities of the value of landscapes, their role and changes to them (ELC, article 6a). 65 Ljung 2007. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 44 (73) 103-03188-2006 ies. It requires that experts work together over sectoral boundaries with the general public, the private sector and NGOs in areas like knowledge building, communication, mediation, understanding, identification, estimation, objectives and prioritisation of, and within, the landscape. It requires the ability to see, understand, appreciate and take advantage of the diversity of individuals, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, generation, class, sexual orientation and disability. Raising awareness should be understood as dissemination of knowledge in all directions, from a diversity perspective, where diversity embraces all characteristics that have an effect on the capacity to cooperate, communicate and solve problems. Traditionally, participation in political decision-making in Sweden has been institutionalised and restricted to certain interests. The challenge of the ELC is to find a reasonable combination of representative, direct and participatory democracy66. As is expressed in the Council of Europe’s guidelines for implementation of the ELC67, the starting point is that a strong relationship between people and their living environment also strengthens sustainable development. The landscape must be seen as a matter of democracy, where differences are accepted while shared issues can be identified and lead to shared solutions. This affects the entire process of drafting landscape policy, where the participation of the general public must be seen as enriching as an opportunity to affirm knowledge, define objectives and draft initiatives. This kind of relational and procedural understanding of the landscape emphasises the importance of creating opportunities for the general public and other actors beyond politicians and civil servants to influence how their surroundings are managed and developed. This kind of starting point makes it possible to gain a broader view of how the landscape is produced in different stages, both within and beyond administrative processes68. As the Council of Europe69 points out, the need to increase awareness of the landscape’s value and role and of change in the landscape among the general public, private organisations and authorities does not suggest that these actors do not appreciate the qualities of their environment. Rather, the need for increased awareness relates to clarifying the relationship between the physical environment, current land usage and other activities, as well as what changes these bring to the landscape. As such, initiatives for raising awareness should include, for example, the general public, politicians, representatives of authorities and companies, interest groups, representatives of science and technology, artists, actors and more. 66 67 Pieterse 2005. T-FLOR (2007) 8. 68 Sjölander-Lindqvist & Bolin 2007. 69 Sjölander-Lindqvist & Bolin 2007; T-FLOR (2007) 8. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 45 (73) 103-03188-2006 What is regarded as participation must be judged on the basis of method, the nature of the task and the scale on which work is carried out. In general, however, it can be said that participation should be seen as a system for mutual dissemination of information. It is needed at all stages of the process of planning and implementing landscape policy, not least in defining landscape quality objectives, decision-making processes and implementation of activities. Participation from individuals and interest groups often takes place in a situation where different actors have different goals, interests, status and potential influence. As the Nordic Council of Ministers points out, the difference between a process where the general public and NGOs are allowed to participate and a process where their participation is expressly required is an important aspect70. In this context, the timing of participation is also crucial to the potential to participate in and influence the process. The timing determines whether the general public can take initiative, participate in the drafting of measures and visions, or whether they deal with pre-processed proposals where participation is really only a matter of finding out about decisions that have already been made. One problem that the Committee on Public Sector Responsibilities (swe: Ansvarskommittén) identified is that the current follow-up and evaluation of municipal and government services often focuses on the authority, while the perspective of the service user is rarely taken into account71. In addition, most municipalities, county administrative boards, regional associations etc seem to lack strategies for how to engage in dialogue with the public in contexts other than legal processes, despite the fact that attitudes to public participation have become more open to greater participation in recent years. In cases where there is a dialogue between authorities, citizens and NGOs, it rarely focuses on the landscape. Local involvement is mostly only stimulated when interventions encroach on people’s everyday lives, and more often than not this is a reaction to an imminent change. The process surrounding municipal comprehensive planning is meant to be able to handle participation in a preactive sense. However, different municipalities differ greatly in how this opportunity is applied. Also, a significant proportion of landscape issues, primarily those concerning the rural landscape, are dealt with at a level of responsibility where the dialogue partner is at a governmental or regional level, rather than a municipal one. As such, participation cannot be limited to the municipal level and to issues that concern the landscape in the immediate surroundings. Dialogue between the public and authorities is made more difficult by the fact that there are no natural arenas for issues that are dealt with at a regional or national level. However, there are examples of well-defined 70 71 Tema Nord 2003:550. SOU 2007:10. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 46 (73) 103-03188-2006 projects where the government discusses objectives for certain areas in dialogue projects72. Proposed actions Knowledge, communication, mediation and access to information are all fundamental elements in terms of people’s understanding and awareness of the landscape and its value. All of these are also crucial for people’s potential of participating in the available processes. Carrying out measures to increase participation and awareness requires both top-down management and grassroots perspectives in the drafting and implementation of landscape policy. Experience from various participatory projects suggests that in many cases, it is preferable to work for ‘optimal participation’, rather than a situation where everyone should participate.73 As maximum participation is often a practical impossibility, and could cause limitations in terms of collaboration, flexible forms of participatory democracy are preferable74. In order to gain the understanding of the general public and achieve substantial and representative communication, several measures are needed. As summarised by the Nordic Council of Ministers75, local participation and influence on decisions concerning landscape should be stimulated by: • vitalising processes and relations with the general public and NGOs and • changing the interaction between experts and other actors, which will result in a broadening of the role of expert. To reach these objectives, a number of measures are needed. The most salient of these are presented below, along with proposals for information initiatives. Strengthen demands for, and develop methods for, participation and utilisation of local knowledge in the work of protecting, managing and developing the landscape. The Committee on Public Sector Responsibilities (swe: Ansvarskommittén)76 considers that better methods are needed for including the citizen perspective in the national information supply, both in terms of municipal and national bodies. To develop working methods for both participation and increased awareness, cooperation is needed between representatives of authorities, municipalities, universities and colleges, NGOs, the private sector and others. 72 For example, the trial project on regional landscape strategies, primarily in Kalmar County and Västerbotten County (County Administrative Board in Kalmar County 2007; County Administrative Board in Västerbotten County 2007). 73 Sjölander-Lindqvist & Bolin 2007. 74 Cornwall 2000; Tapela et al 2007. 75 Tema Nord 2003:550. 76 Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2007:10. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 47 (73) 103-03188-2006 Important issues to be dealt with include how different actors’ awareness of the landscape can be increased and how participation levels could be strengthened in various situations concerning the development of the landscape. The Leader Method77, which is a way of making use of local knowledge in rural development, should be able to be used and developed as an element of implementation of the ELC. Another creative possibility is landscape interpreters, according to the Danish model78. Experience from pilot versions of regional landscape strategies should also form a basis for continued method development for participation procedures. For example, Västerbotten County Administrative Board has developed a model for collaboration that could well be tested in other consultations.79 Develop the conditions for participation in and awareness of landscape issues by creating arenas for physical and virtual meetings. People’s potential to participate and reach greater awareness of the landscape is affected by the availability of meeting places. Inviting participants to a dialogue in a municipal building, through exhibitions placed in public spaces such as libraries, are proven ways of creating meeting places. Many actors are constantly seeking to find other methods of achieving dialogue with politicians, civil servants and the general public. Internet-based encounters, meetings in shopping centres and visits to interest groups are examples of creative solutions. Train experts (planners, advisors, rural developers, project managers etc) in participation methods. The focus of the ELC on the relationship between the general public and the landscape make it essential for experts who deal with landscape issues in the public sector to broaden their professional roles and skills. More emphasis should be placed on dialogue with the general public, data gathering, and analysis of how people who live in and use the landscape perceive and value it. This may mean that experts, alongside their professions as project managers, planners, architects etc, must also take on other roles to a greater extent and become motivators, promoters and reporters from different local cooperation processes. 77 78 Ministry of Agriculture 2007; Council of Europe 2005. Olwig 2007a. 79 County Administrative Board in Västerbotten County 2007. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 48 (73) 103-03188-2006 Identification and assessment Identification and assessment of the landscape constitutes a central element of the ELC. Every country commits to developing knowledge of the landscape by identifying their own landscape throughout their territory, analysing its characteristics and the forces and pressure that changes it, and noticing these changes80. The Council of Europe guidelines for implementation of the ELC81 emphasise that the development of this knowledge must include three parts: • a description of the landscape’s characteristics and the relationship between people and the landscape, • an analysis of processes of change in the landscape, both in the past and the future, and a description of risks and challenges facing the landscape and • an analysis of the significance of the qualities and value of the landscape. The third point includes the significance of the landscape as social space, where knowledge of the social dimension of the landscape should be developed in dialogue between authorities and the general public. Present conditions and problems In the Swedish translation of the ELC, the terms identify and assess are translated as kartlägga and värdera. The meaning of the term assess is somewhat ambiguous as it denotes both ‘analyse’ and ‘value’. As such, the meaning of Article 6c, clause 1 is almost synonymous with the term landscape analysis (swe: landskapsanalys), which is a generally accepted term in Sweden. Landscape analysis is a term that is used in varying contexts and that, in its most basic form, means ‘systematisation of knowledge in order to understand the location’82. The Council of Europe supports the terms identify and assess being equivalent to the meaning of the Swedish term landskapsanalys83. Landscape analysis is used in many areas and as such it has different purposes. The most common areas of application are infrastructure planning, municipal planning (comprehensive plans, detailed development plans etc) and corresponding environmental impact assessments, regional planning and 80 i) to identify its own landscapes throughout its territory; ii) to analyse their characteristics and the forces and pressures transforming them; iii) to take note of changes (ELC, Artikel 6c) 81 T-FLOR (2007) 8. 82 Schibbye & Pålstam 2001. 83 “The term — identification “should therefore be understood in its broad sense as the expression of this preliminary requirement; it is composed of a phase of comprehension and analysis of specific characteristics (description) and a phase of quality problem identification (assessment), which may vary according to the complexity of situations and objectives. The term identification should not be interpreted simplistically nor be limited to an inventory of landscapes but should be linked to the establishment of landscape quality objectives.” (TFLOR (2007) 8). REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 49 (73) 103-03188-2006 regional or municipal programmes for natural and cultural heritage management. Unclear terms Landscape analysis (swe: landskapsanalys) may refer to a varied set of approaches. Landscape analyses often include both inventory sections and analysis sections. The term landscape analysis covers a host of different analysis traditions and it is not always the case that the landscape as a whole is the object of the analysis84. The focus of a landscape analysis is often expressed by qualifying the term, for example as historical landscape analysis, ecological landscape analysis or visual landscape analysis. There are also a series of analysis methods that are not linguistically linked to the term landscape, but which constitute a form of landscape analysis. Examples of this include space syntax85 and place analysis (swe: ortsanalys)86. Specialisation, for better and worse Many of the identification projects and landscape analyses that are currently carried out and applied in Sweden are specialised and controlled by different sectoral areas such as architecture, conservation, cultural heritage mand general social planning, which develop their own variants, focusing on individual issues, without mutual coordination87. However, taking a thematic starting point or choosing to analyse particular aspects of the landscape does not necessarily constitute a problem. On the contrary, in many cases it can be a prerequisite for efficient management of a particular landscape-related issue88. Nonetheless, the lack of integration between different academic traditions in their analysis of the landscape is a general problem. To a certain extent, academic tradition determines which issues should be in focus and even the extent to which other actors are involved in the assessment. The nature of the analysis tradition also affects the perspective on the landscape, its value, and attitude to change89. The ELC emphasises the importance of seeing the landscape as an interaction between people and nature. Compartmentalised disciplinary spheres and professional sectors make it more difficult to demonstrate and describe this interaction in landscape analyses. According to the Council of Europe, this is a common problem throughout Europe90. 84 For example, landscape analyses can have a purely ecological, archaeological or forestry perspective. See for example Västerbottens museum 2005; National Swedish Board of Forestry 1998. 85 http://www.spacesyntax.org/publications/commonlang.html 86 National Board of Building, Planning and Housing 2006. 87 Tema Nord 2003:550. 88 One interesting example of a national, thematic landscape analysis is the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s Frequency Analysis of Forest Areas with High Nature Conservation Value (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). 89 Schibbye & Pålstam 2001. 90 “However, there is an acute awareness that the most frequently used theoretical and methodological instruments fail to meet operational requirements; too often they belong to REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 50 (73) 103-03188-2006 It is also common in Sweden that descriptions and analyses of the different qualities of the landscape are based on definitions of valuable areas91 or on specific categories of objects92. Areas and objects protected by law often form the starting point, and as such have a normative role in many landscape analyses. This is expressed particularly clearly in planning and projection of new infrastructure93. In the field of nature conservation, most attention has traditionally been given to documentation at ecosystem level. There are a series of initiatives in this area, for example the national inventory of meadows and pastures, wetland inventory and key biotope inventory94. However, in the context of the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has noted the lack of detailed classification of vegetation and use of land in Sweden95. In the context of cultural heritage management, identification projects have long been focused on descriptions of particular objects and environments, resulting in advice rather than unbiased characterisation of the landscape from a holistic approach. Individual components are emphasised to the detriment of the whole, and the landscape is represented as a compilation of a number of different thematic identifications. Who should do what? The ELC does not say who should be responsible for the identification of the landscape, or the level at which it should be carried out, but it does emphasise that it should take place with the ‘active participation of affected parties’, which include the general public and local and regional authorities96. In Sweden, there is currently no explicit division of work and responsibility between central authorities, regional authorities and bodies, and municipalities in terms of general initiatives for identification and analysis of the landscape97. However, the Environmental Code demands that the county administrative boards ‘shall collate any studies, programmes and other planning documents in the possession of government agencies that are relevant to land and water compartmentalized disciplinary universes, while the landscape demands adequate responses within cross-disciplinary time and space constraints which can meet the need for a knowledge of the permanent changes at local level that require monitoring” (T-FLOR (2007) 8). 91 For example, nature and culture reserves, areas of national interest, ancient monuments and remains, Natura 2000 areas, national conservation areas for the cultivation landscape, areas with visual landscape protection, etc. 92 Tema Nord 2003:550. 93 Swedish National Heritage Board 2007. 94 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2006. 95 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2006. 96 ELC, article 5C. 97 These exist for specific cases, such as environmental impact assessments (EIAs). REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 51 (73) 103-03188-2006 management in the county’98. County administrative boards are also responsible for, on request, providing planning documentation for municipalities and authorities that apply the Environmental Code99. A broad interpretation of the term management (according to the meaning of the Swedish term hushållning) in combination with the ELC requirements for identification and analysis would therefore imply that the central authorities, together with the county administrative boards, carry a heavy responsibility for this work. Apart from a few exceptions, there are currently no initiatives seeking to draft general landscape analyses at national, regional and municipal levels, and there is no coordinated strategy for how this work should be carried out, or the content on which it should focus100. There is also a lack of strategic coordination and systematic collection of the landscape analyses currently produced in different contexts and by different actors. Every year, hundreds of landscape analyses of varying quality are carried out, in connection with environmental impact assessments, municipal comprehensive plans and detailed development plans, administration plans, conservation programmes etc. Only a fraction of this knowledge is systematised in such a way as to allow the knowledge to be synthesised and reused for other purposes101. Monitoring and assessment of the landscape The ELC demands that every country analyses the forces and pressures that change the landscape, and takes note of changes in the landscape. In other words, not only monitoring of the landscape is required, but also analyses and assessment of the trends and process that affect the landscape in different ways. Since 1999, the national system of environmental objectives has been the umbrella for almost all environmental assessments and monitoring in Sweden. Priorities and areas of work are therefore provided by this system. A significant proportion of this work is carried out directly within the environEnvironmental Code, Chapter 6, Section 12. Environmental Code, Chapter 6, Section 12. 100 In the 1980s, at a Nordic level, a physical geographic division of the Nordic region was carried out (Nordic Council of Ministers, 1984), and at national level, geographer Ulf Sporrong carried out a regional division of the Swedish landscape in the 1990s, which was later refined by Hans Antonson by request of the National Swedish Road Administration (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 1995; Sporrong 1996; National Swedish Road Administration 2006b). Some counties have chosen to draw up thematic overviews of their landscape. Agrarian landscape analyses were carried out in several counties in the 1990s, several in collaboration with the Swedish National Heritage Board (Antonson 1992; Antonson 1993; Franzén et al 2000; Frisk et al 1999; Höglin 1998a; Höglin 1998b; Höglin 1998c; Höglin 2003; Jansson 2004; Mascher 2002). The county administrative board in Skåne carried out a regional landscape analysis as part of the Scanian Landscape Programme in 2006 (Reiter 2006). The Swedish Road Administration is currently working on drawing up landscape analyses for specific operational areas, as part of the ‘Targets and Measures’ project (see for example Swedish Road Administration 2006a). 101 Lerman 2006. 99 98 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 52 (73) 103-03188-2006 mental objective system via various types of reporting requirements102, but there are also a number of different systems and programmes that are classified under or are connected to the environmental objectives and that are intended to contribute to assessing the state of the environment. The national environmental monitoring programme is one of the most important resources in the field of monitoring. The programme is coordinated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency but involves other authorities at national, regional and local levels: universities, colleges, consultancies, research institutes, associations and individuals103. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental monitoring programme has been in action since the 1970s and currently focuses on monitoring the national environmental quality objectives. The environmental monitoring programme is determined by the Environmental Objective Council and is revised roughly every five years. Environmental monitoring is divided into ten programme areas: air, seas and coastal areas, freshwater, wetlands, forest, agricultural land, mountain areas, landscapes, toxic substances coordination and healthrelated environmental monitoring. Certain aspects of the state of the environment, including natural resources, biodiversity and environmental pollutants, are dealt with in several different programme areas. The programme has a budget of around €22 million annually104. An important tool for assessment of the landscape in terms of environmental monitoring is the NILS programme (National Monitoring of Landscapes in Sweden). This programme began in 2003 and is based on sampling of reference areas, and covers all kinds of terrestrial environments. One important aim of the NILS programme is to provide facts for assessment of the national environmental objectives. NILS also provides data for environmental research and international reporting as well as information for other monitoring programmes105. The core funding of the programme comes from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, but other authorities can make use of the programme if additional funding is provided. In cultural heritage management, monitoring of cultural environments is being established, which is intended to work in parallel to environmental monitoring, with a focus on cultural heritage issues. Heritage monitoring takes place in collaboration between the Swedish National Heritage Board and the county administrative boards. This work is still a new element, run on a small scale and, like environmental monitoring, focused on assessment of the national environmental quality objectives. Assessment of the landscape has a Annual monitoring, reported in de Facto and in-depth evaluation carried out every four years. 103 http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/ 104 www.esv.se 105 http://nils.slu.se/ 102 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 53 (73) 103-03188-2006 central role in heritage monitoring, but thus far there has been a lack of longterm funding, which has caused the scope of the studies to be limited106. Since 2003, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Swedish National Heritage Board have had shared responsibility for ongoing follow-up and evaluation of the environmental impact of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The programme is coordinated by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. In assessing the environmental effects of the CAP, a series of studies has been carried out on the changes in the agricultural landscape caused by the focus of the CAP107. The authorities have also conducted several studies on control measures and the socioeconomic conditions of the agricultural industry108. By way of summary, it is clear that major work is carried out in terms of assessment of the state of the environment in Sweden, and that much of this work concerns the landscape, directly or indirectly. However, what is striking is how difficult it is to get a picture of the overall landscape assessment in Sweden, since it takes place sector by sector and/or according to the structures of the national environmental quality objectives with divisions into different types of landscape such as forest, agricultural landscape, mountain areas, and seas and coastal areas. The structure of the objectives makes it more difficult to elucidate the problems that arise in the interfaces between the different areas of the objectives. There is no comprehensive view of how the different systems could be coordinated for more cohesive assessment of the landscape. It is also clear that assessment of the urban landscape and its particular problems is poorly represented in Sweden. There is also a weakness in that the driving forces and causes of change to the landscape are not investigated extensively enough. This was one of the criticisms of environmental objective reporting expressed by the Swedish National Audit Office in 2005109. Proposed actions Currently, there is no single method for identification and analysis of the landscape that responds adequately to the needs for identification and analysis expressed in the ELC. However, the Swedish National Heritage Board believes that it is neither possible nor desirable to outline one single approach as a universal solution. Rather, it is a combination of different methods and approaches that can give the right conditions for the development and practical Swedish National Heritage Board 2006 Swedish Board of Agriculture 1999:28; Swedish Board of Agriculture 2000:21; Swedish Board of Agriculture 2006:10. 108 Swedish Board of Agriculture 2002:10; Swedish Board of Agriculture 2003:2; Swedish Board of Agriculture 2004:5. 109 Swedish National Audit Office 2005:1. 107 106 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 54 (73) 103-03188-2006 application of knowledge of the landscape. As such, what is needed is a concentrated effort on these issues, which must involve a host of actors. Set up a suitable system for provision of knowledge, data and information for the protection, management and development of the landscape at national, regional and municipal levels. Action in order to ensure the provision of knowledge and information, should include the following: ƒ the division of work and responsibility between central authorities, county administrative boards and municipalities should be clarified in terms of the provision of information on which to base decisions on sustainable management of the landscape’s resources, and the content, quality and relevance of this information, ƒ a needs study should be carried out to review what forms of identification and analysis work are needed and at which levels, and ƒ a needs study should be carried out to review what kind of methodology, data and information systems are needed to support identification and analysis of the landscape. The TVÄRS project110, carried out in 2002 in collaboration between the National Board of Housing, Planning and Building, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish National Heritage Board, which sought to improve sectoral cooperation in planning for sustainable development of the landscape, established the need for a cross-sectoral way of describing the landscape, based on its value and significance as a good living space and for sustainable development111. Many of the problems that the project pointed out continue to exist, and the strategies for sustainable development of the landscape that were outlines have only been implemented in part112. As such, there is a need for a renewed discussion around the form, focus and content of landscape analysis, with participation from the academic community, authorities, municipalities, organisations and private actors. It is also important to clarify the purpose of different types of analysis projects and to link these to existing instruments on protection, planning and development of the landscape in Sweden. Priority areas include landscape analyses in planning and projection of infrastructure, in municipal comprehensive planning, ecological landscape planning and regional development planning. The division of work and responsibility between central authorities, regions/county administrative boards and municipalities should also be reviewed in terms of the provision of knowledge on landscape issues. This is Developed cross-sectoral collaboration for economic planning with existing resources (TVÄRS) 111 Swedish National Heritage Board 2002. 112 Swedish National Heritage Board 2002. 110 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 55 (73) 103-03188-2006 not primarily a matter of initiating major new identification programmes, but of creating a consistent and coherent system for the provision of knowledge from national to municipal or local levels. It is important to view the local landscape as a part of a greater whole. The local landscape perspective must relate to regional, national and international contexts. The Environmental Code currently places demands on central authorities and county administrative boards in terms of providing the information needed in order for municipalities, regions, companies and individuals to be able to maintain good management of the landscape’s resources. There is therefore potential to review how this information could be made more appropriate and more specific to the landscape, with support from existing legislation. Coordinate existing monitoring resources for more a coherent and appropriate assessment of the landscape, based on the need for a holistic perspective on the landscape. In terms of having the right conditions to achieve good monitoring and assessment of the landscape, Sweden is in a great position. The problem is not primarily a lack of collected data, but a lack of coordination and of a general, overall perspective. Most monitoring and assessment programmes that to some extent concern the landscape have been designed for specific purposes and specific issues, which rarely take the landscape as a whole as their starting point. Therefore, a review is needed of how existing assessment systems (in different sectors) could be coordinated and utilised to give more comprehensive, appropriate landscape assessment based on the need for a holistic landscape perspective. The relevant central authorities should work together to develop forms for systematic, regular, national analyses of socioeconomic conditions that act as driving forces for change in the landscape. In order to meet the growing need to follow and understand processes of change that are active in the landscape, landscape monitoring should be combined with studies of the socioeconomic conditions that act as driving forces for change in the landscape. More formal cooperation should be established with Statistics Sweden on these issues. Statistics Sweden is already involved in developing, producing and communicating national statistics and as such, close cooperation between relevant authorities and Statistics Sweden is essential. Education and research One prerequisite for the success of the ELC and the acceptance of a holistic view of the landscape is education and research that supports the perspective of the ELC. In order to stimulate this landscape perspective, the ELC encourages each participant country to work to ensure REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 56 (73) 103-03188-2006 • • • training of specialists in landscape assessment and landscape management, cross-disciplinary education programmes on landscape policy, protection, management and planning designed for professionals in the public and private sectors or for relevant organisations and promotion of courses that deal with the value of the landscape and issues surrounding landscape planning, protection and management113. Present conditions and problems There are currently many differing interpretations of the implications of the landscape perspective. The existence of this divided and vague notion of the term landscape calls for research and education on the landscape and the different dimensions thereof. A review of the prospectuses of around fifteen Swedish universities and colleges for the 2007/08 academic year gives examples of these. This review shows that very few institutions characterise their educational programmes as landscape programmes. The term landscape primarily occurs together with planning, within architecture and landscape architecture programmes and courses in geoscience and human geography. However, programmes for agronomists, foresters and surveyors are not categorised as landscape programmes. The fact that so few programmes are described as landscape programmes could be explained by several reasons, for example that there are lots of programmes and courses that could be categorised in this way but that universities and colleges choose to profile them in another way in order to stand out from the crowd in a context of tough competition for students. A review of Swedish upper secondary school programmes gave similar results. The term landscape was not used here, neither in a description of an entire educational programme or as an element in the range of courses. As well as helping with landscape planning, the ELC also provides support for education and research on landscape policy, protection and management. The review shows that educational programmes relating to protection and management issues are usually described as environmental programmes or courses, where the meaning of environmental refers to ecological sustainability. However, the ELC has a wider perspective on sustainability, a perspective that also includes social, cultural and economic dimensions. Each Party undertakes to promote: a. training for specialists in landscape appraisal and operations; b. multidisciplinary training programmes in landscape policy, protection, management and planning, for professionals in the private and public sectors and for associations concerned; c. school and university courses which, in the relevant subject areas, address the values attaching to landscapes and the issues raised by their protection, management and planning (ELC, article 6B). 113 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 57 (73) 103-03188-2006 Sectorisation One reason for the lack of integration between subjects derives from the structure of research in Sweden. Traditionally, in the educational and research community, there is long-term continuity of specialist knowledge and subjects are identified with particular faculties and institutions that have established clear boundaries between their disciplines. As things stand, the landscape is of little importance to many programmes and courses, and tends to be given low status in terms of priorities114. Paradoxically, this negative aspect could be a result of the diverse nature of the landscape concept. Landscape is something that concerns everyone and everyone has some degree of knowledge of the area, which can undermine the clarity of the concept of landscape, and its status as a cohesive specialisation in its own right, with clear professional terms.115 With the support of the intentions of the ELC, it is possible to break negative patterns and provide the research and education community with a more holistic perspective. The ELC can stimulate a balance between depth and breadth of study. The culture of the higher education sphere – with divisions between specialist areas – is a problem that affects our universities and colleges. It is a structure that permeates the entire public sector of Sweden – a sectorisation that has negative consequence for a multifaceted landscape116. Roughly one fifth of Swedish research is funded by the government and by the authorities’ research and development (R&D) funds117, which means that authorities can play a part in promoting certain research perspectives. Authorities that do not demand interdisciplinary cooperation in their R&D programmes contribute to perpetuating existing structures. In 2003, the private sector funded over 70 percent of Swedish R&D. Moreover, this was concentrated among a handful of companies. The five largest companies were responsible for four fifths of all R&D investments118. In the current government bill on research, Research for a better life119, which is in effect until the end of 2008, the strategic investments are in medicine, technology and research that promotes sustainable development. It also supports some other areas, such as design and gender research and research in educational science. This means that political resources have been invested in areas that are already firmly established in the private sector. 114 115 Tema Nord 2003:550. Tema Nord 2003:550. 116 Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2007:10. 117 http://www.forskning.se 118 http://www.forskning.se 119 Government bill 2004/05:08. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 58 (73) 103-03188-2006 Education The Bologna Process, which is currently ongoing, is a collaboration between 45 European countries relating to education at university level. The process aims to promote mobility and employability, and to increase Europe’s competitive advantage120. New demands are being placed on universities and colleges. One such demand is that completed educational programmes should lead to employment, which means that a clearer dialogue between universities and future public and private sector employers must be established. Currently, such dialogue between landscape actors and universities is often poor or absent. The ELC and the Bologna Process are two examples of how European cooperation has increased in recent years, and this also places new demands on the international perspective of educational programmes. There are currently few advanced level courses for professionals that put the landscape in focus in connection with infrastructure planning, municipal planning, environmental impact assessments or regional development. There is a major need for both theoretical depth and more practical knowledge of instruments and methods. Proposed actions Cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary courses and programmes for landscape studies could be one way of increasing integration between different faculties. In this way, the significance of the landscape could be emphasised and made more visible. A multi-disciplinary approach means that teachers, course literature, theories and methods are gathered from different academic traditions, such as humanities and social and natural science. The idea is that this diversity should be held together by certain shared guidelines, for example that it should give broad analytical skills and the ability to see social, historical and cultural conditions from many different perspectives, not least in relation to gender, class, age and ethnicity121. A similar structure, with greater theoretical awareness of the landscape concept, could be one option for new landscape-related educational programmes. An exchange of courses between subjects like biology, human and physical geography, economy, sociology, architecture and physical planning could strengthen landscape research and contribute to sustainable development. With the implementation of the Bologna Process and the new masters level, there is plenty of potential to promote cross-disciplinary programmes at a high level. This means that procedures for remuneration and resource allocation must be reviewed and simplified to make course exchanges between different universities and colleges possible in practice. 120 121 http://www.regeringen.se Swedish National Agency for Higher Education 2007. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 59 (73) 103-03188-2006 Strengthen the landscape perspective in all planning and environment-related educational programmes, at upper secondary school and university levels alike. The concept of landscape needs to be problematised, clarified and communicated to a greater degree. This can be done through joint Nordic initiatives, where the Nordic countries cooperate to develop landscape expertise. They can make use of shared strengths and resources with the aim of bringing them together in educational programmes that emphasise the entirety and diversity of the landscape. At the moment it is primarily quantitative data that is used to identify processes in the landscape, but there is a major need to develop qualitative methods for landscape analysis. In terms of urban environments, there is some research that focuses on the subjective experience of the urban landscape. For example, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning has developed district analyses based on the Danish SAVE method122. The Swedish National Heritage Board works on cultural heritage assessments and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm has developed a tool called PST (Place Syntax Tool) to analyse urban areas with the help of GIS (Geographical Information Systems)123. Similar methods need to be developed to be able to cover the rural landscape as well as landscape in the transition between city and countryside or between types of natural or cultural landscape. In recent years, an intersectional perspective has been used in humanities disciplines. This is a method for analysing power and inequality between different forms of suppression, such as gender, ethnicity and class, as well as for reviewing how power and inequality is formed in the intersection between power structures, institutional practices and individual action124. The strength of this explanatory model is the combination of several different aspects. The landscape is, like social and cultural process, neither homogenous nor static, and methods of analysis should be developed to safeguard and unite the different dimensions of the landscape. Develop research on the connections between landscape, economy and consumption patterns. Strengthen research on production methods and technology in natural resource industries to facilitate better integration between production and environmental considerations. At the moment, working towards sustainable development of society is an obvious starting point for research, regardless of the subject, but more could be done within that focus. For example, more research is needed on production methods and technology in natural resource industries to facilitate better 122 123 National Board of Building, Planning and Housing 2006. Ståhle & Marcus. 124 De Los Reyes & Mulinari 2005. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 60 (73) 103-03188-2006 integration between production and environmental considerations. Better collaboration between faculties of economy, technology, natural science and social science would be a step in the direction of a more holistic perspective. At the same time more educational programmes are needed, at upper secondary school level and university level alike, that deal with protection, management, development and politics in the context of the landscape. Authorities that award research grants (sectoral research grants) should contribute actively to stimulating more cross-sectoral research and development projects on landscape. Landscape as an area of study can be managed both in cross-disciplinary research projects and in various single-focus research fields. Authorities and institutions that award research grants can contribute actively to stimulating more cross-sectoral research and development projects in line with the intentions of the ELC. The research funding that is awarded should encourage a holistic perspective and cooperation beyond traditional research areas. For example, the Swedish National Heritage Board is able to steer the focus of its research funds towards a cross-disciplinary landscape perspective by formulating the criteria for use of R&D funding. The relevant central authorities with sectoral responsibility for landscaperelated issues should implement further training in order to broaden the landscape perspective in their own sectors and ensure that the necessary knowledge of the ELC is present. In order to be able to implement the intentions of the ELC, the further training is needed within the public sector. Staff should be given the opportunity for further training to broaden and deepen their knowledge and skills in relation to the landscape itself as well as the content of the ELC. Investigate the possibility of establishing a Nordic landscape research and education institute tasked with increasing the exchange of information between researchers and authority representatives and being a hub for further training for professionals in landscape-related areas. A Nordic research and education institute for landscape issues – Nordscape – would aim to gather knowledge, stimulate exchange of experience, and work for cross-disciplinary research projects that promote knowledge in different fields. A landscape research and education institute of this kind could strengthen both the role of landscape research and the exchange of information between the academic community and the authorities. It could also function as a hub for further training for professionals in landscape-related areas. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 61 (73) 103-03188-2006 International cooperation The international perspective of the ELC is strongly emphasised, and European cooperation on landscape issues is prioritised125. The effects of international and national measures are expected to increase through cooperation and the exchange of technical and scientific support between countries. The methods for achieving this are described as gathering and exchanging experience and research results, promoting landscape specialist exchanges, for training and information specialists in particular, and exchanging information on all issues covered by the provisions of the ELC126. The ELC also stresses that landscapes shared by several countries should be managed as transfrontier landscapes, for example at local and national levels127. Present conditions and problems Some landscape issues are dealt with in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. In addition, a number of international programmes and strategies are linked to landscape. The aim of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) was to develop European landscape planning, with consideration given to the diversity of the landscape. A new EU tourism policy also has this connection, although the term landscape is not used128. Instead, it is emphasised that sustainable tourism is crucial for the conservation and promotion of our natural and cultural heritage. Another example is territorial cooperation programmes, known as Interreg, under the EU structural funds. These also coincide with strategic cross-border cooperation, one of the government’s priority action areas in regional growth and development129. National policy cannot be seen in isolation from cross-border and global issues such as climate change and its influence on the landscape. A holistic perspective and the ambition to achieve fair and sustainable development are also key elements in steering cooperation with the EU and developing countries130. Several of the main features of the Policy for Global Development are in close agreement with the focus of the ELC, for example, working for re“The aims of this Convention are to promote landscape protection, management and planning, and to organize European co-operation on landscape issues” (ELC, article 3). 126 “The Parties undertake to co-operate in order to enhance the effectiveness of measures taken under other articles of this Convention, and in particular: a. to render each other technical and scientific assistance in landscape matters through the pooling and exchange of experience, and the results of research projects; b. to promote the exchange of landscape specialists in particular for training and information purposes; c. to exchange information on all matters covered by the provisions of the Convention.” (ELC, article 8). 127 “The Parties shall encourage transfrontier co-operation on local and regional level and, wherever necessary, prepare and implement joint landscape programmes” (ELC, article 9). 128 EU Commission 2006. 129 Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications (N6051). 130 Government bill 2002/2003:122. 125 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 62 (73) 103-03188-2006 spect for human rights, democracy and good social governance, sustainable use of natural resources and care for the environment. Furthermore, Sweden’s work to contribute to achieving the UN Millenium Development Goals is successful, primarily in terms of Goal 7, ‘Ensure environmental sustainability’, and Goal 8, ‘Develop a global partnership for development’131. In addition there are the various reports that are produced by the World Bank and the UNDP on an annual basis.132 Proposed actions Strengthen Sweden’s participation in cooperation organisations and networks on issues surrounding the landscape of Europe, primarily within the EU, the Council of Europe and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Sweden should be an active and driving force in international involvement in landscape issues and the ELC. To increase the exchange of knowledge, experience, and information on the issues covered by the provisions in the ELC, Sweden must participate actively in conferences, meetings and forums at international level. Broad cooperation between actors at different levels within Sweden is also necessary. Sweden should also increase its involvement in the EU, the Council of Europe and the World Heritage Committee, and increase its participation in Nordic and European networks on landscape issues. Sweden should establish multilateral and bilateral research and cooperation projects on landscape in Europe. This includes cross-border cooperation with neighbouring countries. Cooperation between bodies such as authorities, universities and institutions increases the potential for exchange of knowledge between management, education and research. Sweden should make an active contribution to initiating major research projects on the landscape of Europe, strengthening the international perspective of existing education on rural and urban landscape, and fostering a holistic perspective on nature and culture. Through work at national level and in international development cooperation, Sweden has gained a wide range of experience that could play a valuable role in European landscape cooperation. The relevant authorities should take responsibility for ensuring that an international perspective on landscape is integrated into further training for their employees. Cooperation between different authorities should also be developed in this area. www.regeringen.se For example the World Development Report 2008 and Human Development Report 2007/2008. 132 131 REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 63 (73) 103-03188-2006 International cooperation should be broadened and deepened at all levels, between different sectors and within international organisations. A national landscape policy should relate to both international and European landscape policy, and to landscape policy within counties, regions and municipalities. As such, it is important that an international perspective on the landscape is well established and reflected in the work of the authorities at national level. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 64 (73) 103-03188-2006 Glossary All definitions except for sustainable development are taken from the ELC. The translation of the ELC to Swedish has brought about some shifts in meaning in relation to the original text in English and French. This relates primarily to the term planning, which has a more active meaning in the context of the ELC than the accepted meaning of the Swedish term planering. Therefore, this report uses the term development (swe: utveckling) to denote the kind of planning referred to in the ELC. For a more correct interpretation of the terms used, the English definitions of the terms are given below. Landscape = an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors. Landscape policy = an expression by the competent public authorities of general principles, strategies and guidelines that permit the taking of specific measures aimed at the protection, management and planning of landscapes. Landscape quality objectives = means, for a specific landscape, the formulation by the competent public authorities of the aspirations of the public with regard to the landscape features of their surroundings. Protection (of landscape) = actions to conserve and maintain the significant or characteristic features of a landscape, justified by its heritage value derived from its natural configuration and/or from human activity. Management (of landscape) = action, from a perspective of sustainable development, to ensure the regular upkeep of a landscape, so as to guide and harmonise changes which are brought about by social, economic and environmental processes. Planning/development (of landscape) = strong forward-looking action to enhance, restore or create landscapes. Sustainable development = development that provides for our needs today without jeopardising the potential of future generations to provide for their needs. Covers three dimensions: social, economic and ecological development. They are mutually dependent. Sustainable development is when none of these three areas is valued more highly than the others. In order to be able to plan for future sustainability, all three dimensions must be taken into consideration and integrated into every strategic decision. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 65 (73) 103-03188-2006 References Published Antonson, H 1992. Jämtlands agrarlandskap i historisk tid: försök till en regional indelning baserad på de äldre lantmäteriakterna för tiden 1650-1899. Jämtlands läns museum. Antonson, H 1993. Jämtlands äldre agrarlandskap: försök till en regional indelning baserad på lantmäteriakter för tiden 1650-1899. Länsstyrelsen i Jämtlands län. Appropriation directions for budget year 2007 for the County Administrative Boards. Appropriation directions for budget year 2007 for the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Appropriation directions for budget year 2007 for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Appropriation directions for budget year 2006 for the Swedish National Heritage Board. Appropriation directions for budget year 2007 for the Swedish National Heritage Board. Bucht, E (2004): Omväxtens landskap – om agrodesign och natursyn i det svenska kulturlandskapet. In: Synvändor – en antologi om landskapsplaneringens teori och praktik. (red.) Reiter, O. SLU. Cornwall, A (2000). Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on Participation for Poverty Reduction. Stockholm: Sida. Council of the European Union 2005. Rådets förordning (EG) nr 1698/2005 av den 20 september 2005 om stöd för landsbygdsutveckling från Europeiska jordbruksfonden. County Administrative Board in Dalarna County 2007. Regionala landskapsstrategier i Dalarnas län. Miljövårdsenheten, rapport 2007:28. County Administrative Board in Kalmar County 2007. Underifrånperspektiv på ett landskap - Odlingslandskapet i Torsås och Emmabodas skogs- och mellanbygd. Metodstudie i syfte att utveckla regionala landskapsstrategier – redovisning av ett regeringsuppdrag. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 66 (73) 103-03188-2006 County Administrative Board in Skåne County 2007. Redovisning av arbetet med Regionala Landskapstrategier i Skåne län. County Administrative Board in Stockholm County 2007. Det storstadsnära landskapet. Regional landskapsstrategi – en pilotstudie. County Administrative Board in Västerbotten County 2007. Meddelande 6:2007. Regionala landskapsstrategier Västerbottens län – modell för samverkan. County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland County 2007. Utvärdering av pilotprojektet Regional landskapsstrategi för Vänerskärgården med Kinnekulle i Västra Götalands län 2006-2007. County Administrative Board in Östergötland County 2007. Rapport: 2007:22. Levande eklandskap i Östergötland - regional landskapsstrategi 2008-2015. Cultural Heritage Act (1988:950) Cvetkovich, G. & Löfstedt, R. E (1999): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan. De Los Reyes, Paulina & Mulinari, Diana 2005. Intersektionalitet. Kritiska reflektioner över (o)jämlikhetens landskap. Lund. Environmental Code (1998:808) The EU Commission 2007. En ny turistpolitik för EU: Mot ett stärkt partnerskap för turismen i Europa. Meddelande från kommissionen (KOM 2006) 134 Slutlig. European Landscape Convention (ELC) 2000. European Treaty Series – Nr. 176. Franzén, B-M, Lindholm, K; Uddén, J & Carlsson, H 2000. Agrarhistorisk landskapsanalys över f.d. Göteborgs och Bohus län: länsöversikt. Rapport, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Frisk, M & Larsson, K 1999. Agrarhistorisk landskapsanalys över Hallands län: länsöversikt. Rapport, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Government Bill 2002/2003:122. Gemensamt ansvar: Sveriges politik för global utveckling. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 67 (73) 103-03188-2006 Government Bill 2004/05:150. Svenska miljömål – ett gemensamt uppdrag. Government Bill 2004/05:08 Forskning för ett bättre liv. Huddinge kommun 2007. Handbok i delaktighet - Från vision till verklighet. Human development report 2007/08: Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world, red. Kevin Watkins. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Höglin, S 1998a. Agrarhistorisk landskapsanalys över Norrbottens län: länsöversikt. Rapport, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Höglin, S 1998b. Agrarhistorisk landskapsanalys över Gävleborgs län: länsöversikt. Rapport, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Höglin, S 1998c. Agrarhistorisk landskapsanalys, länsöversikt: Kronobergs län. Rapport, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Höglin, S 2003. Landskapets agrara avtryck: Agrar landskapsanalys i Kalmar län. Länsstyrelsen i Kalmar län. Instrument of Government, section 2 Jansson, U 2004. Örebro län: Ett län med många landskap. Program för Kulturmiljövård i Örebro län, del 2. Publikation: 2002:22.Länsstyrelsen i Örebro län. Jones, Michael 2007. The European Landscape Convention and the Question of Public Participation. Landscape Research 32(5). Law (1995:1649) on construction of railways. Mascher, C (red.) 2002. Agrarhistorisk landskapsöversikt: Västergötland och Dalsland. Agrarhistoria i Västra Götaland. Göteborg. Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland. Ministry of Agriculture 2007. 2007SE06RPO001. Landsbygdsprogram för Sverige. År 2007-2013. Ministry of Environmental (Finland) 2005. Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen om godkännande av den europeiska landskapskonventionen samt med förslag till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i konventionen som hör till området för lagstiftningen. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 68 (73) 103-03188-2006 Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications (N6051). En nationell strategi för regional konkurrenskraft, entreprenörskap och sysselsättning 2007-2013. National Board of Building, Planning and Housing 2000. Sverige 2009 – förslag till vision. National Board of Building, Planning and Housing 2006. Lär känna din ort metoder att analysera orter och stadsdelar. National Swedish Board of Forestry 1998. Dalaskog - pilotprojekt i landskapsanalys. Rapport 3 1998. Nordic Council of ministers 1984. Naturgeografisk indelning av Norden. Nordiska Ministerrådet. Nordic Council of ministers 2005. Miljøhandlingsprogram 2005-2008. Olwig, K 2007b. The Practice of Landscape 'Conventions' and the Just Landscape: The Case of the European Landscape Convention. Landscape Research, vol. 32, nr. 5. Pieterse, E (2005) Political Inventions & Interventions: A Critical Review of the Proposed City Development Strategy Partnership in Cape Town. In Steven Robins (ed) Limits to Liberations: Citizenship, Governance & Culture. Oxford, Athens and Cape Town: James Currey; Ohio University Press and David Philip. Planning and Building Act (1987:10) Regulation (1989:67) on Trunk Railway Plan. Regulation (1997:262) on National Road Scheme. Regulation (1997:263) on County Plans for Regional Infrastructure. Regulation (2002:660) on Management of the Water Environment. Regulation (2007:713) on regional development. Reiter, O. 2004. Stad och land. I: Synvändor – en antologi om landskapsplaneringens teori och praktik. (red.) Reiter, O. SLU. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 69 (73) 103-03188-2006 Reiter, O (red.) 2006. Det Skånska landsbygdsprogrammet - Ett utvecklingsprogram med landskapsperspektiv. Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län. Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage 2007. Strategi for arbeidet med landskab. Roads Act (1971:948). Schibbye, B. & Pålstam, Y. 2001. Landskap i fokus – utvärdering av metoder för landskapsanalys. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Forestry Act (1979:429). Sweden’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development, SKR 2001/02:172. Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, 2007. Uppföljning av de regionala utvecklingsprogrammen 2007. Infonr 030-2007. Swedish Agency for Public Management 2005. Sektorisering inom offentlig förvaltning. Rapport 2005:3. Swedish Board of Agriculture 1999. Rapport 1999:28. Miljöeffekter i Sverige av EU:s jordbrukspolitik – Rapport från CAP:s miljöeffekter. Swedish Board of Agriculture 2000. Rapport 2000:21. Miljöeffekter av EU:s jordbrukspolitik - Rapport från projektet CAP:s miljöeffekter år 2000. Swedish Board of Agriculture 2002. Rapport 2002:10. Att vara lantbrukare eller inte - En studie av förutsättningar för livskraftigt lantbruk i tre nedläggningsdrabbade områden i Sverige. Swedish Board of Agriculture 2003. Rapport 2003:2. Jordbrukspolitiken och miljön i går – i dag – i morgon - Rapport från projektet CAP:s miljöeffekter. Swedish Board of Agriculture 2004. Rapport 2004:5. Tre nya miljöersättningar – Hur blev det? Rapport från projekt CAP:s miljöeffekter. Swedish Board of Agriculture 20096. Rapport 2006:10. Kulturhistoriska bidrag och särdrag – uppföljning och utvärdering av miljöersättningen till natur- och kulturmiljöer - Rapport från projektet CAP:s miljöeffekter. Swedish Energy Agency and Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2006. Ekonomiska styrmedel i miljöpolitiken. Rapport från Naturvårdsverket och Energimyndigheten. ER 2006:34. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 70 (73) 103-03188-2006 Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2000:1 En hållbar demokrati! Politik för folkstyre på 2000-talet. Demokratiutredningens betänkande. Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2005:51. Bilen, biffen, bostaden. Hållbara laster – smartare konsumtion. Slutbetänkande av Utredningen om en handlingsplan för hållbar konsumtion – för hushållen. Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2007:10. Hållbar samhällsorganisation med utvecklingskraft. Slutbetänkande av Ansvarskommittén. Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2007:60. Sverige inför klimatförändringarna - hot och möjligheter. Klimat- och sårbarhetsutredningens slutbetänkande. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 1995. Svenska landskap. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2003. Rapport 5333. Ekonomiska styrmedel inom miljöområdet – en sammanställning. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2005. Rapport 5466. Frekvensanalys av skyddsvärd natur (FaSN). Förekomst av värdekärnor i skogsmark. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2006. Rapport 5578. Hur genomförs konventionen om biologisk mångfald i Sverige? Sammanfattning av Sveriges tredje nationella rapport till sekretariatet för konventionen om biologisk mångfald. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2007. Ett rikt växt- och djurliv. Fördjupad utvärdering. Swedish National Agency for Higher Education 2007. Rapportserie 2007:12 R, Utvärdering av fyra mångvetenskapliga utbildningar inom humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Stockholm. Swedish National Audit Office 2005. RIR 2005:1. Miljömålsrapporteringen – för mycket och för lite. Swedish National Heritage Board 2002. Samverka - för en hållbar utveckling av landskapet - slutrapport TVÄRS-projektet. Swedish National Heritage Board 2007. Kulturmiljön som resurs. Hur kulturmiljöaspekterna på ett ändamålsenligt sätt kan behandlas i miljöbedömningar och miljökonsekvensbeskrivningar. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 71 (73) 103-03188-2006 Swedish Road Administration 2002:72. Åtgärdsanalys enligt fyrstegsprincipen. Publikation 2002:72. Swedish Road Administration 2006a. Mål och Mått för natur-, kulturmiljöoch gestaltningsvärden - Driftområde Helsingborg. Publikation 2006:4. Swedish Road Administration 2006b. Landskapets karaktärsdrag - En beskrivning för infrastruktursektorn. Publikation 2006:33. Ståhle, Alexander & Marcus, Lars. PST -Place syntax tool. Spatiala Avdelningen, KTH Arkitektur. Tapela, B. N., Maluleke, L. and Mavhunga, C (2007): New Architecture, Old Agendas: Perspectives on Social Research in Rural Communities Neighbouring the Kruger National Park. Conservation and Society, 5,1: 60-87. Tema Nord 2003:550. Nordens Landskap ·Miljø Forprosjekt for oppfølging av den europeiske landskapskonvensjonen, Nordisk Ministerråd. T-FLOR 3 (2003) 11 rev. Synthesis of the received information concerning summary descriptive notes on the landscape policies pursued in the Council of Europe member states. (T-FLOR 2 (2002) 11 of 15 may 2003). Secretariat document. Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Spatial Planning Division Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage. T-FLOR (2007) 14: Report. Council of Europe on the European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe, Palais de l’Europe, Strasbourg 22 and 23 March 2007. Secretariat document. Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Spatial Planning Division Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage. T-FLOR (2007) 8: Draft guidelines for implementation of the European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe on the European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe, Palais de l’Europe, Strasbourg 22 and 23 March 2007. Secretariat document. Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Spatial Planning Division Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage. World Development Report 2008 Agriculture for Development. The World Bank 2007 Västerbottens museum 2005. Särskild arkeologisk utredning inför byggande av järnväg, sträckan Kalix-Haparanda, Norrbottens län. REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 72 (73) 103-03188-2006 Unpublished Bolin, A & Sjölander-Lindqvist; A (2007): Europeiska landskapskonventionen. Opublicerat PM inför seminarium Riksantikvarieämbetet 2007-11-09 Control Measures Group, 2007. Kombination av styrmedel till natur- och kulturmiljövärden i odlings- och skogslandskapet. Möjligheter och begränsningar. Un-published. IEEP (Institute for European Environmental Policy) 2003. UK Participation in the Council of Europe European Landscape Convention. A study for DEFRA. Lerman, P 2006. Landskap i svensk rätt. Underlag för Landskapskonventionens genomförande. Lagtolken AB och Riksantikvarieämbetet Ljung, M 2007. Landskapskonventionen – fokus på medverkan och medvetenhet. PM inför seminarium Riksantikvarieämbetet 2007-11-09 Ministry of Culture 2000a. Behövs en europeisk landskapskonvention? Opublicerad PM. Ministry of Culture 2000b. Jämförelse mellan den föreslagna landskapskonventionen och svensk lag. Opublicerad PM. Olwig, K 2007a. Unpublished paper from a working group meeting at the arbetsgruppsmöte Swedish National Heritage Board 2007-06-22. The Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry 2003. Landskapsfrågor - Idébank utvecklad av KSLA:s utskott för miljöfrågor. Opublicerad PM. The Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry 2005. Förslag om Landskapssekretariat för långsiktig uppföljning, utredning och förvaltning av landskapet. Opublicerad PM. Swedish National Heritage Board 2006. Nationellt program för kulturmiljöövervakning. Electronic resources http://www.coe.int, Council of Europe (2007-12-31) http://www.esv.se/, Swedish National Financial Management Authority, online Register of Appropriations (2007-11-08) REPORT 20/08/2008 Page 73 (73) 103-03188-2006 http://www.forskning.se/ (2007-10-08) http://nils.slu.se/ (2007-10-02) http://www.naturvardsverket.se/ (2007-11-10) http://www.regeringen.se/ (2007-10-09) http://www.spacesyntax.org/publications/commonlang.html (2007-12-20) htttp://www.scb.se, Statistics Sweden (2007-10-10)