Tillämpning av naturvårdsavtal

Abstract: Nature conservation agreement (NCA) is a way to voluntarily protect and manage nature for limited time-periods. The agreement is settled between the government and a landowner. All public authorities can represent the government but it is only the Swedish Forest Administration who does that regularly (because it is the only authority with economic resources for that purpose). Therefore, NCAs are almost only used to protect forested nature. The government agencies have experienced NCAs for about ten years and it is now time to examine how they are applied in the forests. This study is based on a computerized questionnaire to the persons responsible for the LEKO-projekt. They had to answer of questions about how and why they applied NCAs within the project and which reasons they had not to apply NCA. There were also questions about how the management was taken care of and how the owners' compensation was calculated. The NCAs that has been part of the study has not been applied as differentiated as it maybe was thought when they were introduced into the Swedish system. That is not due to juridical limitations, but has with other considerations to do. Perhaps the authority has already found the best way to apply the NCAs and is therefore using them so in all possible situations without thinking of development and other ways of application. If that were true it would definitely stand in contrast to the picture of NCA as a flexible instrument. In comparison to nature reserve and biotope protection the NCAs has almost without exception been used to preserve land with lower nature quality in need of conservation management. Principally you could therefore say that NCAs are only applied as a second-class protection instrument. It is difficult to see why NCAs should have monopoly of bringing the landowner into the conservation management. I think this is a missing opportunity for an improved dialogue with the landowners. NCAs have not been used to protect border zones, corridors or buffer zones. They have neither been used to increase the area of old forest. It also seems that the users have not considered using NCAs to attain limited restrictions (as protecting only dead wood). The contact with the landowners has been good when applying NCAs. There are nevertheless tendencies that the servants have trusted perhaps too much the owner's good will. That has most importance when to decide the parties' rights and how the future management shall be taken cared of. The compensation is calculated in a very simplistic way where the acreage seems to be the only parameter, among other things irrespective of where in the country the property is located. This could cause a continued geographically uneven distribution of protected nature in Sweden. NCA is definitely a cheaper way of protecting nature, but the expenses do not stop when the one for all compensation to the landowner is being paid. Many of the servants count that contributions will be given for the future management.