Protected area management

In order to improve effectiveness in the management of protected areas, more knowledge is needed on the outcome of such management. The Government has not designed the follow-up in a way that enables assessing whether or not the goals for managing protected areas are achieved. There is therefore no national aggregate of the status of the assets that have been protected. This also affects financial management, as it is not possible to estimate the cost of preserving the protected values.

There are strong indications that the objectives set by the Riksdag for managing protected areas are not being achieved. The Swedish NAO assesses that there is a discrepancy between what the county administrative boards can achieve within the scope of allocated funds, and the objective for there to be a high level of ambition in the management of protected areas. The county administrative boards do not have sufficient resources to manage the protected areas in a way that preserves or increases natural assets, and that makes the areas freely accessible to visitors.

Many of the management plans for the national parks and nature reserves are outdated and need to be revised to enable effective management of the areas. The county administrative boards and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency have not revised management plans at the required pace.

The Swedish NAO considers that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency also needs to update its guidance on designing management plans, so that the plans can provide greater scope for adapting management to changes that affect management needs and choice of methods. That way, management plans will be relevant and useful for longer.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s guidelines on managing protected areas do not fully meet the county administrative boards’ need for support. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has not kept the guidelines up to date and adapted to the county administrative boards’ needs. This poses a risk of inability of the county administrative boards to manage protected areas effectively.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s IT support for following up on the management of protected areas is not fit for purpose. The registration of implemented measures requires extensive work for the county administrative boards but is of limited benefit for their needs. The shortcomings also mean that the data in the systems does not provide a reliable basis for national follow-up.

There are shortcomings in how the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has devised allocating funds to the county administrative boards for managing protected areas. The Swedish NAO assesses that there is a risk that the allocation of funds does not adequately reflect the counties’ different management needs, and how they change over time. These shortcomings present a risk of resources not being used for the measures with highest priority at the national level.