122
5
representation of each gender in public bodies. However, in the process of the
National Park Plan, the municipalities did not take this responsibility, and in 52 of
the 54 cases in our study, the gender representation was lower than 40%.
Causal link 4: County governors have the responsibility for carrying through
the process for each proposal of a new or enhanced protected area. They are
required to ensure that, in such matters, they act in accordance with Norwegian
gender equality policy. This responsibility was not taken in any of the 16 counties
that we studied.
Causal link 5: The Directorate for Nature Management had the principal
responsibility for the implementation of the National Park Plan. In such processes,
the Directorate had a responsibility to make sure that all steps were taken in compliance with the Norwegian gender equality policy and laws. However, the
Directorate ignored this obligation. The Directorate was also responsible for following up the Biodiversity Convention in Norway, but neglected to make sure that
the process followed the Convention in carrying out conservation in full participation of women at all political levels.
When we, in the early 2000s, discussed the situation at the Directorate of their
lack of gender equality, we realized that this was not a simple omission, but a
deliberate policy, and the Directorate continued to ignore their obligations for gender equality for the rest of the process of implementing the National Park Plan. In
addition, proposals to study gender aspects of this implementation were rejected
by the Directorate on the grounds that gender was not seen as relevant for environmental governance.
We found the main reason to be related to a broader context in which the process of the National Park Plan was considered demanding, because it evoked conflict lines between local and central governance. The reference groups were
introduced as a way to reduce such conflicts. As mentioned above, in many rural
communities in Norway, local politics concerning environmental governance and
conservation remain dominated by elites of local men. These elites have not voiced
a demand for gender equity. On the contrary, we experienced through our research
that many men considered gender equality a threat to their own positions of power.
Moreover, requests for gender equality were seen as a provocation imposed on
rural politicians from the national government. Thus, when the Directorate deliberately avoided meeting their obligations of ensuring gender equality in the process, they avoided provoking the local power elites of men. Consequently, the
implementation of the comprehensive process of the National Park Plan could
take place without ‘unnecessary’ resistance.
Causal link 6: Since the early 1990s, Ministers of the Environment have carried
the overall responsibility for gender equality within their sector. It was mandatory
to establish reference groups in all the National Park Plan processes since 1999.
Thereafter, a whole decade passed without a single Minister of the Environment
ensuring that the National Park Plan was conducted in accordance with Norwegian
gender equality policy and the Biodiversity Convention’s emphasis on gender
equality. This situation remained, although the Ministry and Ministers of the
Chapter 5 · Gender and Power: Feminist Political Ecologies
5
representation of each gender in public bodies. However, in the process of the
National Park Plan, the municipalities did not take this responsibility, and in 52 of
the 54 cases in our study, the gender representation was lower than 40%.
Causal link 4: County governors have the responsibility for carrying through
the process for each proposal of a new or enhanced protected area. They are
required to ensure that, in such matters, they act in accordance with Norwegian
gender equality policy. This responsibility was not taken in any of the 16 counties
that we studied.
Causal link 5: The Directorate for Nature Management had the principal
responsibility for the implementation of the National Park Plan. In such processes,
the Directorate had a responsibility to make sure that all steps were taken in compliance with the Norwegian gender equality policy and laws. However, the
Directorate ignored this obligation. The Directorate was also responsible for following up the Biodiversity Convention in Norway, but neglected to make sure that
the process followed the Convention in carrying out conservation in full participation of women at all political levels.
When we, in the early 2000s, discussed the situation at the Directorate of their
lack of gender equality, we realized that this was not a simple omission, but a
deliberate policy, and the Directorate continued to ignore their obligations for gender equality for the rest of the process of implementing the National Park Plan. In
addition, proposals to study gender aspects of this implementation were rejected
by the Directorate on the grounds that gender was not seen as relevant for environmental governance.
We found the main reason to be related to a broader context in which the process of the National Park Plan was considered demanding, because it evoked conflict lines between local and central governance. The reference groups were
introduced as a way to reduce such conflicts. As mentioned above, in many rural
communities in Norway, local politics concerning environmental governance and
conservation remain dominated by elites of local men. These elites have not voiced
a demand for gender equity. On the contrary, we experienced through our research
that many men considered gender equality a threat to their own positions of power.
Moreover, requests for gender equality were seen as a provocation imposed on
rural politicians from the national government. Thus, when the Directorate deliberately avoided meeting their obligations of ensuring gender equality in the process, they avoided provoking the local power elites of men. Consequently, the
implementation of the comprehensive process of the National Park Plan could
take place without ‘unnecessary’ resistance.
Causal link 6: Since the early 1990s, Ministers of the Environment have carried
the overall responsibility for gender equality within their sector. It was mandatory
to establish reference groups in all the National Park Plan processes since 1999.
Thereafter, a whole decade passed without a single Minister of the Environment
ensuring that the National Park Plan was conducted in accordance with Norwegian
gender equality policy and the Biodiversity Convention’s emphasis on gender
equality. This situation remained, although the Ministry and Ministers of the
Chapter 5 · Gender and Power: Feminist Political Ecologies