Collaboration as a Means to Harmonize Natural and Cultural Values -A Case Study of the Järle Millpond in Sweden

(1)

I

Collaboration as a Means to Harmonize

Natural and Cultural Values

A Case Study of the Järle Millpond in Sweden

Author: Patrick Lundmarck

Spring Semester 2021 Master’s Thesis, 15 credits Field: Human Geography

Public Planning for Sustainable Development

School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University Supervisor: Eva Gustavsson

(2)

II

Abstract

Increased participation in decision-making has been identified as crucial in order to develop sustainable societies. The Water Framework Directive aims to increase water quality in the European Union. However, measures for water management can have a negative effect on cultural values. The Swedish National Heritage Board describes that over 10 000 cultural sites near watercourses are in danger due to intended water restorations. One of these sites is the millpond in Järle, were proposed changes have caused conflicts to arise between stakeholders. Previous research argue that classical top-down planning is not fit to solve these problems, and that we must stop looking for the best solutions and instead create joint ones. By operationalising Innes and Boohers collaborative rationality framework, DIAD, this thesis shed light on how collaboration is utilized to solve complex situations. The results show that the process have not utilized the possibilities for collaboration, and that current policies do not provide incitements for stakeholders to engage in genuine dialogue. Even though consultations are part of the process, stakeholders are involved too little and too late. More research is needed in order to deepen our understanding concerning how institutional settings can become more adaptable, and thus stimulate reciprocity.

Keywords: collaboration, collaborative rationality, DIAD, dialogue, participation, wicked problems, sustainable development, Järle, Sweden

(3)

III

1. Introduction

Environmental problems are often complex and hard to solve, as many of them lack clear solutions. Previous research repeatedly conclude that improved forms of participation can create better outcomes. As a result, stakeholder engagement has increasingly been recognized in policy making. Collaboration can produce quality decisions that are more likely to be accepted (Reed 2008; Duit and Löf 2018; Innes 2016). The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals point out inclusive and participatory decision-making as crucial in order to develop sustainable societies (UNn.d). The EU have taken a similar strand by shifting from a technical towards a more participatory approach, focusing on enhancing involvement. However, the success of this change has been questioned, and both the flexibility and willingness to include stakeholders have been criticized (Koontz and Newig 2014; Franzén et al.2015).

One of the major policies released by the EU adopting this approach is the Water Framework Directive. The goal is to increase water quality both ecologically and chemically in an effort to bring waterbodies back to a more natural state through restorations. In order to deal with complexity, participation has been considered to be crucial (European Commission n.d; Franzén et al. 2015). Nearly two decades ago the Swedish Parliament set out 16 quality objectives aiming to improve the environment, one of the intentions is to improve life in waterbodies. As part of reaching this specific goal, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (hereby referred to as EPA) developed guidelines building on the Water Framework Directive (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2019; Sea and Water Authority 2014). Nevertheless, deciding what is a natural and improved water quality have shown to be complicated and many evaluations are based on subjective arguments (Valinia et al 2012; Bishop et al 2009). Sweden has often been recognized as a country where participation is widely adopted in planning policy and an increased focus on collaboration has generated high expectations. However, previous research points out that there is a difference between consultation and true participation (Metzger et al. 2017; Elbakidze et al. 2015; De Santo 2016). The environmental quality objectives have received critique for extensively leaving out social concerns and participation (Boström 2012).

In 2011, Sweden ratified the Landscape Convention, developed by the European Council, in an attempt to acknowledge how landscapes have positive effects on social well-being and that development thus needs to include participation from local communities and the public

(5)

2

(Council of Europe 2008; National Board of Housing Building and Planning n. d.). However, unlike EU Directives, individual processes cannot be tested directly against the Landscape Convention (National Board of Housing Building and Planning 2021a).

Measures for water management often interfere with other sectors and can have a negative effect on cultural values. Many member states reported issues with the implementation of these directives on both a national and local level. Moreover, The EU have identified a need to harmonize natural and cultural heritage sites. Better coordination between the two sectors have been requested and more discussions need to be encouraged in order to identify shared goals (Swedish National Heritage Board 2016; European Commission 2017). In 2016, the National Heritage Board in Sweden concluded that at least 10 000 cultural heritage sites around the country are at risk being negatively affected by the intended water restorations (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2008; Swedish National Heritage Board 2016). One of these sites is a millpond in Järle, located in the central part of Sweden. The area is perceived as a national interest both regarding its cultural heritage but also due to environmental water values in the area. In an attempt to increase the water quality for species, the landowner, EPA, are looking to change the area. This act has been met with extensive resistance and many fears it will harm the cultural environment. The final decision is made in court, however consultations with stakeholders must be held as part of the process (County Administration Board of Örebro 2020; Environmental Protection Agency 2021; Gotlin 2021).

1.1 Problem Statement

As shown above, water planning seems to be a complex issue, often shaped by different views among stakeholders. Problems without clear right and wrong answers often generate difficult divergence between stakeholders, and can be defined as wicked (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 4; Rittel and Webber 1973). Moreover, there are frequently tensions between trying to enhance democracy and to engage with efficiency (Metzger et al. 2017). Previous research argue that classical top-down planning is not fit to solve these difficulties, and instead present stakeholder engagement as a potential solution for solving wicked problems. In order to achieve sustainable outcomes, it is argued that we must stop looking for the best solutions and instead create joint ones by truly recognizing a diversity of interests and face-to-face dialogue (Innes and Booher 2016). In situations where heritage and biology have collided, nature conservations have received extensive attention while the role of participation largely has been ignored. However, Stenseke (2009) concludes that conservation concerns biology as much as it concerns

(6)

3

interacting with people. The EPA refers to extensive consultation as a vital component when managing water restorations. Yet, there still remain worries that current policy provides unacceptable outcomes (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2007; Stenseke 2009; Swedish National Heritage Board 2016).

The case of Järle illustrates the wicked complexity of providing viable solutions that benefits both cultural and natural values, and have caused divergence between involved stakeholders. Despite an increased focus on collaboration within agencies, few cases have been documented. 10 000 cultural sites are at risk being damaged by the upcoming water restorations, and counties in Sweden have recently started to map these locations (County Administration Board of Jönköping 2014; Kalmar County Administration Board of Kalmar n.d.; Hellström, personal communication 2021). More case studies are needed if we are to develop a better understanding on how to deal with these wicked environments and create more viable outcomes (Head 2019; Innes 2016; Stenseke 2009). Value and knowledge conflicts are inherently present inside complex situations, and Innes and Booher’s (2018) theoretical concept collaborative rationality are part of a new theoretical strand that argue for a practice where collaborative dialogue is central for creating sustainable solutions (Mattila 2020). This thesis has applied their theoretical framework, DIAD, to gain increased knowledge on how collaboration can be used to harmonize wicked conflicts and produce more viable outcomes.

1.2 Aim of the Study and Research Questions

Environmental problems are complex and accordingly require complex solutions. Collaboration has been recognised as crucial in order to achieve sustainability. As a result, stakeholder engagement has increasingly been perceived as an important policy goal for solving these problems. However, there is a difference between consultation and real collaboration. The conflicting view of what is a desirable outcome between water quality and preserving cultural heritage, illustrates the difficulty of finding a right and a wrong answer. Given the increased attention to harmonize natural and cultural values, there is a need to identify how better outcomes between the two sectors can be achieved. By operationalising Innes and Boohers’ (2018) Collaborative rationality framework, DIAD, on the case of Järle, this study aims to generate a deeper understanding on how collaboration is utilized in such wicked situations and provide more knowledge concerning how similar situations can create sustainable solutions. The purpose of the study will be guided by the following research questions: How was

collaboration utilized in the case of Järle, and how does current institutional settings affect its opportunities to achieve collaboratively rational outcomes?

(7)

4

1.3 Thesis Outline

Firstly, the case will be placed in its historic context and the current process introduced. Secondly, previous research on the issue will be presented, focusing on participation and wicked problems before introducing the theoretical framework. Thirdly, method considerations will be discussed, and the theoretical framework operationalised. Then the results are presented and analysed before drawing upon key findings and suggestions for further research.

1.4 Contextualisation

The millpond in Järle is a popular place to visit in Nora municipality, Örebro county, Sweden (see figure 3). The area has been utilized since the medieval times with different industrial purposes. The current mill was built in 1804 and shut down 1973, but was utilized for energy production until 2017 (County Administration Board of Örebro 2020; Land and Environmental Court 2021). In 1976, the area became a nature reserve in an attempt to protect the nature and the cultural landscape. The goal was also to make the location more available for the public (County Administration Board of Örebro 1976, p. 2). The watercourse passing through, Järleån, is particularly valuable for certain species and has been part of a Natura 2000 area since the early 21st_{century. Due to the cultural heritage and the environmental qualities, the area is} perceived as a national interest in both aspects (Land and Environmental Court 2021, p. 8-11).

When the area became a nature reserve in 1976, the state became landowner through the EPA. As mentioned, the purpose was to enhance the public’s possibilities to enjoy the environment and its cultural heritage. Becoming a Natura 2000 site increased the focus on biodiversity and enhanced responsibility to reach a favourable conservation status for endangered water species. The environmental goal to improve water quality is also in play, since physical hinders is described as a threat to certain species (Norconsult 2020, p. 7, 10). The watercourse inhabits both freshwater pearl mussel and trout. The freshwater pearl mussel is redlisted by the EU, whereas the Habitat Directive aim to maintain and improve their numbers in Natura 2000 areas. Creating an open waterflow would have a positive impact on both species, since the endangered mussel benefits from a positive trout population that can travel throughout the water course during spawning (European Council 1992/43/EEC; Norconsult 2020, p. 31). In order to improve their conservation status and reaching a higher water quality, the EPA concluded that the area needed to change by improving pathways for species (ibid. p. 7, 43-44). In 2010 a proposal to construct a fish ladder was initiated but was eventually terminated. Since then, multiple solutions have been examined (Norconsult 2016, p. 6). In 2015, the EPA

(8)

5

commissioned the County Administration Board of Örebro (hereby referred to as CAB) to examine different alternatives. With the help of a consultant company, Norconsult, a pilot study was finished in 2016. The chosen suggestion was firstly presented by the EPA in the fall of 2016, and aims to remove the flood gates and consequently turn the area into a more “natural state” with streaming water (ibid., p. 30, 36).

Changing Water Activity

Changing the area in this case involves a transformation of water activity. According to Swedish law, such interventions require a permit given by the Land and Environmental Court (SFS 1998-808 Environmental Code). Achieving a permit would allow the EPA to conduct desired interventions. However, in order to attain a permit, an Environmental Impact Assessment needs to be developed. A central aspect of the assessment is to engage in consultations, but it is up to the court to assess the proposed changes and decide if the permit will be given or not (County Administration Board of Örebro 2019, p. 2). In this case, the consultations were held in late 2017 until January 2018 (see figure 1). After the consultations, the Environmental Impact Assessment was finished and sent along with the final proposal to the Land and Environmental Court. The negotiations were held in January 2021. In March 2021, the court sentence was made public and approved the EPA proposal, giving the Agency permission to remove the flood gates. However, there is still time to appeal the decision (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2021).

(9)

6

Legislation Hierarchy

The millpond is not covered by a municipal detail plan, and how the area should be developed is thus not regulated in detail (National Board of Housing Building and Planning 2021b). However, Nora municipality states in their comprehensive plan that the natural and cultural environment in the area should not be damaged (Land and Environmental Court 2021, p. 11). Nevertheless, even if the area were part of a detail plan, national interests would still be prioritized if local interests collide with national ones. In cases where national interests stand against each other, prioritizations are allowed to be made (National Board of Housing, Building and Planning 2017).

In the case of Järle, two EU directives are present: The Water Framework Directive, and the Habitat Directive, aiming to improve water quality respectively biodiversity. The area is bound to the Habitat Directive due to its recognition as a Natura 2000 site. Moreover, all Natura 2000 locations have since 2001 been perceived as national interests (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency n.d.). The Directives intend to coordinate different member states national legislations and must be adopted nationwide (see figure 2) (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2020). In 2016, the Swedish National Heritage Board (2016) identified potential conflicts between implementing the Water Framework Directive and preserving cultural environments. Physical hindering in watercourses is a major obstacle for successful implementations of the EU-directives. These objects are often millponds, forges, or other industries with cultural values (ibid., p. 7). Several counties, including Örebro, has made extensive inventories in order to identify ponds and other cultural environments located near watercourses (County Administration Board of Jönköping 2014; Kalmar County Administration Board of Kalmar n.d.; Hellström, personal communication 2021).

(10)

7

The Location and its History

Järle is located in Bergslagen, which is an undefined geographical area in the central part of Sweden that has been strongly affected by mining and metal industries. These activities held an important role for the Swedish state and its growth (Norconsult 2020, p. 32). Järle early developed into a breeding ground for iron refinement. As a result, the area was given ‘town privileges’ in 1642 and there were concrete plans to build a town and a canal in the area for shipping the iron south. The intention was to develop Järle into a centre for iron management. However, the regional population refused to re-locate and consequently the plan was never realized. Instead, the area consists of a few farms and households (see figure 4) (Land and Environmental Court 2021; Norconsult 2020; County Administration Board of Örebro 2007).

Since the EPA started the process in 2015, the procedure has gained nationwide recognition, and is referred to as a battle between nature and culture. In 2020 a Facebook group was created to support the millpond, and in May 2021 the group had over 2 600 members. Representatives in the local community describes that the cultural values are important for recreational and social purposes (Lindström 2020). Opponents to the process believe that the millpond in Järle symbolizes something greater than the specific location. According to Örebro County Museum (2017) removing the flood gates, and consequently the pond, would damage the historical context for the entire region and its development over time.

Multiple organizations, including the Swedish National Heritage Board, argue that other solutions should be examined in order to protect the cultural values. If the flood gates were removed, the historical illustration of how water was used as an energy source, would disappear (Swedish National Heritage Board 2020; Vetenskapsradion 2020). The court decision has been appealed by eleven local inhabitants, assisted by Järle Town Association. Nora municipality, Örebro County Community Association, and Örebro County Museum, have also contested the decision (Lindekultur 2021; Eriksson 2021).

(11)

8

Figure 4. Illustrates an overview of the millpond in Järle. The pond is located inside the blue square. Most

residences are placed on the north side, marked in orange. (Lantmäteriet. 2021).

(12)

9

2. Previous Research and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Previous Research

Decision-Making and Participation

Environmental decision-making is often complex issues and since the 1990s, stakeholder participation has increasingly been understood as an essential tool in the quest for sustainability (Franzén et al: Reed 2008). However, opportunities for stakeholder engagements also require flexibility in our institutional settings. If there is an unwillingness between decision makers and stakeholders to interact with one another it will often lead to policy failure (Franzén et al 2015; De Santo 2016). The growing recognition to increase stakeholder engagement has been made visible through different policy initiatives. One example is the Aarhus convention established by the UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) in 1998 as a means to link environmental and human rights through increased participation. Another example is the European Water Framework Directive created in the year of 2000, with stakeholder engagement as a central strategy (UNECE 1998; European Commission 2000). Despite these efforts, researchers question if this really have led to improvements (Orr 2013; Reed 2008). De Santo (2016) describes consultation and true collaboration as greatly different from each other. While more time consuming, the latter is more likely to generate better results (ibid.).

Literature on stakeholder participation has been advancing since the 1960s where it developed as a critique towards the technical paradigm, which was structured by top-down solutions based upon scientifical adaptation (Reed 2008). Arnstein’s (1969) ‘ladder of citizen participation’ has set the stage for describing stakeholder participation, and more typologies have followed. Reed (2008) distinguishes a difference between normative participation theory and theory building on pragmatic arguments. Normative arguments regard inclusion in the decision-making process as a democratic right, whereas a more pragmatic understanding see participation as a means to increasing the quality of decisions. Participation and its potential have continuously been criticised, and the question regarding which practice is the most successful one is still up for debate (Lawrence 2006; Reed 2008). Perceived as a contested concept, how participation could be utilized have been explored in various ways (Callahan 2007). Arnstein (1969) argues that consultation can be a step towards participation since it may allow for citizens to be heard and listen to. However, citizens need to be given the power to advice or be in partnership in order to reach higher levels of participation, otherwise consultations risk to become an information

(13)

10

process. Climbing the participation ladder require more deliberative and direct forms of collaboration (Arnstein 1969; Callahan 2007).

Collaboration and participation are closely connected, whereas the influence of the former emphasises the role of developing solutions through constructive dialogue. Enhanced focus on collaboration have received critique for not recognizing a need for opposition. Nevertheless, others have perceived such practices as a way to create more inclusive and stable outcomes (Dean 2017; Elbakidze 2015; Callahan 2007; Innes 2016).

According to Reed (2008), a well-designed participation process is crucial in order to improve outcomes, but it also generates tensions between increased efficiency and democracy (Metzger et al 2017). The majority of these efforts operates within existing institutions, thus making it hard to affect them. Allowing current power structures to remain at status quo (Richardson and Razzaque 2006, p. 173). Non-negotiable positions or actors with veto can hamper participation living up to its full potential and elected officials, as well as bureaucrats, tend to hinder collaboration in order to keep control. This can result in missed opportunities that could solve complex issues (Reed 2008; Innes 2016).

Planning policy still struggle to make the process more inclusive. According to Thorpe (2017), the reason why this is happening is because planning remains affected by the vision of planners as rational professionals. Consequently, participation is often overlooked in the formal planning process. While it might be a participation procedure on paper, the inherent form of planning as a professional and state-led process efficiently manage to silence conflicting views. Instead, participation must be negotiated in context. Many cases are inherently complex and if plans cannot be adjusted to fit the occasion, sustainable solutions will be harder to reach (ibid). Elbakidze et al. (2015) refer to Sweden as an example where participation plays a big role in planning. However, similarly to Thorpe (2017), they found that the purpose often is to please technical requirements rather than actively encourage collaboration. Reed (2008) concludes that stakeholder engagement must be built upon trust and learning. Participants should be given an opportunity to influence the decision-making process instead of responding to finalised proposals (ibid). Orr (2013) underlines that governments are the ones responsible for making this happen by establishing rules which can increase expectations.

The world is changing faster than ever before with the progress of internet and globalization. This has increased fragmentation and cultural contradictions (Inees and Booher 2018, p. 6). The

(14)

11

literature on participation points out an enhancement in policy towards extensive focus on involvement. However, previous research also identifies great flaws in policy implementations due to inflexible and routinized structures. In order to better understand the need for participation in complex situations, the concept wicked problems will be introduced.

Wicked Problems with Participatory Solutions

The concept of wicked problems was launched in 1973 by Rittel and Webber, a few years after Arnsteins (1969) ‘ladder of citizen participation’. Similarly, it was developed as a counter reaction towards the intrinsic focus on planning as a professional and technical procedure. Rittel and Webber (1973) acknowledged how societal problems needed more complex solutions. Expert driven decision-making was consequently not enough to achieve quality results. The concept divided problems in terms of tame and wicked. Tame problems can be solved by systematically collecting information and accordingly identify what is perceived as a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ decision. This is not the case with a wicked one. Wicked problems can instead have a multiplicity of possible solutions making it more difficult to identify a ‘right’ answer. Furthermore, once these decisions are taken, they cannot be undone without consequences (ibid.). The concept has received critique, and Rittel and Webber did not develop a clear path towards improving policy (Duit and Löf 2018; Head 2019).

Recent work has focused on how to deal with rather than how to solve these issues, since solutions often are hard to identify (Duit and Löf 2018). In order to cope with a wicked problem, stakeholder participation has been recognized as essential, including both citizen and stakeholder engagements. Improved learning and exchanging knowledge can only be made possible through evolving participation. These solutions are not technical but rather found in institutional settings. If wicked problems are treated in the same way as tame issues, problems will instead intensify (Head 2019; Duit and Löf 2018; Jentoft and Chuenpadgee 2009). Head (2019) argues that the increasing mistrust towards institutions illustrates a lack of solutions. Instead policy must be more flexible and open up for constructive dialogue, since settling in administrative routines can increase both value and knowledge conflicts (ibid.).

Some argue that all problems are wicked. Even so, Duit and Löf (2018) point out that multiple policy areas, especially environmental management, have had successful use of the concept. Participation has been part of dealing with conservation in cases where cultural and biological values coexist. Stenseke (2009) address this development in a case study regarding the Swedish

(15)

12

island of Öland. Here the developments of both a Natura 2000 and a world heritage site have had to cope with rising conflict. According to the study, nature conservation has received much more concern inside the administration in comparison to participation issues. Stenseke (2009) further argues that participation within conservation must be accepted by other stakeholders, since top-down ‘blue-prints’ rarely create good outcomes. More research is called for if we are to develop a better understanding of what makes policies fail or succeed in wicked situations (ibid.).

Despite collaboration becoming more important inside agencies and governments when dealing with environmental issues, few have been documented (Head 2019; Innes 2016). Head (2019) argues that wickedness should be understood as part of a complex variety in problems but also as a tool to combine empirically with new policy concepts, mentioning collaborative rationality as an example. Stenseke (2009) implies that nature conservation is as much about interacting with people as it has to do with biology, and therefore participation need to be given significant attention in order to produce viable solutions locally. There is a need for well executed case-studies to increase knowledge on how such engagements can solve complex problems (Head 2019). In order to understand how collaboration can be analysed in practice, a theoretical framework based on collaborative rationality will be presented in the following chapter.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

As mentioned, there are different levels of participation. This thesis focuses on collaboration. Before presenting the theoretical framework, central theoretical aspects shaping the framework will be touched upon.

Communicative Planning Theory and Complex Adaptive Systems

Jürgen Habermas presented the idea of communicative rationality in the 1980s, recognizing how argumentative speech can help produce consensus. Through the means of coordinated collective actions, it is argued that speech creates shared definitions and consequently contributes to make situations more manageable (Mattila 2020). Ever since, planning studies have elaborated on communication and participation practices. Using selected parts of Habermas theory-building, communicative planning theory argues for creating more open and inclusive processes where argumentative solutions are essential in order to reach agreements (ibid.).

(16)

13

Different strands have developed under this communicative planning. including collaboration, deliberation, and participatory planning (Calderon and Westin 2021). Collaboration is often recognised as a way of enhancing communication and enabling dialogue, but also as a means to increase democracy and legitimacy in the planning process (Simeonova and var der Valk 2009; Matilla 2020). Some critics argue that Habermas ideas was not developed to be applied in specific planning situations, but rather more sufficient in changing institutional settings. However, others see a need for engaging on the micro-level as well, implying that there is a need to do both (Mantilla 2020).

As Rittel and Webber (1973) illustrates with the term wicked problem, it is clear that complexity sciences has affected planning for a long time. However, in the last decades there has been an increasing recognition of planning as a complex adaptive system (CAS). A complex system is regarded as a set of elements interconnected with each other (Meadows 2009). CAS is a variation to systems theory and a way of analysing how interactions on a micro-level can change behaviour on the macro-level (Coetzee et al. 2016). Engaging stakeholders in co-creation could create conditions for developing new structures, since agents involved in the process may receive new perspectives leading to behavioural change (ibid.). Participating in collaborative processes can be used in order to generate such institutional changes (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 32).

Collaborative Rationality and DIAD Framework

The planning process is often shaped by its context. This implies a need for capacity-building that allow for flexible collaboration tools as a mean to create quality outcomes. Communicative planning theory have extensively focused on how actors can interact with one another and in what ways it can help decision-making advance (Calderon and Westin 2021; Simeonova and Van der Valk 2009). The theoretical strands from Habermas have been a focal point for Innes and Booher (2018) in their own framework development, which focus on practice-oriented communication as a mean to enhance collaboration (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 35; Mattila 2020). As previously argued, stakeholder engagement is regarded as a possible solution for wicked problems. A new strand of literature has been created to address value and knowledge conflicts inherently present inside complex situations. Such literature emphasizes inclusive deliberations in policy and planning (ibid.).

(17)

14

Participation has been recognized as a new strategy for solving problems within planning and policy. Innes and Booher (2018, p. 8) call this trend collaborative rationality, which has been identified as an alternative to the traditional, expert decision-making process often searching for a right and wrong answer. Innes and Booher (2018) developed a framework to address how collaboration can help solve wicked problems, by using aspects from both complex adaptive systems and communicative rationality (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 35; Head 2019).

Wicked problems often have divergence between stakeholders, which makes it hard to identify the ‘right’ outcome (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 10, 112-113). If problems are easy to define, there might not always be necessary to engage in collaboration. However, in wicked situations, collaboration can generate more sustainable and legitimate decisions in a way current institution cannot manage to do. These decisions must be given great thought and attention (ibid.). According to Innes and Booher (ibid., p. 11-13) there are three basic arguments to why collaborative rationality can produce better outcomes. Firstly, it can help identify possible options for how actors can deal with problems as well as enhance learning on both an individual and collective level. Secondly, how the collaboration process is developed matter. These situations cannot be recognized as only establishing a group, it must meet certain conditions in order to reach its full potential. Thirdly, collaborative processes can induce a change in the systems and institutions surrounding the individual case. This can benefit systems on a larger scale, by becoming both more effective and flexible (ibid.).

A process is collaboratively rational when all actors can engage in joint face-to-face dialogues. It is important that each perspective on the matter is recognized in order to make room for deliberate discussions and to find common grounds. Moreover, knowledge claims surrounding the issues must be agreed upon in order to reach successful outcomes. There needs to be an understanding for diverging statements between the engaged actors. Face-to-face dialogue is also important in order to create informal discussions and to identify sincerity among the stakeholders (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 9, 99). To make this happen, the representatives of the different interests must be confident and reliable in order to reach agreements and discover mutual interests. If key interests cannot be organized, it is important that public agencies find other ways to represent the interest. However, if stakeholders are missing, the process might not be able to deliver the most fruitful outcomes. By conducting fieldtrips or arranging breaks, informal discussions can be stimulated (ibid.).

(18)

15

In order to create space for solutions it is central that stakeholders can engage in smaller groups and work on designing or brainstorming ideas (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 83, 91). Structuring the process in this way is important in order to make the dialogue authentic. The commonly formalized way of debating in a large group often prevents these insights and leads to missed opportunities. Since wicked problems often lack a clear right and wrong answer, the collaboratively rational dialogue instead intends to find actions that are the most feasible and supported. This requires a fair share of patience and hard work (ibid., p. 98, 101).

Nevertheless, committing can create long-term outcomes. As a mean to engage stakeholders at the table and induce a feel of progression, different tasks, developing strategies for example, can be created (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 97, 102). Successful dialogues are the ones reaching durable agreements with extensive support, thus contributing to enhanced capacity in larger systems (ibid., p. 83). These theoretical outlines are framed as the DIAD, named after its synthesized conditions: Diversity, Interdependence and Authentic Dialogue. The condition regarding Diversity reflects Habermas communicative rationality and recognizes that all viewpoints must be acknowledged. Interdependence assumes that there is an incentive for creating reciprocal goals and reach an agreement. If this is not the case, quality outcomes will not be produced. As discussed above, Authentic Dialogue is enabled if shared tasks are developed that can create engagement among the different actors. Deliberation can assure that claims are commonly understood and sincere (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 35-37).

If successful, new knowledge and relationships among stakeholders can be developed and both single and double loop learning emerge. Moreover, engaging in learning can enhance how a complex problem is perceived from a holistic view. This can lead to systematic changes on a broader scale. (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 37).

How decisions are made varies depending on the situation. Some decisions can be more complex while others are made by authorities or judges, simply using the collaboration process for gaining input (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 92). Law plays an important role in participation. Nevertheless, putting trust in environmental courts and their expertise to solve complex issues have been criticized (Richardson and Razzaque 2006, p. 187-188). Collaboration often uneasily coexists with formal practices, and a traditional way of handling complexity is through a judicial process. According to Innes and Booher (2018, p. 10-11, 152) these processes often

(19)

16

creates winners and losers, leaving little chance to produce agreements than can benefit both sides. Moreover, these decisions might not be supported in the long term.

Failed policies rarely try to bring fundamental changes to the systems and formal procedures seldom leave opportunities to develop institutional settings (Innes and Booher 2018). However, court decisions might also have unpredictable outcomes and can instead motivate stakeholders to reach an agreement. It is important to engage in discussions where possible reciprocity is deliberated. Sometimes it takes structures in law or policy to act as a motivator in order to reach such solutions (ibid., p. 85-86). In this study, the different components of the framework will be used to analyse the consultation process in Järle.

3. Method

3.1 Case Study

This thesis has been conducted through a qualitative case study in order to investigate how collaboration is utilized in practice. Historically, social sciences have failed to create general theories, since context-independent knowledge has been hard to establish. Instead, researchers point out a need to focus on achieving a deeper understanding. Such efforts can be gained by conducting context-dependent research (Flyvbjerg 2006). Since case studies deals with concrete knowledge, often related to expert activities, they can bring more complex insights regarding a phenomenon while also increasing knowledge accumulation (Gummesson 2004, p. 126; Flyvbjerg 2006). Previous studies on collaboration identifies a need to develop a richer understanding on how collaboration can be utilized in wicked situations. Therefore, a qualitive case study has been identified as a suitable choice for conducting the study.

Both qualitive and quantitative research relate analysis to theory and previous research. However, generalising the results are as mentioned difficult in social sciences. The strength with a qualitative research design is that it helps to increase contextual understanding (Bryman 2016, p. 488-489). By choosing to investigate one case, more in-depth knowledge can be gained. Qualitative case studies have been criticized for not producing generalizable results, yet it can enhance the understanding in a chosen scientific field (Flyvbjerg 2006). The characteristic of a case is an important factor to consider. One strategy can be to pick a randomly selected or representative case, and another to identify extreme or atypical cases. One case may very well be a mix of different types at the same time, which can increase complexity even further (ibid.).

(20)

17

Järle could be considered as a representative case of a wicked situation while also being regarded as an extreme case on a national scale.

The space given for interpretation in qualitive studies can lower reliability and thus make it harder to replicate the study. Consequently, transparent clarifications are important in order to make replications feasible (Flyvbjerg 2006; Gustavsson 2004, p. 13, 14). However, since in-depth case studies also makes it possible for the researcher to get close to the study objects, it can, as Flyvbjerg (2006, p. 236) points out, allow the objects to ‘talk back’ and thus provide new insights.

Choice of Case

Järle is located in the central parts of Sweden, and has cultural values stemming from the medieval times. Since the area is perceived as a national interest both in terms of its cultural and natural settings, the proposed changes will affect a variety of interests (County Administration Board of Örebro 2020). The proposed changes have resulted in a great divergence between involved stakeholders. Even though the EU have requested better coordination between the natural and cultural environments (European Commission 2017). The EPA describes that extensive consultation is an essential factor when managing water restorations. Nevertheless, in Sweden alone over 10 000 cultural sites near water are at risk due to the intended changes (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2007; Swedish National Heritage Board 2016). The millpond in Järle is one of them. However, multiple counties in Sweden have recently started to map these locations and the insights from Järle will help to deepen the knowledge regarding how other cultural sites near watercourses could be treated, and if there are any possibilities to better harmonize natural and cultural values through the means of collaboration.

3.2 Content Analysis

In order to analyse the material this study has been utilizing content analysis, which is a suitable method for finding patterns in extensive texts or interview transcriptions. Coding schemes is a central aspect for conducting a content analysis, and in qualitative studies such schemes can be formulated as questions (Boréus and Kohl 2018, p. 51-52, 59). Alongside these questions, a manual based on the theoretical strands will be created in order to systematically interpret the empirical material. This enables a more systematic interpretation in relation to the theoretical strands elaborated on in the framework section (Bryman 2016, p. 357, 377). These questions

(21)

18

will be explained in detail under the “3.5 Operationalisation” section. Qualitative research has been criticized for leaving to much room open for subjective interpretation, the lack of structure connecting research questions to theory and conclusions results in complications trying to reproduce the study. Coding the qualitative material is considered to provide clearer research (ibid., p. 487). In order to offer clarity, analytical questions have been created. By providing clear explanations concerning how the theoretical strands will be interpreted in relation to the empirical data, this thesis aims to provide a transparent approach. Even though it could limit the room for interpretations of the study, a systematic operationalisation of how the data is analysed increases validity (Bryman 2016, p. 468; Sverke 2004, p. 65-67).

3.3 Interview and Document Studies

Most of the data has been collected through semi-structured interviews. Interviews allow flexibility and makes it possible to adjust the conversation depending on what is found important. Interviews is a suitable method for gaining an insight into the respondent’s own understandings and is useful for obtaining rich and detailed answers (Bryman 2016, p.561-562).

Since the aim of this thesis is to develop a deeper understanding, interviews have been identified as a suitable approach. In order to maintain clear connections to the theoretical framework the interviews have been conducted in a semi-structured manner, using an interview guide (see

appendices). At the same time, space has been given for follow-up questions (Bryman 2016, p.

256-260). Nevertheless, there is still space for errors. Questions could be unclear or misunderstood and the gathered information could be interpreted incorrectly. By standardising the analytical interpretation, these risks are minimised (ibid., p. 257-269).

Interviews can be conducted in different ways, and a distinction is often made between in person interviews and telephone interviews. Whereas the former is often seen as a superior format (Dahmström 2011, p. 99, 103; Johnson et al 2019). However, ever since video calling software emerged, the quality difference has shown to be rather insignificant (Bryman 2016, p. 264; Johnson et al 2019). Additionally, meeting in person can be both time consuming and costly (Dahmström 2011, p. 99). The respondents have been contacted via e-mail, and the interviews conducted through Skype and Zoom. In order to gain multiple perspectives on the consultations, representatives from the local community, Nora municipality, the CAB, and the EPA, have been contacted. The respondents were e-mailed directly, and also asked if they could inform about other relevant actors to contact. The interviews from the EPA and Nora municipality were

(22)

19

made possible by gaining their contact information from other actors at the agency and municipality. The material has been recorded and transcribed in order to enable a systematic analysis.

The importance of good research ethics is always present. Several codes of ethics have been developed throughout the years, but the central principles concern information, integrity and voluntarily participation (Bryman 2016, p. 169-170). The aim of the study was presented for the respondents before the interviews via e-mail. In the beginning of the interviews, each respondent gave consent on being mentioned by their name in the text. The interviews were conducted and transcribed in Swedish. Performing a correct translation to English could impose challenges, especially regarding quotes. To hinder misinterpretations, quotes have been sent in advance to the respondents in order to ensure that they are accurate. To protect the information it has been stored locally and will be deleted once the research has been conducted.

In order to increase the validity of the study it is useful to gain empirical data through multiple methods, this is referred to as triangulation. Moreover, triangulation adds richness and complexity to the research (Bryman 2016 p. 768; Creswell 2013 p. 201; Silverman 2015 p. 92). To compliment the data retained from the interviews, documents relating to the consultation process has been analysed using the operationalised questions.

3.4 Material

Many associations and organizations have been involved in the consultation process. Central stakeholders are the EPA, local inhabitants, and Nora municipality. Moreover, the CAB is responsible to look after the national interest and to make sure that formalities are followed correctly. These actors have been contacted in order to get a variety of perspectives on the consultations and the opportunities for dialogue, reaching from national to local insights. Including different perspectives is important in order to identify differences in local and national knowledge.

Maria Tiricke, head of the real estate department at the EPA, has been involved in the process since 2014, and gave the initial presentation of how they intended to change the area. Jan Olsson is chairmen in the Local Town Association and has taken part in the consultations, thus representing the local perspective. The association was founded by residents in Järle and act to preserve and incarnate the town history. Jan Norlund has been municipal manager in Nora Municipality but is now retired and works part time. Norlund represented Nora municipality in

(23)

20

court and have insight in their line of argumentation and how they have experienced the process. Two actors have been interviewed from the CAB. Maria Hellström, expert on water management coordinated the consultations for the board and Mia Geijer took part as an expert on cultural environment issues. The interviews have been complimented with documents and notes from the consultations. Memory notes taken by the CAB at the informal meeting 2016 have been analysed, as well as the official consultation reports put together by Norconsult. The EPA have used consultants from Norconsult both to conduct the Environmental Impact Assessment and to represent them in the official consultation meetings.

3.5 Operationalisation

In order to interpret and analyse the consultation process in Järle, questions have been created. The questions are based on Innes and Boohers’ (2018) theoretical framework, DIAD, in order to code the material and allow consistent interpretations. The analytical questions will help answer the overreaching research questions.

Wicked issues frequently create divergence between stakeholders, and a ‘right’ outcome is often hard, to not say impossible, to identify. The theoretical conditions of diversity,

interdependence, and authentic dialogue are crucial for creating more sustainable outcomes.

Diversity acknowledges the need to include all viewpoints and the information surrounding the issue must be commonly accepted (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 10, 35-37). It is also important that key interest can be formally represented. Public agencies have a responsibility to represent these interests if others do not have the capacity (ibid., p. 100). Whether the process in Järle can be perceived to fulfil the conditions of diversity will be examined through the following questions (1) How have the knowledge claims been accepted in the case? and (2) in what ways

is it possible to make sure key interests are represented in the process? If the consultation

process does not agree on the information surrounding the case and fails to include key interests, the conditions for diversity will be understood as flawed.

Authentic dialogue is achieved when actors can meet in face-to-face discussions (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 97-102). It is important that shared tasks are created to induce engagement among different actors. In order to find common ground, different perspectives must be accepted. Formalizing debates in larger groups rarely creates openings for reaching such decisions, instead fieldtrips or working together on designing ideas in small groups can stimulate informal discussion and understanding. Engaging in different tasks is crucial, however reaching shared agreements require patience but efforts in creating successful dialogue

(24)

21

is important to reach long-term outcomes (ibid.). Authentic dialogue will be investigated through question (3) How are stakeholders joint in face-to-face dialogue? and (4) which tasks

have been developed to stimulate formal and in-formal discussions? Designing the process

accordingly can create durable agreements (ibid., p. 83). If these elements are missing, opportunities to produce successful dialogues will be identified as overlooked.

In order to establish interdependence, there must be incentives to reach an agreement and engage in reciprocity (Innes and Booher 2018, p. 37). How decisions are made differ, and sometimes a collaboration process can act as input towards authorities and judges. Such formal practices rarely create commonly accepted agreements and are consequently regarded as fragile. However, if the court decision is unpredictable, it can motive stakeholders to reach agreements and thus enhance deliberation and reciprocity (ibid., p. 85-86). This will be examined by (5)

what are the incentives to reach an agreement? If stakeholders are not motivated or stimulated

to reach an agreement, interdependence will be understood as non-existent. Successful collaborations can lead to systematic changes and learning among stakeholders in case the process led to institutional shifts or created new knowledge on how to perceive problems. This will be examined by the following question (6) In what way did the process create new

understandings and how did it affect institutional settings?

The following results will be structured and analysed through the questions designed above, following the same organization. Together these analytical questions aim to answer the overarching research question: How was collaboration utilized in the case of Järle, and how

does current institutional settings affect its opportunities to achieve collaboratively rational outcomes?

(25)

22

4. Results

The empirical material has been structured chronologically so the process and its development will be easier to follow. Also, the results will be structured thematically following the analytical question mentioned in the operationalisation section above.

4.1 The Process Begins. An Attempt to Establish Dialogue

In order to fully understand the developments in Järle we have to go back to 2010, when the EPA investigated opportunities to construct a fish ladder. Stakeholders received consultation documents about the intended solution, and neither the local town association nor Nora municipality had any concerns regarding the proposal (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2017, p. 3; Olsson, personal communication 2021; Norlund, personal communication 2021). The solution was at the time perceived as an answer to increase fish migration in the watercourse. Without being able to exactly explain why, time passed, and the proposal never turned into practice. A couple of years later, consultants hired by the EPA pointed out that such a solution would not be sufficient enough, referring both to the Habitats Directive and a continued need for maintenance (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2017 p. 3; Tiricke, personal communication 2021). Tiricke (personal communication 2021), head of the real estate department at the EPA, explains: “it does not matter how much time you spend construct these things [fish ladders], you will not reach favourable conservation status”.

Informal Meeting

In September 2016, the consultants had finished a pilot study where three different options had been selected for further investigation. Before conducting the study, five different proposals had been brought up for discussion. The fish ladder suggested from 2010 was one of them. However, referring to its extensive costs and doubtful functions, it got rejected in the early stages (Norconsult 2016, p. 7, 35). Partial demolition, where some pillars are preserved but the flood gates removed was proposed to be the most favourable option in the long run for both nature and the cultural environment. The final decision was taken in consultation with the CAB, who came to the same conclusion (ibid., p. 31, 70-71; Geijer, personal communication 2021). A couple of months later, the EPA summoned a meeting in Hammarby, located in the area. According to the invitation, the purpose was to discuss how the millpond could be developed in the future, and to present the potential solution. The meeting also intended to act as an opportunity to initiate dialogue and to together create ideas on how the area could be used in order to preserve the natural and cultural values going forward. The EPA met several people

(26)

23

throughout the day, both in Nora and by the millpond. There would also be a coffee-break on the evening meeting in Hammarby (Tiricke, personal communication 2021). This was the first time since 2010 that the EPA sent out formal signals to the local stakeholders (Olsson, personal communication 2021). Almost 50 interest groups and stakeholders were invited to the meeting, which took place a year before the official consultation phase. According to Tiricke (personal communication 2021) they made extensive preparations for the meeting and further elaborates: “sometimes you can say that, oh we did not have the time, or that we were not aware... but in this case, we really came prepared”.

In order to make the most of the meeting, the EPA included both communicators, administrators, and managers in the preparations. A communication plan was set up, listing goals with the summit. Some of the goals were the following: (1) local residents and tourists are aware why the changes are made, accepts it, and feel that they have participated in developing compensation measures (2) Nora municipality knows and accept the process (3) the public has the possibility to take part of the information (4) government authorities are aware of the measures, and experience dialogue (Tiricke, personal communication 2021). The general purpose with the meeting was to raise awareness concerning why the EPA sought to change the area and at the same time create an openness and acceptance towards the process: “before conducting the meeting, the plan was to explain why a partial demolition of the pond was the best alternative. After the presentation, the intention was to create smaller discussions at round tables where we together would work to develop the values present in the area, deriving from the proposed alternative” (Tiricke, personal communication 2021).

Olsson (personal communication 2021), local inhabitant and chairman in the local town association, was out of town during the meeting but was afterwards informed about the discussion: “it was quite a turbulent occasion. I am not sure if they were naïve and expected a round of applause when they proposed to develop the area and demolish the pond”. According to Olsson (ibid.), the summit created a total opposition between the EPA and the CAB on one side and everyone else on the other. Geijer (personal communication 2021) participated on behalf of the Cultural Environment Department at the CAB and describes the event as an information meeting to notify stakeholders on the proposed development: “the meeting was directed by the EPA. The aim of the meeting was to present what was going to be done, why it had to be done and how possible compensation measures could be managed” (ibid.).

(27)

24

According to notes from the meeting, the EPA explained that the area needed to change due to EU-directives and the lack of a long-term solution for maintenance. The suggested solution was presented and framed as the best alternative for both natural and cultural values. After the presentation, a general discussion took place where objections were raised, questioning the proposal. There was a sense of dissatisfaction and distrust towards the studies leading up to the suggested solution, and people wondered where the fish ladder suggestion from 2010 had gone (County Administration Board 2016). Tiricke (personal communication 2021) tries to explain the developments: “when we got there, we ended up on an elevated scene from the beginning… and then people settled in a passive movie theatre setting. Even though we had prepared these small round tables… it became the classical, you know, the ones on the podium and the others”. Tiricke (ibid.) describes that after the proposal was introduced, people on the meeting did not seem to be interested in discussing how the area could be developed going forward, but only to change the proposal: “there was a handful of people that were very active and kept interrupting”. The situation developed into a debate, and during the break the EPA tried to form smaller discussions: “there were no interactions at the tables, no one truly wanted to engage in a dialogue” (ibid.).

The meeting in Hammarby took place a year before the official consultation phase and Tiricke (personal communication 2021) was surprised that people seemed to be interested in discussing clear-cut proposals instead of creating a sense of consensus on how the area should be developed. This was a progress that the EPA was not ready to engage in: “we were not prepared to discuss alternative solutions at this stage, we had support from studies and reached a conclusion together with the County Administration Board that this alternative would affect the cultural and natural environment the least” (ibid.). Trying to answer the question on why they were not prepared, Tiricke (ibid.) points out that she does not exactly remember how they reasoned but believes that they were thinking that earlier investigations already had already covered alternative solutions, and that the presented alternative was the best suggestion available. According to the notes taken, the meeting ends with the EPA proclaiming that despite of the different opinions, they intend to go forward with the suggestion to the court (County

(28)

25

4.2 The Official Consultation Process and its Expectations

A couple of months after the meeting, the EPA stated in a motivation letter why they had chosen to proceed with the particular measures. Recalling that there are opposite interests at stake, they proclaimed that extensive efforts had been put into finding a solution suitable for all. However, they also concluded that the EU-directives makes it impossible to find such a solution and emphasised that the court will decide on how the values are to be balanced (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2017). In the official consultation with authorities that took place in August 2017, the proposal was formally presented, and the CAB assessed that the changes would cause considerable damage to the cultural environment. However, the positive effects on water values are to be regarded as more important. The occasion was also utilized to discuss who formally should be considered a stakeholder, and thereby receive an invitation to the consultation phase (Norconsult 2017, p. 2, 4). The CAB suggested a couple of new interest associations that should be included, apart from the ones already suggested (Geijer, personal communication 2021).

Hellström (personal communication 2021), responsible for coordinating the authority consultation on CAB, experienced that the EPA “were very attentive in the discussions”. Hellström (ibid.) points out that they seemingly wanted to reach out in the best way possible and explains that it is important that everyone has the opportunity to access the consultation documents. Either by receiving it directly or by obtaining an explanation to where they can be found: “it is essential that these actions are easily available” (ibid.). Hellström describes that the CAB is responsible to oversee national and public interests, there is no mechanism to secure that personal interests are formally represented by the board. However, the Environmental Impact Assessment developed by the EPA should include all key aspects (ibid.).

The Formal Consultations

Hellström (personal communication 2021) describes that actors often have a clear picture of how they intend to change the area when they enter consultations with authorities, and this process has not been an exception. Yet, one should still be able to discuss and change the application: “the actor should be able to make adjustments to the viewpoints gathered in the consultations” (ibid).

(29)

26

In this case, the CAB stated that the application needed a more thorough description of the different alternatives made in earlier investigations and that re-creational values with the cultural environment should be clearly defined. The EPA responded that they would make adjustments in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Norconsult 2018, p. 6). Hellström (personal communication 2021) points out that they have stressed the importance of using expertise regarding the cultural environment in the investigations, even prior to 2010. Even though some changes were made in the Environmental Impact Assessment, the CAB still found that there was a lack of attention given to the cultural values (Hellström, personal communication 2021; Geijer, personal communication 2021.).

The unofficial meeting in Hammarby made the EPA change their approach going into the official consultation phase. Instead of aiming to create a wider dialogue with multiple stakeholders, they invited to individual consultations: “we attended meetings with the County Administration Board, Nora municipality and individual stakeholders… we went home to them or they could visit an office. Bigger meetings do not always represent what people think, it can be more effective to listen to people separately” (Tiricke, personal communication 2021). Consequently, there were no more attempts to form activities aiming at discussing or spawning ideas concerning how the development of the area could be dealt with: “when there are strong powers requesting a different solution, it might not always be easy to talk about issues regarding the future development” (ibid.). However, some local stakeholders were not pleased with the new consultation model, Olsson (personal communication 2021) describes that: “they [EPA]

understood that the proposed measure was a controversial suggestion that most certainly would encounter extensive resistance. So, they decided to not meet groups but to visit us separately”. Olsson (ibid.) explains that the local stakeholders declined the invitation and managed to set up a group consultation with other local stakeholders living in the area.

According to Olsson (personal communication 2021), the meeting had a nice atmosphere, but was marked by one-way communication: “they wanted to communicate that this is the final suggestion, we are not here to discuss alternative options” (ibid.). Olsson (ibid.) also stresses that the fish ladder proposal constructed in 2010, which many local stakeholders, including the municipality, found to be a good suggestion had not been investigated enough (ibid.; Norlund personal communication 2021).

(30)

27

Geijer (personal communication 2021) explains that the EPA was more active in the early stages of the consultation process with the CAB, but after a while most of the dialogue went by their consultants. Similarly, Olsson (personal communication 2021) describes that there has been a lack of dialogue. As a reaction, he reached out to set up a meeting: “I wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency that now we have had contact with your consultants and lawyers but not with you directly, we would like to set up an appointment”. Regarding the use of consultants, Tiricke (personal communication 2021) explains: “We are a few stationed in Stockholm, we do not have the means and time”. And adds that they often use consultants since they live closer by and therefore can interact with people in a whole other way. Tiricke (ibid.) considers the consultants as part of the EPA and clarifies that when there is a conflict in different procedures, the EPA will try to meet people directly in order to show that different opinions are taken into account. Presence could “absolutely make a difference” in creating a common understanding. In order to establish contact, they agreed to meet with the local stakeholders (Tiricke, personal communication 2021). The meeting did not lead to any breakthroughs and Olsson (personal communication 2021) concludes that the meeting was a confirmation of the issue: “we concluded that we have our view, and they have their view”.

Framing the Issue

According to the consultation report, Nora municipality argued that the presented investigation did not consider constructing a fish ladder an option and therefore abolished the presented solution in the consultation stage. Additionally, the municipality expressed a need to conduct more investigations as well as in-depth descriptions of the cultural values (Norconsult 2018, p. 7-8). Norlund (personal communication 2021), who represented Nora municipality in court, clarifies that the suggestion from 2010 still stands as the best alternative. This view is shared by Olsson (personal communication 2021): “I believe that most sides were positive to develop the proposal from 2010”. Olsson (ibid.) also emphasizes that the local stakeholders were convinced that the process could be solved in a way that would benefit both natural and cultural values. The CAB shared the view of the EPA from a collective standpoint as it was concluded by the Board’s nature department that a fish ladder would not work. However, the cultural department tried to receive information on why such a solution would not be suitable, but they did not obtain more information until a late stage: “we could not demand such an investigation from our side” Geijer (personal communication 2021) explains, and points out that the nature department on the board already had their minds clear on the issue. Even though it would have been better to receive an explanation in an earlier stage, it is not sure that it would have been a

Collaboration as a Means to Harmonize Natural and Cultural Values -A Case Study of the Järle Millpond in Sweden