"Oslomarka" have many differing user groups, the needs of whom are different and often conflicting. Carl Christian Gustav Bruun wrote three books of his tours in the Marka between 1870 and 1890, classifying the users of the Marka into six categories: hunters, loggers, timbers, herds, tourists and students (Moland 2006, 60-61). In addition to those, there also were permanent residents in the Marka area.
The stressing everyday life needs as its counterpart outdoors life; this notion has long since been recognised in Norway. Outdoors life has been supported by most people in Norway because it is not organised to the extent of the commercial sports with an aim to make profit. (Moland 2006, 118-120; a similar notion also supported by Cranz of American parks; Cranz 1982, 2). Mixing up commercial interests with public, open spaces is an unhappy marriage, as even Aristotle suggested in the Politics. He recommended that "The market square for buying and selling should be separate from the public square and at a distance from it." (Sennett 1994, 56.)
A research in 2004 showed that 50% prosents of the Oslo dwellers had been using Nordmarka during the last year. Since the late 80s the introduction of off-road bikes had increased the use of Marka even more. (Moland 2006, 174-175.)
Historically the main source of conflicts concerning the ownership and use of Marka has been between landowner-driven forestry and outdoors purposes. In Helsinki the main source of conflict is drastically different.
To fulfil the increasing infrastructural needs of the growing city, in the 1890s, a railway was being planned to go through Nordmarka. There were opinions that the railway would diminish the nature values of the Marka, although a better access to Marka for the Oslodwellers was also valued highly. The railway was constructed through Maridalen to Nittedal and Hakadal so that the central parts of the Nordmarka were left untouched. It was not only used for travelling between the city and Marka but also for transportation of timber from the Marka. Also roads were built in the area during that time (ibid., 84-99).
A water craft installation and water supplies were also in need in order to respond to the need of water of the growing Oslo. But also roads were built in the area during that time. The local landowners thought that they had the power over the water supply of their own area and that the city of Oslo were robbing them of their water. The solution was that Oslo municipality built tunnels to distribute water from the eastern part of the Marka to Maridalsvannet which become the water supply for the inhabitants of Oslo. In addition to this, some dams were also built. The tunnel construction was a long process, taking 16 years. (ibid., 84-99.)
During the infrastructure construction process, some new inhabitants moved to the Nordmarka, most of whom being the construction and water craft workers (Moland 2006, 90). In the beginning of the 20th century, some 250 inhabitants were permanently resided in Marka. The dwellers of Marka often provided accommodation for the tourists from the city (ibid., 119). By then most of the houses in Marka were reachable by horses (ibid., 104).
What the proponents of outdoors life have felt that they have lacked in power to define the use of Marka, they have gained in political influence. The first important outdoors organisation defending Marka have been the Norwegian Tourist Association (Den Norske Turistforening), initiated in 1868 by a businessman Thomas Heftye. Since then, there has been an increasing public interest for using the Nordmarka for leisure. Since the 1880s the cross-country skiers have discovered Nordmarka and first skiing tours were arranged by the first skiing club in Oslo - the Christiania Skiklub - which was founded in 1877. The skiing clubs also built skiing cottages in the Marka.
Firstly the use of Marka was a venture of upper-class citizens, mostly men, hunters and fishermen (Moland 2006, 58-60). The industrialisation has brought about urbanisation also in Oslo, and the Oslomarka has subsequently become the main source for outdoors recreation for urban workers in Oslo. This notion was supported by the Kristiania arbeidersamfunn (Kristiania Workers Association) which proposed to the municipality of Kristiania (Oslo by that time) that it should acquire forests for public use, as the construction of private villas had diminished the surrounding forest areal for public use. The municipality of Christiania received Frognerseterforests in 1899 as a heritage from Heftye, acknowledging that the need of such public space has grown recently. (ibid., 68-69.)
According to Bjørn Tagseth, "arbeidslivet kan gjerne være hardt, for det er i fritiden man lever og tilfredsstiller sine behov" (Oraug et al 1974, 6; original source: Fritid, NIBR, Oslo 1969). Furthermore, Tagseth maintains, clearly inspired by a Marxist thinking that due to lacking influence to production process, the leisure time is for the worker something to be relished and stressed (ibid., 6). In contrast to work, at leisure time an individual has the ultimate control over his social and physical environment.
The first documented case when the workers in the city were arranged weekend recreational tours to Marka dates from 1891, organised by the tourist club Gutenberg with the motto "Fresh air brings riches within" (Frisk luft bringer rikdom). These trips clearly had a political motivation and areas between Maridalen and Nittedal were dominated by organisations with connections to workers movement perhaps because those areas were the most logical destinations for people who lived in working class areas of Sagene, Torshov and Grünerløkka, the upper class areas around Voksenåsen and Vettakollen being in turn dominated by the skiing associations with upper-middle class connections. (Moland 2006, 117-120).
Oslo and Aker municipalities started to buy significant amounts of forests since the late 19th century. The biggest private landowner in Marka, Carl Otto Løvenskiold was forced to some land use restrictions by the municipality. Grefsenkollen was bought by the two municipalities in 1912-1913, and in the early 1920s they acquired some parts of Vettakollen. Later in the 1920s Oslo municipality bought the Ullevaal forest and Vinderen forest from the junior Løvenskiold. During the 1910s and 1920s more cottages were built in the outer parts of Nordmarka by the sports associations but also by the city (Moland 2006, 123-124). In 1928 the Friluftsklubben (Outdoors Club) and Turistforeningen were handed funding from the city in order to make paths in Marka.
Public transportation routes made access to Nordmarka easier. A buss connection was established to Maridalen in 1921 and a tram was constructed to Sogn in 1934. (ibid., 120.) The road construction plans met criticism, counter-criticism replying that the Nordmarka was so extensive that roads couldn't disturbe it and that is was necessary to promote access to the area.
In the 1930s, there were again plans to construct roads through Nordmarka that
were earmarked in the master plan of Oslo in 1934. In order to organise protests against roads construction, the Oslo Outdoors Council (Oslo Friluftsråd) was founded in 1935. It had as its goal to have a master plan for green areas (forests) surrounding Oslo. In addition to this, individuals protested by writing in the papers. (ibid., 132-134).
The 1934 master plan of Oslo divided areas into two main categories: buildable and non-buildable areas. The non-buildable areas were parks, sports areas and nature conservation areas. The main forest areas north of the city were called nature parks of Holmenkollen, Nordmarken and Vettakollen. The committee that was set for preparing the master plan proposed that the municipality should acquire these areas or some special arrangements with the landowners should be made.
In 1941 the book by Nils Houge "Oslomarka som naturpark. Et forslag til fredning
av Stor-Oslos og omliggende distrikters friluftsområder " (Oslomarka forests as
a nature park. A proposal to preservation of outdoors areas of Oslo area and its surroundings), preservation was seen as a means to protect the outdoor areas.
"Skal friluftslivet kunne opprettholdes og videre utvikles blant storbyens befolkning, er det en absolutt betingelse at nødvendige grunnarealer holdes av till dette formål. En fredning av naerliggende og tilstrekkelig store arealer synes her å vaere den eneste løsning."
28th November 1946 there was a lengthy demonstration queue of 30 000 people outside City Hall (Rådhuset) against a power line in Hol. All the main outdoors sports, skiing, fishing, hunting and orienteering organisations were contacted to participate. Local youth associations of the most political parties (Hoyre, KrF, Venstre and Communists) did sign up a petition to support the demonstrants, the only that was missing was Arbeiderpartiet. It was initiated by a commercial director Odd Myre and organised by Outdoors Council of Oslo, establishing a committee in a few days to launch the demonstration even if the power line was to be constructed so that the masts were as a symbolic gesture of benevolence to be made of wood.
The issue of power line went to the city council, which set up a committee to further develop the construction of infrastructure. In addition to state and city politicians and constructing parties also the Friluftsrådet was represented in this committee. According to the committee, the roads would "helt ut vil berøve området omkring veiene den karakter av uberørt natur, som nettopp er det karakteristiske or tiltrekkende ved Nordmarka", the only member that was opposing this was the main roads engineer or Akershus who thought that a road would support the access to the Marka. Furthermore, the committee demanded that Oslo should acquire more recreational areas and to restrict any future construction plans. (Moland 2006, 137-141.)
An article published in the Aftenposten newspaper 1950 declared that "London har Themsens bredder, Paris - Bois de Boulogne, Madrid - Guadarramafjellene, København - Dyrehaven, men ingen hovedstad i verden har maken til naturpark som Nordmarka. Meddelsen om at store deler av den er nu sikret for Oslos innbyggere i all fremtid, vil vekke glede hos alle norske. Betydningen for følkehelsen skjønner enhver. (...) Det er først og fremst ved sin utstrekning Nordmarka virker så berusende i sinnet. Å kunne gå milevidt i helt fri natur. Å vaere skånt for larmen og lukten fra biler, slippe å krysse skinner. (...) Det gledelige som er skjett er at alle Nordmarkstilhengerne nu har fått brev på at naturparken skal få bli liggende uberørt. De er sikret mot overraskelser i fremtiden. Det har vaert et hell for Oslos befolkning at Nordmarka har vaert på én hånd så lenge. I dette tilfelle har den private eiendomsrett vaert til gagn for alle. Hvis ikke familien Løvenskiold hadde vernet Nordmarka og holdt den samlet gjennom generasjoner, ville den antakelig for lenge siden ha vaert forvandlet til et lappeteppe av små or store eiendommer, uten noen mulighet for fri ferdsel. (...) Nordmarkas sikring er den beste gaven Oslos innbyggere har fått i (450th) jubileumsåret. (ibid., 143.)
In the early 1950s, the outdoors life was generally considered to be one of the essentials for the welfare of the city, which made all attempts of forestry all the more difficult. However, everything changed. In 1953 Jørgen von Ubisch was appointed to be responsible for forestry in Nordmarka, and he wanted to modernise the forestry, being supported by the majority of forest owners. To make this happen, new tractor roads were being built. He was opposed by the professor Ola Børset from Norges landbrukshøgskole (land use university), stating that forestry has to take more into account the needs of outdoors life. (ibid., 144.)
Due to growing consumption of water, there was another plan in 1962 to construct a dam in Nordmarka. It would have meant considerable water rise in some of the lakes of Marka. As there were fears that even "half of the Marka would be covered by water" (as written in Dagbladet paper), there was strong protesting against these plans, and the city council was forced to abandon them. (ibid., 146.)
1961 a committee was established by the majors of Nittedal, Lunner, Jevnaker, Brandu and Gran - municipalities north of the Oslo - in order propose to construct a 4-lane motorway from Maridalen in 1965. At this time, a cooperative building company OBOS was also established to build about thousand apartments around Harestua. It has as its chairman Ivar Mathisen, secretary of the Oslo worker's party and second major in Oslo. According to the report of the major's committee, the new road would provide an easier access to the outdoors and recreational areas without significantly diminishing the green areas "ny og lettere adkomst til frilufts- og rekreasjonsområder uten nevneverdig beskjaering av friarealene", this view also supported by the leaders of Oslo skiing organisation. In addition to the growing private car traffic, there was a proposal to launch a new bus route from Maridalen via Kikutstua to Sørkedalen to diminish the car traffic. The bus route was to be established in co-operation between Løvenskiold, Skiing organisation and the municipality of Oslo. (ibid., 147)
The Oslo skiing organisation published in 1962 their advantage paragraph (formålsparagraf), according to which the outdoor areas should be secured. They gave a statement to the prime minister Einar Gerhardsen, himself being an eager user of Marka. The organisation went on with their lobbing of the Norwegian government, being given an influential helping hand in the director of the Norwegian bank, Erik Brofoss. A letter to the "Royal Norwegian Government" was sent in April 1965 by the skiing organisation, outlining the threats to Marka: building of cottages, plans to construct railway and motorways, constructing of new water supplies and power lines. However, the state outdoors council (Friluftsrådet) was the
only statutal organ that participated in the fight for Marka in the 1960s. (ibid., 147-148.)
The Oslo and Surrounding Areas Outdoors Council (Oslo og Omlands Friluftsråd) had a description of the threats of the similar kind than that of the Oslo skiing organisation. Its secretary Erik Sture Larre wrote in Arbeiderbladet that "Det viktigste og det helt avgjørende for Oslo og de omkringliggende kommuner er at man får fredet et friluftsområde, fritt for bebyggelse, jernbaner, bilveier og kraftlinjetraseer", finishing with the notion that "Om Oslo kommune tar initiativet til å samordne de partielle og motstridende interessene i Oslomarkasaken, ville det vaere saken til gagn og byen til heder". They aimed to mark a borderline around Marka area respected by the surrounding municipalities, based on the sketches by Nils Houge in 1940. In 1965 - initiated by Larre - the map of Marka was published, with proposals to all the respective municipalities. Larre also discussed the matter with the surrounding municipalities, aided by the new building legislation that had come into force that very year. (ibid., 148.)
Larre proposed at a annual meeting of the Outdoors Council in 1965 the kind of activities that should be freely allowed and those that should be regulated inside the Marka borders. New power lines should not be constructed, no railway ought to be built and only necessary forest roads "skogsbilveier" should be allowed. Building of cottages should only be allowed in limited areas at the outer zones of Marka. He also proposed that no private driving should be allowed at weekends between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ibid., 148-149).
The treasury minister and later minister of commerce, Erik Brofoss was a central figure in saving of the Marka at that time. He was the chief of the Norwegian Bank from 1954 and a member of the Workers' Part Central Committee, and one of the central strategists of his party in the big construction projects after WW II. In his article in Arbeiderbladet newspaper in 1962 he attacked to the Forestry Division of the Oslo municipality for its building and forest road plans. "Ut fra driftsøkonomiske og forstmessige synspunkter kan disse veier og hogstmetodene vaere vel begrunnet. Men det må vaere tillatt å stille det spørsmål om hovedformålet med skogsforvaltningen i Oslo kommune er å få størst mulig privatøkonomisk utbytte. Oslo kommunes primaere oppgave som skogeier mä vaere å verne om naturen i Oslo-marka. Den er Oslo-samfunnets store fellesaktivum. Dens verdi for trivselen kan ikke vurderes i kroner og ører." This letter initiated Odd Myre - the leader of the 1946 demonstrations - to send a letter to Skiing organisation proposing a council under the leadership of Brofoss. (ibid., 149.)
Initiated by the letter, the Skiing organisation proposed to launch a committee in autumn 1964 to secure the Marka. The influential committee, "Puttis-gjengen" was assembled of Brofoss, health director Karl Evang, major general Wilhelm Hansteen, professor Ola Børset, disponent Kai Christophersen, journalist Allan Aarflot and advocate Tor Erling Staff (ibid., 150).
In december 1964 Evang published a chronicle in Arbeiderbladet with the headline “Oslomarka må naturvernes". In 1968 the Puttis-gjengen wrote a 11-page document about the Oslo Forestry division to the City Council of Oslo. The main idea of the letter was to highlight the notion that the forestry principles at the Oslomarka should be different from those at the more distant forests. "Kommunen kan ikke på den ene side hevde at den går inn for å sikre og bevare disse naturområder og samtidig på den annen side fortsette med bruken av dynamitt, bulldozere og gravemaskiner til formål som generelt sett er i strid med frilufts- og naturinteressene". They also referred in the document to the hygienists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists e.g. who had described the damages for physical and mental health caused by living in a big town. They also stated that it would be unwise to value the forests only from economical points of view, and that the value of forest for outdoors live and recreation couldn't be valued too highly. They also demanded the city
council to outline the general principles for the municipal forests. (ibid., 150)
Even different actors within the Oslo municipality had conflicting interests: those of the forestry and water supplies and those of the city planning. The city planning division were securing the green corridor from the new suburbs to the forest areas. In 1966 the leader of the municipal forests, Bjarne Maaland got an idea at his trip the US of the so called principle of
multiple use, flerbruk in Norwegian. (ibid., 150).
Despite opposition against road construction and growing traffic at the Marka, in 1966 a road connection from Sørkedalen to Fyllingen, Kikutstua and Bonna was established. In the same year the first public bus line was opened from Oslo to Marka, the timetables being planned for schoolchildren and housewives. The improving connections also made it easier to get together and establish new organisations. (ibid., 151.)
Løvenskiold junior took over the management over the telephone lines and roads in Marka, the municipality paying him for using the roads. Since the 1950s the number of accommodating visitors at the Marka houses had diminished due to increase of private cars and due to building up new private cottages for the Oslo dwellers. The log floating and horse riding were practically vanished by the early 1960 as also the need of the forest guards and other forestry personnel. Alongside this development, most of the timbers were forced to move to Oslo as the Løvenskiold did not allow them to acquire the land for themselves. (ibid., 153-158.)
The quest for Oslomarka, triggered by the belief in the city growth of the 50s and 60s was replaced by rise of environmentalism. Around 1970 - the European Year of Nature Conservation - two new significant actors entered the Marka scene, both of which stemming from the University of Oslo. One of them was Carl August Fleischer from the law faculty, the other consisting of a group of students from the institute of philosophy with a project of nature conservation as a part of their education. Also the municipality departments activated at the same time: the land use department was working on a new forest law while the nature conservation department was working on the multiple use plan and a legislation for Oslomarka (ibid., 150-159.)
In the early 70s, the newspaper coverage in Oslo area papers of the Marka issue increased. Especially the Dagbladet journalist Nils Rømming wrote a number of articles, such as "Ny bred vei gjennom Nordmarka, Løvenskiold blåser i opinionen", "Nemnder og råd snubler i beina på hverandre, kaos i arbeidet for Oslos friluftsinteresser", "Ungdomsopprør i Skiforeningen, rabaldermøte ventes mandag", "Nordmarka er lappeteppe, departementet har kapitulert for Løvenskiold", "Løvenskiold-avtalen er ulovlig og må oppheves”. (ibid., 159-168.)
Many of those who participated in newspaper debates had relationships to the Outdoors Council, Skiing organisation or Tourist organisation; also workers of the Løvenskiold-companies participated. Forest guard Arne Fossneset defended the modern forestry as there also were people getting their income from the forest:
"Hva skjer med Oslomarka? Er politikerne i ferd med å ødelegge alt?" asked Jan Eggesvik, Ketil Heyerdahl and Bjørn Hersoug who thought that Oslo politicians and technical division of the municipality were well on their way to earmark Oslomarka as an outdoors area. In Aftenposten Sverre Martens asked whether the forestry and the outdoors people shared the same interests. All these young men were philosophy students from the Oslo university. (ibid., 159.)
In 1969 at the institute of philosophy the first meetings of the co-operation group SNM for nature and environment were held. This group did not only aim to write columns but also to attack non-violently the construction machinery. They were inspired by the principles Gandhi, introduced by the professor of philosophy Arne Naess. In 1970 it was about the time for their first intervention, aiming to stop the construction of Mardøla waters. About 30-40 activists set up tents on the road leading to the area. Soon they were joined by some 500 others, awaking interest in the media. After one month this demonstration was dissolved by the police, removing Naess. This happened after counteraction of local inhabitants who were afraid of losing their jobs. (ibid., 160).
In the spring 1970 the group established a sub group specialised in Oslomarka. They sent a letter in October 1970 to the city council in order to stop the building of dam in Sandungen, meaning that it would destroy the nature. They also aimed to preserve seven areas in Nordmarka, Baerumsmarka and Krokskogen. (ibid., 160).
The professor Carl August Fleischer contributed to the Oslo regional plan committee in 1967, writing especially about Krokskogen forest. He went through all the relevant legislation: construction law, outdoors law, nature conservation law and pollution law. Fleischer concluded that the Stortinget (the Parliament) should have a special legislation for the whole Marka. The legislation was taken to the city council in the autumn of 1970. Brynjolf Bull from the Arbeiderpartiet proposed Fleisher to do a thorough report on the economical and legal aspects of the Marka, and Erik Mår from Høyre proposed the Norwegian government to secure the Marka by legal means. (ibid., 160-161.)
In spring 1971 Fleischer proposed to stop all construction of roads temporarily in Marka relying on the construction law. March 1973 the department replied to the municipality that construction of roads can not be stopped. (ibid., 161.)
In October 1970 the municipality of Baerum sent a letter to the Kommunal- og
arbeidsdepartmentet (KAD) in order to judge the need of conserving the nature and outdoors areas used by city dwellers in cities and suburbs. Shortly after this, KAD proposed seven areas at the Marka to be conserved, almost identical to those proposed by SNM. Løvenskiold and the forest owners protested to this proposal, maintaining that it would mean the end of the forest industry in Marka. Due to this, KAD was forced to abandon its proposal. (ibid., 161).
The KAD did embark on a multiple use plan of the Marka. That it was a government department embarking on this, was natural as the Marka area was extended to 17 municipalities and 4 provinces (fylker). An agreement between Løvenskiold and KAD was finally reached in 8th October. The most controversial detail in this agreement was a road from Lenseløken via Katnoselva and Spålselva to Spålselva and Finvassdalen, going through the proposed conservation areas. (ibid., 161-162.)
In October 1971 Løvenskiold started with constructing the new road connection. 14th November about 100 activists came by bus to Stubdal, sleeping in tents. The demonstration was cut short by a heart attack of one activist, Harald Grøterud. Another bunch of activists came again in June 1972 when Løvenskiold started with a new road, again with Grøterud as their type writer. This time tv-cameras and also the police were around. When 160 forestry workers threatened to remove the demonstrants, they withdrew. In a TV programme "Dagsrevyen" the matter was debated, the interests of the forestry represented by Jens Venner, the Oslomarka group represented by Bjørn Faafeng and Ketil Heyerdal opposing the road construction and the police stressing the importance of keeping order. (ibid., 162-164.)
The actions had united Løvenskiold and his workers, now having an enemy in form of university students. In October 1973 the Katnosa/Spålen area was temporarily preserved, by then some of the roads to Spålen constructed, nevertheless not to Spålselva. After this the Oslomarka group was less visible. (ibid., 164.)
In January 1972 Fleischer wrote a 273 page letter which was soon afterwards revised to a book, published by the name "Makt og rett - om sikring av Oslomarka" (Power and justice - upon securing the Oslomarka" to Oslo municipality "Betenkning om sikring av Oslomarka". The first publisher withdrew after receiving a letter from the attorney of Løvenskiold that the publication of the book would be a personal insult. Although a professor of law, it was not
a juridical document but rather a pamphlet where Fleischer maintained that the general Norwegian interest "allmenningsretten" was being sacrificed to private interests and to a private property of a Danish patron Løvenskiold. He furthermore maintained that the Løvenskiold controlled areas should be taken over by the authorities. (ibid., 165-166.)
While the municipality of Oslo was preparing its multiple use plan for Marka, it declared that it would take the Fleischer paper "into account". In the process of preparing the multiple use plan, a consultative work group was assembled with representation from interest organisations. Three major research institutes were also involved: Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning (NIBR, Norwegian Institute of city and regional research), Norges Landbrukshøgskole (NLH, Norwegian University of Land Use) and University of Oslo (UiO). NIBR produced reports of the history of outdoors life in Marka, the use of Marka and the expectations towards Marka. The forestry in Marka was examined in the reports by NLH, the economical points of view taken into account. (ibid., 166.)
The aim of the "flerbruksplan" was that the Marka could be used to various justifiable purposes simultaneously and to intermediate various interests by making visible the different interests to use and to protect the Marka. Simultaneously the department of environment was preparing a legislation for Marka, aiming especially to regulate the forestry around Oslo. At the same time, the Land Use department prepared a revision of the Forest Law. Oslo og Omland Friluftsråd prepared a plan for outdoor areas, while the forest owners prepared their own multiple use plans. (ibid., 166-167).
In 1976 the new legislation was presented, and in that year the newspapers were also most involved with the Marka case. In May the revised forest law was handled in the Parliament, still having the greatest emphasis on the interests of the forest industry. Still, the new law made it possible to recognise the special landscape or nature values of the forest areas. (ibid., 167.)
The multiple use plan for Oslomarka was presented in June 1976. It was sent to outdoors and forestry organisations for comments, the outdoors organisations being largely and forestry organisations a little disappointed. Oslo and Nittedal municipalities supported the plan while the Lunner municipality was negative to it, meaning that the interests of the forestry were also in the best interests of the outdoor activities. In a government conference in May 1977 a working group was established to work out a revised multiple use plan for Oslomarka. Its proposal was presented in December 1979, and in April 1981 the government had its proposal for a special law for Oslomarka but it was not accepted by the Høyre lead new government. In the 1970s, the government was lead by the Workers Party, largely neglecting the issue so that the process was extended to a period of another 10 years. (ibid., 167.)
The clear result of the revised legislation was that in general the forestry were winners and the environmental authorities were the losers. While the outdoors and environmental organisations were supported by the Department of Environment, the forest owners and forest organisations were supported by the Land Use department. The most decisive was that the forest workers were allied by their employers, having good political connections, the workers in Workers Party and the forest owners in the Høyre and Center Party. Still, the nature conservation had its share of victories; apartment building in Sørkedalen and Maridalen came
to nothing and extension of the water establishments in Nordmarka were frozen. Constructing new car roads in the forest stopped during the 1970s, the last battle being around Langliveien in 1978. After the turbulent 1970s, the 1980s were considerably more tranquil in the Marka and since the 1980s, Oslomarka has been referred as the Marka with a big essential.
Aasmund Arnesen, a teacher in Marka skola wrote in Aftenposten in 1973 that those who lived in Marka were largely neglected from decision making about the future of Marka. In 1975 an inhabitants' council (bosettingsulvalget) was established, and in 1984 1500 people lived in Marka permanently, the last school in Marka being closed in the previous year. Being a part of Oslo town since 1972, the Oslo part of the Marka was prepared a local plan by the municipality of Oslo in 1989. (ibid., 169-172.)
The department of environment wanted to define the borderlines of Marka, giving a new proposal in 1981. Some municipalities around Oslo were against it as they felt it was against their own autonomy to decide how the land would be used. In 1985 the municipality of Lunder wanted the borderline to be identical to that of the district borderline, meaning that Marka wouldn't be extended in Lunder area. As a compromise, some areas of Lunder would be included in Marka while areas north of Mylla were to be left outside as the Mylla municipality were to construct cottages in that area.
In Oslo the Marka borderline is symbolically very strong, and when Løvenskiold wanted to construct a conference centre in Bonna gård, it had to be withdrawn due to negative input by Outdoors Council and Aftenposten. In 1990 did the department of environment nominate Kjell Hauge as the newly established post as the inspector of the Marka, his task being to intermediate between authorities, especially environmental, the public and those working in Marka. When he retired in 2003, his post was abolished. (ibid., 172.)
In 1980s, the NLH began to support the conserving parties of interest, and this led to the conserving 10% of the Marka area and that the forestry was cut significantly. In the 1990s the methods of forestry were critically scrutinised especially by the Naturvernforbundets lokalavdeling i Oslo og Akershus (Nature Conservation League local organisations in Oslo and Akershus). Since 1977 the conditions of the forestry in Marka have been revised several times, the authority regulating the forestry in Marka being the Fylkeslandsbrukskontor (District Land Use Office). The private forest owners have had to make plans for their road construction and forestry and forestry had become more bureaucratic and difficult. The Nature Conservation League had focused especially on forests around Spålen, the first conservation plans taking place already in the 1970s. In 1995, a royal resolution of the Marka was declared. Since 1998 the forestry have been applying the Living Forest (levende skog) -standards. (ibid., 173.)
Comments
Post a Comment