The first regulation concerning the protection of shores was introduced in 1950. The purpose of that regulation was to "secure the general publics condition of an outdoor life". The protection has been sharpened over the years and in 1975 a general protection of the shores was introduced, which meant that all land was protected within 100 meters from the shoreline. In 1994 a supplement was made with the purpose to "preserve good conditions for animal and plants on land and in water".
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did an inquiry of the shore protection regulations commissioned by the Government in 2001. The inquiry pointed out that there were big lacks in the exemption decisions. This concerned for example lacks in the attached maps and lacks in the basic data for decision-making, data that is important to be able to assess the effects of buildings on the purpose of the shore protection. The second purpose of the shore protection to "preserve good conditions for animal and plants on land and in water" was particularly neglected. The inquiry also showed lacks concerning the particular reason for the exemptions. These reasons were often excluded or did not correspond with the preparation documents for the regulation. The constitution proposal indicate lacks in how the shore protection is applied as the most urgent because it can lead to an undermining of the shore protection in the long run. Referring to that, this review is mostly concentrated on the lacks in how the shore protection is applied.
The overall aim with this study is to attain knowledge of how the shore protection regulations have been handled in the county of Uppsala. The study is divided into three parts. The biggest part is a review of the exemption decisions for three different municipalities in the county of Uppsala. The starting point is a template in the review by the Swedish EPA. The municipalities in this study are Håbo, Uppsala and Östhammar. The reason for this delimitation is that these represent three different municipalities with different basic conditions. Håbo is an expansive municipality with a high number of inhabitants. There is a risk that a higher percentage of land is claimed when the population increases, which in turn could lead to more exemptions in areas with shore protection. The municipality of Uppsala is a big city with many inhabitants and there could be a risk that more exemptions are given in areas with shore protection if the population increases. The municipality of Östhammar has a lot of countryside and a lot of coast to the Baltic Sea and therefore a big share of land with shore protection. The review includes 36 decisions from Håbo, 116 decisions from Uppsala and 216 decisions from Östhammar. The time period for this study is from the year of 2000 to 2005. The reason for this time period is that it included sufficient number of decisions and at the same time it became a reasonable delimitation in relationship to the timeframe of the study. The second part of the study is a review of the detailed building plans where the shore protection has been annulled. Five detailed building plans were reviewed during the same time period as mentioned above. The last part is to make interviews with people in charge of handling exemption decisions to achieve a deeper understanding of the process.
The interviews showed that two out of three municipalities did not use a referral body for consideration. The municipality of Uppsala considers an increased communication between the municipalities as a way of improving the decisions, while the municipality of Håbo emphasizes more visits on the sites and a new nature conservation inventory. The municipality of Östhammar wanted more guidance about what to consider when these types of decisions are involved.
A problem that was brought to attention by this study was the fact that the presentation of the particular reason of an exemption sometimes was missing or was inadequate according to the legislation. The particular reason for exemption was presented in only 40 % of the decisions for Håbo. Uppsala and Östhammar presented this in as many as 86 % of the decisions. From the review it also came to light that there were lacks in formality or to be more precise - what a decision should include according to the Swedish EPA. To enable a follow-up of the decisions by the county administrative board as the supervising authority as well as the Swedish EPA, it is important that the decisions present different parameters in a satisfactory way. This would make it easier to get an overview of the lacks in the decisions. When the exemption decisions were reviewed it came to light that the amount of rejections were relatively small compared to the amount of exemptions. Of the total amount of commissions, 6-12 % were rejected. When it comes to the impact on outdoor life this parameter was presented in about half of the decisions for Håbo and Uppsala, while Östhammar presented this in 92 % of the decisions. The impact on animals and plants were presented in 20 % of the decisions for Håbo and Uppsala, while once again Östhammar presented this in as many as 96 % of the decisions. The municipality of Håbo presented national interest for outdoor life and nature conservation in 18 % of the decisions. Östhammar only presented this in 0,5 % of all the decisions and the municipality of Uppsala in 10 % of the decisions. The limitation of the piece of land was presented in 44 % of the decisions for Håbo municipality. The municipality of Uppsala presented this in only 11 % of the decisions while the municipality of Östhammar presented this in as many as 98 % of the total amount of decisions.
The problem with the presentation of the particular reason returns in the detailed building plans were the shore protection has been annulled. The reason is often not expressed in a satisfactory way. The particular reason is not evident in certain cases. Several times it is stated that annulations do not counteract the purpose of the shore protection, although this is only a basic condition and not a reason for exemption. Th...
