One of the main attractions for tourists visiting Svalbard, Norway, are polar bears. The polar bear is a vulnerable species, dependent on sea ice to survive as this is where they hunt, wander and raise their cubs. Ship-based tourism poses a number of threats mainly due to the disturbances caused by the presence of ships, damage of critical habitats and the increasing interactions and deadly conflicts between humans and polar bears. Appropriate and effective legislation based on scientific knowledge of the impacts of ship-based tourism on polar bears is necessary to ensure sustainable tourism and environmental protection. Species protection and habitat conservation is not an issue isolated to Svalbard or the polar bears but rather just one part of the pressing global issue concerning loss of biodiversity, which is one of the greatest threats to humankind. The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) aims to ensure the conservation of wild flora and fauna species and their habitats. At the time of signing, the Norwegian Government excluded Svalbard from the application of the Bern Convention, ensuring that national conservation policies for Svalbard would be promoted. The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act is the main act regulating environmental protection on Svalbard, including both general principles and specific provisions regarding species and habitat protection. This paper explores the various needs of the polar bear population in Svalbard and the impacts caused by ship-based tourism. The Bern Convention’s provisions relating to the identified threats posed by ship-based tourism are examined and compared with the corresponding provisions in the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act. Moreover, this paper analyses the potential benefits that could arise from the application of the Bern Convention to the Svalbard territory. This paper concludes that the protection of the polar bears could, de jure, be strengthened by the Bern Convention, mainly due to the extensive interpretation of the types of activities that should be prohibited by signatory states. However, the Bern Convention can only be enforced by non-binding mechanisms and it is therefore unlikely that the application of the convention would lead to stronger protection of the polar bears than that which is provided by national legislation. The protection of the polar bear from threats caused by ship-based tourism would therefore, de facto, most likely not be strengthened by the application of the Bern Convention.

No description available.

No description available.

This study intends to investigate how different demographic groups among individual forest owners in Sweden view issues related to sustainable forestry. The study also intends to investigate what different individual forest owners perceive as positive/negative aspects in terms of species protection and policy changes. It also investigates in what way individual forest owners' views and forestry relate to decided goals and what previous research defines as sustainable forestry. To investigate this, a survey has been conducted where the survey was distributed to individual forest owners around the country through various online communication channels such as social media and online forums. The survey resulted in a total of 226 respondents spread across most parts of the country. The results that emerged from the study shows demographic differences and similarities, where we for example can see that there is a greater proportion of women than men who believe that Swedish forestry is not sustainable today. At the same time, we can observe that the majority believe that it is sustainable within all demographic groups. Incidentally, we can see that there is a dividing line between authorities and the interests of individual forest owners. Views on sustainable forestry vary and many forest owners strive for less government intervention in their forestry and property rights are central. We see a willingness to compromise if the forest owner receive financial compensation, in terms of protected areas. We can also see goal conflicts between forest owners' views and uses and authorities' directives and goals.