royal ministry of the environment report no. 12 to the ... · royal ministry of the environment....

Utenriksdepartementet

Report No. 12 to the Storting(2001–2002)

Protecting the Riches of the Seas

Royal Ministry of the Environment

The Ocean

This was the ocean.Earnestness itself,enormous and grey.But as the mindin lonely momentssuddenly unfurlsfloating reflectionsin secret depths –so also can the oceanone blue morningopen itselfto sky and solitude.See, the ocean gleams,I too have starsI too have blue depths.

Olav H. Hauge

Table of Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 Protecting the riches of the seas . . . 71.2 The purpose of this

parliamentary report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.3 Delimitations of the contents

in the parliamentary report . . . . . . . 10

2 Development of comprehensive management system for coastal and maritime areas . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.1 Current state of the environment and trends in the future . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1.1 Present state of the environment . . 112.1.2 A complex interaction between

different factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.1.3 The individual industries and

sectors are facing major challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2 Need for more comprehensive management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2.1 Need for better co-ordination of different areas of interests. . . . . . . . 15

2.2.2 A lot at stake … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.2.3 The ecosystem approach to

management of maritime and coastal areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.2.4 Sectoral responsibility and the need for co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.3 The Government’s plan for total management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3.1 An integrated management plan for the Barents Sea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3.2 Integrated management of the maritime areas and parts of fjords close to the coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.3.3 More about the work on ecosystem-based management of our maritime and coastal areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3 Trends and initiatives in selected areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.2 Petroleum exploitation . . . . . . . . . . 273.2.1 Discharges into the sea . . . . . . . . . . 283.2.2 Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.2.3 Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.3 Shipping/safety and emergency

services along the coast. . . . . . . . . . 353.3.1 Threats and trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.3.2 Measures to improve safety and preparedness for emergencies along the coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.4 Radioactive pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . 393.4.1 The threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393.4.2 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.5 Contaminated sediments in

coastal areas and fjords . . . . . . . . . . 443.5.1 How did this problem arise? . . . . . . 443.5.2 Which areas are polluted?

Classification of different types of areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.5.3 Special challenges associated with cleanup operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.5.4 Objectives: How clean, how quickly? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.5.5 Strategy for work on cleanup of contaminated sediments . . . . . . . . . 50

3.5.6 General approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513.5.7 How to prevent migration . . . . . . . . 533.5.8 A total approach to ensuring local

involvement: County action plans . 543.5.9 How to gain experience and

learn more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.6 Spread of non-indigenous

organisms and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) . . . . . 56

3.6.1 The threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.6.2 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593.6.3 Protection, use and distribution of

marine, genetic resources. . . . . . . . 613.7 Protecting marine areas and

sustainable spatial management of the maritime and coastal areas. . 62

3.7.1 The threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623.7.2 Enhanced spatial management

of the marine environment . . . . . . . 623.7.3 Marine protected areas . . . . . . . . . . 633.7.4 Better protection for particularly

precious or threatened types of natural environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3.8 Adapting aquaculture to the needs of the environment . . . . . . . . 66

3.8.1 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663.8.2 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673.9 Sustainable fisheries

management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703.9.1 Fishing resources and fisheries . . . 703.9.2 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.9.3 The influence of fishing activities on resources and on the biological diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.9.4 The international framework for management of resources . . . . . . . . 74

3.9.5 The management regime for stocks in Norwegian maritime areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3.9.6 Control of fishing effort . . . . . . . . . . 77

4 International cross-sector co-operation on the marine environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.1 Global co-operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.2 Priority issues for regional co-operation and bilateral co-operation with Russia . . . . . . . . . 80

5 Economic, administrative and district-related consequences . . 84

5.1 Economic consequences . . . . . . . . . 845.2 Administrative resources/

consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855.3 District-related consequences. . . . . 85

Annex1 Map of Norwegian sea areas . . . . . 86

Utenriksdepartementet

Report No. 12 to the Storting(2001–2002)

Protecting the Riches of the Seas

Recommendation of 15. March 2002 by the Ministry of the Environment,approved in the Council of State on the same date.

(The Bondevik II Government)

1 Introduction

1.1 Protecting the riches of the seas

Norway has always been surrounded by a sea richin resources. We have a long tradition of utilisingthese riches given to us by the sea. Fishing andharvesting of marine resources have been thebasis for settlements along the coast. For a longtime, the sea was the only way of transportinggoods along the coast. The sea gave the coastalpopulation a means of contact with the rest of thecountry and other countries and was a source ofrecreation and a better quality of life. The sea andthe coastline have left their mark on our culture.The close contact with the sea was what led to thedevelopment of the Norwegian shipping industry.When oil was found in the North Sea around 1970,a completely new era in the utilisation of the richesof the sea began.

For a long time, the sea was also a clean sea andfor a long time most people thought that the seacould stand anything: The sea could endure thedumping of waste and pollution from industry andother business activities, from settlements andfrom shipping without suffering any damage.

For a long time little was known about oceancurrents carrying pollution from faraway countriesto the Norwegian coast, and about the fact that dis-

charges of hazardous substances on other conti-nents could be transported all the way to Svalbard.Not until the last decade did we become aware thatnot only rivers, lakes and coastal areas can be seri-ously polluted. Only then did we realise that theenvironment on the high seas can be threatened bypollution.

This Government’s vision is to safeguard aclean and rich sea, so that future generations canharvest the wealth of resources that the sea has tooffer. The challenges are many and they are daun-ting, but the rewards will also be huge if wesucceed. There are great opportunities for indus-trial and commercial development in the aquacul-ture and fishing industries in the future.

This Parliamentary Report is a prelude to along-term, comprehensive policy for the protectionof the marine and coastal environment. Long-termbecause many of the measures proposed will onlydemonstrate their full effects after some time haselapsed. Comprehensive, because the goal canonly be achieved by assessing pressures andencroachments on this environment in their over-all context.

Norway has legal rights to marine areas contai-ning substantial amounts of oil and gas deposits. Inthe last few decades the petroleum industry has

Royal Ministry of the Environment

8 Report No. 12 to the Storting 2001– 2002Protecting the Riches of the Seas

Figure 1.1 Areas covered by corals, like this in the Saltstraumen, can be found along the Norwegian coast. Here you can find plumose anemone, dahlia squid, starfish, sponges and dead men’s fingers.Source: Erling Svensen

2001– 2002 Report No. 12 to the Storting 9Protecting the Riches of the Seas

been the main element shoring up the Norwegianeconomy. Oil and gas will continue to be of greatimportance in the future, even though they are notrenewable resources. In the future Norway’swealth and prosperity will have to be based onfurther development and growth in other indus-tries as well. Our coastal and marine areas areamong the most productive areas in the world interms of living marine resources. The harvesting ofthese resources will not be limited in terms of timeif they are managed in a long-term perspective. Theaquaculture industry has huge potential for furtherindustrial and commercial development along thecoast of Norway.

Norwegian seafood must be competitive in amarket where the consumers constantly are beco-ming more conscious regarding health and envi-ronmental issues. The consumers want to be confi-dent that the food they are eating is healthy. Foodfrom a clean ocean is a great competitive advantagefor Norway, but we have to maintain the convictionamong the consumers that our products really areclean and environmental friendly: That they don’tcontain poisonous substances, and that they arenot harvested in ways that are exhausting the sea’sresources.

A healthy marine environment is a condition forfuture industrial and commercial development andsettlement based on living marine resources.There are many threats and trends that could putobstacles in the way of a healthy marine environ-ment. To trigger off the potential for industrial andcommercial development so that good conditionsfor habitation and a high standard of living alongthe coast can be maintained in the long run, a sub-stantial effort must be made to secure clean andproductive ecosystems along the coast and in thesea. Industrial and commercial development,human settlements and a good environment aremutually dependent on each other. It is thereforecrucial for an overall policy on the marine environ-ment to be developed in collaboration between theGovernment and trade and industry along thecoast.

1.2 The purpose of this parliamentary report

The purpose of this Parliamentary Report is:– to display overall goals for a comprehensive

policy on the marine environment;– to display tools and processes for how such a

policy can be developed and implemented inthe short and in the long-term, including ensur-

ing a better co-ordination between the differentsectors and industry; and

– to display proposals for a new policy in areas ofmajor importance for the marine environment.

The overall goal is to provide the prerequisites fora clean and rich sea, inter alia, through the estab-lishment of external conditions that allow us tostrike a balance between the commercial interestsconnected with fisheries, aquaculture and thepetroleum industry within the framework of a sus-tainable development.

This Government intends to develop tools andprocesses which help lay the foundations for anoverall policy on the marine environment, i.e. apolicy where the sum of all influences is assessedon the basis of what is known about the structureof the ecosystem, the way in which it functions andits condition. Up until now different kinds of pollu-tion, exploitation of the different species and diffe-rent kinds of interference have been assessed andmanaged in relative isolation. This Government istherefore preparing a future system of manage-ment that will be ecosystem-based and that willextend across all sectors.

Chapter 2 gives an overview of the state of theenvironment in our marine and coastal areas and ofthe challenges ahead. The chapter ends with adescription of how this Government will worktowards an overall and integrated policy on themarine environment.

The overall target can only be reached bystrengthening today’s policy for the areas of grea-test importance for the environment and resourcesituation in the future. Many important playersmust contribute to this work; central, regional andlocal authorities, industry and other organisationssuch as industrial, environmental and other volun-tary organisations.

Chapter 3 contains a report on measures thatwill be introduced by the Government for selectedareas as part of the overall policy on the marineenvironment. Chapter 4 examines the internationaltreaties and processes that have an influence onthe environment and resources in the sea andcoastal areas, while Chapter 5 looks at the econo-mic and administrative consequences.

The marine environment is affected in manydifferent ways and this Parliamentary Report doesnot deal with all areas of concern that might berelevant in a paper of this nature. Chapter 1.3 outli-nes the scope of the report and contains referencesto, inter alia, the Parliamentary Reports on theGovernment’s Environmental Policy and State ofthe Environment.


1.3 Delimitations of the contents in the parliamentary report

In this Parliamentary Report the Government wis-hes to focus on some areas and sources wherethere is a need for new policies, and/or that are notbeen dealt with thoroughly enough in previousreports.

Discharges of nutrients from households, agri-culture and industry are not addressed. The pro-blem of eutrophication is addressed in Parliamen-tary Report No. 24 (2000–2001) on the Govern-ment’s Environmental Policy and the State of theEnvironment (RM). The national target in this areais that discharges of the nutrients phosphorousand nitrogen into areas of the North Sea affected byeutrophication should be reduced by about 50 %between 1985 and 2005. The reduction target hasbeen achieved for phosphorous, but Norway, likethe other North Sea states, has not achieved thereduction target for nitrogen. The national targetfor discharges of nitrogen will be evaluated afterthe Fifth North Sea Conference in March 2002,where the ministers will discuss future goals in thisarea. The Government will get back to the Norwe-gian Parliament (Stortinget) concerning this issuein the next RM.

The marine environment is affected by hazar-dous substances from land-based sources, thepetroleum industry and polluted sediments incoastal and fjord areas. Ambitious targets havebeen adopted for the work on reducing dischargesand the use of chemicals harmful to health and theenvironment. The discharge of chemicals constitu-ting a threat to health and the environment shall bephased out by 2020 (see Parliamentary Report No.58 (1996–97) and No. 24 (2000–2001)); these Parli-amentary Reports also outline strategies and mea-sures adopted to achieve the targets in this area.The work on reducing the discharges of chemicals

from land-based activities which are harmful tohealth and environment is not further addressed inthis report. The discharge of chemicals harmful tohealth and the environment from the petroleumindustry has taken on increased significance interms of the state of the environment in the marineareas. This report therefore contains a descriptionof measures and means for reducing this pressureon the marine environment.

Tidying up after hazardous substances dischar-ged into the coastal and fjord areas in the past con-stitutes a particular challenge in the work toachieve a clean and rich sea. This is a problem areathat offers substantial legal, technological andeconomic challenges. In this report the Govern-ment is therefore proposing an overall strategy forthe future work on this area to ensure sufficientprogress through cleanup operations.

When it comes to shipping, the Governmenthas in this report, chosen to focus on preventivemeasures to reduce the danger of accidents thatmight lead to discharges of oil and subsequentdamage to the environment. The discharge of bal-last water will be treated as a source for intro-duction of alien species. Other kinds of pollutionfrom shipping such as illegal discharges of oil andchemicals are, inter alia, described in Parliamen-tary Report No. 24 (2000–2001).

This report does not address the problem ofmarine litter. This issue will be discussed at theFifth North Sea Conference in March, and theGovernment will return to this subject in the nextRM. When it comes to outdoor life and recreationreference is made to Parliamentary Report No. 39(2000–2001). Climate change that might be of sig-nificance for the state of the sea is not dealt with inthis report. However, reference is made to Parlia-mentary Report No. 54 (2000–2001) on Norwegianclimate policy and to the Government’s supplemen-tary report that will be put forward this spring.


2 Development of comprehensive management system for coastal and maritime areas

2.1 Current state of the environment and trends in the future

2.1.1 Present state of the environment

The global picture: The state of the environment inthe world’s coastal and maritime areas is deteriora-ting constantly as a result of land-based activitiesand activities close to the coasts. As a rule, thedamage to the environment is greatest in coastaland shallow waters close to densely populatedareas where the inputs of most pollutants are attheir height and where physical intervention, dis-

turbance and pressures on living resources aremost extensive. It is also along the coasts and onthe continental shelves that the most productiveecosystems and the most important harvestablestocks and petroleum deposits are to be found.This is why both fishing activities and oil opera-tions are concentrated relatively close to the coastwhere shipping is also at its heaviest. The sea isalso affected by land-based activities located farfrom the coast through input from watercourses,marine currents and airborne pollution. Theseeffects are also greatest in waters close to the coastand in particular near the mouths of rivers, which

Box 2.1 The state of the environment

The North Sea

The state of the environment in the North Seahas improved as far as inputs of heavy metalsfrom land-based activities, oil pollution fromrefineries and oil from drilling activities on thecontinental shelf are concerned. In addition, inp-uts of phosphorus have declined notably.However, the entire North Sea is still pollutedwith organic hazardous substances, mostly inthe southern part, and no clear reduction hasbeen noted in the amounts of polycyclic aroma-tic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCB). More synthetic compoundsare constantly being discovered in the environ-ment and the ecological effects of these are lar-gely unknown. Eutrophication is primarily aproblem in the southern part of the North Sea,but signs of eutrophication have also beenfound in fjords from the Swedish border and asfar as Lindesnes. As to fish stocks in the NorthSea, a number of benthic fish stocks are nowoutside safe biological limits. The cod stocksare in danger of collapse from the fisheriespoint of view due to historically low spawningstocks and poor renewal.

The Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea

The pressure on the Norwegian Sea and theBarents Sea is less than it is further south.However, organic substances toxic to the envi-ronment have been found in fish and sea mam-mals as a result of long-range transport ofpollutants. High levels of organic toxins havebeen measured in the Barents Sea in particularin animals at the top of the food chains. In theBarents Sea the capelin stocks are in goodshape at the moment, although these stocks aresubject to marked fluctuations. The stocks ofNorwegian Arctic cod and blue whiting are out-side biologically safe limits, while the stocks ofNorwegian spring-spawning herring are goodand continue to grow.

Source: OSPAR QSR 2000 Regions I and II, ICES 2001


flow through densely populated industrial and far-ming areas. The open oceans are far less pro-ductive and also far less exposed to human activity.

The UN Expert Group on the Marine Environ-ment (GESAMP) has identified pollution fromland-based sources, destruction of habitats ofmarine species, effects on fisheries and the intro-duction of non-indigenous species as the main thre-ats to the marine environment in the global con-text. Climatic changes caused by human activitymay also have serious consequences for themarine environment, e.g. via changes in tempera-ture, shifts in the major ocean currents, effects onfisheries and rising sea levels.

The regional picture: The scenario of threatsvaries from one area to another. As far as the NorthSea is concerned it is fishing, organic hazardoussubstances and nutrients which emerge as themain factors affecting the environment. But, oilspills, local discharges of heavy metals and organichazardous substances such as tributyltin (TBT)from anti-fouling paints on ships, along with intro-duced species have been identified as significantfactors influencing the environment. By and largethe Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea are lesshard hit. Here it is fisheries and inputs of organichazardous substances transported over long dis-tances that affect the marine ecosystems the most.Local discharges of hazardous substances, such as

Figure 2.1 The map shows the systems of currents in the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea, the Greenland Sea and the Barents Sea. The Gulf Stream, which sweeps into the Norwegian Sea and onwards towards the north is responsible for the whole of the Norwegian Sea and large parts of the Barents Sea remaining free of ice and open for biological production.Source: Havsforskningsinstituttet (Institute of Marine Research, Norway)

BARENTS SEA

NORWEGIANSEA

GREENLANDSEA

Arctic waters

Atlantic waters

Coastal waters

60°Ø40°Ø20°Ø0°20°V50°N

60°N

70°N

80°N


TBTs, and increasing aquaculture in coastal areasare also important factors, while oil spills are apotential hazard in general.

2.1.2 A complex interaction between different factors

A range of different activities and discharges affectthe state of the marine environment in coastalwaters and out to sea. The accumulated load on themarine ecosystems is therefore a result of a widerange of different factors such as eutrophication,discharges of chemicals, contaminated sediments,harvesting of living resources, introduction of non-indigenous species and the physical destruction ofhabitats. Added to all this are the pollutants whichare carried into our areas from outside and activi-ties in other countries which affect the ecosystemsin our areas, e.g. through fishing of joint stocks.

Thus, the state of the environment in the Nor-wegian maritime areas is not merely a product ofour own activities, but also a result of which pollu-tants are swept into Norwegian areas by sea cur-rents or by the wind. It also depends on how weinteract with other nations in respect of commonresources.

The state of the marine environment is gover-ned by a complex pattern of interaction between anatural interplay and variation in the ecosystemsand effects caused by human activity. Impact onjust one component will produce consequences inother parts of the ecosystem even though theactual effects may often be difficult to discern. Ifkey species, i.e. species on which many links in thechain depend, are negatively affected, this can leadto changes in the entire system.

2.1.3 The individual industries and sectors are facing major challenges

The North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the BarentsSea are among the most prolific marine areas in theworld. Fishing and the catches of fish along withaquaculture are of vital importance as a source ofincome in the communities along the Norwegiancoast. The fishing industry is dependent uponrenewable, but not unlimited resources. This iswhy it is important to develop management strate-gies, which take account of the ecosystem as awhole and of how the fish stocks are influenced bya variety of environmental factors and by fishingactivities. A clean sea and sustainable outtake ofthe living marine resources is a sine qua non if thegeneration of revenue in the fishing industry is to

be maintained and increased and is thus an impor-tant part of the coastal population’s basis for exis-tence.

Outtake leads to a change in the dynamics ofstocks and of the ecosystems. Most of the species,which are of importance to our economy, have theability to adapt to difference types of effects. Pro-ductivity does in fact increase in the presence of amoderate load in that the individual fish grow morequickly and start reproducing at a younger age.But, when the pressure on the fish exceeds a cer-tain level, the stocks are no longer in a position toadapt and the situation becomes one of overload.By-catches are a problem both in commercial fishe-ries and for individual populations of sea birds andmarine mammals. In addition, there are effects onecosystems in the form of damage to the seabed.Overfishing is regarded as a major problem in theglobal context and the UN Food and AgricultureOrganisation, the FAO, has estimated that between15 and 18 % of the world’s fish stocks are beingoverfished. If something is not done to reduce theamount of overfishing, catches from these stockswill shrink considerably.

Present-day fisheries management is based onthe main principle of sustainable fishing activitybased on the best available scientific advice. One ofthe major problems is that the overall, global fish-ing capacity far exceeds available resources. Thisovercapacity is perhaps the main force drivingoverfishing. Overcapacity is a problem even in Nor-way. In general, the fishing fleet is too large in rela-tion to the resources available.

As much as 90 % of Norway’s fisheries involvestocks shared with other countries. This meansthat the Norwegian authorities cannot decree howthese stocks are to be managed on their own andinstead have to co-operate with other nations inthis regard.

The central environmental challenges in termsof fisheries management are linked to improvingour basic knowledge of management, implementa-tion of ecosystem-based management, includingapplication of the precautionary principle, limita-tions on by-catches and damage to important areasof the seabed and more effective enforcement ofregulations.

Over the past 30 years farming of salmon andtrout has grown into an industry with an exportvalue of over 13 billion Norwegian kroner. Aqua-culture is a growth industry in Norway and of vitalimportance to the development of the coastalareas. It is our long coastline and our clean waterswhich together with the wild salmon stocks formthe basis for this branch of activity. Only by


maintaining our marine environment clean can weensure the production of safe and good foodstuffs.It is therefore in the interests of Norwegian aqua-culture to ensure good conditions for fish and shell-fish to grow along the Norwegian coast. Theindustry has been faced with major environmentalchallenges which to a large extent have been dealtwith through development of this branch. But,when it comes to the actual environment there arestill quite a few challenges. Primarily, it is a ques-tion of managing the effects of the fish farms ontheir immediate environment, the run away of fishfrom the farms, and the occurrence and spread ofsalmon lice.

The world market for fish and other seafood ishighly sensitive to rumours of pollution, forinstance radioactive pollution. Even though thelevels of radioactive pollution in Norwegian watersare low, it indicates the presence of unwanted sub-stances. The nuclear reprocessing plant in Sella-field is the main source of radioactive pollutiontoday, but there is also a risk of accidents whichcan lead to radioactive pollution from nuclearinstallations, nuclear-powered vessels and vesselscarrying radioactive materials through watersclose to Norway’s coasts. At international levelNorway is active in trying to get reductions in dis-charges of radioactive pollutants into the marineenvironment and in trying to limit the risks ofnuclear accidents which could contaminate Norwe-gian maritime areas. The fishery authorities moni-tor the presence of alien substances in Norwegianfish and seafood on an ongoing basis as part of theimportant work being done on documenting thegood quality of Norwegian seafood. Monitoring ofthe marine environment is of vital importance inthis regard.

The spread of species to areas where they donot occur naturally has become much more com-mon over the past decade. At the same time we areseeing more and more examples of how this canhave major effects on ecosystems and on indi-genous species along with serious consequencesfor the branches which use the living resources.Examples from Norwegian waters are the intro-duction of the harmful Chatonella spp. of planktonalgae, which was probably introduced via ballastwater from ships arriving from Asia, and the proli-feration of American lobster which could supplantthe indigenous stocks. Although we have been spa-red the most dramatic consequences in Norwegianwaters so far, it is becoming increasingly clear thatnon-indigenous species are a major threat even inNorway. There is therefore an urgent need todevelop means of reducing the negative effects.

Large amounts of numerous chemicals weknow to be harmful to the environment and alsopotentially detrimental to health, are still being dis-charged into the environment and are a source ofconcern. Even though we have engineered consi-derable reductions in discharges of known hazar-dous substances into our seas and coastal areas,these substances will continue to be present in thenatural environment in concentrations whichrepresent a threat to the ecosystems. This is attri-buted to the fact that many of these hazardous sub-stances are only marginally degradable and caneasily be stored in food chains in our seas. Thismeans that they will remain a threat to the ecosys-tems for many decades to come, even if dischargescease entirely. It is impossible to fix safe levels orlimits of tolerance for hazardous substances in thenatural environment. Discharges of these substan-ces must therefore be stopped completely.

Discharges of toxic substances into Norwegianwaters occur both from local, land-based sources,from petroleum exploitation operations and fromvessels. However, they are also to a large extentbrought to us by the wind and by marine currentsafter having been discharged in other parts of theworld. If we are to succeed in stopping these inputsof environmental toxins into our marine areas, wewill have to find solutions at international level, andwe must therefore focus on international co-opera-tion in this area.

In the case of most chemicals we lack basicknowledge of their effects on health and on theenvironment. We know even less about how theyinfluence the environment either alone or wheninteracting with other substances. We need toknow much more about this in order to be able toobtain a full picture of the challenges facing us. Forthe sake of the environment it is particularly impor-tant to establish which substances are only margi-nally degradable and are easily stored in the foodchain since these properties give the substancesthe potential to inflict long-term damage on theenvironment of the type we have experiencedfrom, for instance, PCBs. In addition, there are theendocrine disrupters, which can affect the repro-ductive capacity of fish and marine mammals, andwe need to learn more about these.

Discharges over a long period of time have cau-sed sediments in a number of coastal areas andfjords to currently exhibit extremely high concen-trations of environmental toxins. This type of pollu-tion damages the environment in the areas concer-ned and also limits the use of many areas for thepurposes of fishing and aquaculture. Furthermore,contaminated sediments represent a threat to


other areas since environmental pollutants canspread and contaminate them as well. Up to now,high priority has been given to stopping fresh dis-charges of environmental pollutants. We must con-tinue to give high priority to work on these issues,but at the same time it is important to get started onthe extensive cleanup operations necessary toensure that the environment is in an acceptablecondition in all of Norway’s coastal areas.

Oil pollution in Norwegian waters have theirorigins both in normal drilling operations and inaccidental discharges from platforms, along withshipping and land-based sources. The oil industryis constantly expanding to cover new parts of ourmaritime areas and even to sensitive environmentsclose to the coast. At the same time, operationaldischarges of oil and chemicals are on the increasewithout our knowing enough about their long-termeffects on the environment. This can give rise to agrowing conflict of interests between fisheries inte-rests and those anxious to protect the environ-ment. The big challenge is to reduce the operatio-nal discharges of oil and chemicals harmful to theenvironment and to improve our knowledge of theeffects of these discharges. It is also important tolimit territorial conflicts and the risk of damage tostocks and vulnerable areas.

Shipping is an important source of major oilspills via accidents and through illegal discharges.Major oil spills from shipping often occur close toland in vulnerable areas, and in the future tankerswill be carrying large amounts of crude oil fromNorth-western Russia and travelling close to theNorwegian coast. Together with increased interestin petroleum exploitation in the Barents Sea, thiscalls for preventive measures and preparedness foremergencies in order to limit damage. Thisdemands close co-operation with the Russian aut-horities. But, in the Barents Sea region there islimited scope for effective protection against oilspills during the dark part of the year. There is alsoa great deal of tanker traffic connected with our oilrefineries and oil terminals in Southern Norway. Aconsiderable increase in shipping from Russia andthe Baltic States is also expected through thestraits of Øresund and Store Belt. In the light of therecent spate of shipwrecks and the expectedincrease in transports of environmentally hazar-dous cargoes, for instance cargoes of oil, along theNorwegian coast, it is clearly necessary to improvethe safety and response systems in place along thecoast.

Thanks to our long coastline and in places lowpopulation density we still have areas along ourcoasts, which have been little affected by human

activity. But, in Norway too there is still considera-ble pressure on areas in the coastal zone near tothe most densely populated areas. Conflicts bet-ween different users are also increasing. We havealso left our mark on the seabed. It is estimatedthat between one third and half of the deep-watercoral reefs to be found along the Norwegian coasthave been either damaged or destroyed as a resultof bottom trawling.

Important results have been achieved both nati-onally and internationally to protect the maritimeand coastal areas from environmental damage.Substantial reductions have been made in our owndischarges of substances hazardous to the environ-ment and of nutrients, and at international levelwork has been started on drawing up global andregional regulations designed to reduce dischar-ges of pollutants into the sea. Similarly, progresshas been made at both national and internationallevel in providing better protection for livingmarine resources. But, even though much hasbeen achieved there are still major problems whichneed to be solved, problems linked to pollution,physical intervention and management of livingresources.

More details are given in Chapter 3 of the chal-lenges we face in different areas and how theGovernment intends to deal with them in thefuture.

2.2 Need for more comprehensive management

The above shows how important it is to carry out athorough assessment of how we manage ourcoastal and maritime areas, if we want to achievethe goal of having clean waters full of marine life.

2.2.1 Need for better co-ordination of different areas of interests

More and more use is being made of coastal andmaritime areas throughout the world and thisapplies to Norway too. The range of activities affec-ting the environment is increasing and measures tocounter their influence are often introduced wit-hout sufficient knowledge of the correlations bet-ween loads and their effects on the ecosystems.Given the growth in fish farming activities thedemand for space will also increase. We are witnes-sing a generalised increase in activities in thecoastal and maritime areas and there is thus anincreased risk of conflicts over use of space availa-


ble. The oil industry is moving closer to shore andmore vulnerable areas. Shipping along the Norwe-gian coast is on the increase, thus increasing therisk of accidents. We now also know more aboutthe vulnerability of our marine and coastal environ-ment. All this means that conflicts between diffe-rent user interests will increase in the years tocome.

Traditionally, various forms of pollution, out-take of different species and different types of inter-vention have been assessed and managed in afairly isolated way and without taking account ofthe fact that the existing ecosystems and speciesare prey to a range of other environmental effects.At national level each sector draws up its ownpolicy for the coastal and maritime areas, and thispolicy is very much influenced by sectoral andindustrial interests. What the different policieshave in common is that they influence the environ-ment in a way that is of significance to many otherlegitimate interests. Most users do neverthelessconsider the environment to a greater or lesserdegree, but there is little co-ordination of measuresintroduced in the different sectors. Takentogether, the implementation of these plans canlead to overload on the environment and overex-ploitation of resources.

It is neither possible nor practical for all sectorsand users to have a comprehensive picture of howtheir activities influence other sectors and activi-ties or ecosystems in the broader sense. This iswhy it is important for the authorities to put thingsright and ensure that activities and interventions inthe coastal and maritime areas are governed by anoverall plan whereby every operation is not asses-sed isolatedly, but as part of the whole range ofimpacts and interactions.

The increasing level of conflict and the need forbetter co-ordination is also a typical problem at theinternational level. The EU has adopted a fram-ework directive on water, which focuses on theneed for more co-ordinated management of waterresources. The different countries are to developintegrated management plans accompanied byspecific programmes of action for each individualwater district based on environmental qualityobjectives. Norwegian compliance with the direc-tive is described in Chapter 2.3.2.

Many of the marine resources in the maritimeareas under Norwegian jurisdiction are sharedwith other countries. The international agreementsset out overall objectives for how the resources areto be managed. The principle of sustainable useand a precautionary approach are of central impor-tance. More precise objectives as to how the fish

stocks are to be managed are, however, not set outin international agreements.

It is important to establish an overall system forco-ordination of activities to ensure integratedmanagement of our seas and coastal areas. All sec-toral authorities and other interested parties mustco-operate in co-ordinating the management exer-cise. Integrated environmental protection policymust face up to both national and internationalchallenges and ensure that international environ-ment protection efforts tally with national.

Furthermore, organisation of work in indivi-dual target areas needs to be reviewed in order toimprove its effect. An obvious example is organisa-tion of safety and emergency routines along thecoast. The way in which things are organised todayis fragmented and not effective. A number of autho-rities are responsible for different preventive mea-sures, while measures to repair damage are in thehands of other authorities. Better co-ordinationbetween the different sectors and levels of theadministration is needed.

2.2.2 A lot at stake …

The abundant biological diversity and productioncapacity of our coastal and marine areas must bemanaged in a manner which preserves them forfuture generations. Lost diversity can seldom berestored and lost production capacity can only bebuilt up again slowly or if at all. This should be aprincipal consideration when setting the basic con-ditions for all forms of activity, which may have anegative effect on maritime and coastal areas.

The value of marine and coastal areas has tradi-tionally been estimated on the basis of the scopethey offer for utilization of resources, whether thisbe in terms of extraction of oil or catches of fish. Itis possible to calculate such values, but Box 2.2shows that biological diversity is associated with arange of other values which cannot so easily be cal-culated in monetary terms. For instance, it is diffi-cult to put a price on what may be termed «ecologi-cal services».

2.2.3 The ecosystem approach to management of maritime and coastal areas

The Government takes the view that co-ordinationbetween different authorities must be increased ifwe are to achieve our goal of having clean seas richin marine life. The Government is therefore prepa-ring a plan for total and integrated management ofour maritime and coastal areas based on the eco-


system approach. This is necessary in order toensure that the accumulated effect on the environ-ment in the long term is not greater than what thestructure of the ecosystems, the way in which theyfunction and their biological diversity can tolerate.

Ecosystem-based management of the marineenvironment means management which takesaccount of the basic conditions set by the ecosys-tem itself in order to maintain production and con-

serve biological diversity. The concept of the «eco-system approach» has been developed and integra-ted into a number of international agreements overthe past 10 years and is, for instance, a central ele-ment in complying with the convention on biologi-cal diversity. General criteria have also beendeveloped in connection with this convention forthe implementation of ecosystem-based manage-ment (the Malawi principles), which Norway hasendorsed.

In 1997 the Ministers responsible for fisheriesand environmental protection meeting in Bergenreached agreement on further integration of mea-sures within the area of fisheries management andenvironmental protection through the develop-ment and use of the ecosystem approach. Theyalso agreed that any such ecosystem approachwould be based on co-operation between the autho-rities in different sectors, on getting the necessaryresearch started, on assessing the effects of humaninfluence on the ecosystems and on organising theintegration of these various aspects. The authori-ties in the countries around the North Sea wereasked to analyse progress and remaining problemsfor the implementation of this type of managementand to report to the Fifth North Sea Conference tobe held in Bergen in March 2002.

Subsequently, the principle of ecosystem-basedmanagement was integrated into work being donewithin the framework of the OSPAR Convention onthe Protection of the Marine Environment in theNortheast Atlantic and the EU’s new water fram-ework directive.

The Government intends to build on what hasalready been done in this area and on other globaland regional conventions and agreements desig-ned to establish frameworks for ecosystem-basedmanagement of the Norwegian coastal and mari-time areas.

Box 2.2 Values linked to biological diver-sity

– Direct utility value: Value realised throughthe use of biological resources for the pur-poses of nutrition, medicines, stimulants,art, clothing, building and fuel, plus theuse of the natural environment for play,recreation, open air activities, tourism,education and research.

– Indirect utility value: Value in the form oflife-supporting processes and ecologicalservices such as biological production, soilimprovement, purification of water and air,water management, local and global cli-mate, the circulation of carbon, nitrogenand other substances, ecological stabilityand the capacity of nature to attenuate theeffects of overload from pollutants, floodsand drought. These values are an absoluteprerequisite for human existence andeconomic activity.

– Potential value: Value which has not beenexploited or which is not known. Suchvalues comprise both direct and indirectvalues listed above and are, inter alia,associated with the use of unexploitedgenetic resources both for the purpose oftraditional types of processing and forgenetic engineering to produce new pro-ducts with a direct utility value.

– Intellectual value: A value which has anethical or moral origin, e.g. linked to thedesire to know that a species actuallyexists, to the opportunities and quality oflife of future generations and to the desireto conserve the landscape and natural sur-roundings as part of our cultural heritageand memories.

Box 2.3 Ecosystem approach

The ecosystem approach to management ofthe seas involves integrated management ofhuman activities based on the dynamics ofthe ecosystems. The goal is to achieve sustai-nable use of resources and goods derivedfrom the ecosystems and to preserve theirstructure, modus operandi and productivity.


2.2.4 Sectoral responsibility and the need for co-ordination

We still have a long way to go in terms of being ableto implement the ecosystem approach to manage-ment as an overall principle across all sectors anddifferent factors affecting the environment. A cen-tral element in the Government’s policy of environ-mental protection is sectoral responsibility andtrade and industry’s own responsibility. Chapter 2

in Parliamentary Report No. 24 (2000–2001)«Government Environmental Policy and the Stateof the Environment» contains a general outline ofthe system chosen to steer the course of the coun-try’s environmental protection policy.

Sectoral responsibility means that sectoral aut-horities and the different branches of trade andindustry are independently responsible for inclu-ding environmental considerations in the organisa-tion of activities which affect the environment in

Figure 2.2 Biological diversity in the southeastern part of the North Sea. The figure shows the relative decline in the incidence of different species of fish and seabed organisms from 1950 (outer circle) up until 1980 (inner circle)Source: Rumohr et al., 1998

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Swim

min

g crab

Spindle shell Dahlia squid

European squid

Sea urchin

Whelk

Com

mon

whe

lk

Edib

le c

rab

Euro

pea

n lo

bst

er

Sting ray

Dog fish

Common skate

Angler

Smooth hound

Roke

r

Gre

ater

wee

ver

1950 1960 1970 1980

Lesser octapus


maritime and coastal areas and that they thereforemust integrate environmental factors into theirown management. The Ministry of Fisheries, theMinistry of Petroleum and Energy and theMinistry of Trade and Industry are pivotal minis-tries in this respect and have a special responsibi-lity for central measures and policies within impor-tant sectors such as fishing, aquaculture, petro-leum exploitation and shipping. A prerequisite ifsectoral responsibility is to work in practice is forthere to be common, national goals and a distinctdivision of responsibility between the different aut-horities.

The Ministry of the Environment has the mainresponsibility for national goals, steering systemsand follow-up of results in the field of environmen-tal protection policy. This Ministry also has animportant co-ordinating function vis-à-vis theministries responsible for the different sectors.Implementation of co-ordinated environmentalprotection policy for the maritime and coastal areasmust be firmly anchored in this system.

2.3 The Government’s plan for total management

The Government intends:– to establish an integrated plan for management

of the Barents Sea;– to develop integrated plans for management of

waters close to the coast and in the fjords pur-suant to the EU water framework directive; and

– to introduce a long-term policy focussed on eco-system-based management of coastal and mari-time areas which is based, inter alia, on envi-ronmental quality goals for the ecosystems.

This chapter deals with the overall policy that theGovernment wants to initiate to develop a moreintegrated and ecosystem-based form of manage-ment. The Government takes the view that thegeneral pool of knowledge on Norway’s marineand coastal environment is sufficient to allow us tostart the processes necessary to carry out compre-hensive analyses and develop management plansas a tool for more integrated and comprehensivemanagement. With regard to the maritime areas,the Government wants to start with an initiativeaimed at drawing up an integrated managementplan for the Barents Sea. In the case of the coastalareas the work will be carried out as part of comp-lying with the new EU water framework directive.The framework directive, which will be part of theEEA Agreement, requires the development of total

management plans, including for the coastal areas.Parallel to this, the Government will be speedingup work on improving the basic reserve of informa-tion available, through, inter alia, monitoring andresearch with a view to developing a more compre-hensive and long-term system for ecosystem-basedmanagement of human activities affecting themarine and coastal environment. Norway will beplacing great emphasis on international co-opera-tion in this area.

2.3.1 An integrated management plan for the Barents Sea

The Government aims to have integrated manage-ment plans established for the Norwegian waterswhich fix clear basic conditions for the use andprotection of the coastal and maritime areas. Theseplans must have sustainable development as a cen-tral objective, and management of the ecosystemsmust be based on the precautionary principle andbe implemented with respect for the limits thatnature can tolerate. An important element will bethe ecosystem approach including the establish-ment of environment quality objectives. A generaldescription of the structure of such plans is givenin Chapter 2.3.3.

Work on drawing up ecosystem-based manage-ment plans for maritime areas is a necessary stepin order to ensure a more co-ordinated manage-ment of the maritime areas and the resourcesthere. This is why it is necessary to move forwardstep by step and to learn from experience along theway. As a first step the Government envisages dra-wing up an integrated management plan for theBarents Sea where overall account is to be taken ofthe environment, fishing activities, oil operationsand shipping. Experience gained from this workcan then be used as a basis for a decision todevelop similar, integrated management plans forthe Norwegian Sea and the North Sea.

There are many reasons why the Governmentwants to start with the Barents Sea and to establishframeworks for future activities in this area whichensure the preservation of the quality of the envi-ronment. This is a maritime area, which is exposedto human activities to a relatively small extent. It isone of the areas in the world, which has the mostabundant populations of fish, sea birds and marinemammals that it is important to preserve for futuregenerations. Many of the stocks merit internatio-nal protection. The main characteristics of the eco-systems are known, but we know very little abouthow pollutants affect species and systems. Lowtemperatures and drift ice mean a lengthy degrada-


tion period for oil and chemicals discharged intothe environment. These factors, along with highwaves at times during the dark season of the yearconsiderably reduce the scope for effective sys-tems to deal with acute oil pollution. A weakerinfrastructure in the provinces of Nord-Troms andFinnmark than that found in other parts of thecountry also makes it more difficult to deal withemergencies.

Before the southern part of the Barents Sea wasopened up for petroleum exploitation in 1989 a sur-vey was carried out to assess what the consequen-ces of this would be. This was the first area-specificinvestigation of possible consequences of petro-leum exploitation on the Norwegian continentalshelf since the advent of the Oil Act of 1985 and ledto time limits being fixed for prospecting drillingoperations out of consideration for vulnerable natu-ral resources. Pursuant to legislation this surveyonly covered the consequences of prospecting foroil and not the consequences of any extraction ope-rations.

The Government takes the view that bettertools need to be developed to make it possible tostrike the right balance between the different areasof interests linked to the Barents Sea. This can bestbe achieved by drawing up an integrated manage-ment plan based on the impact assessments for thedifferent sectors. As far as the oil industry is con-cerned this will involve an impact assessment ofyear-round oil operations for the area stretchingfrom the Lofoten Islands and northwards fromthere. Parallel to this, work is to be started onimpact assessments, for instance, shipping, fishingand fish farming activities. These surveys will iden-tify and assess problems caused by the overalleffect of human activities on the maritime area.Each sector will have to describe its own field ofactivity and expected development and map out theconsequences for the ecosystems and for other sta-keholders in society. In that context it will also beimportant to establish where we need to knowmore, which areas are vulnerable etc.

The management plan is to cover the entireBarents Sea and the analysis of the consequencesof the petroleum exploitation is to include a reas-sessment of existing knowledge of the wholeBarents Sea area. However, it is not the intention ofthe Government to trigger a process which opensup the North Barents Sea for petroleum exploita-tion.

The main aim of the plan is to help achieve con-sensus among different trade and industry inte-rests, local, regional and central authorities, envi-ronment protection organisations and other stake-

holders on the management of this maritime areain accordance with the principle of sustainabledevelopment. The integrated management plandrawn up by the authorities will create an overallframework, but will need to be supplemented bymore detailed plans for the individual sectors, e.g.for the oil industry, fisheries, shipping and so on.

Close co-operation with Russia will be neces-sary and also important when carrying out surveysto chart the consequences since this maritime areais shared with Russia. The issue has already beenraised bilaterally in connection with co-operationbetween Norway and Russia on the environmentand will also be raised in the context of the Norwe-gian-Russian Fisheries Commission and the Nor-wegian-Russian Forum on Energy and the Environ-ment.

The Government plans to set up a steeringgroup comprising representatives of the ministriesconcerned under the leadership of the Ministry ofthe Environment which is to co-ordinate the dra-wing up of the integrated management plan. It isessential that authorities and other interested par-ties in this part of the country become involved inthe work, and the Government intends to makesure that procedures are established that takeaccount of this requirement in an appropriate man-ner. Fishing is part of the basic way of life of theSame people (Lapps) in the areas they occupyalong the coast and fjords adjacent to the BarentsSea. The Lapp Parliament (Sametinget) will there-fore be involved in the work.

Drawing up the management plan will be a bigand demanding job. First, there must be a tho-rough assessment of the different interests to betaken into account via the sectoral impact assess-ments. This process will obviously take some time,but the Government aims to give this work highpriority to ensure that an integrated managementplan is in place as soon as possible. The Govern-ment will report to Stortinget on the work via theParliamentary Reports on the Government’s envi-ronment protection policy and the state of the envi-ronment throughout the country.

A follow-up system will be established for themanagement plan to ensure that it is up-dated asneeded, e.g. in the light of new findings emergingthrough monitoring and research. The plan will fixthe basic conditions for activities in the area, and itis important that these conditions are as predicta-ble as possible for the individual branches.

The total management plan for the Barents Seawill thus be the first integrated management planfor the Norwegian maritime areas. The plan nowabout to be drawn up must therefore be viewed as


a first-generation plan which will also help us togain useful experience which can be called upon infuture work on similar plans (cf. Chapter 2.3.3).

2.3.2 Integrated management of the maritime areas and parts of fjords close to the coast

An obligation to carry out more comprehensiveand integrated management of the maritime areasand parts of fjords close to the coast is alreadyenshrined in the European Parliament and CouncilDirective 2000/60/EC on the establishment of aframework for the Community’s water policy (thewater framework directive). The directive is desig-ned to conserve, protect and improve existingwater resources and the aquatic environment,while also ensuring sustainable aquaculture. Aseries of directives and international conventionsexist whose purpose it is to protect water resourcesand the aquatic environment. The frameworkdirective creates a superstructure for all thesedirectives and provides guidance on how watershould be managed within the European Commu-nity. The directive is viewed as one of the mostimportant parts of the community legislation onprotection of the environment. The directive cameinto force on 22 December 2000 and must be trans-posed into Norwegian legislation by virtue of theEEA Agreement by the end of 2003.

Watercourses, groundwater and coastal watersup to one nautical mile outside the baseline fall wit-hin the scope of the directive. Implementation ofthe directive will therefore be an important ele-ment in the management of waters close to thecoast. The main objective of the directive is toprotect and where necessary improve the quality ofthe water by 2015. All forms of use must be sustai-nable over time. Each country must divide its waterresources into districts to be responsible for thetotal rainfall area including the adjoining coastalarea; they will be known as catchment areas. Thedirective requires that water resources be chartedand monitored. Specific environmental goals mustbe fixed for water, and by 2009 a management planfor each catchment area must have been drawn up.The management plans must be accompanied by aprogram of action setting out the measures whichmust be introduced in order to meet the objectives.The management must be based on environmentgoals defined in the light of both chemical and bio-logical factors in the watercourses and in sea areas.The directive presupposes that plans will be drawnup via a broad-based process involving authoritiesand professional and industrial bodies. The work

on trying to achieve the objectives fixed in thedirective will also indirectly affect the rights andobligations of private individuals. Managementplans, trends in water quality, organisational solu-tions etc. must be reported to the EFTA supervi-sory authority, the ESA.

The directive also aims at increasing protectionof the aquatic environment from pollution by sub-stances toxic to the environment. In the case of pri-ority substances present on a list adopted by theEuropean Parliament and the Council, harmonisedstandards for water quality, necessary limitationson discharges and product-specific measures willapply at community level. The first version of thislist comprising 33 priority substances and groupsof substances was adopted in November 2001. Dis-charges of the substances with the highest prioritymust be phased out within 20 years following theirinclusion on the list. Discharges of the other sub-stances on the list are to be progressively reducedto bring concentrations below the levels in the qua-lity standards currently being drawn up for water,sediments and biota.

The Government regards the EU water fram-ework directive as an important instrument forachieving a more comprehensive and integratedtype of ecosystem-based management of areasclose to the coast in that management of waterco-urses and land and sea areas in the coastal zone isseen in an overall context and based on environ-mental objectives. The Government is at presentconsidering how the directive can best be appliedin Norway. The Ministry of the Environment, theMinistry of Petroleum and Energy, the Ministry ofFisheries, the Ministry of Agriculture and theMinistry of Health are now together assessing howto divide up responsibility, tasks and duties. Aninter-directorate group has been set up to helpingthe ministries in this work. It is made up of repre-sentatives of the Norwegian Pollution Control Aut-hority, the Directorate for Nature Management,the Norwegian Watercourses and Energy Directo-rate, the Norwegian Food Control Authority, theNorwegian Institute of Public Health, the Directo-rate of Fisheries, the National Coastal Administra-tion and the agricultural authorities under the aus-pices of the Ministry of Agriculture. The Govern-ment plans to circulate a presentation of theconsequences for Norway of implementing thedirective for public comment this year. In addition,the authorities concerned, professional circles andorganisations have been asked to comment onissues with administrative and professional conno-tations in connection with implementation of theframework directive.


In asking for comments the Government isanxious to focus in particular on the requirementsthe directive makes of authorities to implement inthe short term. By 2003 Norway must have dividedits territory into catchment areas, designated com-petent authorities and transposed the provisions ofthe directive into Norwegian legislation. By 2004Norway must have established a register of all theareas in each catchment area, which require spe-cial protection, and produced a description of thecharacteristics of each catchment area. The hea-ring document will also refer to the requirementsthe directive makes of the authorities in the longerterm up until 2015, but here a number of issues stillneed to be clarified; for instance, shaping of envi-ronmental objectives, establishing managementplans, programmes of action and monitoring plans.

The directive requires the introduction of totalwater management on the basis of catchmentareas, and this is something which will have conse-quences for the current system of water manage-ment in Norway. The system of water managementin place today is the product of specifically Norwe-gian circumstances. This system works well inmany areas, but can seem fragmented and not upto optimum standard in other areas. Compliancewith the directive will help generate more compre-hensive and planned management of water resour-ces and a much better basis for decisions.

In seeking to achieve the environmental objec-tives the point of reference has to be the catchmentareas, and the directive requires administrativeunits which coincide with the boundaries of thecatchment areas, thus cutting across current muni-cipal and country boundaries. The directive meansthat management by the authorities will cut acrossestablished lines of demarcation between authori-ties and administrative services at regional andnational level. The authorities responsible at dis-trict and local levels will be given a number ofimportant responsibilities; for example in connec-tion with describing, monitoring, planning andimplementing measures. The directive imposes adivision into districts, which are also responsiblefor total rainfall in the adjoining coastal zone.

This directive is a minimum directive and theindividual countries are at liberty to introducemore stringent provisions or a higher level of ambi-tion than the directive itself requires. It specifies ahigh level of ambition in terms of development ofwater resources, while at the same time containingprovision for exceptions. The authorities in theindividual countries have considerable room formanoeuvre. Initially compliance with the directivemay call for measures and restrictions in a number

of areas. The detailed specification of the environ-mental objectives will come towards 2009, thedeadline for having the management plans inplace, along with the specific basis for decisions inthe form of measures, benefits and costs.

2.3.3 More about the work on ecosystem-based management of our maritime and coastal areas

As has already been pointed out in the above, theGovernment’s long-term objective is to developintegrated management plans for our coastal andmaritime areas based on the present state of theecosystems and with the focus on the ecosystems’capacity for self-renewal in order to avoid damage.Management plans drawn up to comply with thewater directive (cf. Chapter 2.3.2) will be of a diffe-rent nature and involve a different procedure thanthe management plans to be drawn up for the mari-time areas. This is mainly due to the fact that theplans drawn up for compliance with the waterdirective must follow the systems laid down in thedirective.

The technical basis must be improved via rese-arch into different loads and the establishment ofenvironment quality objectives, which can be veri-fied a posteriori. Monitoring of the environmentmust be co-ordinated so as to produce the best pos-sible overview of environmental status and chan-ges in the condition of the environment.

The Government presupposes that the integra-ted management plans for the maritime areas willbe drawn up as an open procedure, as is also thecase with the plans pursuant to the water directive,and will involve co-operation between all the sec-tors, branches of trade and industry and other sta-keholders concerned. This will ensure consensuson the general direction and reduce the scope forconflicts between different areas of interests.

International co-operation will be of central sig-nificance both with regard to the management ofcommon maritime areas like the North Sea interms of exchange of experience and joint furtherdevelopment of tools for steering the process.

The integrated management plans for the mari-time areas will use the sectoral surveys of consequ-ences to provide a basis for the establishment ofprotected areas and offer general guidelines foractivities in the maritime areas. The plans shouldalso co-ordinate follow-up of activities and measu-res and provide guidelines for monitoring of themarine environment. It should, however, be theministries responsible for the different sectors,which have responsibility for drawing up specific


management plans for how to achieve the objecti-ves in the total plan and follow up activities in theirsector. The ministries’ environmental action planswill be of central importance here. Similarly, autho-rities and branches of trade and industry at locallevel must also be involved. In this way the mana-gement plans will provide a total, overall systeminvolving all operators and where the latter assumeresponsibility of achieving objectives and results intheir respective areas.

Even though it is not expected that the planswill have legislative repercussions, it is essentialthat they should be able to fix predictable basicconditions for activities and initiatives. At the sametime, there must be nothing to prevent the condi-tions being changed subsequently, if this is neces-sary in order to ensure that there is no seriousdamage to the environment. A central feature ofthe plans will be that they must divulge gaps inknowledge and highlight areas where researchand initiatives are needed.

2.3.3.1 Basic know-how

There are still many gaps in what we know aboutthe structure of the marine ecosystems and theway in which they work. We need to learn more ifwe are to be able to strike the right balances andmake the right choices.

The Government intends:– to ensure better national co-ordination of work

being done by state institutions and private ope-rators in the field of regular stocktaking andreporting on status, including assessingwhether one institution should be given speci-fic responsibility for co-ordinating and viewingliving marine resources and the marine envi-ronment in an overall context;

– to increase, compile and improve access to dataon the marine ecosystems:– by considering the implementation of the

project entitled «Marine mapping anddevelopment of an area database for theNorwegian coastal and maritime areas«(MAREANO);

– by introducing a requirement whereby allrelevant environmental data obtained frompublicly funded research projects and frommonitoring activities imposed by the publicsector must be made accessible; and

– by establishing national programmes forcharting and monitoring biological diver-sity, including setting up a national speciesdatabase;

– to arrange for co-ordinated collection of dataand investigate the setting up of common data-bases for the purposes of monitoring and rese-arch;

– to intensify and co-ordinate monitoring effortsin the maritime and coastal areas within theexisting budgetary framework via better co-ordination of available staff and vessels resour-ces, including assessment of common shippingpool covering all Norwegian vessels used formarine and fisheries research;

– to carry out research work in Norwegian mari-time areas in order to learn more about thestructure and workings of these ecosystemsand the effect of human activities on them; and

– to support the implementation of a researchprogramme on the ecosystems in the NorthSea in collaboration with the EU and the otherriverine states around the North Sea with theaim of improving basic knowledge on which tofound an ecosystem approach to management.

Research provides knowledge of and insight intothe structure of the ecosystems, their modus ope-randi and the correlations with human activitiesand their effects. Monitoring provides up-to-dateinformation on the current situation in the physi-cal, chemical and biological marine environment.Over time, monitoring provides time series of datawhich document changes in the marine environ-ment, both natural changes and changes caused byman. What we learn from research and the infor-mation obtained from monitoring lays the founda-tions for assessments of status, trends and fore-casts of future developments in our seas.

Knowing more about our marine species andhabitats is a vital prerequisite for differentiatedarea management. In the international sphere agreat deal of attention is being directed towardsthis field, and countries such as Australia, Canadaand the USA are running major national program-mes designed to chart marine habitats in theirmaritime areas.

Norway has large maritime areas within its ter-ritory. There are, however, serious gaps in what weknow about their status, while we also have greatexpectations in terms of possibilities for use. Thisis why it is important to increase our general know-ledge of these areas while also obtaining a moredetailed picture of the correlations between thephysical environment, the abundance of speciesand the biological resources. It will also be impor-tant for Norway to learn more about the potentialfor use of our biological diversity.


A group made up of a wide range of state direc-torates and research institutions has developed theMAREANO project. This project entails essentialstudies and charting of depths, seabed types, geo-logical conditions, pollution, types of environment,biological diversity and marine biology resourcesin selected areas. The information is to be madeavailable via an internet-based marine area data-base (GIS). The database will also contain informa-tion on other sources of data and links to them. TheGovernment will be carrying out an assessment ofthe MAREANO project with a view to making it acentral component in the pool of data to be used forthe management of our coastal and maritime areas.

The Norwegian Marine Data Centre (NorskMarint Datasenter – NMD) is attached to the Insti-tute of Marine Research (Havforskningsinstituttet– HI) and plays a role in co-ordinating surveys andstoring data on the marine environment. It isimportant for data on the marine environment andliving resources obtained via research projects tobe made available for use in overall assessments ofthe status of the marine ecosystems. In the case ofresearch projects financed by public funds it will bea requirement that relevant environmental dataobtained through the projects be made availablefor this type of assessment of status.

A species database is to be established in Nor-way in the course of 2002. This species databasewill be attached to the University of Trondheim. Itwill interact with existing databases and constitutea generally available database of assured qualitydrawing on the other databases. For the first fewyears the species database will concentrate on dataaccess and will put forward proposals for revised,national red lists of species to the Directorate forNature Management.

There is a need for better co-ordination of thework and use of the results of monitoring of themarine environment. A number of bodies are atpresent engaged in significant monitoring of themarine environment and living marine resources,while only co-ordinating that work to a limitedextent and without this being part of an overall,common national plan.

Work on co-ordination of monitoring the envi-ronment and its resources by different institutionshas already been started:– In the autumn of 2001 the Institute of Marine

Research (HI) initiated collaboration on moni-toring of the marine environment with the Nor-wegian Meteorological Institute (DNMI), theNorwegian Institute for Water Research(NIVA), the Norwegian Polar Institute, theNorwegian Radiation Protection Authority and

the Nansen Centre for the Environment andRemote Sensing (NERSC). This collaborationwill help co-ordinate monitoring of the marineenvironment at national level across the diffe-rent parts of the Civil Service.

– As part of the work on the national programmefor surveying and monitoring biological diver-sity there will also be a co-ordinated plan inplace by 2003 for charting and monitoringwhich will also comprise criteria for classifica-tion of marine environment types on the basisof their value.

– The various institutions compiling data in thenorthern areas have agreed to work togetherwith the aim to produce an overall picture andmultidisciplinary interpretation of environmen-tal data in the northern region under the head-ing of MONA. This is one of several tools,which can lay the foundations for a total mana-gement plan for the Barents Sea.

The Norwegian vessels used for marine and fishe-ries research are today managed by a number ofdifferent institutions. There is considerable poten-tial for more cost-effective operations via better co-ordination of the research work done by the ves-sels and use of periods at sea etc. The Governmenttherefore wants to evaluate how co-ordinated useof all of the Norwegian marine and fisheries rese-arch vessels can be arranged. The aim of this orga-nisational change is to promote a higher level ofactivities within the same cost frame. The investi-gatory work will be carried out by the Ministry ofFisheries in co-operation with other ministries con-cerned.

The quality of the marine environment influen-ces the ecosystems in different ways and assess-ments must take account of natural fluctuationsand effects caused by human activities. It may beappropriate for a single state advisory institution tobe given specific responsibility for co-ordinatingthe work and assessing the living marine resour-ces and the marine environment in the overall con-text. This is the subject of further discussion at themoment.

In 2001 Norway and Iceland co-financed the UNResponsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystemsconference. The declaration adopted by the confe-rence highlights the need for a more ecosystem-oriented management of living marine resources.The International Council for the Exploration ofthe Seas (ICES) has established an advisory com-mittee on ecosystems (ACE) and in so doing hascreated a scientific advisory mechanism for ecosys-tem-based management.


The Government wishes to stress that the diffe-rent sectors and branches of trade and industryhave a responsibility of their own to ensure an ade-quate pool of basic know-how. It also wishes tostress the importance of research on environmen-tal consequences being integrated as a centraltheme into national research strategies fordevelopment of marine sources of nutrition.

A number of institutes in the field of environ-mental and fisheries research have submitted pro-posals for a programme for generating value andsustainable development in the Norwegian coastalzone. This programme may clarify the basic requi-rements for generating worth. The Governmentwill be assessing these proposals and will thendecide how these initiatives can be followed up.

Co-ordination of the work being done in Nor-way on status assessment and status reports on themarine environment will be an important contribu-tion to making a cost-effective contribution to inter-national work. At the same time international co-operation will give us a broader-based and betterdescription and assessment which increases ourunderstanding of the environmental situation inour own maritime areas. Our large marine ecosys-tems, the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and theBarents Sea, are shared with other countries. Jointassessment and understanding of the state of themarine environment will be pivotal to good co-ope-ration based on the ecosystem approach to mana-gement of these ecosystems.

2.3.3.2 Development of environmental quality objectives

The goal of integrated management of the coastaland maritime areas assumes the establishment ofgoals for the state we want to achieve for the eco-systems. This will make it possible to controleffects and to plan initiatives to ensure clean andabundant seas.

We need a thorough knowledge of the struc-ture, workings and state of the ecosystems to beable to fix environmental quality objectives for thecoastal and maritime areas. The objectives for thedifferent areas and ecosystems have to be fixed inrelation to the quality of the environment in a cor-responding ecosystem as unaffected as possible byoutside factors. In fixing the objectives for therequisite environmental quality we must first knowabout the state of the environment in nearly unaf-fected areas. Integrated management involvingassessment of different effects in the overall con-text demands a great deal of knowledge of the

interplay between different forms of human influ-ence and variations in natural factors.

Norway has along with the Netherlands beenlead country for OSPAR work on developing crite-ria and methods for establishing marine environ-mental quality objectives. Initially such objectivesare to be developed for the North Sea in collabora-tion with the international Council for the Explora-tion of the Seas (ICES). It has been proposed thatobjectives be fixed for a number of components inthe ecosystem which together will contribute toconserving the productivity of the ecosystemsalong with their diversity. The first proposals forconcrete environmental quality objectives will bepresented at the Fifth North Sea Conference.

2.3.3.3 Local commitment and sectoral responsibility

The Government will aim at active participation byall parties concerned in the management of themaritime and coastal areas, while at the same timeattributing the responsibility for management tothe lowest appropriate level. The Government willfix the framework for management of the parts ofthe environment, which are of national signifi-cance, in the overall management plans, while acti-vities and resources of primarily local significanceto the environment should be managed locally.

The Government intends to continue the workon developing an environmental protection policywhich spans all sectors and which aims at harmoni-zed use of means available across the board. At thesame time the Government attaches great impor-tance to dissemination of information and to clarifi-

Box 2.4 Environmental quality and envi-ronmental quality objectives

The quality of the environment in an ecosys-tem is an expression of the state of the sys-tem. It comprises the biological, physical andchemical circumstances, including the resultsof human influence.

Environmental quality objectives for anecosystem indicate the condition we wouldlike the system to be in as compared to thereference level. The reference level indicatesthe quality of the environment in a correspon-ding ecosystem, which has been affected tothe least possible extent by outside factors.


cation of national objectives and priorities for localauthorities and trade and industry.

2.3.3.4 International co-operation on ecosystem-based management

A vital ingredient of ecosystem-based managementof coastal and maritime areas is extensive co-opera-tion with other countries and in particular withcoastal states in our immediate vicinity. TheGovernment therefore sets great store by internati-onal co-operation and negotiations. Chapter 4refers in general terms to international work in thefield of the marine environment.

In conjunction with co-operation in the NorthSea area and within the context of the OSPAR Con-vention, Norway plans to work to promote the initi-atives necessary to establish and meet environ-mental quality criteria for the North Sea and othermaritime areas and to establish an internationallyco-ordinated management based on the ecosystemapproach. Norway will therefore continue to set itssights high in the context of the OSPAR Conven-tion, North Sea co-operation and promotion of theecosystem approach based on common environ-mental quality objectives. International co-opera-tion in the management of living resources is alsoan area where Norway is anxious to promote theecosystem approach based on scientific advice.Negotiations on fishing quotas with the EU andRussia among others represent a considerablechallenge in terms of maintaining the total catchesat a defensible level.

Joint research projects to support an ecosystemapproach to the management of the North Sea willbe given priority in co-operation with the EU andother countries around the North Sea.

ICES offers advice on the fixing of quotas in thearea of fisheries management. With ecosystem-based management we will need to make more useof ICES as a scientific advisor and as a neutral bodybasing itself on scientific findings.

2.3.3.5 Follow up of results

On the basis of experience gained from an integra-ted management plan for the Barents Sea theGovernment plans to carry out frequent assess-ments of trends in the marine ecosystems and themanagement of these systems. Any such statusreport will have to include proposals for initiatives,changes in priorities and a possible revision of theobjectives. The process must involve experts fromall relevant scientific areas and on the basis of theassessments and recommendations made theGovernment will undertake a review of the statusand the need for initiatives. A report of the resultswill then be presented and proposals for the neces-sary initiatives will be put before the NorwegianParliament in the appropriate way; for instancethrough the Parliamentary Report on the Govern-ment’s Environmental Policy and the State of theEnvironment. The review will be in line with thereporting requirements linked to compliance withthe water framework directive and the OSPARConvention.


3 Trends and initiatives in selected areas

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses a number of areas and sour-ces for which a new policy is needed and/or whichhave not been dealt with thoroughly in previousproposals to the Norwegian Parliament.

3.2 Petroleum exploitation

Introduction

For a long time the oil industry has been a majorcontributor to the Treasury and to general prospe-rity. In the nineteen nineties this sector of activitymade up 14 % of the Gross National Product (GNP)and 34 % of the total value of exports. In 2000 and2001 this proportion was considerably larger,

namely 23 % and 47 %, although this is largely attri-buted to higher prices of oil.

Ever since oil exploitation activities started onthe Norwegian part of the continental shelf 30years ago the authorities have been anxious toensure that this industry co-exists peacefully withother branches operating in the maritime areas.Furthermore, since the very beginning of the oilindustry in Norway an important requirement hasbeen that it should operate within defensible envi-ronmental limits. Petroleum exploitation opera-tions are gradually moving northwards, closer tothe coast and vulnerable areas. In confronting thechallenges associated with this trend it is impor-tant to build on experience already gained and touse the tools already developed. It is also importantto ensure a solid basis for decisions relating to

Figure 3.1 The Sleipner platform in the North Sea.Photo: Statoil


petroleum exploitation in the maritime areas stret-ching from the Lofoten Islands and northwards.The Government wants to achieve this through,inter alia, carrying out an impact assessment ofyear-round petroleum exploitation in these areas.

Technological development will also play animportant part in terms of future challenges facingthe oil industry with regard to profitability, co-exis-tence with other branches of activity and futureoperations in the more vulnerable areas. There hasbeen significant technological progress since oilproduction began in the Ekofisk field in 1971 andup until the present day. There are now safer andmore environmentally friendly solutions fordevelopment. Continued focus on the environmentwhen developing new, more cost-effective solu-tions will also mean reduced emissions into the airand reduced discharges into our waters.

3.2.1 Discharges into the sea

The Norwegian maritime areas are exposed to pol-lution from operational discharges and accidentalspills of oil and chemicals from land-based sources,shipping and petroleum exploitation. It has,however, been estimated that petroleum opera-tions are only responsible for a small percentage ofthe inputs of oil from all the countries around theNorth Sea; the biggest source of pollution is dis-charges via the major European rivers and run-offfrom the soil. Natural leakage of oil from below theseabed is a significant source. Inputs from land-based sources mainly affect the areas close to thecoast, while oil spills from shipping and petroleumexploitation are of greater significance out to sea.

Discharges of oil-based drilling fluids were pre-viously the most important source of oil pollutionfrom the petroleum industry. Drilling fluids adhe-red to the rock masses displaced from the boreho-les (drill cuttings) and discharged onto the seabedaround the drilling installations. This had a signifi-cant impact on the seabed and led to major chan-ges in the populations of benthic species. Changeswere registered over up to 100 km2 around some ofthese installations. The marked changes in animallife was primarily blamed on the oil in the drill cut-tings and a ban on the discharge of drill cuttingscontaining oil was therefore introduced on the Nor-wegian continental shelf in 1991. The old heaps ofcuttings predating that ban will, however, continueto have an impact on the seabed for a long time tocome and the industry is now engaged in extensiveinvestigations of what should be done in thisregard.

The biggest discharges from the petroleumindustry today come from produced water. The oil-fields contain both oil and water and as the oil depo-sits shrink the voids are filled with increasingamounts of water. Most of the older fields there-fore produce considerably more water than oil.This water is separated from the oil and dischargedafter treatment. With the treatment techniques cur-rently available it is mainly the dispersed fraction(drops of oil) of the oil which is treated, achievingan average level of 23 milligrams of oil per litre ofproduced water. The treatment techniques usedtoday only remove the most hazardous compoundsin the oil such as phenols and polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs) to a small degree.

Most substances hazardous to the environ-ment, which are discharged during the operationalstage, are discharged in conjunction with producedwater. In addition to the chemicals that have beenadded, produced water contains a wide range ofnatural components originating from the deposits,including naturally occurring radioactive substan-ces, heavy metals and other hazardous substances.A large number of chemicals are in use todayduring the different phases of petroleum exploita-tion activities. Approximately 98 % of the substan-ces discharged are, however, regarded as non-toxic or only slightly toxic to the environment. Che-micals are discharged in connection with drillingoperations and in produced water. In addition,smaller amounts of chemicals are discharged

Figure 3.2 The figure illustrates discharges into the sea from an oil installation.Source: Oljeindustriens Landsforening (Norwegian Oil Industry Association)

WasteDrilling waste

Dead waterDrainage water

Displacement water

Produced water

Domesticwastewater


when cleaning pipes. As the age of the fields increa-ses so does the need to add more types of chemi-cals and in larger quantities as a result of the gro-wing production of water.

It is difficult to phase out hazardous substanceswhich are present as contaminants in drilling com-ponents otherwise fairly harmless to the environ-ment (such as barite) and of course in producedwater. In the case of drilling fluids, weighting che-micals can be replaced to a certain degree by sub-stances containing fewer elements harmful to theenvironment. As far as produced water is concer-ned both better treatment technologies and newtechniques for the evacuation of discharges of pro-duced water may be on the agenda for the future.With the exception of copper, the objectives fixedfor discharge of hazardous substances on the prio-rity list (see Parliamentary Report No. 58 (1996–97) pp. 62–63) will be achieved for chemicalsadded to products in the oil sector.

Today relatively small amounts of environmen-tally hazardous drilling fluids are used if drill cut-tings (rock mass displaced by the drilling opera-tion) need to be discharged. However, these dis-charges are not entirely without harmful effects,and in areas with coral reefs the discharge of rockmasses as such can be a problem because the coralcan be damaged through smothering. The commo-nest weighting chemical in drilling fluids, barite,can be found today in bottom sediment right insidethe Skagerrak and in the outer part of the OsloFjord. This gives an indication of how fine particu-

late material from oil drilling operations can spreadin maritime areas.

Very little is known about the possible long-term effects of the chronic impact of discharges.The Government is therefore anxious to step upresearch and monitoring associated with the long-term effects of discharges and one of the ways itintends to do this is by launching a research pro-gramme to study the long-term effects of dischar-ges from the oil industry into the sea.

As a number of fields on the Norwegian conti-nental shelf are closed down the question arises asto how decommissioned offshore installations areto be disposed of. This is also an area with a lot ofattention at international level. In 1998 the OSPARCommission adopted a decision imposing a gene-ral ban on disposal of installations at sea (simplyabandoning them there or dumping them). Wai-vers may be granted for the chassis of large steelplatforms, large concrete installations and inexceptional cases when the overall assessment isthat there are compelling reasons for disposal atsea. In such instances consultations must first takeplace with the other contracting parties (see Parli-amentary Proposition No. 8 (1998–99) for furtherdetails of the decision). In accordance with theOSPAR decision most of the decommissionedinstallations in the Norwegian sector will be towedashore for re-use or recycling. The Governmenttakes the view that it is important to show conside-ration for the environment and for other users ofthe seas when it comes to disposal, and that havinga rule whereby installations must be towed ashore,helps to return the maritime areas in question totheir original state.

3.2.2 Trends

Environmental challenges in and among the diffe-rent oil producing areas, i.e. the North Sea, theNorwegian Sea and the Barents Sea, vary.

The North Sea and the Norwegian Sea

The North Sea is the oldest and most mature of theoil-producing areas on the Norwegian continentalshelf. With the exception of the Skagerrak thewhole of the North Sea is open for oil exploitation.The oil industry has been present in this area forover 30 years and in 2000 oil and gas production inthe North Sea represented a good 80 % of the totalpetroleum production in the Norwegian sector.The potential for finding large new deposits is,however, declining in this sector.

Box 3.1 Alkylated phenols in produced water

Alkylated phenols are aromatic componentsfound in oil, which partly dissolve in producedwater. Laboratory experiments at the Instituteof Marine Research in 2000/20001 showedthat a range of alkylated phenols present inproduced water can have serious endocrinedisrupting effects on cod even in low concen-trations. Their presence led to a change in thehormonal balance of the fish and a reductionin the amounts of milt and spawn. If we extra-polate these results to apply to natural condi-tions and other fish species, we can see thatsuch discharges can have long-term effectson ecosystems and fisheries in the maritimeareas where they occur.


In the case of the Norwegian Sea the challen-ges are linked in particular to fisheries, sea birdsand coral reefs. The areas off the Lofoten Islandsand the area off the coast of Møre are judged to beparticularly vulnerable in this regard. To tacklethese challenges the Government will be introdu-cing a range of different initiatives, including block-specific conditions in connection with awarding ofconcessions, along with surveys and research of amore general nature.

A number of block-specific environmental andfisheries conditions were set in connection withthe seventeenth round of awarding concessions.Stringent limitations have been set in a number ofthe areas concerned with regard to seismic sur-veys and prospecting drilling. This has been doneout of consideration for the sea birds and fishstocks. At the same time it is true to say that verystrict limits have been fixed for the prospecting andproduction phases with regard to discharges ofproduced water (zero discharges of producedwater). Limits have also been set for the number oftest drillings that may take place simultaneously.In addition, the Government, still in connectionwith the seventeenth round of awards of conces-sions, will be extending the existing biological

monitoring of living marine resources in the Nor-wegian Sea in order to chart the possible effects ofpetroleum operations. A dedicated monitoring pro-gramme has been proposed and further details ofthis are to be given in the parliamentary report onpetroleum operations coming soon. The authori-ties also want the concessionaires to make sugges-tions for a programme to chart the presence of seabirds in connection with any plans for extension ornew operations.

The Barents Sea

The southern part of the Barents Sea was openedup in 1989, cf. Parliamentary Report No. 40 (1988–89) on opening up the Barents Sea for oil prospec-tion. Up to now 59 test wells have been drilled andaccording to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorateit is no more complicated to drill in the Barents Seathan in other parts of the Norwegian continentalshelf. However, the areas around the LofotenIslands and northwards from there contain some ofthe world’s most important resources in terms offish, sea birds and marine mammals. The physicaland climatic conditions make the ecosystems veryvulnerable to any impact, and the Government is

Figure 3.3 Sea birds are vulnerable in the presence of oil spills. The areas off the Lofoten islands and the Møre coast are judged to be particularly vulnerable. Puffins on Værøy Island.Photo: Bård Løken/NN/Samfoto


therefore of the opinion that an impact assessmentof year-round petroleum exploitation should becarried out for the areas stretching from the Lofo-ten Islands and northwards.

The Barents Sea (North of 74° 30’) is not openfor prospecting operations. An investigatory pro-gramme for the area was drawn up by the Ministryof Petroleum and Energy in 1991, but no impactassessment of the consequences of petroleumexploitation for the area has been undertaken.Many of the surveys planned pursuant to the inves-tigatory programme were, however, carried outand the results of these are presented in a synt-hesis report.

3.2.3 Measures

The Government intends:– to ensure that the objective of zero discharges

into the sea is achieved;– to start a research programme in co-operation

with the industry to study the long-term effectsof discharges into the sea from petroleumexploitation operations;

– to maintain a high level of safety and emer-gency services in the petroleum exploitationsector;

– to carry out an impact assessment of year-round petroleum exploitation operations in themaritime areas stretching from the LofotenIslands and northwards. Until a plan is in placethe Barents Sea will not be opened up furtherfor petroleum exploitation; and

– to carry out an assessment of possible petro-leum-free fisheries zones in the area from Lofo-ten and northwards from there.

The authorities’ objective is to strike a goodbalance between petroleum operations and envi-ronmental and fisheries-related considerations andto ensure that the oil industry is integrated into anoverall model for co-existence with other branchesand areas of interest even in the northern maritimeareas. Another goal has been to ensure that dis-charges into the sea from petroleum exploitationdamage the marine environment to the least possi-ble extent. These are challenges, which will also beconfronting the oil industry in the context of futureoperations and are particularly pertinent in thenorthern maritime areas.

Zero discharges of potentially hazardous substances into the sea

Over the past 15–20 years Norway has introducedincreasingly stringent rules regarding the dis-charge of oil and chemicals by the petroleumindustry. These days there are strict requirementsregarding documentation on the content of envi-ronmentally hazardous substances present in thechemicals operators plan to use. There are alsostrict requirements relating to which and whatquantities of chemicals may be used and dischar-ged from each and every offshore installation andin each area of operations. The operators have anobligation to reduce discharges in accordance withspecific requirements drawn up by the authoritiesand in accordance with the plans they have filed.However, these requirements do not cover dis-charges of naturally occurring environmentallyhazardous substances in produced water.

Parliamentary Report No. 58 (1996–97) on envi-ronment protection policy for sustainable develop-ment fixes the objective of zero discharges of oiland chemicals potentially hazardous to the envi-ronment into the sea. This objective becameimmediately applicable for all new developments,while for existing fields a step-by-step plan wasestablished for achieving the objectives. In 2000operators reported the results of a survey of exis-ting installations and suggested further measuresdesigned to achieve the goal. By 2003 all compa-nies operating in this branch must have at leastprovisionally achieved the objective with regard toall their discharge activities and definitive measu-res must be implemented by 2005. The Govern-ment is anxious to ensure that the goal of zero dis-charges of environmentally hazardous substancesinto the sea is achieved. The goal applies to oil andchemicals in produced water, both those addedand those occurring naturally. The objective requi-res the development of new technology and initiati-ves to make this possible. The Government presu-mes that companies with operations in the Norwe-gian sector of the continental shelf will give priorityto the development of technology capable of avoid-ing or reducing discharges. Further efforts will bemade on the part of the Government in the field ofenvironmental research; for instance, improvingcapacity to deal with the challenges that exist at theinterface between petroleum exploitation activities,fisheries and the environment will also be animportant contribution towards achieving the goalof zero discharges.

The OSPAR Commission has adopted a recom-mendation (which is not legally binding) in respect


of produced water. This recommendation statesthat the oil content in this water must not exceed 40mg/l and that it may not exceed 30 mg/l as of 2006.The average content of dispersed oil in producedwater discharged in the Norwegian sector is todayless than 25 mg/l. The recommendation also sug-gests that the goal regarding the total amounts ofoil discharged via produced water should be toreduced by 15 % for the countries concerned by2006 (the year 2000 being the reference year).Given the technology currently available it will be amajor challenge for Norway to achieve this objec-tive.

New technologies that can help further reducethe potential loads on the environment generatedby discharges from petroleum exploitation opera-tions are being developed; both new technologiesto enable better treatment of produced water andnew technologies which reduce water productionor remove the need to discharge produced water.The technologies used in the different oilfields willdepend on a number of parameters specific to theindividual fields. As a rule, there is greater scopefor choice of new technologies in the case of newinstallations than in existing fields.

Reinjection of produced water may prove to bea cost-effective measure in fields where the water

can be used as a water drive, but at the momentonly about 9 % (figure for 2000) of the producedwater is reinjected. According to forecasts this per-centage will increase, but hardly enough to put astop to the increases in discharges, which amountto around 20 % per year. Separation of oil and pro-duced water on the seabed is a new technique nowbeing successfully tested in the Troll field. Thismay prove to be an important new means of redu-cing discharges of produced water. Separationinside the borehole is also being tested and maypossibly prove to be the most effective means ofdealing with the problem, if a reliable techniquecan be found to do this. A pilot project, which willbe needed for further developing and using thetechnology, will probably be launched in the Nor-wegian sector in 2002/2003. This will involve sepa-rating the oil from the water and only extractingthe oil, while the water is returned to below the sea-bed whence it came. But even with such technolo-gies on hand there will still be water needing to betreated and then discharged because the technolo-gies selected seldom are 100 % effective. Work onbetter treatment techniques will therefore need tocontinue in parallel with the development of otherapproaches.

Figure 3.4 Operational discharges of oil from petroleum exploitation activities in the Norwegian sector of the continental shelf.Source: Norwegian Pollution Control Authority


Long-term effects of discharges into the sea from the petroleum industry

There is broad agreement as to the fact that thereare gaps in what is known about the long-termeffects of discharges into the sea and that work inthis area should be organised in a more suitableway. Parliamentary Report No. 39 (1999–2000) onthe oil and gas industry announced a bigger andmore co-ordinated effort to improve fundamentalknowledge of the long-term effects of dischargesinto the sea. A working party comprising represen-tatives of the research community, the authoritiesconcerned and industry has been looking at wherethere is the most acute need to find out more andat how co-operation can be organised in a morerational way than was previously the case.

This broad-based working party identified rese-arch subjects associated with the problem of thelong-term effects of discharges into the sea fromthe offshore sector and came to the conclusion thatthe need for research is particularly acute in thisarea. The following areas were listed in a note tothe Research Council of Norway in order of prio-rity:– Effects in the water column (water masses)– Relationship between research and monitoring– Special research projects in the Arctic– Ongoing discharges of drill cuttings– Long-term effects of acute discharges

A number of particularly important research areaswere listed under each focal point.

The Government feels that it is particularlyimportant to learn more about the consequences ofdischarges into the sea from petroleum exploita-tion activities in the longer term and now wants onthe basis of recommendations made by the wor-king party to launch a research programme on thelong-term effects of petroleum exploitation activi-ties in collaboration with the industry under theauspices of the Research Council of Norway. Thiswill help improve the basis for decisions on the partof the authorities.

Acute discharges

In recent years we have recorded a decline in thenumber of acute oil spills both from shipping andpetroleum exploitation activities. 203 acute oilspills from the petroleum industry were recordedin 2000, corresponding to 35 m3 of oil. The figuresfor shipping were 65 oil spills corresponding to 272m3 of oil. Acute discharges of chemicals frompetroleum exploitation activities have shown a

slight increase over the last few years and numberjust over 100. However, the quantities involvedrose from 403 m3 in 1997 to 956 m3 in 2000, butmost of the spills involved compounds whichrepresent a relatively minor hazard to the environ-ment.

Most of the serious oil spills in Norway haveoccurred in conjunction with shipping accidentsnear to the coast. No major, acute discharges frompetroleum exploitation activities have occurredsince the Bravo accident in 1977. This is attributedamong other things to the strict safety require-ments and better monitoring both by the authori-ties and the operators. New regulations on health,environment and safety aspects of petroleumexploitation activities came into force in January2002. These provide the supervisory authoritieswith a better basis for total control and regulation,for instance when it comes to assessing the diffe-rent interests linked to the external environmentand to the lives and health of workers.

As was noted earlier in this ParliamentaryReport, petroleum exploitation activities are on themove and are to be found closer to the coast andfurther to the north. In the Barents Sea a combina-tion of a long season in darkness, low temperaturesand at times bad weather could make it difficult totake effective action in the case of oil spills eventhough weather conditions seen in isolation are notmuch different from those prevailing in the Norwe-gian Sea. Natural breakdown of oil and chemicalswill also be slower than further south. The Govern-ment considers it essential to maintain a high levelof safety and preparedness in the petroleum exploi-tation industry in order to avoid acute spills and tobe prepared to deal with any acute spills from thatsource.

Impact assessment of year-round petroleum exploitation activities in the maritime areas stretching north from Lofoten

Investigations of consequences are carried out toensure that the authorities and concessionaireshave the best possible basis for decisions whenassessing whether petroleum exploitation shouldbe attempted and, if so, how best to go about it,while also consulting the different stakeholdersand circles involved before a decision is made. Ininvestigating consequences an assessment is madeof the effect the initiative envisaged will have onsociety, the natural surroundings, the environmentboth out to sea and on land and on relations withother branches of trade and industry. The authori-ties concerned, professional and industrial bodies


and the general public are also involved in the exer-cise. The Government takes the view that it is vitalto conduct an assessment and to weigh up the inte-rests of different stakeholders in the areas wherepetroleum exploitation may collide with importantenvironmental interests. This applies, inter alia, tothe Barents Sea.

Before opening up an area for petroleum exploi-tation activities the authorities investigate what theconsequences of prospecting activities will be.First, they draw up a survey programme which anyother authorities concerned are given the opportu-nity of commenting on along with professional andindustrial bodies. Once this has been done, theMinistry of Petroleum and Energy adopts the sur-vey programme and as soon as an investigation hasbeen conducted into the consequences the resultsare sent to a broad circle of interested parties forcomment. This is a central component in the basisfor deciding whether to open up an area or not.Once the survey of the consequences is complete afurther decision is made specifying special measu-res or limitations on prospecting activities to applyin given areas, e.g. limitations on drilling, limita-tions on discharges, requirements to use a specialtechnology etc.

Parts of the Norwegian sector of the continen-tal shelf were opened up for petroleum exploitationactivities at an early stage without any assessmenthaving made of the potential effects of such activi-ties and of discharges on the environment. ThePetroleum Act of 1985 contains rules stating thatthe consequences of prospecting activities mustfirst be investigated before any new areas may beopened up. Further, the consequences of installa-tions and their operation must be studied in con-nection with any plans for expansion or operationof individual fields. Later, it has become possiblefor operators to carry out regional studies of possi-ble consequences of existing and planned opera-tions.

The first survey of consequences of opening upnew areas following the passing of the PetroleumAct of 1985 was carried out on prospecting activi-ties in the southern part of the Barents Sea and theresults of this were presented in 1989. However,parts of the area had already been opened up backin 1980 including the segments where the SnowWhite field was discovered in 1984. Now, in addi-tion to the surveys of specific oilfields which con-cessionaires must carry out prior to development,the Government now wants to conduct an impactassessment of year-round petroleum exploitationactivities in the maritime areas from Lofoten andnorthwards with a view to establishing a better and

more comprehensive basis for decisions. Thisshould be seen in the overall context of other acti-vities in the area and of the work being done onproducing an integrated management plan for theBarents Sea.

Up to the present day a total of 25 extractionpermits have been issued in the Barents Sea inclu-ding seven permits for the area covered by theSnow White field. Most of the test wells have beensunk in or very close to the Hammerfest Basin.Prospecting in the Barents Sea has cost a total ofNOK 28 billion and has led to important finds; theSnow White field in 1984 (gas, condensate and oil)and the Goliath field in 2000 (oil).

It is only natural that the impact assessment forthe northern maritime areas should be based onextensive mapping and on available information. Atthe same time it is important for the process to betransparent and for all interested parties to have anopportunity to express their views. This needs tobe done to ensure, inter alia, that all subjects ofimportance are included in the impact assessment.

The purpose of this assessment is to look at theconsequences of existing petroleum exploitationactivities and of any expected operations in thefuture in the northern maritime areas in the overallcontext. This review will lay the foundations forassessing the framework conditions for furtherpetroleum exploitation activities in the area.

No new permits for petroleum exploitation inthe northern maritime areas will be granted untilthe impact assessment has been completed. As faras areas where permits have already been awardedare concerned, the Government is assuming thatthe work on investigating the consequences of oilexploration and on the integrated managementplan will not affect the legal rights of concessionai-res who have already been awarded permits.

Petroleum-free fisheries zones

As far as possible the authorities are anxious tobase future petroleum exploitation activities in themaritime areas from Lofoten and northwards onthe co-existence model which has been the point ofdeparture up to now for the joint use made of themaritime areas by different branches. The Govern-ment’s aim is for petroleum and fishing resourcesin these areas to contribute to the long-term pro-sperity of Norwegian society. A further objective isto ensure that consideration is shown towards vul-nerable resources to ensure that all industrial acti-vity takes place within a sustainable framework.We have long experience of a smooth co-existencebetween the petroleum exploitation industry and


the fishing industry, and the authorities assumethat this will continue to be the case when newareas are opened up for petroleum exploration.Insofar as situations should arise whereby itappears impossible for the two branches to co-existpeacefully, the Government will consider establish-ing petroleum-free fishing zones. This will be oneof the central components of the integrated mana-gement plan for the Barents Sea. The impactassessment of year-round petroleum exploitationactivities planned for the areas from Lofoten andnorthwards will provide important backgroundmaterial for the integrated management plan inthis regard, along with the impact assessment con-ducted in the other sectors.

3.3 Shipping/safety and emergency services along the coast

3.3.1 Threats and trends

Transport by ship is generally a safe and environ-ment-friendly form of transport. The use of the seaand the coast as a transport artery is of great impor-tance to trade and industry and communities thelength of the coast. Shipping is, however, a poten-

tial source of major oil spills. This is why it is impor-tant to ensure that the environment is safe whenplanning to use shipping as a means of transport.

Spills, which are a result of shipping accidents,often occur close to the shore. Up to now Norwayhas been spared major pollution disasters, but inother parts of the world there have been accidents,which have had major consequences for the envi-ronment. The last major accident occurred whenthe tanker the «Erika» sank off Brittany in Francein December 1999. This accident led to 20 000 tonsof oil leaking into the sea. Clean-up costs amountedto the equivalent of almost 2 billion kroner.

The wrecks of the vessels the «Green Ålesund»off Haugesund and the «John R» to the north ofTromsø last winter showed that there is a majorrisk of shipping accidents even along the Norwe-gian coast, and it is a fact that if shipping increasesso will the risk of shipping accidents. As to thetransport of oil, we may expect more of this cate-gory of traffic in the northern areas as a result ofplans to increase petroleum exploitation activitiesin the Barents Sea and in Northwest Russia. Areport by the Norwegian Pollution Control Autho-rity (SFT) and a Russian research institute relatesthat there are plans for weekly transports of crudeoil as of 2005. The activity is expected to increase

Figure 3.5 50 % of all grey seal pups born in Froan outside Fosen in the district of Trøndelag get oil on their coats in the course of their first three weeks of life. Froan is breeding site for grey seal.Photo: Morten Ekker


gradually over the next few years and it is forecastthat by 2010 there will be 2–3 large tankerssteaming along our coast every day.

It is reasonable to assume that the increase inpetroleum activity will also lead to a considerableincrease in the transport by sea of prospecting andproduction equipment to the northern region. Nor-wegian supply bases and ports along our coast maybe given a role to play in connection with this ship-ping activity. Initiatives have also been started todevelop sea transport as an attractive form of trans-port to and from Northwest Russia on a more gene-ral basis via what is known as the «Northern Mari-time Corridor» (NMC). Altogether this may lead tomore shipping traffic – and not just coastal, but alsoto and from the ports in Northern Norway.

There is also a possibility of imports of spentnuclear fuel from countries in western Europe toreprocessing plants in Russia and in this case trans-port by sea along the coast of Norway would be onealternative.

The increased risk must be countered by intro-ducing preventive measures and by being prepa-red for emergencies so that damage to the environ-ment can be limited if an accident does occur.

3.3.2 Measures to improve safety and preparedness for emergencies along the coast

The Government intends:– to investigate the consequences of increasing

the territorial waters from 4 to 12 nautical mileswith a view to putting a Parliamentary Proposi-tion before the Storting as soon as possible;

– to establish mandatory lanes for shippingrepresenting a risk to the environment;

– to press for international rules involving an obli-gation to give prior warning of cargoes repre-senting a risk. Pending agreement on internati-onal rules the Government intends to raise theissue of prior warning agreements for such car-goes with Russia;

– to step up maritime traffic control and monito-ring;

– to assess how tugboat capacity in northern Nor-way can be increased;

– to enhance preparedness for dealing with oilspills along the coast by ensuring better useand co-ordination of private and state emer-gency resources in the event of major cases ofacute pollution; and

– to arrange for transfer of the Norwegian Pollu-tion Control Authority’s responsibility for thestate-run emergency systems for handling

acute pollution to the National Coastal Adminis-tration.

The Government takes the view that it is importantto give priority to implementation of preventivemeasures so as to be able to avoid accidents withserious consequences for the environment.

Extending territorial waters and establishing obligatory shipping lanes

International law now contains provisions enablingcoastal states to rule that their maritime territoryshall extend to 12 nautical miles from the coast andthe great majority of coastal states now have terri-torial waters extending 12 nautical miles or morefrom the coast. In Europe it is only Greece in addi-tion to Norway whose territorial waters onlyextend to the 4 nautical mile limit.

Coastal states have greater scope for introdu-cing provisions designed to avoid accidents insidetheir territorial waters than outside them. Exten-ding Norway’s territorial waters from 4 to 12 nauti-cal miles would, inter alia, provide greater scopefor checking on foreign vessels. Extending thelimit of territorial waters also offers opportunitiesfor establishing obligatory shipping lanes furtherout from the coast than is possible today.

An assessment is under way under the auspicesof the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of what the con-sequences of extending the territorial waters to 12nautical miles would be. The survey covers thelegal and economic implications plus a number oftechnical issues. If this survey does not reveal cir-cumstances which call for more detailed considera-tion, the Government will place a ParliamentaryProposition before the Storting as soon as the workhas been completed.

Pursuant to legislation on ports and navigablewaters the Government wants to establish obliga-tory shipping lanes for traffic representing a risk tothe environment. The Ministry of Fisheries is toconduct a more detailed assessment of the level ofrisk along the coast and establish shipping lanes,initially for the areas where it is judged they willhave the greatest impact in reducing risk. Shippinglanes for traffic off the coast of northern Norwayshould be viewed in the context of monitoring traf-fic in the area (cf. below).

Concluding early warning agreements for cargoes representing risks to the environment

The possibility of the transport by sea of nuclearwaste along the coast of Norway on route to Russia


is worthy of special attention. If we are to have abetter level of preparedness on the Norwegian sideof the border with regard to such cargoes, we needto have early warning of individual shipments. Agood coastguard system alone will not be sufficientto deal with this type of scenario. The same applies,inter alia, for towing of vessels from Russia forscrapping.

The Government intends to press for internati-onal rules involving an obligation to give early war-ning of cargoes representing a risk to the environ-ment. Pending the advent of international rules andregulations the Government intends to raise theissue of an early warning agreement on such ship-ments with Russia possibly by extending existingearly warning agreements.

Stricter control of maritime traffic

The National Coastal Administration is responsiblefor control of civilian maritime traffic. These dutiesalong with its other duties make the NationalCoastal Administration the national contact pointfor information to and from shipping and it has alarge pool of information on shipping to and fromNorway and along the coast.

The National Coastal Administration is, interalia, the co-ordination authority as far as the EUDirective 93/75 on the registration, storing and dis-semination of all notifications of hazardous or pol-luting cargoes in Norwegian waters on vessels areconcerned. The National Coastal Administration isalso the national co-ordinator for navigation alerts(NAVCO) and thus a part of an international notifi-cation and communications system for warning ofobstacles in navigable waters that can be a dangerto shipping. Through its own notification and infor-mation system for shipping, ShipRep, the NationalCoastal Administration has access to a number ofdatabases such as ships registers comprising morethan 100 000 vessels, registers of dangerous or pol-luting types and classes of cargoes, Norwegianports, boarding points for pilots, pilots etc. TheNational Coastal Administration has also conclu-ded an agreement with the Ministry of Defence oncross-service co-ordination of the notification andinformation system on pilot requirements and arri-val regulations.

Control of maritime traffic via the NationalCoastal Administration traffic control centres hasup to now been concentrated on waters close toshore where the risk has proven to be higher. Thetraffic control centres control shipping traffic,enforce the shipping regulations and providenecessary information and guidance for vessels

using the waters covered by the centres. As of 2003Rogaland, the last of the four areas along the coastmost exposed to risk and with the heaviest traffic,will fall within the National Coastal Administra-tion’s maritime monitoring and traffic control area.The Oslo Fjord, the Grenland area and North Hor-daland are already covered by traffic control cen-tres. The National Coastal Administration is alsoconsidering extending the area of responsibility ofthe Fedje traffic control centre in North Hordalandso that it would also cover the Port of Bergen areaand the southern approaches via the Kors Fjord.

The National Coastal Administration has beengiven responsibility for developing and starting upa network in 2002 along the entire coastline forreceiving AIS (Automatic Identification System forships). This will also strengthen controls and moni-toring of maritime traffic in territorial waters. TheAIS will offer better monitoring of shipping in theareas now monitored by the traffic control centresand will enable monitoring of vessels sailing alongthe coast with hazardous or polluting cargoes onboard. With AIS the National Coastal Administra-tion will be able to monitor shipping which may berequired to use the obligatory shipping lanes alongthe coast.

The Government will be giving high priority tothe establishment of the National Coastal Adminis-tration network for receiving AIS signals. Once theNational Coastal Administration has set up this AISthe Norwegian Defence and other parts of the CivilService will have access where necessary to infor-mation from the network.

Monitoring of the coastal and maritime areastouches on the areas of responsibility of many partsof the Civil Service. The Norwegian Defence alsoplay a significant role in maritime monitoring. Aworking party under the auspices of the Ministry ofDefence is at present investigating how better co-ordination can be achieved and how it might bepossible to develop the country’s total monitoringresources with a view to meeting the needs of dif-ferent parts of the Administration along with thoseof the Norwegian Defence more efficiently. In addi-tion to monitoring it is essential for the authoritiesto have the means to intervene and to take theappropriate steps for instance in connection withshipping accidents involving hazardous cargo.Given the way in which the Norwegian Defence areorganised and present along the coast they canprovide valuable assistance to the civilian commu-nity in terms of emergency services in the coastalzone. The Government will be assessing monito-ring needs on the basis of the report from the wor-king party.


About traffic control in northern Norway

The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea areamong the world’s most productive maritimeareas. At the same time the climatic conditions andthe season of Polar night in these areas are extraelements of risk to shipping during a large part ofthe year. It has already been pointed out that thereare particular challenges linked to future trans-ports by sea off the coast of northern Norway.Being prepared for this development is important.Control and monitoring of traffic are importanttools in the context of accident prevention.

At the moment the National Coastal Adminis-tration is studying the possibilities for establishinga traffic control centre for northern Norway. Possi-ble use of the existing monitoring infrastructureestablished as part of the Norwegian Defence’schain of coastal radar stations in northern Norwaywill be one of a number of elements covered by thestudy. It still remains to be seen how the chain ofradar stations could be used for control of civiliantraffic. This is a significant point in respect ofwhether a decision is made to establish a trafficcontrol centre and if so, where.

The Government takes the view that a controlcentre for maritime traffic for northern Norwayshould be established in a way which ensures agood basis for co-operation with the Russian autho-rities on safety issues and caring for the environ-ment in northern waters. The traffic centres set upby the National Coastal Administration will be obvi-ous, operational units and contact points for co-ope-ration in the area of traffic control. The Govern-ment will therefore continue the assessment on

whether to set up a traffic centre for northern Nor-way.

About tugboat capacity in northern Norway

It has been pointed out in many different quartersthat tugboat capacity is a weak link in chain of con-tingency arrangements in place for fighting acutecases of pollution in northern Norway. The bestsolution may be to link a certain tugboat capacity tothe National Coastal Administration’s traffic con-trol system.

As of the summer of 2002 the coastguard vesselthe KV Svalbard will be in regular service. Thisship will operate in northern waters in particularand is capable of towing large vessels. Develop-ments in petroleum exploitation in the Barents Seamay be expected to lead to supply ships withtowing capacity also being stationed in that part ofthe country. This will help improve preparednessfor emergencies.

The Government is to commission a moredetailed assessment of how tugboat capacity innorthern Norway can be improved.

Safety in the waters around Svalbard

In addition to the challenges associated with safeshipping traffic off the coast of northern Norway,safety at sea around Svalbard has been the subjectof much attention. As this group of islands has itsown legislation and infrastructure, initiatives inSvalbard require a separate assessment. The inter-ministerial Polar Commission has thereforeappointed a working party, which will report backto the Ministry of Justice on a future co-ordinatedplan relating to maritime safety in the watersaround Svalbard. The terms of reference for theworking party are to assess all aspects of safety atsea, including possible initiatives in waters used byshipping. The group has been asked to produce anoverview of the status of work already done or inprogress in different parts of the area, to assess theneed for further steps and to possibly make sug-gestions as to what they should be.

State contingency plans for combating serious pollution

Better organisation and co-ordination of work rela-ting to safety and preparedness is important. As afirst step the Ministry of the Environment hasenshrined powers and state responsibility for con-tingency measures in the Pollution Act. Previouslythese powers and responsibility were shared bet-

Figure 3.6 KV Svalbard, seen here at the quayside in Molde, is the Coastguard’s newest and most modern vessel. It is to be put into service in the northern areas, i.e. in the Barents Sea and areas around Svalbard.Photo: Lars Petter Skillestad, Forsvarets Mediesenter


ween the Norwegian Maritime Directorate and theNorwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT).Now all these powers have been transferred to SFTwith the Norwegian Maritime Directorate beingpart of SFT’s action force as a maritime adviser.

The Government believes that there should bebetter co-ordination of contingency arrangementsfor fighting pollution disasters and of the preven-tive work being done by the National Coastal Admi-nistration, which has significant operationalresources in this area.

An agreement on co-operation already existsbetween the National Coastal Administration andSFT. SFT’s anti-oil pollution vessels are operatedby the National Coastal Administration and areused on an everyday basis by the National CoastalAdministration’s lighthouse and beacons units. Inthe event of state action to fight serious pollutionSFT takes over operational responsibility for thevessels. Nevertheless, the National Coastal Admi-nistration is responsible for a number of preventivefunctions in addition to the traffic centres referredto earlier. This is why the Government feels that itis only natural to view the SFT Department of Con-trol and Emergency Response’s operative respon-sibility in an organisational context together withthe National Coastal Administration (cf. thedescription above of the role played by the NationalCoastal Administration in the field of traffic controland information).

The Government therefore takes the view thatit is right to transfer SFT’s responsibility for statecontingency plans for fighting pollution accidentsto the National Coastal Administration. SFT’sDepartment of Control and Emergency Responseis today based with the National Coastal Adminis-tration’s District 1 Maritime Traffic Division for theOslo Fjord in Horten. The reorganisation proposedwill therefore not involve relocating SFT’s Depart-ment of Control and Emergency Response and cantake place without injection of fresh resources.SFT will continue to have the power to order localauthorities and private enterprises to draw up con-tingency plans and will remain responsible forsupervising that this is done.

The Government wants to strengthen state con-tingency plans for fighting oil pollution and tomake them more efficient in the years to come.SFT is looking into how better use can be made ofprivate and public emergency resources in majorinstances of acute pollution and how they can beco-ordinated better. SFT is also in the process ofanalysing the need for contingency plans in thenorthern part of the country in the light of the chan-ges in the risk scenario.

3.4 Radioactive pollution

3.4.1 The threats

The levels of radioactive pollution in Norwegianwaters are influenced both by present-day activi-ties and by earlier discharges. Most of the inputstems from nuclear testing in the nineteen fiftiesand sixties, the Chernobyl accident in 1986 and dis-charges from reprocessing plants for spent nuclearfuel. In addition, various naturally occurring radio-active substances have found their way into Norwe-gian waters as a result of petroleum exploitationactivities and mining.

Just as important as the actual level of pollutionis the risk of accidents, which could lead to exten-sive discharges and pollution of Norwegian areas.The most serious risk of discharges is associatedwith nuclear installations and stockpiles of waste inareas on Norway’s doorstep, although nuclear-powered vessels and transport by sea of radioactivematerials also represent a risk of radioactive pollu-tion in Norwegian waters. The nuclear reproces-sing plant in Sellafield is the most important sourceof discharges affecting Norwegian waters today.The large quantities of liquid, radioactive waste sto-red at the facility, also represent huge potential forleaks.

Of the different radioactive substances beingdischarged from Sellafield it is the discharges oftechnetium-99, which affect Norwegian interestsmost. These discharges rose sharply in the mid-nineties; they follow the marine currents in theNorth Sea and are swept up along the Norwegiancoast. The discharges are measured along theWest Coast of Svalbard and in the Barents Sea. Thelevels of technetium in seawater along the Norwe-gian coast and in marine organisms such as shell-fish and sea weed have increased sharply since1996. The British authorities plan to continue thedischarges at the present level up until 2006 andthe possibility of further rises in technetium levelsalong the coast of Norway cannot be excluded.

Even if technetium levels in Norwegian watershave increased many-fold since the mid-nineties,they are still very low and do not represent animmediate danger for the environment or health.However, no one is certain what the trends in theselevels in marine organisms are likely to be overtime.

The danger of major discharges as a result ofaccidents or terrorist acts directed towards nuclearinstallations is thought to represent a more seriousthreat to health and the environment than regulardischarges. The main focus in recent years has


been on the risk associated with nuclear powerplants, stockpiles of waste and decommissioned,nuclear-powered vessels in the former SovietUnion and in the Kola Peninsula in particular. Fol-lowing the events of 11 September last year it hasbecome clear that the stockpiles of liquid, highlyradioactive waste from the reprocessing plant atSellafield probably represent a greater threat.

Like the discharges from Sellafield possibleshipments of nuclear waste through waters off theNorwegian coast is also a major source of concern.Such shipments may occur in connection with theimport of spent nuclear fuel to Russia and as aresult of plans to ship nuclear fuel from Japan toreprocessing plants in Western Europe via theNortheast Passage. These shipments betweenEurope and Japan today follow the southerly routesand have given rise to vehement protests fromcoastal states along the way. This is probably themain reason why those involved are now conside-ring an alternative shipping route. With regard to

import of spent fuel into Russia, it is for themoment unclear whether this will be transportedby sea from the west via Norwegian waters. Rus-sian imports of spent nuclear fuel from westernEuropean countries will generate huge politicalcontroversy and there is therefore little probabilityof it happening. Overland transport from formerSoviet republics and Asian countries is thought tobe more likely.

Shipments of nuclear fuel and highly radioac-tive waste by sea contain large amounts of radioac-tivity. There are nevertheless strict safety require-ments for such transports and the danger of majordischarges in the event of an accident is probablysmall. This is linked to the fact that the radioactivematerial is present in solid form and packed in spe-cial safety containers capable of standing up toextreme stresses. Over the 20 years during whichthis type of freight has been transported by sea noaccidents have occurred. Nevertheless, the risk ofshipwrecks and accidents is still present. But,

Figure 3.7 The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority’s emergency services for combating oil spills at work with bilge pumps in Bleivika near Haugesund after the sinking of the vessel “Green Ålesund” in December 2000.Photo: Statens Foruensningstilsyn (Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)


regardless of the actual risk of pollution, transportof nuclear materials along the Norwegian coast willstill be capable of generating fear of marine pollu-tion and uncertainty in coastal communities andconsumers of seafood.

Even if the levels of radioactive pollution in theNorwegian maritime areas are low and do notrepresent any danger to the environment or health,it is still very important to achieve reductions soon.Little is known about the long-term effects and thedischarges constitute a potential problem for themarketing of Norwegian seafood. The world mar-ket for fish and other products of the sea is extre-mely sensitive to real radioactive pollution and

rumours of the same. Consumers are also increas-ingly focusing on «clean» food. Radioactive pollu-tion of the sea is therefore highly undesirable andin conflict with vital Norwegian interests.

The main concern relating to possible majordischarges resulting from an accident or terroristattack on nuclear installations in areas adjacent toNorway is atmospheric fallout and the consequen-ces for public health and the environment on land,although this could also cause serious pollution ofthe marine environment.

In the international context Norway is pressingfor reductions in discharges of radioactive materi-als into the marine environment and for measures

Figure 3.8 The map shows how caesium is carried from Sellafield by ocean currents. The route followed is the same as that followed by technetium. The map also shows how long it takes the caesium to reach the different areas once it has been discharged from the Sellafield facility.Source: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme

Greenland

Norway

UK

SellafieldAtlantic Ocean

The Arctic Sea

7000 km

6000 km

5 000 km

4000 km

3000 km

2000 km

1000 km

1 year

3 years

4 years

3-4 years

4-6 years

6-8 years


to limit the danger of nuclear accidents, whichcould pollute Norwegian areas.

3.4.2 Measures

The Government intends:– to maintain the pressure on the British authori-

ties until the discharges of technetium-99 arefinally stopped;

– to continue efforts in relation to the plan ofaction on nuclear issues;

– to press for better international agreementsand legislation on the transport of radioactivematerials;

– to step up monitoring of radioactive pollution inNorwegian waters; and

– to prevent radioactive pollution from nationalsources.

Pressure on the British authorities regarding the Sellafield case

The Government has put considerable pressure onthe British Government in an attempt to persuadeit to revise the Department of the Environment’sdecision to continue discharges of technetium-99up until 2006. This pressure will continue until thedischarges are stopped. The Government is alsomaking an assessment of the scope Norway has forinstituting proceedings against the British underthe terms of international conventions. TheGovernment has been in touch with Ireland in thisregard. Ireland has sued the United Kingdom overthe Sellafield case both under the terms of the Con-vention on the Law of the Sea and the OSPAR Con-vention. The Government also intends to continueto use the co-operation between the Nordic Envi-ronment Ministers to co-ordinate Nordic pressureon the British over the Sellafield case. In addition,the Government will be making use of the NorthSea co-operation and co-operation within the fram-ework of the OSPAR Convention and other rele-vant fora to put political pressure on the British aut-horities and to strengthen the arsenal of internatio-nal agreements on radioactive pollution.

Plan of action for safety at nuclear installations in Northwest Russia

Norway contributes to the work on improvingnuclear safety and reducing the danger of radioac-tive pollution from Russia and the countries of Cen-

tral Europe via the plan of action on nuclear issues.Projects linked to the plan of action concern sub-jects such as management of radioactive waste ori-ginating from the scrapping of decommissionednuclear submarines and improvement of safety atnuclear power plants in the Kola Peninsula, StPetersburg and Lithuania. A project entailing themodernisation and extension of a treatment plantfor liquid radioactive waste in Murmansk was com-pleted in June 2001. This project will make it possi-ble for Russia to adhere to the London Conventionban on dumping of all types of radioactive waste atsea. The plan of action also involves projects desig-ned to help the Russian environment protectionand radiation protection authorities. The Govern-ment intends to continue the work in the context ofthe plan of action on nuclear issues with particularemphasis on safety at nuclear installations andmanagement of radioactive waste and spentnuclear fuel.

Preventing discharges from sea transports of nuclear waste

The United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea puts obstacles in the way of national legislationdesigned to stop shipping in its economic area,even if this involves the transport of substanceshazardous to the environment. In addition to politi-cal and diplomatic efforts to avoid such transportsbeing routed through Norwegian waters, theGovernment therefore aims to strengthen interna-tional agreements and legislation of relevance tothe safety of such shipments, while also improvingsafety in shipping channels and national contin-gency plans. Norway has raised the question intro-ducing international requirements on early war-ning and liability to pay compensation in connec-tion with the transport of nuclear materials with theUN Commission for Sustainable Development andthe general conference of the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA). The Government is alsoplanning to raise the issue at the North Sea Confe-rence in March 2002. It further intends to raise thematter of extending early warning agreements tocover the transport of crude oil and nuclear wastewith Russia.

As to measures designed to improve safety atsea and contingency arrangements along the coastreaders are referred to Chapter 3.3. A series ofmeasures in this areas will help improve safety, ifthe transport of nuclear waste through Norwegianwaters becomes a reality.


Monitoring and documentation of pollution

An extensive monitoring programme has beenestablished under the auspices of the NorwegianRadiation Protection Authority to document trendsin radioactive pollution in Norwegian waters. Themaritime component of the programme is beingimplemented in close collaboration between theNorwegian Radiation Protection Authority and theInstitute of Marine Research. This monitoring isimportant for the purpose of being able to docu-ment trends in levels of pollution and identify sour-ces of radioactive pollution of Norwegian areas.The monitoring also provides basic data for assess-ment of the possible significance of the pollutantsfor health and the environment. Having constantlyupdated and credible documentation on pollutionlevels is essential when it comes to preventing thecirculation of unfounded rumours and speculation

which leads to reactions on the markets for fishand other seafood. The monitoring programme isunder constant review and is due for further impro-vements.

The Directorate of Fisheries’ Food Instituteconducts constant analyses of the presence of aliensubstances in seafood, including radioactive sub-stances. The results of these analyses are enteredin the institute’s environment database. The num-ber of species of fish and other seafood and theparameters covered by the analyses is being con-stantly increased. Documentation on the presenceof xenobiotic substances in seafood is an importantarea for the fisheries sector and a priority issue forthe fisheries administration. Seafood must be safefood. Over the past few years the institute has the-refore injected substantial funds into increasinganalytical capacity and improve competence in thisfield.

Figure 3.9 A sill fjord with sources of pollution for sediments. In fjords with submarine sills and thus a slow rate of water exchange discharges of ecotoxins will be retained and remain for a long time to come. Many of Norway’s fjords fall into this category and this is something that makes pollution of sediments a particular problem for Norway.

Long-range transportof pollution

Landfill Industrial site

Sill

Fjord bed

Boat traffic

Urban area with port


National sources

The programme for monitoring radioactive pollu-tion is also designed to identify national sources;e.g. discharges from research reactors, isotope pro-duction and hospitals. As already explained inChapter 3.2 produced water discharged frompetroleum exploitation activities also containssome radioactive substances (radium) which occurnaturally. These discharges have not been chartedsufficiently well on the Norwegian continentalshelf. The Norwegian Radiation Protection Autho-rity has said that there is no reason to believe thatnaturally occurring radioactivity in produced waterrepresents any significant danger for health andthe environment. Even so, this remains a problemand serves to confirm the need to develop newtechnology to reduce total discharges of producedwater from the Norwegian sector of the continentalshelf. Oil production also generates deposits inpipes and other equipment, which can containnaturally occurring radionuclides in concentra-tions, which cause the deposits to be classified aslow-radioactive scale. Until a permanent disposalsolution is found between 200 and 300 tons of suchwaste is safely but provisionally stored in oil termi-nals along the coast of Norway. The Governmentis, however, anxious to find a viable means of per-manent storage for this waste on land.

Priority given to work on developing criteria for the protection of the environment from radioactive pollution

Up to now, criteria for what are acceptable levels ofradioactive pollution have been unilaterally focu-sed on preventing damage to public health. It hasbeen assumed that this indirectly would providesufficient protection for other parts of the ecosys-tems. However, in recent years there has been agrowing international awareness of the fact that itis wrong to make this assumption. A number ofinternational bodies have therefore taken the initi-ative in drawing up criteria for the protection of theenvironment from radioactive pollution. These cri-teria will form an important basis for an ecosystem-based approach to radioactive pollution of themarine environment. The Norwegian authoritiesare a driving force in this work.

3.5 Contaminated sediments in coastal areas and fjords

Substances toxic to the environment have been dis-charged along the coast over a very long period oftime and sediments (loose material on the seabed)are therefore heavily contaminated in a number ofareas. This type of pollution is a source of health-related, environmental and social problems. Highconcentrations of hazardous substances put signifi-cant pressure on individual organisms and ecosys-tems and may thus have harmful effects on biologi-cal diversity. People who consume fish and shell-fish from polluted areas are exposed to a risk ofhealth damage in the form of cancer, weakening ofthe immune system, reproductive problems anddamage to the nervous system. In addition, conta-minated sediments are a potential source of pollu-tion in that environmentally hazardous substancescan migrate and pollute new areas.

Pollution of the seabed limits the scope forusing areas for fishing and fish farming activities.Hazardous substances are today blamed for thefact that dietary advice is being given to an areacovering over 800 km2 of the Norwegian coast. Pol-lution also lowers the value of areas as destinationsfor leisure activities and tourism and may placelimitations on the development of port facilities ormake this more expensive.

3.5.1 How did this problem arise?

Substances hazardous to the environment havebeen discharged over a long period of time, alt-hough most of the discharges have taken place inthe past 50 years. In recent times discharges of thesubstances most toxic to the environment havebeen reduced considerably, but discharges ofother chemicals harmful to health and the environ-ment are still extensive.

Industry has been by far the biggest source ofdischarges and large quantities of hazardous sub-stances are discharged into Norway’s fjords fromsmelting plants, the chemicals industry, mines andthe mechanical engineering branch, to mentionjust a few. These discharges have been reduced inrecent years, but industry is nevertheless still a sig-nificant source of chemicals dangerous to healthand to the environment. Products, sewage, landfillsites and public transport have all helped contami-nate sediments and these diffuse sources of dis-charge constitute an ever-increasing proportion oftotal discharges. Norway also receives large inputsof environmental pollutants from other countriescarried on the wind or by ocean currents.


Companies, both private and state-owned, localauthorities, shipping and other public transport,plus private households are thus responsible forthe high concentrations of substances toxic to theenvironment found in sediments today.

3.5.2 Which areas are polluted? Classification of different types of areas

A number of surveys of the levels of pollution insediments have been carried out in Norway (cf.Report 98:11 from the Norwegian Pollution Control

Figure 3.10 Areas which are the subject of dietary advice or restrictions. These are areas where the con-tent of environmental pollutants is so high that the food authorities have introduced bans on the sale of fish and shellfish and/or given advice on the upper consumption limit.Source: Statens næringsmiddeltilsyn/Statens forurensningstilsyn (Norwegian Food Control Authority/Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)

Harstad

Tromsø

Hammerfest

Honningsvåg

Hommelvik

Ramsund

StavangerSandnes

Flekkefjord

Farsund

Arendal

Ranfjorden

Sunndalsfjorden

Årdalsfjorden

Bergensfjorden

Sørfjorden

Karmsundet

Eidsbotn

Vefsfjorden

Saudafjorden

Fedafjorden Kristiansandsfjorden

Tvedestrandsfjorden

GrenlandsfjordenSandefjordsfjorden

Drammensfjorden

Oslofjorden

Existing dietary advice

PCB

PAH

Dioxins

Metals


Authority). These surveys have revealed high con-centrations of environmental pollutants in sedi-ments more or less everywhere in the vicinity ofindustrial sites and densely populated areas. Alto-gether, the Norwegian Pollution Control Autho-rity’s surveys have revealed high concentrations ofhazardous substances in more than 100 areas.

Different types of areas require different reme-dies and initiatives depending upon the size of thepolluted area, the damage being done by the hazar-dous substances in the area, the degree to whichthe pollutants are migrating to other areas, thetechnical solutions most suitable for the area andwhether the liability picture is clear. This reporttherefore attempts a breakdown into four catego-ries (cf. Box 3.3). The purpose of the subdivision isto simplify assessment of the different measures

and means described in this report, but the catego-ries are not sufficiently precise to constitute a newtool for use in further work on contaminated sedi-ments.

A characteristic of high-risk areas is very highconcentrations of environmental pollutants withina fairly small, restricted area. Often just one or asmall number of activities are responsible for thepollution and therefore the sources of the pro-blems are more often known in such areas than inlarger problem areas. The high concentrations ofenvironmental pollutants mean that there is a con-siderable danger of them spreading to new areas,even though the risk of migration varies from onearea to another depending on natural conditionsand the degree of human influence. Surveys con-ducted have revealed about 35 high-risk areas, 15–20 of which are believed to entail a danger of migra-tion, although it is emphasised that the figures arenot certain. The large number of point sourceswhich can be assumed to have possibly caused thistype of pollution indicates that the number of high-risk areas may be significantly higher than the sur-veys conducted to date have been able to uncover.

Port areas often suffer from extremely highconcentrations of environmental pollutants, but areoften larger than the areas classified as «high risk».Further, pollution problems are often more com-plex. In addition to actual port activities and ship-ping, industrial discharges and more diffuse dis-

Box 3.2 Dietary advice and restrictions on sales

In areas where fish and shellfish contain highconcentrations of hazardous substances theNorwegian Food Control Authority has provi-ded advice on limiting intake of fish and shell-fish (dietary advice) and has introducedrestrictions on the sale of fish from the area.Dietary advice is today being provided in 26ports and fjord areas in Norway. The extent ofthe advice varies from area to area. In most ofthe areas it simply amounts to advisingagainst the consumption of fish liver and/ormussels, but in a few areas the advice is toavoid eating fish at all. People in a number ofthese areas are further advised to avoideating shellfish. In one of the areas people areadvised not to eat it more than once a week,while in the other areas they are advised notto eat it at all. Sales restrictions have alsobeen introduced in five of the areas. The totalarea for which dietary advice is provided wasreduced from 1 008 km2 in 1991 to around840 km2 in 2001 mainly as a consequence ofreduced discharges from industry. Neverthe-less, dietary advice was introduced in threenew areas in 2001 on the basis of results fromsurveys carried out in areas, which had notpreviously been the subject of study. It isexpected that the number of areas for whichdietary advice is given will increase sincemore areas are now under investigation.

Box 3.3 Categories of problem areas

– High-risk areas: Smaller areas, high con-centrations of environmental pollutants,often with a risk of migration and a smallnumber of bodies responsible.

– Ports: Medium-sized areas, relatively highconcentrations, risk of migration, largenumber of polluters, but a single bodyresponsible for the area (the port autho-rity).

– Entire areas of coast or fjords: Large areas,varying concentrations (including areaswith high-risk zones and ports), minor riskof migration out of the area, large numberof polluters.

– Industrial fjords: Special cases in fjords.Large areas, high concentrations, smallnumber of polluters.


Figure 3.11 Areas with contaminated sediments already mapped. Areas with contaminated sediments are divided into categories high-risk areas, port areas, whole coastal and fjord areas and industrial fjords, on the basis of the size of the areas, the pollution concentrations, the risk of migration and the number of polluters. (cf. Box 3.3 Categories of problem areas). The information on the areas is very approximate.Source: Statens forurensningstilsyn (Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)

Oslo

High risk areas

Port areas

Whole coastal and fjord areas

Industrial fjords

Oslo

Trondheim

Bergen


charges from towns or other densely populatedareas certainly add to the high pollution levels.Ports constitute a special problem because porttraffic leads to the spread of environmental polluta-nts as a result of eddies in sediments caused bypropellers. Streams and rivers often carry sedi-ments to the port area. Quite apart from the needfor clean up operations because of pollution, manyports need continuous dredging (removal of mas-ses of loose material from the seabed) in order tokeep the shipping lanes open. Up to now, heavilycontaminated sediments have been recorded inapproximately 36 port areas in Norway, 15–20 ofwhich are judged to entail a risk of migration. Die-tary advice has been given in 14 of these areas.

A number of fjords and coastal areas have highlevels of environmental pollutants in sedimentsacross their entire area. These areas feature a com-plex pollution picture involving many types of pol-lution and sources. Concentrations of environmen-tal pollutants vary both between and within areas.A fjord can contain both what are classified as high-risk areas, ports and areas with lower levels of envi-ronmental pollutants. The inner fjords close totowns and other densely populated areas typicallyshow a more complex pattern of pollution from awider range of sources than the outer fjord areaswhere pollution problems are more often associa-ted with a single source. Surveys already con-ducted have revealed heavily contaminated sedi-ments in approximately 20 coastal and fjord areas

Box 3.4 Current cleanup measures

When all discharges have been stopped naturalsedimentation will cause pollutants to becovered with clean material. However, underNorwegian conditions it will take 50–100 yearsto establish sufficient new cover and eddies orbiological activity can also disrupt the process.This is therefore not considered sufficient inmost areas.

Covering up creates a physical barrier, whichprevents environmentally hazardous substancesfrom leaking out and organisms from cominginto contact with the contaminants. This is anapproach, which has been pursued in Eitrems-vågen and may be used in other places.However, this procedure is not suitable for shal-low areas where the seabed is affected by ship-ping or physical intervention. Covering over is afairly acceptable solution, but reuires supervi-sion during and after the work.

Contaminated sediments can be treated in situwhereby the hazardous substances are conver-ted into less harmful substances and the toxicmaterials rendered less accessible. Experienceof this treatment is meagre and the methodsavailable are considered to have major limita-tions given the technologies on offer today.

Removal of the contaminated material on theseabed may solve the problem in the area con-cerned, but in this case the large quantities ofmaterial must either be treated or disposed of inan acceptable manner.

Untreated, contaminated material requires spe-cial disposal measures. Up to now dumping ofsuch sediments has been rare, mainly becauseit is difficult to find suitable landfill areas for it.Dumping of large amounts of material in land-fills is also costly.

Disposal in shoreline landfills involves dum-ping the contaminated material in a closed areaof sea close to land. A number of such dumpshave been established in Norway, one of thembeing in Haakonsvern. These dumps have to bemonitored and restrictions have to be introdu-ced with regard to use of the area. The scope forcreating such dumps depends on local condi-tions. Costs also vary depending on the barriersthat need to be used and on the quality we wantto achieve in the area being used.

In Norway we have many fjords which con-tain relatively deep basins often with oxygen-freewater at the bottom and absence of life on thebed and in the masses of water closest to it.These basins may be suitable for dumping ofcontaminated materials. The disadvantage isthat they may be difficult to check on and willneed to be monitored for a long time to come.Further, renewal of the water and changes inthe water quality can mean that the environ-mentally toxic substances become more acces-sible to marine organisms.

Treating contaminated sediments is a labori-ous and costly process. Such material requiresspecial measures because the contaminantscontain many different particle sizes and there-fore need several stages of treatment.


in addition to the port areas and high-risk areasreferred to above.

Features of the fjords described as «industrial»are that they have one or more industries as themain source of pollution problems throughout thefjord and that the pollution picture is relatively uni-form. In these areas the activity responsible for thepollution is often known. Today there are 14 indus-trial fjords, which are seriously affected by environ-mental pollutants.

3.5.3 Special challenges associated with cleanup operations

Surveys carried out to date have revealed a realneed for initiatives in polluted fjords and coastalareas. Steps have already been taken in a numberof places, while in others cleanup operations areabout to start. As a rule the cleanup operations facea number of challenges; for instance, gaps in know-ledge, technological challenges, elevated costs andlack of clarity as to who is liable for conducting andfinancing the operations. In addition a particularchallenge is making sure that the cleanup opera-tions will have a lasting effect by preventing freshdischarges of environmental pollutants.

Gaps in knowledge associated with differenttechnical solutions, the effects of such solutionsand the effects of hazardous substances on theenvironment represent a big challenge in the con-text of cleanup efforts. Future work will need tofocus on gaining further practical experience fromdifferent types of projects and on learning moreabout the biological effects of pollution. The reasonis that few major cleanup operations have been car-ried out in Norway and experience from othercountries cannot always be successfully transpo-sed and used in the very specific conditions prevai-ling in Norway. At the same time we know too littleabout the effects a given reduction in the quantitiesof environmental pollutants in water and sedimentswill have on the contents of hazardous substancesin fish and shellfish. In the Frier Fjord, for exam-ple, discharges of dioxins from the largest sourcein the area have been cut by over 99 %, while thecontent of dioxins in the upper strata of bottomsediments has been reduced by around 50 % since1989. Nevertheless, the contents of hazardous sub-stances in fish and shellfish in the area are still toohigh to permit removal of the sales restrictions.

Extensive surveys have been carried out inrecent years and these have revealed serious pollu-tion in a number of areas. However, there is still aconsiderable need for further charting of theamounts of environmental pollutants in sediments,

fish and shellfish along the Norwegian coast. Nocomprehensive surveys have for instance beenconducted to find out how much need there is fordietary advice in areas stretching from Hordalandto Nordland. More detailed investigations are alsoneeded in most places before cleanup measurescan be started. Further, studies already carried outhave covered a limited number of environmentalpollutants. We have recently become aware thatthe numbers of hazardous substances, which canhave serious consequences for health and the envi-ronment, are constantly increasing.

Carrying out cleanup operations in large areaswith contaminated sediments is very expensive,something which is a challenge in itself. It has beencalculated that it will cost a few billion to over tenbillion kroner to clean up the entire coastal area ofNorway, the precise cost depending on how cleansediments are required to become. Estimates arealso very uncertain not least because we do not yetknow enough to be able to say what steps need tobe taken in the different areas.

Apart from the high cost, the situation in termsof liability is often far from clear, which means thatdividing costs between those responsible alsorepresents a challenge. In addition to that, thereare many instances where the sources originallyresponsible for the pollution no longer exist.

One of the biggest challenges when conductingcleanup projects involves dealing with the largeamounts of polluted material on the seabed. A limi-ted cleanup operation in the Port of Oslo willinvolve removing 780 000 m3 of material. If thiswere to be dumped on a football pitch the resulting«landfill» would be some 110 metres high. Whencarrying out such projects it has often proved diffi-cult to find suitable areas for disposal of thesematerials and treating the material is also verydemanding in technical terms.

Hazardous substances and other chemicalsharmful to health and the environment are stillbeing discharged by Norwegian industry, from pro-ducts, landfills, waste incineration plants and aseries of other sources. This means both that sedi-ments in new areas can become polluted and thatthe benefits of any cleanup operations may be limi-ted in some areas. Parallel to cleanup projects it istherefore important to cut down fresh dischargeswith the help of both national initiatives and inter-national efforts.

3.5.4 Objectives: How clean, how quickly?

Work on contaminated sediments is part of theoverall effort being made by the authorities respon-


sible for environmental protection to preventhazardous substances and other harmful chemi-cals from damaging health and the environment. Along-term strategic objective aimed at «bringingthe concentrations of the most dangerous chemi-cals in the environment down to the backgroundlevel for naturally occurring substances and closeto zero for man-made compounds» has been adop-ted for this work and also for work on contamina-ted sediments (cf. Parliamentary Report No. 24(2000–2001)). A series of targets relating to newdischarges of chemicals harmful to health and theenvironment have also been adopted aimed atensuring progress towards achieving this long-term objective. In addition, a separate target hasbeen fixed for work on pollution stemming fromprevious eras which is that «pollution of the seabed,water and sediments caused by past activities,wrongful disposal of waste etc. shall not involve arisk of serious pollution problems». This targetrefers to polluted areas on land, freshwater areasand the seabed. In the case of contaminated sedi-ments, the Government’s aim with this target is tobring concentrations of environmentally hazar-dous substances from discharges in bygone timesdown to a level which will not have serious biologi-cal effects or serious effects on the ecosystem.

The view of the Government is that it is neitherright nor possible to establish a more precise envi-ronmental quality objective for all sediments alongthe Norwegian coast. In the long term concentra-tions of hazardous substances in all areas must bebrought down to zero (cf. the strategic objective).But how much the concentrations of environmen-tally hazardous substances need to be reduced inthe short term will have to vary from area to area.Everything will depend on how polluted the area istoday, how complex the pollution situation is,whether the hazardous substances are accessibleto the organisms in the area, whether the hazar-dous substances can migrate to new areas, whatdemands the ecosystems in the area make on theenvironment and how much it will cost to introducemeasures in the area. Further, the need for cleanareas for fishing and other commercial activityvaries from area to area.

The EU Water Framework Directive (cf. Chap-ter 2.3.2) will also involve requirements relating tocleanup of contaminated sediments, even thoughthe directive does not for the moment specifywhich measures are to be applied to individualareas.

The Government intends to draw up a strategyto ensure sufficient progress with cleanup opera-tions in relation to the strategic objective and the

national result objective already adopted and to therequirements set out in the water framework direc-tive. In this strategy the Government will specifythe reasons and the principles to form the basis forassessments of the need for initiatives in individualareas.

3.5.5 Strategy for work on cleanup of contaminated sediments

The Government intends:– to prevent the spread of environmentally hazar-

dous substances by commissioning cleanupoperations in sediments wherever possiblewith today’s technologies in– restricted areas which distinguish

themselves by exhibiting high levels of con-centrations of environmentally hazardoussubstances (referred to as «high-riskareas»); and

– ports where there is a danger of migrationof environmentally hazardous substances;

– to ensure a comprehensive regional approachto large fjord and coastal areas by developingcounty action plans; and

– to increase what is known via– pilot projects;– research and monitoring; and– setting up a national council.

Extensive surveys of environmentally hazardoussubstances in sediments have been carried out onlong stretches of the Norwegian coast. The sur-veys have revealed a marked need for cleanup ope-rations in a number of places. Individual cleanupprojects have already been implemented and havegiven us valuable experience, even though there isstill much uncertainty regarding technical solu-tions, costs and the effects of measures. TheGovernment has adopted the precautionary princi-ple as a basis for work on further cleanup of conta-minated sediments. This means that initiatives can-not be postponed simply because we do not havecomplete scientific certainty regarding the effectsof the current level of pollution or regarding stepsthat can be taken. What we already know shouldthus be put to use. At the same time further workmust also ensure that we learn more. A strategy isneeded both for the implementation of steps thatcan be taken on the basis of existing knowledgeand for acquiring the know-how necessary for thelong-term cleanup work.

Migration of environmentally hazardous sub-stances from contaminated sediments to new areasis an unacceptable form of pollution and the


Government’s basic view is that steps must betaken relatively quickly to prevent this from happe-ning. The Government therefore attaches particu-lar importance to finding the ways of taking thenecessary steps in the short term to prevent spreadfrom areas where we already have sufficient know-how to be able to do something. This requirestaking initiatives in restricted areas with high con-centrations of environmentally hazardous substan-ces where we already have sufficient control overexisting inputs of hazardous substances.

The Government is also anxious to ensure thatsufficient progress is also made with cleanup ope-rations in areas presenting no risk of migration ofcontaminants and in discovering polluted areashitherto unknown to us. The need for cleanup ope-rations in such areas will vary and will depend pri-marily on local considerations such as outdoor acti-vities, fishing, fish farming and other uses of thearea in addition to the need to ensure that the envi-ronment is in an acceptable state. Local knowledgeis necessary in order to find hitherto unknownareas of contamination and the Government setsgreat store by getting a total grip on the problem,which ensures that new areas of pollution can berevealed via work at local and regional level. Thebasis of the Government’s approach is that thereshould be scope for assessments conducted locallyand regionally when giving priority to various mea-sures in these areas. However, at local level priori-ties must be fixed within the framework set out andaccording to the principles described in this paper.

While existing knowledge is being put to gooduse, the Government attaches great importance tofinding out more via research, surveys and monito-ring and also via the use of approaches whichensure that new technologies are developed andtested.

In the light of this the Government is basingitself on a strategy designed to ensure that the cle-anup work is actually started using what we alreadyknow and that hitherto unknown areas of pollutionare identified. It is also anxious for us to learn moreabout the effects of pollution and to develop met-hods for implementing measures and new techno-logical solutions further. What is basically beingproposed is a combination of classic state controland initiatives from local and regional bodies. Onthe basis of the above principles the Governmentwill use the strategy for three parallel lines ofaction:1. Preventing the migration of environmentally

hazardous substances from contaminated sedi-ments by ordering initiatives where such arepossible with the technologies available today

in areas where there is a danger of hazardoussubstances migrating; these include the so-cal-led high-risk areas and ports where currentoperations cause the spread of hazardous sub-stances.

2. Ensuring a total regional approach to largefjords and coastal areas by drawing up countyaction plans.

3. Learning more through pilot projects, rese-arch, monitoring and the setting up of a natio-nal council to deal with sediment issues.

The general means for implementing this strategyare described in Chapter 3.5.6, while those forimplementation of the three-part strategy (seeabove) are described in Chapters 3.5.7, 3.5.8 and3.5.9.

3.5.6 General approaches

The Government intends:– to, where possible, impose an obligation on pol-

luters to conduct the necessary cleanup opera-tions;

– to make public funds available for cleanup ope-rations in areas where it is impossible to iden-tify those responsible for pollution or where it isnot reasonable to demand that those responsi-ble foot the entire bill; and

– to assess the possibilities for introducing diffe-rent payment schemes, including funds, whichcollect financial contributions from differentpolluters, and any state grants made available.

Attributing responsibility and use of injunctions pursuant to the Pollution Act

The «polluter pays» principle is the basis for dea-ling with pollution in general and will also be thebasis for work on cleanup of contaminated sedi-ments. Responsibility for preventing, identifyingand repairing damage caused by pollution is adirect consequence of the Pollution Act. Anyoneowning, doing or using something which causespollution, or which is in any way associated withpollution, is to be regarded as responsible. Thisalso applies for contaminated sediments. As far aspossible injunctions pursuant to the Pollution Actare to be used to ensure cleanup of areas contai-ning contaminated sediments.

Those behind the original input of pollutants toan area, those who own or in some other way pos-sess something which can cause pollution andthose causing the pollution today may be requiredto conduct cleanup operations. In places where the


sources of contamination of sediments can be iden-tified and where the activities causing that contami-nation still exist, the main rule will be that the per-petrator of the pollution will be required to dealwith it. This is the main rule even though the dis-charges may have been known in the past and werelegal.

The use of injunctions pursuant to the PollutionAct on cleanup operations for contaminated sedi-ments does, however, give rise to a few specificproblems. This is attributed to the fact that inputsof contaminants into sediments have taken placeover a long period of time and have originated frommany different sources; often, too, there will bemany different polluters, some of whom no longerexist or whom it is difficult to identify and hold lia-ble for other reasons. The huge costs associatedwith cleanup operations for contaminated sedi-ments also represent a particular challenge whenresorting to injunctions under the Pollution Act.When issuing injunctions ordering cleanup opera-tions the pollution authorities make sure that themeasures called for are in reasonable proportion tothe damage and inconvenience caused by the pol-lution. When considering whom an injunction maybe issued against, account will be taken of thefinancial viability of those held liable and of thedegree of blame the different operators bear forpollution in a given area.

Funding arrangements

Private, municipal, state-run operations and thecivil service can be ordered to carry out and/orfund all or parts of the cleanup because they areresponsible for the pollution under the terms of thePollution Act. In cases where it is not possible toidentify anyone who can be held responsible andwho could reasonably be required to conduct a cle-anup, the State will have to carry out and financethe necessary cleanup operations.

In some areas it is possible to locate one pollu-ter responsible under the terms of the PollutionAct. The general rule will then be that that this pol-luter will either voluntarily or pursuant to an injunc-tion conduct and finance the necessary cleanupoperations in the area. A public injunction will notprevent the polluter or polluters against whom theinjunction has been issued from demanding at alater stage that parts of the costs incurred becovered by others who it was subsequently possi-ble to identify as responsible for the pollution. Forexample, the City of Oslo has in collaboration withthe Norwegian Society for the Preservation of theNature been considering bringing a case for com-

pensation against the producers of the substancespolluting the Port of Oslo. In a few exceptionalcases it may be unreasonable to order thoseresponsible to foot the entire bill for measures. Insuch cases state grants will be necessary to carryout the cleanup.

In large polluted areas there will be more thanone polluter in a majority of cases. In such instan-ces all the polluters should make a financial contri-bution to the cost of the work necessary in the area.This can be achieved either by the different pollu-ters voluntarily co-operating and dividing the costsamong themselves or by the pollution control aut-hority ordering the different polluters to contributefinancially. When polluters co-operate it may alsobe appropriate for the State to contribute to the fun-ding.

The Government therefore takes it for grantedthat state grants will be necessary in cases where itis not reasonable to order the polluter or pollutersto foot the entire bill for the necessary cleanup ope-rations, in cases where it is not possible to identifya polluter and in cases where it is reasonable toexpect the state to contribute in order to conductcomprehensive cleanup operations covering alarge area. The Government will be returning withspecific proposals on the granting of subsidies viathe national budgets for the years to come.

Organising payment schemes – funds

In Recommendation to the Storting No. 295 (2000–2001) containing recommendations from the stan-ding Committee on Energy and the Environmenton the Government’s environmental policy and thestate of the environment a majority of the Commit-tee’s members say they believe that «the ways inwhich trade and industry can contribute eitherdirectly or indirectly to establishing a cleanup fundto deal with past environmental sins should beinvestigated. A fund of this type should be establis-hed as a joint project involving the authorities andtrade and industry with the objective of removingenvironmentally hazardous substances from thenatural surroundings or of limiting harmfuleffects». In the light of this the Government hasasked for «studies of various models and proposalsfor the establishment of a cleanup fund by the aut-horities in collaboration with trade and industry.The fund would be used for tackling sins commit-ted against the environment in the past and forremoving environmentally hazardous substancesfrom our natural surroundings».

The Government assumes that polluters willcover most of the costs involved in cleanup opera-


tions, although there will be cases where it may benecessary to make state grants available (cf.above). In cases where a single company has tofoot the entire bill for cleanup operations theGovernment feels that the best solution is for thatcompany to finance the cleanup directly. Usually,however, there will be more than one polluterexpected to contribute to major cleanup operationsand some form of payment system will have to beestablished for such cases. The Government there-fore intends to give further thought to the possibi-lities of establishing different payment schemes,including a fund, which would collect financial con-tributions from different polluters and possiblystate grants in the most appropriate way.

A number of payment schemes are to be consi-dered. One possibility is to set up a fund. Onemight for instance create a national fund into whichall polluters following an injunction from the pollu-tion control authority and possibly others wouldpay financial contributions. The fund would thenbe used to finance all types of cleanup operations inconnection with contaminated sediments. Anotherpossibility would be to set up a separate fund foreach area and then those responsible for pollutionin that area would pay into the fund, which wouldthen be used for cleanup in the area. If such a fundwere to be set up it should be linked to the countyaction plans (cf. Chapter 3.5.8).

The Government also wants to look into alter-native systems for financing cleanup in caseswhere it is either impossible to identify thoseresponsible for pollution or where those identifiedare unable to pay. In the USA for instance a «Super-fund» has been set up and is used to finance caseswhere it is either impossible to identify the polluterresponsible or where the polluter is insolvent. Thefund’s revenue comes from a levy on petroleumand individual chemicals and from an environmen-tal levy on corporate profits. The Government isbasically sceptical about the idea of earmarkingrevenue from various taxes and levies for specificpurposes.

State grants for cleanup operations can eitherbe made as a once-for-all grant via the national bud-get whereby the dividends are used to finance mea-sures or in the form of annual grants. A one-offgrant where the dividends are used to finance cle-anup operations would reduce the scope for annualdecisions on priorities and for using the nationalbudget as part of overall economic policy. The set-ting up of this type of fund could also come intoconflict with the basic principles on which the nati-onal budget rests.

Consequently, further study is needed of anumber of issues bound up with the setting up ofpayment schemes. The Government will be loo-king into these issues in greater detail and willreturn to the Storting with an assessment and pos-sible proposals.

3.5.7 How to prevent migration

Preventing the spread of environmentally hazardous substances in high-risk areas

Anxious to make progress in this area the Govern-ment takes the view that given what we alreadyknow it should fairly soon be possible to undertakemeasures in «high-risk» areas where a risk ofmigration is present. The prerequisite throughoutis to have existing discharges of environmentallyhazardous substances under sufficient control sothat any cleanup attempted will not be a waste ofmoney within a short time. For the moment onlythree areas have been found where there is a riskof migration and where new inputs are judged to beunder sufficient control. Extensive surveys are alsoplanned in connection with the drawing up ofcounty action plans (cf. Chapter 3.5.8) and thesewill probably reveal further such areas. TheGovernment wants to start cleanup operations inhigh-risk areas where there is a risk of migration assoon as possible and preferably within five years ofthe areas being discovered. Precise deadlines forcleanup in these areas are to be fixed on the basisof the extensive surveys to be carried out, e.g. inconnection with drawing up the county actionplans (cf. Chapter 3.5.8).

Injunctions pursuant to the Pollution Act will bethe main means of ensuring sufficient progresswith the work on stopping the spread of pollutantsfrom high-risk areas. Sources in high-risk areas areoften fewer and easier to locate than sources of pol-lution in larger areas. But, there will be caseswhere the activities responsible for pollution nolonger exist. In such cases the Government takesthe view that the environment protection authori-ties shall ensure that the necessary cleanup is car-ried out.

The State is also a polluter or an owner of pollu-ted areas and therefore responsible for cleanup inthe areas concerned. The Government takes it forgranted that the State will proceed with cleanupoperations to put its own environmental sins torights. The Government further takes it for gran-ted that the State will take the necessary steps toprevent the spread of pollutants in high-risk areasowned by the State as soon as possible and prefera-bly within a five-year period of their being disco-


vered. An important prerequisite is also that inputsto the area be under sufficient control and that thecleanup fits into the overall context of other measu-res planned via the county plans.

Shipyards and large pleasure boat marinas areareas where problems associated with pollution ofthe seabed may be expected. The Government the-refore considers it important to chart the extent ofthe problem of contaminated sediments linked tothese activities and to undertake cleanup opera-tions as quickly as possible. The Government istherefore planning a special drive in this type ofarea the aim being that surveys of pollution andstudies of the need for measures linked to shipy-ards and large pleasure boat marinas will havebeen undertaken by the end of 2005. In the areaswhere the polluters are known cleanup injunctionspursuant to the Pollution Act will be the maininstrument.

Preventing the spread of environmentally hazardous substances from port areas

Contaminated sediments in ports are mainly a pro-blem in that environmentally hazardous substan-ces spread when shipping churns up the sedi-ments. Since port areas are often very busy and aretherefore exposed to certain inputs of environmen-tally hazardous substances for some time to comeit will not always be practical to remove all polluta-nts in the short term. It is, however, important toprevent port activities and shipping from helpingenvironmentally hazardous substances spread toother areas. The Government will therefore bepressing in the relatively short term for measuresto prevent contaminated sediments in the most pol-luted ports from being churned up and preferablywithin a period of ten years. It is planned that theneed for measures in all ports will have been dealtwith by 2010 and that the necessary measures toprevent migration will be implemented within rela-tively short time, preferably within a period of fiveyears. This will, for example, involve dredging toensure sufficient draught for shipping and to pre-vent sediments being churned up by ships propel-lers. It will also require regulation of port traffic andpossible other restrictions on activities in ports.Many of the ports would have needed dredginganyway during this period to ensure sufficientdraught for shipping in the port area.

As in the high-risk areas, the spread of environ-mentally hazardous substances from ports is regar-ded as active and acute pollution. The Governmenttherefore intends to make the Pollution Act applica-ble to this type of pollution so that injunctions can

be issued against port operators. As outlined inChapter 3.5.6, when issuing injunctions the pollu-tion control authority will base itself on assessmentof the viability of the measures required and thefinancial ability of the polluters to pay. If it is notreasonable to order ports to pay the full cost of cle-anup operations because of their financial situa-tion, the possibility of state grants for the neces-sary measures will be considered.

3.5.8 A total approach to ensuring local involvement: County action plans

Need to draw up county action plans

While it is necessary to make a concerted effort inlimited, high-risk areas and ports to prevent thespread of environmentally hazardous substances,large fjord areas with less concentrated pollutionneed a different approach.

Achieving good results though measures takenregarding sediments in part of an area will oftendepend on land-based sources or work on sedi-ments in adjacent areas. It will not prove very cost-effective to carry out cleanup operations in one partof a large fjord if environmentally hazardous sub-stances are still being discharged into another partof the same area. Similarly, it would not be appro-priate to conduct a cleanup operation in any part ofa fjord until all areas of the same fjord presenting arisk of migration have been secured against furtherspread. The Government therefore sees a need fora tool which ensures a total approach whereby thewhole of the fjord is regarded as a single entity.

The need to clean up contaminated sedimentsshould be assessed locally or regionally. In someplaces the most important thing will be to reducethe load on the environment, while in others it willbe the significant economic interests associatedwith fishing and fish farming that have the decisiveinfluence. Which issues are most important at locallevel will be significant when deciding on the mea-sures to be introduced and in what order. It willtherefore be a good idea to have the work tied tolocal level, as this can encourage active participa-tion by local stakeholders with an interest in thecleanup. We also need detailed knowledge of thelevel of pollution, ongoing discharges and histo-rical information about past discharges in the indi-vidual areas when undertaking this work. Centralauthorities do not have this information nor is itconsidered appropriate that such informationshould be compiled by the central authorities inthe future. We therefore very much need to get thelocal level involved in this work.


In the light of this, the Government feels thatthe best way to organise the work is via countyaction plans.

Drawing up county action plans

To ensure a total approach and local involvementthe Government intends to have county actionplans drawn up which will provide a total approachto cleanup operations in individual fjords andcoastal areas and lay the necessary foundations fordecisions on what is to be done. The idea is thatcounty action plans will in time become part of theprogrammes of action referred to in the EU waterframework directive (cf. Chapter 2.3.2). The plan isfor counties with several polluted fjord areas tohave an overall programme of action for the countymade up of a number of subsidiary plans for the dif-ferent fjord areas and any polluted coastal areas.

The Government intends county action plans tobe drawn up for the most polluted areas in thecourse of 2005 and by 2009 for the remainingcoastal and fjord areas. The Norwegian PollutionControl Authority is to draw up an overview of fjordareas due for county action plans in order of prio-rity during 2002. Work on charting the extent ofpollution and its significance for organisms andecosystems is to be largely completed by the end of2004.

The county action plans are to contain propo-sals as to what environmental quality level shouldbe achieved for the fjord area as whole, possiblydistinguishing between different parts of the fjordson the basis of an assessment of the scope for andcost of cleanup. Plans must contain an overview ofthe degree and extent of pollution in the fjord andof the problems it creates for the environment andfor consumer interests such as fish farming, fish-ing and catches. Plans must also provide an over-view of sources of discharge in the catchment areaand their significance in the overall pollution con-text. The significance of the sediments as a sourceof pollution must also be described. In addition theplans must describe the effects and costs of diffe-rent measures to deal with the sources of pollution,along with current solutions to dealing with conta-minated sediments, if these have to be removed.The plans must establish a correlation between cle-anup of sediments and measures on land, stipulatewho is responsible for ensuring that the measuresare implemented and contain a schedule for finan-cing of the measures.

The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority willdraw up guidance for use in the work on the countyaction plans on the basis, inter alia, of experience

gained from implementation of comprehensive cle-anup operations during pilot projects.

Organisation of environment protection mana-gement at regional level is under consideration.This clarification is essential when deciding who isto be responsible for developing the county actionplans. The Government will therefore be returningto the subject of the detailed organisation of thiswork. However, it is important to have a transpa-rent process in which as many players as possiblecan participate.

We still do not know enough at local and regio-nal levels about which areas are polluted, whichthe significant sources are or were and who isresponsible for the pollution. The Government willtherefore be assessing the need for state subsidiesfor the work on charting, investigating and study-ing which forms the basis for the county actionplans.

The county action plans will constitute a tool forthe concrete cleanup work in the individual fjordand coastal areas. The plans will form the basis forindustries, local authorities and other bodiesresponsible for cleanup measures and for theassessing when to use public funds and injunc-tions. The Norwegian Pollution Control Authoritywill remain responsible for issuing injunctions forcleanup operations under the terms of the Pollu-tion Act.

3.5.9 How to gain experience and learn more

Pilot projects

There are few examples of cleanup operations inpolluted fjords or large fjord areas and this meansthat there is little empirical material and know-ledge of the implementation of comprehensive cle-anup projects. We need to learn more, increase ourexperience and produce guidance on how tomanage the whole process from the planning stageto implementation.

We need to define methods and develop toolswhen working on identification of sources, assess-ment of risks, fixing of criteria and deciding on themost cost-effective cleanup measures. This alsomeans that we need to develop methods and toolsfor assessing the consequences. We need todevelop criteria for establishing when to imple-ment cleanup operations and gain experience fromusing different technical solutions. We also need togain experience with putting the environmentalproblems in a fjord area in an overall context to ena-ble us to address them systematically – forinstance, by looking at the correlations betweenland-based sources and contaminated sediments.


The Government proposes therefore that pilot pro-jects being carried out with the aim of increasingknowledge and experience concerning planning,organisation and implementation of measures inthe fjord areas containing contaminated sedi-ments.

Pilot projects will consist of several phases; firstthe necessary studies and decision-making proces-ses leading to action must be started, then the cle-anup operations must be carried out and finally anassessment must be made as to whether the mea-sures have had the desired effect. In the light ofexperience gained and results achieved from thepilot projects in terms of methods, criteria for mea-sures and organisation of the work, reports willthen be worked out and guidance produced for theauthorities and others with pollution problems indifferent areas. This should enable them to add-ress the environmental problems in a rational man-ner, both in technical and economic terms. Thepilot projects will also provide experience andknow-how, which can be used as a basis for imple-menting the county action plans. A pilot project isexpected to cover a period of five years.

The Government plans to contribute publicfunds to finance parts of the pilot projects becausethese projects are designed to provide fresh know-ledge and promote technological developmentwith a high transfer value for other projects. Inaccordance with the «polluter pays principle» it is acondition that those responsible for the pollution inthe pilot areas also contribute to the cost of the cle-anup.

The Government is proposing the implementa-tion of pilot projects linked to fjord areas wherework on the fundamental problems has alreadymade considerable headway, where the time is ripefor an early and focused effort to reduce the inputsfrom contaminated sediments and remaining land-based sources, and where measures will have ahigh transfer value for other areas.

State subsidies have already been granted for acleanup project in the Sandefjord Fjord. The justifi-cation of the use of public funds in this area is thatthe project is to contribute to gaining new know-ledge and gathering new experience of planningand implementing cleanup operations and that thiswill be very valuable when applied to other areas.The purpose of this project is to gain experience ofplanning and implementation of cleanup opera-tions, including being able to assess the impact ofthe treatment method applied to the contaminatedsediments.

Research, surveys and monitoring. Establishing a national council for sediment issues

We have already highlighted the need for morebasic information on, for instance, migration,absorption and the effects of environmentallyhazardous substances on ecosystems and orga-nisms in order to ensure cost-effective implementa-tion of cleanup operations on contaminated sedi-ments. The Government will therefore be givingpriority to funding research, surveys and monito-ring in this field and will be returning with specificproposals in the budget for 2003.

Knowledge of and the competence to deal withthe effects of contaminated sediments and possiblecleanup are today scattered across different partsof the administration, research institutes, universi-ties, environment protection organisations, consul-tant firms and industry. It is essential to bring allthese skills together and to make full use of them.The Government is therefore proposing to estab-lish a special council to compile data on this areaand provide advice on conducting investigationsand implementing measures.

It will be the job of this council to keep up withdevelopments and new findings on the incidenceand effects of environmentally hazardous substan-ces in sediments and to monitor possible technicalsolutions for reducing the problems that this pollu-tion causes to health and the environment. Thecouncil will make recommendations to the pollu-tion authorities on issues covered by its remit orwhich it raises itself. The council will not, however,be given the power to order cleanup operations.Nor is it felt appropriate that a council of this typeshould administer funds for grants or major sur-veys.

This council should comprise representativesof research institutes, universities, environmentprotection organisations, firms of consultants andindustry. It should also co-operate closely withthose responsible for drawing up the county actionplans.

The Government intends to return to the ques-tion of the composition, terms of reference andbudget of such a council.

3.6 Spread of non-indigenous organisms and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

3.6.1 The threats

The spread of species to areas where they do notoccur naturally has increased markedly over the


last decade. At the same time we have been seeingmore and more examples of how this can have sig-nificant effects on ecosystems and on speciesoccurring naturally. We have also seen reports ofserious consequences for branches, which use theliving resources. Examples from Norwegianwaters are the spread of the harmful planktonalgae, Chatonella spp., which was probably introdu-ced with ballast water from ships from the Far Eastand American lobster which was implanted ille-

gally and which is now threatening to supplant ourown Norwegian lobster stocks. The spread of theking crab following implantation on the Russianside of the border has caused problems for net fish-ing in the areas affected and may also have seriousconsequences for the ecosystems (cf. Box 3.5).

The introduction of non-indigenous speciesinto the marine environment is a very seriousthreat to species and habitats. Knowledge of com-munities of marine organisms and habitats is,

Box 3.5 Effects of the introduction of non-indigenous species into marine environments

Serious effects of the introduction of non-indi-genous species have been documented. In theBlack Sea, for instance, the stocks of a comb jel-lies introduced from the USA exhibited astrono-mical growth and at one point in timerepresented as much as some 900 million tons!This caused the previously abundant fisheriesto almost die out. Now, even though the stocksof this jellyfish have declined somewhat, fishe-ries in the zone are still affected by the intro-duction of this species.

In Norwegian waters we have experienced anumber of introductions of non-indigenous spe-cies. In 1999, American lobster was found in theOslo Fjord. It is probable that it had escapedfrom an import consignment of live lobster. Thespecies has also been observed near Ålesund.The American lobster is capable of reproducingin our waters and can also cross-fertilise withour own European lobster. If such hybridsmaterialise the males will be sterile in additionto growing faster and becoming larger andstronger than the males of the European spe-cies of lobster. In the longer term this coulddevastate the Norwegian lobster stocks. It hasnot yet been proven whether any such hybridshave been generated. American lobster can alsobe the carriers of a disease caused by a parasite,which is 100% fatal in European lobster. So far,though, the specimens of American lobsterfound have not been infected. Research projectshave been started to investigate the spread ofthis species and its possible ecological consequ-ences.

Another species introduced, which hasattracted much attention, is the king crab. Thisspecies was implanted at the mouth of the Mur-mansk Fjord on the Kola Peninsula in the nine-teen sixties. Since then the stocks have grownand spread to Norwegian waters. Since it was

first seen in the Varanger Fjord in 1976 thestocks have grown on the Norwegian side of theborder and spread westwards. Little is knownabout the effects of the king crab on the ecosys-tems, but the species seems to feed off queen(chlamys opercularis), sea urchins and otherbenthic species. This can cause significantchanges in the ecosystems and competitionwith benthic fish.

Japanese sea weed was first observed in Nor-way on the Sørland in 1984. It has now spreadnorthwards as far as Sogn and Fjordane. Thissea weed was probably brought to Europe byFrench oyster farmers who imported andimplanted Japanese oysters. It lives in the topfew metres of seawater and can grow to severalmetres in length. It spreads easily in that bran-ches of it break off and drift away. The footholdgained by this sea weed has caused shallowbays to become almost entirely clogged in thesummer. This stops the light reaching the bot-tom and leads to indigenous species of sea weedbecoming supplanted. The Japanese sea weedcan also be a scourge to fishing gear and out-board engines.

The plankton algae Chatonella spp., whoseabundant blooms appeared along the Sørlandcoast in the spring of 2001, was very probablyintroduced into Norwegian waters via ballastwater from the Far East. Under specific condi-tions the algae can become toxic, but there is noevidence of this in Norwegian waters. Neverthe-less, fish mortality has been recorded in fishfarms and wild stocks. Extensive blooms of thealgae seem to require a surplus of nitrates,something which is common in the Skagerrakwhere man-made inputs are considerable. Thisspecies is particularly competitive because itcan start blooming earlier in the spring thanother species.


however, limited and marine ecosystems are oftenvery cohesive with few natural barriers againstinvasion. This means that if a species is introducedin one site it is easy for it spread to others and haveharmful effects. Non-indigenous species andstocks are either spread deliberately by implanta-tion or as stowaways in consignments of commer-cial goods, species implanted or means of trans-port, e.g. through fouling of ships’ hulls or throughchanging of their ballast water. Once non-indi-genous species have been introduced into themarine environment it is more or less impossible toget rid of them.

Even though we have been spared the mostdramatic consequences of non-indigenous speciesin Norwegian waters, it is becoming increasinglyclear that these species represent a serious threatto us, too. This is why it is essential to developmeans of preventing further implantations quicklyand get to grips with the harmful effects in both theshort and the long term.

The introduction and the spread of non-indi-genous species is now considered to be one of themost serious threats to biological diversity. TheConvention on Biological Diversity has led to thedrafting of guidelines on how to avoid the harmfuleffects of the introduction of non-indigenous spe-cies, while other international fora have producedprotocols and agreements etc. ParliamentaryReport No. 42 (2000–2001) on biological diversitycontains a description of general policy in this area.

In addition to non-indigenous species, geneti-cally modified organisms may also become a signi-ficant threat to the marine ecosystems. Geneticallymodified organisms are microorganisms, plants,animals and fungi which have had their geneticcodes changed using genetic engineering or celltechniques. By making such changes it is possibleto give the organism new characteristics; for exam-ple, better tolerance to cold, faster growth or pro-duction of useful substances. The technology the-refore has the potential to generate useful productsin the fields of medicine, food production, industryand the like. At the same time the use of geneticengineering and cell techniques can cause seriousdamage to species in the wild and to natural eco-systems, if the genetically modified organismsspread to the natural surroundings. For example,fish with better tolerance to cold can migrate tonew areas and disrupt the species mix and thestructure of the ecosystems concerned, while fas-ter growth can cause wild stocks to be supplanted.The risks bound up with genetic modification canbe difficult to evaluate, particularly in the longterm. Further, it is important to emphasise that

there is a big potential for migration in marine eco-systems and that the scope for getting rid of non-indigenous species is small.

Norway has strict rules regarding the testingand use of genetically modified organisms andattaches great importance to ensuring that the useof such organisms will not have harmful effects onthe environment. Legislation in place requires, forinstance, step-by-step testing and investigation ofthe environmental consequences of geneticallymodified organisms before they may be transplan-ted or used, for example in the pens of fish farms.Up to now market-related considerations have pre-vented any interest being generated in this countryin using genetically modified marine organisms forfish farming purposes. But, in recent years Norwe-gian researchers have been involved in thedevelopment of genetically modified farmed fishabroad.

DNA vaccines represent an area where geneticengineering is expected to spread quickly. DNAvaccination and other means of injecting geneticmake-up (gene therapy) can be regulated under

Figure 3.12 American lobster was found in the Oslo Fjord in 1999. It is probable that it had esca-ped from an import consignment of live lobster (Photograph taken at the Aquarium in Bergen).Photo: Gro van den Meeren, Institute of Marine Research


the terms of the Genetic Engineering Act. TheMinistry of the Environment has asked theBiotechnology Council for a more in-depth assess-ment of how DNA vaccines and gene therapyshould be regulated and what status DNA-injectedorganisms should have in the eyes of the law.

3.6.2 Measures

The Government intends– to limit the use of genetically modified marine

organisms to migration-proof, closed facilitieson land;

– to continue to give the very highest priority tointernational work on developing rules andregulations governing the use of geneticallymodified organisms which focus ethical values,health and the environment;

– to work on completing binding internationallegislation on the treatment of ballast waterunder the auspices of the UN’s maritime orga-nisation, the IMO, in 2003;

– to take steps at national level in line with thevoluntary IMO guidelines as soon as possibleand, insofar as the contents are known, with thefuture IMO regulations on ballast water, whileat the same time preparing for implementationof the future IMO rules;

– to press for co-ordinated joint measures to dealwith ballast water in all of the North Sea coun-tries pending the advent of the new IMO legis-lation;

– to establish a programme for the monitoring ofnon-indigenous species on the priority list witha view to keeping tabs on migration and prolife-ration;

– to draw up an overview of non-indigenous spe-cies in the neighbouring countries which maybe expected to survive in Norwegian maritimeand coastal areas as a basis for future measu-res;

– to develop a risk analysis system for differentsections of the community and branches ofcommercial activity; and

– to attach particular importance to avoidingharmful effects from the spread of king crab inecosystems along the coast.

Intake and discharge of ballast water are today theoperations, which involve the greatest risk of unsu-pervised introduction and spread of non-indi-genous species of marine organisms. The orga-nisms, once introduced, spread easily in the waterand when they have established themselves it isvirtually impossible to eradicate them. The

Government therefore wants to give priority tomeasures to address the introduction and spreadof non-indigenous species via ballast water.

International shipping is mainly to blame forthe introduction and spread of non-indigenous spe-cies via ballast water and the risk level will varydepending on the area. The problem must there-fore be solved by agreeing on a set of internatio-nally binding regulations. Such regulations onintake, discharge and treatment of ballast water areat present being drafted, the aim being to have adedicated convention on this issue under the auspi-ces of the UN maritime organisation, the IMO, by2003. Completion of the work may, however, bedelayed and we know from experience that it willbe some years before the convention comes intoforce and is implemented by the contracting par-ties. The Government will be pressing for the con-vention to come into force as soon as possible.

The Government also intends to launch natio-nal measures in line with IMO regulations cur-rently in force. Plans are afoot to introduce require-ments for ships which discharge their ballast waterinto Norwegian waters to report this to the authori-ties; the aim here is to be able to issue injunctionsagainst them, thus forcing them to deal with theirballast water and sediments in the safest possibleway. The Government is also going to considerintroducing requirements regarding changing ofballast water and establishing reception facilitieson land. There is also a need to monitor non-indi-genous species and harmful organisms and toexchange information with other countries in theregion.

In the light of the natural spread of species viaocean currents and of the competition situationbetween ports, regional measures in the North Searegion will have a much greater impact than unila-teral initiatives on the part of Norway. On the occa-sion of the Fifth North Sea Conference in March2002 Norway will therefore be proposing that theNorth Sea countries take immediate steps to tacklethe problem of introduction of species via ballastwater. The idea is that the North Sea countriesshall adopt national and regional measures in thecourse of 2004. Norway will also suggest that theNorth Sea countries should consider introducingparticularly strict rules for the North Sea when theconvention comes into force.

Appropriate measures are also to be studiedand implemented to stop the spread of non-indi-genous marine organisms via other routes; directlyor indirectly via the hulls of ships, trade in impor-ted live species, illegal transplanting, sea ranchingor aquaculture.


The migration of the king crab westwardsalong the coast of Finnmark has accelerated inrecent years (cf. Box 3.5), something which haslaid the foundations for a certain degree of com-mercial exploitation. A working party has put for-ward proposals with a view to improving what isknown about the ecological effects of this species.Pending the availability of this information theGovernment assumes continued commercialexploitation in the areas where the stocks are mostabundant, while attaching particular importance toavoiding harmful effects along the coast.

The Committee which is to table proposals fornew basic legislation on management of biologicaldiversity (Committee on Biological Diversity) hasbeen asked to examine the general rules and regu-lations on non-indigenous species in existence.The Committee is to submit its opinion in theautumn of 2003 and on the basis of its advice theGovernment will assess how to strengthen therules and regulations.

The Government will stress that developmentsin the field of genetic engineering should takeaccount of environmental, safety and ethical issues

and stay in line with signals from the internationalmarkets. The development of marine genetic engi-neering must comply with the provisions of theLaw on Genetic Engineering whereby specificenvironmental assessments must be undertaken ofindividual projects and of the application of the pre-cautionary principle in relation to the environmentand health. If used within these limits, geneticengineering will offer new solutions and new com-mercial opportunities, for example in the field ofproduction of vaccines. Up to now it has beenunclear whether «DNA-vaccinated» animalsshould be regarded as genetically modified orga-nisms. This issue will now be studied by theBiotechnology Committee, which will also be exa-mining the need for regulations in this field. Inrespect of genetically modified organisms theGovernment stresses that implantation in the seaor in fish farm pens will not be authorised becauseof the potential for migration and because it isimpossible to predict the consequences. In thefuture, therefore, it will only be possible to usethem in migration-proof, closed facilities on land.

Figure 3.13 Genetically modified salmon grow twice as fast as ordinary farmed salmon. The Norwegian authorities have expressed misgivings to the USA regarding possible approval of so-called “Supersal-mon”, one of the reasons being concern for the marine environment and our wild salmon stocks.Photo: Aqua Bounty Farms/Scanpix


Norway has participated actively in internatio-nal work on drafting rules to govern the use of andtrade in live, genetically modified organisms (theCartagena Protocol). In addition, the Norwegianauthorities have been active in regional fora for theprotection of marine ecosystems from the possibleharmful effects of genetically modified organisms.The Norwegian authorities have therefore turnedto the USA among others to express their concernover the possible approval of what has been dub-bed the «supersalmon» because of what this couldmean for our marine environment and our wild sal-mon stocks.

3.6.3 Protection, use and distribution of marine, genetic resources

The Government intends– to investigate the general principles and condi-

tions applying for use of marine genetic resour-ces as part of the work of the Committee on Bio-logical Diversity on a new legal basis for co-ordinated management of biological diversity;and

– to develop and implement legislation to regu-late use of marine genetic resources, whichtakes account of Norwegian interests and inter-national agreements in this field.

The gene pool constitutes the biological basis forvariation involving different species and for varia-tion of the characteristics of individual species. It isgenes that are the basis for how species adapt todifferent habitats and for developing different vari-eties or stocks. They offer scope for breeding tamespecies and stocks. Genes are also codes for theproduction of different proteins with specific andpotentially commercially interesting properties.Both species living in the wild and farmed varietiestherefore represent valuable resources for furtherbreeding, manipulation and biotechnological pro-duction. At the same time, genetic variety providesa basis for mastering changes in the vital necessi-ties for life and is thus an assurance of future survi-val.

The growth of the fish farming industry in Nor-way is a striking illustration of the economic valueof genetic resources. By farming some 20 of themost attractive wild stocks of Norwegian salmon ithas laid the foundations for exports which gene-rate revenue to the tune of billions of Norwegian

kroner. In addition, there is keen interest in themarine sector in further charting and utilisation ofgenetic resources. This has also attracted attentionat international level to the potential for develop-ment in this field and over the past few years therehas been growing interest in the survey work alongthe Norwegian coast where the main focus is onthe coral reefs. It is believed that the coral reefswith their abundance of species may contain gene-tic resources with significant commercial potential.If active biological substances can be isolated oranother biotechnological use found this could pro-vide a basis for industrial use in the pharmaceuti-cals, cosmetics and food industries to a degree thatfar exceeds the value added of marine biotechno-logy in Norway today. However, legislation isurgently needed to regulate prospecting for marinebiological resources and the Committee on Biolo-gical Diversity will therefore be looking at the prin-ciples and conditions applying for the extraction ofgenetic resources, including the marine variety, inclose contact with the committee preparing a pro-posal for a new law on marine resources (cf. Chap-ter 3.9).

In addition to being used in connection withcrops and traditional areas of biotechnology, gene-tic resources offer scope for changing the heredi-tary characteristics of plants and animals by modi-fying their genes. Genetic modification of marineorganisms in the wild has so far not attracted muchcommercial interest from Norwegian firms bothbecause of the possible harmful effects on the envi-ronment and because of considerations connectedwith acceptance and also their reputation amongthe consumers (cf. description in Chapter 3.6.1).

Management of marine genetic resources hasnot been the focus of much development work andis primarily based on the Continental Shelf Act,which reflects the provisions set out in the Treatyon the Law of the Sea. Other pieces of our legisla-tion, however, contain provisions, which may berelevant to the extraction and utilisation of theseresources. The Committee on Biological Diversity(cf. Chapter 3.6.2) is to study the general principlesand conditions applying for the extraction of gene-tic resources, including marine genetic resources.The terms of reference of this committee alsostress that current legislation covering individualsectors, such as a new law on marine resources,will facilitate implementation of the main prin-ciples.


3.7 Protecting marine areas and sustainable spatial management of the maritime and coastal areas

3.7.1 The threats

Thanks to our long coastline and in some placeslow population density Norway still has areas ofnatural beauty left which have been little affectedby human activities. Nevertheless, pressure onareas in the coastal region is increasing. Examplesof operations which can often cause damage arelandfills, building of ports and roads, dredging anddumping, earthworks, smothering and laying ofpipes.

Humans have also left clear traces of their pas-sage on the seabed off the coast. It is estimated, forexample, that 33–50% of the deep-water coral reefs,which are found along the Norwegian coast, havebeen wholly or partially destroyed, largely as aresult of bottom trawling. Petroleum exploitationactivities are also in part responsible for major phy-sical encroachment on the seabed and in the futurethe extraction of minerals and gas from the seabedmay prove to be real threats.

There are gaps in our knowledge of the marineecosystems and of how vulnerable they are to vari-ous stresses. A good example is sea urchins whograze on and destroy the underwater forests of seaweed along large stretches of the coast from Trøn-delag and northwards as far as West Finnmark.The situation has remained relatively stable sincethe end of the nineteen seventies and results ofresearch indicate that it may remain this way for along time. We do not know, however, whether thesituation is due to natural fluctuations or to humanactivity, in the form of overload on species whichlive on sea urchins.

3.7.2 Enhanced spatial management of the marine environment

The Government intends:– to establish a network of marine protected

areas to conserve representative, singular, vul-nerable and threatened types of marine envi-ronments and natural assets along the Norwe-gian coastal and maritime areas;

– to protect remaining coral reefs in Norwegianwaters; and

– to establish a comprehensive, long-term planfor sustainable management of reserves of seaweed and initiate the necessary research andmeasures to restore the sea weed forest.

Some marine areas are particularly importantbecause they play a vital role as, for instance, spaw-ning grounds. Some areas also may represent hugebiological diversity or be important habitats; theseinclude coral reefs, forests of sea weed and colo-nies of eelgrass. Other areas may be regarded asvaluable because they have representative or sin-gular natural qualities, which we wish to conservefor the future. Still others may be habitats of rare orthreatened species.

But, all human activity affects the environmentto differing degrees and the question really iswhich of the negative consequences are we able orwilling to accept in the light of what these activitiesoffer society in return. Sustainable managementmust be based on the principle that the totalvolume of operations within a given area may notexceed what the ecosystems can stand.

Establishing environmental quality objectiveswill prove important in this context (cf. Chapter2.4.3). Such objectives will set a standard as to whatdegree of pressure on the environment can beaccepted in the different areas.

The expected increase in the exploitation ofcoastal and maritime areas not least by fisheriesand aquaculture will mean that striking the rightbalances between different user interests and envi-ronmental considerations will be very important.Spatial planning out to sea will be an important toolin this context. If we want to ensure sustainable useand strike the right balance between the differentareas of interests we must have the requisite know-

Figure 3.14 These types of coral are to be found along stretches of the Norwegian coast. Here we find sea porcupines and sea anemones at a depth of 15 m off Bodø.Photo: Erling Svendsen


ledge of the ecosystem and of the effects differentuses have on it. The Government therefore intendsto increase charting of maritime areas and to putmore effort into compiling and processing data tolay the foundations for a knowledge-based, diffe-rentiated management system (cf. ParliamentaryReport No. 42 (2000–2001) on biological diversityand Chapter 2.3.3).

Differentiated, sustainable spatial managementmust be based on knowledge of the ecosystem andof the consequences of different types of use. Wehave different means for protecting nature fromnegative effects. These are reflected in environ-mental legislation and in legislation on individualsectors. Examples of protected marine areas aretrawl-free zones in respect of fishing and trawlingfor sea weed, areas closed to drilling for oil forparts of the year and areas protected under theterms of the Nature Conservation Act.

The Planning and Building Act will also be apivotal tool for the purposes of spatial planning insea areas within the Norwegian baseline. A com-mittee is at present working on a revision of thelaw. A first interim report has already been submit-ted and a second one will be forthcoming in theNew Year. This will be followed by proposals foramendments to legislation.

3.7.3 Marine protected areas

Today approximately 1% of the sea area within theconfines of our territorial waters is protected pur-suant to the Nature Conservation Act. This zone byand large covers areas where the wish to protectthem is associated with natural assets on land – e.g.scenery, sea birds or wetlands.

Two marine protected areas have been establis-hed; these comprise the Sularevet and Iverryggencoral reefs off the coast of Trøndelag which areprotected under the terms of the regulation on

coral reefs founded on the law on saltwater fishe-ries and the law governing Norway’s economiczone. A marine conservation area has also beenestablished pursuant to the Nature ConservationAct covering the Selligrunnen coral reef in theTrondheim Fjord. Establishing specific conserva-tion areas under the terms of the Nature Conserva-tion Act will continue to play an important role inwork on assuring biological diversity in Norway.

Work has now been started on a nationalmarine conservation plan (cf. ParliamentaryReport No. 43 (1998–99) on conservation and useof the coastal zone and Recommendation to theStorting No. 168 (1999–2000)). The purpose of theplan is to ensure that a range of representative, sin-gular, vulnerable or threatened underwater typesof marine environments and natural assets are pre-served for the future to provide, inter alia, refe-rence areas for research and monitoring. The areasare to include a representative selection of types ofmarine environments in each of the three biogeo-graphical regions along the Norwegian coast.

The intention is that the plan, which will com-prise areas conserved under the terms of theNature Conservation Act and areas protected pur-suant to other legislation, should be completedsome time during 2004. This first phase will be fol-lowed by a second phase of marine conservationwork covering the period 2004–2010. During thissecond phase the existing network of protectedareas will be updated on the basis of new findings,national objectives and relevant international pro-cesses and agreements. Both the waters close tothe coast, territorial waters and the economic zonewill be assessed. Where appropriate, managementplans will be drawn up to ensure that the areas aremanaged in a way commensurate with the conser-vation objective.

According to the UN Convention on the Law ofthe Sea the International Maritime Organization(the IMO) may establish its own clearly definedareas known as PSSAs where special measures canbe taken vis-à-vis shipping with a view to preven-ting pollution. It is up to individual countries toapply for such status for relevant coastal areas onthe basis of those areas’ vulnerability and the riskof damage caused by shipping.

Long stretches of the Norwegian coast areextremely vulnerable in the face of shipping acci-dents and the environmental consequences of suchaccidents can be very grave. The Government the-refore wants to assess the possible use of PSSAs asa tool. At present there are only two areas whichhave been given the status of PSSAs by the IMO,one of them being the Great Barrier Reef in Austra-

Box 3.6 Definition

Marine protected areas are areas where theseabed and/or the whole of the appurtenantwater column or parts thereof are protectedunder the terms of the Nature ConservationAct or which have been given specific protec-tion pursuant to other laws. A marine protec-ted area may also comprise a land area in thetidal zone. Marine protected areas covered bythe Nature Conservation Act are known as«marine conservation areas».


lia, but a number of applications are pending, oneof which comprises the Wadden Sea in the NorthSea.

3.7.4 Better protection for particularly precious or threatened types of natural environment

In addition to general approaches to protectionused in spatial and industrial management theGovernment intends to intensify efforts to protectthe coral reefs and to promote more work on con-servation and sustainable use of the forests of seaweed.

Coral reefs

Coral reefs are probably the most vulnerable typeof marine environment that we have. It has beenestimated that between 30 and 50% of all coral reefsin Norwegian waters have been damaged orcrushed and as far as we can judge it is bottom-trawling activities that are to blame. The Instituteof Marine Research is still receiving reports fromfishermen about continued devastation. This isserious because the coral reefs are precious eco-systems with a particularly rich biological diver-sity. The coral reefs are of major importance for fis-heries, research and also as a source of marinegenetic resources. It is uncertain whetherdestroyed reefs will regenerate and, even if theydo, this will take a very long time; the oldest partsof the reefs are between hundreds and thousandsof years old.

It is only in recent years that Norwegian autho-rities have taken steps to protect the coral reefs and

they have done this via a provision for the protec-tion of coral reefs in the law on saltwater fisheriesand in the law governing Norway’s economic zone.This provision prohibits conscious destruction ofcoral reefs and requires care when fishing in thevicinity of known coral reefs. The use of bottomtrawls on two specified and particularly preciouscoral reefs has also been banned. In addition, acoral reef in a shallow area of the Trondheim Fjordhas become the subject of a temporary conserva-tion order pursuant to the Nature ConservationAct.

To ensure that the regulation regarding coralreefs is respected a survey of all known coral reefsin Norwegian waters is planned in the course of2002. The needs for further conservation of coralreefs will be assessed in connection with themarine conservation plan. More research is to becarried out on the incidence of coral reefs in Nor-wegian waters, their condition and the way inwhich their ecosystem functions.

Terms of reference are to be established for atask force comprising representatives of the autho-rities responsible for management. This task forceis to identify what needs to be done and to suggestmeasures, which may offer better protection ofremaining coral reefs.

Forests of sea weed

The forests of sea weed along significant stretchesof the coast from Trøndelag to West Finnmarkhave been heavily grazed by sea urchins. This situ-ation has been relatively stable since the end of thenineteen seventies and the scope for fishing in thelocal areas has been markedly reduced. The causeof this situation is not known. Over the past 10–15years the authorities have contributed in variouscontexts to studies of the spread of sea urchins andto research into the relationship between sea weedand sea urchins; one example is through theMARE NOR research programme.

The problem of the depletion of forests of seaweed through heavy grazing has been raised in anumber of contexts and a working party has nowbeen appointed to review the whole complex ofproblems. Assessments and advice submitted bythe working party will then be scrutinised with aview to rapid follow-up.

The forests of sea weed from Rogaland toSouthern Trøndelag are being used today by thealginate industry. Up to now harvesting has beenregulated at county level by opening up areas at 5-year intervals. To ensure that the forests of seaweed are conserved and used sustainably the

Figure 3.15 In recent years the authorities have taken steps to protect the coral reefs. Catfish does not eat coral, but lives close to reefs.Photo: Erling Svendsen


Figure 3.16 Along lengthy stretches of coast from Trøndelag to West Finnmark sea weed is heavily gra-zed by sea urchins.Photo: Erling Svendsen


Government intends to establish a comprehensive,long-term management plan for sea weed resour-ces in the course of 2003 (cf. Parliamentary ReportNo. 43 (1998–99)). The goal is that this plan shouldbe co-ordinated with the conservation plans atcounty level. Particularly valuable and representa-tive areas of sea weed forest will also probablybecome the objects of protection under the termsof the marine conservation plan.

3.8 Adapting aquaculture to the needs of the environment

Norway’s fish farming industry has developedastronomically since its modest beginnings withsalmon farms in the nineteen seventies. Today, fishfarming is one of our most important sources ofexports and also vital to district revenue. In thespace of 30 years salmon and trout farming hasgrown into an export industry worth over 13 billionNorwegian kroner. 460 000 tons of salmon andtrout were produced in 2000. Salmon and trout far-ming constitute the very foundations of the Norwe-gian fish farming industry and represent the lion’sshare of the production potential for many years tocome. Work is also ongoing on developing otherforms of aquaculture. In 2000, for instance, 400tons of halibut were produced, 100 tons of cod and1000 tons of shellfish of various types. Obviously, aprerequisite for producing safe seafood is to have aclean and abundant sea.

Pursuant to the law on fish farming, theMinistry of Fisheries has the overall responsibilityfor management of the fish farming industry andalso for co-ordination in this area. A number ofother authorities and pieces of legislation are alsoimplicated in the management effort; the law onfish diseases, the Pollution Control Act, the law onPorts and Shipping routes and the Planning andBuilding Act are of central importance in thisregard.

The Ministry of Fisheries has established envi-ronmental policy objectives for the fish farmingindustry in its environmental plan of action for2000–2004. The aim is through the development ofrules and regulations and basic research to contri-bute to:– operating methods which place the emphasis

on disease prevention;– effective, environment-friendly methods of

combating of salmon lice; and– techniques and methods which minimise dis-

charges and escapes of farmed fish and whichdo not involve negative effects for the marine

biological diversity and the marine environ-ment.

Conditions of importance to the development offish farming in Norway have been – in addition toour stocks of wild salmon – the natural advantagesoffered by the country through its long coastlineand clean seas with good scope for production.This branch has therefore been developed using atechnique involving open pens, something whichensures that the fish are produced in direct contactwith the marine ecosystem. In addition to expec-ting further growth in the salmon farming industryother types of aquaculture such as farming of salt-water fish, shellfish and sea ranching are alsobeing developed. There are high hopes that diffe-rent branches of aquaculture along with fisheriesmay become cornerstones of the Norwegian econ-omy in the future. However, a condition for furthergrowth is that these branches of activity mustadapt much more to the needs of the environment.The biggest challenge today is to find solutions tothe problems of salmon lice and escaped farmedsalmon.

The industry itself has made a commitment tocontribute to the effort to reduce the environmen-tal effects of fish farming. An important step in thisregard was an initiative taken by the Association ofNorwegian Fish Farmers in collaboration with therelevant authorities to draw up a national actionplan to prevent escapes. The plan was submitted inthe spring of 2000 and contains a number of propo-sals, which require follow-up via changes to legisla-tion, other administrative measures and initiativesthat would have to be taken by the industry itself.The fish farming industry has taken an active partin the development and implementation of the nati-onal anti-salmon lice action plan drawn up in 1999under the auspices of the Norwegian AnimalHealth Authority. This plan has already been thesubject of several revisions.

3.8.1 Challenges

At the end of the nineteen eighties as the fish far-ming industry continued to grow it became clearthat fish farming was associated with consequen-ces for the environment in form of spread of disea-ses, antibiotics and use of other pharmaceuticals,discharge of substances hazardous to the environ-ment and escapes of farmed fish. Several of the ear-lier environmental problems are now well on theway to being solved or at least significantly redu-ced. Not least, the use of antibacterial agents has


been massively reduced and today the fish farmingbusiness in Norway is responsible for less than 2%of the total volume of antibiotics used, whilearound 18% were used on farm animals and pets.

It is true that this branch has come a long wayin a number of areas in terms of measures toprotect the environment and fish health. Neverthe-less, important environmental challenges stillremain. The major challenges today are connectedwith the consequences on wild salmon stocks ofescaped farmed fish and the spread of salmon lice.Farmed salmon which escape represent a real riskfactor for wild salmon in terms of genetic interfe-rence, competition and other effects. Salmon liceare a particular threat to the migrating smolt,which will not survive if the level of infestation withthe lice is too high. A survey carried out in theSogne Fjord in the summer of 2001 showed thataround 90% of the smolt from all the watercoursesin the fjord catchment area died as a result of thisone factor. Furthermore, escaped farmed salmonrepresent an increase in the number of potentialhosts for salmon lice. A report on the state of thestocks in Western Norway clearly indicates thatthe influence of fish farming in these fish farming-intensive areas has had a negative effect on thestocks of wild salmon.

Environmental challenges still exist also inother areas. These are connected in particular withdischarges of chemicals used to treat seines andwith the anti-parasitic agents used to combat sal-mon lice. There is still room for improvement inrespect of discharges of chemicals, pharmaceuti-cals and organic materials. Discharges of nutrientsand organic materials can cause regional eutrophi-cation as fish farming activities continue to expand.Access to primary marine raw materials for fodderand competition for space are other major challen-ges facing the aquaculture branch.

Further growth and development of aquacul-ture are expected to generate fresh environmentalchallenges; e.g. in the form of new diseases. A par-ticular headache has to do with the fact that manyof the problems are increasing in order of magni-tude as the industry expands. Many areas there-fore need ever better and more effective measuresto reduce the overall load generated by fish far-ming activities. Farming of new species createsnew challenges and is an area where we need tolearn more about the possible consequences formarine species living in the wild and for the marineecosystem. In the case of marine species, forinstance, we do not want to see an environmentalseparation between the growth phase and thereproduction phase.

The public infrastructure and support appara-tus associated with the industry must be adapted toits needs and must be strengthened to face up tothe new challenges represented by food safety, theenvironment and fish health. The growth of aqua-culture during the nineteen nineties was notaccompanied by a corresponding focus on themanagement apparatus. In 2002, the first step inthe necessary upgrading of aquaculture manage-ment and the concerted effort to ensure safe sea-food is taken, both at central and regional levels.

3.8.2 Measures

The Government intends:– to ensure that consideration for the environ-

ment is established as a prerequisite for thefurther development and growth of aquacul-ture;

– to increase efforts to reduce problems connec-ted with the escape of farmed fish and salmonlice; and

– to draw up guidelines for environmental testingof pharmaceuticals designed for use in fish far-ming.

Concern for the environment – a fundamental prerequisite for further development of this branch of activity.

The Government wants to emphasise the enor-mous potential offered by further development ofaquaculture and the importance this branch willhave for the Norwegian economy and for regionalpolicy in the future. One of the most importantaims of this Parliamentary Report is to help securethe advantages Norway has for this type of growthby establishing a comprehensive, integrated, long-term policy to maintain and ensure a clean marineenvironment. At the same time, we must also makesure that the branch develops along sustainablelines.

It is important that the industry adjust better tothe needs of the environment both for the sake ofthe environment as such and for the sake of thebranch itself. Increasing attention is being directedtowards the environmental consequences of fishfarming both nationally and on the markets wherethe products of Norwegian fish farms are sold. Ifwe wish to secure market shares in the longer termwe will have to ensure that environmental conside-rations become an integral part of a long-termdevelopment strategy for the industry. TheGovernment therefore intends to target better


environmental adaptation of this branch of activityand to make priorities. This will be part of work inprogress in the Government’s Aquaculture Com-mittee, whose job it is to establish the long-termstrategies for the development of aquaculture.

Special emphasis is also to be placed on givingpriority to environment aspects in management,when drawing up rules and regulations, establish-ing basic conditions and in aquaculture research.Co-operation with the industry is essential if wewant to achieve real environmental improvements.

Management. The Government is investing infurther enhancement and upgrading of aquacul-ture management. This will also be an importantstep if we want to be able to introduce vital initiati-ves on the environmental side. In addition toincreased resources it will also be important to exa-mine possibilities of rendering the present mana-gement systems more effective.

Working out legislation and establishing basicconditions. The Government will be giving priorityto making sure that the basic conditions applyingfor the branch stimulate a greater degree of sustai-nable development. New environment clauses arein the offing and the environmental consequencesof the regulations and initiatives to develop theindustry will be investigated more thoroughly and

attributed greater importance. The Ministry of Fis-heries is also preparing to carry out a thoroughreview of the law on fish farming with a view to pre-senting proposals for a new law on aquaculture. Anew law on aquaculture would provide a basis foractive management designed to promote the typeof development in the aquaculture sector whichalso takes account of the environment, biologicaldiversity, sustainable spatial use in the coastal zoneand food safety.

In 2002 a new regulation will be drawn for theattribution of marine species which will provide forthe need to make facilities and localities infection-proof, to separate generations etc. Research willalso be started into developing location criteria toguarantee optimum use of the coast, while at thesame time preventing the spread of infection andgenetic interaction between the farmed organismsand the wild stocks.

Research. Learning more is an absolute prere-quisite for sustainable development of existing andnew areas of aquaculture. Research on environ-mental effects is therefore important and must beincluded in all aquaculture research. Thanks to theindustry’s own R&D resources financial support isnow being provided for the necessary researchinto interactions between wild fish and farmed fish.

Figure 3.17 The photograph depicts a salmon farm in Jarbotnfjord in Finnmark.Photo: Stein Johnsen/Samfoto


Special measures to reduce escapes and combat salmon lice

The Government intends to launch a 3-year drive toimplement effective measures to combat salmonlice and fish escapes. A mandatory implementationplan setting out measures to be taken over the nextthree years will be finalized by the autumn of 2002.This plan will be based on the existing action plansaddressing the problems of escapes and salmonlice. The first thing which needs to be done is toimplement measures already identified in the cur-rent action plans, but new measures in the light offresh findings in recent years must also be conside-red. This is a field where the effect of the measuresintroduced will depend on the growth of thisbranch. This is something which requires a con-stant focus on research and on development of newapproaches and new technologies. This work mustbe a collaborative effort on the part of the compe-tent authorities and the industry.

In the case of salmon lice, co-operation hasbeen established between the operators and theveterinary and fisheries authorities in the Trønde-lag region and jointly conducted delousing of far-med salmon has considerably reduced the salmonlice problem. A similar concerted offensive is nowplanned for the other regions as part of more inten-sive implementation of the anti-salmon lice actionplan. More emphasis is to be placed on informationon the legislation in place and compliance with it.Stricter penalties are to be introduced for violationsof the regulations including withdrawal of conces-sions in the case of serious or repeated infringe-ments.

The action plan drawn up to counter escapes offarmed fish contains a number of measures. Impor-tant measures which it has already been decided toimplement involve the introduction of a system oftechnical, type approval for fish farming facilities(TYGUT) and internal checks pursuant to the lawon fish farming and fish diseases. New regulationsare being drafted with a view to entry into forcesome time in 2003. Further, the rules on operationof fish farms and on diseases are to be amendedand the following additional measures will thenapply: Better routines during risk-operations onthe pens, propeller protection requirements, bettermonitoring of the enclosures, better routines fortowing the pens and better regulations in respect ofholding pens and handling of fish in associationwith slaughterhouses. These measures will help usachieve the political objective already adopted whe-reby escaped farmed fish shall no longer representa threat to wild salmon by 2005.

Part of adapting the aquaculture industry to theneeds of the environment will involve giving consi-deration to the possibility of marking farmed sal-mon. The Government wishes to follow up this ideaand to learn more about marking of farmed sal-mon, while also investigating the economic andother consequences of such a system. This inquirywill be carried out as a collaborative effort by thefish farming and environment protection authori-ties in consultation with the branches concerned.Important elements of this work will involve loo-king at the possibilities of marking in the light of anumber of objectives, such as being able to identifyfarmed fish which has escaped, commercial trace-ability etc. Another important aspect involves pro-ducing a social cost-benefit assessment. The aim isfor the work to be completed in good time so that abasis for decisions is available in the course of2003.

Adapting medicines to the needs of the environment

If we want to protect the marine biological diver-sity, the use of pharmaceuticals in this industrymust be adapted as far as possible to the needs ofthe environment. Pharmaceuticals used in fish far-ming are discharged into the marine environmentand may affect wild organisms living there. TheGovernment therefore aims to draw up guidelinesfor environmental testing of pharmaceutical pro-ducts used in fish farming. This will help ensurethat the pharmaceuticals of the future are adaptedto the needs of the marine environment and alsothat effects of different pharmaceutical preparationare comparable. In addition, importance isattached to developing alternative methods, whichare more environmentally friendly, e.g. use of wras-ses for delousing where possible.

Other measures

Substances hazardous to the environment. Dischar-ges of copper used in the treating of seines repre-sent a pollution problem and this area of use is oneof the two main sources of copper discharges intowater in Norway. Norway has not yet achieved theobjective regarding reduction of copper dischargesinto water set out in the previous North Sea Decla-ration and, given current fishing methods and theexpected growth of fish farming, this problem maybe expected to increase in the future. In 2002, thepollution control authorities will be introducing aban on discharge of copper and other hazardoussubstances from plants which treat and wash sei-


nes used by fish farms. This will help encouragethe development and use of more environmentallyfriendly alternatives. Mechanical methods invol-ving rinsing and drying of seines are an alternativeto proofing of seines. A few fish farms have startedexperimenting with using what is termed an «envi-ronment drum» on a voluntary basis. This can beused in rectangular pens in steel facilities and expe-rience so far has been positive. The drum alsooffers better scope for checking on holes in the sei-nes.

The policy of substitution whereby a more envi-ronmentally friendly product shall be used wherepossible is also to be used in connection with otherchemicals used in fish farming.

Discharges of organic substances from fish farms.The Government is anxious that the basic condi-tions applying for the fish farming industry shouldstimulate better adaptation to the needs of the envi-ronment. In a possible new system for regulation ofproduction, operators may be required to takeresponsibility for environmental monitoring oftheir own plants using approved methods. Informa-tion generated by this type of monitoring will pro-vide a basis for forecasting and assessing the capa-city of the different sites and will be useful in prepa-ring for further growth in this industry, coastalzone planning and so on. For example, priority maybe given to the farming of shellfish in areas withhigh concentrations of nutrients.

Spatial use. More growth in aquaculture willmean more demand for suitable space. Good cross-sector processes are to be established to avoid dis-putes over environmental considerations and otherareas of industrial and consumer interests such astransport and open air activities. If we want toachieve the most efficient and sustainable use ofspace available, we must assess the possibilities ofcombining the farming of a number of species onthe same site. This is the reason why a project hasnow been started in the Trøndelag region involvingtrial farming of salmon and shellfish and of salmonand cod on the same site to find out what effectsthis may have. The project will therefore be follo-wed up with a monitoring programme to establishthe possible operational and contagion-related con-sequences. If this is shown to be a viable approachit will also increase the basis for value-added in thatoptimisation of operations can save on costs.

3.9 Sustainable fisheries management

3.9.1 Fishing resources and fisheries

Fishing and landings of fish along with fish farmingare of vital importance to the scope of communitiesalong the Norwegian coast to make a living. Thetotal turnover of the fisheries sector in 2001 was11.4 billion Norwegian kroner (primary value),while the export value amounted to around 20 bil-lion Norwegian kroner.

The fisheries sector depends on renewable, alt-hough not unlimited resources. This is why it isimportant to develop management strategieswhich take account of the ecosystem as a wholeand of how the fish stocks are affected by a varietyof environmental factors and fishing activity. Aclean sea and a sustainable load on fishing resour-ces are absolute musts if the value-added in the fis-heries sector is to be maintained and furtherdeveloped. They are thus of vital importance to thevery basis for existence of the coastal population.Fishing is also part of the material prosperity ofLapp culture in the coastal region and fjord areas.

Every year Norway records landings fromaround 80 different stocks of fish species. Of these28 species are of economic significance. Theaverage catch for Norwegian fisheries from around1960 and up until the present day is around 2.5 mil-lion tons per annum. The actual catches havealways varied from year to year and also show peri-odical variations which reflect fluctuations in thesize of the fish stocks and their accessibility. TheNorwegian fisheries are mainly in the North Sea,the Norwegian Sea, the Barents Sea and along theentire coastline. Fishing activities in the North Seaare dominated by herring and sprat, plus mackerel,cod, haddock, whiting, Norway pout and sandeel.In the Norwegian Sea the most important speciesare Norwegian spring spawning herring, blue whi-ting, mackerel, saithe, ling, blue ling and tusk. Inaddition to fishing for shrimp and capelin, fishingin the Barents Sea is dominated by demersal spe-cies such as cod, saithe and haddock.

Scientific advice is provided on management ofcatches based on the size of the individual stocksfor all the most important fish stocks. This advicecomes from the International Council for theExploration of the Sea (ICES). Both advice andmanagement must be based on the precautionaryprinciple in order to ensure balanced and sustaina-ble commercial operation, which also protects thebasic resources and the biological diversity. Suchmanagement must also be based on an ecosystemapproach.


Figure 3.18 Capelin is fished using a purse seine or a trawl, as shown here in the Barents Sea.Photo: Kjell Karlsen/NN/Samfoto


Learning more about the diversity of marineorganisms and about how the individual speciesand stocks at different levels in the food chain inte-ract can lay the foundations for increased value-added and strengthened management of all marineresources in a way which, inter alia, takes accountof the biological diversity. Today we are reapingjust a few species in this diversity. Future value-added based on marine resources may take manyforms and will very probably also include specieswhich are not being used today. Work on assessinghow the stocks interact with each other at differentlevels in the food chain and how this affects poten-tial for harvesting of individual stocks will providea basis for optimum harvesting strategies for diffe-rent fish stocks, marine mammals and so on.Increased interest in using all parts of the rawmaterials, off-cuts etc. as fodder on fish farms andother animal production units, and increased use ofbiotechnology to derive advantage from the singu-lar properties of marine raw materials has yieldedresults and it will be possible in the near future tomake use of the raw materials harvested to a levelof 100%. Increased pressure from a growing mar-ket for food, fodder and specialist products makesgreater demands on management of resources,and outtake must be based on the principle of sus-tainable, ecology-based management. The Govern-ment will use this as a basis for further develop-ment of harvesting of all types of live marineresources.

3.9.2 Measures

The central environmental challenges in terms offisheries management are associated with impro-ving the knowledge base for management, imple-mentation of new principles in resources manage-ment (ecosystem-based management and imple-mentation of the precautionary principle),regulation of fisheries, reductions of by-catchesand more effective enforcement of the regulatoryprovisions. It is also important to reduce catchcapacity in order to bring it more in line with theresources available and what can be expected to beavailable in the years to come. During the spring of2002 the Government will be presenting to theStorting specific proposals regarding the setting upof a structural fund. This, coupled with establishingmeans of adapting fleet sizes to resources availableacross the fisheries sector, will improve thebalance between resources and the outtake ofthem.

In the light of this the Government intends:

– to improve on what we know about sustainablefisheries management by– stimulating the development of new, more

effective monitoring methods usingmodern technologies to accommodate theincreasing demands for monitoring ofresources and ecosystems; and

– conducting estimation of the specific rela-tions between consumption and populationsize at different trophic levels of the marinefood webs so as to learn more about theseinteractions in the marine ecosystem;

– to strengthen fisheries regulations by– establishing management objectives (target

reference points) for the different stocks;– developing a precautionary approach to

regulation further;– continuing the implementation of ecosys-

tem-based management; and– implementing technological and catch-stra-

tegy approaches to further reduce unwan-ted by-catches;

– to improve supervision of catches by– intensifying the work done by the coastgu-

ard and field controls;– stepping up dissemination of information on

the importance of adhering to regulatoryprovisions;

– working harder on establishing reliablemeasurements for total outtake from stocksbeing harvested (including discards and by-catches); and

– considering the introduction of a generalban on discards; and

– to introduce institutional measures by– starting work on a new law on marine

resources;– doing more in the context of ICES on

developing a precautionary approach tomanagement of resources; and

– clarifying areas of responsibility in terms ofproviding expert advice on the status of themaritime and coastal environment andappropriate measures.

3.9.3 The influence of fishing activities on resources and on the biological diversity

In the global context overload on fisheries resour-ces represents a problem. The UN Food and Agri-culture Organisation, the FAO, has estimated thatbetween 15 and 18% of the world’s fisheries resour-ces are being overfished and that if no steps aretaken to reduce overfishing, yield from these


stocks will be drastically reduced. Between 47 and50% are already fully utilised, i.e. it is not possibleto extract more fish without this having negativeeffects. Approximately 25–27% of the fisheriesresources are either under-utilised or under mode-rate pressure and it is here that there is potentialfor increasing the fishing effort in the years tocome.

In global terms a major problem for fisheriesmanagement is that catch capacity far exceeds theresources available. This overcapacity is perhapsthe main force driving overfishing of the stocks.This is a problem in Norway, too. The fishing fleetis generally too big if compared to the fish stocksavailable.

Outtake of stocks and ecosystems leads tochanges in their dynamics. Most of the species ofimportance to our economy are quite good at adap-ting to different types of influence. Under moderatepressure productivity will actually increasethrough the fish growing faster and reproducing ata younger age. But, when the fishing outtakeexceeds a certain level the stocks lose their abilityto adjust and become subject to overload.

Most fish stocks exhibit marked natural fluctu-ations associated with natural phenomena such astemperature, currents, climatic factors, interac-tions between species etc. Outtake causes stocks toshrink and leads to the age composition andgrowth of the species changing. Relations betweenthe species in the ecosystems are also affected. It isdifficult to distinguish between the effects ofhuman activities and the effects of natural pheno-mena when fish stocks increase or decrease. Weneed to know more about such factors if we want toachieve sustainable resources management. Good,sustainable management depends on being able toadjust outtake of the stocks to natural fluctuationsin phenomena affecting them.

Many of the most important stocks in ourwaters are vulnerable for a variety of reasons; somespecies are long lived and mature late, othersrenew themselves at varying speeds and are affec-ted by fluctuations in the maritime climate.

Excessive pressure on a fish stock can cause itto shrink so drastically that it cannot be fished at allfor a long time. New generations of fish producedeach year are very small in number and the spaw-ning stocks remain stable at a low level over a verylong period. In our waters we have experienced thecollapse of Norwegian spring spawning herring,North Sea herring and North Sea mackerel. Collap-ses such as these occur quickly in stocks underheavy pressure and can have long-term consequen-ces for the stocks. The collapse of the Norwegian

spring spawning herring stock at the end of thenineteen sixties led to a change in migratory pat-terns and this stock was not available in quantitiespermitting catches for 20 years. In addition, sup-plies of nutrition for other species in the ecosys-tems (e.g. cod, saithe, minke whale and sea birds)have undergone radical change. A concerted effortto build up the stock again produced good resultsand today the stocks of Norwegian spring spaw-ning herring are in a healthy state and provide forgood fishing. At the same time, the pressure onNorth Sea cod, blue whiting and Greenland halibutare now giving cause for concern.

Many fisheries exhibit pockets of other speciesor unwanted size categories of the target species,i.e. by-catches. Some of these have an economicvalue, while others simply constitute a nuisance tocommercial fishing. The problem of by-catches ismulti-facetted; it comprises catches of fry and smallfish, threatened species or heavily overfished spe-cies, plus birds and marine mammals.

Catches of fry and fish below the minimum sizeare a problem for many fisheries. Area closures,grading techniques and mesh size regulationshave been introduced to lessen the harmful effectsof the by-catch problem. Fishing for shrimp in theBarents Sea and in the Norwegian fjords has beenregulated for a long time with the aim of avoidinglarge by-catches of cod, haddock and redfish.These problems have been central to reductions ofdemersal fish stocks in the North Sea. Work is nowin progress on establishing solutions to finding theright gear so as to reduce by-catches of fry; this is,for example, the case in the industrial fisheries inthe North Sea, which concentrate on tusk and Nor-way pout and where catches at certain times con-tain large numbers of recruits from species such ashaddock, whiting and blue whiting. Dynamic,knowledge-based regulation of seasons and areasbased on the results of monitoring is important.Despite clear and effective measures introduced byNorway there are still unknown numbers of morta-lities in many of the stocks as a result of fishinggear, slip of live fish in seine fisheries etc. Discar-ding by-catches of economically important speciesis prohibited in Norway. Now the Governmentintends to study whether this ban should be exten-ded to cover all species in order to tighten controlsand monitoring of the by-catch problem. In thatcase all catches must be landed and reported.

By-catches of marine mammals and sea birdsare a considerable problem in some fisheries. Innet fisheries on the coast seals and porpoisesbecome tangled up in the fishing gear. Sea birdssuch as auks, puffins, great cormorants, shag and


common guillemots are also at risk. This causessuffering for the animals and losses for the fisher-men. By-catches of sea birds are also a problem forline fishing, but here some progress has beenmade in developing techniques which reduce theproblem. An effective and cheap remedy is to use a«scarecrow». This is a product developed jointly byresearch circles and the industry. It is, however,taking time to persuade all the operators to tow thisdevice behind them.

In recent years a lot of research has been doneto try to find out how different types of fishing gearand fishing methods affect species and the habitatsof species. In areas with a high frequency of traw-ling habitats risk permanent change. Trawling inareas with coral reefs has been seen to cause con-siderable damage to the reefs. Coral reefs evolveover hundreds of years and are an important habi-tat for many species of fish and other organisms.Norway has taken steps to protect these habitats.The most important thing is to protect areas alongthe coast where such reefs have been detected.The reefs are probably of major ecological signifi-cance and it is important to continue to chart themand to be constantly considering measures toprotect them.

Lost fishing nets have both practical and econ-omic consequences for fishermen, are a hiddendanger to fisheries resources and constitute litter.For some years now we have undertaken clean-upoperations to remove lost nets and a working paritycomprising representatives of the fisheries authori-ties and the industry is to make proposals as to howto reduce the problem. High priority will be givento following up its proposals.

3.9.4 The international framework for management of resources

As much as 90% of all fishing in Norway involvesstocks which are shared with other countries. TheNorwegian authorities cannot therefore decide onhow these stocks are to be managed in isolation.They have to co-operate with the other countries.

The overall, global framework for the manage-ment of marine resources and the environment islaid down in the UN Convention on the Law of theSea from 1982. This convention gives the coastalstates the right to establish economic zones exten-ding to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370 kilo-metres) from the coast and invests them with sove-reign rights over the natural resources in thosezones. The Convention on the Law of the Sea setsout principles as to how regional and national regi-mes are to be organised and what they are to take

into account. A distinction is made between mana-gement inside and outside these economic zones.Inside its economic zone the coastal state has anobligation to manage and conserve fishing resour-ces based on the best available scientific data andto ensure that the stocks do not risk being overfis-hed. This requires a considerable effort in terms oflearning more about the marine environment andin terms of managing and using it.

The UN conference on the environment anddevelopment held in Rio in 1992 put maritimeissues on the agenda and led to the introduction ofa system for better management of stocks locatedboth within national zones and in internationalwaters. This was achieved via the UN agreementon fishing on the high seas (1995). The agreementadds more detail to the contents of the Conventionon the Law of the Sea on a number of importantpoints. The agreement gives the precautionaryprinciple a firm foundation in international law inrespect of fisheries management and rules regar-ding compliance. The agreement also establishesan obligation for countries to engage in regional co-operation in the field of fisheries management andon the terms for enforcement of fisheries regula-tions. The agreement came into force in December2001 and has proved important to the establish-ment of more modern principles for the manage-ment of marine resources and to the implementa-tion of these principles in practical policy. Theagreement has also been important to the develop-ment of regional co-operation on fisheries.

The FAO’s fisheries committee (COFI) playsan important global role in the development ofstandards for good fisheries management. Parallelto developing international agreements in the areathe FAO has also been instrumental in developingan International Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries, which was adopted in 1995. This estab-lishes a number of principles for modern fisheriesmanagement, including consideration for the eco-systems where fisheries operate.

Various action plans have been drawn up tolaunch the code. An international action plan tocombat illegal, unregulated and unrecorded fish-ing (known as IUU fisheries) was adopted inMarch 2001. Following pressure from Norway theaction plan included a mechanism for blacklistingvessels which have engaged in IUU fishing and aban on selling catches obtained by illegal means.International action plans were earlier adopted onby-catches of sea birds through line fishing, protec-tion and management of shark stocks and on redu-cing overcapacity in the fishing fleet.


Commercial and environment issues are beco-ming more and more closely connected and this initself is not without problems in respect of theWTO rules or international agreements on theenvironment. A number of cases concerning use oftrade measures to protect environmental assetshave been heard by the WTO panels for the settle-ment of disputes. In this area Norway will be focu-sing on obtaining further clarification of the posi-tive and negative effects of increased liberalisationof trade on the environment and on examining sub-sidies which may be harmful to the environmentmore closely.

It is important that the trade rules promote pro-duction and use of environmentally friendly goodsand services. The use of environmental labellingcan influence patterns of production and consump-tion in a sustainable direction. Transparency isimportant if we want to avoid environmental label-ling being used for protectionist purposes. Envi-ronmental labelling of products and the need forglobal guidelines for this were discussed at the glo-bal summit on the environment and developmentin Rio in 1992. The use of environmental labellingcan also be justified from the point of view of theconsumer’s right to environmental information (cf.the Århus Convention). The UN Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP) is in the process of developingtechnical guidelines for environmental labellingand Norway supports this effort.

Assessments of the life span of products are auseful tool for documenting the environment-fri-endly properties of a product and can also helpidentify good environmental labelling criteria. TheUN’s Environment Programme is trying to reachagreement on the methods to be used in life-cycleassessments. Norway will be giving its support tothis work and will also promote the development ofcriteria for life-span assessments of seafood pro-ducts at the FAO. National authorities responsiblefor the different sectors along with trade andindustry have an important responsibility here.

Co-operation under the terms of the Conven-tion on International Trade in Threatened Plantsand Animal Species (CITES) is of central impor-tance in respect of dealing in threatened species ofanimals. Animals and plants can be placed on threelists (appendices) depending on the degree towhich they are under threat and the degree towhich they are traded. CITES has placed a numberof species of whale on these lists. The minke whale,for instance, is listed in Appendix 1. Norway hasentered a reservation in this regard since there isscientific evidence to show that this listing is notjustified. Work is now in progress in the context of

CITES on establishing a basis for listing commer-cial fish stocks believed to be under threat. Norwayhas adopted a sceptical stance on this, one of thereasons being that the dynamics of the marine eco-systems imply large, frequent fluctuations in thestocks which are different to those observedamong animals living on land. There are thereforeserious doubts as to whether the criteria and pro-cesses used by CITES are suitable for such stocks.In addition management schemes already exist forlive marine resources which take account of theconservation aspect. CITES is now reviewing exis-ting criteria and Norway is taking an active part inthis work both via the FAO and via CITES toensure that the criteria selected are appropriate.

3.9.5 The management regime for stocks in Norwegian maritime areas

Fisheries management in Norway is based on themain principle of sustainable harvesting using thebest possible scientific advice. Our objective is tomanage the marine ecosystems in a manner thatensures a balanced and sustainable growth in thesector and takes account of need for protection.

A number of bilateral agreements have beenconcluded on co-operation in respect of manage-ment of resources. Here the agreement with Rus-sia on management of the resources in the BarentsSea and the agreement with the EU on manage-ment of the resources in the North Sea are themost important. Annual reports are presented tothe Storting on activities under the terms of thesebilateral co-operation arrangements.

Annual negotiations take place on the fixing ofquotas on the basis of advice from ICES. ICES con-tributed to the work on developing a precautionaryapproach into operational advice in connectionwith the UN agreement of 1995, and since 1998 ithas been providing advice on management on thatbasis (see Box 3.7). Limit values have been fixedregarding the size of spawning stocks and fish mor-tality. These are designed to ensure that the stocksare kept within safe biological limits. These refe-rence limit values are based on statistical calcula-tions using historical observations. Account istaken of the elements of uncertainty in these calcu-lations by applying the so-called «precautionaryreference limits». A system for reducing outtakefrom stocks when the spawning stocks approachthe critical limit has been developed on the basis ofthese values.

ICES is working on drafting «target referencevalues» for the respective fish stocks. Target refe-rence values will help establish good economic


strategies regarding pressure on stocks and avoidsituations where the size of stocks approaches thelimit values.

A number of fish stocks cover an area involvingthe jurisdiction of several countries. The mandateof the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission(NEAFC) covers the ocean maritime areas in theNortheast Atlantic. A regional arrangement hasbeen negotiated by the coastal states concerned forNorwegian spring spawning herring, blue whitingand mackerel, while the international componentof the stocks is managed by NEAFC. With theadvent of the UN agreement on ocean fishing in1995 regional agreements have become moreimportant not least in connection with enforcementof the regulations. NEAFC has launched system ofsatellite monitoring of the fisheries in theNortheast Atlantic. The north Atlantic area is theresponsibility of a similar organisation (NAFO).Norway also takes part in work under the terms ofthe Convention for the Conservation of LiveMarine Resources in Antarctica (CCAMLR). It is

also active in the International Whaling Commis-sion (IWC), the North Atlantic Marine MammalsCommission (NAMMCO), the South Atlantic Fis-heries Organisation (SEAFO) and the Internatio-nal Convention for the Conservation of AtlanticTuna (ICCAT).

Negotiations with other countries on manage-ment of common stocks are often very difficultbecause it is a question of dividing up scanty andvaluable resources. In the case of specific stocks –for example, blue whiting – the parties have notmanaged to agree on the distribution of the recom-mended fishing effort. The lack of agreement hasled to the total amount of fish caught being greaterthan recommended. This has led to greater pres-sure than is desirable on a number of stocks. Thisalso means that the economic yield from fisheriesis lower than it might have been.

Once the level of fishing effort has been fixedvia international negotiations, it is the job of thenational authorities to distribute the amounts avai-lable to Norwegian fisheries.

Box 3.7 Implementation of a precautionary approach

In 1998 ICES began using new reference pointsto accommodate the need for a precautionaryapproach when giving advice on levels for cat-ches. These new reference points are beingused to establish whether fish stocks are withinor outside safe biological limits. Referencepoints have also been developed to assesswhether the catches can be considered to be incompliance with the precautionary principle ornot.

The precautionary reference points must takeaccount of the elements of uncertainty in thecalculations of stock sizes and of the effect thatfishing has on fish stocks.

The following reference points are beingused.

Spawning stocks: The limit value (Blim) is thesize of the spawning stock where renewal isassumed to be weak or where the dynamics ofthe stock are unknown if the spawning stock isbelow the limit value. The precautionary refe-rence point (Bpa) represents a level of spawningstock which implies little risk of it falling belowthe limit value (Blim).

Fishing effort: The «Flim» limit value indicatesfish mortality whereby stocks will be reduced inthe long/medium term to a level which can beexpected to entail renewal problems. Fish mor-tality under «Fpa» means a low risk of the actualfish mortality being higher than the «Flim» limitvalue.

If according to these guidelines a stock isdefined as being outside safe biological limits,the advice given will usually indicate alternativelevels of pressure (F) in order to bring the spaw-ning stocks up to above the precautionary level(Bpa) over a shorter or longer period of time.

If a stock is outside safe biological limits itmeans that the size of the spawning stock, andthus growth and harvesting potential, is belowthe production potential of the stock. This will,for instance, have economic repercussions forfisheries.

ICES is now working on developing targetreference points. These will indicate the opti-mum level of pressure on stocks to stabilise thelong-term yield and help ensure that sizes ofstocks do not fall to levels close to the limits.Fixing a target reference point for individualstocks should be regarded in the context ofmulti-stock management.


Overcapacity in the fishing fleet is a multi-dimensional challenge. Unit quota arrangements1

have been introduced for a number of fisheriesimportant to the ocean-going fishing fleet to helpreduce the haul capacity of the fishing fleet. On 3May 2001 the Storting gave the Ministry of Fishe-ries the authority to introduce «special quota arran-gements», i.e. voluntary operational and structuralarrangements for the coastal fleet as well. TheMinistry of Fisheries is now busy drawing up pro-visions for the implementation of these arrange-ments which could provide a basis for reduction ofovercapacity and better economic conditions for allparts of the Norwegian fishing fleet.

The Ministry of Fisheries intends to developnew legislation to replace the law on saltwater fis-heries currently in force. This new legislation willfocus more specifically than in the past on theministry’s sectoral responsibility for marine envi-ronmental issues. A committee is to be appointedfor this purpose and that committee will be askedto consider the possibility of broadening the focusof the legislation to cover not just fishing opera-tions, but also other live marine resources, inclu-ding kelp and sea tangle, plus organisms which aretoday not commercially exploited such as plank-ton, demersal organisms etc. The idea here is tohave legislation in the future which is better equip-ped than that of today for preserving the marinebiological diversity. The committee will also beasked to consider the inclusion of the commit-ments made by Norway via environmental legisla-tion. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of1982 will be of central importance. The committeewill review the application regulations and otherinstruments which are today covered by the law onsaltwater fisheries. The work of this committee willbe conducted in close co-operation with the Com-mittee on Biological Diversity.

3.9.6 Control of fishing effort

Responsible fisheries management requires effec-tive control of resources. Extensive fishing activityand the fact that Norway’s fisheries jurisdictioncovers huge maritime areas leave us facing anenormous workload in terms of control. The main

aim of controls on resources is to provide informa-tion on actual total amounts of fish caught and oncatches within the areas covered by Norwegian fis-heries jurisdiction using registration systems andchecks, and to make sure that fishing regulationsin force are respected. The environmental signifi-cance of resources control is thus mainly associa-ted with providing reliable information on annualcatches which, together with the research commu-nity’s analyses of stocks, helps provide a basis forestimating the sizes of fish stocks and fixing thetotal annual quotas for the stocks.

Satellite tracking of fishing vessels began as faras Norwegian fishing vessels are concerned in July2000. This is part of the resources control systemand gives the fisheries authorities information onthe position of the fishing vessels, their speed andtheir course. Agreements have been concluded onsatellite tracking with all the countries with accessto fishing in Norwegian waters.

Checks on catches from common stocksrequire close collaboration among the countriesconcerned. Agreements have been concluded onco-operation in control areas with Russia, the EU,individual member states of the EU and a numberof other countries. Foreign vessels wanting to fishin areas under Norway’s fisheries jurisdiction mustfirst apply for permits and have an obligation toreport their catches to the Norwegian authorities.

Norway is active in the international organisa-tions and bilaterally in trying to get to grips withthe problem of unregulated fishing on the highseas.

The main challenge is establishing a system ofresources control which is effective enough to pre-vent illegal practices in the form of circumventionof quotas, fishing in closed areas and illegaldiscards. Another challenge is obtaining reliableinformation with the help of marine researchbodies on the volume of catches dumped at sea orsold outside the legal channels and thus notcovered by statistics on fishing and catches.

On 3 May 2001 a report was submitted to theStorting on irregularities, controls and measuresintroduced in the fisheries sector. A descriptionwas given of the resources control apparatus, theextent of irregularities and the steps taken tostrengthen controls. Resources controls have beenstrengthened through a concerted effort toincrease manning of the system, better access tocontrols and more stringent penalties for violationsof fisheries legislation. Much emphasis is put onthe need to address conduct and ethics in the sec-tor. It was noted that more work is still needed onthese aspects of fisheries management.

1 A system financed with own funds and designed to reducethe number of vessels in an access-regulated part of the fleetwhere the fishing capacity will exceed the available quotasfor the foreseeable future. By withdrawing a vessel from fish-ing operations the quotas attributed to that vessel can betransferred to another vessel for a limited period of time. Thesecond vessel will thus enjoy an increase in its quota withoutthis affecting the total catch.


4 International cross-sector co-operation on the marine environment

Norway has a vested interest in how maritimeareas and ocean resources are managed. Norwayhas jurisdiction over and responsibility for a mari-time area, which is six times larger than its landarea. Norway is also a net recipient of pollutionfrom other countries, which is carried to its shoresby ocean currents and on the wind. Our long andexposed coastline causes concern in the light of apossible increase in the transport of environmen-tally harmful substances by sea off the Norwegiancoast; e.g. oil and nuclear waste. Norway must the-refore make a strong commitment to establishingframework conditions governing the managementof maritime areas and natural resources at interna-tional level. International work on the marine envi-ronment is of great importance to Norway.

International agreements entail a number ofobligations. The Government believes it is extre-mely important for Norway to live up to its obliga-tions pursuant to the international agreements towhich it is a party; this is important both out of con-sideration for the environment and because of theneed to maintain Norway’s credibility. The Govern-ment also wants to strengthen the compliancemechanisms set out in international conventionson the environment, including mechanisms provi-ding for sanctions and liability/compensation.

Issues relating to marine environment issuesare discussed in a number of international foraboth at the global and regional level. Norway’spositions in various fora in connection with all theongoing processes of significance to the marineenvironment need to be co-ordinated and based ona thoroughly thought out and comprehensive andintegrated national policy on the marine environ-ment. This chapter gives an overview of the mostimportant (general) international agreements andprocesses of significance to the marine environ-ment and Norway’s priorities in respect of thiswork.

4.1 Global co-operation

The Government intends:– to continue to use the UN Convention on the

Law of the Sea as the overall legal frameworkfor all measures in the marine sector;

– to submit proposals to step up debate on mari-time issues and questions relating to maritimelaw in United Nations;

– to pass on information on experience and objec-tives relating to co-operation between theNorth Sea states as input for global co-opera-tion in connection with the World Summit inJohannesburg;

– to help improve implementation of UNEP’s glo-bal plan of action (GPA) for the protection ofthe marine environment from land-based activi-ties; and

– to continue to be active in the IMO in pressingfor better environmental legislation in relationto shipping.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982provides the overall legal framework for all natio-nal, regional and international measures in themarine sector. Part XII of the convention deals withprotection and conservation of the marine environ-ment in the presence of pollution, while Parts V-VIIaddress conservation and management of naturalresources, including biological diversity. The Con-vention on the Law of the Sea contains a number ofprovisions designed to combat pollution of the seasand oceans by different sources and to promoteinternational co-operation in this area. It containsobligations to adopt national legislation to countermarine pollution and to participate in the drawingup of regional and global rules to this end. Con-tracting states must also fulfil their obligationsunder the terms of other environmental agre-ements in a way which is compatible with the prin-ciples and objectives set out in the Convention.Norway attaches great importance to strengt-hening and developing the system provided forunder the Convention in future work relating tointernational maritime law.


The Convention on the Law of the Sea cameinto force in 1994 and since then discussions havetaken place every year in the UN General Assem-bly to assess the degree of implementation of theconvention along with new trends in the area ofmaritime law. The debate takes place on the basisof an annual report by the Secretary-General. TheUnited Nations General Assembly is the mostimportant forum for the development of globalpolicy in the field of the law of the sea and is for themoment the only forum with such broad terms ofreference. It has been suggested that more co-ordi-nation is needed between various internationalbodies and negotiators responsible for maritimeissues and questions relating to the law of the sea.In 1999 the General Assembly adopted a resolutionon the creation of an informal consultation proce-dure for a trial period of three years. This consulta-tion procedure would lay the foundations fordebate in the General Assembly and would in par-ticular aim at identifying areas in which co-opera-tion and co-ordination could be improved. The finalmeeting under this consultation procedure willtake place in April 2002 and the 57th session of theGeneral Assembly in the autumn of 2002 will thenassess the outcome of the procedure along with itsfuture. Norway is at present considering differentalternatives for addressing maritime issues in thebest possible way within the UN system; theseinclude the possibility of referring these issues toone of the principal committees reporting to theGeneral Assembly or of setting up a select commit-tee for maritime issues and issues relating to thelaw of the sea.

The UN conference on the environment anddevelopment held in Rio in 1992 placed maritimeissues on the agenda via, for instance, the adoptionof Chapter 17 in Agenda 21, which deals with themanagement of maritime and coastal areas. InAugust/September 2002 the World Summit onSustainable Development will be held in Johannes-burg, South Africa on the occasion of the tenthanniversary of the «Earth Summit» in Rio. In therun-up to the summit a review will be conducted ofdevelopments since 1992 and results achieved,including those relating to Chapter 17 in Agenda21, and new challenges will be identified. Norwaytakes the view that much has been achieved since1992, pointing out at the same time that much bet-ter implementation of the agreements and pro-grammes adopted is still needed, along with betterco-ordination of different international processes.The Government is anxious to ensure that the out-come of the North Sea Conference is taken intoaccount in preparations for the summit in Johan-

nesburg. This applies in particular to rendering theecosystem approach operational (this approach isdescribed earlier on in this Parliamentary Report,cf. Chapter 2.2.3), to addressing the problem of bal-last water and to bans on transplanting GMOs inthe marine environment and radioactive dischar-ges. Norway will, furthermore, be stressing theneed to ensure the application of the Conventionon the Law of the Sea and of generating moredebate on maritime law in the UN as part of the pre-parations for the summit in Johannesburg.

One of the most important outcomes of Agenda21 on the marine environment front was the adop-tion of a global programme of action on the protec-tion of the marine environment from the effects ofland-based activities (GPA) which are responsiblefor around 80% of pollution in the marine environ-ment. This plan, which was drafted under the aus-pices of UNEP, is not legally binding. What it doesis specify objectives and measures at global, regio-nal and national level. The first conference todiscuss implementation of the plan was held inMontreal, Canada in November 2001. At this confe-rence a ministerial declaration was adopted whe-reby countries commit themselves to stepping upimplementation of the plan of action. The confe-rence also endorsed the idea of drawing up a sepa-rate Strategic Action Plan on Municipal Wastewa-ter as an area where there are major health andenvironmental problems in a number of developingcountries.

The Government regards the GPA as a balan-ced and practical programme for the implementa-tion of measures to address land-based activitiesand does not therefore see any need for a globalconvention in this area. Norway will continue toplay an active part in the implementation of theGPA, will try to channel aid towards projects whichhelp fulfil the aims of the plan and will also contri-bute to strengthening scope for funding at interna-tional level. Norway has already spoken out infavour of general enhancement of the role playedby UNEP, its powers and its funding. Giving UNEPmore muscle in this way will prove valuable whenimplementing the GPA and the UNEP RegionalSeas Programme

The UN’s maritime organisation, the IMO, hasadopted a number of global conventions, whichhelp protect the marine environment. Much of thework in this area is done in the IMO’s environmentcommittee (the MEPC) in connection with follow-up to the MARPOL Convention on pollution fromshipping. In October 2001 the IMO adopted a newconvention on control of harmful anti-foulingagents used on the hulls of ships. The convention


entails a ban on the use of the ecotoxin tributyl tin(TBT) on ships as of 1 January 2003 and a total banon the presence of TBT on ships’ hulls as of 1 Janu-ary 2008. It is vital that the convention come intoforce quickly and the Government intends to ratifyit as soon as possible. Work taking place in theIMO on a new convention on ballast water is refer-red to in Chapter 3.6.2.

4.2 Priority issues for regional co-operation and bilateral co-operation with Russia

The Government intends:– to continue to be a driving force in regional

work on the marine environment;– to focus on ecosystem-based management of

the marine environment, discharges of ballastwater and radioactive discharges in its capacityas host of the North Sea Conference in March2002;

– to encourage Russia to become a party to theOSPAR Convention and to accede to the globalban on dumping of all types of radioactive wastepursuant to the London Convention;

– to demand that the British Government takeimmediate steps to significantly reduce dis-charges of technetium-99 into the sea; and

– to work towards strengthening internationallegislation on the transport of radioactivewaste, while trying to get bilateral agreementson notification of countries concerned aboutthese cargoes.

The most important regional fora for this area ofwork is the OSPAR Convention (the Convention onthe Protection of the Marine Environment in theNortheast Atlantic), the North Sea Conferences,co-operation within the context of the Arctic Coun-cil and bilateral co-operation with Russia. The Nor-dic Council of Ministers (the group responsible formaritime and atmospheric issues) also has mari-time issues on its agenda and in addition these pro-blems are addressed in the context of co-operationregarding the Barents Sea. In 2002 Norway has thePresidency of the Nordic Council of Ministers andNorway’s programme for the presidency high-lights the need to protect our seas, coastline andsources of freshwater. Norway will be focusing onhow joint Nordic action and initiatives can back upwork in the field of the marine environment.

In the context of regional co-operation theGovernment will be giving priority to measures to

combat discharges of pollutants, pollution fromshipping and other activities which affect Norwe-gian maritime areas. Agreements on hazardoussubstances and radioactive substances will begiven special attention.

Work within the framework of the OSPAR Con-vention is of major importance to Norwegian mari-time areas since co-operation in this context coversland-based sources, dumping of waste at sea, dis-charges from offshore installations and protectionand conservation of ecosystems and biologicaldiversity. The OSPAR Commission has adoptedambitious strategies on environmental pollutants,radioactive substances, combating eutrophication,conservation of the ecosystems, biological diver-sity and environmental objectives for offshore acti-vities.

As the country hosting the Fifth North Sea Con-ference in Bergen in March 2002 Norway has a par-ticular responsibility for the agenda of this confe-rence. One of the main challenges will be makingthe principle of ecosystem-based management ofthe North Sea operational and concrete, whichwould be in line with the approach at national level.The fixing of environmental quality objectives in anumber of areas (e.g. for sea birds and threatenedspecies and habitats) and good management prin-ciples will be important. The conference will alsoprovide an opportunity of focusing on topical issuessuch as the transport of environmentally harmfulsubstances in the North Sea area, discharges fromSellafield and regulation of discharges of ballastwater. At the same time, the conference can beused as a round of regional preparations for thesummit in Johannesburg.

Norway has repeatedly raised the issue of dis-charges from Sellafield with the British authorities.The Government will be demanding throughOSPAR and the North Sea Conferences that theBritish Government take immediate steps to signi-ficantly reduce the discharges of technetium-99into the sea. As mentioned in Chapter 3.4.2 theGovernment is also undertaking an assessment ofthe grounds Norway may have under the terms ofinternational conventions for instituting legal pro-ceedings against the British.

Another important issue for the northerly mari-time areas will be future developments in the utili-sation of natural resources in Russian territorialwaters and on the Russian continental shelf.Extraction of marine resources and increasedpetroleum exploitation activities, along with theiraccompanying requirements in terms of transport,will have an effect on the marine environment. Thejoint Norwegian-Russian Environment Protection


Commission, which has been operational since1988 therefore attributes high priority to marineenvironment issues in general and contingencyplans to combat oil pollution in particular. The com-mission’s Marine Environment Group has con-ducted projects involving assessments of consequ-ences, assistance to the Russians in the context ofimplementation of the OSPAR rules and regula-tions and co-operation on criteria for the monito-ring of the northern maritime areas. Norway hashad an agreement with Russia on contingencyplans to combat oil pollution since 1994. This agre-ement provides a framework for co-operation onconducting joint exercises on combating oil pollu-tion, and for assessing the risks associated withincreased petroleum exploitation activities andtheir effects on the environment in the North. Nor-wegian support for measures to improve the Rus-sian oil pollution contingency plans will be asses-sed on an ongoing basis. Work on an integratedmanagement plan for the Barents Sea will be animportant part of co-operation with Russia.

Marine environment issues have been a focusof interest in the Arctic Council, too. It was Norwaywho took the initiative in setting up the workinggroup for the protection of the Arctic marine envi-ronment (PAME). This working group has drawnup guidelines for offshore oil and gas extraction inthe Arctic and a regional plan of action for theprotection of the marine environment based on theglobal plan (GPA). Norway is the lead country forwork on shipping issues in PAME and in 2000 wor-ked out a report on the environmental consequen-ces of shipping in the Arctic. AMAP, the environ-ment monitoring programme, has been of impor-tance in fixing priorities in respect of measures tofight pollution in the northern areas. The Govern-ment will continue to give priority to research onthe Arctic and monitoring of the region and willencourage Russia to become a signatory to interna-tional environmental agreements, in particular theprotocol of 1998 on persistent organic compounds(e.g. PCBs) established under the auspices of theUN-ECE.

Co-operation on environmental issues in theEuro-Arctic Barents region (the Barents co-opera-tion) has up to now only addressed the marineenvironment to a modest degree. The Barents co-operation does, however, present an opportunityfor compiling more material than would be possi-ble through bilateral co-operation alone. TheGovernment will be pressing for a survey of plansand measures in place to combat pollution in theBarents Sea in order to find out how much co-ope-ration is needed.

Norway will encourage Russia to become a con-tracting party to the OSPAR Convention since itsgeographical coverage includes maritime area offNorthwest Russia. This could be useful in connec-tion with land-based sources on the Russian side ofthe border and with offshore activities in theBarents Sea. Russia has drawn up a national plan ofaction to protect the maritime areas in the northfrom pollution from land-based sources based onrecommendations in the global plan (GPA). Mea-sures provided for under the plan should help Rus-sia participate in the work of OSPAR.

Russia has not associated itself with the globalban on dumping of all types of radioactive wasteunder the terms of the London Convention (ondumping of waste at sea); this convention datesback to 1972, a protocol having been added in 1996.Norway together with the United States has beenhelping Russia build a reprocessing plant for liquidradioactive waste in Murmansk to put the countryin a position to sign up to the ban on ocean dum-ping. Japan has provided financial assistance forthe construction of a similar plant in the Vladivo-stock area. The technical conditions for Russia’saccession to the ban on dumping should now havebeen met and the Government wants to use thebilateral co-operation with Russia to try to makeprogress in this direction. The Russians said thatthey would be willing to do this in conjunction withthe inauguration of the plant in Murmansk in June2001.

Plans to transport nuclear waste by sea off theNorwegian coast are a source of major concern inthe coastal regions of Norway, particularly upnorth. These shipments may be on the agenda intwo connections. Firstly, opening the way forimports of spent nuclear fuel to Russia could lead toshipments of such fuel from Europe to NorthwestRussia for transshipment and reprocessing in, forinstance, Mayak. Secondly, shipments of highlyactive waste (HLW) and MOX fuel by sea havealready been taking place between Japan and thereprocessing plants in Sellafield and La Hague formany years. These shipments could be re-routed tofollow the northern passage and would thus passclose to the Norwegian coast. The Government incollaboration with other countries concerned the-refore intends to make it clear to the countriesinvolved in these shipments that the transport ofradioactive waste and nuclear fuel close to the Nor-wegian coast is something we do not want to see.Norway will also be pressing for stricter internatio-nal regulations, including an effective system ofcompensation and a requirement for advance war-ning of shipments of radioactive materials by sea.


Pending the adoption of international regulationsthe Government will try to conclude bilateral agre-ements on notification of such shipments.

Establishing marine protected areas is anincreasingly topical issue in international and regi-onal fora. Many of the threats to natural marineresources represent common international chal-

lenges, while the natural assets in the marine envi-ronment constitute a large cross-border complex.The Government therefore feels it is important toincrease international co-operation in the relevantinternational fora in this area, too. The OSPARConvention is of particular importance since thecontracting parties adopted a dedicated work pro-

Figure 4.1 Predominant transport routes in the atmosphere for chemicals input to the Arctic. The main source of environmentally hazardous substances in the northern areas is long-range pollution, although local sources also play a part. Svalbard and the maritime areas around it are particularly exposed due to atmospheric conditions and the fact that the Gulf Stream carries pollution from the large industrial sites in Central Europe and the east coast of North America to this area.Source: Norsk Polarinstitutt (Norwegian Polar Institute)

Canada

Russia

Svalbard

Iceland

Norway

Green-

land


gramme for the development of a series of marineprotected areas in 2000. Norway is anxious to makean active contribution to work in this regard. In theareas in the far north co-operation with the ArcticCouncil on setting up a network of protected areas(CPAN) is particularly relevant. It has been deci-

ded that this work will focus on protection of themarine environment. Norway has been a main con-tributor to this work, which is followed up at natio-nal level via protective measures on Bjørnøya andin adjacent territorial waters and there are alsoplans for new protected areas on Svalbard.


5 Economic, administrative and district-related consequences

5.1 Economic consequences

General

The basis for the Government’s proposals for acomprehensive policy on the marine environmentis that the social and economic benefits of measu-res to ensure a clean sea with abundant resourcesexceed the cost. In the short term it plans to insti-tute measures which will involve direct, additionalexpenditure for the State, local authorities andtrade and industry. However, in the longer termthis expenditure will help secure the environmen-tal qualities of our maritime and coastal areas. Agood marine environment is a condition for com-mercial activities and settlements based on the uti-lisation of live marine resources in the future.

Learning more

Learning more is an important component in theGovernment’s plan for ecosystem-based manage-ment of maritime and coastal areas, as are bettermonitoring, charting and research. Work in thisarea is to be intensified and will become more focu-sed and steps will be taken to improve co-ordina-tion of existing efforts. The Government will revisitthis subject in connection with the annual budgetproposals.

A research programme is to be launched in col-laboration with the oil industry with a view to clari-fying the long-term effects of discharges from oilexploitation operations into the sea. The pro-gramme will have a budget of between 90–120 mil-lion Norwegian kroner over a period of six yearsand industry is expected to contribute two thirds.The remaining costs will be shared between theMinistry of Petroleum and Energy, the Ministry ofFisheries and the Ministry of the Environment.

EU Water Framework Directive

For the moment, it is difficult to judge how muchadditional expenditure will be necessary to imple-ment the measures required under the terms of thedirective. Extensive work has been started at nati-onal level on assessing the social consequences of

the directive and Norway is participating actively inworking groups set up by the EU Commission inconnection with implementation of the directive byindividual countries. The Government will bereturning to this in connection with the Ministry ofthe Environment’s budgets in the years to come.

Contaminated sediments in coastal areas and fjords

The basic principle is that cleanup operations areto be financed by the polluters themselves. Thisstrategy will therefore primarily entail financialconsequences for state agencies, municipal depart-ments, companies and private enterprise, whichhave helped pollute coastal areas and fjords. Stategrants will be needed in instances where no pollu-ter can be identified and also to make sure thatcomprehensive cleanup operations do take place inlarge fjords.

Very tentative estimates indicate that it will costbetween a few billion and a few tens of billions ofkroner to carry out a total cleanup along the entirecoastline. But, the costs will depend on how largethe areas requiring cleanup operations are. An esti-mate of the social and economic benefits should beincluded in assessments of the need for cleanupoperations in each individual area. No estimateshave been made of the total benefits of cleanupoperations along the whole of the Norwegian coast.However, cleanup operations are expected to offermajor benefits in the form of fewer environmentalproblems and less pressure on public healththanks to lower exposure to environmental pollu-tants via fish and crustaceans. In the long term, itwill be possible to use areas where cleanup opera-tions are conducted for fishing and fish farmingactivities. Clean fjords will help secure Norwegianexport interests on this field.

Assessments of the social and economic bene-fits will be crucial in connection with ordering cle-anup operations and launching state-financed cle-anup measures to ensure that the social and econ-omic benefits of the measures exceed the cost ofthe cleanup.

All in all it is expected that measures triggeredby the strategy will be socially and economicallybeneficial.


5.2 Administrative resources/consequences

The State

Work on developing a long-term policy to promoteecosystem-based management of coastal and mari-time areas will involve a number of ministries andparts of the civil service. In the shorter term,resources will be required in particular for thedevelopment of an integrated management plan forthe Barents Sea and for management plans cove-ring areas close to the coast pursuant to the EUwater framework directive.

The proposal to transfer responsibility for statecontingency plans to combat acute pollution fromthe Norwegian Pollution Control Authority to theNational Coastal Administration means thatresponsibility for cleanup operations in the case ofsevere pollution would be in the hands of theagency with the principle responsibility for preven-ting shipping accidents. It is thought that this willprove to be administratively more efficient and thatit will encourage more joint assessment of theneeds for preventive measures and repairs.

Regional level

The drawing up of county plans of action for cle-anup of contaminated sediments will require someadministrative resources at regional level. Thesame applies for the drafting of action plans for theindividual catchment areas under the terms of thewater framework directive. The goal is to achieve

the greatest possible degree of co-ordination whendrawing up these plans so as to ensure that theaction plans for cleanup of sediments can be inte-grated into the plans established to meet the requi-rements of the framework directive.

Local authorities

Local authorities in coastal communities may gra-dually be given responsibilities in connection withimplementation of management plans insofar asmanagement concerns resources and activities,which are largely of local significance.

5.3 District-related consequences

A clean marine environment with abundant resour-ces is one of the most important prerequisites forthe fisheries and aquaculture industries and thusalso for settlements and jobs in Norway’s coastalregions. The district-related consequences of moredemanding environmental policy for the coastaland maritime regions will therefore be positive.

The Ministry of the Environment

h e r e b y r e c o m m e n d s :

the Recommendation from the Ministry of theEnvironment concerning Protecting the Riches ofthe Seas dated 15 March 2002 be submitted to theStorting.

royal ministry of the environment report no. 12 to the ... · royal ministry of the environment....

Documents