Norway’s management plan work has put the country at the forefront of efforts to develop an
Figure 2.2 The North Sea and Skagerrak manage-ment plan area
Source: Norwegian Mapping Authority
5° 10° Boundary between the North Sea and the Skagerrak
integrated ecosystem- based management regime. Coastal states have a clear duty under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to protect the marine environment. This is bound up with the extensive rights coastal states have under the Convention to utilise living marine resources and other resources on the continental shelf under their jurisdiction.
Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, countries also have a duty to cooperate at regional and global level to protect and preserve the marine environment. In the 1980s and 1990s, international cooperation on the marine environ-ment focused largely on reducing the worsening pollution of the seas. Through the regional Con-vention for the Protection of the Marine Environ-ment of the North-East Atlantic (the OSPAR vention) and its predecessors (the 1972 Oslo Con-vention and the 1974 Paris ConCon-vention), and the North Sea Conventions (1984–2006), specific obli-gations were adopted that have led to a considera-ble improvement in pollution levels, particularly in
the North Sea–Skagerrak area. Together with the other Nordic countries, Norway was a driving force in this work (see Box 2.1).
Within OSPAR, the main focus has now shifted from traditional pollution issues to the need to maintain species and marine biodiversity. The Con-vention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the most important global cooperation forum in this field. A target has been adopted under the Convention that by 2020, 10 % of coastal and marine areas, espe-cially areas of particular importance for biodiver-sity and ecosystem services, will be conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecolog-ically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based con-servation measures, and integrated into wider sea-scapes. A major effort is now underway within the framework of the Convention to collect information on ecologically or biologically important marine areas. In cooperation with the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), OSPAR has initi-ated work to identify such areas, mainly in interna-Figure 2.3 Geographical scope of Norway’s management plans, the Planning and Building Act and the Water Management Regulations.
Source: Adapted from OSPAR QSR 2010
Extent of area covered by scientific basis for management plans
Management plans Planning and Building Act
Water Management Regulations
High seas Norway’s
internal waters
1. n.m.
Norway’s territorial sea
Norway’s Exclusive Economic Zone
Continental shelf Continental slope
Baseline
Box 2.1 The North Sea and Skagerrak – an international sea area The North Sea and Skagerrak are strongly
influ-enced by human activity. About 160 million people live in the catchment area, and all eight countries sur-rounding the sea area – Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the UK – must cooperate to ensure an effective joint man-agement system.
Parts of the North Sea were suffering from eutrophication and pollution as early as the 1800s, as a result of growing sewage discharges, runoff from agriculture and emissions from an expanding indus-trial sector. Between the mid-1800s and the 1960s, all the North Sea countries gradually introduced national legislation to combat pollution and by the late 1960s, it had become obvious that the North Sea countries also needed to agree on joint management of the North Sea and Skagerrak. The Torrey Canyon disaster was particularly important in triggering the political will to agree on binding joint rules. A few years later, the Stella Maris incident gave further momentum to the process of putting in place binding international agreements.
The Torrey Canyon was a Liberia-registered supertanker that was carrying a huge cargo of crude oil when it ran aground off the coast of Cornwall in south-western England in 1967. The oil spill from the wreck caused serious damage along both the English and the French coastlines, and clean-up operations required joint action by the British and French authorities. The accident triggered international action: at global level by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), and at regional level through the negotiation of the Bonn Agreement (Agreement for Cooperation in dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Sub-stances).
The Dutch ship Stella Maris sailed from Rotter-dam in 1971 to dump chemical waste at sea, but was prevented by local protests and strong pressure from the countries near the proposed dumping sites (the first plan was to dump the waste near the Norwegian coast, then between Iceland and Ireland). In the end, the ship returned to port and the Netherlands finally had to dispose of the waste on land. This incident speeded up the adoption of the 1972 Oslo Convention or the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, in which the Norwegian authorities played a leading role. The London Con-vention on dumping at sea, a global conCon-vention based on the same criteria as the Oslo Convention, was also adopted in 1972.
The new willingness to take joint action in the North-East Atlantic region also resulted in growing awareness of the harmful inputs of nutrients and
other pollutants from land, and to the adoption of the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollu-tion from Land-Based Sources in 1974. The Oslo and Paris Conventions set up a joint secretariat in Lon-don, and were merged into one convention, the Con-vention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (still known as the OSPAR Convention), in 1992.
The series of North Sea Conferences held between 1984 and 2006 were another expression of the willingness to cooperate and understanding of the need to do so. These high-level political meeting places provided an opportunity to discuss all pres-sures on the North Sea – pollution, fisheries, oil and gas activities, and shipping – from an overall perspec-tive. The North Sea countries adopted joint declara-tions with ambitious goals, for example to halt dump-ing of waste from ships and reduce inputs of nutri-ents and hazardous substances. These goals have also had a strong influence on developments within the OSPAR cooperation and the EU, where the politi-cal goals have been translated into more legally bind-ing rules. After the North Sea Conference on ship-ping and fisheries in Gothenburg in 2006, it was decided to continue the work within the framework of relevant conventions and organisations (OSPAR, NEAFC and IMO) and through active cooperation between these forums.
Since the adoption of the Oslo and Paris Conven-tions in the early 1970s, the oil and gas industry in the North Sea has expanded greatly. The 1992 OSPAR Convention therefore included a separate annex regulating pollution from offshore sources. In 1995, it emerged that the British authorities were planning to permit dumping of the Brent Spar, a dis-used oil storage buoy, in the North Sea. This cadis-used political controversy at the North Sea Conference in Esbjerg in the same year. Brent Spar was finally towed to Norway (Erfjord in Rogaland), where it was decommissioned and the materials were re-used in new port facilities being built just outside Stavanger.
The case sparked much political discussion between the North Sea countries. At the first ministerial meet-ing under the OSPAR Convention in 1998, rules on the disposal of disused offshore installations were adopted. They state that disused offshore installa-tions must as a general rule be removed, but that exceptions may be made on specific conditions and after consultation with the other parties involved, for example for concrete installations. At the same minis-terial meeting, a new annex to the OSPAR Conven-tion on the protecConven-tion of marine biodiversity was adopted. Using this as a basis, OSPAR has in recent years made its mark both globally and regionally through successful cooperation on the protection of marine areas, species and habitats.
tional waters in the North-East Atlantic, with a view to presenting proposals to the Conference of the Parties to the CBD in 2014.
Norway’s management plans are policy instru-ments. They take a long-term approach to the pro-tection of marine ecosystems, and are therefore a key tool for meeting Norway’s obligation under international law to protect the marine environ-ment of its seas. They are also flexible; the regular updates allow for changes to earlier decisions within their overall framework, on the basis of new and updated information. This means that in addition to protecting ecosystems, the plans also provide for Norway to make use of its right and duty under international law to make sustainable use of the resources in its sea areas.
To achieve good environmental status in its sea areas, Norway is dependent on other coun-tries taking steps to protect the environment and manage their resources sustainably. It is clearly in Norway’s interests for the other North Sea coun-tries to meet their commitments. In 2008, the EU adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Direc-tive, with the aim of achieving good
environmen-tal status in all European marine waters by 2020.
To this end, each member state is to develop a marine strategy for its waters. These will include the establishment of environmental targets, indi-cators, monitoring programmes and programmes of measures. In other words, the directive sets out much the same approach and the same methods as Norway’s integrated management plans. How-ever, the Government has found that the directive is not EEA-relevant, and Norway is therefore not bound by its provisions.
The Norwegian environmental authorities have entered into cooperation with Sweden and Denmark to ensure scientific coordination of the management of adjacent areas under their juris-diction in the North Sea and Skagerrak. The OSPAR framework provides a basis for establish-ing similar cooperation with the other North Sea countries. It is important to continue developing the management plans so that Norway can con-tinue to be at the forefront of developments and maintain its legitimacy and influence as a driving force in international efforts, especially as regards the North Sea and Skagerrak.
Box 2.2 Marine protected areas and OSPAR The parties to the OSPAR Convention have been
working together for a number of years to estab-lish a network of marine protected areas (MPAs). Until 2010, the network consisted of areas within the parties’ national jurisdiction.
These were protected in different ways under national legislation and nominated as compo-nents of the network. At OSPAR’s ministerial meeting in Bergen in 2010, it was decided to establish six MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The network now consists of more than 280 MPAs in areas within and beyond the parties’ national jurisdiction.
The ongoing work of identifying areas of the North-East Atlantic that may be ecologically or biologically valuable will provide an important basis for continued joint efforts to establish more MPAs.
OSPAR does not adopt measures targeting fisheries or shipping, and active cooperation with NEAFC and IMO is therefore essential for effective management of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. As early as 2009, NEAFC had closed several areas beyond national juris-diction to bottom fishing to prevent damage, and
these overlap extensively with the OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Studies are also being carried out within OSPAR on pres-sures and impacts from shipping in the MPAs as a basis for possible protective measures in coop-eration with IMO.
Another joint initiative has therefore been taken to develop a collective arrangement involving OSPAR, NEAFC, IMO and the Interna-tional Seabed Authority regarding principles for the management of areas beyond national juris-diction that have been given some form of pro-tection. Examples of such protection include OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdic-tion and NEAFC’s closures of areas beyond national jurisdiction to bottom fishing, and any future steps by IMO and the Seabed Authority.
This cooperation model is important and is arousing considerable international interest, for example in connection with the UN’s discus-sions on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the context of the law of the sea.
Norway is working actively to gain international acceptance of this form of cooperation.
3 State of the environment – status and trends
The environmental status of the North Sea and Skagerrak has been improved over the past few decades, but still gives cause for concern and is unsatisfactory in many ways. These waters are naturally rich and productive, but there are vari-ous types of pressure on the environment, which entail considerable management challenges.
This management plan area differs from the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea–Lofoten area in being much more strongly influenced by human activity.
Climate change and ocean acidification are expected to result in major ecosystem changes, and may intensify the impacts of other pressures.
Rising temperatures have already resulted in changes in the species composition and distribu-tion of zooplankton. These may affect food sup-plies for fish, seabirds and marine mammals and thus have impacts on their populations. Higher sea temperatures have also allowed new fish spe-cies from further south to expand into the man-agement plan area.
Releases of pollutants from point sources have been reduced, but there are still considerable inputs of hazardous substances, mainly from sources outside the management plan area. More-over, concentrations of marine litter in the North Sea are among the highest recorded in the North-east Atlantic.
Levels of hazardous substances in seafood from the North Sea and Skagerrak are generally low, but are somewhat higher than in the Norwe-gian Sea and the Barents Sea–Lofoten area. The levels of certain substances in some species are cause for concern.
Fishing pressure on a number of stocks in the North Sea was previously too high. Together with natural fluctuations and climate change, this has reduced some spawning stocks to critical levels, and there is a risk that other stocks are not being harvested sustainably. The impacts of bottom trawling can be seen in many areas of the seabed.
Along the edge of the Norwegian Trench, where the same area may be bottom trawled up to 20 times a year, the composition of the benthic fauna has been altered.
A number of seabird populations are declining, including the common gull, black-legged kitti-wake, common tern, Atlantic puffin and common guillemot. Pressures on seabirds include climate change, changes in food supplies, and human activity. However, great cormorant numbers have increased along the Skagerrak coast.
Water quality is good in the coastal current, but eutrophication and sediment deposition may affect water quality in some areas along the coast and in fjords.
This chapter gives an account of the environ-mental status of ecosystems in the management plan area, including the pollution situation and the status of species and habitats. It also describes the particularly valuable areas that were identified in the scientific basis for the management plan, and which are particularly important for biodiversity and biological production. Environmental pres-sures and impacts from various sectors and the cumulative environmental effects on ecosystems are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7.