Norwegian Ministry White paper of Climate and Environment

Meld. St. 20 (2019 – 2020) Report to the Storting (white paper) Norway’s integrated ocean management plans Barents Sea–Lofoten area; the Norwegian Sea; and the North Sea and Skagerrak

Kai Fjell: By the frozen sea (gouache) Kai Fjell (1907–1989) is considered one of Norway’s foremost artists, and one of the most popular. He trained at the National College of Art and Design and the National Academy of Fine Arts, and made his breakthrough with a solo exhibition at Kunstnernes Hus in Oslo in 1937. His oeuvre is extensive and varied, including drawings, gouaches and prints in addition to a large number of paintings. He also worked as a scenographer and had a number of commissions for public buildings. Some of his best-known public works were for government buildings, Bakkehaugen church in Oslo and Oslo’s former airport Fornebu. There are works by Kai Fjell in the National Museum in Oslo and in many other museums, galleries and private collections both in Norway and abroad. In 1976, Kai Fjell was made Commander of the Order of St. Olav for his distinguished services. 1

Meld. St. 20 (2019–2020) Report to the Storting (white paper) Norway’s integrated ocean management plans Barents Sea–Lofoten area; the Norwegian Sea; and the North Sea and Skagerrak

Translation from Norwegian. For information only. 2 Table of Contents

1 Summary ...... 7 3.4.2 Efforts to combat marine litter – status and further work ...... 57 2 Introduction – integrated, 3.5 Status report: progress towards ecosystem-based management.. 13 the goals of the ocean 2.1 Norway’s system of integrated management plans ...... 58 ocean management plans ...... 14 3.6 Knowledge building and 2.2 The Government’s ocean policy ... 16 knowledge needs ...... 62 2.3 White paper on all Norway’s 3.6.1 The ocean environment and integrated ocean management climate change ...... 62 plans ...... 16 3.6.2 Marine ecosystems ...... 62 2.4 Norway’s goals for integrated 3.6.3 Mapping the seabed ...... 64 ocean management ...... 18 3.6.4 Marine litter and microplastics .... 64 3.6.5 Environmental monitoring ...... 64 3 Environmental status and trends in Norwegian waters ...... 22 4Changing oceans...... 66 3.1 Environmental status in the 4.1 Changing world oceans – drivers Barents Sea–Lofoten of change and impacts ...... 67 management plan area ...... 23 4.2 Climate change mitigation 3.1.1 Oceanic climate change in the measures will also have impacts management plan area ...... 24 on the oceans ...... 72 3.1.2 Trends in various components 4.3 Implications for ocean governance 74 of the Barents Sea-Lofoten ecosystem ...... 27 5 The ocean-based industries...... 76 3.1.3 Pollution ...... 31 5.1 Food production from the oceans 77 3.1.4 Particularly valuable and 5.1.1 Current status and expected vulnerable areas in the developments in economic Barents Sea–Lofoten area ...... 32 activity ...... 77 3.2 Environmental status in the 5.1.2 Potential growth in food Norwegian Sea management plan production from the oceans – area ...... 38 new opportunities ...... 79 3.2.1 Oceanic climate change in the 5.1.3 Value added and employment ...... 82 management plan area ...... 38 5.1.4 Current status and expected 3.2.2 Trends for various components developments for environmental of the Norwegian Sea ecosystem .. 39 pressures and impacts ...... 84 3.2.3 Pollution ...... 45 5.2 Maritime transport ...... 86 3.2.4 Valuable species and habitats 5.2.1 Current status and expected in the deep sea ...... 46 developments for economic 3.2.5 Particularly valuable and activity ...... 86 vulnerable areas in the 5.2.2 Value added and employment ...... 89 Norwegian Sea ...... 48 5.2.3 Current status and expected 3.3 Environmental status in the developments for environmental North Sea and Skagerrak ...... 50 pressures and impacts ...... 90 3.3.1 Climate change in the 5.3 Petroleum activities ...... 91 management plan area ...... 51 5.3.1 Current status and forecasts of 3.3.2 Trends for various components economic activity ...... 91 of the North Sea–Skagerrak 5.3.2 Value added and employment ...... 96 ecosystem ...... 51 5.3.3 Current status and expected 3.3.3 Pollution ...... 54 developments for environmental 3.3.4 Particularly valuable and pressures and impacts ...... 98 vulnerable areas ...... 54 5.4 Tourism and leisure activities ...... 102 3.4 Marine litter and microplastics ..... 55 5.5 Emerging ocean industries ...... 105 3.4.1 Marine litter – status and sources .. 55 5.5.1 Offshore renewable energy ...... 105 5.5.2 Marine bioprospecting ...... 108 9.1.2 Green transformation in the 5.5.3 Mineral extraction ...... 109 ocean industries ...... 144 5.5.4 Offshore carbon capture and 9.1.3 Strengthening the oceans’ geological storage ...... 109 capacity for carbon uptake ...... 145 5.5.5 Hydrogen production ...... 110 9.2 Sustainable use, overall framework for activities and 6 Acute pollution: risk and the spatial management ...... 145 preparedness and response 9.2.1 Sustainable, safe food production system ...... 111 from the oceans ...... 145 6.1 Environmental vulnerability ...... 111 9.2.2 Offshore aquaculture ...... 146 6.2 Shipping ...... 113 9.2.3 Safe, environmentally friendly 6.3 Petroleum activities ...... 115 maritime transport ...... 146 6.4 Activities involving nuclear and 9.2.4 Framework for petroleum radioactive material ...... 119 activities in the management 6.5 Preparedness and response plan areas ...... 146 to acute pollution: reducing the 9.2.5 Offshore wind power ...... 151 consequences of accidents ...... 119 9.2.6 Extraction of minerals from the seabed ...... 153 7 Coordinated spatial 9.2.7 Sustainable tourism and leisure management and coexistence activities ...... 153 between ocean-based 9.2.8 Offshore military shooting and industries ...... 125 exercise areas ...... 153 7.1 Norway’s ocean management 9.2.9 Coordinated spatial management and its implications for regional and coexistence between growth and development ...... 127 ocean-based industries ...... 153 7.2 Designating marine space for 9.3 Measures to ensure good different uses – main features environmental status and of decision-making processes ...... 128 conservation of marine 7.3 Coordinated marine spatial ecosystems ...... 154 planning in other countries ...... 136 9.3.1 Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas ...... 154 8 International cooperation 9.3.2 Marine protected areas and other on ocean governance...... 137 effective area-based conservation 8.1 Institutions and arenas for measures ...... 154 international cooperation on 9.3.3 Safeguarding species and habitat ocean governance ...... 137 types ...... 154 8.2 International initiatives 9.3.4 Improving the situation for to promote integrated ocean seabird populations ...... 155 management ...... 139 9.3.5 Preventing the spread of alien 8.3 UN Decade of Ocean Science species ...... 155 for Sustainable Development ...... 142 9.3.6 Reducing pollution by hazardous 8.4 UN Decade of Action on Nutrition substances ...... 155 (2016–2025) ...... 143 9.3.7 Combating marine litter and 8.5 Further development of microplastics ...... 156 international ocean governance .... 143 9.3.8 Underwater noise ...... 156 9.3.9 Strengthening preparedness and 9Overall framework and response to acute pollution ...... 157 measures for conservation 9.4 Strengthening the knowledge and sustainable use of base – mapping, research and ecosystems in the monitoring ...... 157 management plan areas ...... 144 9.4.1 Marine ecosystems ...... 157 9.1 Oceans and climate change ...... 144 9.4.2 Mapping marine habitat types 9.1.1 Adapting to climate change and and the seabed – the MAREANO a warmer ocean ...... 144 programme ...... 158 9.5 International ocean cooperation ... 158 9.6 Further development of the Appendix management plan system ...... 159 1 Scientific basis and reports commissioned for this 10 Economic and administrative white paper ...... 161 consequences ...... 160 2 Indicators used in the monitoring system ...... 163

Norway’s integrated ocean management plans Barents Sea–Lofoten area; the Norwegian Sea; and the North Sea and Skagerrak Meld. St. 20 (2019–2020) Report to the Storting (white paper)

Recommendation of 24 April 2020, approved in the Council of State the same day. (Solberg Government)

1 Summary

Value creation from Norway’s ocean-based activi- ties now and in the future depends on maintaining Norway’s ocean management plan system good environmental status and high biodiversity Norway laid the foundation for integrated, ecosys- in the marine and coastal environment, safeguard- tem-based ocean management in the white paper ing the oceans as a source of food and using ocean Protecting the Riches of the Sea (Report No. 12 resources sustainably. The management plans (2001–2002) to the Storting). The white paper previously published for specific areas have estab- described the vision of maintaining clean, rich lished an overall framework and measures for the seas so that future generations can continue to conservation and sustainable use of marine eco- harvest the wealth of resources that the sea has to systems. In this white paper, the Government offer. Since then, the Storting (Norwegian parlia- describes how it intends to continue and consoli- ment) has considered and approved integrated, date Norway’s integrated, ecosystem-based ocean ecosystem-based management plans for all Nor- management plan system. wegian sea areas. The management plans clarify an overall framework and encourage closer coordination Purpose of the management plans and clear priorities for management of Norway’s The purpose of the management plans is to pro- marine areas. They increase predictability and vide a framework for value creation through the facilitate coexistence between industries that are sustainable use of marine natural resources and based on the use of these areas and their natural ecosystem services and at the same time maintain resources. Activities in each management plan the structure, functioning, productivity and diver- area are regulated on the basis of existing legisla- sity of the ecosystems. The management plans are tion governing different sectors. The various sec- thus a tool both for facilitating value creation and toral authorities are responsible for implementing food security, and for maintaining the high envi- the measures set out in the management plans, ronmental value of Norway’s marine areas. under relevant legislation that they administer. This white paper brings together all the man- agement plans for the first time. It includes a revised management plan for the Barents Sea– Lofoten area and updated management plans for 8 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea and Skager- rak. The Forum for Integrated Ocean Manage- Environmental status and trends in Norwegian waters ment and the Advisory Group on Monitoring are Environmental status in Norway’s rich, productive responsible for organising work on the scientific seas is in many respects good, but climate change basis for the management plans, and there is a is having growing impacts, and is clearly affecting well-organised monitoring system for all three the status of ecosystems in both the North Sea marine areas. There is now capacity in the man- and the Barents Sea. Current knowledge indicates agement plan system to compile a sound, up-to- that pressures and impacts related to climate date scientific basis for a new white paper on the change and ocean acidification will intensify mark- management plans every four years. edly. Considerable challenges are expected to arise as a result of interactions between the expected impacts of climate change and ocean The Norwegian Government’s ocean policy acidification, and the more direct local and The Government is giving high priority to an regional impacts of human activity at sea and active ocean policy and ocean-based commercial along the coast. activities, both nationally and internationally. In spring 2017, the Government published its ocean strategy New growth, proud history and presented The Barents Sea–Lofoten area two white papers, The place of the oceans in Nor- In the Barents Sea, climate change has resulted in way’s foreign and development policy (Meld. St. 22 long-term trends of rising sea temperatures, (2016–2017)) and Update of the integrated mana- shrinking ice cover and large-scale ecological gement plan for the Norwegian Sea (Meld. St. 35 changes, especially in the northernmost areas. (2016–2017)). The rising temperatures and shrinking sea ice In June 2019, the Government presented its cover have resulted in changes in ecosystem pro- updated ocean strategy, Blue Opportunities. The duction and biomass. Total primary production strategy highlights five key elements on which the (phytoplankton) has risen, and biomass has Government’s ocean policy is based: almost doubled, mainly as a result of rising quanti- i) promoting, developing and defending the Law ties of Arctic krill species (zooplankton). There of the Sea; have also been observations of growing numbers ii) promoting conservation and sustainable use of of southerly krill species and a decline in the marine ecosystems; quantity of lipid-rich Arctic zooplankton species. iii) contributing to knowledge-based manage- The decline in sea ice has also had direct negative ment; effects on ice-associated species, for example iv) supporting the implementation of internatio- ringed seal, polar bear and a number of other spe- nal ocean-related instruments; cies groups that live in and on the ice, such as ice v) advocating an integrated approach to marine algae, crustaceans and polar cod (Boreogadus management that will underpin a sustainable saida). With a reduction in the area of suitable ocean economy. habitat available to many of these species, they may disappear from larger and larger areas of the The Government has also taken important inter- Arctic. The Barents Sea is one of the areas where national ocean-related initiatives. In 2018, the this is expected to happen most quickly, because High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Econ- of the rapid loss of sea ice in both summer and omy was established. Its purpose is to create inter- winter. national awareness of the economic importance of As a result of climate change and lower fishing the oceans, and an understanding that sustainable pressure, some species, and particularly the cod use of marine resources and safeguarding a stock, have expanded their range in the Barents healthy marine environment must be the founda- Sea. At the same time, suitable habitat for Arctic tion for increasing value creation. The need for species has become more restricted. So far, ocean integrated ocean management occupies a central acidification has not been registered in the Bar- place in the Panel’s work and was also a vital part ents Sea. of the backdrop to the Our Ocean conference that Norway hosted in Oslo in October 2019. The Norwegian Sea In the Norwegian Sea, the water temperature has risen as a result of climate change and changes in 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 9 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans ocean circulation, and acidification has been regis- in the Norwegian Sea has been clarified and tered. Since 2006, observations of southerly spe- adjusted. The boundary of the sea areas sur- cies of zooplankton in the Norwegian Sea have rounding Svalbard has previously only been been increasing. These are species that are com- delimited around Bjørnøya, but a preliminary mon in the North Sea or further south and were demarcation line for the rest of this particularly previously not normally found in the Norwegian valuable and vulnerable area has now been identi- Sea. The changes observed in the species compo- fied. In the North Sea–Skagerrak area, no sition of zooplankton and fish communities are not changes have been made to the delimitation of as extensive as those recorded in waters further particularly valuable and vulnerable areas. north and south, but the data for the Norwegian The Forum for Integrated Ocean Management Sea are not as complete. has evaluated the delimitation of the marginal ice There has been some variability in zooplank- zone as a particularly valuable and vulnerable ton and fish production, but this is now relatively area. This is a transitional zone whose value and high for many species, while fishing pressure has vulnerability are linked to characteristic features decreased since the turn of the century. Inputs of and biological processes, and not just a dividing pollutants are generally stable or declining. Many line between ice and open sea. After an overall seabirds have suffered a dramatic population assessment, the Government has decided to use decline since the early 1980s. the line where ice is found on 15 % of the days in April (15 % ice persistence), based on satellite observations of sea ice extent for the 30-year The North Sea and Skagerrak period 1988–2017, to delimit the marginal ice In the North Sea and Skagerrak, climate change zone as a particularly valuable and vulnerable has been causing significant warming since as area. long ago as the late 1980s. The water temperature is still high, and there has been a continuing spread of southerly zooplankton species, with sub- Changing oceans stantial impacts on the rest of the ecosystem. Norwegian seas are part of one continuous ocean There has been a considerable decline in kelp for- system, and changes in other parts of the world’s ests in the Skagerrak in recent decades. Marine oceans also influence areas under Norwegian heatwaves when water temperatures are abnor- jurisdiction. The entire system is affected by cli- mally high in summer have been an important mate change and other large-scale pressures. Fur- contributory factor in this decline. Many fish ther development of Norway’s ocean management stocks have grown considerably in recent years, system must be based on an understanding of while levels of pollutants have generally remained how climate change and other large-scale pro- unchanged or declined. cesses are affecting and will change Norway’s marine areas and how they are used. Climate change is intensifying more rapidly Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas than other pressures, both globally and in Norwe- Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas are gian seas. According to the Intergovernmental identified on the basis of scientific assessments as Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Eco- being of great importance for biodiversity and bio- system Services (IPBES), it is likely that the logical production in an entire management plan impacts of climate change, in combination with area. The designation of areas as particularly valu- the use of marine and coastal waters, overexploita- able and vulnerable does not have any direct tion of living resources, pollution and the spread effect in the form of restrictions on commercial of alien species will further exacerbate the nega- activities, but indicates that these are areas where tive impacts on ecosystems that are already it is important to show special caution, and where becoming apparent. The Arctic is highlighted as activities must be conducted in such a way that one of the regions where this can already be the ecological functioning and biodiversity of an observed. area is not threatened. In the scientific basis for According to the Intergovernmental Panel on this white paper, the delimitation of three of these Climate Change (IPCC), the oceans are entering a areas – the marginal ice zone, the polar front and new state, with rising temperatures, more acidic the Eggakanten area (along the edge of the conti- seawater, less oxygen, lower biological production nental shelf) has been updated. The delimitation and changes in ocean circulation. At the same of some particularly valuable and vulnerable areas time, the rise in global sea level is expected to 10 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans accelerate. Marine and coastal areas at lower lati- early stage; the public administration will also tudes will be hardest hit. However, important need systems in place to enable a rapid response marine ecosystems in Norwegian waters are also to new information, including necessary meas- vulnerable. These include kelp forests, eelgrass ures. Mapping of the seabed is one approach to meadows, cold-water coral reefs and ecosystems building up the knowledge base. associated with the Arctic sea ice. On the global scale, it is expected that both biological production and the catch potential of Ocean-based industries and value creation fish stocks will decline as the oceans warm. The Norway is rich in natural resources and has decline will be greatest in tropical seas, and its always taken a long-term approach to resource extent will depend on the level of greenhouse gas management for the benefit of society as a whole. emissions. In certain parts of the Arctic, produc- Ocean-based industries play a vital part in value tivity may rise. At the same time, the distribution creation in Norway, and the oceans provide liveli- of areas of suitable habitat for various species will hoods for many coastal communities. For the fore- shift towards the poles. The seawater will become seeable future, the oceans will continue to be a increasingly acidic as it absorbs more CO2. These vital basis for jobs, value creation and welfare trends will result in major changes in marine eco- throughout Norway, and they can also be part of systems. The changes we have witnessed so far in the solution to the environmental and climate- the North Sea and the Barents Sea, where biologi- related challenges the world is facing. The Gov- cal production has declined in southerly areas and ernment recognises that marine resources are increased further north in response to higher sea- important for national value creation, and consid- water temperatures, are in line with the expected ers it important for exploitation of natural large-scale changes described by the IPCC. resources to have positive spin-off effects for com- It is difficult to predict all the impacts of cli- munities. mate and environmental change on the oceans. Fisheries and aquaculture: Norway has a large There is therefore growing uncertainty about and profitable fisheries and aquaculture sector, environmental conditions in the future and which harvests and produces a total of more than whether there is a viable basis for industries that 3 million tonnes of seafood a year, mainly for depend on marine ecosystems. This will create export. In 2019, Norway exported seafood to a new challenges for ocean management at national value of NOK 107.3 billion. Climate change and level and for international ocean cooperation. other pressures are expected to result in major Climate change and ocean acidification are changes in the size and distribution of fish stocks altering the ecological basis for exploiting ocean in the years ahead, creating challenges for fisher- resources; at the same time, action to achieve the ies and fisheries management. Current knowl- necessary emission reductions will intensify the edge indicates that there is no potential to need to make use of the oceans, for example to increase harvesting of wild fisheries resources increase production of food and renewable that are already exploited, with the exception of energy. It will be vital for the public administration snow crab. both to make use of all ocean-based options for Shipping: Shipping in all three management reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to tackle plan areas has risen moderately year by year in any environmental impacts this may have. the period 2011–2017. This is part of a long-term The cross-sectoral system of integrated ocean trend linked to rising transport needs, which in management plans combined with sound manage- turn are connected to economic developments ment within each sector puts Norway in a good and globalisation of the economy. position to deal with the challenges arising from Petroleum activities: Norway’s seas and oceans rising activity levels and rapid climate and envi- contain rich oil and gas resources, which have ronmental change. At the same time, it will be played a key role in the development of the wel- important to take into account the changes to fare state, and the sector plays a vital role in the marine ecosystems and species distribution Norwegian economy. In the more than 50 years resulting from climate change and ocean acidifica- since petroleum activities first began in Norway, tion, which may make many species and ecosys- this has grown into the country’s largest industry tems more vulnerable to other pressures. This measured in terms of value added, state revenues, will require research to understand climate export value and investments. There are consider- change and its impacts on the oceans, and moni- able remaining oil and gas resources on the Nor- toring to make it possible to detect changes at an wegian shelf. The resource accounts indicate that 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 11 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans after 50 years, about half of the total petroleum experience of carbon capture and storage under resources had been extracted, and the proportion the seabed on the Norwegian continental shelf. was higher for oil resources than for gas Green competitiveness: the Norwegian Govern- resources. The North Sea accounts for the largest ment presented its strategy for green competitive- proportion of production from the Norwegian ness in 2018. This links together industrial devel- continental shelf, and the province still holds con- opment and climate action. Renewable energy siderable resource potential. New gas infrastruc- sources such as offshore wind, carbon capture ture has been established in the northern part of and storage under the seabed, and green shipping the Norwegian Sea: the Aasta Hansteen field, are three areas where Norway has much to offer, which started production in 2018, and the gas and where sound ocean management can play a pipeline Polarled. There are currently two fields in part in a green shift in the economy. production in the Barents Sea, Snøhvit and Goliat, Coordinated spatial management and coexis- and a third, Johan Castberg, is under develop- tence between ocean-based industries: in view of the ment. Exploration activity on the Norwegian shelf expected growth in new and emerging ocean has varied over the years, but has remained stable industries, the Government will consider whether at a high level in recent years. there are certain geographical areas where many Emerging ocean industries: Offshore wind different interests intersect. It will be important to power, marine bioprospecting, extraction of min- review the impacts, including the economic erals from the seabed, carbon storage below the impacts, of various options for the use of Norway’s seabed and hydrogen production are emerging marine areas, and to weigh up potentially conflict- ocean industries. ing interests in individual cases. Offshore wind power is growing globally, and several processes are underway in Norway to encourage its development. Offshore wind is one Overall framework and measures for conservation and of six priority areas in the national strategy for sustainable use of ecosystems research and development of new, climate-friendly A comprehensive set of targets and indicators has energy technology, Energi21. At present, develop- been developed for the management plans. This ment costs are considerably higher for offshore white paper includes a status report on progress wind power than for land-based wind power, and towards the targets set out in the earlier manage- there are other challenges associated with off- ment plans. It presents measures relating to cli- shore industrial activity than with similar land- mate change, good environmental status and sus- based activities. Floating wind power may become tainable use, the knowledge base, the exchange of a substantial energy source if the costs can be information and experience, and further develop- reduced sufficiently for it to be competitive. The ment of the management plan system. Hywind Tampen project is under development in The earlier management plans presented a the North Sea and will be the world’s largest float- framework for petroleum activities in each geo- ing wind farm to date. graphical area. With some changes and refine- Marine bioprospecting is of particular interest ments, this white paper gives a complete overview in northern seas because they are home to many of the current framework for petroleum activities species that are specialised to survive extreme for all three management plan areas, which will and often changeable conditions. apply until the management plans are next Extraction of minerals from the seabed may updated. have considerable market potential in future as On the basis of new information from the electrification of society progresses. This is IPCC, this white paper focuses particularly on cli- expected to increase demand for metallic minerals mate change and its implications for ocean man- such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese, agement in the future. The Government will and for certain rare earths that are used in elec- ensure climate-resilient management of living tronics and battery technology. Polymetallic marine resources and marine biodiversity, so that crusts and sulphides have been found on the Nor- it is possible to maintain viable populations and wegian continental shelf. ecosystem services as far as possible in a chang- According to both the IPCC and the Interna- ing climate. The Government will actively pursue tional Energy Agency (IEA), it will be difficult and a policy to promote green transformation of the substantially more costly to achieve climate tar- Norwegian economy. gets without carbon capture and storage (CCS) As regards food production from the oceans, technology. Norway already has many years’ the Government will review options for sustaina- 12 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans ble harvesting of new species, particularly species The Government will build up knowledge at low trophic levels. about marine ecosystems and how they are The Government will present an update of its changing as a result of greater human activity, cli- integrated strategy to combat plastic waste, which mate change and pollution. The Government will will include measures to deal with both ocean- and also strengthen knowledge about the role of land-based sources and will consider plastic litter marine ecosystems in global climate evolution. and microplastics in the oceans, in freshwater and The Government will continue to promote on land. The Government is working towards a integrated, ecosystem-based management in new comprehensive global agreement to combat international ocean cooperation, and will advocate marine litter and microplastics, which will have the use of knowledge about climate change and the aim of eliminating inputs from all ocean- and other factors with an impact on the oceans as a land-based sources. basis for work in relevant international forums and agreements. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 13 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

2 Introduction – integrated, ecosystem-based management

As an ocean and coastal nation, Norway is respon- sible for managing a rich and varied natural envi- ronment. Norwegian waters support abundant natural resources that have been an important basis for the development of the welfare state. Norway’s long-term approach to ocean resource management for the benefit of society as a whole has a long tradition. Value creation from ocean- based activities now and in the future depends on maintaining good environmental status and high biodiversity in the marine and coastal environ- ment, safeguarding the oceans as a source of food and using ocean resources sustainably. In this white paper, the Government describes how it intends to continue and consolidate Norway’s integrated, ecosystem-based ocean management plan system. Many environmental problems in the oceans are transboundary in nature, and the distribution Figure 2.1 Implementation of SDG 14 will also play a of many living marine resources extends across part in achieving other SDGs. national borders. Moreover, the oceans are under Source: United Nations Association of Norway/Ministry of Cli- growing pressure from human activities. Changes mate and Environment in the ocean environment resulting from climate change, ocean acidification and inputs of pollut- ants such as hazardous substances and plastic When the SDGs were adopted by the UN Gen- waste not only have environmental impacts, but eral Assembly in September 2015, the oceans also have consequences for food security (sup- were assigned a key role and a specific goal, SDG plies of safe and nutritional food), productivity, 14 on life below water, which is to ‘conserve and ocean-based industries and coastal communities. sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine There is growing international recognition that resources’. Success in achieving SDG 14 will play the oceans offer part of the solution to major a part in achieving several of the other goals, such global problems such as hunger and malnutrition as SDG 2 on zero hunger, SDG 7 on affordable and climate change. These factors combined will and clean energy, SDG 8 on decent work and eco- make it vital to have a sound framework for ocean nomic growth, SDG 9 on industry, innovation and management and ocean policy in the future. infrastructure, SDG 12 on responsible consump- The UN Sustainable Development Goals pro- tion and production, SDG 13 on climate action and vide a global framework for the international com- SDG 15 on life on land, see Figure 2.1. Conversely, munity’s efforts to promote development that the extent to which some of the other SDGs are meets the needs of the present without compro- achieved will have major implications for the state mising the ability of future generations to meet of the marine environment in the future. This their own needs. The 17 SDGs are a blueprint for applies particularly to SDG 13 on climate action a concerted global effort to be undertaken in the and SDG 12 on responsible consumption and pro- years up to 2030 to achieve environmentally, duction. socially and economically sustainable develop- The basis for the system of integrated ocean ment for everyone. management plans was laid in the white paper Protecting the Riches of the Sea (Report No. 12 14 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

(2001–2002) to the Storting). Since then, the fied as the purpose of Norway’s system of ocean Storting (Norwegian parliament) has considered management plans. and approved management plans for all Norwe- There is growing international recognition that gian sea areas. Norway has received a great deal a sustainable ocean economy must be based on a of international recognition for its management good knowledge base and a sound marine manage- plans, and a number of countries have developed ment regime, together with action to address cli- or are developing their own systems for inte- mate and environmental problems and steps to grated, ecosystem-based ocean management. ensure that economic activity is sustainable. These processes have gathered new momentum as the concept of an integrated approach to ocean management that facilitates both value creation 2.1 Norway’s system of integrated and protection of the marine environment has ocean management plans risen higher on the international agenda. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is The purpose of the management plans is to pro- often referred to as the ‘constitution of the vide a framework for value creation through the oceans’. The Convention regulates the rights and sustainable use of marine natural resources and obligations of states as regards use of the seas and ecosystem services and at the same time maintain oceans, utilisation of marine resources and con- the structure, functioning, productivity and diver- servation of the marine environment. This sity of the ecosystems. The management plans are ensures a predictable framework and stability for thus a tool both for facilitating value creation and investments and economic activity. The Conven- food security, and for maintaining the high envi- tion is vital for Norway with its strong energy, ronmental value of Norway’s seas and oceans. environmental, seafood and shipping interests. They clarify an overall framework and encourage The Convention confers extensive rights on closer coordination and clear priorities for the coastal states to utilise living marine resources management plan areas. Activities in each man- and other resources on the continental shelf agement plan area are regulated on the basis of under its jurisdiction, and combines these with a existing legislation governing different sectors. duty to protect and conserve the marine environ- The various sectoral authorities have the main ment. The combination of conservation and sus- responsibility for implementing the measures set tainable use of the marine environment is speci-

Updated knowledge base Status, progress towards goals, scientific advice

Scientific advice Monitoring, mapping, research Knowledge base Environment, sector-specific knowledge, cross-sectoral assessments Stakeholders

Update of management Implementation Integrated ocean plan (white paper) Sector-specific measures, management plan (white Framework for activities, knowledge development, paper) Goals, framework measures common tools for activities, measures

Figure 2.2 Ecosystem-based ocean management. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 15 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans out in the management plans, under relevant leg- ministries represented in the committee are the islation that they administer. Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the Minis- Integrated, ecosystem-based ocean manage- try of Finance, the Ministry of Defence, the Minis- ment is an approach to managing ecosystems and try of Justice and Public Security, the Ministry of resources that involves finding a balance between Local Government and Modernisation, the Minis- use and protection of rich, productive ecosystems try of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, the Ministry and the ecosystem services they provide, and of Petroleum and Energy, the Ministry of Trans- thus promoting an equitable system of conserva- port and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. tion and sustainable use. Ecosystem-based man- The management plans are knowledge-based. agement uses available knowledge as a basis, and The scientific basis for the plans is drawn up by considers ecosystems as a whole, including peo- two advisory groups: the Forum for Integrated ple, when decisions are needed on ocean manage- Ocean Management and the Advisory Group on ment and marine ecosystem management. The Monitoring. The Forum for Integrated Ocean management plans implement an integrated, eco- Management is headed by the Norwegian Envi- system-based management regime by evaluating ronment Agency and is responsible for drawing the cumulative effects of all human activities on up an overall scientific basis for updating and the marine environment and by managing the use revising the management plans in cooperation of the oceans in a way that maintains the natural with the Advisory Group on Monitoring. The functions of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Advisory Group on Monitoring (headed by the Ecosystem services are a vital basis for long-term Institute of Marine Research) coordinates moni- value creation. toring programmes for marine ecosystems and Norway’s ocean management plans are also reports on environmental status in the manage- integrated in the sense that they bring together all ment plan areas, see Figure 2.3. relevant parts of the public administration. Work The management plan work does not specifi- on the management plans is coordinated by the cally address important issues relating to safe- interministerial Steering Committee for inte- guarding public and national security and main- grated ocean management, which is headed by taining emergency preparedness. However, sound the Ministry of Climate and Environment. Other ocean management, a clear framework for civilian

Steering Committee

Ministry of Climate and Environment Ministry of Transport Ministry of Petroleum and Energy Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries Ministry of Finance Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation Ministry of Justice and Public Security Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Defence

Forum for Integrated Ocean Management Advisory Group on Monitoring

● Norwegian ● Norwegian Coastal ● Institute of Marine ● Norwegian Institute Environment Agency Administration Research for Nature Research ● Norwegian Radiation ● Norwegian Meteorological ● Norwegian Radiation ● Norwegian Institute and Nuclear Safety Institute and Nuclear Safety for Water Research Authority ● Norwegian Water Resources Authority ● Geological Survey ● Directorate of Fisheries and Energy Directorate ● Directorate of Fisheries of Norway ● Institute of Marine ● Norwegian Polar Institute ● Norwegian ● Norwegian Polar Research ● Norwegian Petroleum Meteorological Institute Institute ● Norwegian Mapping Directorate ● Norwegian ● Norwegian Maritime Authority ● Petroleum Safety Authority Environment Agency Authority ● Norwegian Maritime Authority

Figure 2.3 Organisation of the management plan work and government agencies represented in the Forum for Integrated Ocean Management and the Advisory Group on Monitoring. Source: Ministry of Climate and Environment 16 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans and military activities and the availability of infor- drop to the Our Ocean conference that Norway’s mation for all stakeholders also contribute to clar- Minister of Foreign Affairs hosted in Oslo in Octo- ity and predictability, and play a part in preventing ber 2019. accidents and maintaining crisis management capacity at sea. 2.3 White paper on all Norway’s integrated ocean management 2.2 The Government’s ocean policy plans

The Government is giving high priority to an In this white paper, the Government describes active ocean policy and ocean-based commercial how it intends to continue and consolidate Nor- activities, both nationally and internationally. In way’s integrated, ecosystem-based ocean manage- spring 2017, the Government published its ocean ment plan system. The white paper brings strategy New growth, proud history and presented together all three management plans for the first two white papers, The place of the oceans in Nor- time. It includes a revised management plan for way’s foreign and development policy (Meld. St. 22 the Barents Sea–Lofoten area and updated man- (2016–2017)) and Update of the integrated mana- agement plans for the Norwegian Sea and the gement plan for the Norwegian Sea (Meld. St. 35 North Sea and Skagerrak. The white paper does (2016–2017)). not cover the waters off Bouvet Island or the Nor- In June 2019, the Government presented its wegian dependencies in Antarctica. updated ocean strategy, Blue Opportunities. The This white paper also follows up three strategy highlights five key elements on which the requests from the Storting to the Government: a Government’s ocean policy is based: request dated 18 June 2015 to present an overall i) promoting, developing and defending the Law of the Sea; ii) promoting conservation and sustainable use of marine ecosystems; iii) contributing to knowledge-based manage- ment; iv) supporting the implementation of internatio- nal ocean-related instruments; v) advocating an integrated approach to marine management that will underpin a sustainable ocean economy.

The Government has also taken important inter- national ocean-related initiatives. In 2018, the High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Econ- omy was established. The Panel consists of heads of state and government from 14 countries, and is supported by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean. The Panel is co-chaired by Norway’s Prime Minister and the President of Palau. Its members represent 30 % of the world’s total coastline, 30 % of its exclusive economic zones, 20 % of the world harvest from the oceans and 20 % of the shipping in the world fleet. The purpose of the Panel is to create international awareness of the economic importance of the oceans, and an understanding that sustainable use of marine resources and safeguarding a healthy marine environment must be the foundation for Figure 2.4 Map of the three management plan increasing value creation. The need for integrated areas: the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, the Norwegian ocean management occupies a central place in the Sea and the North Sea and Skagerrak. Panel’s work, and was also a vital part of the back- Source: Norwegian Environment Agency 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 17 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Figure 2.5 Some of the reports that are included in the scientific basis for the management plans (available in Norwegian only). Source: Forum for Integrated Ocean Management revision of the management plan for the entire give stakeholders an opportunity to provide input, Barents Sea–Lofoten area in the ordinary way, a and written input was invited after the conference. request dated 14 June 2017 to present a scientifi- All written input to the white paper is available on cally based update of the delimitation of the whole the Ministry of Climate and Environment’s web- marginal ice zone, including the West Ice, in con- site on regjeringen.no. nection with the revision of the management plan The main emphasis for many of the topics dis- for the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, and a request cussed in this white paper is on changes and dated 14 June 2017 for a new definition of the mar- trends in the years after publication of the previ- ginal ice zone if appropriate as part of the revision ous white papers on each management plan area. of the same management plan. More thorough discussions of state, trends and The overall scientific basis for this white paper measures for certain topics, such as marine litter consists of eleven reports on various topics from and plastic pollution, can therefore be found in the Forum for Integrated Ocean Management and earlier white papers. Some topics and measures reports on environmental status in the three man- that were described in earlier white papers for agement plan areas from the Advisory Group on individual management plan areas are relevant Monitoring (see Figure 2.5 and Appendix 1). In more generally, and are also discussed in the pres- addition, the Management Forum commissioned ent white paper. reports giving an account of updated knowledge about the marginal ice zone and the polar front. Together, these documents constitute a status Structure of the white paper report on ecosystem-based management of Nor- Chapter 3 of the white paper gives an account of way’s seas and oceans. A report summarising the environmental status in the management plan overall scientific basis for the management plans areas, focusing on changes and trends. It also has also been compiled. The reports are available includes a review of progress towards the targets to the public, and in most cases consultations, con- set out in the earlier management plans, based on ferences and seminars have been organised dur- measures that have been implemented. Chapter 4 ing their preparation. A conference was also describes changes that are taking place in the organised during preparation of the white paper to oceans at global level as a result of climate change 18 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans and biodiversity loss, and what the implications The following are the Government’s goals for may be for Norway’s seas and oceans. In addition management of the management plan areas: to the scientific basis for the management plans, the chapter draws extensively on the IPCC Special Value creation, commercial activities and society Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, published in September 2019, and the General goals global assessment report published by the Inter- • Norway’s ocean management will promote governmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodi- sustainable use of ecosystems, areas and versity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in May resources that ensures long-term value crea- 2019. Chapter 5 gives an account of ocean-based tion, employment and people’s welfare, to the industries and forecasts of their development. benefit of Norway’s regions and the country as There has been some reorganisation of this chap- a whole. ter, and it is now structured more around ocean • The ocean industries will continue to promote ecosystem services that form the basis for com- value creation and secure welfare and business mercial activities and value creation than was the development to the benefit of the country as a case in earlier white papers. The chapter also whole. includes a brief description of the green transfor- • Management of commercial activities in the mation that is taking place in several ocean indus- management plan areas will be coordinated to tries and of the establishment of new industries as ensure that the various industries are able to a way of achieving the Government’s climate tar- coexist and that the overall level of activity is gets. adjusted to take account of environmental con- Chapter 6 assesses the risk of acute pollution siderations. from shipping and petroleum activities, describes the preparedness and response system, and dis- cusses the risk of acute radioactive pollution. Fisheries and seafood Chapter 7 describes Norway’s spatial manage- • Living marine resources will be managed ment policy for the oceans, and Chapter 8 gives an sustainably through the ecosystem approach. account of relevant international cooperation on • Norway’s seas and oceans will be a source of ocean management as a follow-up to the white safe seafood. paper The place of the oceans in Norway’s foreign • Harvesting activities and natural resource use and development policy. Chapter 9 describes the that provide a high long-term yield within overall framework and measures for conservation sustainable limits will be facilitated. and sustainable use of ecosystems in the manage- ment plan areas adopted by the Government. Petroleum activities • Steps will be taken to facilitate the long-term 2.4 Norway’s goals for integrated profitable production of oil and gas. Petroleum ocean management activities will be carried out within a predicta- ble framework and on the basis of health, As part of the integrated ocean management environment and safety requirements and stan- plans, goals have been set for the Government’s dards that are adapted to environmental consi- ocean policy and for management of the three derations and the needs of other industries. management plan areas. These goals concern environmental status, value creation, coexistence between ocean industries, conservation and sus- Offshore renewable energy tainable use. • The development of offshore renewable Previously, the wording of the goals has varied energy production will be facilitated, taking to some extent between the different manage- into account environmental considerations and ment plan areas, and some goals have only applied other activities. to one of the areas. In this white paper, the goals have been harmonised so that they all apply to all three management plan areas. In some cases, Maritime transport they have been clarified and simplified to facilitate • Favourable conditions will be provided for safe, reporting on progress towards the goals. secure, effective and environmentally friendly maritime transport. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 19 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Biodiversity and ecosystems Sustainable harvesting General goals • Management of living marine resources will be • Norway’s seas and oceans will be managed in a based on the principles of sustainable harve- way that maintains diversity at ecosystem, sting. habitat, species and genetic levels, and the pro- • Harvesting will not have significant adverse ductivity of ecosystems. Human activity in the effects on other parts of the marine ecosystem management plan areas will not damage the or its structure. structure, functioning or productivity of eco- • Bycatches of marine mammals and seabirds systems. will be minimised. • Living marine resources will be harvested making use of the best available techniques for Management of particularly valuable and vulne- different types of gear to minimise negative rable areas impacts on other ecosystem components such • In particularly valuable and vulnerable areas, as marine mammals, seabirds and benthic activities will be conducted with special care communities. and in such a way that the ecological functio- • Management of fish stocks and other biologi- ning and biodiversity of these areas are not cal resources will be adapted to a changing cli- threatened. mate so that stocks are maintained at sustaina- • The management regime will take special acco- ble levels. unt of the need to protect vulnerable habitat types and species in particularly valuable and vulnerable areas. Marine protected areas • A representative, ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine protected Species and habitat management areas will be established in Norwegian waters. • Naturally occurring species will exist in viable populations that provide for sufficient reprodu- ctive capacity and long-term survival. Climate change and ocean acidification • Species that are essential to the structure, • When marine ecosystems are used as carbon functioning, productivity and dynamics of eco- sinks, the need to maintain biodiversity and systems will be managed in such a way that natural ecosystem functions will be taken into they are able to maintain their role as key spe- account. cies in these ecosystems. • The cumulative effects of human activities on • Harvested species will be managed within safe habitats and species that are adversely affected biological limits so that their spawning stocks by climate change or ocean acidification (e.g. have good reproductive capacity. coral reefs) will be minimised, in order to main- • Populations of endangered and vulnerable spe- tain ecosystem functioning as fully as possible. cies and species for which Norway has a spe- cial responsibility will be maintained or resto- Pollution, marine litter and the risk of acute pollution red to viable levels. • The introduction and spread of alien organisms General goals through human activity will be avoided. • Releases and inputs of pollutants to the mana- • In marine habitats that are particularly impor- gement plan areas will not result in injury to tant for the structure, functioning, productivity health or damage the productivity of the natu- and dynamics of ecosystems, activities will be ral environment and its capacity for self-rene- conducted in such a way that all ecological wal. Activities in these areas will not result in functions are maintained. higher levels of pollutants in seafood. • Damage to marine habitats that are considered to be endangered or vulnerable will be avoided. Hazardous and radioactive substances • Environmental concentrations of hazardous and radioactive substances will be reduced to background levels for naturally occurring sub- stances and will be close to zero for synthetic 20 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

substances. Releases and inputs of hazardous or radioactive substances will not cause these Underwater noise levels to be exceeded. • Activities entailing a noise level that may affect • Releases and use of substances that pose a species’ behaviour will be limited to avoid the serious threat to health or the environment in displacement of populations or other effects the management plan areas will be continuo- that may have negative impacts on the marine usly reduced with a view to eliminating them. ecosystem. • Operational discharges from activities in the management plan areas will not result in damage to the environment, higher levels of Risk of acute pollution pollutants in seafood, or elevated background • The risk of damage to the environment and levels of oil, naturally occurring radioactive living marine resources from acute pollution substances or other environmentally will be kept at a low level, and continuous hazardous substances over time. efforts will be made to reduce it further. • The high safety level in maritime transport will be maintained and strengthened. Inputs of nutrients, sediment deposition and organic • The governmental preparedness and response material system for acute pollution will be adapted to • Anthropogenic inputs of nutrients, sediment and dimensioned on the basis of the level of deposition and inputs of organic matter will be environmental risk at any given time. limited in order to avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems in the The Norwegian Environment Agency is coordi- management plan areas. nating the development of a classification system for ecological status in all ecosystems (except for ecosystems in inland and coastal waters; these are Marine litter already covered by the classification system used • Inputs of waste and microplastics to the mana- under the Water Management Regulations, which gement plan areas will be avoided. implement the EU Water Framework Directive in • Waste quantities in marine and coastal areas Norwegian law). The classification system for will be reduced by means of clean-up operati- marine ecosystems will be established as part of ons where appropriate. the work on the ocean management plans. The

Box 2.1 Classification system for assessment of ecological status The classification system for assessment of eco- important species and structures, ecological pat- logical status will be used as a basis for an over- terns at landscape level and abiotic conditions. A all, knowledge-based assessment of the status of general assessment of ecological status is made Norway’s major ecosystems. The system will be with respect to each of these properties, and based on a set of scientific indicators and on these are used as a basis for assessing the over- available scientific knowledge about status and all ecological status of the ecosystem as a whole. trends in Norwegian ecosystems. The system for assessing the ecological sta- In ecosystems where ecological status is tus of marine ecosystems will be used together good, ecosystem structure, functioning and pro- with the goals and indicators established as part ductivity do not deviate significantly from those of the ocean management plans, and will com- of intact ecosystems. Both ‘intact ecosystems’ plement them. The need for any adjustments to and ‘good ecological status’ are defined on the ensure the best possible coherence between basis of scientific knowledge and criteria. goals and indicators will be considered later. Seven properties have been identified that Pilot tests of the system have already been can be used to characterise ecosystems where carried out, for example for the ecosystem in the ecological status is good. These are primary Arctic part of the Barents Sea. Development of production, biomass at different trophic levels, the system is continuing. functional groups of organisms, functionally 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 21 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Norwegian Institute of Marine Research is head- of ecological status for all Norway’s sea and ocean ing the subgroup for this part of the work. The areas is expected to be completed in the course of knowledge generated will supplement the scien- 2021. This will make it possible to further refine tific basis for the management plans and will be and supplement the goals for the management integrated into the work of the Forum for Inte- plans. grated Ocean Management. The first assessment 22 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

3 Environmental status and trends in Norwegian waters

Environmental status in Norway’s rich, productive cation has been registered. The changes seas is in many respects good, but climate change observed in the species composition of zooplank- is having growing impacts, and is clearly affecting ton and fish communities are not as extensive as the status of ecosystems in both the North Sea those recorded in waters further north and south, and the Barents Sea. In the North Sea, rising tem- but the data for the Norwegian Sea are not as peratures have resulted in changes in the zoo- complete. There has been some variability in zoo- plankton community and a less productive ecosys- plankton and fish production, but this is now rela- tem but with higher species diversity. Species in tively high for many species, while fishing pres- the existing fish community may be displaced by sure has decreased since the turn of the century. others spreading from further south. In the Bar- Inputs of pollutants are generally stable or declin- ents Sea, rising temperatures and the loss of sea ing. Many seabirds have suffered a dramatic pop- ice have resulted in a rise in overall primary pro- ulation decline since the early 1980s. Since 2006, duction, and in large parts of the management observations of southerly species of zooplankton plan area, Arctic species are being displaced by in the Norwegian Sea have been increasing. more southerly species. Major changes are taking These are species that are common in the North place in the ecosystem in the northern part of the Sea or further south and were previously not nor- Barents Sea. No such marked shifts have been mally found in the Norwegian Sea. registered in the Norwegian Sea, but some In the North Sea and Skagerrak, climate changes have been observed, which in the case of change has been causing significant warming zooplankton can be linked to climate variability. since as long ago as the late 1980s. The water tem- The ocean climate is influenced both by perature is still high, and there has been a contin- anthropogenic climate change and by natural vari- uing spread of southerly zooplankton species, ability, which can both upward and downward with substantial impacts on the rest of the ecosys- temperature fluctuations. Anthropogenic climate tem. There has been a considerable decline in change is causing a long-term trend of rising tem- kelp forests in the Skagerrak in recent decades. peratures. However, there can be considerable Marine heatwaves when water temperatures are natural variability between years and between dec- abnormally high in summer have been an impor- ades, and it is generally much larger than anthro- tant contributory factor in this decline. Many fish pogenic change on these time scales. In the stocks have grown considerably in recent years, longer term, global warming will nevertheless while levels of pollutants have generally remained result in rising sea temperatures and further loss unchanged or declined. of ice cover, with major ecological impacts. Impacts on an ecosystem may be linked to In the Barents Sea, climate change has already direct pressures and physical disturbance of the resulted in long-term trends of rising sea tempera- ecosystem or to large-scale processes such as cli- tures, shrinking ice cover and large-scale ecologi- mate change. The cumulative impacts on an eco- cal changes, especially in the northernmost areas. system are the result of a range of pressures act- So far, ocean acidification has not been registered ing on it. A combination of several pressures act- in the Barents Sea. Apart from climate change, ing together may result in more severe impacts on human activity has resulted in only minor environ- marine ecosystems. For example, warming of the mental changes since 2011. The fish stocks in the oceans and inputs of nutrients together worsen Barents Sea are generally sustainably managed, problems related to oxygen depletion, and and pressures on the ecosystem from activities warmer seas and ocean acidification in combina- within the management plan area are within tion damage coral reefs more severely than either acceptable long-term limits. of these factors alone. In the Norwegian Sea, the water temperature The effects of different human activities on has risen as a result of climate change, and acidifi- biodiversity are assessed using an ecosystem 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 23 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans approach and following the principle that cumula- the scientific basis for the management plans, the tive impacts must be assessed. To assess the Forum for Integrated Ocean Management will cumulative impacts of a range of direct anthropo- review the particularly valuable and vulnerable genic drivers, it is important to understand the areas using the same methodology for describing interactions between them. Our knowledge of valuable species and habitats and assessing vul- these interactions is limited at present, but the sit- nerability. uation is improving. In addition to information In the Barents Sea–Lofoten management plan about existing drivers, it is important to have a area, areas of particular value have been identified sound knowledge of likely environmental impacts adjoining several of the existing particularly valua- of rising activity levels and emerging industries. ble and vulnerable areas. They have been identi- We can be reasonably certain that the pressures fied on the basis of new knowledge about seabird and impacts related to climate change and ocean distribution and habitat use, and are considered to acidification will become considerably greater. be candidates for inclusion in the system of par- Chapter 4 describes what is already known about ticularly valuable and vulnerable areas. Mapping the probable main features of these pressures and of seabird habitat use has revealed that the areas impacts. However, there is more uncertainty they use when foraging in the open sea extend fur- about how species and ecosystems will be ther out from the coast than previously thought, affected at regional and local level. Considerable up to 100 km from the breeding colonies. challenges are expected to arise as a result of As it continues its review of particularly valua- interactions between the expected impacts of cli- ble and vulnerable areas, the Forum for Inte- mate change and ocean acidification, and the grated Ocean Management will also consider the more direct local and regional impacts of human candidate areas that have been identified and activity at sea and along the coast. Some drivers, review the boundaries of the current particularly such as hazardous substances, ocean acidification valuable and vulnerable areas. The criteria for and climate change, can influence larger areas assessing which areas qualify as particularly valu- and all trophic levels in an ecosystem. Climate able and vulnerable will be harmonised for all change also influences how hazardous substances three management plan areas, and the approach spread and the environmental behaviour of these used will be similar to that used in corresponding substances. Organisms that are already under work under the Convention on Biological Diver- pressure are often more vulnerable to other pres- sity to describe their ecological and biological sures or an increase in cumulative impacts. value, and will use the same criteria as those for identifying Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs). This work will include Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas vulnerability assessments for the candidate areas Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas are and descriptions of current human activities and identified on the basis of scientific assessments as their specific implications for vulnerability. being of great importance for biodiversity and bio- logical production in an entire management plan area. They are selected using predefined criteria, 3.1 Environmental status in the the main ones being that the area concerned is Barents Sea–Lofoten management important for biodiversity or for biological produc- plan area tion. The designation of areas as particularly valu- able and vulnerable does not have any direct The state of the environment in the Barents Sea– effect in the form of restrictions on commercial Lofoten area is generally good. The dominant activities, but indicates that these are areas where trends are rising temperatures and shrinking ice it is important to show special caution. cover. These have further intensified since the New knowledge has been obtained about spe- management plan was updated in 2011. In cies, habitats and vulnerability in the particularly response to the changing climate, the ecosystem valuable and vulnerable areas. Research, mapping in northern parts of the management plan area, and monitoring has confirmed the high environ- primarily north of the polar front, is undergoing mental value of a number of these areas. However, major change. Except for climate change, pres- the ongoing review of all the particularly valuable sures on the Barents Sea ecosystem are within and vulnerable areas has shown that the environ- sustainable limits, and the cumulative impacts of mental value and vulnerability of several areas human activities within the management plan are should be further assessed. As part of its work on small. As a result of climate change and lower fish- 24 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans ing pressure, some species, and particularly the multi-year ice. In addition, sea ice is forming later cod stock, have expanded their range in the Bar- in autumn and thawing earlier in spring, giving a ents Sea. At the same time, suitable habitat for longer and longer ice-free period. Major ecosys- Arctic species such as polar cod (Boreogadus tem changes have been taking place in recent saida) has become more restricted. years in response to the changes in temperature and ice cover. The distribution of Atlantic and more southerly species is shifting northwards and 3.1.1 Oceanic climate change in the eastwards from the southwestern part of the Bar- management plan area ents Sea. The scale of ecosystem change is great- A prominent characteristic of the Barents Sea eco- est north of the polar front, the zone where Atlan- system is the long-term rising trend in sea temper- tic water flowing polewards meets Arctic water ature over the past 40 years, although with flowing south. marked variations. Changes in the distribution of various species have resulted in structural changes in food webs (which represent feeding relationships between Temperature, sea ice and ecosystem change species in an ecosystem). The cod stock has been In the Barents Sea, it is apparent that global warm- at a high level for the last 10 years, and its chang- ing is resulting in a long-term rising trend in sea ing distribution has been particularly important temperature. However, there can be substantial for both the ecosystem and the fisheries. With ris- natural fluctuations between years and between ing temperatures and the declining extent of sea decades. The combination of global warming and ice, cod have spread all the way to the northern natural fluctuations is resulting in a long-term and eastern boundaries of the Barents Sea in cer- temperature rise, and both the maxima and min- tain years recently. This has increased predation ima of the natural fluctuations are gradually ris- pressure on polar cod and other Arctic species in ing. Water temperatures in the Barents Sea were these areas. As a result, the Arctic fish species are high in the 1940s and low in the late 1970s, but now largely confined to a small area in the far have risen considerably since then. In the past five north of the Barents Sea (Figure 3.4). A number to six years, there has again been some decrease of southerly species of benthic invertebrates and in temperature (Figure 3.1). In parallel with the jellyfish have also been registered further north long-term temperature rise, sea ice cover has and east in the Barents Sea. been declining. The ice has also become thinner, The Barents Sea ecosystem is naturally and there has been a sharp reduction in areas of dynamic, and one consequence of this has been

Kola section Fugløya-Bear Island section C) o Temperature ( Temperature

Year

Figure 3.1 Temperature changes in the Barents Sea from 1900 to 2019. Temperature in the centre of the Atlantic inflow, depth 50–200 m for the Fugløya–Bear Island section (black), and depth 0–200 m for the Kola section (blue). Annual values are shown as thin lines and the three-year rolling mean as thick lines. Source: Institute of Marine Research and Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO) 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 25 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Sea ice extent, Barents Sea, April

1200 )

2 1000

800

600 Sea extent ice (1000 km

400 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Sea ice extent, Barents Sea, September

400 ) 2 300

200

100 Sea extent ice (1000 km

0 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Sea ice extent Three-year running average Trend

Figure 3.2 Trends in sea ice extent in the Barents Sea in April (upper panel) and September (lower panel) in the period 1979–2019. The data are shown as monthly means for each year (green line), three-year running averages (orange line) and the linear trend for the whole period (black dotted line). There are large interannual variations, but also a clear negative trend through the period. Source: Norwegian Polar Institute/Environmental monitoring of Svalbard and Jan Mayen (MOSJ) that the capelin stock, which is a key ecosystem the pelagic part of the ecosystem has almost dou- component, has collapsed several times (Figure bled, mainly as a result of the increasing biomass 3.3). Other important trends are the decline of a of Arctic krill species (zooplankton) (Figure 3.5). number of seabird populations, the growth of cer- Growing numbers of southerly krill species have tain populations of marine mammals that have also been observed, and a decline in the quantity been protected for many years, and the spread of of lipid-rich Arctic zooplankton species. This is snow crabs into the Barents Sea. expected to have impacts on Arctic predators such Rising temperatures and shrinking sea ice as the polar cod. cover have also resulted in changes in production The decline in sea ice has also had direct nega- and biomass in the ecosystem. Total primary pro- tive impacts on ice-associated species, for example duction (phytoplankton) has risen, and biomass in ringed seal, polar bear and a number of other spe- 26 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

9 800

8 700 7 600 6 500 5 400 4 300 3 200

Stock (million tonnes) 2

1 100 Recruitment (billion age 1 capelin)

0 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Immature stock, million tonnes Spawning stock, million tonnes Recruits, billion age 1 capelin

Figure 3.3 Estimated size of and recruitment to the Barents Sea capelin stock. Source: Institute of Marine Research

Figure 3.4 Changes in the distribution of Atlantic, central and Arctic fish communities in the Barents Sea from 2004 to 2017. The axes show longitude and latitude. Source: Institute of Marine Research cies groups that live in and on the ice, including In an area that no longer has seasonal ice cover, ice algae, crustaceans and polar cod. As the area the main primary producers are the phytoplank- of suitable habitat available to many of these spe- ton, which are to a greater extent food for organ- cies declines, they may disappear from larger and isms in the water column, such as zooplankton, larger areas of the Arctic. The Barents Sea is one and thus form the basis of a pelagic food chain. A of the areas where this is expected to happen decline in the quantity of nutrients sinking to the most quickly, because of the rapid loss of sea ice seabed is therefore expected as the sea ice cover in both summer and winter. shrinks. As the ice becomes thinner, algal blooms There may also be adverse impacts on benthic are occurring even under the ice cover, which animals. When sea ice is present, ice algae may compensate to some extent for the reduction attached to the underside of the ice contribute a in the biomass of ice algae. share of primary production. When the ice melts Climate models indicate that there will be a in spring, much of this biomass sinks to the sea- continued rise in temperature and loss of sea ice bed, where it provides food for the benthic fauna. in the years ahead. The changes are expected to 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 27 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans be smallest up to the 1930s and accelerate up to tions for impacts on species and changes in eco- 2060. Several models predict very limited systems. This makes it important to consider the amounts of sea ice in the Barents Sea by 2100. For combined effects of ocean acidification and other this time horizon, the climate models also indicate pressures, for example rising temperatures. that trends in greenhouse gas emissions will be of crucial importance for sea ice cover and thus for the impacts on species associated with sea ice. 3.1.2 Trends in various components of the Barents Sea-Lofoten ecosystem Ecosystem trends in the Barents Sea–Lofoten Ocean acidification area are described, mainly on the basis of state Ocean acidification has been included in the Bar- and pressure indicators for the area. ents Sea monitoring programme since 2010. At present, only physico-chemical parameters are monitored, as is the case for the other manage- Plankton and sea ice biota ment plan areas, but work is in progress to estab- The rising temperatures and shrinking sea ice lish monitoring of biological effects in addition. So cover have resulted in changes in ecosystem pro- far, monitoring of acidity (pH) and dissolved CO2 duction and biomass. Overall primary production in the Barents Sea has not confirmed that the CO2 has risen, and biomass in the pelagic part of the content is rising, as has been observed in the Nor- ecosystem has almost doubled, mainly as a result wegian Sea. Because ocean chemistry is naturally of rising quantities of krill. There have also been very variable in the Barents Sea, longer time observations of growing numbers of southerly series will be needed to reveal acidification than in krill species. Considerable reductions in quanti- many other marine areas. ties of Arctic mesoplankton have been recorded Since no changes in the level of dissolved CO2 since about 2004 in an area in the southwesterly have been observed, there are no documented Barents Sea where this parameter is monitored. ecological effects of acidification in the Barents Quantities of the Arctic amphipod Themisto libel- Sea. The response to acidification is expected to lula, which is a key species in the Arctic part of differ greatly between species. In the long term, the Barents Sea, have also declined as the inflow species that are tolerant to or benefit from increas- of cold Arctic water has decreased. ing acidification will dominate, which may result Changes in the distribution and quantities of in changes in species composition in the ecosys- Atlantic and Arctic species in the Barents Sea may tem. This in turn may have implications for eco- have wider effects in the ecosystem. Declining system functioning. quantities of lipid-rich zooplankton species, for Recent modelling suggests that ocean acidifi- instance, are expected to have impacts on Arctic cation will increase and there will be a steady predators, which are highly dependent on lipid- decline in pH during this century. The estimated rich prey. For example, Themisto libellula is an changes in acidity in the Nordic seas and the Arc- important prey species for polar cod. tic up to 2065 involve abrupt changes in pH level, The loss of sea ice has had direct negative in contrast to a stable pH level for many millions of effects on ice-associated fauna such as ice algae, years before that. The largest changes are amphipods and other crustaceans. When sea ice expected in the Barents Sea, in the waters around is present, ice algae attached to the underside of Svalbard and in the Arctic Ocean. the ice contribute a share of primary production. Adult fish are expected to be resilient to ocean When the ice melts in spring, much of this bio- acidification, whereas reproduction and early life mass sinks to the seabed, where it provides food stages, for example cod and herring larvae, are for the benthic fauna. In an area that no longer has potentially more sensitive. seasonal ice cover, the main primary producers Because of responses vary between species, are the phytoplankton, which are to a greater ocean acidification may have impacts both on extent food for pelagic organisms such as the zoo- interspecific competition and on the relationships plankton. A decline in the quantity of nutrients between different trophic levels in food chains. sinking to the seabed is therefore expected as the Such changes may cause ecological cascades sea ice cover shrinks. This may have negative throughout the system. impacts on the benthic fauna. Other anthropogenic pressures acting together with acidification may also have implica- 28 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

30

25

20

15

10 Biomass (million tonnes) 5

0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Pelagic fish stocks Age 0 fish Macroplankton, largely krill

Figure 3.5 Estimated biomass of the pelagic component of the Barents Sea ecosystem from 1993 to 2013. Source: Institute of Marine Research

shown signs of recovery, especially on Bjørnøya. Fish stocks In Finnmark, numbers at the breeding colonies In response to climate change, the ecosystem in are still much smaller than they used to be. How- northern parts of the management plan area, pri- ever, the Brünnich’s guillemot population is marily north of the polar front, is undergoing declining rapidly, and there has been a population major change. The distribution of northerly spe- decline of between 25 and 50 % since 1990 for Sval- cies such as cod and haddock has expanded con- bard including Bjørnøya. If this trend continues, it siderably northwards and eastwards. The cod is very probable that the Svalbard population of stock is at a high level, and the haddock stock is Brünnich’s guillemot will decline to such a low above the long-term average. Fishing pressure on level that there is no prospect of its recovery in the cod stock has been reduced. the next 50 years. New results also show that The golden redfish stock is at a low level Brünnich’s guillemots in Svalbard stand out as because of earlier overfishing, while the beaked being particularly vulnerable to an abrupt popula- redfish stock has shown a positive trend in recent tion decline. years. The golden redfish stock is still declining, With the rising sea temperatures, the Arctic and is now smaller than has ever before been reg- food web is being replaced by a more southerly istered. The species is classified as endangered on food web. This may be one of the reasons why the 2015 Norwegian Red List, which includes spe- Arctic seabird species (Brünnich’s guillemot and cies that are assessed as being at risk of extinction little auk) are declining, while numbers of more within Norway. southerly species such as puffin, common guille- mot and razorbill are increasing. Food supplies in the breeding season are an important factor, and it Seabirds has been established that the decline in seabird Populations of several of the most abundant sea- populations is linked to food shortages. It is diffi- bird species in the Barents Sea have been declin- cult to conclude definitely what is causing ing for many years. They include common guille- changes in food supplies, but secondary impacts mot and kittiwake along the Norwegian mainland of climate change and lower production of prey coast and Brünnich’s guillemot and puffin in all or species have been suggested as possible factors. most of the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea. In addition, conditions in wintering areas for sea- After a population collapse due to a lack of food in birds may be important. Harvesting of fish stocks winter 1986/87, populations of the three more has previously been considered as a possible rea- southerly pelagic auk species – razorbill, puffin son for seabird decline, but is now believed to be and common guillemot – have grown strongly and of minor importance. Large populations of herring 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 29 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Box 3.1 Seabird migration patterns – importance of the Barents Sea in autumn Seabirds from breeding colonies around the moulting area for birds from populations as far Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea are being south as the east coast of Scotland and as far tracked by the SEATRACK project (http:// west as Jan Mayen. The SEATRACK project seatrack.seapop.no/map/), which has shown tracks seabird movements using light-loggers, that the Barents Sea is more important for a or GLS loggers, which are attached to a leg ring number of seabird populations than was previ- with cable-ties. Using this technology over large ously thought. Puffins are one example – birds geographical areas and collecting long time from colonies are far south as Runde near series of data is the most cost-effective method Ålesund move to the Barents Sea after the for obtaining information on the importance of breeding season, as shown on the map below. Norwegian waters for different seabird species They remain in the area in the autumn months, and populations, and how dynamic the patterns August–October, and mix with birds from other of use are over time. Studies using logger tech- colonies in mainland Norway, Svalbard and nology make an important contribution to more probably Russia. The Barents Sea is also impor- ecosystem-based management of marine eco- tant for common guillemots, as a foraging and systems.

Figure 3.6 Distribution of puffins from six colonies along the mainland coast of Norway in the period August–October 2017, based on tracking data from light-loggers. The Barents Sea is an important moulting and nursery area for several seabird species in autumn. Source: SEATRACK

and mackerel may compete for food with sea- fish species) and larger zooplankton such as Arc- birds. It is essential to ensure that seabirds, and tic krill species. In coastal waters, healthy kelp for- many other predators in marine ecosystems, have ests are vital for seabirds and other biodiversity adequate food supplies in the form of small plank- and biological production. A number of seabird ton-feeding fish (fish larvae and small schooling species are red listed. The situation of seabird 30 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

and off Svalbard in 2011, and they are now wide- spread in most of the Barents Sea, with the high- est densities in its central part. The population has now expanded to all suitable habitat on the Nor- wegian continental shelf. Numbers could poten- tially become high, and the snow crab could become an important predator and prey species in the Barents Sea ecosystem. A Russian study has shown that other benthic biomass decreases in areas where snow crab numbers have been high for several years. There has been uncertainty as to whether snow crabs were introduced in the Barents Sea or expanded their range naturally. On the basis of genetic analyses and records of snow crab from several localities between the Barents Sea and the Bering Strait, scientists now believe that snow crabs may have spread naturally west- Snow crab wards from the Bering Strait to the Barents Sea. General distribution The distribution of snow crabs is expected to cor- Individual records respond to areas where the temperature of the bottom water is suitable. The snow crab prefers lower water temperatures than for example the Figure 3.7 Distribution of snow crab in the Barents red king crab, and its is therefore likely to have a Sea and individual records outside this area, based more northerly and easterly distribution. on data up to the end of 2019. Although snow crabs are most numerous in the Source: Institute of Marine Research open sea, there have been individual records of snow crabs in coastal waters off eastern Finn- populations was further discussed in the white mark. paper Nature for life (Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016)). The red king crab population is stable, and New knowledge obtained through the SEA- harvesting is unrestricted west of 26° E, which POP mapping and monitoring programme for sea- appears to be effectively limiting the westward birds, including the SEATRACK module for their spread of the species at present. However, red non-breeding distribution, shows that pelagic spe- king crab is being taken as a bycatch in several cies such as the common guillemot, Brünnich’s areas in Troms. It already appears to be breeding guillemot, puffin and kittiwake use larger areas in Balsfjorden south of Tromsø. It is uncertain when foraging than previously thought, at times how far south the species will become estab- up to 100 km out to sea from the breeding colo- lished. The Norwegian Biodiversity Information nies. Centre has placed the red king crab in the cate- The seabird mapping and monitoring pro- gory ‘very high risk’ in its Black List of invasive gramme is expected to generate a considerable alien species, because it is considered to have amount of new information about habitat use by high invasion potential and may have major eco- these species outside the breeding season, and logical effects. provide better data for the breeding season as The population of cold-water shrimps in the well. Barents Sea has grown considerably, and is above the long-term average. As explained earlier in this chapter, a decline Benthic fauna in sea ice in an area may have negative impacts on There has been considerable variability in benthic the benthic fauna because inputs of nutrients from biomass in different parts of the Barents Sea in ice algae sinking to the seabed are reduced. recent years. Snow crabs were first registered in the Barents Sea in 1996, near Novaya Zemlya, and Marine mammals the species has been spreading westwards since then. It is likely to become established in much of Populations of marine mammals in the Barents the northern Barents Sea. The first snow crabs Sea are now being influenced both by protection, were recorded off the coast of Finnmark in 2005 which has allowed numbers of some species to 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 31 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans increase, and by climate change. The walrus pop- beaked redfish, common eel, Sabine’s gull and ulation has for example risen after protection, mainland populations of common seal), while it whereas ringed seals are under pressure because worsened for six other species, most of them sea- they depend on sea ice, and are suffering from birds (razorbill, common tern, Brünnich’s guille- habitat loss. The bowhead whale is critically mot, blue whale, ringed seal and the mainland endangered, and for many years was considered population of fulmar). Two habitat types to be virtually extinct around Svalbard after over- (Radicipes coral gardens and northern sugar kelp harvesting in the centuries from 1600 to the (Saccharina latissima) forests) are classified as 1800s. However, recent studies have shown that endangered in the Norwegian Red List for ecosys- there are substantial numbers of bowhead whales tems and habitat types 2018, while oarweed in the drift ice areas north of Svalbard and in the (Laminaria digitata) forests are classified as vul- Fram Strait. Surveys have also shown considera- nerable. The habitat type Arctic sea ice is classi- ble numbers of narwhals. Both these species are fied as critically endangered because of the reduc- protected, but are highly dependent on the sea tion in the area of multi-year ice. ice, and are therefore threatened by climate change. The decline in sea ice cover has also resulted in a steep reduction in the number of 3.1.3 Pollution polar bear dens in the most important breeding Long-range transport of pollutants with air and areas. ocean currents is the main source of pollution in Populations of the marine mammal species the management plan area. However, we still that are harvested are stable or growing. Seal pop- know little about the overall transport of pollut- ulations along the mainland coast of the Barents ants into the area. Sea are healthy, in contrast to those of coastal Inputs and levels of several of the persistent, seals further south along the Norwegian coast, bioaccumulative and toxic substances that are including the Lofoten Islands. In some top preda- monitored in air in Svalbard are still declining. tors, for example polar bears, levels of persistent, These include heavy metals and certain organic bioaccumulative and toxic substances are high pollutants. Other substances, for example the pes- enough to have negative effects on health. Ani- ticide hexachlorobenzene (HCB), have shown a mals that are weakened by such contamination weak rise in recent years. There are still high lev- may also be more vulnerable to the negative els of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic sub- impacts of climate change. stances in some species at higher trophic levels. Rising temperatures as a result of climate change are expected to increase the spread of such sub- Threatened species and habitat types stances worldwide. As the sea ice melts and the In all, 26 species found in the Barents Sea– permafrost thaws, hazardous substances may be Lofoten area, including the waters around Sval- remobilised and evaporate to the atmosphere in bard, are listed as threatened in the 2015 Norwe- the Arctic. Major forest fires and fires on culti- gian Red List. The conservation status of five spe- vated land have been shown to result in higher cies improved from 2010 to 2015 (spiny dogfish, inputs of organic pollutants to the Arctic. Inputs of radioactive pollution have declined in recent years, and levels of radioactivity in living organisms are well below the maximum levels set for human consumption. Inputs of nutrients and copper, primarily from aquaculture, are rising along the Norwegian coast, but it is unclear how much of this pollution is transported from coastal waters into the management plan area. Levels of pollutants in living organisms are sta- ble or declining. The levels are generally low, and well within the limits set for safe seafood. Concen- trations of most persistent, bioaccumulative and Figure 3.8 Radicipes coral garden, a habitat type toxic substances are also below levels that are classified as endangered in the Norwegian Red List considered high enough to affect the most vulner- for ecosystems and habitat types 2018. able ecosystem components. The exception is top Source: Mareano predators, where high contamination levels are 32 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

A B

40 4.0

35 3.5 30 3.0 3 3 25 2.5

20 2.0

ng/1000 m 15 µg/1000 m 1.5

10 1.0

5 0.5

0 0.0 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

PCBs PFOSA, PFOS and PFOA Mercury PAHs

Figure 3.9 Annual mean concentrations of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances in air measured at the Zeppelin observatory, Ny-Ålesund in Svalbard. Source: Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Norwegian Licence for Open Government Data still being registered. However, assessments of fied, but on the basis of already available knowl- effects on the most vulnerable ecosystem compo- edge, the delimitation of some areas was altered. nents are uncertain because too little is known about the biological effects of such substances, and because new hazardous substances are con- Eggakanten stantly being detected in Norwegian waters. The Eggakanten area, where there is a steep drop from the continental shelf to the deep waters of the Norwegian Sea, stretches all the way from Underwater noise Stad at about 62° N to the northwestern tip of Underwater noise from seismic surveys, sonar Svalbard, and oceanographic processes are com- and shipping may influence the behaviour of parable along its whole length. The particularly marine mammals. There is further discussion of valuable and vulnerable area Eggakanten has been this in Chapter 3.2 on the Norwegian Sea, which extended to include the area around Svalbard, and is also relevant to bowhead whale and narwhal is now delimited in the same way in the manage- north of Svalbard. ment plans for both the Barents Sea–Lofoten area and the Norwegian Sea. From Stad to Svalbard, it includes the entire continental slope and extends 3.1.4 Particularly valuable and vulnerable about 10 km on to the continental shelf. Its width areas in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area varies depending on the steepness of the conti- The 2015 white paper on the management plan for nental slope. Where the slope is steep, environ- the Barents Sea–Lofoten area (Meld. St. 20 mental conditions change rapidly, resulting in (2014–2015)) stated that the need to update the high diversity over short distances. Delimiting delimitation of three particularly valuable and vul- Eggakanten in this way means that about half of nerable areas – the marginal ice zone, the polar the Yermak Plateau northwest of Spitsbergen is front and the sea areas surrounding Svalbard – included, which is the part of this area where bio- would be assessed during revision of the manage- logical activity is highest, down to a depth of about ment plan in 2020. 800 metres (Figure 3.10). Work on the scientific basis for the manage- ment plan included an assessment of whether other areas than those already identified meet the The polar tidal front criteria for designation as particularly valuable There are three frontal zones around the shallow and vulnerable areas. No new areas were identi- waters of the Spitsbergen Bank and the deeper 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 33 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

TegnforklaringLegend Management plan area Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas

Coastal waters, Sea areas surrounding BH1 BH4 Tromsøflaket to Svalbard Russian border BH5 Lofoten–Tromsøflaket BH2 Tromsøflaket bank areaBH6 Marginal ice zone BH3 Polar tidal front BH7 Eggakanten North

Figure 3.10 Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the Barents Sea-Lofoten management plan area. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency trench of Hopendypet: a tidal front, a meltwater also been shown to be particularly valuable front and what has traditionally been called the because production and biodiversity are high and polar front, i.e. the zone where Atlantic water flow- it is an important feeding, nursery and wintering ing north meets Arctic water flowing south. These area. The rest of the polar front zone is probably frontal zones are different in origin and structure, not as important for biological production as pre- and therefore also differ in their influence on bio- viously assumed, and is therefore not identified as logical production and activity. The scientific basis a particularly valuable and vulnerable area. The for the management plans shows that the tidal delimitation of the particularly valuable and vul- front is the zone that is especially valuable and vul- nerable area has therefore been adjusted so that it nerable. Biological production is high, and the is restricted to the tidal front, and its name has tidal front is an important feeding area for sea- been changed to the polar tidal front. birds. The rest of the Spitsbergen Bank area has 34 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

zone is normally only a few tens of kilometres The marginal ice zone wide. The marginal ice zone is extremely Earlier management plans defined the marginal dynamic, and moves from the area around ice zone as a particularly valuable and vulnerable Bjørnøya in the south in spring to north of Spits- area and showed its extent on maps. It is intended bergen early in the autumn. In addition to sea- to cover the variable extent of the marginal ice sonal variations, it shows more short-term varia- zone, i.e. the area across which it moves during an bility, for example as a result of shifts in wind annual cycle between a maximum in April and a direction and strength. minimum in September. The particularly valuable As the ice melts and retreats northwards dur- and vulnerable area thus includes the parts of the ing the spring and summer, this creates light con- marginal ice zone that are most important for the ditions and nutrient availability in the marginal ice associated biological production and biodiversity. zone that result in a concentrated bloom of ice The boundary of the designated marginal ice algae and phytoplankton. The further north the zone in the Barents Sea–Lofoten management marginal ice zone is, the larger the share of total plan is defined in statistical terms. It follows the primary production from ice algae within the ice line where sea ice has been present on 30 % of the or attached to the underside of the. Modelling days in April (this is known as 30 % ice persis- indicates that most production of phytoplankton tence), on the basis of a multi-year time series of takes place within the marginal ice zone and for satellite observations of ice extent. Ice persistence some distance south of it, and that production is used as a measure of how likely it is that the drops considerably where the ice concentration marginal ice zone will be in a particular area in a exceeds 80 %. From April to September, the pro- specific month. April is the month chosen because ductive zone moves northwards through the Bar- this is when ice cover is normally at a maximum, ents Sea, and is followed by grazing and feeding and it therefore represents the maximum south- plankton, fish, seabirds and marine mammals. erly extent of the marginal ice zone over the year. Because the high level of biological production The criterion for determining whether ice is pres- at any time is generally restricted to a zone a few ent is an ice concentration exceeding 15 %, mean- tens of kilometres wide, there may be very high ing that ice covers more than 15 % of the sea sur- concentrations of grazing species in the marginal face. ice zone. Together with the importance of the sea In the 2006 and 2011 white papers on the man- ice as a habitat for many species, this makes the agement plan for the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, marginal ice zone a biologically important and val- the marginal ice zone was delimited on the basis of uable area. ice observations from the period 1967–1989. The For the commercially important fish species in white paper Update of the integrated management the Barents Sea, the marginal ice zone is primarily plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area including an a feeding area, and to some extent a nursery area. update of the delimitation of the marginal ice zone Most fish species found in the marginal ice zone (Meld. St. 20 (2014–2015)) presented an update of in the Barents Sea are strongly associated with the delimitation of the marginal ice zone based on the seabed, except for two pelagic species, polar ice data for the 30-year period 1985–2014. It also cod and Arctic cod (Arctogadus glacialis). stated that a new update would be presented in Seabirds, particularly Brünnich’s guillemots the 2020 revision of the management plan for the and little auks, can congregate in large numbers Barents Sea–Lofoten area. In addition, the white in the marginal ice zone and in leads in the ice in paper announced that the definition used as a spring. Black guillemots and ivory gulls are also basis for determining the delimitation of the common. In addition, fulmars, glaucous gulls and marginal ice zone was to be reviewed. kittiwakes are observed in the marginal ice zone The Forum for Integrated Ocean Management all year round. In late summer, 80–90 % of the has evaluated the delimitation of the designated world population of ivory gulls is found in the mar- marginal ice zone. This is a transitional zone ginal ice zone in the northern Barents Sea. Polar whose value and vulnerability are linked to char- bears occur at higher densities along the outer acteristic features and biological processes, and edge of the marginal ice zone than further north not just a dividing line between ice and open sea. in areas of drift ice. In scientific terms, the marginal ice zone is Several seal species use the ice for whelping, described as the transitional zone between open moulting and hauling out, but the importance of sea and ice-covered sea, where between 15 and the marginal ice zone varies between species and 80 % of the sea surface is covered by ice. This between seasons. The bowhead whale, beluga and 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 35 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans narwhal are the only whale species that are critically endangered in the Norwegian Red List adapted to living in areas with ice all year round. for ecosystems and habitat types 2018. In addition, baleen whales (blue, fin, humpback According to the Forum for Integrated Ocean and minke whales) and toothed whales (orcas) Management, more is now known about the ecol- feed in the marginal ice zone in the summer ogy of the marginal ice zone, including ecological months. interactions, species occurrence and vulnerability A large proportion of biological production in to different pressures. There are also up-to-date the marginal ice zone sinks through the water col- population figures for a number of species and umn to the seabed, where it provides food for ben- more information about their occurrence in win- thic organisms. The marginal ice zone and the ter; knowledge has been developed about links northern part of the Barents Sea generally sup- between seabed, water column and ice (sympa- port a large number of benthic species and a high gic) communities; and better models are available benthic biomass. that include more physical and biological compo- One of the most obvious impacts of climate nents of the ecosystem. change in the Arctic is the temporal and spatial The scientific basis shows that biological pro- reduction in sea ice extent. The ice is gradually duction, species occurrence, vulnerability to dif- withdrawing northwards, both in summer and in ferent pressures and how these vary through the winter, but there are large interannual variations. year and between years all influence the value and The ice cover is also becoming thinner. Because vulnerability of the marginal ice zone. However, at of climate change and the rapid loss of sea ice, the any time of year, the entire zone is important for a multi-year Arctic sea ice found in the northern- number of species and biological processes. most parts of the marginal ice zone is classified as

Migration First-year ice

Multi-year ice Migration

Vertical migration

Vertical flux

Advection Vertical flux Vertical migration

Continental shelf

Deep sea

Pelagic-sympagic Benthic-sympagic

Figure 3.11 Simplified food web in shallow and deeper areas of the marginal ice zone. Source: Norwegian Polar Institute, von Quillfeldt et al. (2018). Miljøverdier og sårbarhet i iskantsonen [Report on environment and vulnerability in the marginal ice zone] 36 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

The Forum for Integrated Ocean Management will be done as part of the review of all the particu- has evaluated the delimitation of the marginal ice larly valuable and vulnerable areas being carried zone. In delimiting this particularly valuable and out by the Forum for Integrated Ocean Manage- vulnerable area, it is necessary to take into ment. This process will also include final delimita- account the whole extent of the area across which tion of the area. the marginal ice zone moves, including the large Three elements are particularly important as a interannual variability. The Forum recommended basis for the proposed delimitation of the sea areas continuing to use the presence of sea ice in April surrounding Svalbard: important feeding areas for as a basis for delimiting the particularly valuable pelagic seabird species that breed in Svalbard; and vulnerable area, and basing calculations on feeding and breeding areas for marine mammals the most recent time series of satellite observa- that are resident year-round near Svalbard; and a tions of ice extent available, which is for the 30- range of species and habitats in the Spitsbergen year period 1988–2017. However, the members of Bank area. In addition, various other valuable spe- the Forum had differing views on what level of ice cies and habitats are to be found within the pre- persistence in April to use: 30 %, as before, or liminary demarcation line, boosting the value of 0.5 %, which would result in the limit being drawn the area as a whole. Habitat use and the impor- considerably further south. tance of different parts of the area vary over the On the basis of the Forum’s recommenda- year and to some extent from year to year, tions, the Government has decided to use the line depending on the location of grazing organisms where ice is found on 15 % of the days in April and the sea ice at any given time. (15 % ice persistence) to delimit the marginal ice The Spitsbergen Bank is of crucial importance zone, based on satellite observations of sea ice for the ecosystems in this area. Annual primary extent for the 30-year period 1988–2017. The production in this area is perhaps higher than any- boundary can be updated using new ice data when the management plans are updated in future. The marginal ice zone in the Barents Sea, iden- tified and delimited as described above, extends into the northern and western parts of the Norwe- gian Sea. Two areas here are also designated as two particularly valuable and vulnerable areas – sea ice in the Fram Strait and the West Ice. There is a further account of these areas in the section on particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the Norwegian Sea, Chapter 3.2.5.

Sea areas surrounding Svalbard The sea areas surrounding Svalbard have been identified and described as a particularly valuable and vulnerable area in the Barents Sea–Lofoten management plan, but only the area around Bjørnøya has been delimited on maps in the man- agement plan. The 2015 update of the manage- ment plan (Meld. St. 20 (2014–2015)) announced the scientific work in the period up to the revision of the management plan in 2020 would include an assessment of how the particularly valuable and vulnerable area around Svalbard can be delimited. An outcome of this work is a proposal for delimitation of the sea areas surrounding Svalbard Figure 3.12 Preliminary demarcation of the as a particularly valuable and vulnerable area. The particularly valuable and vulnerable area sea areas preliminary delimitation is based on an assess- surrounding Svalbard, as proposed by the Forum for ment of the value of the area for biodiversity, but Integrated Ocean Management. its vulnerability has not yet been assessed. This Source: Norwegian Polar Institute 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 37 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans where else in the Barents Sea as a result of favour- herring, cod and haddock, and other organisms able physical conditions. Much of the primary that drift more or less passively with the water production from the ice and the water column masses, and also for non-living material. This also sinks to the seabed, and the high biomass on the means that they may be exposed to negative pres- seabed reflects this. A new biotope dominated by sures for longer periods. The northern part of the the sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa was regis- Tromsøflaket is also an important spawning tered on the Spitsbergen Bank in 2017. ground for spotted wolffish. There are large and The waters around Bjørnøya form the south- important sponge communities. This area also ernmost part of this particularly valuable and vul- includes Lopphavet, where there are deep nerable area. The island is a key locality for sea- trenches and large coral communities that provide birds, and has some of the largest seabird colo- nursery areas for several fish species. nies in the northern hemisphere. The most This is an important breeding and wintering numerous species are common and Brünnich’s area for seabirds, and includes two of Norway’s guillemot, little auk, fulmar and glaucous gull. largest puffin colonies. Total estimates indicate Bjørnøya has the world’s northernmost large that the puffin colonies in this area have not breeding colony of common guillemot, which declined to the same extent as those further accounts for almost 90 % of the total Norwegian south. The relative importance of these colonies is population, and one of the world’s northernmost increasing since they comprise a growing share of razorbill colonies. Brünnich’s guillemot and little the Norwegian puffin population. There are two auk are Arctic species, and the southernmost kittiwake colonies where numbers are stable, in breeding colonies in the Barents Sea region are contrast to the situation for most other Norwegian on Bjørnøya. It is estimated that more than one kittiwake colonies. million seabirds use Bjørnøya during the breed- ing season. One reason for this is the rich food supplies in the surrounding waters. Coastal waters, Tromsøflaket to the Russian border The coastal waters in this area are a productive environment with high biodiversity. There are The Vestfjorden rich fish resources, and this is a spawning ground The Vestfjorden, between the Lofoten Islands and for capelin, a key species in the ecosystem. There mainland Norway, has historically been one of the are large numbers of seabirds, particularly in the main spawning areas for Northeast Arctic cod. breeding season. Seabirds can forage up to 100 For most of the period 1970–2000, the Vest- kilometres beyond the baseline. The inner part of fjorden, including the fjord arms Ofotfjorden and the Varangerfjord is an important wintering area Tysfjorden, was also the main overwintering area for Steller’s eider, common eider, king eider and for Norwegian spring-spawning herring. long-tailed duck. Steller’s eider is the rarest diving Although its importance for herring has declined duck in the world, and 5–10 % of the entire world in recent years, the Vestfjorden is potentially a population winters in the fjord. These coastal very important area for two of Norway’s major wates are also a moulting area for Norwegian and fish stocks. Geographically, most of this area lies Russian populations of common eider, king eider in the Barents Sea–Lofoten management plan and other sea diving ducks. Marine mammals use area, not in the Norwegian Sea management plan the whole area, and there are coral reefs in the area. The description of Lofoten–Tromsøflaket western and southern parts. Various seabirds that below also applies to the Vestfjorden. are declining further south have positive popula- tion trends in this area, with the exception of kitti- wakes, which are showing a very negative popula- Tromsøflaket bank area tion trend. Both common guillemots and puffins The Tromsøflaket is a shallow area at the breeding along the mainland coast are vulnerable entrance to the Barents Sea proper, and supports to disturbance from the growing population of high biodiversity. The current systems are white-tailed eagles. Harvesting of red king crab strongly influenced by the topography of the sea- has been unrestricted in this area in recent years, bed, which creates eddies, so that the water and observations show that the species only masses have a relatively long residence time over occurs in minimal numbers more than ten nautical the Tromsøflaket. The bank area is on the edge of miles from land. Large areas of kelp forest the continental shelf. The eddies also result in (Laminaria hyperborea and sugar kelp) along the longer retention times for fish larvae, for example coast of North Norway have been overgrazed by 38 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans sea urchins. These habitat types have now been gian Sea water has become more acidic through- red listed in response to the declining area of kelp out the water column, and pH appears to have forests. declined more rapidly in parts of the Norwegian Sea than globally. This may have consequences for marine organisms that have calcium-based Lofoten–Tromsøflaket shells or skeletons. Ocean acidification will con- This area has a wide variety of marine habitat tinue for many years, and it is vital to monitor how types and marine landscapes, and provides a com- rapidly it proceeds. The long-term effects on eco- bination of important breeding, spawning, nurs- systems are uncertain. ery and wintering areas for commercially impor- The state of the environment in the Norwe- tant fish species, marine mammals and seabirds. gian Sea was discussed in depth in the 2017 white It is the most important spawning area for North- paper containing an update of the management east Arctic cod and haddock. The area also plan (Meld. St. 35 (2016–2017)). In this chapter, includes the Røstrevet reef complex, the world’s the main emphasis is on new information included largest known reef of the stony coral Lophelia per- in the status report published by the Advisory tusa. The reef complex is 35 km long and 3 km Group on Monitoring in 2019. wide. The continental shelf off the Lofoten and Vesterålen Islands is very rich in nutrients, and plankton production is high. There is a rich fauna 3.2.1 Oceanic climate change in the in the shallow areas. There are 330 small, intact management plan area coral reefs, some of them up to 40 m in height, in The Norwegian Sea climate, described in terms of an area called Hola. the distribution of water masses, is largely deter- There are large breeding colonies of seabirds mined by the properties of the two main currents including common guillemot and puffin on the linking the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean – islands of Røst, Værøy and Bleiksøy. Islands and the Norwegian Atlantic current, which transports skerries in the Røst area are also an important relatively warm and saline water northwards in breeding area for coastal seabirds including black the eastern part of the Norwegian Sea, and the guillemot, common eider and shag, and an impor- East Greenland current, which carries relatively tant migration and wintering area for a large share cold, fresh water southwards in the western part of the world population of yellow-billed diver. of the Norwegian Sea. Geese are making increasing use of the area for staging during the spring migration. Marine mam- mals such as grey seals, common seals, orcas and Temperature and sea ice sperm whales are also found in the area. The temperature time series for the Norwegian Sea show that temperatures were variable in the period 1951–2000, but have been consistently 3.2 Environmental status in the higher since 2000. As in the other management Norwegian Sea management plan plan areas, this warming can be linked to natural area changes in the large-scale circulation in the Atlan- tic Ocean, combined with global warming. The state of the environment in the Norwegian In the northernmost part of the Norwegian Sea is generally good, although with a few excep- Sea, the Fram Strait between Svalbard and Green- tions. The main trends observed since the mid- land, there are large interannual variations in the 1990s are rising water temperature and an extent of the sea ice. However, it has shown a increase in the total quantity of pelagic fish spe- downward trend in both April and September in cies, together with a decline in the quantity of zoo- the period 1979–2017. Higher sea and air temper- plankton. We know little about how or whether atures reduce sea ice extent. Since satellite meas- these changes are connected. Salinity in the upper urements of sea ice extent began in 1979, a down- water layers of the Norwegian Sea dropped ward trend has been observed in much of the Arc- sharply in 2017 and 2018, and the water is now tic. In the Fram Strait, the ice cover is also fresher than at any time since 1980. This may be strongly influenced by processes in the Arctic because inflowing water from both the Atlantic Ocean. The ice is becoming thinner, and there are Ocean and the Iceland Sea has become fresher. indications that ice export from the Arctic Ocean Sea ice extent is declining in the Fram Strait in the through the Fram Strait is increasing because the northern part of the Norwegian Sea. The Norwe- 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 39 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans ) 2 Jm 8 Heat content anomaly (10 Heat content

Figure 3.13 Time series for temperature, measured as the heat content of the Atlantic water south of the Arctic front in the Norwegian Sea, for the period 1951–2017, presented as anomalies relative to the long-term average. Source: Institute of Marine Research ice is flowing more rapidly through the area than activity, and there are large natural seasonal varia- before. tions. Long time series are of crucial importance for an understanding of ocean acidification and its impacts in different areas. Ocean acidification Studies of inorganic carbon data over a period of more than 30 years show that the seawater in cen- 3.2.2 Trends for various components of the tral parts of the Norwegian Sea is becoming more Norwegian Sea ecosystem acidic and that calcium saturation levels are Ecosystem trends in the Norwegian Sea are declining throughout the water column. Observa- described, mainly on the basis of state and pres- tions show that pH is declining more rapidly in sure indicators for the management plan area. parts of the Norwegian Sea than globally. Ocean acidification has consequences for marine organisms that have calcium-based shells Kelp forests or skeletons. They will have difficulty in growing Laminaria hyperborea kelp forests are important and surviving in areas where the seawater habitats and nursery areas for fish and other spe- becomes too acidic, since it then dissolves cal- cies. In North Norway (along the coast of the Nor- cium carbonate. Marine organisms that will be at wegian and Barents Seas), large areas of kelp for- risk in Norwegian waters include cold-water cor- est have been overgrazed by sea urchins over the als, which grow along much of the Norwegian past 40–50 years. In the last 20 or so years, grad- coast, and the sea snail Limacina helicina, whose ual re-establishment of kelp forests has been tak- range includes the Norwegian Sea. Limacina heli- ing place in the southern part of this region (Trøn- cina is an important prey species for organisms delag county and parts of Nordland). This is prob- including fish and seabirds. Ocean acidification ably explained by poorer recruitment of sea can also have direct effects on fish larvae and urchins in warmer water. Re-establishment of small copepods. both Laminaria hyperborea and sugar kelp is Ocean acidification will continue for many expected to continue further northwards in the years even if CO2 emissions are reduced. It is vital years ahead. to monitor how rapidly acidification proceeds and Northerly sugar kelp forests (in the Norwe- where the changes are greatest. Ocean acidifica- gian and Barents Seas) are classified as endan- tion is influenced directly and/or indirectly by gered on the 2018 Norwegian Red List for ecosys- changes in temperature, salinity and biological tems and habitat types. Even though large areas 40 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Box 3.2 Ecological interactions in kelp forests – juvenile saithe and shags Studies of shags fitted with GPS loggers have shown that they feed largely in the kelp forests, and that a large proportion of their diet is saithe of the youngest year classes (0- and 1-year-olds). Coastal surveys of saithe spawning grounds do not provide adequate data for estimating num- bers of one- and two-year old saithe. As a result, there is a lack of good data at an early stage on recruitment to the spawning stock of saithe stock. Recent studies show that the proportion of one-year-old saithe in the diet of shags around Sklinna in Trøndelag is strongly related to the Figure 3.14 Shag. indices for recruitment of three-year-old saithe Photo: Svein-Håkon Lorentsen to the pelagic stock (estimated two years later), for which reliable data is available. This Kelp forests along the Norwegian coast are approach could make it possible to estimate important nursery areas for the youngest year recruitment to the pelagic saithe stock two years classes of saithe up to about three years of age, earlier than at present, providing a better basis when they recruit to the mature pelagic stock. for setting a total allowable catch for saithe.

of kelp forest have regrown, it is estimated that marine mammals and seabirds. In the Norwegian more than 50 % of the area of sugar kelp forest in Sea, the zooplankton provide food for the main North Norway has been lost. Northern pelagic fish species (herring, mackerel and blue Laminaria hyperborea forest is classified as near- whiting), for fish fry and larvae, and for a number threatened on the Red List. This species has been of other fish species, including cod. less affected by overgrazing, and kelp stands in Zooplankton biomass in spring (measured in the most exposed areas have never been over- May) has been declining since just after 2000, but grazed. Nevertheless, it is estimated that more there are indications that it is now increasing than 20 % of Laminaria hyperborea tangle forest again. In 2018, zooplankton biomass reached the has been lost. average level for the time series as a whole. A steep reduction in the biomass of two important subarctic zooplankton species has been observed, Phyto- and zooplankton but the wider ecological implications of this are Quantities of phytoplankton in the oceans are unknown. determined by currents, light conditions, water Southerly, or warm-water, species in the Nor- temperature, inputs of nutrients and grazing by wegian Sea are species that are common in the organisms higher up the food chain. At present, it North Sea or further south, but were previously is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about not normally found in the Norwegian Sea. There changes in quantities, species composition or the has been a sharp increase in their biomass since timing of spring blooms of phytoplankton in the 2006, and species that have been observed Norwegian Sea, because data are only available include several copepod species and a species of for a fairly small number of years and measure- pelagic sea snail. The largest biomass of southerly ments have been made at varying times of year. species registered so far was in 2011. These are Satellite data could potentially provide better indicator species; their occurrence reflects information on phytoplankton quantities in the changes in the physical, chemical or biological surface waters of the Norwegian Sea. environment and indicates biogeographical Zooplankton graze on phytoplankton and are changes or shifts, for example in response to cli- important for all higher trophic levels in the food mate change. web, including carnivorous zooplankton, fish, 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 41 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

1200

1000

800

600

400

Stock size (1000 tonnes) 200

0 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Spawning stock Immature stock

Figure 3.15 Time series showing estimated biomass of the immature stock and spawning stock of Northeast Arctic saithe in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Source: Institute of Marine Research

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

Stock size (1000 tonnes) 20

0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Spawning stock Immature stock

Figure 3.16 Time series showing estimated biomass of the immature stock and spawning stock of golden redfish in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. The sum of the two gives the total stock size. Source: Institute of Marine Research

1995 is the cause of the decline in zooplankton Fish stocks biomass since 2000. The three major pelagic fish stocks in the Norwe- The spawning stock of Norwegian spring- gian Sea are Norwegian spring-spawning herring, spawning herring reached a peak in 2009, but has mackerel and blue whiting. The total biomass of declined since then. In 2018, the spawning stock these stocks rose considerably from 1995 to 2005, was estimated at 3.8 million tonnes, which is and has since remained at a relatively high level. above the precautionary level. Recruitment of Even though analyses show clearly that pelagic young year classes to the spawning stock has fish species compete for food, we still do not know been weak for many years. whether the rise in pelagic fish biomass since 42 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Box 3.3 Sandeels along the Norwegian coast or three most important prey types for the typi- cal colony-breeding seabirds, and form a consid- erable proportion of the diet of kittiwake, com- mon guillemot, razorbill and puffin chicks in many areas. Little is known about sandeel stocks and their dynamics near the large seabird colonies. The availability of sandeels for breeding sea- birds is probably determined mainly by natural variability in recruitment and the distance from colonies to local sandeel populations. We do not know how important local recruitment is for local stocks of sandeels, but studies have not shown genetic differences between lesser sandeels near the coast and further out in the Figure 3.17 Sampling sandeels near Runde island. North Sea. Local recruitment probably domi- Photo: Arild Hareide, Runde Environmental Centre nates, but in certain years there is larval drift from the North Sea stocks to coastal waters. Small schooling fish species play a key role in Since 2016, scientists have been mapping marine ecosystems, linking zooplankton with sandeel habitat and collecting biological data on top predators such as seabirds. In Norwegian sandeels around Runde island. In summer 2019, waters, species such as sprat, herring, capelin unusually large stocks of sandeels were regis- and sandeels are particularly important compo- tered along the coast from Rogaland and north- nents of the food web. Sandeel is a generic term wards to Hitra west of Trondheim. Sandeels for a group of small eel-like fish in the family formed a major part of the diet of breeding sea- Ammodytidae. Lesser sandeel and small sandeel birds on Runde, and fishermen reported catch- are found all along the Norwegian coast, while ing cod, saithe, haddock and mackerel with great sandeel is commonest in the south. These their stomachs full of sandeels. There had not species are found in large schools and are been observations of such large quantities of highly dependent on specific sandy substrates, sandeels since the 1960s. There were also spo- where they spend much of the year burrowing radic reports of high quantities of sandeels from in the sand. North Norway, but they did not account for a Regular monitoring of the diet of breeding larger proportion of the diet of seabirds than seabirds shows that sandeels are among the two normal.

In recent years, mackerel distribution in the declined steeply up to 2011. Since then, it has Norwegian Sea has expanded. Studies have been risen again. carried out to investigate whether this can be The beaked redfish stock has shown a positive explained by rising temperatures. The results trend. Recruitment to the spawning stock was show that the expansion in distribution is primar- weak from 1996 to 2004, but has been markedly ily due to growth of the mackerel stock and not to stronger since then. higher temperatures. The golden redfish stock is now at the lowest The blue whiting stock in the Norwegian Sea level ever recorded, and recruitment has been low increased and its distribution expanded up to ever since the late 1990s. The stock is still declin- 2003, but this was followed by a sharp decline. ing. According to the International Council for the The trend reversed in 2011, and the stock grew Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the stock has until 2016, when it began to decline again. In addi- reduced reproductive capacity and is at a histori- tion, recruitment was low in 2017 and 2018. cally low level. Given the low reproduction rate, it The Northeast Arctic saithe stock was at a his- is expected that the golden redfish stock will con- torically high level from 2001 to 2007, but then tinue to be weak for many years. The species is 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 43 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Index value 30 20 10 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Runde (Norwegian Sea)

Figure 3.18 Population trend for kittiwakes on Runde island in the Norwegian Sea. Population expressed as index values. Breaks in the graph represent years where no data is available. Source: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research/environment.no classified as endangered on the 2015 Norwegian fish of pelagic and demersal species such as her- Red List. Other red-listed fish species are blue ring, sandeels and gadids) may be important. The skate, basking shark, blue ling and spiny dogfish. Norwegian spring-spawning herring stock has not produced a strong larval year-class since 2004, and this has had a serious effect on the breeding Seabirds success of Norwegian populations of pelagic sea- There have been dramatic declines in the popula- birds. It is not known whether the growth of the tions of many seabirds in the Norwegian Sea mackerel stock in the Norwegian Sea has affected since the early 1980s, when most monitoring pro- recruitment to fish stocks that are important in grammes began; numbers of common guillemot the diet of seabirds. Both common guillemots and (critically endangered) have dropped by 99 %, kit- kittiwakes, which nest on open ledges, are also tiwake (endangered) numbers at some colonies vulnerable to predation and disturbance by rap- have declined by more than 90 %, and puffin (vul- tors, particularly white-tailed eagles. nerable) numbers have declined by 71 % in this Pelagic seabird species such as common guil- period. lemot, puffin and kittiwake forage in areas up to On the other hand, gannet numbers have risen 100 km out to sea from the breeding colonies on sharply in the same period. The gannet population Jan Mayen and in mainland Norway. in Norway now numbers about 6000 pairs (5000 pairs around the Norwegian Sea), and is rising. One important reason for this success is thought Marine mammals to be that gannets feed on larger fish such as her- The hooded seal population is at the lowest level ring and mackerel. ever recorded. Modelling of the Northeast Atlan- In this same period, the common eider popula- tic population since 1945 shows a dramatic decline tion has declined by about 5 % per year in the from about 1.3 million animals to about 200 000 in areas between Møre og Romsdal county and Røst 1980, and a further decline to an estimated 81 000 at the southern end of the Lofoten Islands that are animals in 2012. The harp seal population was esti- included in the monitoring programme. This mated at about 430 000 in 2018. This is a reduction decline is worrying, especially because little is of 35 % since 2012. known about the causes. The most recent population estimates for the Understanding of the changes that have been coastal seal species, grey seal and common seal, observed is limited, but climate change and are those presented in the 2016 status report from changes in food supplies (zooplankton and small the Advisory Group on Monitoring. The ban on 44 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

1600000

1400000

1200000

1000000

800000

600000 Number of individuals 400000

200000

0 1946 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2016 2026

Modelled total population Modelled pup production Estimated pup production (aerial survey)

Figure 3.19 Modelled population of hooded seal in the West Ice. The orange line shows the modelled total population, the grey line shows modelled pup production and the blue dots show estimated pup production based on aerial surveys. Source: Institute of Marine Research/Environmental monitoring of Svalbard and Jan Mayen (MOSJ) hunting these species in parts of Trøndelag, intro- tered reefs off the Norwegian coast that have duced after a sudden population decline in 2015, been investigated have some degree of physical has therefore been maintained. damage caused by bottom trawling. In areas New information on how Arctic whale species where there is major damage, there are also clear use the northern part of the Norwegian Sea man- effects both on the extent of reef complexes and agement plan area has become available, and on the species composition of coral reef communi- shows that the narwhal population is stationary. ties. However, even less extensive damage has The porpoise population was surveyed in 2105, been shown to affect species composition and bio- and numbers in Norwegian waters north of 62 °N logical processes. were estimated at 83 700. Porpoises in fjord areas Hard-bottom coral gardens are dominated by other than Vestfjorden were not included, and it is vulnerable, very fragile soft corals (the sea fans thought that including these areas could increase Primnoa resedaeformis, Paragorgia arborea and the estimate by about 15 %. Recent analyses show Paramuricea placomus). This habitat type has that Norwegian gill net fisheries took an average been classified as near-threatened because the annual bycatch of 3000 porpoises in the period total area has declined and it is under pressure 2006 to 2015. Modelling indicates that there may from the fisheries. have been a certain real decline in the porpoise In shallower coastal waters, northern kelp for- population in this period as a result of the ests (Laminaria hyperborea and sugar kelp) are bycatches. now considered to be endangered and near-threat- The bowhead whale, hooded seal and otter are ened respectively, and two habitat types are con- all on the 2015 Norwegian Red List of species. sidered to be vulnerable (oarweed forests and mussel beds that are exposed to wave action). In the Fram Strait there is Arctic sea ice, which is Threatened habitat types classified as critically endangered in the 2018 Red Norway has registered more reefs of the cold- List because of the reduction in the area of multi- water coral Lophelia pertusa than any other coun- year ice. try, most of them in the Norwegian Sea. Because of a reduction in their total area and habitat degra- dation, coral reefs are categorised as near-threat- Alien species ened in the 2018 Red List for habitat types and Climate change and human activities such as ship- ecosystems. Between 30 and 50 % of the regis- ping may result in the establishment of increasing 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 45 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans numbers of alien species in the Norwegian Sea. generally lower than in certain fjords along the Climate change may be a reason why species that coast and lower than in the North Sea and Skager- would not otherwise have survived in the Norwe- rak. However, there is some cause for concern. gian Sea are now able to establish populations. Environmental quality standards have been The comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi was intro- set for a number of pollutants to protect the most duced to Europe from the northeastern coastal vulnerable ecosystem components, and these lev- waters of the US with ballast water, and has estab- els are being exceeded for example for mercury, lished populations in the North Sea. There is PCBs and brominated flame retardants (PBDEs) probably not an established reproducing popula- in a number of species. This means that the levels tion in the Norwegian Sea at present. However, of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic sub- considerable numbers of M. leydi are from time to stances that accumulate in top predators, such as time carried into the Norwegian Sea with the Nor- seabirds and marine mammals, may be high wegian coastal current. There is considered to be enough to have environmental impacts. However, a very high risk that the species will be able to levels of hazardous and radioactive substances are reproduce in the Norwegian Sea. generally below the maximum permitted levels of The Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) has been contamination in seafood in the species that are registered as far north as Eide near Kristiansund. monitored. The exceptions are fish liver (often The species became established in Norway by contains high levels of organic pollutants), halibut spreading northwards from Sweden and Den- from the Sklinnadjupet trough (high levels of mer- mark, although there may be a proportion of indi- cury, dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs detected), edi- viduals originating from earlier oyster cultivation. ble crabs from Saltfjorden near Bodø and north- Two alien bryozoan species, Tricellaria inopinata wards (contain high levels of cadmium), and tusk and Schizoporella japonica, were found at several from Vestfjorden (contains high levels of mer- coastal localities in Møre og Romsdal county in cury). Marine litter, including micro- and nano- 2017 and 2018. The habitat preferences of these plastics, is present everywhere – on the seabed, in species indicate that they could probably also the water column and on the beaches. Little is become established on fixed or anchored installa- known about levels of micro- and nanoplastics in tions further out to sea, in the management plan seafood. area itself. These examples show that there may The pelagic fish species are important seafood be a considerable potential for alien species to resources, and large quantities are harvested in spread to the Norwegian Sea management plan the Norwegian Sea. Hazardous substances are area as well. monitored regularly in both herring and mackerel in the Norwegian Sea. The results show that haz- ardous substances are present in these species, 3.2.3 Pollution but the levels are not rising and are well below the Inputs of pollutants to the Norwegian Sea are gen- maximum permitted levels in seafood. erally stable or declining. Levels of pollutants are

Figure 3.20 Alien species observed in the Norwegian Sea. The comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi to the left, and Pacific oysters to the right. Photos: Erling Svensen (left), Kim Abel, Naturarkivet (right) 46 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Since 2010, concentrations of hazardous sub- come within a radius of about 600 and 1000 m stances in air have been monitored on Andøya respectively from a ship, they will take avoiding (Nordland). Concentrations of lead and cadmium action. Other species, for example white-beaked have been more or less unchanged since meas- dolphins, are attracted to boats. Responses to urements started and are similar to those meas- noise thus appear to vary from one species to ured in Svalbard, but lower than at the Birkenes another. One explanation may be that fish and measuring station in Southern Norway. The marine mammals can become habituated to noise Andøya measurements show declining levels of sources, even to noise that is intended to deter mercury in air, and the same trend is being them. Studies suggest that seals and porpoises observed at Birkenes and in Svalbard. can become habituated to pingers attached to fish- Levels of many organic pollutants are lower at ing gear to keep marine mammals away. Andøya than in Svalbard. These include the pesti- Passive acoustic monitoring (using data cide HCB, PCBs, and brominated flame retard- buoys) in the northwestern the Norwegian Sea ants (PPDEs). Levels of the pesticides HCH and has demonstrated underwater noise more or less DDT and of perfluorinated substances (PFAS, all year round in areas that are key habitats for including PFOA) measured at Andøya are as high threatened populations of various whale species. as or somewhat higher than levels in Svalbard. These areas are relatively little used, and the Calculations of annual inputs of pollutants to results are not representative of the noise picture coastal waters show a general downward trend for in the rest of the management plan area. Both lead. Copper inputs showed signs of stabilisation bowhead whales and narwhals use the drift ice or a weak decline from 2009, but increased again areas in the Fram Strait all year round, and exhibit in the period 2013–2017. This rise is mainly intense vocal activity in the winter months (the explained by the use of copper in impregnation mating season). agents for salmon nets by the aquaculture indus- try. Inputs of nutrients rose steeply in coastal waters for a period starting in the 1990s, largely 3.2.4 Valuable species and habitats in the because of discharges from the aquaculture deep sea industry, but concentrations of these substances There are large deep-water areas under Norwe- transported to the coast by rivers have been rela- gian jurisdiction in the Norwegian Sea, including tively stable. There has been no substantial the northernmost part of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. increase in nutrient inputs since 2012. However, it This is the geologically most active area in Nor- is unclear what proportion of all these pollutants is way, where there are large underwater mountains transported from coastal waters into the manage- and rift valleys, and areas with distinctive environ- ment plan area. mental conditions and ecosystems and habitat Discharges of produced water to the Norwe- types about which little is known. gian Sea currently make up 10–20 % of total dis- Habitats where there are hydrothermal vents charges on the Norwegian continental shelf, and and associated deposits of metal sulphides and discharges of oil to water are considerably smaller methane hydrate (natural gas trapped in ice crys- than in the North Sea. tals) support very specialised organisms that form distinctive marine ecosystems along the Mid- Atlantic Ridge. There are also hydrothermal vents Underwater noise and associated deposits of methane hydrate along Underwater noise from seismic surveys, sonar the continental slope, which support similar eco- and shipping may influence the behaviour of systems. These ecosystems are based on chemo- marine mammals. synthesis, meaning that organisms use chemical Noise from shipping is audible to both fish and compounds in the water as a source of energy, marine mammals. It is unlikely that noise from rather than sunlight. Microorganisms are the pri- shipping causes direct harm to fish and marine mary producers in such ecosystems, and are a mammals, which has been demonstrated in indi- vital basis for all life in these areas. Hydrothermal vidual organisms close to intense noise sources vents can be active for thousands of years. When such seismic shooting and low-frequency sonar. they are no longer active, the ecosystem in the However, temporary scare effects are to be area changes from the distinctive chemosynthetic expected. The scare effects of shipping on certain system to one with a normal benthic fauna. Depos- whale species have been investigated. It has been its of manganese crust, which are rich sources of shown that when minke whales and porpoises various metals, have also been found in large 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 47 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans areas of the Norwegian Sea. The crust is depos- other filter feeders. The extent of our knowledge ited from seawater on bare rock, and contains about the biology of the vent fields varies. On the important chemical elements. There is now a Seven Sisters field and the Jan Mayen vent fields, growing research effort and more focus on the surveys have shown dense assemblages of sea management of deep-water areas. Valuable spe- anemones and snails feeding on the bacterial cies and habitats in deep sea areas were also dis- mats, carnivorous sponges that live in symbiosis cussed in the 2017 update of the Norwegian Sea with methane-oxidising bacteria, calcareous management plan (Meld. St. 35 (2016–2017)). sponges, hydroids and large numbers of sea lilies. Organisms living in extreme deep-sea environ- The three Jan Mayen vent fields are the best sur- ments have unique adaptations to enable them to veyed thus far. They are situated about 70 km survive in the extreme conditions. Microorgan- north-east of Jan Mayen itself. Little is known isms and biomolecules can be harvested for about the biology of the Ægir vent field, but it has industrial and medical uses (marine bioprospect- a number of species in common with the Loki’s ing) from hydrothermal vent fields. Research Castle vent field. The latter was discovered in using cutting-edge DNA sequencing techniques 2008 and is much better known. It was also the has revealed a wide diversity of microorganisms first locality in Norwegian deep-sea areas where and a vast, unique genetic reservoir in these eco- scientists found species that are specifically systems. Less is known about interactions adapted to the high temperatures around hydro- between seabed ecosystems and those in the thermal vents. There is a wide variety of special- water column above, and research will be needed ised species, including species that are endemic to on this in future. the area. In 2018, the Fåvne vent field was discovered at a depth of 3000 m midway between Jan Mayen Hydrothermal vents and the formation of mineral and Bjørnøya. Here, highly metal-rich water deposits gushes from a number of vents. The discovery of So far, seven active and two inactive hydrothermal the Fåvne vent field has given us a greater under- vent fields containing metal deposits have been standing of the fauna associated with hydrother- discovered at depths of between 140 and 3100 mal vents. The deep-water fauna on the active vent metres in the Norwegian Sea. fields Loki’s Castle, Fåvne and Ægir is of excep- The habitat types in areas around hydrother- tional interest. Species are specially adapted to the mal vents are often dominated by sponges and environmental conditions, and energy transfer through the ecosystem is driven by close interac- tions between microorganisms and higher organ- isms (symbiosis). The fauna is dominated by spe- cialised polychaetes, snails, amphipods and sponges, and shows similarities with the fauna associated with hydrothermal vents near the edge of the Arctic Basin.

Methane hydrates Methane hydrates consist of methane trapped in ice crystals in the seabed, and are only stable at high pressure and low temperature. They are found on the continental shelf and the continental slope in association with natural gas seeps. Meth- ane hydrates can provide a source of energy. Figure 3.21 These ‘black smokers’ on the Mid- There are distinctive geochemical substrates Atlantic Ridge between Jan Mayen and Bjørnøya are around methane hydrate deposits and cold seeps, hydrothermal vents formed by the deposition of which provide a habitat for chemosynthetic bacte- metal-rich sulphide minerals. Such areas support a ria. These bacteria support a distinctive fauna not highly diverse community of organisms closely dissimilar to that found around hydrothermal adapted to the conditions, ranging from single- vents. However, the fauna associated with meth- celled microorganisms to fish. Photo: University of Bergen 48 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

In coastal waters Norwegian Sea, sea urchin populations are declining and kelp forests are recovering in the outer zone of coastal waters as far north as the southern part of Nordland county. The coral reefs in the Iverryggen area are consid- ered to be in good condition. The waters between Vikna and the Vega archipelago (a World Heritage Site) and out to the Sklinna bank particularly valu- able and vulnerable area are valuable for seabirds. In this area, there are large numbers of wintering and breeding coastal seabirds including common eider, shag, cormorant and black guillemot, and pelagic feeders including common guillemot, puf- fin and kittiwake. The lesser black-backed gull (subspecies Larus fuscus fuscus) also breeds in the area. This is considered to be more of a pelagic feeder than more southerly subspecies of lesser Figure 3.22 The hard-bottom areas around black-backed gulls. hydrothermal vents are often dominated by The Jan Mayen area is nationally important for sponges and other filter feeders. These areas breeding seabirds. There are 15 breeding species support high biodiversity and are particular and 22 different seabird colonies, with a total of importance for ocean nutrient cycles. more than 300 000 pairs of seabirds. The time Photo: University of Bergen/SponGES series for seabird monitoring in this area are rela- tively short, and some species can show large annual variations. A decline has been registered ane hydrates occurs over larger areas and is quite for the common and Brünnich’s guillemot popula- similar in different localities. tions, while the fulmar and glaucous gull popula- tions are stable and great skua numbers have risen. The West Ice north and west of Jan Mayen is 3.2.5 Particularly valuable and vulnerable a core breeding area for hooded and harp seals. areas in the Norwegian Sea The West Ice population of hooded seals has The summary report from the Forum for Inte- declined to less than 10 % of the level immediately grated Ocean Management discusses the previ- after the Second World War, and has been pro- ously identified particularly valuable and vulnera- tected since 2007. The population decline may be ble areas, and where the updated scientific basis related to the reduction in ice cover. indicates that modifications are needed. The The marginal ice zone in the Barents Sea, as updated scientific basis confirms the value and identified and delimited as a particularly valuable vulnerability of the areas for which no modifica- and vulnerable area, extends into the northern tions were indicated. The delimitation of some and western parts of the Norwegian Sea, which particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the are also ice-covered for part of the year. The areas Norwegian Sea has also been clarified and in question are sea ice in the Fram Strait and the adjusted. The particularly valuable and vulnerable West Ice, which is in the northwestern part of the areas and the species and habitat types found in fisheries zone around Jan Mayen. The delimita- them are further discussed in the Forum’s tion of these areas has been updated in line with reports and in earlier white papers on the manage- the changes in the Barents Sea–Lofoten manage- ment plans. This section discusses some updates ment plan area, so that their boundaries now fol- to our knowledge about the particularly valuable low the line where there is 15 % ice persistence in and vulnerable areas in the Norwegian Sea. April, based on ice data for the period 1988–2017. The Vestfjorden has been removed from the The scientific basis shows that there are no list of particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in grounds for distinguishing between very impor- the Norwegian Sea and has been transferred to tant areas closest to Jan Mayen and important the list for the Barents Sea–Lofoten management areas further out, as was done in the original par- plan area, where most of it lies. The rest largely ticularly valuable and vulnerable area ‘Areas near overlaps with the particularly valuable and vulner- Jan Mayen and the West Ice’. The Forum for Inte- able area coastal waters Norwegian Sea. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 49 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

TegnforklaringerLegend

Management plan area

Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas

NH1 Iverryggen reef NH7 Eggakanten South NH2 Halten bank NH8 Jan Mayen NH3 Sklinna bank NH9 Coastal waters Norwegian Sea NH4 Møre banks NH10 Remman archipelago NH5 Froan archipelago NH11 Sea ice in the Fram Strait and Sula reef NH12 West Ice NH6 Arctic front

Figure 3.23 Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the Norwegian Sea management plan area. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency

grated Ocean Management has therefore variety of ice types, many different types of ice- removed this division. associated communities are also found. The mar- The area sea ice in the Fram Strait is domi- ginal ice zone in the Fram Strait is important for nated by sea ice transported southwards from the ivory gulls and for the critically endangered Spits- Arctic Ocean by ocean currents. The ice in the bergen population of bowhead whale. The sea ice Fram Strait is often a mixture of ice of different in the Fram Strait is gradually withdrawing north- origins, and therefore consists of ice types of vary- wards, both in summer and in winter, but there ing age and with different properties. Ice in the are large interannual variations. part of the marginal ice zone within the Fram The designated Arctic front area covers the Strait is on average thicker, has more snow cover zone where Atlantic and Arctic water meet. The and lies above deeper water than much of the mar- area was originally described as a narrow zone ginal ice zone in the Barents Sea. Because of the stretching all the way through the Norwegian Sea 50 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans where biological production is high and there is a ties that are important for seabirds. The section of rich diversity of animal species. As is the case for the coastal zone from Stad to Runde, the coast of the polar front, there is so far no documentation Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag (including the Froan, that biological production is higher in the frontal Vikna and Sklinna archipelagos) and the southern zone than in the surrounding waters. However, part of Nordland (including islands and skerries the frontal zone may nevertheless be important as in Sømna and Vega municipalities), the Remman a habitat boundary for various species, and may archipelago and the Vestfjorden are considered to be an area where species from different trophic be particularly valuable. Marine mammals such as levels aggregate. The Arctic front is an important the grey seal, common seal, common porpoise feeding area for several whale species, including and orca occur all along the coast. Kelp forests are blue whale, fin whale, minke whale and bottlenose an important habitat for many marine organisms whale. The position of the Arctic front also has in the coastal zone. implications for the migration and distribution of Norwegian spring-spawning herring, which to a large extent avoids Arctic water masses. 3.3 Environmental status in the North The Remman archipelago is designated as a Sea and Skagerrak reference area for Laminaria hyperborea, and there is therefore no kelp harvesting in the area. The most important trends in the North Sea– There has been some increase in the vulnerability Skagerrak ecosystem since 2011 include persis- of seabirds in the area as a result of bycatches in tently high sea temperatures and a continuing the gill net and longline fisheries. spread of southerly zooplankton species, which Coastal waters Norwegian Sea as designated has had substantial impacts on the rest of the eco- stretches from Stad at 62° N northwards to the system. Many fish stocks have grown considera- Vestfjorden. Many species use waters near the bly in recent years, while levels of pollutants have coast as a habitat and feeding area, and the area generally remained unchanged or declined. off the Norwegian Sea coast includes many locali- C) o Temperature anomaly ( Temperature

Figure 3.24 Temperature time series from 1952 to 2018 for Norwegian coastal waters in the Skagerrak and the North Sea, presented as anomalies relative to the period 1981–2010. Based on measurements by the Institute of Marine Research along the sections Torungen–Hirtshals and Utsira–Orkney (only measuring stations near the coast) and at the coastal stations Flødevigen, Lista, Utsira and Sognesjøen at depths of 0–10 m. The thin black line shows monthly values with the seasonal signal removed, while the red line shows the five-year rolling mean. Source: Institute of Marine Research 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 51 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

3.3.1 Climate change in the management Calanus helgolandicus / Calanus finmarchicus ratio plan area The northern North Sea constitutes most of the 0.9 management plan area. It varies in depth from 0 to 2010 500 m, and is heavily influenced by the inflow of 0.8 oceanic water from the Norwegian Sea and Atlan- tic Ocean. 2005 0.7

0.6 2000 Temperature 0.5 Since the late 1980s, a generally rising trend in sea temperatures has been registered in the North 1995 0.4 Sea and Skagerrak, and temperatures have gener- 0.3 ally been above the long-term average for the 1990 period 1981–2010. Warming has slowed some- 0.2 what in the past ten years, but temperatures both 0.1 in the surface layers and in deep water have 1985 remained high for the last 30 years. Although some of the warming can be linked to natural changes in the large-scale circulation in the Atlan- 1980 tic Ocean, most of it is related to the global warm- ing trend. 1975

3.3.2 Trends for various components of the 1970 North Sea–Skagerrak ecosystem

Ecosystem trends in the North Sea and Skagerrak 1965 are described, mainly on the basis of state and pressure indicators for the area. 1960

Kelp forests 246810 Sugar kelp forests are an important habitat type in Month Norway’s coastal waters, and are nursery areas and habitats for many marine species. In the Skag- Figure 3.25 Ratio between the warm-water species errak and southwestern Norway, sugar kelp for- Calanus helgolandicus and the cold-water species ests and eelgrass meadows are under considera- Calanus finmarchicus in the North Sea in the period ble pressure from a number of factors. The 1958–2012. The figure shows that in the 1960s, decline in the distribution of sugar kelp in the substantial numbers of the warm-water species Skagerrak is probably explained by periods in the were only recorded at certain times of year, whereas late 1990s when summer temperatures were very after 1995 it has been dominant for most of the year. high, which may have been lethal to the species, Source: Edwards et al. MCCIP Science Review 2013/ICES combined with high inputs of nutrients, which have favoured competing filamentous algae. Increasing runoff from land and inputs of humus and particulate matter can reduce light penetra- organic matter to the coast. In hard-bottom areas tion in coastal water, increase sediment deposition of the Skagerrak, sugar kelp is now found in shal- on the seabed and reduce the depths to which lower water than previously. kelp can grow. Reduced light penetration has Since 2000, there has been a weak improve- been observed in the Norwegian coastal current ment in the state of sugar kelp forests, but over over a long period. This may be a result of direct the past 50 years its distribution has declined in runoff to coastal areas. Monitoring of rivers that the southern half of Norway, particularly in the run into the Skagerrak shows that they have been Skagerrak. Losses were greatest in the Skagerrak transporting increased quantities of dissolved around 2000 (50–80 %), but have also been sub- 52 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans stantial in the North Sea (50 %). Sugar kelp forests impacts climate change will have on benthic com- in the North Sea and Skagerrak (southern sugar munities in the future. kelp forests) are classified as endangered on the Norwegian Red List for habitat types and ecosys- tems 2018. Benthic fauna A decline in mussel populations has been regis- tered in recent years. Very little is known about Phyto- and zooplankton the extent of this decline and what has caused it, Primary production, or production of phytoplank- but possible explanations are changes in the ton, has declined in recent years. This is probably marine environment, greater predation pressure because inputs of nutrients to the entire North and disease. Declining mussel populations have Sea from the major European rivers and other also been observed in other countries, including land-based sources have been reduced. As a France and the Netherlands. Mussel beds in all result, the previously serious problem of eutrophi- three management plan areas are categorised as cation has been largely eliminated. vulnerable in the Norwegian Red List for ecosys- In the North Sea, quantities of southerly zoo- tems and habitat types 2018. plankton species have increased at the expense of zooplankton species that are adapted to colder water. The copepod Calanus finmarchicus is an Fish stocks important zooplankton species in the North Sea. The spawning stock of cod rose from 2011, but In recent years, it has increasingly been replaced since 2017 has decreased considerably, to below by the warmer-water species Calanus helgolandi- the sustainable level. The sandeel stock in the cus. Other changes have also been registered, and southern part of the management plan area has the proportion of other warm-water zooplankton risen. Stocks of Norway pout, saithe, herring and species has been rising. One result of these haddock are well above precautionary levels. changes is that the timing of reproduction for zoo- However, several studies indicate that recruit- plankton species has shifted to later in the year. ment is weak and net production low, and these These changes in the zooplankton community stocks may show a negative trend over time if have had a variety of effects on other parts of the recruitment does not improve. Stocks of most of North Sea and Skagerrak ecosystems. The shift in the commercially important fish stocks in the the timing of zooplankton reproduction means North Sea are in better condition than in 2011 as a that it no longer coincides as well with fish spawn- result of improvements in fisheries management. ing seasons, which may have reduced fish food There is an even more marked improvement supplies and be one explanation for poor recruit- since the period before this, when a number of ment to several fish stocks. The shift towards stocks were in poor condition because discarding warm-water species is also resulting in generally of catches was permitted in EU and UK waters in lower zooplankton production, which is expected the North Sea and Skagerrak and there were to have implications for fish stocks generally and other weaknesses in the regulation of the fisher- particularly for plankton-feeding species. ies. The increase in the proportion of warm-water The spawning stock of plaice rose from an esti- zooplankton species may also explain why there mated 200 000 tonnes in 2006 to a forecast 980 000 has been an increase in observations of southerly tonnes in 2018, and is now larger than when moni- fish species that are adapted to feeding on this toring of the stock began in the 1950s. The ecolog- type of plankton, such as European seabass, ical consequences of this change are unknown. anchovy and pilchard. Such species have previ- ously occurred sporadically in the North Sea, but breeding populations are now becoming estab- Seabirds and marine mammals lished. The changes in the North Sea have Overall seabird numbers in the North Sea and resulted in an ecosystem that is less productive Skagerrak declined in the ten-year period 2007– but has higher species diversity. The pelagic eco- 2017. This was primarily due to a decline in the system in the North Sea is very complex, and population of common eider and in breeding pop- knowledge about ecological links between the ulations of large gull species such as the lesser water column and the seabed is very limited. This black-backed gull. The reasons for the decline are makes it extremely difficult to predict what largely unknown. The EU has recently finished phasing in a landing obligation banning discards 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 53 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

450

400

350

300

250

200

150 Biomass (1000 tonnes) 100

50

0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Biomass

Figure 3.26 Measured biomass of sandeels (one year and older) in the Norwegian part of the North Sea, excluding the Viking Bank. Source: Institute of Marine Research/environment.no

of bycatches and unwanted catches. This will Levels of caesium-137 in seawater in 2018 probably have a negative impact on seabird popu- lations, since seabirds have until now fed on bycatches discarded by the fishing fleet. A landing obligation has been in force in Norwegian waters for much longer, and there will probably be no fur- ther impact on seabirds that forage in the Norwe- gian sector of the North Sea. There has been little change in marine mam- mal populations in the last few decades. The por- poise population appears to be stable. The size of the only breeding colony of grey seals in the Nor- wegian part of the North Sea has not changed in recent years. An international survey of small cetaceans indicates that there are about 350 000 porpoises in the North Sea and Skagerrak. Por- poises are taken as a bycatch in fisheries, but the scale is unknown. The size of the minke whale Becquerels stock has remained unchanged. per m3 < 1.29 ≤ 2.1 ≤ 3 Alien species ≤ 10 ≤ 13.6 Large numbers of the warm-water blue jellyfish Cyanea lamarckii have been observed in summer in the Skagerrak and eastern parts of the North Figure 3.27 Levels of caesium-137 measured in Sea. In autumn, the comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi, seawater in 2018. an alien species, is being observed more and more frequently near the coast, especially from Source: Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority/In- stitute of Marine Research mid-August onwards. This species is largely asso- ciated with coastal waters, and densities in the 54 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans open sea are low. Jellyfish are predators and may ally declining in recent decades. Levels of radioac- have major impacts on the planktonic food web. tive contamination (caesium-137) in fish and sea- food are well below the maximum permitted level for seafood. 3.3.3 Pollution Inputs of pollutants to the management plan area via the atmosphere and rivers have generally been 3.3.4 Particularly valuable and vulnerable stable or declining since 2011. Inputs of persis- areas tent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances via the According to the scientific basis for the manage- atmosphere and rivers have been stable or declin- ment plans, new knowledge obtained about the ing since 2011. Inputs of phosphorus, nitrogen particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the and copper from fish farming along the coast of North Sea and Skagerrak does not indicate that Western Norway rose steeply from 1990 onwards; there is any need to change the status of the exist- the rise has continued after 2011, but has been ing areas. The updated knowledge base confirms less steep. It is uncertain to what extent these pol- the value and vulnerability of the previously identi- lutants are transported out into the management fied areas. The particularly valuable and vulnera- plan area. On the whole, the extent of seabed ble areas and the species and habitat types found affected by hydrocarbons from the petroleum in them are further discussed in the Forum’s industry has remained the same in recent years, reports and in earlier white papers on the manage- but there has been a certain increase in some geo- ment plans. graphical areas. Since 2011, there has been no Parts of two of the particularly valuable and substantial change in the quantities of pollutants vulnerable areas, the Skagerrak and mackerel in produced water discharged from oil installa- spawning grounds, are no longer included in the tions. list because they are outside Norway’s jurisdiction Levels of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic and therefore do not come within the scope of the substances in living organisms in the North Sea– North Sea–Skagerrak management plan. The Skagerrak management plan area are generally zone of coastal waters out to 25 km from the base- somewhat higher than in the Barents Sea– line was identified as a generally valuable area in Lofoten area and the Norwegian Sea. Except for the management plan for the North Sea and Skag- dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in fish liver, and mer- errak, but not as a particularly valuable and vul- cury in fillets of tusk from some areas, levels of nerable area. However, the Forum for Integrated most of these substances are below the maximum Ocean Management will consider the coastal permitted levels in seafood. However, in most spe- waters of the North Sea-Skagerrak management cies the levels of mercury, PCBs and PBDEs plan area further in its review of the particularly exceed the low levels set in environmental quality valuable and vulnerable areas. standards, which are intended to protect species The original reason for identifying ‘mackerel higher in the food chain such as seabirds and spawning grounds’ as a particularly valuable and marine mammals. There are no grounds for con- vulnerable area was that it includes the most cluding that there has been any change in pollu- important areas where the North Sea stock tion levels in living organisms in the North Sea spawns in surface water in May–June. Mackerel since 2011. is an ecologically and commercially important Levels of radioactive pollution in seawater in species in the North Sea. Atlantic water carrying the North Sea and Skagerrak are low, but some- mackerel eggs and larvae also flows into this part what higher than in the Norwegian Sea and the of the northern North Sea from mackerel spawn- Barents Sea–Lofoten area. This is explained by ing grounds west of Scotland and Ireland. The proximity to the most important sources of radio- area is therefore valuable, but the part of it delim- active pollution in Norwegian waters: the process- ited as a particularly valuable and vulnerable area ing plants Sellafield in the UK and La Hague in is not of greater importance for spawning than the France, and water flowing out from the Baltic Sea, waters around it. This is one of the areas the which still contains pollutants originating from the Forum for Integrated Ocean Management will Chernobyl accident. Levels of radioactive pollu- consider further in its review. tion in the marine environment have been gradu- 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 55 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Legend

Management plan area

Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas

NS1 Mackerel spawning grounds NS2 Skagerrak transect NS3 Listastrendene/Siragrunnen NS4 Karmøyfeltet bank area NS5 Sandeel habitat south NS6 Outer Oslofjord NS7 Bremanger–Ytre Sula NS8 Outer Boknafjorden/Jærstrendene NS9 Korsfjorden NS10 Skagerrak NS11 Sandeel habitat north

Figure 3.28 Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the North Sea–Skagerrak management plan area. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency

3.4 Marine litter and microplastics measures and instruments to deal with the prob- lem that are relevant to all three management plan Marine litter and microplastics are causing grow- areas. The status report for the Norwegian Sea ing environmental problems that are a threat to published by the Advisory Group on Monitoring our continued sustainable use of the oceans, and in 2019 includes more detailed and updated infor- may have impacts on ecosystems and threaten mation on marine litter in all the management food safety and food security. plan areas. In 2017, the Government presented a white paper on waste policy and the circular economy (Meld. St. 45 (2016–2017)) including an inte- 3.4.1 Marine litter – status and sources grated strategy to combat plastic waste. The 2017 In the North Sea, the amount of plastic in fulmar update of the Norwegian Sea management plan stomachs is used as an indicator of marine plastic included a separate chapter on plastic waste and pollution. This is a joint OSPAR indicator. Moni- 56 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans toring has shown a high but stable level of plastics mittee for Food and Environment concluded that in fulmar stomachs in the period 2005–2014. the risk of negative impacts is low at present, but More than 60 % of the individuals sampled were that this situation could change over time. found to contain more than 0.1 grams of plastic. Seven Norwegian beaches are included in the Norway has adopted the OSPAR target that this OSPAR beach litter monitoring programme. The level should be exceeded in less than 10 % of ful- monitoring results show little change in litter mars. In the Barents Sea and other parts of the quantities over time, indicating that inputs of litter Arctic, plastics have been found in the stomachs are not being reduced. At least 90 % of the litter is and pellets of several seabird species, including plastic. Litter has also been observed on the sea- fulmar, little auk and Brünnich’s guillemot. bed in all areas that have been investigated, but Our knowledge about plastics and microplas- there is not yet sufficient data to assess whether tics in living organisms, whether in Norwegian quantities are rising. waters or elsewhere, is limited. In Norway, There are many different sources of marine lit- microplastics have been found in organisms ter, and it originates from a wide variety of activi- including mussels and other molluscs, cod, snow ties both at sea and on land. Plastics make up the crab, Chinese mitten crab and marine worms. The largest fraction of marine litter, and are the most levels detected have been low. In general, the serious problem. Microplastics originate from the smaller the size of the particles that can be degradation of plastic waste, sea-based sources detected by the analysis, the larger the number of such as ships’ paint and aquaculture, and inputs particles found. Studies of animals have shown from a wide variety of land-based sources. The that the smallest particles can be absorbed into quantities of waste and microplastics that enter the tissues via the stomach. In addition to the the marine environment from the different effects of the plastics themselves, chemical addi- sources are very uncertain. tives and chemical contaminants on the plastics Registration of litter on beaches along the Nor- can be a problem. Furthermore, both pathogens wegian mainland coast and the coast of Svalbard such as bacteria and viruses and alien species shows that consumer waste dominates in the found in or on plastics can be spread to new areas southern part of the country, while sea-based by ocean currents. sources including the fishing industry dominate Many animals suffer injuries and die through further north and in Svalbard. This reflects differ- becoming entangled in or ingesting plastics, and ences in population levels and coastal activities. In this has been well documented. However, little is areas that are heavily used for outdoor recreation, known about the effects of plastic waste and high levels of litter originating from these activi- microplastics at population or ecosystem level. A ties are registered. Plastic waste and microplastics risk assessment by the Norwegian Scientific Com- are transported over long distances by ocean cur-

5 2 1 3 100% 90% 80% 18 70% 26 5 13 60% 50% 11 8 5 40% 3 30% 9 20% 10% 0 0 32 Fulmar stomachs containing plastic 0% 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19

Winter Proportion with > 0.1 g plastic Running 5-year average Long-term goal No. of fulmars investigated

Figure 3.29 Percentage of fulmars in the North Sea found to have more than 0.1 g plastic in the stomach. Source: Norwegian Institute of Nature Research NINA 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 57 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

from different sources will depend partly on whether the calculations are based on the abun- dance, volume or weight of waste types. A recent report from the consultancy SALT and the Nordland Research Institute estimates that the accumulated amount of litter along the coast of Norway originating from the seafood industries (fisheries and aquaculture) in Norway and internationally is in the order of magnitude of 100 million objects with a total weight of 10 000 tonnes. According to the report, explanations for releases of plastic waste from fisheries and aqua- culture range from weaknesses in waste manage- ment systems, failure to follow routines, habit, wear and tear and a lack of maintenance, to delib- erate dumping. Rope ends and net fragments are also commonly discarded during repairs at sea. The report describes the results of several studies that will provide a basis for action plans to be developed by the industries to reduce inputs of plastic waste to the marine environment. No. of observations of seabed litter per 100 m 3.4.2 Efforts to combat marine litter – status and further work Figure 3.30 Observations of seabed litter in the In the course of 2020, the Norwegian Environ- Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. ment Agency will present a new synthesis of knowledge about the sources of marine litter and Source: MAREANO microplastics in Norway, including sea-based sources such as the fisheries, aquaculture and shipping. Furthermore, GESAMP (the Joint rents, between countries and continents, and Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of some of the marine litter found in Norwegian Marine Environmental Protection), an advisory waters thus originates from other countries. body for the UN system, is working on a report on Microplastics also spread in the atmosphere, and sea-based sources of marine litter across the are even found in the Arctic. There are indications world. In 2020, the Norwegian Environment that an accumulation zone for plastic waste and Agency is to present proposals for supplementary microplastics is forming in the Barents Sea. action to reduce inputs of plastic waste and Microplastics may also accumulate in sea ice in microplastics from sea-based sources, and knowl- the Arctic. Researchers believe that microplastics edge about sources will be a vital basis for the pro- in seawater are trapped and may become concen- posals. trated in sea ice, and are released when the ice An updated, broader-based Norwegian strat- melts. egy for combating plastic waste is also to be pre- Observations from the MAREANO pro- pared in the light of new knowledge about the dis- gramme indicate that the fishing industry is one tribution, sources and effects of plastic waste, of the main sources of seabed litter in the Barents appropriate action, and experience of using vari- Sea and Norwegian Sea. About 40–60 % of all plas- ous policy instruments. The strategy will deal with tics registered in bottom trawl hauls in the Bar- plastic litter and microplastics in the oceans, in ents Sea are related to the fishing industry. A sub- freshwater and on land. stantial proportion of beach litter consists of small The Directorate of Fisheries organises an plastic fragments and pieces of rope that cannot annual retrieval programme for lost fishing gear be traced back to an exact source. For Norwegian in Norwegian waters. Since this programme waters generally, fisheries, aquaculture and ship- started in the early 1980s, more than 21 000 gill ping have been identified as the main sources of nets and 10 000 traps have been retrieved. The marine litter. Estimates of the proportion of waste total weight of the gear retrieved is estimated at 58 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans almost 1000 tonnes. Most of the gear retrieved and prevention of marine litter from sea-based has probably been lost by accident, but as late as sources. A key task is to establish a database and 2019, fishing gear has been found that has clearly map service for information on beach litter clean- been deliberately abandoned. Norwegian fisher- up as a basis for coordinated, effective efforts at men are required to report the loss of fishing national level. The centre will also be responsible gear, and their reports provide part of the basis for disseminating knowledge about the prevention for determining the areas to be covered by the of marine litter from sea-based sources. gear retrieval programme. In recent years, as The 2019 EU directive on reducing the impact much as 70 % of the gear retrieved has been of certain plastic products on the environment returned to its owners. includes requirements for member states to intro- The Fishing for Litter project has established a duce producer responsibility schemes for fishing temporary scheme that allows fishing vessels to gear, including aquaculture equipment. The EU deliver marine litter taken as a bycatch in fishing has also revised the Port Reception Facilities gear in nine selected ports along the Norwegian Directive, which requires countries to provide coast, free of charge. The consultancy firm SALT adequate facilities for delivery of passively fished Lofoten has been responsible for planning and waste in their ports. The Norwegian authorities implementing the scheme since 2015, with fund- are taking steps to implement the requirements of ing from the Norwegian Environment Agency. these two directives. Two more ports are to be added to the scheme in 2020. The Government is now considering how to introduce legislation on the delivery of waste 3.5 Status report: progress towards retrieved at sea free of charge, in line with the the goals of the ocean revised Port Reception Facilities Directive. Expe- management plans rience gained from the Fishing for Litter project will be an important basis for this work. In 2018, The Forum for Integrated Ocean Management the Norwegian Environment Agency presented a has reviewed progress towards the goals of the review of producer responsibility for plastic waste ocean management plans, and the results are from the fisheries and aquaculture. This is now summarised below. The report is based on the being evaluated by the Ministry of Climate and goals as they were formulated in earlier manage- Environment. ment plans. These goals have largely been Since the refund scheme for end-of-life leisure retained in the present white paper, but their craft was introduced in 2017, more than 20 000 wording has been harmonised for all three man- boats have been delivered. The scheme is being agement plan areas. The new goals are set out in expanded from 2020 to include aluminium boats full in Chapter 2.4. and other boats with metal keels and ballast. The Norwegian Environment Agency adminis- ters a grant scheme promoting action to reduce Safe seafood marine litter in Norway, including both removal of Fish and other seafood will be safe and will be per- litter and preventive measures. The scheme ceived as safe by consumers in the various markets. focuses mainly on beach clean-up. In 2020, NOK Current knowledge indicates that this goal has 70 million has been allocated to the scheme. been achieved for the Barents Sea–Lofoten man- The business sector also provides substantial agement plan area, and partly achieved for the funding for clean-up and removal of litter. Norwegian Sea and the North Sea and Skagerrak. The voluntary organisation Hold Norge Rent Levels of hazardous substances and radioactive (Keep Norway Clean) plays an important part in substances are generally low and largely under coordinating and providing advice on voluntary the maximum permitted levels in seafood. How- clean-up initiatives in Norway. The organisation ever, concentrations above the permitted levels also organises a network for cooperation between may be found in individual species in certain areas businesses, public authorities and voluntary and in some specimens of species at high trophic organisations that are working to reduce marine levels, such as halibut. Levels of hazardous sub- litter and microplastics. Its operating grant is stances may also exceed the maximum permitted therefore to be increased from 2020. levels in fish liver and edible crabs. In some cases, The Norwegian Centre for Oil Spill Prepared- measures such as prohibiting catches or advising ness and Marine Environment is being estab- against consumption have been introduced to lished as a centre of expertise on the recovery ensure that seafood is safe. For example, in Octo- 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 59 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans ber 2017, catches of halibut from the outer Sklinn- in the Norwegian Sea are generally low, and it is adjupet trench were banned and a requirement to unlikely that operational discharges from petro- discard all halibut exceeding two metres in length leum activities or shipping are causing environ- was introduced. mental damage. However, there is still uncertainty Activities in the Norwegian Sea and in the about the damage that operational discharges North Sea and Skagerrak will not result in higher may cause, including the possible long-term levels of pollutants in seafood. The main source of effects of drill cuttings on corals and sponges. The pollutants found in seafood is probably activity goal is therefore not considered to have been outside the management plan areas. It is very achieved for operational discharges from petro- uncertain how much activity within the North leum activities in these two management plan Sea–Skagerrak management plan area contrib- areas. utes to contamination of seafood, and knowledge Operational discharges in the Barents Sea– is limited. The goal is considered to have been Lofoten management plan area are limited, and achieved for hazardous substances in the North are not thought to be resulting in rising back- Sea and Skagerrak. It is uncertain whether the ground levels of oil or other environmentally haz- goal has been achieved for the Norwegian Sea ardous substances or naturally occurring radioac- because of a lack of knowledge about the sources tive substances over time. of the hazardous substances found as contami- Operational discharges of oil in bilge water to nants in seafood. the management plan areas are small and have not so far resulted in detectable changes in eco- systems. A lack of knowledge means that it is Environmentally hazardous substances uncertain whether the goal has been achieved for Environmental concentrations of hazardous and operational discharges of environmentally hazard- radioactive substances will not exceed the backgro- ous substances (stern tube lubricants) from ship- und levels for naturally occurring substances and ping. will be close to zero for man-made synthetic substan- ces. Releases and inputs of hazardous or radioactive substances from activity in the management plan Marine litter areas will not cause these levels to be exceeded. Inputs of litter that have negative impacts on coas- There are still inputs of hazardous and radioactive tal waters, the sea surface, the water column or the substances to all three management plan areas, seabed will be reduced. An overall evaluation of cur- and the goals for hazardous substances have not rent knowledge indicates that the goal has not generally been achieved. This conclusion is based been achieved for any of the management plan on an overall evaluation of the available knowl- areas. Large quantities of litter are being regis- edge about inputs and levels of hazardous and tered at many localities along the coast, in trawls, radioactive substances. during mapping of the seabed and in the stom- achs of seabirds and other animals. The results of beach litter monitoring indicates that there has Operational discharges from offshore petroleum acti- been no decline in the number of objects found on vities and shipping the reference beaches since the previous report, Operational discharges from activities in the mana- even though there are regular beach clean-up gement plan areas will not result in damage to the operations on these beaches. environment or elevated background levels of oil or Monitoring of marine litter is inadequate, and other environmentally hazardous substances over there are gaps in our knowledge about environ- the long term. There are substantial operational mental damage and inputs of litter from sources discharges from petroleum activities in the North within and outside the management plan areas. Sea, which are resulting in rising background lev- els of oil, other environmentally hazardous sub- stances and naturally occurring radioactive sub- Risk of acute pollution stances over time. There are also discharges of The risk of damage to the environment and living naturally occurring environmentally hazardous marine resources from acute pollution will be kept substances, naturally occurring radioactive sub- at a low level and continuous efforts will be made to stances and environmentally hazardous sub- reduce it further. Maritime safety measures and the stances with produced water from petroleum oil spill preparedness and response system will be activities in the Norwegian Sea. Levels of pollution designed and dimensioned to effectively keep the risk 60 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans of damage to the environment and living marine tem has been strengthened and various measures resources at a low level. have been introduced at governmental level and The risk of accidents in connection with petro- by the oil and gas companies. However, it is diffi- leum activities is assessed as low in all three man- cult to verify how much these measures would agement plan areas. The goal is considered to reduce the consequences of spills, and the extent have been achieved, which reflects the effective- to which the goal has been achieved is uncertain. ness of preventive measures during the reporting Norway’s nuclear emergency preparedness period and indicates which measures will be use- system for Norwegian waters has been strength- ful in preventing accidents in future. ened to some extent, but further improvements The potential environmental consequences of are needed in the resources available for monitor- spills vary from area to area and through the year, ing and measuring radioactivity and in action that particularly depending on where and when sea- can be taken to prevent releases of radioactivity birds are most vulnerable, and this affects the from disabled ships. level of environmental risk. The discharge poten- tial in the Barents Sea South, particularly the northern parts of this area, is considerably lower Underwater noise (North Sea–Skagerrak manage- than elsewhere on the Norwegian continental ment plan area) shelf. Even so, the level of environmental risk for Activities entailing a noise level that may affect spe- seabirds in the open sea is generally higher in the cies’ behaviour will be limited to avoid the displace- Barents Sea–Lofoten area than in the Norwegian ment of populations or other effects that may have Sea and the North Sea–Skagerrak, because larger negative impacts on the marine ecosystem. No indi- numbers of vulnerable seabirds are present for cators have been established to show trends in much of the year. The goal of keeping the risk of underwater noise levels from activities in the man- damage to the environment and living marine agement plan areas and their environmental con- resources at a low level is therefore not consid- sequences. Too little is known about whether ered to have been achieved for the Barents Sea– there are clear links between noise levels from Lofoten management plan area, even though the various activities and the impacts on ecosystems. risk of accidents is low. It is therefore not possible to determine the extent The environmental risk associated with fields to which the goal has been achieved. that are on stream in the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea–Skagerrak is considered to be unchanged. There has been a high level of envi- Nutrients, sediment deposition and organic material ronmental risk associated with certain activities, (North Sea–Skagerrak management plan area) and a need for risk-reduction measures, particu- Anthropogenic inputs of nutrients, sediment deposi- larly to deal with high discharge rates and activity tion and inputs of organic matter will be limited in near the coast. The goal is therefore only consid- order to avoid significant adverse impacts on biodi- ered to have been partially achieved. versity and ecosystems in the management plan Risk-reduction measures that have been imple- area. Inputs of nutrients from the Norwegian mented have reduced the risk of accidents result- mainland are rising, but no significant adverse ing in spills from shipping in the management impacts have been demonstrated in the form of plan areas. Only a few accidents result in acute eutrophication or sediment deposition in the man- pollution, and the goal of reducing the risk of dam- agement plan area. However, given the rising age to the environment is considered to have been inputs, the goal is not considered to have been partially achieved. However, no specific assess- achieved. ments have been made of levels of environmental risk or any changes in these levels. The volume of nuclear-powered shipping in all Climate change and ocean acidification (North Sea– three management plan areas is rising, as is the Skagerrak management plan area) volume of radioactive cargo in the Russian part of When marine ecosystems are used as carbon sinks, the Barents Sea. The goal of reducing the risk of the need to maintain biodiversity and natural eco- environmental damage from these activities is system functions will be taken into account. At pres- therefore not considered to have been achieved. ent, there is no activity in the management plan The oil spill preparedness and response sys- area that makes use of marine ecosystems as car- tem at private, municipal and governmental level bon sinks. It is very difficult to draw any conclu- is risk-based. The preparedness and response sys- sions about trends in the cumulative impacts of 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 61 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans human activity on species and habitat types that are affected by climate change and ocean acidifi- Species management cation, and whether these impacts have been min- Naturally occurring species will exist in viable popu- imised. lations that provide for sufficient reproductive capa- city and long-term survival, and genetic diversity will be maintained. This goal has been achieved Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas and habi- for all the large commercial fish stocks and for tats marine mammals that are harvested, but it is Activities in particularly valuable and vulnerable more uncertain whether it has been achieved for areas will be conducted with special care and in fish stocks that are not commercially harvested such a way that the ecological functioning and bio- and for benthic organisms. The goal has not been diversity of such areas are not threatened. This goal achieved for seabirds, some of the smaller com- is considered to have been achieved for some par- mercial fish stocks and hooded seals in the Nor- ticularly valuable and vulnerable areas and par- wegian Sea. tially achieved for others, meaning that some of Species that are essential to the structure, functi- the ecosystem components that are evaluated are oning and productivity of ecosystems will be mana- showing a positive trend, while others are stable ged in such a way that they are able to maintain or showing a negative trend. In some particularly their role as key species in the ecosystem concerned. valuable and vulnerable areas, it is uncertain The goal is considered to have been achieved for whether the goal has been achieved. It is often the management of key species in all three man- uncertain whether and to what extent human agement plan areas. activity within a specific area affects its ecological Populations of endangered and vulnerable spe- functioning or biodiversity. Fishing operations, cies and species for which Norway has a special particularly trawling, have been carried out in sev- responsibility will be maintained or restored to via- eral of these areas for many years. Fisheries inevi- ble levels. The goal has not been achieved; popula- tably leave a footprint, and this has been taken tions of many endangered and vulnerable species into account in assessing how far the goal has and species for which Norway has a special been achieved. In addition, biodiversity and pres- responsibility are not at ‘viable levels’ according to sure from human activities have not been ade- the 2015 Norwegian Red List. quately mapped for all the particularly valuable The introduction and spread of alien organisms and vulnerable areas. Because of overexploitation through human activity will be avoided. The goal of the lobster stock and possible indirect effects of has not been achieved for the North Sea– human activity on seabird populations, the goal is Skagerrak management plan area. It is uncertain not considered to have been achieved for three whether it has been achieved in the other manage- particularly valuable and vulnerable areas: the ment plan areas. There is inadequate monitoring Skagerrak transect, the Outer Oslofjord and the of alien organisms that are spread with ballast Skagerrak. water or on ships’ hulls, so that it is not possible to Damage to marine habitats that are considered assess progress towards the goal for such species. to be endangered or vulnerable will be avoided. In It is too early to observe any effects of the imple- assessing progress towards the goal, human activ- mentation of the Ballast Water Management Con- ity in the management plan areas has been taken vention, which entered into force in 2017. into account. Damage is taken to mean damage that can have effects at population level and on biodiversity, not damage to individual specimens Conservation of marine habitat types of animals or plants. Progress towards this goal is The establishment of marine protected areas in Nor- also variable: it has been achieved or partially way’s coastal and marine waters will contribute to achieved for some habitat types, while a lack of an internationally representative network of marine knowledge makes progress difficult to assess for protected areas. The goal is not considered to have other habitat types. The goal has not been been achieved in any of the management plan achieved for two habitat types: Isidella lofotensis areas because much more work remains to be coral gardens and fine-sediment seabed in deep done on implementation of the marine conserva- water in the Skagerrak. tion plan, and because the marine protected areas that have been established are not yet considered to provide a representative network that will main- tain the full range of variation of habitat types. 62 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Climate change, ocean acidification and inputs Sustainable harvesting/use of pollutants such as hazardous substances and Management of living marine resources will be plastic waste are changing the oceans. The scale based on the principles of sustainable harvesting. of these changes is already greater than we have This goal has been achieved for all stocks that are experienced historically as a result of natural vari- harvested in the Norwegian Sea, including both ability, and will increase further (see Chapter 4). large and small commercial stocks. This is affecting not only the marine environment, Living marine resources will be managed sustai- but also the basis for future ocean industries. nably through the ecosystem approach based on the Knowledge about these changes and the ability to best available knowledge. Harvesting will not have predict and counteract them is of critical impor- significant adverse effects on other parts of the tance, both for the management of species and marine ecosystem or its structure. These goals are ecosystems and for further development of ocean considered to have been achieved for the North industries. Such knowledge will also facilitate Sea–Skagerrak management plan area. environmental improvements and strengthen Bycatches of marine mammals and seabirds will green competitiveness in maritime industries. be minimised. It is uncertain whether this goal has been achieved for the North Sea–Skagerrak man- agement plan area. 3.6.1 The ocean environment and climate Living marine resources will be harvested change making use of the best available techniques for diffe- Marked changes have been observed in all three rent types of gear to minimise negative impacts on management plan areas as a result of climate other ecosystem components such as marine mam- change. These changes are expected to continue mals, seabirds and benthic communities. This goal and become more pronounced over time. is considered to have been achieved for the North Together with ocean acidification, climate change Sea–Skagerrak management plan area. is expected to affect not only ocean temperatures, Harvested species will be managed within safe but also ocean currents, ice conditions, extreme biological limits so that their spawning stocks have weather events, wave height and chemical condi- good reproductive capacity. This has been achieved tions such as the pH of seawater and its oxygen for species in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, with content. Physical and chemical data from different the exception of coastal cod and golden redfish. seasons are therefore needed to learn more about The goal has now been achieved for red king crab, year-to-year changes and put us in a position to which is an improvement since 2010. understand changes in ocean climate and ocean acidification. Furthermore, research will be needed to 3.6 Knowledge building and develop methods and models that will improve knowledge needs predictions of how climate change and ocean acid- ification will affect basic ecological variables and Norway gives priority to knowledge-based, inte- processes such as primary production, species grated and responsible ocean management. and stock size and distribution, and future catch Sound management of Norwegian waters must be potential. based on a sound knowledge base built up through mapping, research and environmental monitoring. This chapter outlines the main knowl- 3.6.2 Marine ecosystems edge needs in various areas. Earlier management Knowledge about the marine environment, plans and the Government’s long-term plan for marine ecosystems and processes in the oceans research and higher education have also included makes it possible to follow environmental status an account of significant knowledge needs. Nor- and trends in the management plan areas, manage way’s ocean management regime is based on a the way they are used, and understand relation- considerable body of knowledge, but there are ships between pressures and impacts on ecosys- still major gaps in our knowledge and understand- tems, habitat types and species. A better under- ing of the marine environment, and further map- standing of functions and the natural interplay ping, research and monitoring are needed. Fur- between different components of marine ecosys- ther developing our understanding is a vital basis tems is of key importance for sustainable ocean for sustainable management of marine ecosys- management. tems. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 63 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Box 3.4 The Nansen Legacy project ern Barents Sea. A cruise during the polar night in December 2019 found unexpectedly large numbers of organisms in icy waters in areas of drift ice, and considerable reproductive activity under the ice. Data collected from measuring instruments deployed for more than a year in the Barents Sea shows a considerable inflow of warm Atlantic water into the Barents Sea from the north, which had not previously been observed. Preliminary analysis of geological cores from bottom sediments has provided a better understanding of sea ice dynamics in the Bar- Figure 3.31 The Nansen Legacy: sampling from ents Sea since the last ice age. Analyses of his- the RV Kronprins Haakon in the northern Barents torical ecosystem data from the Barents Sea Sea in December 2019. show how the ocean climate influences the dynamic relationship between zooplankton and Photo: Robin Hjertenes, Institute of Marine Research fish, which has important implications for sus- tainable management. The Nansen Legacy research project started in The project includes 40 early career scien- 2018, and is intended to improve scientific tists, who are working together with established understanding of climate change and marine researchers to collect and analyse data. In ecosystems in the central and northern parts of future, these young researchers will form the the Barents Sea. It involves cooperation between backbone of marine polar research in Norway, ten Norwegian research institutions. across disciplines and institutions. In 2019, five research cruises were carried The project is also focusing on outreach, out, mainly using the ice-class research vessel communicating research questions and results Kronprins Haakon. Interdisciplinary data have to a wide audience through a variety of chan- been collected that show interannual variability nels. Target groups include young people, the in ice cover and water temperature in the north- general public, researchers, decision makers and various interest groups.

There is also a pressing need for more knowl- example to what extent multiple impacts at indi- edge about the ecosystem impacts of climate vidual level translate into population-level impacts. change and ocean acidification. This includes both Further development of a harmonised scale for knowledge about how climate change and ocean pressures and impacts from different sectors is acidification are affecting ecosystems today, and needed, and methods for assessing cumulative knowledge that will improve our ability to predict impact and environmental impacts also need to be future changes and provide a better basis for man- further developed. In the case of climate change, agement. We need more knowledge and a deeper more needs to be learned about how reducing understanding of the pressures on ecosystems other pressures can help to maintain ecosystem caused by factors such as harvesting, pollution, functioning and make ecosystems more resilient, alien species and plastic waste and microplastics and how different policy instruments and combi- (see Chapter 3.6.4). Underwater noise is another nations of them can be used most effectively to example of an area where little is known about achieve this. effects on marine species. Major changes are taking place in seabird pop- Human activity both at sea and on land is put- ulations along the coast. Further studies are ting pressure on marine ecosystems. It is vital to needed to identify the causes and find links develop an overall understanding of the cumula- between ecosystem processes and population tive impacts of the whole range of activities. We do changes. Some studies suggest that there are not know enough about cumulative impacts, for close links between the ocean climate, larval drift 64 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans and declining seabird populations. More knowl- edge is also needed about seabird habitat use throughout the year. Moreover, we need to strengthen the knowl- edge base on the ecosystem impacts of harvesting new species or new ecosystem components. These include the copepod Calanus finmarchicus and mesopelagic fish species, and research must include changing climatic conditions that may result in shifts in species distribution.

3.6.3 Mapping the seabed Mapping of the seabed in Norwegian waters should be continued. The MAREANO pro- gramme, which started in 2005, maps depth and topography, sediment composition, biodiversity, habitats and biotopes, and pollution on the seabed in Norwegian waters. By the end of 2019, depth data were available for 28 % of Norway’s marine and coastal waters. Maps of sediments and biot- opes were available for 10 % and 7 % respectively of marine and coastal waters. The MAREANO programme is important as a basis for integrated, ecosystem-based manage- ment of Norwegian seas and oceans. It is impor- tant to continue this work to build up knowledge Figure 3.32 Areas where the MAREANO programme about seabed habitat types and biotopes with has mapped depth and topography or obtained important functions, and about the resilience and data from other sources. vulnerability of marine benthic ecosystems to dif- Source: MAREANO ferent pressures and to cumulative impacts, based partly on data from the MAREANO programme. tional knowledge base and international coopera- tion. 3.6.4 Marine litter and microplastics More knowledge is needed about plastic waste, microplastics and nanoplastics, including sources, 3.6.5 Environmental monitoring pathways of dispersal, and impacts on the fauna, There is a need to further develop several of the ecosystems, ecosystem services, food safety and indicators used for environmental monitoring or health. Research and innovation is also needed to to improve reporting by making the information find effective and environmentally sound ways of more accessible or improving the monitoring sys- preventing and reducing inputs of marine litter tem. A closer focus on species composition is and microplastics. needed, including species at lower trophic levels, Standardised methods and indicators for and more time series are needed on population measuring and monitoring plastics in the marine size and habitat use. These developments are environment are essential for following trends in needed to make it possible to assess value and vul- quantities and types of plastic over time. nerability on a smaller scale (both temporal and Better data are also needed as a basis for eval- spatial). There are also gaps in the monitoring of uating measures and assessing their effects. benthic communities, alien species, threatened Methods and indicators should be developed species and pollution. through international cooperation, including work Monitoring of pressures and impacts associ- within the OSPAR framework. ated with human activity needs to be further Mapping and monitoring of plastic waste and developed. We also need to improve our under- microplastics in the marine environment in Nor- standing of which changes are caused by pres- way should be expanded and used in the interna- sures from human activity in the management 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 65 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans plan areas or adjoining coastal waters and land, to pressures on areas identified as valuable and and which are related to climate change and other vulnerable. Better and more cost-effective meth- large-scale processes or to natural processes and ods also need to be developed for use in mapping variability in the oceans. This applies particularly and monitoring Norwegian waters. 66 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

4 Changing oceans

Norway has jurisdiction over large marine areas Norwegian seas are part of one continuous that are especially productive and rich in ocean system, and changes in other parts of the resources, but also vulnerable and undergoing world’s oceans also influence areas under Norwe- rapid change. It is a challenging task for the Nor- gian jurisdiction. The entire system is affected by wegian ocean management authorities to maintain climate change and other large-scale pressures. the ecological structure and functioning of these Further development of Norway’s ocean manage- areas, so that they continue to provide a long-term ment system must be based on an understanding basis for value creation and welfare at a time when of how climate change and other large-scale pro- the climate, environmental conditions and ocean cesses are affecting and will change the world’s activities are changing rapidly. oceans and how they are used.

Figure 4.1 Global ocean currents. Norwegian waters form part of a continuous ocean and circulatory system. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 67 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

This chapter describes some of the most increasing across two thirds of this area. There important finds in three key scientific reports on are wide variations between different areas. these issues, all published in 2019: the IPCC Spe- Coastal marine ecosystems in densely populated cial Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a areas and in tropical waters are under the greatest Changing Climate, from the Intergovernmental pressure. However, climate change is also putting Panel on Climate Change, the IPBES Global considerable pressure on the polar seas. Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services According to IPBES, there are four main direct from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat- drivers of change in marine ecosystems. The most form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and important of these globally is fishing and other har- The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change from vesting of marine organisms, followed by land- and the High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean sea-use change, including the development of infra- Economy. The chapter focuses particularly on structure and aquaculture in the coastal zone. The conclusions that are relevant to Norwegian waters third driver is climate change, and the fourth is and possible implications for their management. inputs of pollutants and waste. The relative impor- The world’s oceans contribute to human well- tance of these drivers varies between different being by providing resources such as food, miner- parts of the world’s oceans. In Norwegian waters, als and energy, transport routes and a basis for climate change is the most important driver. recreation and tourism. The oceans also moderate Climate change is also the driver that is inten- global warming by absorbing heat and CO2, and sifying most rapidly worldwide. According to act as a sink for pollutants and waste produced by IPBES, it is likely that the cumulative impacts of a rapidly growing population and expanding econ- climate change, in combination with the changes omy. This also means that the global ocean sys- in the use of marine and coastal waters, overex- tem, from the coastline to the deep sea, is under ploitation of living resources, pollution and the severe and growing pressure from human activity. spread of alien species will further exacerbate Population growth and increasing prosperity negative impacts on ecosystems. The Arctic is are also creating a demand for more food, energy highlighted as one of the regions where this can and other resources from the oceans. The goal of already be observed. rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is IPCC reports show that climate change will intensifying this, for example increasing demand have major impacts both on the oceans and on our for production of offshore renewable energy. use of them. The oceans have taken up more than It is difficult to predict all the impacts of cli- 90 % of the excess heat from anthropogenic global mate and environmental change and expanding warming since 1970, and 20–30 % of total anthro- human activity on the oceans. There is therefore pogenic CO2 emissions since 1980. The rate of growing uncertainty about environmental condi- ocean warming has doubled in the past 25 years. tions in the future and whether there is a viable The IPCC concludes that the oceans are entering basis for industries that depend on marine ecosys- a new state, with rising temperatures, more acidic tems. This will create new challenges for ocean seawater, less oxygen, lower biological production management at national level and for international and changes in ocean circulation. Global sea level ocean cooperation. is expected to rise rapidly. Deterioration of the marine environment is also undermining the viability of the ocean econ- omy. The OECD has described degradation of the marine environment as a result of climate change, ocean acidification, overfishing, land- and sea-use change and inputs of pollutants and plastic waste as a serious threat that is limiting opportunities for further development and growth.

4.1 Changing world oceans – drivers of change and impacts

IPBES has estimated that more than 40 % of the world’s ocean area is already strongly affected by Figure 4.2 Kelp forest in Norway. human activity, and that cumulative impacts are Photo: Erling Svensen 68 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Low emission scenario (RCP2.6) High emission scenario (RCP8.5)

a) Simulated net primary production

b) Simulated total animal biomass

c) Maximum fisheries catch potential

Percent change Averagegyg byy 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005

<–50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 >50

Figure 4.3 Projected changes in the world’s oceans by the end of this century: a) net primary production, b) total animal biomass, and c) maximum fisheries catch potential. Purple indicates a rise and orange a decline. The two sets of diagrams show, left, a low-emission scenario (RCP2.6), and right, a high-emission scenario (RCP8.5). Shaded areas indicate where there is disagreement between models, and white areas where there is a lack of data. Although the Arctic and Antarctic regions are not shaded in b) and c), there is considerable uncertainty associated with how different drivers interact and ecosystem responses in these regions. Source: IPCC

According to the IPCC report, marine and forests, eelgrass meadows, cold-water coral reefs coastal areas at lower latitudes will be hardest hit. and ecosystems associated with the Arctic sea ice. However, important marine ecosystems in Norwe- Figure 4.4 shows the vulnerability of different gian waters are also vulnerable to rising tempera- marine ecosystems to climate change. tures and ocean acidification. These include kelp 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 69 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Level of added impact/risk from climate change

Very high

High

Moderate

Undetectable

Global mean sea surface temperature (SST) change relative to pre-industrial level (oC) 4

5

3 4

3 2

2 1,5 1 1 Global mean surface temperature (GMST) change relative to pre-industrial levels (ºC) present day 0 0 Warm water Kelp Seagrass Epipelagic Rocky Salt Cold water Estuaries Sandy Mangrove Abyssal corals forests meadows (0-200m shores marshes corals beaches forests plains depth) (3000-6000m depth)

Figure 4.4 Assessment of impacts and risks for coastal and open ocean ecosystems under global warming. The left-hand y axis shows the rise in global mean surface temperature. The right-hand y axis shows the corresponding rise in global mean sea surface temperature. Temperature rise is relative to pre-industrial levels. The black band shows the present-day temperature. Source: IPCC

Globally, biological production in the oceans is As the oceans warm, there is a rise in the fre- expected to decline as the oceans warm. The quency of marine heatwaves, or periods when sea- decline will be greatest in tropical seas (Figure water temperatures are extremely high. Their fre- 4.3). At the same time, the distribution of areas of quency has already risen considerably, and by the suitable habitat for many species will shift towards end of this century, they are expected to occur the poles. Seawater will become increasingly 20–50 times as often as at present. Tropical and acidic as it absorbs more CO2. These trends will Arctic waters are particularly vulnerable to such result in major changes in marine ecosystems. The episodes. The rising frequency of marine heat- IPCC has estimated that the global catch potential waves has already resulted in serious damage to of fisheries may be reduced by up to 25 % by 2100 tropical coral reefs. if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced. In At higher latitudes, kelp forests are among the this case too, the reduction is expected to be great- ecosystems that are affected, particularly in the est in the tropics. Changes in catch potential in southern parts of their distribution. This is polar waters are expected to vary, and may be pos- already clearly apparent in the Skagerrak, where itive in certain areas (Figure 4.3). marine heatwaves have in recent decades been a The changes we have witnessed so far in the contributory factor in the serious decline in the North Sea and the Barents Sea, where biological distribution of sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima). production has declined in southerly areas and While kelp forests may be lost in more southerly increased further north in response to higher sea- areas, their range may expand in the Arctic. This water temperatures, are in line with the expected is consistent with the recovery of kelp forests that large-scale changes described by the IPCC. has been observed off the coast of Trøndelag and 70 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

of temperate species will continue to expand RUSSIA northwards. The loss of multi-year ice will also have an effect on primary production and biodi- versity. This will have impacts on ecosystems in the marginal ice zone, on the seabed and in the open sea. Changes in marine ecosystems are being amplified by ocean acidification, which is a result of the uptake of a proportion of anthropogenic CO2 emissions by seawater. Both the risk to eco- GREENLAND systems and uncertainty about future trends are greater when ocean acidification is taken into account. Cold water can absorb more CO2 than warmer water. This makes Arctic waters particu- larly vulnerable, and ocean acidification is wide- Figure 4.5 The map shows sea ice extent in the spread and rapid in the region. According to the Arctic (white area) in September 2018. The red line IPCC, the area of the Arctic Ocean where calcium shows the 1981 to 2010 average extent for the same saturation is so low that calcium dissolves has month. Based on satellite images and the Sea Ice expanded. This may have impacts on calcifying Index from the US National Snow & Ice Data Center. organisms. In Norwegian waters, acidification has been registered in the Norwegian Sea, but not so Source: Norwegian Environment Agency far in the Barents Sea. It is considered highly likely that there will be substantial changes in marine Arctic ecosystems Nordland. Kelp forests are important nursery as a result of ocean acidification, and that there areas for fish and a vital habitat for a large number will be both direct and indirect impacts on marine of marine species. Changes in the distribution of organisms. Recent modelling suggests that ocean kelp forests may therefore result in major acidification will increase and there will be a changes in ecosystems both further south and in steady decline in pH during this century, and Arctic waters. abrupt changes in acidity level are projected in the In the Arctic seas, major changes can already Nordic seas and the Arctic in the period up to be observed as a result of warmer seawater and 2065. This may have impacts both on interspecific the loss of sea ice. Since 1979, there has been a competition and on the relationships between dif- decline in sea ice in all seasons. In the period ferent trophic levels in food chains. 1979–2018, sea ice extent in September declined Rising CO2 emissions are the most important by 12.8 % per decade. This is the most rapid cause of both global warming and ocean acidifica- decrease for at least 1000 years. tion. Both of these processes will therefore inten- The Barents Sea is one of the areas where sea sify as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 ice is being lost most rapidly, and a steep down- rises. Interactions between ocean acidification and ward trend has been observed in winter as well. global warming thus have important implications As the seawater has become warmer, the distribu- for the marine environment in the future. This is tion of temperate species has expanded, while that particularly true in the Arctic, where both warm- of Arctic fish species and ice-dependent species ing and acidification are occurring most rapidly. has shrunk, see Chapter 3. Species such as cod, Although we can be reasonably certain that north- haddock and mackerel have expanded their range ern seas will become both warmer and more hundreds of kilometres northwards. The rapid acidic as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, loss of sea ice in the Barents Sea since satellite there is still considerably uncertainty about the measurements started in 1979 is believed to be future impacts on marine organisms and the the result of a combination of global warming and socio-economic consequences of this. natural climate variability, since there was a cold According to the report AMAP Assessment period in the late 1970s. 2018: Arctic Ocean Acidification from the Arctic According to the IPCC, the suitable habitat Council, current knowledge indicates that ocean available to polar species will continue to shrink as acidification will drive changes in Arctic species a result of climate change, while the distribution and ecosystems at a magnitude that will affect people and communities. The report presents five 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 71 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans case studies exploring the socio-economic increase the accumulation of hazardous sub- impacts of ocean acidification and warmer seawa- stances in marine plants and animals, for example ter on fisheries in Greenland, Canada, Alaska and in the Arctic. Norway, and concludes that the changes will pose As the sea temperature rises, there is a north- considerable risks, although new opportunities ward shift in the areas that are most suitable for may also arise. For Norwegian waters, the Bar- salmon farming, and the most southerly areas ents Sea cod stock has been modelled to examine become less suitable. The Nofima research insti- how the combination of climate change and ocean tute has analysed projected temperature trends in acidification may affect the cod fishery. The Norway’s aquaculture regions up to 2070, and has results indicate that the catch potential may be concluded that warmer water may become a prob- reduced by 80 % by 2100 if CO2 emissions con- lem for farmed salmon in the southern part of the tinue to rise. These results are based on data from country even in a low-emission scenario. laboratory experiments, and have not yet been Climate change will also have impacts on the confirmed by documented real-world effects. major ocean currents and their influence on the There is considerable uncertainty concerning the climate system. The main current system in the results of all five case studies. Nevertheless, they Atlantic Ocean, the Atlantic Meridional Overturn- give an idea of possible consequences, and of the ing Circulation (AMOC) which includes the Gulf risks and possible new opportunities associated Stream and the Norwegian Atlantic current, has with climate change and ocean acidification in already been weakened. This trend is expected to Arctic seas. continue. Any substantial weakening of this sys- Cold-water corals (Figure 4.7) are particularly tem will, according to the modelling results used vulnerable to ocean acidification, and could in the by the IPCC, result in lower biological production worst case die out or be outcompeted by other in the North Atlantic and an increase in the num- species that are more resistant to acidification. ber of storms in Europe. Cold-water coral reefs are important ecosystems The IPCC’s projections of climate and environ- in Norwegian waters, and provide food and habi- mental change correspond well with trends in cli- tats for many species, including tusk, saithe and mate and environmental variables that can already redfish. be observed and measured today, both in Norwe- The IPCC report shows that climate change, gian waters and elsewhere in the world. Both pro- particularly in combination with inputs of nutri- jections and observations show that climate ents, may be the reason for the observed increase change poses a considerable risk to ecosystems in in the frequency of toxic algal blooms in many Norwegian waters and to Norwegian seafood pro- areas, including the North Atlantic. This trend duction. This risk will be far greater in the long may have implications for the Norwegian aquacul- term if emissions continue to rise than if we ture industry in future. Climate change may also achieve rapid cuts in global emissions.

Low-emission scenario High-emission scenario

Figure 4.6 Projected distribution of aragonite undersaturation caused by ocean acidification towards the end of this century. Red shading indicates the areas where greatest acidification is expected. The two maps show a low-emission scenario (left, RCP2.6) and a high-emission scenario (right, RCP8.5). They show areas where year-round aragonite undersaturation is projected in the upper water layers in the period 2081–2100. More acidic seawater and aragonite undersaturation may have negative impacts on important marine species that are dependent on calcium to build their skeletons or shells, and thus alter marine ecosystems. Source: IPCC 72 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

4.2 Climate change mitigation the global temperature increase to well below measures will also have impacts on 2°C. the oceans At the Climate Action Summit held in conjunc- tion with the UN General Assembly in 2019, the Climate change and ocean acidification are alter- High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Econ- ing the ecological basis for exploiting ocean omy called on the world to step up ocean-based resources; at the same time, action to achieve the mitigation action to support the implementation of necessary emission reductions will intensify the the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Develop- need to make use of the oceans, for example to ment Goals. The High-level Panel emphasised increase production of food and renewable that ocean-based climate action could deliver up to energy. This will have implications for marine spa- one fifth of the emission reductions needed to tial management and may intensify pressure on limit global warming to 1.5 °C. The call was based the marine environment. on the conclusions of a special report commis- It is possible to produce food from the oceans sioned by the High-level Panel. This estimate is with a relatively low environmental and carbon very uncertain, and much more research is footprint. Food production from the oceans can be needed to confirm it, but the report shows that the considerably increased if the marine ecosystems ocean economy and ocean management can play that provide the basis for this production are safe- an important role in reducing greenhouse gas guarded. The greatest potential for increasing sus- emissions and implementing the Paris Agree- tainable food production from the sea lies in ment. expanding aquaculture. There is also a large The mitigation potential is split between five unused potential for energy and mineral produc- main areas: ocean-based renewable energy; tion from the oceans. Renewable energy from the ocean-based transport; coastal and marine ecosys- oceans and carbon storage under the seabed will tems; fisheries, aquaculture and dietary shifts; need to be a vital part of the solution if the world is and carbon storage in the seabed. to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of holding

Figure 4.7 Cold-water coral reefs are a habitat for a wide variety of species. Photo: Erling Svensen 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 73 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

There are strong Norwegian strong research Increasing food production from the oceans may groups and administrative bodies in these areas, also play a part in reducing greenhouse gas emis- and the business sector is at the forefront of devel- sions. Dietary measures, which include increas- opments, putting the country in a good position to ing consumption of seafood, and measures to lead the way. However, increasing production of reduce food waste, are estimated to have emis- food and renewable energy from the oceans could sion-reduction potentials of 2.9 and 1.5 million have a substantial environmental footprint and tonnes CO2 respectively. occupy large areas of ocean. Economic growth and new technologies A Norwegian review of mitigation measures intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will has been published analysing their potential for require access to greater quantities of minerals. reducing emissions of greenhouses gases that are Examples include battery production and long- not included in the EU Emissions Trading System distance electricity transmission. Even if recycling by 2030. The analysis was carried out by the Nor- is increased and a more circular economy is devel- wegian Environment Agency, the Norwegian Pub- oped, mineral extraction will need to be expanded. lic Roads Administration, the Norwegian Coastal There is therefore growing interest in the Administration, the Norwegian Agricultural exploitation of seabed mineral resources, and Agency, the Norwegian Water Resources and Norway has recently adopted national legislation Energy Directorate and Enova. The report identi- in this area. This is yet another activity that may fied measures that could reduce emissions from affect the marine environment. shipping, fisheries and aquaculture by 6.6 million These developments highlight both the poten- tonnes CO2 equivalent in the period up to 2030. tial and the challenges related to spatial manage- According to the report, intensifying efforts to ment and possible environmental impacts as the speed up the transition to low- and zero-emission world makes more use of the oceans to reduce solutions in these industries will be important in global greenhouse gas emissions. achieving Norway’s climate target for 2030.

3.0

Use of biofuels Shoreside electric power Remaining emissions Aquaculture service vessels 2.0 Ferries Offshore support vessels eq 2 High-speed vessels High-speed vessels Ferries Offshore support vessels Non-bulk cargo vessels Fishing vessels Tankers and bulk carriers Million CO tonnes Aquaculture service vessels 1.0 Cruise ships, international passenger ferries Other (specialised vessels, other passenger vessels) Shoreside electric power Use of biofuels Technical and operational measures

0.0

Figure 4.8 Emission reduction potential of mitigation measures for shipping for the period 2021–2030. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency 74 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

4.3 Implications for ocean governance International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Both the IPCC and IPBES have concluded that IPBES has assessed what will be needed to ocean governance must be adapted to the acceler- manage the cumulative impacts of various drivers ating pace of climate and environmental change. on the oceans. It concluded that what is needed is Ocean governance must take into account the pos- a mix of policy instruments and measures to con- sible impacts of climate change in combination serve fish stocks and marine species and ecosys- with other drivers of change, and it must be possi- tems, implemented on land, in freshwater and in ble to adapt quickly as the situation changes. As the oceans. Coordination across sectors and climate change and ocean acidification intensify, it stakeholders on the use of open oceans will also will be more difficult for administrative authorities be needed. One type of action that IPBES high- to ensure that overall patterns of use and resource lights as effective is the expansion and strength- exploitation are sustainable, and to deal with new ening of representative networks of protected and intersecting user interests and possible con- areas, provided that they are well managed. Oth- flicts related to changes in the distribution of liv- ers are ecosystem-based management, effective ing marine resources. And not least, it will be an fisheries quota systems, marine spatial manage- increasingly challenging task to understand and ment, protecting key marine biodiversity areas, limit the cumulative impacts of different activities reducing pollution from land and working closely in ways that maintain good environmental status. with producers and consumers. It will therefore be a vital task to ensure that ocean The IPCC emphasises that adaptation of ocean management authorities in Norway have the governance frameworks to make them climate- capacity and sufficient flexibility to deal with the resilient to a large extent involves reducing or lim- accelerating pace of change. iting other direct drivers of change in marine and One important message from the IPCC is that coastal environments, such as land- and sea-use the higher the pace of climate change and the change, pollution and harvesting. Conservation of more adaptation action is delayed, the more diffi- ecosystems through area-based measures, includ- cult it will be to adapt successfully, and the less ing developing networks of protected areas on likely it is that adaptation will be successful. In the land and at sea, is highlighted as particularly longer term, successful ocean governance and cli- important. This can help to reduce cumulative mate change adaptation will be dependent on suc- impacts on areas and ecosystems that are given cess in bringing about rapid cuts in global green- special protection, and to protect areas that will house gas emissions and on taking early adapta- become important as the distribution of species tion action. Thus, there are crucial links between and ecosystems changes in response to climate climate policy, mitigation measures and efforts to change. ensure integrated ocean management in Norwe- The climate is changing most rapidly in the gian waters. polar regions, and according to the IPCC, this This highlights the need to exploit the poten- poses risks to commercial and subsistence fisher- tial of the oceans and the ocean economy to play a ies in the Arctic. This may have implications for part in climate change mitigation. According to regional economies and communities and for the IPCC, the scale and speed of the impacts of cli- global supplies of fish and seafood. If emissions mate change on the oceans will be such that it will remain high, current management strategies may be difficult for many communities to adapt to not make it possible to sustain current catch lev- them, and for public authorities to respond ade- els for some commercially valuable stocks. The quately. In particular, the IPCC points out that IPCC noted that the capacity of governance sys- governance systems are often too fragmented and tems in the Arctic and many other ocean regions poorly integrated across sectors and administra- has been strengthened, but nevertheless con- tive divisions, making it difficult to respond in a cluded that this is not happening rapidly enough way that is commensurate with the challenges fac- to address the projected changes. ing us. Norway’s ocean management plans stand Both the IPCC and IPBES identify ecosystem- out in this context because of their cross-sectoral based management of the oceans and marine approach. Norway’s fisheries management resources as an important approach for address- regime also stands out because it is constantly ing climate change. This is also the fundamental adapted to the latest available knowledge about approach of Norway’s ocean management plans stocks and ecosystems, which is obtained from and of management of marine resources as set out marine research groups and institutions and the in the Marine Resources Act. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 75 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

The cross-sectoral system of integrated ocean to address these challenges. We must for example management plans combined with sound manage- take into account changes to marine ecosystems ment within each sector puts Norway in a good and species distribution resulting from climate position to deal with the challenges arising from change and ocean acidification, which may make rising activity levels and rapid climate and envi- many species and ecosystems more vulnerable to ronmental change. The length of Norway’s coast- other pressures. This will require research to line from north to south is also a good starting understand climate change and its impacts on the point for adapting management systems to the oceans, and monitoring to make it possible to shifts in the distribution of species and ecosys- detect changes at an early stage; the public admin- tems that are being driven by climate change. istration will also need systems in place to enable However, it will be vital to continue the devel- a rapid response to new information, including opment of Norway’s management regime in order necessary measures. 76 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

5 The ocean-based industries

Norway is rich in natural resources and has way, which are presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. always taken a long-term approach to resource After the knowledge base had been compiled, Sta- management for the benefit of society as a whole. tistics Norway revised the underlying data and Ocean industries play a vital part in value creation provided updated figures for 2010 and 2016 for the in Norway, and the oceans provide livelihoods for four sectors. It also provided national figures for many coastal communities. Some of the country’s 2010, 2016 and 2019, with the exception of 2019 most innovative businesses, jobs and knowledge figures for the tourism sector. institutions have their origins in human settle- The figures indicate value added and employ- ment along the coast and use of the oceans. Close ment in core activities and for the largest direct cooperation between knowledge institutions, the supplier companies for each sector. The figures business sector, employees and authorities has include exports related to core activities but not to played an important role in the historical develop- supply industries, and do not include wider spin- ment of Norway as an ocean economy. off effects. There will be substantial opportunities in the There are major opportunities for blue growth. future for growth and new jobs in industries that The OECD estimates that the global ocean econ- operate in a global market. For the foreseeable omy will double by 2030 from the 2010 level, while future, the oceans will continue to be a vital basis providing a total of 40 million jobs. The world pop- for jobs, value creation and welfare throughout ulation will be close to 10 billion by 2050, and an Norway, and they can also be part of the solution increasing number of people will enjoy improve- to the environmental and climate-related chal- ments in purchasing power. This will result in lenges the world must deal with. The Government growing needs for food, energy, goods and ser- recognises that marine resources are important vices. There is also potential for further growth in for national value creation, and considers it impor- both established and emerging ocean industries tant for exploitation of natural resources to have in Norway. positive spin-off effects for communities. Green transformation of the ocean industries As part of the work on the scientific basis for in Norway and internationally will also offer rich the management plan, the Forum for Integrated opportunities, involving both established and Ocean Management obtained figures for value emerging industries. Offshore wind, carbon cap- added and employment in the seafood, petroleum, ture and storage under the seabed, and green shipping and tourism sectors from Statistics Nor- shipping are among the areas where Norway has

Table 5.1 Comparison of value added in four ocean industries in each of the management plan areas and the totals for Norway. Value added is shown in NOK billion (in current prices).

Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak Norway, total Industry 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2019 Seafood 11.9 21.4 12.3 20.3 8.9 16.8 33.1 57.9 64.7 Petroleum 21.2 25.3 143.9 112.0 431.4 341.1 596.6 478.5 566.8 Shipping 1.3 1.0 4.1 4.6 26.7 35.0 32.2 40.7 39.8 Tourism1 2.4 3.7 2.5 4.0 9.6 14.2 32.2 45.4 - Sum 36.8 51.4 162.8 140.9 476.6 407.1 694.1 622.5 671.3

1 No figures for tourism are available for 2019. Source: Statistics Norway 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 77 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Table 5.2 Comparison of employment in the four ocean industries in each of the management plan areas and the totals for Norway. Employment figures in 1 000s.

Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak Norway, total Industry 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2019 Seafood 9.4 11.3 8.4 8.5 7.1 8.0 24.9 28.0 30.7 Petroleum 13.7 14.5 25.8 25.8 73.8 74.3 113.4 114.6 110.0 Shipping 1.7 2.9 5.7 4.4 20.4 25.2 27.8 32.5 32.0 Tourism1 4.8 6.1 4.8 7.1 17.1 21.0 74.2 88.4 - Sum 29.6 34.8 44.7 45.8 118.4 128.5 166.1 263.5 172.7

1 No figures for tourism are available for 2019. Source: Statistics Norway much to offer and where sound ocean manage- Norwegian seafood exports amounted to ment can promote the green transition. In 2019, NOK 107.3 billion. the Government presented an action plan for green shipping as part of the follow-up of its strat- egy for green competitiveness. 5.1.1 Current status and expected developments in economic activity Fishing, sealing, whaling and other harvesting are 5.1 Food production from the oceans based on wild living marine resources. Wild living marine resources belong to Norwegian society as Norway has a large and profitable fisheries and a whole and are to be managed in a sustainable, aquaculture sector, which harvests and produces economically profitable way that safeguards a total of more than 3 million tonnes of seafood a genetic material derived from them and promotes year, mainly for export. Thus, the importance of employment and settlement in coastal communi- Norwegian seafood production reaches far ties. Knowledge- and ecosystem-based manage- beyond Norway’s borders. In 2019, the value of ment of marine resources will make it possible to continue to work towards these goals.

4.0 25

3.5 20 3.0

2.5 15 2.0

1.5 10

1.0 Value (billion 2019 NOK)

Catch (million tonnes) 5 0.5

0.0 0 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Catch quantity (million tonnes) Value (billion NOK)

Figure 5.1 Norwegian marine capture fisheries, 1945–2019. The figure shows catch quantity (blue area) and landed value (green line). Source: Directorate of Fisheries 78 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Catches by Norwegian vessels for the country invited municipalities to put forward proposals for as a whole totalled 2.7 million tonnes in 2010 and areas to be permanently closed to lobster trap- 2.2 million tonnes in 2016. The downturn is pri- ping. So far 41 such areas have been established marily due to reduced catches of Norwegian but more are needed to build up the lobster stock. spring-spawning herring and capelin in the Bar- The Directorate’s invitation for municipalities to ents Sea–Lofoten management plan area. At the initiate local processes is therefore still open, and same time, the cod harvest has increased from the aim is to establish an area in each relevant about 280 000 tonnes to 400 000 tonnes, which municipality that is closed to lobster trapping. A partly explains the increase in value added from number of processes are already under way and 2010 to 2016. the number of areas will increase. Over time the number of fishing vessels has In the Skagerrak, shrimp trawling is one of the declined steeply, from 41 000 in 1960 to just over most important fisheries. 17 000 in 1990. Since 2010 there has been little fur- In the Norwegian Sea, catches of the main spe- ther reduction, and the number of vessels has cies (herring, mackerel, saithe and cod) totalled been more or less constant, with a slight rise in 531 802 tonnes in 2013 and 678 803 tonnes in recent years due in part to the expansion of 2017. In both 2013 and 2017, herring accounted wrasse fishing. The fisheries have also become for the largest landed catch, 219 758 tonnes and much more efficient, and catch per person has 231 653 tonnes respectively. The increase in risen by a factor of twenty since 1945. landed volume was mainly due to a sharp rise in Changes in the oceans affect fish stocks, and mackerel catches (from 31 928 tonnes in 2013 to fisheries are affected by processes of change in 167 747 tonnes in 2017). the oceans, making it necessary to adjust catch Northeast Arctic cod is currently fished in sizes, management regimes and the way stocks large parts of the Norwegian Sea and the Barents are shared with other countries. Climate change Sea. If its distribution changes further in a north- and other pressures are expected to result in erly and easterly direction, the Norwegian Sea major changes in the size and distribution of fish may become less important for cod fishing. stocks in the years ahead, creating challenges for In the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, there was a fisheries and fisheries management. sharp reduction in landed catches of the main fish The Northeast Arctic cod fishery is still the stocks from 2010 to 2016. The most important most important in Norway, and the stock is being species in the Barents Sea are cod, haddock, her- sustainably managed. However, it may be affected ring and capelin. The overall reduction was pri- by factors such as climate change and ocean acidi- marily due to reductions in landed catches of her- fication in future. The fjord and coastal cod stocks ring and capelin. The capelin stock fluctuated, and in North Norway are in poorer condition. in 2016 the catch was set at zero. At the same In the North Sea–Skagerrak area, total time, landed catches of cod have increased some- catches of the most important species were stable what, from 239 247 tonnes in 2010 to 346 361 in the period 2010–2017. The main species are tonnes in 2016. mackerel, herring, sandeels, Norway pout and Rising sea temperatures and greater inflow of shrimps. Mackerel catches declined from 129 068 Atlantic water are the main reasons for the north- tonnes in 2010 to 51 910 tonnes in 2017. Norway erly shift in the distribution of fish stocks. It pout catches also declined (from 65 634 tonnes to appears likely that the focal point for important 21 357 tonnes) while there was an increase in the Norwegian fisheries will shift northwards and landed volume of herring and sandeels. eastwards in coming years. As the sea ice melts, For some years now, a northward shift in the previously inaccessible areas are likely to become distribution of key fish stocks has been observed. accessible for fishing. It will be important to carry For example, the distribution of mackerel has out specific assessments of which areas can be been changing, and the important North Sea fish- opened for fisheries, and where the presence of ery has largely moved northwards to the Norwe- valuable and vulnerable areas indicates that this gian Sea in recent years. should not be done. There is considerable commercial interest in Red king crabs are harvested only in the Bar- lobster trapping along the coast, particularly in ents Sea. The current management regime for the Southern Norway. Because of the decline in the red king crab is two-pronged, with different man- stock, stricter harvesting rules were introduced, agement objectives east and west of 26° E. Har- but this alone has not been enough to improve vesting is regulated by quotas east of this line, but stock status. In 2014, the Directorate of Fisheries is unrestricted west of the line to attempt to limit 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 79 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans the westward spread of the species. The Norwe- 5.1.2 Potential growth in food production gian management regime for red king crab is from the oceans – new opportunities intended to maintain an area for commercial har- vesting to support the parts of the fishing industry Harvesting snow crab most seriously affected by the red king crab, Current knowledge indicates that there is no while at the same time taking steps to limit its fur- potential to increase harvesting of wild fisheries ther spread. Management of this species is based resources that are already exploited, with the on knowledge about its impacts on the ecosystem exception of snow crab. Most stocks are already and about how realistic it is to limit its spread. fully exploited, but it may be possible to target There are wrasse fisheries in all three manage- operations to catch fish of optimal size. ment plan areas. Wrasses are used in controlling Since snow crabs were first recorded near sea lice in salmon farms. In recent years, wrasse Novaya Zemlya OK in the Barents Sea in 1996, the catches have increased considerably, and this has species has been spreading northwards and west- had major impacts on local stocks. Regulatory wards, and has now expanded to all suitable habi- measures have been introduced for these species, tat on the Norwegian continental shelf. The snow including quotas and limitations on access. crab population has the potential to grow much There has been little change in kelp harvest- larger, and the species could have a major impact ing technology and the management of kelp har- on populations of other benthic organisms. So far vesting in recent years. Kelp is harvested in the no negative effects of snow crabs or harvesting of North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. There may be snow crabs on fisheries resources have been reg- conflicts of interest between the role of kelp as a istered. harvestable resource and its role in providing eco- Norwegian vessels began harvesting snow system services and as a habitat. crab in 2012. For 2020, a quota of 4 500 tonnes has The Norwegian whale catch has remained sta- been set in the Norwegian zone, equating to a ble at just over 400 minke whales annually. Minke landed value of roughly NOK 400 million. Cur- whales are caught in all three management plan rently, only part of the Norwegian continental areas. shelf west of the Loophole is of interest for com- Aquaculture operations in Norway’s internal mercial fishing of snow crab. The population has waters are outside the scope of the management risen significantly since 2010, but there is consid- plans, but form part of the whole picture because erable uncertainty relating to productivity and car- they depend on good environmental conditions rying capacity. In the long term, snow crab may and can have an impact on the marine environ- become a resource in the same way as other ment. important stocks, but which areas develop a com- mercial density of crabs will depend on factors such as depth, temperature and food availability. Trapping of snow crabs may also lead to spatial conflicts with other activities such as shrimp trawling.

Figure 5.2 The copepod Calanus finmarchicus (left) and a mesopelagic lanternfish (right). Photo: Erling Svensen (left); Institute of Marine Research (right) 80 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

The snow crab is in some ways similar to the ogy and developing catch technology and process- red king crab, but differs regarding uncertainty as ing techniques. to whether it is an alien species (originally intro- There is also a potential for developing har- duced by human activity) or has expanded its vesting of benthic resources at low trophic levels, range naturally. Red king crabs are found near the such as sea cucumbers and bivalves, but the coast, but it is unlikely that snow crabs will knowledge base on the harvesting potential, eco- become established along the coast of mainland system effects of harvesting and food safety will Norway. have to be strengthened. A precautionary approach must be taken to all new types of har- vesting, and more knowledge is needed about the Harvesting of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus and environmental effects and impacts on food chains mesopelagic species of such activities. Harvesting of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus and mesopelagic species, i.e. harvesting at lower trophic levels than has been the case until now, Offshore aquaculture may expand considerably in the coming years. Marine aquaculture is the cultivation of marine Each year since 2003, C. finmarchicus has been organisms in both fed and unfed production sys- harvested under an experimental licence. In 2018, tems. Production may take place in open or closed the catch quantity was just over 1 300 tonnes, systems, and near the coast or offshore. Currently which is nearly double the quantity in 2017. In Norwegian aquaculture is heavily dominated by future, harvesting will be in accordance with the salmonids, which are fed. management plan that has been adopted. Considerable technological innovation is in Licences for copepod trawling have now been progress on production of salmon and rainbow granted, and a total allowable catch (TAC) has trout in the future. The industry could change a been set. C. finmarchicus occurs in all three man- great deal in the coming years, particularly with agement plan areas, but mainly in the Norwegian the development of offshore aquaculture. The Sea. Government has been using a system of develop- A great deal of development work is being ment licences to promote the development of new done on mesopelagic species, and the potential for aquaculture technology, including technology that harvesting could be large. Mesopelagic is used to is better suited to more exposed locations. Off- describe species that live at depths of 200 to 1 000 shore aquaculture is not likely to replace existing metres in the water column. There have only been forms of aquaculture but rather supplement very limited catches of mesopelagic species by coastal aquaculture production. Norwegian vessels up to now, but there is interest The Government is taking steps to facilitate in commercial harvesting of these resources. the development of offshore aquaculture. These Developments are in progress, and 2019 was the include the development of legislation, the siting first year when there were significant catches by of facilities within areas that are opened for off- Norwegian vessels. shore aquaculture, clarification of legislation on Much work remains to be done on both C. fin- the working environment, safety and emergency marchicus and mesopelagic species in order to preparedness, and rules on registration and if realise the major potential for harvesting in the appropriate mortgaging of aquaculture installa- form of new profitable fisheries. It is unclear to tions. Spatial management issues relating to off- what extent large-scale harvesting of copepods shore aquaculture are further discussed in and mesopelagic species will be developed, for a Chapter 7. number of reasons. There is a huge biomass of resources at lower trophic levels, so that there is theoretically a large potential for commercial Cultivation of other species activity and value creation. There may be many By November 2017, licences had been issued for areas of use for these resources, and feed for the cultivation of macroalgae at 47 sites in Norway, aquaculture industry will be particularly impor- covering a total planned area of 465 hectares. A tant. Knowledge development in a number of number of companies are interested in combining areas will be required to realise the potential for kelp production with salmon farming, since for harvesting both C. finmarchicus and mesopelagic example sugar kelp can make use of dissolved species, including learning more about their biol- nutrients from salmon production. Several research licences have been granted for studying 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 81 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Box 5.1 Kelp cultivation Since 2012 there has been consistently strong ferred to the county authorities, so it is now the commercial interest in kelp farming. The Minis- same administrative agency that is responsible try of Trade, Industry and Fisheries has issued for issuing all ordinary aquaculture licences. aquaculture licences for cultivation of macroal- Sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) and dab- gae to almost 50 different companies at over 80 berlocks (Alaria esculenta) are the main species sites from Rogaland to Finnmark counties. More currently being cultivated in Norway, but aqua- applications are being processed. From 1 June culture licences have been issued for more than 2019, the authority to grant aquaculture licences 30 different species of macroalgae. for the cultivation of aquatic plants was trans-

Figure 5.3 Production of sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) (left). Juvenile sporophytes of dabberlocks (Alaria esculenta) on a seed rope (right). Photo: Seaweed AS/Audun Oddekalv (left); Silje Forbord/SINTEF Ocean (right)

Kelp is used in a wide range of products, includ- centration in certain kelp species. The Norwe- ing food, feed, pharmaceuticals, biochemicals, gian Food Safety Authority and the Institute of plastics, biofuels, fertiliser and pesticides. Kelp Marine Research are obtaining more knowledge cultivated in Norway is used primarily for about the safe use of algae and algal products. human consumption in restaurants and health Kelp farming is still in the research and food products. Kelp farming can have positive development phase. Feedback from companies environmental effects by 1) replacing products that have started sugar kelp production indi- made from fossil raw materials, 2) replacing cates that they are being successful. However, feed protein derived from areas that were origi- for the industry to become commercially profita- nally rainforest, and 3) helping to recycle nutri- ble, it will have to resolve various issues relating ents from fish farming (through integrated to kelp biology, documentation of food safety, multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA)). development of equipment, product develop- Industrial-scale kelp farming will occupy con- ment and markets. Kelp farmers have organised siderable areas, which may create new spatial various networks to share knowledge and expe- conflicts and possibly introduce new environ- rience. In 2018, according to statistics from the mental problems. Good spatial planning is the Directorate of Fisheries, 170 tonnes of kelp was best way of avoiding conflict. There are also cultivated, primarily sugar kelp. food safety issues, such as the high iodine con- 82 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

are not utilised, and there is room for improve- Feed, fur farming 2% ment in the shellfish sector as well. Consumption, other 7% The pelagic sector could supply even greater quantities of residual raw materials if the fish were to be sold filleted rather than exported whole, as they often are at present. Given the existing catch Biogas/energy quantities, it is estimated that the unexploited Feed, pets 27% potential for residual raw materials is 210 000– 17% 230 000 tonnes a year, mainly from the Barents Sea–Lofoten management plan area. Assuming that this would give a yield of 5 % fish meal costing NOK 10 per kilogram, the value would be Feed, fish farming Feed, livestock NOK 100 million. This is residual raw material 23% 24% that would primarily be suitable for use in fish feed production. Other residual raw materials could be used domestically if Norway were to export more pelagic fish as fillets.

Figure 5.4 Areas of application for residual raw 5.1.3 Value added and employment materials from fish and shellfish production. Fishing has been an essential basis for settlement Source: BarentsWatch (Kontali and SINTEF) all along Norway’s long coastline. Norwegian waters have always provided a rich harvest of fish, which are still a vital natural resource today. More this further. Cultivation of macroalgae needs rela- recently, fish farming has emerged as an industry tively large sea areas. It is difficult to estimate of great economic importance. There are large value added and employment associated with this numbers of aquaculture facilities from the south- industry in future. western tip of Norway northwards along the Cultivation of organisms that do not require coast, but very few along the Skagerrak coast. feeding, such as bivalves and kelp, offers consid- Fish processing is also an important industry, erable potential. Scaling up production will with processing plants located along the coast require more knowledge about issues including where they can conveniently receive supplies food safety, environmental impacts, technology from fisheries and aquaculture. and profitability. For the three management plan areas Other potential aquaculture activities include together, the seafood sector generated value production of sea cucumbers, which can consume added totalling NOK 57.9 billion and provided waste from other aquaculture activities, sea ranch- 28 000 jobs in 2016 (Tables 5.3 and 5.4). Of these, ing of native species and rearing wild-caught 24 800 were in core activities and 3 200 in supply organisms such as sea urchins. industries. All three of the largest industries in the seafood sector, namely fishing, aquaculture and fish processing, grew from 2010 to 2016. This was Utilisation of residual raw materials mainly due to higher TACs for cod and higher According to a 2016 analysis by SINTEF, the fish- prices for both wild and farmed fish. National fig- eries and aquaculture sector produces about ures for both value added and employment indi- 914 000 tonnes of residual raw materials from a cate that growth continued from 2016 to 2019. raw materials base of 3.3 million tonnes of fish and In the North Sea–Skagerrak area, value added shellfish. About 75 % (689 000 tonnes) of this is in the seafood sector amounted to NOK 16.8 bil- used as ingredients (oil, proteins, supplements/ lion in 2016, of which NOK 15.9 billion was from premixes) in feed for fish, livestock, fur-bearing core activities, predominantly aquaculture, and animals and pets, or in products for human con- NOK 0.9 billion from supply industries. Value sumption (seafood products, fish oil and extracts). added in the North Sea–Skagerrak area A large proportion of the residual raw materials accounted for 29 % of total Norwegian value added from aquaculture and the pelagic sector is uti- in the seafood sector (see Table 5.3). lised, but in the whitefish sector, large volumes There were 8 000 employees in the seafood sector in the North Sea–Skagerrak area in 2016, 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 83 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Table 5.3 Value added in the seafood sector in the management plan areas and the totals for Norway.

Value added, shown in NOK billion (in current prices). Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak Norway, total Industry 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2019 Fishing 5.1 8.6 2.1 3.0 2.1 2.9 9.2 14.0 15.7 Aquaculture 3.0 7.5 6.3 12.2 4.0 9.7 13.2 29.4 31.1 Fish processing 2.3 3.3 2.4 3.2 1.7 2.7 6.4 9.2 12.1 Manufacture of crude fish oils and fats 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Wholesale of fish. crustaceans and molluscs 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 1.6 2.2 2.5 Sum of core activities 11.1 20.2 11.4 19.2 8.3 15.9 30.8 54.8 61.5 Supply industries 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.9 2.3 3.1 3.2 Sum of core activities and supply industries 11.9 21.4 12.3 20.3 8.9 16.8 33.1 57.9 64.7

Source: Statistics Norway

Table 5.4 Employment in the seafood sector in the management plan areas and the totals for Norway.

Employment figures in 1 000s. Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak Norway, total Industry 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2019 Fishing 2.6 3.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 4.7 5.0 5.5 Aquaculture 1.2 1.5 2.4 2.9 1.8 2.6 5.5 7.0 9.0 Fish processing 3.7 4.6 3.4 3.2 2.9 3.0 10.0 11.1 11.5 Manufacture of crude fish oils and fats 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 Wholesale of fish. crustaceans and molluscs 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.9 1.5 1.6 Sum of core activities 8.5 10.0 7.6 7.6 6.4 7.1 22.5 24.8 27.8 Supply industries 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 2.4 3.2 2.9 Sum of core activities and supply industries 9.4 11.3 8.4 8.5 7.1 8.0 24.9 28.0 30.7

Source: Statistics Norway of whom 7 100 were in core activities and 900 in core activities and NOK 1.1 billion from supply supply industries. Employment in the North Sea– industries. Value added in the Norwegian Sea Skagerrak management plan area accounted for accounted for 35 % of all Norwegian value added 27 % of total employment in the seafood sector in in the seafood sector (see Table 5.3). Norway (see Table 5.4). In the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, value added In the Norwegian Sea, value added totalled in the seafood sector totalled NOK 11.9 billion in NOK 20.3 billion in 2016: NOK 19.2 billion from 2010 and NOK 21.4 billion in 2016. The share of 84 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

500 000

450 000

400 000

350 000

300 000 Barents Sea–Lofoten 250 000 North Sea–Skagerrak Trawling hours 200 000 150 000 Norwegian Sea

100 000

50 000

- 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Figure 5.5 Number of trawling hours in bottom trawl fisheries in the management plan areas. There are no data for 2010 because of the changeover to electronic catch logbooks. Source: Directorate of Fisheries overall value added from the supply industries attributable to the Barents Sea–Lofoten area was estimated on the basis of the calculated share for core activities. This amounted to NOK 800 million in 2010 and increased to NOK 1.0 billion in 2016. There were 9 400 employees in the seafood sector in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area in 2010 and 11 300 in 2016, an increase of about 20 %. This was mainly due to higher activity in the cod fish- ery as a result of higher TACs.

5.1.4 Current status and expected developments for environmental pressures and impacts Fishing activities have major impacts on ocean ecosystems through harvesting of target species, disturbance of the seabed, unintentional bycatches and marine litter. The greatest impact is caused primarily by the annual removal of a sig- No. of trawl tracks nificant proportion of the harvested year classes observed per 100 m of commercial fish stocks. The most important commercial stocks in Nor- wegian waters are generally in good condition. The fisheries management authorities have estab- lished a framework for the fisheries that has made Figure 5.6 Number of trawl tracks observed per 100 it possible to maintain sustainable harvesting of metres. the main commercial stocks in the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea. However, there are certain Source: MAREANO exceptions. Of the smaller stocks, Norwegian coastal cod and golden redfish are still in poor condition. Golden redfish have been classified as 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 85 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans endangered on the Norwegian Red List since trawling on benthic communities in the last 15–20 2015 and have been declining since the 1990s. The years. There is a general prohibition against dam- spawning stock is still below the precautionary aging corals. Regulations have been adopted pro- level. It is therefore no longer permitted to fish tecting about twenty clearly delimited coral reef specifically for this species. areas against bottom trawling and the use of other The harvesting of target species also has indi- towed gear. There are strict restrictions on start- rect impacts on the ecosystem through effects on ing bottom trawling operations in new deep-water the food chain. This may influence predation pres- areas, and in 2019 new rules were adopted to reg- sure on some species, food availability for other ulate bottom fishing activities in the northern Bar- species, or competitive relationships between spe- ents Sea and the waters around Svalbard. Ten cies. Norway has therefore undertaken to pursue areas are completely closed for fishing operations, an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries man- and no fishing operations may be started in areas agement. that have not previously been fished without prior It is a general problem that there are relatively mapping (see Figure 5.7). few controls on recreational fishing and fishing tourism in Norwegian waters. Marine litter Much of the waste found in Norwegian waters Unintentional bycatches originates from the fisheries and aquaculture sec- Unintentional bycatches may have impacts on sea- tor, as described in Chapter 3. This waste is a birds, marine mammals and benthic organisms source of plastic pollution, injures marine animals, such as corals and sponges, depending on the and increases mortality in various animals, for fishing gear used. In the Barents Sea, bycatches example through ghost fishing. Lost gear can also are assessed as having no to moderate impacts on cause problems for fishing operations. It is impor- seabirds, depending on the fishing gear and sea- tant to deal with this problem to ensure the sec- bird group under consideration. Bycatches of cer- tor’s overall sustainability, and the Directorate of tain northern seal species have clear but minor Fisheries organises an annual retrieval pro- impacts at population level. Apart from this, the gramme for lost fishing gear. The dumping of any impacts of other bycatches, for example common kind of waste from Norwegian fishing vessels is porpoises in gill nets, are uncertain. In the Norwe- prohibited, and various measures have been intro- gian Sea, the limited harvest of golden redfish duced to reduce marine litter. In recent years taken as a bycatch is considered to be too high. Measures to reduce bycatches in Norwegian fisheries are specifically designed to avoid 0° 5° 10° 15° 20° 25° 30° 35° 40° bycatches of undersized fish and fry. The objec- 82° 82° tive is to allow fish to grow to maturity and become part of the spawning stock. The main measures used are the closure of fishing grounds 1 10 2 if the intermixture of undersized fish is too high, 9 2 80° 3 80° mesh size requirements for gill nets and trawls, and requirements to use sorting grids in trawls. 3 4 1 5 Bycatches of fish eggs, larvae and fry could 4 cause complications for harvesting of C. finmar- 6 78° 78° chicus and mesopelagic species in the future.

7 8

Bottom trawling 76° 76°

In recent years, particular attention has been NyttNew fishingfiskeområde grounds focused on the impacts of bottom trawling on ben- StengtClosed forområde fishing

74° 74° ForbudsområdeFishing prohibited thic ecosystems. In the Barents Sea, the physical 02100 00400nm impacts of bottom trawling on benthic communi- 0° 5° 10° 15° 20° 25° 30° 35° 40° ties were assessed as minor, but moderate in Figure 5.7 Areas around Svalbard that are closed for areas that were trawled frequently. Direct and fishing operations. indirect measures have been implemented that have considerably reduced the impacts of bottom Source: Directorate of Fisheries 86 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans there has been more focus on recreational fishing In order to safeguard the natural environment, and trapping activities, which are popular along more knowledge is needed about the migration parts of the coast, particularly in the south, where routes, habitats and feeding grounds of important lost lobster traps have become a problem. The wild fish species. Methodology adapted to the requirement to use twine that is readily biode- open sea should also be developed for monitoring gradable in water can effectively limit ghost fish- environmental impacts on biodiversity and levels ing if full compliance is achieved, but will not elim- of pollutants including organic material and haz- inate the litter problem. Both professional and rec- ardous substances. reational fishermen will need to exercise care to limit the scale of losses of gear in future. 5.2 Maritime transport

Underwater noise and other pressures 5.2.1 Current status and expected Fishing vessels generate underwater noise from developments for economic activity engines, propulsion systems (cavitation noise) Shipping in all three management plan areas has and the use of fishing gear (e.g. bottom trawls). risen moderately year by year in the period 2011– The use of echo sounding and sonar also adds to 2017. This is part of a long-term trend linked to noise levels in the oceans and may have direct rising transport needs, which in turn are con- impacts on marine mammals and other animals. nected to economic developments and globalisa- Noise and emissions to air are further discussed tion of the economy. Over shorter time periods, below in the section on shipping. market fluctuations can result in changes within The fishing fleet also discharges organic (bio- certain vessel categories. degradable) waste to the sea, primarily trimmings The volume of shipping and shipping density and byproducts. Organic waste dumped into the differ greatly between the three management plan sea from fishing vessels is not an environmental areas. In 2016, 45 % of total distance sailed was in problem in the management plan areas. The long- the North Sea–Skagerrak area, 30 % in the Nor- term trend, however, is for more and more of the wegian Sea and 25 % in the Barents Sea–Lofoten residual raw materials to be used. area. The Barents Sea–Lofoten area is nearly six times larger than the North Sea–Skagerrak area, but only accounts for about half as much distance Impacts of aquaculture sailed. The distribution of shipping between the At present, aquaculture activities are restricted to management plan areas has remained relatively coastal waters, which are outside the manage- stable over time. ment plan areas. However, it is a major industry in The volume of shipping is anticipated to Norwegian waters and may in future expand to increase by a total of 41 % for all three manage- areas considerably further offshore than the shel- ment plan areas combined by 2040. The antici- tered waters currently used. The main pressures pated increase is largest for the Norwegian Sea on the surrounding environment from aquacul- (49 %), followed by the North Sea–Skagerrak area ture facilities are the spread of sea lice, escapes of (43 %) and the Barents Sea–Lofoten area (around farmed fish and genetic impacts on wild fish popu- 30 %). lations, waste such as nutrients and organic mate- The introduction of traffic separation schemes rial, and discharges of hazardous substances and recommended routes along the coast have including copper and delousing agents. Moreover, helped to move shipping further out from the the aquaculture industry needs large quantities of coast, separate traffic streams in opposite direc- feed, and feed production also has environmental tions and establish a fixed sailing pattern. impacts and impacts on global food supplies. There is a large volume of shipping in the The environmental problems encountered in North Sea–Skagerrak area, and there are impor- offshore aquaculture are expected to be the same tant traffic streams in coastal areas. General cargo as those associated with coastal aquaculture activ- vessels and passenger vessels account for the ities, but new spatial conflicts may also arise with greatest distance sailed (over half of total distance traditional fisheries, shipping and offshore wind sailed in 2017). The largest increase since 2011 power as well as new issues relating to species has been for passenger vessels. and habitats. The scale of environmental prob- Ships on the landward side of the baseline lems will depend on factors including technology account for a significant share of distance sailed in choices and the types of systems used. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 87 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Barents Sea–Lofoten

5000000 4500000 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000

Distance sailed (nautical miles) 0 Reefers vessels Gas tankers Cruise ships Bulk carriers Ro-Ro cargo Fishing vessels Other activities Other offshore support vessels Product tankers Offshore supply Crude oil tankers Chemical tankers Container vessels Passenger vessels General cargo vessels

Norwegian Sea

5000000 4500000 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 Distance sailed (nautical miles) Reefers vessels Gas tankers Cruise ships Bulk carriers Ro-Ro cargo Fishing vessels Other activities Other offshore support vessels Product tankers Offshore supply Crude oil tankers Chemical tankers Container vessels Passenger vessels General cargo vessels

North Sea–Skagerrak

5000000 4500000 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 Distance sailed (nautical miles) Reefers vessels Gas tankers Cruise ships Bulk carriers Ro-Ro cargo Fishing vessels Other activities Other offshore support vessels Product tankers Offshore supply Crude oil tankers Chemical tankers Container vessels Passenger vessels General cargo vessels

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 5.8 Distance sailed for various vessel categories in the period 2011–2017 in each of the management plan areas. Source: Norwegian Coastal Administration 88 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Box 5.2 Autonomous electric cargo vessels The grocery wholesaler ASKO is planning to per day between the east and west sides of the build two autonomous, electric, emission-free fjord. This will reduce annual energy consump- vessels (the AutoBarge design) to transport tion by 11.0 GWh at full operation as a result of cargo across the Oslofjord between the towns of shorter driving distances and the greater energy Moss and Holmestrand from 2024 onwards. The efficiency of the cargo vessels. In addition, vessels will cross the fjord, manoeuvre and 8.3 GWh of diesel will be replaced by electricity. moor without a crew. A control centre on shore The net result will be a reduction of 5 095 tonnes will monitor operations and be able to steer the in CO2 emissions and a reduction in road trans- vessels. The new vessels will have a daily cargo port of up to 2.2 million kilometres annually. The capacity of 128 semi-trailers in each direction project has received NOK 119 million in invest- across the Oslofjord, replacing 150 lorry trips ment support from Enova.

Figure 5.9 Autonomous cargo vessel. Source: ASKO the Norwegian Sea. However, the routeing system introduced in 2011 is clearly yielding results. 80 71 The Barents Sea–Lofoten area stands out 70 because fishing vessels account for a substantially larger share of shipping than in the other manage- 60 ment plan areas. The distance sailed by fishing vessels in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area is greater 50 46 than in the North Sea–Skagerrak and Norwegian 41 Sea areas combined. International shipping 40 traversing the northernmost Norwegian waters is 27 27

Number of transits 30 also on the rise. Nearly half of all maritime traffic 22 19 (except for fishing vessels) in the Barents Sea– 20 18 Lofoten area follows the recommended routes. 10 Over 80 % of the largest ships and nearly all tank- 4 ers follow these routes. This enhances safety and 0 reduces accident risk. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Automation and autonomous coastal navigation Figure 5.10 Vessels transiting the Northern Sea Route in the period 2010–2018. Automated, and eventually autonomous, vessels will become increasingly important in the ship- Source: Norwegian Coastal Administration 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 89 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans ping industry. More autonomous ships will gener- ally have various positive climate and environmen- 5.2.2 Value added and employment tal effects. Improvements in energy efficiency and In the scientific basis for the management plans, optimisation of operations are some of the main value added and employment for shipping were benefits. The design of autonomous, unmanned calculated for each of the management plan areas, vessels can also be made more aero- and hydrody- see Tables 5.5 and 5.6. The figures indicate that namic to reduce wind and water resistance. In the bulk of value added and employment in the combination, these factors will allow autonomous shipping sector is concentrated in the North Sea– vessels to be highly energy-efficient and have low Skagerrak area, while the Barents Sea–Lofoten fuel consumption. This will make it possible for area accounts for the smallest share. It remains to example to electrify more ships, and they will be be seen what impact the anticipated increase in able to operate for longer distances using electric shipping in northern waters will have on value propulsion. added and employment in North Norway. The Government has been encouraging the Norway has an internationally leading mari- development of autonomous technology and its time industry, including shipping companies, mar- use in ships for a number of years. Enova has pro- itime services, shipyards and equipment suppli- vided grants of NOK 133 million for the construc- ers. The maritime industry is crucially important tion of the Yara Birkeland, an autonomous electric for settlement, value creation and employment, container ship, and has granted NOK 119 million particularly in rural parts of Norway. There are for development of the AutoBarge design for the maritime companies and strong clusters all along grocery wholesaler ASKO (see Box 5.2). the coast from north to south. The sector is Norway’s Act relating to ports and navigable strongly specialised in high-tech market seg- waters was amended in 2019 to provide for auton- ments. omous navigation in coastal waters without the In 2018, the Norwegian maritime industry need to use a pilot. The Norwegian Maritime employed around 85 000 people, and the sector Authority takes part in all relevant projects at generated value added of NOK 142 billion. This national level that involve autonomous ships and means that the maritime industry accounted for require certification of these vessels. The Mari- 8 % of value added in Norway and 17 % of total time Authority and the Coastal Administration are Norwegian exports. both important partners for the industry. Norway is in a leading position globally as regards the deployment of zero- and low-emission technology in the maritime sector. Green shipping Northeast Passage and Northern Sea Route is opening up new opportunities for the Norwe- The reduced ice cover in the Arctic has to some gian maritime industry. In autumn 2019, Menon extent opened up opportunities for maritime traf- Economics published a report on green value cre- fic between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific ation in the Norwegian maritime industry. Ocean, both north of Canada via the Northwest According to Menon, green revenues in the mari- Passage and north of Russia via the Northeast time industry in 2018 totalled roughly NOK 28 bil- Passage and the Northern Sea Route (the part of lion. In addition, the industry made green invest- the Northeast Passage in Russian waters). The ments of more than NOK 5 billion. Both revenues prospect of cost savings motivates shipowners to and investments have roughly tripled in the past consider using the Northeast Passage. Ships can few years. To follow up the strategy adopted by potentially save 15–20 days at sea and reduce the the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in distance sailed by two-thirds. So far, it is largely 2018, including the ambition of cutting emissions cargo vessels and some cruise ships that sail the from international shipping by at least 50 % by Arctic route. 2050, both green revenues and green investments Statistics for the number of ships transiting the will need to increase substantially in the years Northern Sea Route, see Figure 5.10, show that it ahead. Norwegian companies are already supply- is still uncertain what role the Northeast Passage ing zero- and low-emission technology to the will play in shipping between the Atlantic Ocean world market. and the Pacific Ocean in both the short and long term. 90 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Table 5.5 Value added for shipping in each of the management plan areas and the totals for Norway.

Value added, shown in NOK billion (in current prices). Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak Norway, total Industry sector 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2019 Foreign shipping, cargo 0.1 0.10 1.2 1.4 18.8 24.3 20.1 25.8 24.7 Domestic shipping, cargo; tugboats 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.9 1.8 1.8 3.6 3.1 Domestic coastal ship- ping, scheduled 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.3 0.4 2.6 0.6 0.4 Sum of core activities 1.0 0.7 2.5 2.8 21.0 26.5 24.5 30.1 28.2 Sum of supply industries 0.3 0.3 1.6 1.8 5.7 8.5 7.7 10.6 11.6 Sum of core activities and supply industries 1.3 1.0 4.1 4.6 26.7 35.0 32.2 40.7 39.8

Source: Statistics Norway

Table 5.6 Employment in each of the management plan areas and the totals for Norway.

Employment figures in 1 000s Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak Norway, total Industry sector 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2019 Foreign shipping, cargo 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.3 12.6 17.3 13.5 18.8 18.2 Domestic shipping, cargo; tugboats 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.1 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 Domestic coastal ship- ping, scheduled 1.0 1.6 2.5 1.4 2.7 3.3 6.2 6.4 6.4 Sum of core activities 1.3 2.5 4.2 3.2 16.3 21.8 21.8 27.5 27.0 Sum of supply industries 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.2 4.1 3.4 6.0 5.0 5.0 Sum of core activities and supply industries 1.7 2.9 5.7 4.4 20.4 25.2 27.8 32.5 32.0

Source: Statistics Norway

Greenhouse gas emissions from domestic 5.2.3 Current status and expected shipping in 2017 have been estimated at 4.8 mil- developments for environmental lion tonnes CO2 equivalent using AIS data as a pressures and impacts basis (the AIS system provides real-time informa- Emissions to air from shipping have increased in tion on vessel movements). This indicates a cer- the three management plan areas in the period tain rise in emissions in recent years. On the other 2011–2017. The trend towards larger ships may hand, Statistics Norway estimated 2017 emissions partly explain why growth in emissions has been from domestic shipping and fishing at 2.95 million greater than growth in distance sailed in the same tonnes CO2 equivalent, based on registered sales period. Another explanation may be the increase of fuel in Norway for use in domestic shipping. in the average speed of ships, particularly large The figures from Statistics Norway are included ones, in recent years. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 91 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans in Norway’s emission inventory, which is used as guidelines on the control and management of hull a basis for its emission reduction commitments. fouling to minimise the transfer of harmful aquatic A reduction in the carbon footprint of Norwe- organisms. The guidelines apply globally. gian shipping per tonne-kilometre is expected in Noise from shipping is the most widespread the years ahead, partly due to stricter emission source of low-frequency noise in the marine envi- requirements and policy objectives designed to ronment. Noise levels and frequencies will vary fulfil Norway’s emission reduction commitments. depending on ship size, speed and the type of pro- The Government’s ambition is to reduce emis- pulsion system. The largest ships produce the sions from domestic shipping and fishing vessels highest noise levels at source and the lowest fre- by half by 2030. quencies. Cruise traffic results in substantial emissions Long time series of measurements indicate to air of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) that in certain areas, ambient noise has more than and sulphur oxides (SOx), which have a negative doubled each decade over the last 30–40 years. impact on local air quality. From 1 March 2019, The increase in the volume of commercial ship- Norway introduced stricter requirements for ping is probably the primary cause of this. releases to air and water from ships in the West Increased ambient noise can raise physiological Norwegian Fjords World Heritage Site. stress levels in marine animals and interfere with The introduction and spread of invasive alien their abilities to communicate with one another, species through ballast water or biofouling of find food and navigate. International studies show ship’s hulls constitute one of the most serious eco- that noise from shipping can also influence the logical threats in fjords and oceans. behaviour of marine animals and other organisms. The Ballast Water Management Convention It is unlikely that noise from shipping directly entered into force in September 2017, and is an harms fish and marine mammals. essential tool for preventing the spread of alien species with international shipping. Under the convention, ships must now manage their ballast 5.3 Petroleum activities water so that potentially harmful aquatic organ- isms are removed or rendered harmless before The petroleum industry is Norway’s largest, ballast water is released. measured in terms of value added, state revenues, Currently there are no binding national or investment and export value. The industry con- international requirements intended to prevent or tributes substantially to financing the welfare limit the transfer of harmful organisms through state. All across the country, the petroleum indus- hull fouling. However, IMO has issued voluntary try provides employment, accounts for much activity, and stimulates business, technological and societal development. The resource accounts 160 000 indicate that after 50 years, about half of the total 140 000 petroleum resources on the Norwegian continen-

120 000 tal shelf had been extracted, and the proportion was higher for oil resources than for gas 100 000 resources. 80 000 60 000 5.3.1 Current status and forecasts of 40 000 Emissions (tonnes) economic activity 20 000 At the beginning of 2020, 87 fields on the Norwe- 0 gian continental shelf were producing oil and gas: 66 in the North Sea, 19 in the Norwegian Sea and 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 two in the Barents Sea. Production in 2019 totalled CO NO SO PM x 2 214 million standard cubic metres of oil equiva- lents (Sm3 o.e.). The start-up of the Johan Sver- Figure 5.11 Releases to air from shipping in the drup field means that production will increase management plan areas: particulate matter (PM), over the next few years. sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and At the beginning of 2020, some 85 discoveries nitrogen oxides (NOx). were being considered for development. Most of Source: Norwegian Coastal Administration these are small and will be developed as satellites 92 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

50 45 40

35 30 25

20 15 No. of exploration wells 10 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

North Sea Norwegian Sea Barents Sea

Figure 5.12 Overview of exploration wells drilled in the management plan areas, 2010–2019. Source: Norwegian Petroleum Directorate with subsea installations tied back to existing lished in the northern part of the Norwegian Sea: infrastructure. However, it should be noted that the Aasta Hansteen field, which started produc- even small development projects on the continen- tion in 2018, and the gas pipeline Polarled. These tal shelf would be considered to be major indus- developments will also facilitate further new trial projects if carried out onshore. Independent developments and exploration activities in this development is planned for the largest discover- part of the Norwegian Sea. ies, but a number of smaller fields may also collab- Petroleum activities began in the Barents Sea orate on building new infrastructure. South in 1979, and the area is an important petro- Exploration, development and production leum province. There are currently two fields in activity levels on the Norwegian shelf are high, production in the Barents Sea: Snøhvit and Goliat. and are expected to remain high in the years The Snøhvit gas field began production in 2007. ahead. In the longer term, the number and size of The natural gas is transported by pipeline to the new discoveries and developments, as well as how onshore facility at Melkøya for processing, lique- quickly production drops from existing fields as faction and transport by ship to the market. In they are depleted, will be crucial in determining autumn 2019, cargo number 1 000 of LNG was production and activity levels. Future prices will shipped from Melkøya. The Goliat field began also have an impact. Most existing fields are resil- production in 2016 and is the first oil field in the ient even when demand is declining and the price Barents Sea, including the first installation in the range is sinking. Norwegian production is a rela- Barents Sea that projects above the sea surface. tively low-cost way to bring new production to The third field in the Barents Sea will be the market, and new discoveries can be expected to Johan Castberg field, which is under development be profitable even in these circumstances. with production scheduled to start in 2022. This is There is considerable potential for improved the largest oil field found in the Barents Sea so far oil recovery from many on-stream fields beyond and consists of the three discoveries Skrugard, what is currently planned. Since 2000, various Havis and Drivis. The plan for development and steps have been taken to improve recovery from operation (PDO) was approved in June 2018. fields in production. This has significantly Developments in the Barents Sea must deal with increased the reserves. the area’s natural conditions such as extreme cold The North Sea accounts for the largest propor- and icing of facilities. Several countries have been tion of production from the Norwegian continen- carrying out petroleum activities in the Arctic for tal shelf, and the province still holds considerable several decades. The Norwegian Petroleum resource potential. The North Sea will continue to Directorate published a report on petroleum activ- generate substantial value added for many years ities in the Arctic which provides an overview of to come. New gas infrastructure has been estab- these activities. Petroleum activities in the Arctic 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 93 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Exploration activity on the Norwegian conti- nental shelf has varied over the years, but has remained stable at a high level in recent years. On average, just under 50 exploration wells have been drilled on the Norwegian shelf every year since 2000. The North Sea has the highest overall num- ber of exploration wells but in 2017, for the first time, more exploration wells were drilled in the Barents Sea than in the North Sea. In 2017, 17 exploration wells were spudded in the Barents Sea, as compared with five in 2016 and seven in 2018. In 2019, 57 exploration wells were spudded and 17 discoveries made on the Norwegian shelf, with a total estimated volume of 70 million Sm3 o.e. There are large remaining oil and gas resources on the Norwegian continental shelf. Currently, the fields on the Norwegian shelf sup- ply 2–3 % of global demand for oil and gas. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate estimates that total discovered and undiscovered resources on the Norwegian shelf were approximately Legend 3 Management plan areas 15.7 billion Sm o.e. on 31 December 2018. APA areas ‘Resources’ is a collective term for all technically 2019 2010 recoverable quantities of petroleum. Undiscov- Active production licences ered resources are estimated at close to 4 billion 3 Figure 5.13 Map showing active production licences Sm o.e., equivalent to roughly 40 Johan Castberg and expansion of the acreage covered by the system fields. The Petroleum Directorate expects approx- of awards in predefined areas (APA), from APA 2010 imately one-third of these undiscovered resources to APA 2019. to be in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea, and two-thirds in the Barents Sea. Knowledge Source: Norwegian Petroleum Directorate/Marine spatial ma- nagement tool about the Barents Sea is particularly limited, so that uncertainty regarding resource volumes is highest here. The actual resources could be were also discussed in a proposition to the Stort- either less than or substantially more than the cur- ing on the Johan Sverdrup field and the status of rent estimate from the Petroleum Directorate. Norway’s oil and gas activities published in 2015 The resource accounts include all resources on (Prop. 114 S (2014–2015)). the Norwegian continental shelf, including those Further discoveries have also been made in in areas that are not currently open for petroleum the Barents Sea, and the petroleum companies are activities. working on possible development concepts with a Knowledge is an essential basis for sound view to making investment decisions. The Wisting resource management. In areas that are not cur- discovery, currently the largest undeveloped dis- rently open for petroleum activities, only the covery on the Norwegian continental shelf, is in authorities are permitted to collect data and con- the clarification phase. duct surveys. As part of its long-term data acquisi- The petroleum companies are showing great tion in northern waters, the Norwegian Petro- interest in the licensing rounds for the Norwegian leum Directorate conducted a seismic survey in continental shelf. In the latest licensing round for the northern Barents Sea that will provide impor- awards in predefined areas (APA 2019), 69 pro- tant information on the geology of the area and a duction licences were offered on the Norwegian better resource estimate. Undiscovered resources shelf, with 33 in the North Sea, 23 in the Norwe- on the Norwegian continental shelf could repre- gian Sea and 13 in the Barents Sea. Nineteen dif- sent major assets for Norway. ferent companies were offered status as desig- For 2019, the allocation for geological surveys nated operators. was increased by NOK 50 million so that knowl- edge acquisition could continue through mapping 94 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Figure 5.14 Resource estimate for undiscovered resources on the Norwegian continental shelf. Source: Norwegian Petroleum Directorate of petroleum resources in the Barents Sea North. leum resources. Newer and better data gives the This will be a continuation of the geological sur- authorities greater understanding of petroleum veys carried out by the Norwegian Petroleum systems as a whole, which is important both for Directorate in recent years to advance the knowl- sound resource management and for national eco- edge base on Barents Sea geology. Further geo- nomic interests relating to transboundary petro- logical data is needed to learn more about petro- leum deposits. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 95 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

include continuing the regular licensing rounds Further information on regulation of petroleum activi- on the Norwegian continental shelf, in order to ties give the industry access to new exploration areas. Petroleum activities may take place in areas To maintain employment, value added and state opened by the Storting (Norwegian parliament) in revenues over time, both large and small discover- accordance with the framework for specific geo- ies are needed at regular intervals. graphical areas set out in the ocean management Most of the Norwegian continental shelf was plans. The framework for petroleum activities is opened for exploration activity decades ago. Large set out in Chapter 9.2.4. discoveries are most often made early in the Acreage for petroleum activities is allocated exploration phase, although there are exceptions. through two equally important types of licensing Thorough exploration of areas while the neces- rounds. New acreage in frontier areas is allocated sary expertise is available is vital to increase the in numbered licensing rounds, which are nor- likelihood of finding large, commercially viable mally held every other year. In more mature discoveries. areas, where more is known about the geology Petroleum activities are subject to strict and that are closer to planned or existing produc- requirements and standards for health, environ- tion and transport infrastructure, licences are ment and safety, which include safeguarding the issued every year through the system of awards natural environment. Approval from the authori- in predefined areas (APA). The licensing process ties is required for all phases of activity, including involves a number of steps. Numbered licensing exploration, development, operations and decom- rounds are opened by inviting companies to nomi- missioning. This also includes permits under the nate blocks. The authorities assess the nomina- Pollution Control Act and consent under the tions, and a proposed announcement is submitted health, safety and working environment legisla- for public consultation. After this, the Ministry of tion. The legislation is designed in such a way that Petroleum and Energy announces the round. the requirements are stricter when activities are After the applications have been processed and taking place in areas where the safety and envi- after negotiations with the companies on licensing ronmental situation is particularly challenging. It conditions, the government makes the final deci- is also considered important to facilitate coexist- sion on which areas are to be covered by produc- ence with other industries. tion licences and the mandatory work programme The Government and the Storting can decide for each licence. that there may be conditions for, or restrictions It has been decided to continue the APA sys- on, activities in specific geographical areas. These tem as an annual licensing round on the Norwe- are indicated when a licensing round is gian continental shelf. The APA system includes announced and are specified in the production areas opened for oil and gas activities at least licences. Restrictions on the times of year when since 1994, and a significant proportion has been seismic surveys or drilling in oil-bearing forma- open since 1965. Fundamental features of the APA tions are permitted are spatial management tools system are that APA areas are is expanded as the that are used to regulate the petroleum industry continental shelf is explored, and that it is predict- (see also Chapter 9). The purpose of such restric- able because no acreage is withdrawn once it has tions is to avoid the risk of environmental damage been included in the APA system. This is impor- at times when natural resources are particularly tant for the system’s effectiveness. All areas that vulnerable, for example during spawning or are open and therefore available for petroleum spawning migration and during the breeding sea- activities may be announced in numbered licens- son for seabirds, while still allowing petroleum ing rounds or through the APA system. The parts activities to be carried out. Spatial management of the shelf to be included in each of the two types tools such as seasonal restrictions on exploration of rounds are determined on the basis of expert drilling provide a framework for value creation assessments of the maturity of different areas, while at the same time ensuring that important particularly in relation to the need for stepwise environmental considerations are taken into exploration and utilisation of time-critical account. Moreover, licensees are required to resources. carry out necessary seabed surveys to ensure A predictable framework is important for the that any coral reefs or other valuable benthic com- petroleum industry. The Government will con- munities, including sandeel habitats, are not dam- tinue to facilitate profitable production of oil and aged by petroleum activities. gas by maintaining a such a framework. This will 96 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

rounds on the Norwegian continental shelf in order to give the industry access to new explora- Box 5.3 Development of the Johan tion areas. To maintain employment, value added Castberg field and state revenues, both large and small discover- The Johan Castberg field, about 240 km north- ies are needed at regular intervals. west of Hammerfest, is the third field develop- A large share of the value added from the ment project in the Barents Sea. When sched- petroleum sector accrues to the state, so that it uled production starts, this will be the world’s can benefit society as a whole. The oil and gas northernmost offshore development, but the industry plays a key role in the Norwegian econ- operational challenges here do not differ sub- omy, and it will continue to make a major contribu- stantially from those in fields further south on tion to financing the Norwegian welfare society. the Norwegian continental shelf. New factors The petroleum resources on the Norwegian that will need to be dealt with include polar continental shelf have laid the foundation for the lows, challenges relating to preparedness and development of a substantial oil and gas industry response because of the remoteness of the in Norway. The petroleum industry includes oil field, and the possible occurrence of drift ice companies, supplier industries and petroleum- in extreme years. The development concept related research and education institutions. It takes these into consideration. The load-bear- accounts for a substantial proportion of Norwe- ing structures and anchoring systems of the gian value added and provides employment in all floating production, storage and offloading parts of the country. vessel (FPSO) are designed to withstand drift In 2019 the petroleum industry generated ice. Statistically, it is estimated that drift ice NOK 566.8 billion in value added (see Table 5.7). will reach the Johan Castberg field once every Most of the oil and gas produced on the Norwe- 10 000 years. A system will be developed for gian shelf is sold abroad and provides substantial continuous monitoring of ice conditions. If export revenues. In 2018, the petroleum sector drift ice approaches to approximately 60 km accounted for 17 % of Norway’s overall value north of the FPSO (73° N) and is forecast to added and approximately 43 % of export revenues. drift further southwards, production will be The sector also accounts for roughly 20 % of state halted and not resumed until there is a safe revenues and Norway’s total investments. Value distance between the ice and the FPSO again. added per person directly employed in the petro- leum industry in 2018 was approximately NOK 25 million, compared to roughly NOK 1 million in the Norwegian mainland economy as a whole. In 2019, total employment associated with the man- 5.3.2 Value added and employment agement plan areas in the petroleum sector, The main goal of the Government’s petroleum pol- including core activities and the largest compa- icy is to facilitate long-term profitable production nies in the direct supplier industry for each of of oil and gas. A predictable framework is impor- these, but not including wider spin-off effects, was tant for the petroleum industry. The Government about 110 000 persons (see Table 5.8). Total Nor- will therefore continue the regular licensing wegian employment related to the petroleum sec-

Table 5.7 Value added in the petroleum sector in the management plan areas and the totals for Norway. Figures do not include value added from supply industry exports.

Value added, shown in NOK billion (in current prices). Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak Norway, total Industry 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2019 Sum of core activities 19.0 21.9 128.5 96.8 385.2 294.8 532.8 413.6 497.2 Supply industries 2.2 3.4 15.4 15.2 46.2 46.3 63.8 64.9 69.6 Sum of core activities and supply industries 21.2 25.3 143.9 112.0 431.4 341.1 596.6 478.5 566.8

Source: Statistics Norway 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 97 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Table 5.8 Employment in the petroleum sector in the management plan areas and the totals for Norway. Figures do not include employment relating to supply industry exports.

Employment figures in 1 000s. Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak Norway, total Industry 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2019 Sum of core activities 6.6 6.9 12.3 12.2 35.2 35.2 54.1 54.3 55.6 Supply industries 7.1 7.6 13.5 13.6 38.6 39.1 59.3 60.3 54.4 Sum of core activities and supply industries 13.7 14.5 25.8 25.8 73.8 74.3 113.4 114.6 110.0

Source: Statistics Norway tor was approximately 139 900 persons in 2018, or 1 750 person-years in the region (including over about 5.1 % of total employment. Another roughly 700 person-years in northern Troms and Finn- 70 000 persons were in employment directly or mark county. In the operational phase, the effect indirectly related to export activities of the petro- is expected to be around 470 person-years in the leum supplier industry. In total, therefore, more region in a normal year, including 265 person- than 210 000 Norwegian jobs were directly or indi- rectly related to petroleum activities on the Nor- wegian continental shelf and the export markets. The Norwegian continental shelf is one of the Box 5.4 Spin-off effects of petroleum world’s largest offshore markets and is important activities in North Norway for the development of the Norwegian supply In keeping with Norway’s policy objective, off- industry. The petroleum companies, oil and gas shore petroleum activities also have clear spin- suppliers and wider value chain effects provide off effects onshore both regionally and nation- employment throughout the country. ally. The Aasta Hansteen gas field in the north- Activity on the Norwegian continental shelf ern Norwegian Sea, 300 km west of Bodø, offers great potential for further development of came on stream in 2018. Its operator, Equinor, the Norwegian supply industry, which would have is running the field from Harstad in North positive productivity effects on other onshore Norway, with the supply base in Sandnessjøen industries. Recent research indicates that activity and the helicopter base in Brønnøysund. related to oil and gas exploration and extraction Although the substructure and topside struc- generates positive learning effects, not only ture for the floating platform were built between supply companies within the industry abroad, there were substantial deliveries from but also between companies in the petroleum firms in North Norway during the develop- industry and in other segments of the economy. ment phase. These totalled more than NOK 1 The supply industry is thus an engine of growth billion by the end of 2018, according to a study and a source of revenue generation for the entire by Bodø Science Park. For example, busi- economy. In this way, interactions between the nesses in Mo i Rana, Sandnessjøen and Bodø supply industry and traditional onshore industries supplied the suction anchors that keep the that are exposed to competition promote a Aasta Hansteen platform in place, the subsea broader-based, resilient and knowledge-rich busi- templates, and the platform’s fire doors. Geo- ness structure. This in turn will support viable, graphical proximity is a particularly important knowledge-based jobs in all parts of Norway. competitive advantage for suppliers during the Farther north, in the Barents Sea, the Johan operation phase. The main employment Castberg field is scheduled to start production in effects of Aasta Hansteen will be related to 2022. So far in the development phase, a number activities at the supply and helicopter bases, of the subsea templates and the flare boom for the but there will also be positive spin-off effects floating production, storage and offloading unit for other manufacturing, retail trade, hotels (FPSO) have been produced in Sandnessjøen. and restaurants, and business services. The overall regional effect of the development phase on employment is estimated at close to 98 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans years in northern Troms and Finnmark. Johan cate the probability of a spill is very low. In the Castberg will have an operations organisation in years ahead, some increase in activity levels in the Harstad, which will further enhance operational management plan areas is expected in the petro- expertise there. There is already greater activity leum industry, shipping and more generally. at NorSea Polarbase in Hammerfest municipality as a result of the development of Johan Castberg, which is providing a basis for continued establish- Operational discharges of oil and chemicals to the sea ment of supply companies at the supply base and Discharges of chemicals to the sea tend to vary in Hammerfest town. This is a good example of with drilling activity and the quantity of produced how offshore activity can boost onshore employ- water, and are highest during drilling. The largest ment, population growth and revenues. Busi- discharges of oil during normal operations are nesses in Hammerfest also supply the Snøhvit and with produced water. The zero-discharge targets Goliat fields and the exploration rigs operating in for discharges of oil and environmentally hazard- the Barents Sea. ous substances to the sea apply to discharges from petroleum activities. These targets were adopted in a white paper on an environmental pol- 5.3.3 Current status and expected icy for sustainable development (Report No. 58 developments for environmental (1996–1997) to the Storting). They apply to oil, pressures and impacts added chemicals and naturally occurring sub- The petroleum industry can have negative stances discharged with produced water, includ- impacts on the environment through operational ing radioactive substances. Norway’s goal is for discharges to the sea and air, underwater noise discharges of the most hazardous added chemi- from seismic surveys and physical disturbance of cals (black and red categories) to be eliminated the seabed. There have been few major crude oil and that discharges of naturally occurring envi- spills on the Norwegian continental shelf, and no ronmentally hazardous substances should be oil spills on the Norwegian continental shelf have eliminated or minimised. For oil and other sub- reached the coast in the more than 50 years since stances, the target is zero or minimal discharges petroleum activities began. No damage to the of substances that may cause environmental dam- marine environment has been demonstrated as a age. The targets were reproduced in full in the result of the spills that have occurred during this 2017 update of the Norwegian Sea management period. Acute pollution is further discussed in plan (Meld. St. 35 (2016–2017)). Chapter 6. Safeguarding the natural environment Discharges of oil and chemicals to the Norwe- has always been an integral part of Norway’s gian Sea and the North Sea vary from year to year approach to managing its oil and gas resources in with drilling activity. There has been a rise in dis- all phases of petroleum activities, from exploration charges of substances in the red and black catego- to development, operations and field closure. ries in these management plan areas, partly There is a strict regulatory framework for dis- because certain substances have been moved to charges to air and sea from the petroleum indus- different categories. Drilling and well chemicals try. account for a large proportion of total discharges. A permit under the Pollution Control Act is Discharges of produced water to the North required for operational discharges during petro- Sea and the Norwegian Sea have been variable leum activities. Permits are issued and adminis- since the previous scientific basis was published tered by the Norwegian Environment Agency. in 2010, but were somewhat lower in 2017 than in The Petroleum Safety Authority is the supervi- 2012. The North Sea fields accounted for 88 % of sory authority for efforts by the petroleum compa- total discharges of produced water and oil on the nies to prevent oil and chemical spills to the sea. Norwegian continental shelf in 2017. Discharges Permits do not apply to acute pollution, which is to the Barents Sea are much lower than on the the result of unforeseen incidents. The impacts of rest of the continental shelf because there is lim- operational discharges during petroleum activities ited activity and only two fields are in production. in the Barents Sea are currently insignificant, as Discharges to the Barents Sea are largely related they were in 2011. The quantities of chemicals and to drilling activity and consist mostly of water- drill cuttings discharged to the sea and of pollut- based drilling mud (green category chemicals) ants emitted to air generally tend to vary with the and drill cuttings. Discharges of chemicals to the level of drilling activity. Major oil spills may cause Barents Sea have nevertheless increased since environmental impacts, but historical data indi- 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 99 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

North Sea–Skagerrak Norwegian Sea

140000 140000

120000 120000

100000 100000

80000 80000

60000 60000

Discharges (tonnes) 40000 Discharges (tonnes) 40000

20000 20000

0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Green Yellow Green Yellow

North Sea–Skagerrak Norwegian Sea

200 200 180 180 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 Discharges (tonnes) Discharges (tonnes) 40 40 20 20 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Red Black Red Black

Figure 5.15 Trends in discharges of added chemicals in the North Sea–Skagerrak and Norwegian Sea management plan areas, by colour category (green, yellow, red, black). Source: Norwegian Environment Agency the previous scientific basis was published, as a tally hazardous substances, including dispersed result of increased drilling activity in the area. oil, naturally occurring substances, and naturally Produced water is discharged only from the occurring radioactive substances have risen over- Melkøya onshore facility, as was the case when all since 2010. This means that the zero-discharge the previous scientific basis was published. Dis- targets for petroleum activities are now further charges of produced water to the Barents Sea are from being achieved than was thought in 2010. expected to remain low in future, so that there is The Norwegian Environment Agency therefore little reason to expect them to have negative envi- recommends continued efforts to reduce dis- ronmental impacts. charges of environmentally hazardous sub- The assessment in 2010 indicated that the stances, but also notes that it will be difficult to zero-discharge target for added environmentally achieve zero discharges, particularly because hazardous substances had been achieved. How- there are areas of use where the properties of ever, reported discharges of added environmen- 100 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

140 1800 1600 120 )

3 1400 100 1200 80 1000 60 800 600 40 400 20 200 Oil in produced water (tonnes) Produced water (million m 0 0 201020112012201320142015201620172018

North Sea – produced water Norwegian Sea – produced water

North Sea – oil in produced water Norwegian Sea – oil in produced water

Figure 5.16 Trends in discharges of produced water and oil in produced water in the North Sea–Skagerrak and Norwegian Sea management plan areas, 2010–2018. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency chemicals that make them environmentally haz- source of methane and NMVOCs emissions is on- ardous are necessary for their function. and offloading of oil. The latest scientific knowledge indicates that Emissions of CO2 and NOx to air from the there is still uncertainty about whether produced petroleum industry in the Norwegian Sea and water is likely to have ecological impacts. The North Sea are relatively stable, and are mainly efforts to reduce discharges of produced water in from gas turbines used to generate power on fixed all three management plan areas are therefore installations. Emissions to air in the management still important. The research programme plan areas also come from exploration drilling, PROOFNY found that components in produced including well tests. The direct impacts of emis- water can have a range of negative impacts on sions to air from activities in the management plan individual fish and invertebrates. It was con- areas are considered to be minor. However, they cluded, however, that the potential for environ- may contribute to acidification locally. mental damage as a result of discharges of pro- Petroleum activities in the Barents Sea are duced water is only moderate, and that concentra- expanding, but emissions to air are still much tions of components that have been shown to have lower than in the North Sea and the Norwegian adverse impacts are not generally found more Sea. than one kilometre from discharge points. Dis- The main instruments Norway uses to limit charges of oil and chemicals to the Barents Sea greenhouse gas emissions from petroleum activi- are only expected to have minor impacts, since ties are economic: emissions trading and the car- reinjection of produced water means that dis- bon tax. These ensure that it is always in the charges are low. The overall implications of dis- petroleum companies’ own interests to implement charges of produced water for the ecology of the emission-reduction measures. In its reporting to management plan areas are still unclear. the UNFCCC, Norway has estimated that as a result of action introduced in response to the car- bon tax and the EU ETS, CO2 emissions from the Emissions to air Norwegian continental shelf may be nearly seven Emissions to air from petroleum installations on million tonnes lower in 2020 than they would oth- the Norwegian continental shelf consist mainly of erwise have been. As a result, emissions per unit CO2, NOX, CH4 and NMVOCs. The main sources produced on the Norwegian shelf are on average of CO2 and NOx emissions are power generation substantially lower than the average for oil-pro- using gas turbines and engines, while the main ducing countries. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 101 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

CO emissions CH emissions 2 4

10.0 25.0

8.0 20.0

6.0 15.0

4.0 10.0

2.0 emissions (million tonnes) emissions (1000 tonnes) 5.0 2 4 CO CH 0.0 0.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

NOx emissions NMVOC emissions

45.0 35.0 40.0 30.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 25.0 20.0

20.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 NOx emissions (1000 tonnes)

0.0 NMVOC emissions (1000 tonnes) 0.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Barents Sea–Lofoten Norwegian Sea North Sea–Skagerrak

Figure 5.17 Emissions to air of CO2, NOX, CH4 (methane) and NMVOCs (non-methane volatile organic compounds) from petroleum activities in the three management plan areas, 2012–2018. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency

recover rapidly from the deposition of drill cut- Physical impacts tings if they can re-establish themselves quickly Petroleum activity can put pressure on vulnerable and the drill cuttings do not alter the habitat. A benthic fauna such as corals and sponges, for number of coral and sponge species are slow- example through deposition of drill cuttings. Cor- growing and need a lengthy period to become re- als and other benthic fauna can also be damaged established. They are therefore particularly vul- when pipes and cables are laid and anchor chains nerable to this kind of disturbance. and other installations are placed on the seabed. In the Barents Sea, there are few fixed installa- Operators are therefore required to survey any tions that have impacts on the benthic fauna, coral reefs and other valuable benthic communi- other than the pipelines and subsea templates for ties that may be affected by petroleum activities the Snøhvit and Goliat fields. Several of these are and ensure that they are not damaged. Investiga- located near or in the Tromsøflaket in areas tions after drilling operations have so far con- where there are sponge communities. Exploration cluded that the physical and biological distur- is the dominant form of petroleum activity in this bance caused by deposition of drill cuttings is lim- area. Where there are dense assemblages of ited and local. Species and habitats can only sponges, it can be difficult to avoid disturbing indi- 102 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

where drill cuttings can be discharged without causing damage. There is considerable uncer- Box 5.5 Reducing greenhouse gas tainty about the ecological implications of such emissions from the petroleum industry damage and the value of individual coral habitats, Greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas sponge communities and other valuable benthic recovery in 2018 totalled 14 million tonnes habitats. There has been no petroleum activity in CO2 equivalent, or 27 % of Norway’s total the main coral reef complexes in the Norwegian emissions. The main instruments Norway Sea, but there are coral habitats in large parts of uses to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the Norwegian Sea, including areas where there petroleum activities are economic: emissions are petroleum activities. When petroleum activi- trading and the carbon tax. CO2 emissions ties are permitted in coral habitats, steps are from the petroleum sector have been included taken to avoid significant damage. In some cases, in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) the possibility of damage to some smaller areas since 2008, and have been subject to the car- has been accepted where it considered that this bon tax since 1991. This ensures that it is will not have a significant impact on the species always in the petroleum companies’ own inter- and/or habitat type. ests to implement emission-reduction meas- ures. In its reporting to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Seismic surveys Norway has estimated that as a result of action Seismic surveys are conducted to assess the introduced in response to the carbon tax and potential for petroleum deposits and are an essen- the EU ETS, CO2 emissions from the Norwe- tial basis for petroleum activities. Geological sur- gian continental shelf may be nearly seven mil- veys of the seabed involve the use of sound pulses lion tonnes lower in 2020 than they would oth- generated by airgun arrays. It is these noise erwise have been. The oil and gas companies pulses in the form of sound waves or oscillations have implemented many measures on installa- of particles in the water that are audible to fish tions and onshore facilities, including install- and marine mammals. ing more efficient gas turbines, improving Noise from seismic surveying has not been energy efficiency, introducing solutions using shown to cause changes in marine organisms. power from shore, and carbon capture and Some local mortality of fish larvae has been storage. shown close to airgun arrays, but the effect at pop- ulation level is still expected to be insignificant. The possible effects of seismic surveying on marine mammals are uncertain, and a lack of knowledge makes it difficult to assess what the viduals, but where possible, vessels with dynamic impacts may be. Requirements to use soft-start positioning systems can be used to avoid damage procedures (activating airguns at low power and caused by anchors. gradually increasing to full power) have been Good systems have been developed for safe- introduced to protect marine organisms better guarding coral reefs and other valuable benthic against seismic noise. communities through the general conditions stip- ulated in the licensing rounds, requirements in the health, safety and working environment legis- 5.4 Tourism and leisure activities lation, and conditions in permits under the Pollu- tion Control Act. The petroleum companies are The tourism sector has seen steady growth over required to carry out necessary mapping of coral the past 10 years, and tourists from around the reefs and other valuable benthic communities, world visit Norway to experience its clean, rich and to ensure that they are not damaged by petro- and undisturbed environment. Few countries leum activities. The future impacts will depend on have as long and varied a coastline as Norway, the scale of exploration activity and field develop- and the coastal environment, fjords and marine ment in areas where there are vulnerable species areas have great potential in terms of tourism. and habitat types, and the extent to which it is pos- However, growing numbers of tourists are putting sible to take steps to avoid damage. In areas greater pressure on the environment, resources where there are dense assemblages of sponges, and coastal communities. for instance, it may be more difficult to find areas 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 103 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Table 5.9 Value added from the tourism sector in coastal municipalities adjoining the management plan areas. Value added is shown in NOK billion (in current prices).1

2010 2016 NOK billion % of national total NOK billion % of national total Norway, total (all municipalities) 32.2 45.4 Barents Sea–Lofoten 2.4 8 % 3.7 8 % Norwegian Sea 2.5 8 % 4 9 % North Sea–Skagerrak 9.6 30 % 14.2 31 % Sum, coastal municipalities 14.5 45 % 21.9 48 %

1 The share of tourism consumption in the coastal municipalities that is actually related to the features of nearby marine areas or the presence of the sea in itself is not known. This probably inflates the estimates shown for the municipalities adjoining the ma- nagement plan areas. Source: Statistics Norway

Table 5.10 Employment in the tourism sector in coastal municipalities adjoining the management plan areas. Employment figures in 1 000s.

2010 2016 1 000s % of national total 1 000s % of national total Norway, total (all municipalities) 74.2 88.4 Barents Sea–Lofoten 4.8 7 % 6.1 7 % Norwegian Sea 4.8 7 % 7.1 8 % North Sea–Skagerrak 17.1 23 % 21 24 % Sum, coastal municipalities 26.7 36 % 34.3 39 %

Source: Statistics Norway

Coastal tourism is important in Norway, gen- and natural surroundings, and these are also erating NOK 21.9 billion in value added and important for the destinations chosen by Norwe- employing 34 300 persons in 2016. This means gian tourists. The Government considers sustain- that coastal tourism accounted for roughly half of able development of Norwegian tourism to be value added for Norway as a whole from the tour- very important. The tourism and leisure activities ism industries included in the analysis. that put most pressure on the environment are Tourism-related value added is largest in cruises, recreational fishing and fishing tourism, municipalities adjoining the North Sea– and leisure boating in coastal waters. Skagerrak area, but in relation to other activities The islands, skerries and fjords along the accounts for a larger share of the total in munici- coast offer a wide variety of opportunities for out- palities adjoining the Barents Sea–Lofoten area. door recreation, including bathing, recreational Along the coast of the Norwegian Sea, tourism fishing and boating. accounts for only a small proportion of total added value, but provides more employment than the shipping sector (Tables 5.9 and 5.10). Cruise traffic Tourism and leisure activities in Norway’s The number of cruise passengers increased by marine and coastal areas depend on well-function- 64 % from 2011 to 2017, while the number of day- ing ecosystems and opportunities to experience a trippers who went ashore from cruise ships in clean natural environment. Foreign tourists are Norwegian ports rose by nearly 50 %. In total, still drawn to Norway primarily by the scenery around three million day-trippers from cruise 104 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans ships went ashore in Norwegian ports in 2017. requires ships to be equipped to use onshore According to the Institute of Transport Econom- power. ics, almost 83 % of the growth in cruise ship calls in the 10-year period 2008–2018 was in Western Norway. In North Norway, the annual number of Whale watching port calls has varied, but overall there has been a Whale watching along the Norwegian coast has weakly rising trend over time. Moreover, average become an important commercial activity. A num- ship size (measured in terms of maximum num- ber of companies operate year-round and have ber of passengers) in North Norway increased made large investments in vessels and equipment. from 607 to 1 120 passengers from 2006 to 2018, Whale watching activities are run by both Norwe- which indicates that the number of cruise passen- gian and foreign companies. gers visiting North Norway has been increasing. Whale watching firms have previously been The growing number of cruise ships, the expected to follow national guidelines when giving increase in ship size and their emissions of green- tourists the opportunity to experience whales at house gases and of NOx, SOx and particulate mat- close range. However, new regulations on whale ter, which add to local air pollution, are causing watching entered into force in 2019. Their pur- controversy. Figures from the Government’s pose is to ensure that whale watching activities action plan for green shipping show that cruise are conducted safely, sustainably and non-intru- ships accounted for approximately 7 % of green- sively and do not disturb whales in their natural house gas emissions from domestic shipping in habitat. A key aim of the regulations is to facilitate 2017. Although cruise ships have been made coexistence between the fishing industry and more environmentally friendly, the growing num- whale watching, and they take into account both ber of ships means that emissions are still rising. safety and animal welfare considerations. Among A considerable number of cruise ships sail into other things, it is prohibited to conduct whale waters that form part of the protected areas in watching activities in a way that disturbs whales in Svalbard every year. The changing climate is mak- their natural habitat, and whale watching vessels ing Svalbard’s environment especially vulnerable, must keep a prescribed distance from fishing ves- and growing activity is adding to environmental sels that are actively fishing and from fixed gear. pressures. A maritime accident involving a spill of heavy fuel oil could have irreversible environmen- tal impacts, and oil spill response and recovery Fishing tourism operations would be particularly challenging. In recent decades, a large number of tourist com- Ships carrying heavy fuel oil are prohibited from panies have grown up along the coast that cater sailing within the large protected areas in Sval- for fishing tourism. This has provided a boost in bard, which include most of its territorial waters. activity and jobs in many coastal communities, but The Government is considering extending this also puts greater pressure on fish resources. ban to other parts of Svalbard’s territorial waters. More knowledge is needed about the resources On 1 March 2019, stricter requirements for harvested by the fishing tourism industry. On releases to air and water were introduced for 1 January 2018, new rules took effect for fishing ships in the West Norwegian Fjords World Herit- tourism businesses, including mandatory regis- age Site (including stricter requirements for NOx tration of businesses and catch reporting. The and SOx emissions and discharges of wastewater). objective is to obtain a better overview of the Norway has a special responsibility to manage resources harvested by the fishing tourism indus- these areas with a long-term, sustainable perspec- try, and also to make the industry more profes- tive. This was the first stage of the Government’s sional and give it greater legitimacy. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and emissions that contribute to local air pollution from cruise ships. The Norwegian Maritime Recreational activities Authority is considering whether the environmen- Recreational activities in coastal waters are exten- tal requirements for shipping in the West Norwe- sive and increasing. Summertime is particularly gian Fjords World Heritage Site should be busy. According to a 2018 survey, there are extended to other Norwegian waters. 900 000 leisure craft in Norway. Most recreational Investing in onshore power facilities for ships activity takes place in the waters closest to the is a way of reducing emissions from ships at coast, so that there has only been limited spatial berth. In addition to the onshore facilities, this conflict with commercial shipping. Increased 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 105 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Figure 5.18 A whale watching boat. Photo: Hvalsafari AS activity and boat traffic may nonetheless disturb active role in this process. Norway’s neighbouring vulnerable species and habitats in the coastal countries around the North Sea have built up an zone, for example breeding and moulting sea- extensive portfolio of ongoing projects. According birds, fish and marine mammals. More marine lit- to the association WindEurope, installed offshore ter is also registered in areas where the activity wind power capacity in the North Sea totalled level is high. Prohibitions on boat traffic and 22 GW by the end of 2019. Most of this capacity access are introduced as needed to reduce pres- has been installed over the last 10 years and the sure on the most vulnerable areas, particularly to pace of new development is increasing. The Inter- protect seabirds. national Energy Agency (IEA) report Offshore Traditionally, recreational fishing and trapping Wind Outlook 2019 estimates that by 2040, the off- activities have not been subject to regulation to shore wind power industry may attract around the same extent as commercial fisheries and, USD 1 trillion in investment, with Europe and more recently, fishing tourism. Recreational fish- China as the largest growth regions. ing and trapping is a form of outdoor recreation as The Government is encouraging offshore well as providing food, and forms an important wind power development. Offshore wind is one of part of Norway’s coastal culture. six priority areas in the national strategy for research and development of new, climate-friendly energy technology, Energi21. 5.5 Emerging ocean industries Demonstration projects in Norwegian waters can enable Norwegian companies to gain experi- Emerging ocean industries are industries at an ence and contribute to innovation and develop- early stage of development in terms of technologi- ment in the offshore wind power sector. In August cal development, employment and commercialisa- 2019, Enova granted funding of up to NOK 2.3 bil- tion. A lack of information on technology choices lion for Equinor’s Hywind Tampen project, a makes it difficult to assess what their environmen- demonstration project for floating wind power. tal impacts will be. The authorities are now processing the plan for development and operation (PDO) for the wind farm. Hywind Tampen could become the world’s 5.5.1 Offshore renewable energy largest floating wind farm, which is intended to Offshore wind power is growing globally. The supply renewable power to the Gullfaks and pace of development is rapid and accelerating, Snorre oil fields. Equinor plans to make the wind particularly in the North Sea. Norwegian industry farm operational in 2022. clusters and energy companies are playing an 106 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Box 5.6 Hywind Tampen floating wind farm The Hywind Tampen project is for a floating off- One of the main objectives of the project is to shore wind farm in the Tampen area of the further develop floating wind power technology. North Sea, comprising 11 floating wind turbines, The costs of fixed wind power have been greatly each with a capacity of 8 MW. Its annual produc- reduced in recent years, while there is some tion is expected to be roughly 384 GWh. The way to go before floating wind power becomes project will bring about a shift in the electricity profitable. This demonstration project has supply to the Snorre and Gullfaks fields, replac- needed funding from Enova and the NOx Fund, ing about one-third of the power needed by the which have allocated NOK 2.3 billion and platforms with renewable wind power. This will NOK 0.6 billion, respectively. Energy from float- reduce CO2 emissions from the fields by some ing wind power could become an important 200 000 tonnes annually. Each wind turbine will resource if the costs of technology can be be mounted on a floating concrete spar founda- reduced enough to make it competitive with tion moored to the seabed by chains and suction other energy sources. Enova reasoned that its anchors. The water depth at the wind farm is support would bring floating wind power closer between 240 and 290 metres. The wind turbines to commercialisation and could generate posi- and foundations will be assembled in port at tive spin-off effects for emission reductions and Gulen in Western Norway before being towed the Norwegian business sector. This is the larg- out to sea for installation in spring 2022. The est allocation Enova has ever made. wind farm is under construction, and will The companies participating in the project according to plan start supplying electricity to are the licensees at the Snorre and Gullfaks the platforms in the fourth quarter of 2022. The fields. estimated production life is 20 years.

Figure 5.19 Diagram of the planned Hywind Tampen floating wind farm in the North Sea. Source: Equinor 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 107 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

The opening of areas for offshore renewable Southern North Sea II area should also be energy production is governed by the Offshore opened. The consultation documents also Energy Act, which entered into force on 1 July included proposed regulations under the Offshore 2010. Under the Act, offshore renewable energy Energy Act which among other things set out production outside the baselines may as a general licensing procedures more fully. The Ministry of rule only be established after the public authori- Petroleum and Energy is currently reviewing the ties have opened specific geographical areas for responses. licence applications. The Act also provides for the Existing and planned offshore wind farms gen- award of licences for smaller demonstration pro- erally use fixed installations in shallow water, typi- jects for offshore wind power or wind power inte- cally at depths of up to 40 metres. It will be possi- grated with offshore petroleum installations with- ble to exploit wind power to a much greater extent out the area having been opened beforehand. if wind farms are built in deeper water, for exam- In 2010, a working group led by the Norwe- ple using floating technology. Floating wind power gian Water Resources and Energy Directorate is developing rapidly, and Equinor’s Hywind tech- identified 15 areas it considered suitable for off- nology is a cutting-edge solution. shore wind power, which have a potential annual At present, development costs are considera- energy production of 18–44 TWh. bly higher for offshore wind power than for land- In 2012, the Directorate conducted a strategic based wind power, and there are other challenges impact assessment of the 15 areas identified by associated with offshore industrial activity than the working group. This ranked the areas accord- with similar land-based activities. The technical ing to suitability, and recommended giving prior- and cost-related problems can to some extent be ity to five of them. In 2019, the Ministry of Petro- compensated for by better wind conditions off- leum and Energy held a public consultation on a shore, and the fact that larger wind turbines can proposal to open two areas in the North Sea, be built than is possible onshore. Norwegian Sandskallen-Sørøya North and Utsira North. ocean industries have considerable maritime and Additionally, input was requested on whether the petroleum-related expertise that could play a role in the development of floating wind farms. Knowledge about the environmental impacts of offshore wind power is variable, depending on Box 5.7 Electricity units the species, geographical area and other matters Electricity production and consumption is nor- under consideration. Wind turbines do not them- mally measured in watt-hours. But a watt-hour selves produce emissions to air, and it is consid- (Wh) is only a small unit – an output or con- ered unlikely that there will be any operational sumption of one watt sustained for one hour – discharges to the sea. Thus, any releases of pollut- so it is often more practical to use kilowatt- ants to air or the sea will occur during construc- hours (1 kWh is 1 000 Wh). Production at a tion work and maintenance operations. Wind tur- power plant is typically measured in gigawatt bines do generate noise, however, both during hours (1 GWh is one million kWh). A coun- installation and operation. There is general uncer- try’s total production or consumption of elec- tainty about the actual effects and impacts of off- tricity is usually expressed in terawatt hours shore wind power on seabirds, fish and marine (1 TWh is one billion kWh). In 2019, electric- mammals. Based on the knowledge available in ity production in Norway totalled 133 TWh. 2012, the Norwegian Water Resources and Generation of renewable electricity is Energy Directorate concluded that the impacts weather-dependent. Since the weather is varia- would vary between undetectable and small for ble from year to year, the production capacity fish, marine mammals and benthic communities, of a power plant in Norway is often given for a and from small to moderate for seabirds, but it year when the weather is normal. The Tonstad also pointed out that mapping of benthic commu- hydropower plant, Norway’s largest, has a nities in the areas of interest was incomplete. normal annual production of 3.8 TWh. Knowledge about potential impacts from wind A typical household consumes 16 000 kWh power projects will be updated through environ- of electricity per year, which means that one mental impact assessments of specific projects as TWh provides enough power for about 62 500 part of the licensing process. The Norwegian households. authorities are in contact with relevant countries regarding offshore wind power development, 108 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans through the North Seas Energy Cooperation and number of cold-adapted enzymes that are now other channels. being produced and sold commercially. The path from finding organisms to manufac- turing useful products can often be a long one. 5.5.2 Marine bioprospecting Ten years is a short time in this context, and opti- Marine bioprospecting is a subspeciality of marine misation, verification and commercialisation are biotechnology that involves acquiring knowledge resource-intensive. Value chain development about genetic material, biomolecules and the using discoveries with medical potential made in properties of marine organisms that can be used Norway is still in the early stages before the devel- for commercial purposes, for example in medi- opment of commercial products, and much of the cines and foods. Since 2007, systematic searches research activity is being carried out as part of have been conducted for organisms, genetic mate- large-scale international projects. In 2019, for rial and biomolecules that may prove valuable as example, researchers at The Arctic University of components in various products or processes. Norway UiT published results describing the dis- Material has been collected from around 1 200 covery of a new molecule, derived from a small locations, and close to 1 000 species of benthic Arctic marine organism, that kills breast cancer organisms and algae, as well as samples of fungi cells. This could one day be used in medication to and bacteria, are now stored in Marbank, Nor- treat the most aggressive type of breast cancer. way’s national marine biobank. Some patents The researchers believe that this finding is indica- based on Marbank samples have already been tive of the tremendous potential of the oceans as a secured. source of new medicines. See Box 5.8 for more Organisms have been collected everywhere about this discovery. from the littoral zone to the deep sea and along New technology and the development of next- the Norwegian coastline from Møre og Romsdal generation sampling methods using autonomous county to the Russian border, as well as around underwater vehicles (AUVs) is making it possible Svalbard and in other parts of the Barents Sea. to collect organisms from new marine habitats. The northern seas are of interest because they The biotechnological methods and data technol- are home to many species that are specialised to ogy used to characterise organisms are being survive extreme and often changeable conditions. developed rapidly and becoming less costly. The Moreover, these are very large areas and most of combination of powerful digital tools and biotech- the biodiversity has not yet been studied. nological techniques is making it possible to use Research at The Arctic University of Norway and exploit biological materials to a far greater (UiT) has for instance led to the discovery of a extent than before. This indicates that there is a

Box 5.8 Marine biomolecules for medical use In recent decades, researchers have become cines and that scientists are only beginning to keenly aware that molecules from marine organ- discover substances that are to be found in the isms may be useful in developing new medicines oceans and on the seabed. The hydroids were and vaccines. Molecules have been discovered discovered in biological samples collected dur- that can kill cancer cells or show antibacterial or ing a research cruise off Bjørnøya in 2011. virus-inhibiting properties. Earlier discoveries of particular relevance In December 2019, researchers at UiT pub- now are marine molecules with inhibiting lished results showing that a small Arctic effects on viruses closely related to the corona- marine organism called a hydroid contains a virus SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the 2020 COVID- molecule that kills cancer cells. The molecule 19 pandemic. The inhibitor molecules identified selectively attacks the cells of triple-negative are from two Atlantic species, the red alga breast cancer tumours, the most aggressive type Griffithsia capitata from Spanish waters and the of breast cancer. The researchers believe that sponge Axinella cf. corrugata from Brazilian this finding is indicative of the tremendous waters. potential of the oceans as a source of new medi- 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 109 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans great potential in Norway for value creation based systems. Sample analysis shows high concentra- on marine bioresources. In the EU, revenues from tions of copper, zinc and cobalt in particular. marine biotechnology are expected to reach Despite the mapping that has been carried out, EUR 1 billion in 2020. there has been little exploration of Norwegian It is important to provide a framework that waters for mineral deposits. allows research groups and the private sector to Technologies for extracting minerals from the collect biological material from Norwegian envi- seabed are still under development, so there is ronments and at the same time ensure that this is uncertainty about the potential environmental done within an environmentally sustainable frame- impacts of these activities. Further information on work. The potential for further discoveries is espe- possible extraction technologies will be presented cially large since the oceans, and particularly the in the strategic environmental assessment being deep-sea areas, are still largely unexplored. Only prepared under the Seabed Mineral Act. Species small amounts of materials are needed for sam- and habitats that could be affected are discussed pling, so bioprospecting is considered to have a in Chapter 3.2.4 of this white paper. low environmental impact and to be sustainable. Exploration for and extraction of seabed min- erals could become an important ocean industry for Norway in the future. Norway has substantial 5.5.3 Mineral extraction expertise on sound, sustainable management of Extraction of minerals from the seabed may have resources in and under the oceans. The Seabed considerable market potential in future. Popula- Mineral Act entered into force in 2019. Its purpose tion growth, greater prosperity, restructuring of is to provide a framework for exploration and the energy systems and technological advances extraction of mineral deposits on the Norwegian will increase demand for a number of metallic continental shelf in keeping with socioeconomic minerals. goals. The Act is based on experience from petro- Mineral resources such as polymetallic crusts leum activities, and as a general rule, an area must and sulphides have been found on the Norwegian have been officially opened before licences can be continental shelf. Deposits of metallic sulphides issued for exploration and extraction. have been found and sampled along the volcanic Before the official opening of an area, a strate- Mohn’s Ridge between Jan Mayen and Bjørnøya, gic environmental assessment is required under and there are also clear indications of further the auspices of the Ministry of Petroleum and deposits northwards on the Knipovich Ridge, west Energy. If opening of a new area for seabed min- of Svalbard. The deposits are from hydrothermal eral extraction is proposed, there must be a public vents, which build up chimney-like structures consultation process on the draft decision and the along volcanic spreading ridges. These ‘black strategic environmental assessment. Work on a smokers’ are dynamic structures that may be strategic environmental assessment under the active for thousands of years before they are extin- Seabed Mineral Act has been started, and the guished and, leaving behind sulphide mounds, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate is working on a which are thought to contain most of the seabed resource assessment and study programme. A polymetallic sulphides. The polymetallic crusts, strategic environmental assessment under the Act often called manganese crusts, build up as a coat- is intended to elucidate the possible environmen- ing on bare rock on the seabed. The crusts are tal, industry-related, economic and social impacts mainly composed of manganese and iron, with of opening an area. smaller amounts of metals such as cobalt, nickel, titanium and some rarer metals. Deposits of man- ganese crust have been found and sampled during 5.5.4 Offshore carbon capture and mapping of the Norwegian Sea. If polymetallic geological storage crusts are extracted, this will take place on bare According to both the IPCC and the International rock where ferromanganese compounds have Energy Agency (IEA), it will be difficult and sub- been deposited over long periods of time. stantially more costly to achieve the climate tar- The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate has gets without carbon capture and storage (CCS) been commissioned to map the potential for min- technology. CCS technology will also be critical eral deposits on the Norwegian continental shelf, for achieving carbon-negative solutions in the sec- and surveyed deep-water areas of the Norwegian ond half of this century. The IPCC special report Sea in 2018 and 2019 and discovered new vent Global Warming of 1.5 °C cites CCS as one of fields with a number of active and inactive vent 110 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans many mitigation options needed to tackle climate London Protocol was adopted to permit the export change. of CO2 for the purpose of sub-seabed storage in Norway already has many years of experience geological formations. The amendment will not of CCS under the seabed on the Norwegian conti- enter into force until two-thirds of the contracting nental shelf. About 1.7 million tonnes of CO2 per parties to the protocol have ratified it. By early year has been separated from gas produced on 2020, only six of the 53 parties had ratified the the Sleipner and Snøhvit fields and stored under 2009 amendment. In autumn 2019, the parties the seabed. This is equivalent to 3–4 % of Nor- adopted a resolution, jointly submitted by Norway way’s total annual emissions. CCS can reduce and the Netherlands, on the provisional applica- emissions from industrial processes for which tion of the 2009 amendment. The resolution there are currently no alternative technologies, adopted in autumn 2019 provides a temporary and make it possible to reform natural gas to pro- solution to the prohibition on exports of CO2 for duce emission-free hydrogen. Experience of CCS the purpose of sub-seabed storage in geological puts Norwegian business and research communi- formations. Norway will continue to urge more ties in a good position to participate in further parties to ratify the 2009 amendment so that it can developments. The Norwegian Petroleum Direc- formally enter into force. torate estimates that it is possible to store more than 80 billion tonnes of CO2 in reservoirs on the continental shelf. 5.5.5 Hydrogen production The Government’s ambition is to achieve a Norway is in a good position to produce and make cost-effective solution for full-scale CCS in Nor- use of hydrogen, and already has considerable way, provided that this also results in technology industrial experience in this field. The country development internationally. As part of the Nor- has access to renewable energy and natural gas, wegian full-scale CCS demonstration project, two expertise and experience of CCS, an innovative, industrial partners completed pre-project studies world-class maritime industry, expertise and of CO2 capture at their facilities in autumn 2019. experience in petroleum activities, and needs to The consortium studying transport and storage of reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, CO2 on the Norwegian continental shelf consists parts of the Norwegian business sector are well of Equinor in collaboration with Shell and Total. positioned to play a role in the growing market for The objective is to develop a CO2 storage site of hydrogen solutions and in driving developments substantial capacity that can accommodate larger in a number of sectors, both nationally and inter- volumes of CO2 than will be captured from the nationally. sources in the Norwegian demonstration project. Hydrogen and ammonia have been identified According to current plans, an investment deci- as two important energy carriers with a potential sion could be made in late 2020 or early 2021. Suc- in green shipping. The Norwegian maritime cessful implementation of this demonstration pro- industry has just begun to use both hydrogen, ject could make it possible to connect more emis- with two new builds of hydrogen-powered ferries, sion sources to the storage site, even beyond Nor- and ammonia, for fuel cells in one offshore supply way’s borders. This would reduce costs by using ship. The latter project, ShipFC, received nearly shared infrastructure and through technology NOK 100 million in funding under the EU frame- transfer. work programme Horizon 2020. The prohibition of the London Protocol on the The possibility of using clean hydrogen and export of wastes for dumping at sea has long been ammonia is consistent with Norwegian industrial a legal barrier to transboundary cooperation on and climate policy. CCS infrastructure. In 2009, an amendment to the 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 111 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

6 Acute pollution: risk and the preparedness and response system

Acute pollution is defined in the Pollution Control petroleum activities and the uncertainty associ- Act as significant pollution that occurs suddenly ated with them. ‘Consequences’ include all possi- and that is not permitted under the Act. This chap- ble outcomes of incidents that could potentially ter deals with acute pollution from shipping and arise during activities. ‘Associated uncertainty’ is petroleum activities, and with civilian and military uncertainty relating to the potential consequences activities that pose a risk of acute radioactive pol- of incidents during activities and their effects. lution. There may be uncertainty about the types of inci- Like any other human activity, shipping and dents that may occur, how often they are likely to petroleum activities involve an element of risk. To occur, and the damage or loss that different inci- systematically prevent undesirable events, all dents may cause as regards human life, health, stakeholders put a great deal of effort into risk the environment and material assets. Uncertainty management, including risk treatment. also involves a lack of information, understanding No common, integrated approach has been or knowledge. established for dealing with accident risk and The likelihood of a nuclear accident or another environmental risk across activities in various sec- nuclear or radiological event that has significant tors. This means that assessments and results for consequences and results in acute radioactive pol- different sectors cannot be compared directly. lution outside an extremely limited area is gener- The shipping industry involves a large number ally low. The consequences of an event will of stakeholders, and in principle, ships can sail depend on the content of radioactive material in anywhere in the oceans. Risk management in this the source, the measures taken at the source to sector is for the most part based on international reduce consequences, how the release occurs and conventions and other rules adopted by the Inter- which substances are released, and the way in national Maritime Organization (IMO). In addi- which people and environment are exposed to the tion, Norway has as a coastal state introduced a radioactive material. number of preventive measures that reduce the Major accidents seldom occur but can have likelihood of accidents. For shipping, the likeli- serious environmental consequences. The level of hood of accidents is calculated on the basis of pre- major accident risk is uncertain and depends on vious events involving different types and sizes of what individual stakeholders do to prevent acci- vessels and on the distance sailed in a given geo- dents. Ensuring that the risk of accidents remains graphical area. The potential environmental con- low is a vital part of reducing the level of environ- sequences and risks of acute spills can be calcu- mental risk. lated using oil spill modelling and knowledge about the distribution and vulnerability of various species and habitats. 6.1 Environmental vulnerability On the other hand, the petroleum industry is dominated by a small number of stakeholders and Acute pollution can harm organisms in the water by stationary installations within limited geo- column and on the seabed, seabirds and marine graphical areas. Risk management in the petro- mammals, and organisms that live in coastal leum activities are mainly focused on managing waters and the shore zone. Every spill is different, risks adequately at individual installations and is and the environmental consequences depend on related to different types of activities. The stake- location, timing, the type of spill and its volume, holders work extensively on risk. the species and habitats affected and how vulnera- The petroleum sector in Norway expresses ble they are to the pollutant in question, and the risk in terms of the potential consequences of emergency response and other measures taken to 112 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans reduce the consequences. The actual effects of a Vedøy, Hjelmsøya and Hornøya colonies are also spill also depend on the state of the species and particularly vulnerable. habitats affected and their importance in the eco- Fish eggs and larvae are more exposed to oil system, in addition to their vulnerability to the pol- pollution than adult fish because they drift more lutant involved. Major oil spills pose the greatest or less passively with ocean currents and cannot risk, and the main focus is therefore on improving actively avoid oil pollution. In addition, fish eggs scientific knowledge about vulnerability to oil pol- and larvae have a larger potential for absorbing oil lution, regardless of whether spills are from ves- components due to their high surface-to-volume sels or petroleum installations. ratio. These organisms are also particularly vul- nerable to pollution in their early developmental stages. A number of Norwegian and international Vulnerability to oil pollution laboratory studies have been carried out to inves- In recent years, much new knowledge and data tigate exposure of fish larvae to oil for varying have been obtained that further enhance our lengths of time in order to establish tolerance to understanding of the vulnerability of the marine oil and threshold values for developmental abnor- environment to oil pollution. A substantial body of malities and mortality. Results from the Institute experience and knowledge has been collected of Marine Research project EGGTOX indicate that about the ecological impacts of the 2010 blowout exposure to realistic concentrations of oil causes in the Gulf of Mexico, for example on the effects serious harm to eggs and larvae of haddock, cod, of oil sedimentation and marine oil snow. There is saithe, halibut, herring and polar cod. The thresh- a high level of research activity in Norway as well, olds for harmful effects of oil on different fish spe- including research on the tolerance of various cies are uncertain. As new information and new organisms in Arctic areas to oil. Although a great studies become available, it is important to adapt deal of knowledge that is relevant to Norwegian and adjust the threshold values used by the indus- conditions has been obtained on possible effects try in environmental risk analyses. on individual organisms, the level of uncertainty is To develop better tools for assessing the still high when assessing impacts at population impacts of oil spills on fish stocks, the modelling and ecosystem levels. system SYMBIOSES was developed as a collabo- Knowledge about habitat use by different sea- rative project between the petroleum industry and bird populations through the year has been con- a number of research institutions, including the siderably improved for the Barents Sea. The Institute of Marine Research. So far, simulations SEATRACK mapping project has provided new have been run for spills in the spawning grounds understanding of seabird distribution in the open for Northeast Arctic cod off the Lofoten Islands. sea, particularly in the autumn and winter. As a The simulation showed that in the worst-case sce- result, seabirds have been assessed as particu- nario that was simulated, up to 43 % of a year class larly vulnerable to acute pollution in several areas of eggs and larvae could be exposed to lethal lev- of open sea in addition to at the major breeding els of oil. Further modelling indicates that such colonies. This assessment applies for example to losses of eggs and larvae would have a limited common guillemots migrating by swimming after effect on the Northeast Arctic cod stock (12 % loss breeding, and the areas in the southeastern Bar- of adult biomass). No simulations have been run ents Sea where they congregate after the swim- for other species as yet, so these results cannot be ming migration for the autumn and winter. Spe- directly transferred to other fish stocks. Uncer- cies such as puffins, common guillemots, Brün- tainty about the effects on species other than cod, nich‘s guillemots and little auks also use large particularly in the most important spawning areas when foraging at sea during the breeding areas, is therefore still high. In autumn 2019, the season. These areas extend further out from the Institute of Marine Research published a study breeding colonies than previously thought. Popu- supporting these conclusions. lations in decline are vulnerable to begin with, and There are several areas of the Barents Sea that new knowledge shows that abrupt reductions in support a high diversity of important species and population size will increase pressure on such habitats that could be harmed by exposure to oil. populations and make them more vulnerable. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the Brünnich‘s guillemots from colonies on Bjørnøya vulnerability of these ecosystems and potential and puffins from those on Røst stand out as being effects at ecosystem level. Several of the particu- particularly vulnerable. Kittiwakes from the larly valuable and vulnerable areas stand out as being nutrient-rich and with high biodiversity, and 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 113 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans may be especially vulnerable to ecosystem effects in the event of acute pollution all year round or at Vulnerability to other acute pollution certain times of year. In the Barents Sea–Lofoten Acute effects of chemical spills will primarily area, this applies particularly to Lofoten– involve toxic substances. Assuming that the scale Tromsøflaket, the Tromsøflaket bank area, the of such spills is limited in both volume and time, marginal ice zone and the polar tidal front, and the rapid dilution in coastal waters and particularly in sea areas surrounding Svalbard (including the open sea will limit the exposure of living Bjørnøya). It is important to take a particularly organisms to concentrations exceeding threshold cautious approach in these areas to avoid oil pollu- levels for toxicity. These thresholds are known for tion and associated damage. In the Norwegian organisms that have been tested against various Sea and the North Sea–Skagerrak, the particu- substances, but not for all relevant organisms that larly valuable and vulnerable areas and also may be exposed to pollutants. coastal waters and seabird breeding colonies are especially vulnerable to oil pollution. The marginal ice zone is a highly productive 6.2 Shipping area where a number of vulnerable resources could be affected simultaneously, and oil pollution Vessel casualties, including groundings, colli- in the area could have major impacts. An oil spill sions, structural failure and fire or explosion, in the marginal ice zone could affect large congre- occur at irregular intervals and can result in acute gations of seabirds and marine mammals (includ- pollution. ing polar bears), and also the plankton, ice algae In 2017, the Norwegian Maritime Authority and fish larvae in the water column and under the registered 204 personal injuries and 244 vessel ice. The scale of the impacts on an oil spill will casualties. Figures for 2018 were 199 personal depend on its magnitude, where the spill occurs, injuries and 240 vessel casualties. In the last five- the type of spill and the time of year. year period, the combined total averaged 462 per Oil that is frozen into the ice can be trans- year. ported with the ice as it drifts, and will be a source The overall number of injuries and accidents is of pollution in areas where the ice melts. Because trending downwards. The number of incidents of the high biological production and diversity in involving fire, contact damage and occupational the marginal ice zone, oil pollution in this area accidents is declining. Although fatalities do could affect the habitats of a large number of spe- unfortunately occur on Norwegian vessels, the cies and species groups. trend over time indicates a clear reduction of the There are still major gaps in our knowledge of most serious accidents. the damage oil pollution could do to the ecosys- A vessel casualty may involve personal injuries tem in the marginal ice zone, but its vulnerability or fatalities as well as damage to or loss of the ves- is considered to be high. The impacts could be sel itself. The Norwegian Maritime Authority particularly severe in the event of a major oil spill recorded 1 241 vessel casualties in the most across a large area of the marginal ice zone in recent five-year period (2014–2018). The annual spring or summer, when production in the water number of groundings was quite stable during the column is very high and large numbers of sea- five-year period, while the number of accidents birds and marine mammals may be concentrated involving contact damage (collisions with piers, in limited areas. bridges, etc.), dropped from 58 in 2014 to 34 in 2018. The probability of accidents is influenced by a Vulnerability to radioactive pollution number of factors, including the volume of trans- Ionising radiation from radioactive substances can port, the traffic situation, the technical standard affect organisms through both external exposure and equipment of vessels, crew qualifications and and internal exposure. Exposure types must be the preventive measures that have been intro- included in assessments of harmful effects. Differ- duced. The forecast frequency of accidents is ent radioactive substances emit different types of highest in the North Sea–Skagerrak area and low- radiation with varying ranges and potential to est in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area. This corre- cause harm. The harmful effects of radiation and sponds to the share of total distance sailed in each radiation-induced free radicals often involve DNA of the management plan areas and also the shares damage and cellular reactions which may cause of total distance sailed that are close to the coast. biological damage. 114 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

In the period 2014–2017, the number of vessel waters. The Polar Code entered into force on 1 casualties in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area was January 2017. relatively low compared to the numbers for the The prohibition against carrying heavy bun- Norwegian Sea and the North Sea–Skagerrak. ker oil in the protected areas around Svalbard was The number of accidents was highest in near- introduced in 2007, and its scope was expanded coastal areas. In all, 428 incidents were recorded from 1 January 2015. Ships are not permitted to in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, of which 126 use or carry heavy bunker oil when sailing into involved spills totalling 15 062 litres of various Nordaust- and Søraust-Svalbard nature reserves substances. There was an increase in the number on the east coast of Svalbard or the three large of incidents during this period, but the time frame national parks Sør-Spitsbergen, Forlandet and is too short, and there are too few incidents, to Nordvest-Spitsbergen in the western part of the draw any conclusions about trends. Most regis- archipelago. Instead, they must use light marine tered spills were small, but the total spill volume diesel, which causes less serious pollution in the was noticeably higher in 2015 than in 2014, 2016 event of a spill. The Government is considering and 2017. The largest single spill (1 500 litres) was extending this ban to other parts of Svalbard‘s ter- a release of marine diesel from a fishing vessel in ritorial waters. Negotiations under IMO are 2015. In 2018, 106 vessel casualties involving spills underway to establish an international ban on were reported, with a total spill volume of 52 m3 to heavy fuel oil in the Arctic. Norwegian waters. Over the last three years, Traffic separation schemes and recommended there has been little variation in spill volume. routes have been introduced between Vardø and In the period 2011–2017, there was an Røst (in 2007), between Runde and Utsira and increase in the volume of both transit traffic and between Egersund and Risør (in 2011). These high-risk traffic in the Barents Sea. With the measures have helped to move shipping further higher volumes of high-risk cargo and bunker oil, out from the coast, separate traffic streams in there is also a higher discharge potential and a opposite directions and establish a fixed sailing possibility of more severe environmental impacts. pattern. The traffic separation schemes reduce Data from the Vardø Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) the risk of collisions, simplify traffic monitoring Centre show that the vessels transporting petro- and give the maritime traffic control centres more leum products from northwestern Russia are rela- time to come to the assistance of vessels when tively new. In addition, serious accidents involving necessary. large tankers are very rare. Thus, the growth in The government emergency tugboat capability is the volume of traffic and in the volume of petro- designed to prevent or reduce the risk of acute leum products transported do not result in much pollution during towing operations or when assist- increase in the likelihood of accidents. ing vessels in other ways. From 1 January 2020, operational responsibility for providing this capa- bility has been transferred to the Coast Guard, Maritime safety measures under the administration of the Norwegian The Polar Code lays down globally binding rules Coastal Administration. The Coast Guard will for ships operating in polar waters, i.e. Arctic and shortly have two new vessels in service, and will Antarctic waters. Its rules apply in addition to then have six vessels that provide tugboat capabil- those of already existing conventions and codes ity. The Coastal Administration coordinates the on maritime safety and pollution from shipping use of government tugboat capability from the (SOLAS, MARPOL, the STCW Convention, etc). Vardø VTS Centre. The VTS Centre deploys tug- The Polar Code consists of two parts, one on boat capability in cooperation with the Coast safety and one on environment-related matters. It Guard command centre at Sortland. sets specific requirements for ships operating in Vessel monitoring systems in Norwegian waters polar waters, for example on ship design, equip- provide a detailed picture of maritime traffic and ment, operations, environmental protection, navi- make it possible to provide assistance or take gation and crew qualifications. The most impor- steps to limit damage at the right time. These sys- tant environment-related provisions deal with pol- tems also make it easier for the authorities to deal lution by oil, chemicals, sewage and garbage with accidents and run search and rescue opera- released from ships. The Polar Code is consid- tions. Further development of the infrastructure ered to be one of the most important develop- for receiving Automatic Identification System ments for improving maritime safety in polar (AIS) signals from vessels has significantly enhanced vessel monitoring in recent years. A 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 115 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans network of AIS base stations along the entire 6.3 Petroleum activities mainland coast and for the most heavily trafficked waters off Svalbard has been established. Satel- In addition to operational discharges (discussed lites equipped with AIS receivers have also greatly in Chapter 5), petroleum activities involve a risk of enhanced monitoring in the open sea. The Vardø acute pollution. Acute pollution may be caused by VTS Centre monitors shipping throughout Nor- events ranging from blowouts, where there is an way‘s exclusive economic zone and the waters uncontrolled flow from one or more reservoirs around Svalbard, focusing particularly on tankers and large volumes of oil may be released to the and other large vessels. The Vardø VTS also moni- sea, to small-scale spills of oil or chemicals, for tors compliance with the rules for the traffic sepa- example due to a ruptured hose or overfilled tank. ration schemes and recommended routes off the The risk of spills during petroleum activities is coast, and issues navigational warnings. also referred to as accident risk in this white Fairway measures, such as dredging and blast- paper. The risk of spills causing environmental ing to remove shallows, improve safety and navi- damage is referred to as environmental risk. gation in narrow coastal channels. Some fairway For over 40 years, the Norwegian petroleum measures also reduce distance and time sailed. In industry has been dealing with challenges in new many cases, fairway measures involve the areas, developing necessary knowledge and tech- removal of contaminated sediments, which nology, and building up wide operational experi- improves environmental status in the ports and ence. Before starting activities in new areas, the fairways where this is done. industry dedicates substantial resources to knowl- The white paper on cooperation to improve edge acquisition, assessment and any measures maritime safety (Meld. St. 30 (2018–2019)) gives considered to be necessary. The infrequency of an account of maritime safety measures imple- accidents must be considered in conjunction with mented in recent years. Together, these measures these preparations and with companies’ risk man- have enhanced maritime safety in Norway‘s agement systems and the improvements they marine and coastal waters. make in subsequent phases of activity. After assessments, the Forum for Integrated Ocean Management concluded that no individual factors Environmental risk had been identified that were previously unknown Integrated environmental risk and preparedness and that cannot be managed within the framework analyses were carried out for the mainland coast of the current legislation, and/or are not already in 2011 and for Svalbard and Jan Mayen in 2014. being dealt with through technology develop- The analysis of the likelihood of vessel casualties ment. leading to acute pollution was updated in 2018, Management responsibility for the petroleum and shows only small changes in accident likeli- sector is split between a number of ministries and hood. The Norwegian Coastal Administration has directorates. From the outset, a key part of the developed new tools to calculate the likelihood of system has been maintaining high health, safety accidents and environmental risks associated with and working environment standards. The Govern- shipping, and will regularly assess trends in risk ment‘s ambition is for the Norwegian petroleum level once these tools are taken into use. If there industry to be world-leading in this field. The are substantial changes in the level of environ- industry supports this ambition and is responsible mental risk, it may be appropriate to adjust the for achieving it. capabilities of the governmental preparedness and response system for acute pollution. There is uncertainty concerning potential Incidents environmental consequences associated with There have been both large and small spills from spills of new fuel types. The Coastal Administra- oil and gas activities on the Norwegian continen- tion has therefore analysed many of the new fuels tal shelf, but they have occurred relatively far that are now being taken into use in Norwegian from land and under favourable weather condi- waters and the Arctic. This builds a stronger basis tions, and response measures were implemented, for decisions about operations to deal with acute so that the pollution has not reached land or pollution, including assessing different response caused environmental damage. techniques and strategies. There was a decline in the number incidents involving crude oil spills on the Norwegian conti- nental shelf in the period 2001–2018 (see 116 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

1.2 90

80 1 70 >1000 tonnes

0.8 60 100-1000 tonnes

50 10-100 tonnes 0.6 40 1-10 tonnes

0.4 30 Number of incidents 0.1-1 tonnes 0-0.1 tonnes 20 0.2 Number of incidents 10 Number of incidents per installation-year

0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 6.1 Number of crude oil spills in the management plan areas and total spill volume in the period 2001–2018. Source: Petroleum Safety Authority Norway

3 250

2.5 200

2 150 > 1 m3

1.5 0.05 - 1 m3

100 < 0.05 m3 1 Number of incidents Number of incidents

50 0.5 Number of incidents per installation-year

0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 6.2 Number of chemical spills in the management plan areas and total spill volume in the period 2001–2018. Source: Petroleum Safety Authority Norway

Figure 6.1). This indicates that barrier failures Chemical spills are the dominant type of inci- have been occurring less frequently in recent dent involving acute pollution from petroleum years. The decline is due to a reduction in the activities on the Norwegian continental shelf (see number of incidents and in spill volumes. Inci- Figure 6.2). Roughly 80 % of the incidents involv- dents involving large spills occur infrequently, and ing acute pollution in the period 2001–2018 were there is insufficient data to identify a trend. Few chemical spills. Around one-fourth of these incidents were registered in the Barents Sea– involved a spill volume exceeding one cubic Lofoten area that resulted or could have resulted metre. in acute pollution in the period 2001–2018. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 117 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

There has been a decline in the number of pollution. Accident prevention requires continu- incidents involving acute pollution in the Norwe- ous efforts by competent, responsible stakehold- gian Sea in recent years. The same applies to inci- ers. Before starting activities, the operator must dents involving chemical spills. However, total determine whether established procedures can be spill volumes from incidents involving chemical used, or whether further measures need to be spills have been high in recent years both in the implemented to operate responsibly. The authori- Norwegian Sea and in the North Sea–Skagerrak. ties monitor this through supervisory activities The figures for 2001–2018, include too few and consent procedures. The Petroleum Safety registered incidents in the Barents Sea–Lofoten Authority has a particular responsibility for ensur- area to allow analysis of trends over time or com- ing that operators work systematically to reduce parison with the other management plan areas. accident risk through targeted risk management, However, both the figures and practical experi- knowledge development, transfer of experience, ence indicate that the safety level in the Barents and development of technology and standards. Sea is on a par with that on the rest of the conti- The Petroleum Safety Authority has also taken nental shelf. The level of activity in the Barents various steps to ensure learning from experience, Sea since 2013 has enabled both the authorities and has strengthened safety rules, provided infor- and the operators to learn more about factors spe- mation on requirements for risk management, cific to particular areas. and sought to improve barrier management. Stricter requirements for drilling of relief wells have been introduced, as well as a closer focus on Near misses dealing with uncertainty in risk management. A near miss is an event that does not lead to a spill The Petroleum Safety Authority, in coopera- but that could have done so under different cir- tion with the operators, has been focusing more cumstances. Such events are analysed and fol- on preventing well control incidents during explo- lowed up by the operators and the authorities, in ration drilling, for instance through special atten- particular the Petroleum Safety Authority, so that tion to well design and changes to statutory the experience gained can be used in preventive requirements. Well control incidents can lead to efforts and risk treatment. major spills, and are therefore given high priority In recent years there has been a tendency for even though the likelihood of such accidents is the number of near misses on the Norwegian con- low. tinental shelf to rise, because the number of well Subsea installations may also be a source of control incidents in the North Sea has risen. Most acute pollution. The industry and the authorities of these incidents have occurred during produc- are cooperating on developing methods to prevent tion drilling. Relatively large numbers of produc- and detect such incidents. The development of tion wells have been drilled in the North Sea dur- technology for early detection of spills is a key ing the same period. part of these efforts. The same health, safety and working environ- ment legislation for petroleum activities applies to Measures to reduce accident risk the entire Norwegian continental shelf. It includes Much safety work involves preventing or mitigat- requirements for risk management and to take ing the consequences of incidents. Often, the local factors into account. The companies must same mechanisms underlie near misses and more therefore assess local conditions and take appro- serious incidents, despite differences in the con- priate measures to deal with them. This makes it sequences. Small differences in circumstances important to build up knowledge and information may be enough to determine whether near misses about local conditions. Experience has shown that and accidents result only in financial conse- there are certain local factors in the Barents Sea quences or whether they also cause personal inju- that require special measures to be taken. In ries and/or lead to acute pollution. Reducing acci- recent years, the operators and the authorities dent risk is therefore a vital part of safety work. have worked to develop knowledge and standards Whether it is possible in practice to avoid acci- to deal with this. The companies dedicate substan- dents that lead to acute pollution will depend tial resources to knowledge acquisition, assess- greatly on risk management work by the compa- ments and the necessary measures. They also nies during planning and operations. cooperate on solutions to improve accident pre- Operators are responsible for preventing all vention and response, such as the oil spill prepar- incidents, including those that may lead to acute edness and response system. Another priority 118 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans area is development of technical and operational response in the Barents Sea. This experience, solutions adapted to conditions when icing is together with new knowledge about species and likely. habitats, is important for understanding environ- The Petroleum Safety Authority has been fol- mental risk in the management plan area. lowing and contributing to the development of The potential consequences will be greatest if knowledge and standards specifically related to a spill could affect areas where there are high con- these matters. The Authority has also taken a centrations of vulnerable species and habitats, number of initiatives to consider how to foster such as the marginal ice zone and areas close to closer cooperation between companies involved in seabird colonies. petroleum activities in the Barents Sea. Seabirds stand out as being at high environ- mental risk in the Barents Sea. Although the dis- charge potential here, particularly in northern Environmental risk parts of the Barents Sea South, is considerably The environmental risk associated with petroleum lower than elsewhere on the Norwegian continen- activities is primarily related to oil spills. Releases tal shelf, the environmental risk for seabirds in the of natural gas emissions and chemicals are not open sea is generally higher in the Barents Sea– associated with a high level of environmental risk. Lofoten area than in the North Sea–Skagerrak Environmental risk is defined as the potential for and the Norwegian Sea, because larger numbers environmental consequences from acute pollu- of seabirds are present for much of the year. tion. There is no reason to believe that environmen- The health, safety and working environment tal risk to fish is high, as long as there is no signif- regulations require operators to conduct risk anal- icant overlap between the presence of fish eggs yses of their own activities to support decisions and larvae and harmful concentrations of oil. The when assessing risk-reducing measures, in keep- level of risk also depends on how vulnerable a par- ing with requirements to minimise risk. The regu- ticular stock is to the loss of a year class of lations also require operators to set their own recruits to the mature stock. acceptance criteria for environmental risk and The level of environmental risk associated apply these in managing their activities. with most drilling and other field activity in the The operators’ analyses and assessments of Norwegian Sea and the North Sea is within the environmental consequences and environmental range expected for these activities in these man- risk, together with other available knowledge agement plan areas. This is mainly because the about potential environmental consequences, are likelihood of serious accidents is considered low used as a basis for determining requirements for and because, for many activities, there is a limited acute pollution preparedness and response, as potential for environmental consequences in the well as for assessing whether the risk level for most vulnerable areas. However, certain activities activities described in an application is acceptable. in the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea are asso- The legislation requires analyses and assess- ciated with a high level of environmental risk ments to be based on the best available underly- because they have a potential for serious environ- ing data and reasonable assumptions. mental consequences. Some wells are considered The environmental authorities need informa- to pose a high environmental risk because of their tion on the potential for environmental conse- potential for very high blowout rates and/or their quences, the severity of the potential conse- location near the coast. New knowledge about the quences and the associated uncertainty when potential for oil sedimentation from spills is also of assessing levels of environmental risk. Environ- relevance for environmental risk assessments for mental risk is an important part of overall risk the Norwegian Sea, where there are large, impor- assessment, and risk management must include tant cold-water coral reef complexes. Oil drift sim- both preventive measures and measures to ulation for wells near the Viking Bank indicates reduce consequences. The Petroleum Safety that in the event of a spill, oil concentrations in Authority and the Norwegian Environment much of the water column in the area could Agency are seeking to enhance integrated risk exceed the estimated threshold for harmful management across different fields. effects on fish larvae, including sandeels. Data on There is a substantial body of experience relat- the specific oil concentrations that are harmful to ing to spill scenarios, oil spill modelling and poten- sandeel eggs and larvae is not available, and will tial environmental consequences, environmental be needed to improve assessments of the environ- risk and challenges relating to preparedness and mental risk to sandeels. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 119 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

been dumped in the Barents Sea and the adjoining Important measures for reducing environmental risk Kara Sea. There is also risk associated with a pos- The most important ways of reducing environ- sible future increase in military activity and mental risk are to take preventive action to reduce greater use of the Northern Sea Route, which may the likelihood of accidents involving spills and to include the use of floating nuclear power plants avoid accidents in areas that are particularly vul- and small modular reactors in connection with the nerable to acute pollution. Such measures may anticipated rise in commercial activity. include robust well design, good standards of Proximity to the Sellafield (UK) and La Hague maintenance, measures to reduce potential spill (France) reprocessing plants entail shorter trans- volumes, and scheduling activities during periods port time and less dilution of radioactive material when the environmental consequences of acute before reaching Norway‘s management plan pollution would be smaller. In certain areas and at areas of the North Sea–Skagerrak and the Nor- certain times of year, it will be difficult to reduce wegian Sea. environmental risk sufficiently through prepared- ness measures. Scheduling activities outside the areas and times associated with highest environ- 6.5 Preparedness and response to mental risk is one of the measures that can give acute pollution: reducing the the greatest reductions in the consequences of consequences of accidents spills. The Pollution Control Act distinguishes between private, municipal and governmental levels of the 6.4 Activities involving nuclear and preparedness and response system for acute pol- radioactive material lution. A basic principle of the Act is that anyone who is engaged in any activity that may result in Large-scale nuclear accidents can have very seri- acute pollution must ensure that the necessary ous consequences in nearby areas. In addition, preparedness and response system is in place to radioactive pollution can be spread widely by prevent, detect, stop, remove and limit the winds and ocean currents and affect large geo- impacts of pollution. A municipality where there is graphical areas. Shortly after a nuclear accident, a pollution incident has an obligation to take organisms may suffer external exposure to radia- action if those responsible for the pollution are tion or may ingest radioactive material. In the unable to deal with it. The central government is longer term, exposure will primarily be internal, the supervisory authority for private and munici- through the uptake of radioactive substances in pal acute pollution response operations, and can organisms and food chains. In recent years, envi- assume on-scene command if the situation is not ronmental risk assessments have been conducted being adequately handled by the polluter or for accident scenarios involving nuclear-powered municipality. At operational level, the overall pre- vessels, maritime transport of radioactive mate- paredness and response system involves coopera- rial, leaks from sunken nuclear submarines, and tion between the three levels described here. long-range transport of radioactivity released The Norwegian Coastal Administration, under from reprocessing plants. These assessments the Ministry of Transport, is responsible for the indicate that for a number of accident scenarios, governmental preparedness and response system there is a potential for levels of radioactive sub- for acute pollution, and for supervision of the stances to exceed thresholds set by the authori- response of those responsible in the event of ties. acute pollution. The Coastal Administration is also Of Norway‘s three management plan areas, responsible for coordinating governmental, the Barents Sea–Lofoten area has the highest vol- municipal and private resources to provide a ume of traffic involving nuclear-powered vessels national preparedness and response system for and vessels carrying nuclear weapons. This is also acute pollution. the area nearest sources and activities in north- The Norwegian Environment Agency, under western Russia, including military facilities and the Ministry of Climate and Environment, is activities, civilian nuclear reactors, civilian responsible for setting requirements for private nuclear-powered vessels and transport of radioac- and municipal preparedness and response sys- tive material, and floating nuclear power plants. tems, further developing preparedness and There are also a number of sunken nuclear sub- response legislation, and supervising private and marines and sites where radioactive waste has municipal preparedness and response systems. 120 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

The Petroleum Safety Authority, under the Minis- strengthening research on new methods for oil try of Labour and Social Affairs, is responsible for spill response in icy conditions, obtain better technical and operational safety and for prevent- information about the operators’ preparedness ing acute pollution from petroleum activities. and response plans, and conduct emergency pre- The Government has decided to establish test paredness analyses and exercises in cooperation facilities for oil spill response equipment at Fiske- with other authorities and the industry in order to bøl, Nordland county, as part of the Norwegian assess overall preparedness and response in the Centre for Oil Spill Preparedness and Marine Arctic. Closer follow-up of municipal prepared- Environment. This will provide opportunities for ness and response systems is also recommended. testing equipment over long periods in cold condi- Steps have been taken to follow up the Auditor tions will and strengthen research and develop- General‘s recommendations. ment of technology for operations in icy waters. In The Coastal Administration and the Norwe- the longer term, this will improve Norway‘s oil gian Environment Agency are seeking closer col- spill preparedness. In addition, the Coastal Admin- laboration to ensure the right preparedness and istration has launched a number of research pro- response requirements for the petroleum indus- jects on new methods for dispersion and in-situ try, and effective coordination of national prepar- burning of different types of fuel in cold waters. edness and response. To ensure better access to The Pollution Control Act and Norway‘s information, it may be appropriate to establish a national plan for the emergency preparedness and joint database for operators’ preparedness and response system for acute pollution clarify roles response plans. and responsibilities, which also apply in the Bar- Under section 43 of the Pollution Control Act, ents Sea–Lofoten area. Exercises are held several municipalities are required to provide for the nec- times a year. The Coastal Administration takes essary emergency preparedness and response part in large-scale exercises with the oil compa- system to deal with minor acute pollution inci- nies every year, and at least one exercise a year dents. The Norwegian Environment Agency is the involves the governmental preparedness and supervisory authority for municipal preparedness response system assuming on-scene command. and response and is authorised to set further The Coastal Administration also participates in requirements for the municipalities, while the search and rescue (SAR) exercises and, together Coastal Administration is responsible for coordi- with the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, con- nating the national preparedness and response ducts annual SAR and oil response exercises with system. To ensure closer coordination of munici- Russian authorities in the Barents Sea. The pal and governmental preparedness and Coastal Administration also carries out annual response, the possibility of transferring responsi- exercises with the governmental action control bility for supervision and follow up of municipal group and the Governor of Svalbard. In recent preparedness and response from the Norwegian years, the Coastal Administration has carried out Environment Agency to the Coastal Administra- shoreline clean-up exercises in eastern Finnmark tion will be considered. This could ensure seam- together with Russian partners and the intermu- less integration between municipal and govern- nicipal acute pollution control committees. To mental preparedness and response systems. define roles and responsibilities for preparedness and response even more clearly, the Coastal Administration will revise the national plan for the The Barents Sea–Lofoten area emergency preparedness and response system Over the past decade, both the governmental and for acute pollution in 2020. private preparedness and response systems for The Office of the Auditor General has investi- acute pollution have been built up. The white gated the authorities’ efforts to safeguard the paper on cooperation to improve maritime safety environment and fisheries in connection with (Meld. St. 30 (2018–2019)) reviewed ways of petroleum activities in the Arctic. The Storting strengthening governmental preparedness and has considered the Auditor General‘s report and response. Based on the difficulties identified in responded to a number of its recommendations. the 2014 environmental risk and emergency pre- The Auditor General concluded that the oil spill paredness analysis for Svalbard and Jan Mayen, preparedness and response system is not properly the Government has implemented a number of adapted to the specific conditions in the Arctic. measures to strengthen the preparedness and The report therefore recommends that the com- response system for acute pollution in the area. petent authorities should consider ways of Service vessels under the Governor of Svalbard 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 121 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Figure 6.3 A coastal oil spill response exercise. Source: Norwegian Coastal Administration have been outfitted with additional oil spill age and capacity. The availability of oil spill response equipment and crews are trained to use response equipment and personnel is also limited, it. Several new vessels have been included in the there is a lack of sites where recovered oil and coastal preparedness and response system for waste can be deposited, and distances are long, Svalbard. The Coast Guard vessel KV Svalbard meaning that response times are also long if there has been equipped with a heavy-duty oil contain- is an incident. ment boom reinforced for icy conditions. In coop- Natural conditions will also affect oil spill eration with the Governor of Svalbard and the recovery operations – for instance the very lim- company Telenor, the Coastal Administration has ited daylight for part of the year, low temperatures developed a maritime broadband radio network and the risk of icing on equipment, and the often for key areas of Svalbard‘s west coast. rapid shifts in weather conditions. The presence The Coastal Administration has analysed of ice makes it considerably more difficult to deal many of the new fuels that are now being taken effectively with acute pollution. Finding efficient into use in Norwegian waters and the Arctic. logistics solutions will be a major challenge for all These have been tested under Arctic conditions types of operations in Arctic waters. Personnel for persistence, evaporation rates, dissolution and material will need to be transported to and rates in water, dispersibility and toxicity. The from the area affected during an oil spill opera- Coastal Administration has also investigated tion, and recovered oil will have to be transported releases of gases and particulate matter from the out of the area unless it is burned off in situ. Oper- combustion of different fuels. This is important ational platforms including ships, aircraft and background information for environmental drones must be robust and meet adequate safety assessments of measures to deal with acute pollu- standards. It is essential to comply with health, tion. safety and working environment requirements for The northernmost sea areas have little infra- response personnel during all types of activities. structure and limited telecommunications cover- 122 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

An oil spill response operation near Bjørnøya est environmental risk from oil spills in the Bar- would be particularly challenging. Access to the ents Sea, using dispersants may be an important island from both land and sea is difficult for part of a preparedness and response strategy for response teams and equipment due to its exposed the area. However, dispersant delivery capacity coastline and steep coastal cliffs. Even much of for the Barents Sea is currently limited. the more low-lying northern part of the island Subsea injection of dispersants was an impor- ends in a steep drop of 10–30 metres, making boat tant part of the response during the Gulf of Mex- landings difficult. There are a few sandy bays and ico blowout in 2010. Studies by the oil and gas beaches, but even these are not protected from industry indicate that water depths in the Barents winds and rough seas. The exposed coastline and Sea, the Norwegian Sea and northern North Sea wave conditions akin to the open sea mean that are sufficient for subsea injection of dispersants to standard oil recovery systems designed for fjord be effective, provided that the gas content of the and coastal operations are not robust enough. oil is not excessive. However, more knowledge is Larger systems have the drawback of being diffi- needed about sedimentation of dispersed oil and cult to manoeuvre near the coast. Access from possible formation of marine oil snow before dis- land is extremely difficult because of a lack of persants are used in areas with a vulnerable ben- infrastructure in addition to the terrain. thic fauna. It would also be very demanding to carry out a Both mechanical recovery and dispersion can large-scale shoreline-cleaning operation in Sval- function satisfactorily in areas with some ice. bard because of the long distances involved and Recent field trials have shown that mechanical the lack of resources and infrastructure on land. equipment can be operated in areas with up to Dealing with waste would be particularly difficult, 10 % ice cover. However, the reduction in recovery and it will be necessary to focus on techniques for effectiveness caused by the recovery of large reducing waste quantities. quantities of ice with the oil has not been Technology development has resulted in assessed. Both governmental and private improvements of conventional methods for spill response equipment has been tested, and steps containment and recovery in open seas and have been taken to strengthen equipment to with- coastal waters, but the cold, presence of ice and stand the additional load of ice. long distances still make response operations in The use of in-situ burning has been consid- both coastal waters and the shore zone a challeng- ered as a way of dealing with oil trapped in ice and ing task. oil-polluted sediments in areas lacking the infra- There are challenges relating to wave height, structure needed to handle large quantities of currents and operations in coastal waters and the waste. Burning trials have shown that significant shore zone in all three management plan areas. It amounts of viscous oil residue remain and must is particularly demanding to carry out large-scale later be recovered. Further development work is response operations in vulnerable coastal waters. needed to find a suitable recovery method for use Both public- and private-sector studies have during response operations. been carried out to assess the suitability of availa- ble oil spill response methods and equipment in Design and capabilities of the preparedness and the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, and how their suit- response systems ability may vary from season to season. Based on knowledge about limitations relating to wave Governmental preparedness and response height, ice, wind and light conditions, the studies Governmental preparedness and response capa- indicate that conditions for mechanical recovery bility and the locations where equipment and of oil will seldom be favourable in winter but will other resources are available are determined on often be favourable in the summer. Unfavourable the basis of knowledge of environmental risk asso- conditions can significantly reduce operational ciated with oil spills from shipping in Norwegian effectiveness. Actual recovery effectiveness, waters. The Coastal Administration carried out which has not been assessed, will depend on the environmental risk and emergency preparedness type of oil and degree of weathering. analyses for the mainland coast in 2011 and for The use of dispersants is not restricted to the Svalbard and Jan Mayen in 2014. These analyses same extent by the prevailing weather conditions, are used in the work of optimising the design of and weather statistics indicate that they will be the governmental preparedness and response sys- suitable for use for more of the year. Since sea- tem. birds are considered to be the group at the high- 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 123 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

The petroleum industry‘s preparedness and response Emergency preparedness system for nuclear accidents system and acute radioactive pollution There is no clear-cut solution for how the prepar- Norway‘s nuclear emergency preparedness sys- edness and response system for petroleum activi- tem involves authorities at the national, regional ties on the Norwegian continental shelf should be and local levels. The system is designed to rapidly designed. The system must be in reasonable pro- establish an effective, science-based, coordinated portion to risk, rather than based on worst-case response to nuclear accidents and ensure the scenarios. Nonetheless, the system is designed to rapid implementation of measures to protect lives, deal with blowouts of relatively long duration, health, the environment and other important pub- even though their likelihood is low. lic interests. Norway‘s nuclear emergency prepar- The Office of the Auditor General has raised edness system is led by the Crisis Committee for questions about whether certain weaknesses in Nuclear and Radiological Preparedness. the operators’ analyses, their presentation of In the event of a nuclear accident, the Crisis results, and insufficient cooperation between the Committee will coordinate the responses of vari- relevant authorities have resulted in an inade- ous authorities in different sectors, and can also quate basis for making decisions about require- implement measures itself. The spread of the radi- ments for risk-reducing measures. There is a need oactive pollution and its anticipated scale and to review the assumptions on which preparedness severity will be modelled. Measurements and and response capability is based and how the other information will also need to be obtained to response equipment and techniques available and feed into the models in order to characterise the their limitations are taken into account. The oper- type and amount of radioactive pollution. Life-sav- ators are now reviewing their guidelines for envi- ing efforts at the accident site/vessel will be given ronmental preparedness analyses, and the Norwe- top priority. This work will be coordinated by one gian Environment Agency is considering amend- of the Joint Rescue Coordination Centres with ing the requirements set out in regulations and expert assistance from the Crisis Committee and individual decisions. the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Restrictions on when drilling is permitted can Authority. Important action may include issuing considerably reduce the environmental risk asso- advisories to and redirecting people in the vicinity, ciated with exploration drilling. By the time pro- measures to deal with the vessel, and halting duction drilling starts, there is much more infor- other nearby activities that are affected by the mation about reservoir conditions and types of oil, accident. Even minor incidents that do not involve and the likelihood of a blowout is lower than dur- a risk that radioactive material will be released ing exploration drilling. A gas blowout is primarily could have serious impacts on Norwegian com- associated with a risk of fire or explosion. Oil spill mercial interests such as seafood exports. The response measures can reduce the consequences Crisis Committee and others involved in the sys- of a spill. There is always a possibility of oil spills tem are engaged in continuous efforts to improve and discharges of chemicals during oil production preparedness, for instance by following up the Cri- or drilling in oil-bearing formations. It is therefore sis Committee‘s updated threat assessments. vital that the industry maintains high safety stand- The Ministry of Climate and Environment is in ards and continues its efforts to reduce the risk of the process of extending the applicability of cer- spills. tain provisions of the Pollution Control Act to The oil spill preparedness and response sys- acute radioactive pollution. These concern the tem at private, municipal and governmental level municipal and governmental preparedness and is risk-based. Uncertainties regarding risk levels response system, preparedness and response and which types of incidents may occur make it plans, governmental on-scene command of opera- difficult to assess whether the design and capabili- tions, and the duty to provide assistance. This will ties of the preparedness and response system are make the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear appropriate. Measures have been introduced to Safety Authority responsible for setting require- strengthen the preparedness and response sys- ments for private and municipal preparedness and tem both at governmental level and by the petro- response systems, further developing prepared- leum industry. However, it is difficult to verify how ness and response legislation and supervising pri- much these measures will reduce the conse- vate and municipal preparedness and response for quences of spills, and the extent to which the goal acute radioactive pollution. In addition, the for acute pollution has been achieved is uncertain. Authority will assume governmental on-scene 124 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans command if required during acute radioactive pol- Plan. Nuclear safety cooperation with Russia has lution incidents. This corresponds to the role the been a particularly high priority, and formal and Coastal Administration has in dealing with other informal cooperation has been established forms of acute pollution, which will facilitate the between relevant Norwegian and Russian authori- development of cooperation between the two bod- ties. Norway‘s focus areas in the years ahead ies in administering the same legislation for differ- include dealing with sunken and dumped subma- ent types of acute pollution, and will enable them rines and other radioactive objects, and coopera- to deal with complex pollution situations together. tion on notification and preparedness and Since the 1990s, Norway‘s nuclear emergency response, for example within the framework of preparedness system has been built up through the Norwegian-Russian Commission for Nuclear work under the Government‘s Nuclear Action Safety. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 125 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

7 Coordinated spatial management and coexistence between ocean-based industries

Sound management of Norwegian seas and oceans provides predictability and a long-term Marine spatial management tool perspective, and helps to avoid conflict between The North Sea–Skagerrak management plan sectors in the future. The central government (Meld. St. 37 (2012–2013)) identified the need to authorities are responsible for spatial planning strengthen the spatial management element of the and management in all areas beyond one nautical management plans and rationalise the process of mile outside the baseline, on the basis of legisla- updating and revising them. The Forum for Inte- tion for different sectors and the integrated ocean grated Ocean Management was tasked with devel- management plans. oping a tool for presenting and compiling spatial The ocean management plans are intended to data for use in the management plan system, in provide an overall balance between use and con- close cooperation with BarentsWatch. The digital servation, based on knowledge about ecological marine spatial management tool that has now functions and the value and vulnerability of differ- been developed is designed to provide integrated ent areas together with information about eco- geospatial information on industrial activities, spe- nomic activity now and forecasts for the future. cies and habitats, and regulatory measures. Each management plan sets out a framework for This will provide valuable support for sound petroleum activities in specific geographical areas, spatial management in the management plan including areas where no petroleum activities will areas, and will be useful for the authorities, the be permitted to safeguard environmental or fish- business sector, interest organisations, other eries interests, areas where there are restrictions users of Norway’s waters and the general public. on the times of year when exploration drilling is The spatial management tool contains geospa- permitted, and other areas where there are envi- tial data sets for natural resources, commercial ronmental and fisheries-related conditions. The activities, environmental status, plans and regula- framework for petroleum activities is thus a form tory measures, relevant reference data and basic of spatial planning that takes special account of marine data. The spatial management tool is still environmental value and fisheries interests. The being developed as a support tool for work on the framework for petroleum activities is imple- integrated ocean management plans. It is also a mented under existing petroleum-sector legisla- way of making the knowledge base for the man- tion, and more generally, activities in each man- agement plans publicly available. agement plan area are regulated on the basis of existing legislation governing different sectors. Earlier management plans include a thorough Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas description of spatial overlap between three estab- Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas have lished ocean-based industries: fisheries, maritime been identified as being of great importance for transport and petroleum. In view of the expected biodiversity and biological production in an entire growth in new and emerging ocean industries, the management plan area. In these areas, activities Government will consider whether there are cer- will be conducted with special care and in such a tain geographical areas where many different way that the ecological functioning and biodiver- interests intersect. It will be important to review sity of the areas are not threatened. The designa- the impacts, including the economic impacts, of tion of areas as particularly valuable and vulnera- various options for the use of Norway’s marine ble does not have any direct effect in the form of areas, and to consider where there may be spatial restrictions on commercial activities, but indicates incompatibilities in individual cases. that these are areas where it is important to show special caution. It is possible to use current legis- 126 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Legend

Management plan areas

Fisheries activity (low–high)

Petroleum activity APA areas 2019 Active production licences

Shipping Vessels registered 1–50 Vessels registered 50–250 Vessels registered 250–>5 000

Traffic separation schemes Separation zone

Offshore military shooting and exercise areas

Areas included in SEA for offshore wind power

Category A

Category B Category C

Figure 7.1 Overview of commercial activity in the management plan areas. Source: Directorate of Fisheries, Norwegian Coastal Administration, Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Petroleum Directorate/Marine spatial management tool. Base map for the marine spatial management tool: GEBCO and Norwegian Mapping Authority 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 127 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Management plan areas Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas

Figure 7.2 The particularly valuable and vulnerable areas identified in the three ocean management plans. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency/Marine spatial management tool lation to make activities in such areas subject to line) is subject to the rules of the Planning and special requirements, and thus protect valuable Building Act on planning and public consultation species and habitats. The particularly valuable processes and environmental impact assessment. and vulnerable areas have been delimited on This means that there is a more fully developed maps, and are further presented in Chapter 3. system for coordination, cooperation and partici- pation of all interested parties as regards spatial management in coastal waters. Legislation other 7.1 Norway’s ocean management and than the Planning and Building Act also contains its implications for regional growth provisions that have implications for spatial man- and development agement along the coast, including the Act relat- ing to ports and navigable waters, the Marine Spatial management of the waters closest to the Resources Act and the Aquaculture Act. Further coast (out to one nautical mile outside the base- 128 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans out from the coast, spatial management is the opened for licence applications. This ranked the responsibility of central government authorities. areas according to suitability, and recommended Marine spatial planning and developments on giving priority to five of them. The purpose of the land are closely linked. Decisions on where to site strategic environmental assessment was to avoid activities at sea may have major implications for conflict between wind power and other important developments at municipal and county level on interests, while also taking into consideration land. At the same time, ocean-based commercial power grid access, development costs and the activities are dependent on infrastructure on land, available wind resources. Nevertheless, it seems including ports, transport networks and emer- clear that offshore wind power could potentially gency preparedness and response resources. come into conflict with other interests. The Government’s 2019 ocean strategy, Blue In 2019, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy Opportunities, had a clear regional focus. Nor- carried out a consultation process on whether two way’s national ocean policy is developed through areas, Sandskallen-Sørøya North and Utsira cooperation between central government, county North in the North Sea, should be opened for off- and municipal authorities. A forum for systematic shore energy production, and on draft regulations dialogue on ocean issues has therefore been including rules governing the licensing process. established involving the Government, the coun- Licence applications for offshore renewable ties, the Sámediggi (Sami parliament) and repre- energy production are dealt with under the Off- sentatives of coastal municipalities. Other stake- shore Energy Act, which is the responsibility of holders are invited to take part when appropriate. the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. The pro- The purpose of the forum is to facilitate dialogue, cess for the Hywind Tampen wind farm is being and it is not a decision-making body. The mem- dealt with under the Petroleum Act, which is the bers of the forum decide on topics for discussion responsibility of the Ministry of Petroleum and together, based on the priority areas of the ocean Energy. strategy that have implications for knowledge- based management, value creation, employment and skills in coastal communities.

7.2 Designating marine space for different uses – main features of decision-making processes

Authorities in different sectors are responsible for allocating decisions on which parts of marine space are to be allocated to different types of activ- ities under the legislation they administer.

Offshore wind power Apart from a floating wind turbine off Karmøy, there are no offshore wind farms in Norwegian waters. The Hywind Tampen wind farm, which will provide two oil fields with electricity, is being developed in the North Sea. So far, no areas have Legend been opened for wind power development under Management plan areas the Offshore Energy Act. However, offshore wind Areas included in SEA power is showing strong growth internationally, for offshore wind power Category A especially in the North Sea. Category B In 2010, a working group led by the Norwe- Category C gian Water Resources and Energy Directorate identified 15 areas it considered suitable for off- Figure 7.3 Areas included in the strategic shore wind power. In 2012, the Directorate con- environmental assessment for offshore wind power. ducted a strategic environmental assessment of Source: Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate/ the 15 areas to consider whether they should be Marine spatial management tool 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 129 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

larger than the zones around coastal facilities. In Offshore aquaculture addition, marking of aquaculture facilities should There has been growing interest in the develop- be adapted to operations in more open and ment of offshore aquaculture in recent years. This exposed waters. Mobile self-propelled systems is explained by a need for more space and by envi- should be subject to the same navigational ronmental and disease problems in a number of requirements as other shipping, to avoid colli- areas used for aquaculture at present. If aquacul- sions. More knowledge is needed about the ture facilities are sited further out from the coast, migration routes, habitats and feeding grounds of new conflicts of interest are likely to arise with the important wild fish species so that environmental traditional fisheries, shipping and offshore wind considerations can be properly incorporated. farms. The Directorate of Fisheries has recently sub- An interministerial working group has pre- mitted a proposal recommending strategic envi- pared a report on offshore aquaculture. This rec- ronmental assessment of 11 areas outside the geo- ommends that in areas outside the geographical graphical scope of the Planning and Building Act scope of the Planning and Building Act, the cen- that have been identified as suitable for offshore tral government should open sizeable areas aquaculture, and identifying 12 areas that may be (blocks) for offshore aquaculture under the Aqua- included at a later date (Figure 7.4). Any alloca- culture Act. After this, it will be necessary to tion of areas will be decided under the Aquacul- determine where the actual facilities are to be ture Act, which is the responsibility of the Minis- sited within each block. Further review of this try of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. process will be needed. The report also recommends requiring the establishment of safety zones round offshore Extraction of seabed minerals aquaculture facilities, and that these should be Exploration for and exploitation of seabed miner- als may in future become an important ocean industry for Norway. The areas where minerals are likely to be extracted are expected to be far from the coast, in contrast to those that are attractive for many other activities. The Seabed Mineral Act is administered by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, and is based partly on experience gained from petro- leum activities. Under the Act, an area must as a general rule have been officially opened before licences can be issued for exploration and extrac- tion.

Bioprospecting Bioprospecting is a systematic search for organ- isms, genes and molecules that could provide key components for various products and processes in medicine, the process industries, food production and other sectors. As new sampling technology is developed, larger parts of the oceans will be of Legend interest for bioprospecting. Management plan areas Possible aquaculture areas Norway has no current plans to designate spe- Recommended initially cific areas for bioprospecting, and areas where May be included later there are organisms that might be possible to exploit through bioprospecting in the future have Figure 7.4 Areas recommended for inclusion in a not yet been systematically identified. Any regula- strategic environmental assessment of offshore tion of the use of specific areas for bioprospecting aquaculture. would be introduced under the Marine Resources Source: Directorate of Fisheries Act (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries) or 130 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans the Nature Diversity Act (Ministry of Climate and zero by 2050. Using power from shore will be an Environment). important way of achieving these targets. Development of offshore wind power will also require the construction of associated infrastruc- Routes for submarine cables ture. Offshore wind farms will generally be con- Submarine communications cables carry large nected to the electricity grid via production radials volumes of data traffic. For example, almost all owned by the producers. Alternatively, they can internet data traffic between islands and conti- be connected to petroleum installations. Offshore nents is transferred by cable. In Norwegian wind developments that are largely intended for waters, the network of communications cables will power export could be connected via radials grow and they will occupy larger areas of the sea- directly to another country’s grid. bed as the volume of data traffic rises. Under the Energy Act, installations for produc- There is currently no coordinated system tion, transformation, transmission and distribu- determining where and when such cables are laid tion of electric energy inside the baseline may not in Norway. Laying submarine communications be built, owned or operated without a licence. The cables is not regulated by law in the same way as Offshore Energy Act has similar licensing provi- other maritime infrastructure. The Ministry of sions for installations outside the baseline. How- Local Government and Modernisation has started ever, the licensing provisions of the Offshore legislative work on the regulation of submarine Energy Act may be set aside for electrical installa- fibre-optic cables. tions that are an integral part of petroleum activi- As a general rule, anyone planning to lay sub- ties and that are processed under the Petroleum marine power cables must apply for a permit Act. under the Act relating to ports and navigable waters. Applications are processed by the Norwe- gian Coastal Administration. Information on such Management plan areas projects must be forwarded to the Norwegian Communications cables Mapping Authority for inclusion on charts. Power cables Norway has submarine power cables from the mainland to island communities, from the main- land to other countries (interconnectors), and from the mainland to certain petroleum installa- tions. There are four subsea interconnectors between Kristiansand and Denmark, and one between Feda and the Netherlands. In addition, Statnett is building two new interconnectors, one between Feda and Germany and one between Kvilldal and the UK. The oil and gas fields Valhall, Gjøa, Troll, Ormen lange, Snøhvit, Goliat and Johan Sverdrup are all now supplied with power from shore. Power from shore will also be used to supply the Martin Linge field when it comes on stream, and the joint solution for supplying power from shore to the Utsira High region will be in place by 2022. The petroleum industry is currently assessing whether to supply Oseberg, Troll B and C, Drau- gen and the fields on the Halten Bank with power from shore. Licensees are required to assess whether to use power from shore in connection with all new independent developments and major changes to fields that are on stream. In February Figure 7.5 Submarine communications and power 2020, the Norwegian oil and gas industry pre- cables. sented its climate roadmap, which includes an Source: Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate/ ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions Telegeography/EMODnet-Human Activities/Marine spatial from the sector by 40 % by 2030 and to close to management tool 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 131 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

The requirement to obtain a licence under the Energy Act also applies to new cables to link pro- duction facilities, interconnectors or petroleum installations to the grid in mainland Norway and to interconnectors between the Norwegian grid and other countries. For interconnectors, an addi- tional licence for the export and import of electri- cal energy is required under the Energy Act, or under the Offshore Energy Act for interconnec- tors directly from installations on the Norwegian continental shelf to other countries. The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate is the licensing authority for electrical installations, except for new major power lines longer than 20 kilometres carrying a voltage of 300 kV or more, which are licensed by the King in Coun- cil. The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy is the licensing authority under the Offshore Energy Act.

Offshore military shooting and exercise areas Legend Management plan areas

The Norwegian Armed Forces currently have 87 Offshore military shooting offshore military shooting and exercise areas, and exercise areas from parts of the Oslofjord in the south to Kvænangen in the far north. These are described Figure 7.6 Offshore military shooting and exercise in an Official Norwegian Report (NOU 2004:27). areas for the Norwegian Armed Forces, 2000. Offshore shooting and exercise areas are essen- Source: Norwegian Armed Forces/Marine spatial management tial to the Norwegian Armed Forces’ operational tool activities and ultimately for national emergency preparedness and crisis management capabilities. They are also intended to meet training and exer- cise needs for personnel, for testing equipment Marine protected areas and other effective area-based and for operational training for the Norwegian conservation measures Armed Forces alone and together with allies. Marine protected areas and other effective area- Areas have been designated to permit training for based conservation measures are important tools airborne, naval and underwater operations. When for safeguarding areas where there are important using these areas for exercises or other purposes, ecosystems, habitats and species. The purpose of the Armed Forces must ensure that the environ- these tools is to ensure that areas are managed in ment is properly safeguarded. a way that maintains their conservation value for The Ministry of Defence has tasked the Nor- the future. To achieve this, it must be possible to wegian Defence Estates Agency, in cooperation regulate pressures on conservation areas, and to with the Norwegian Armed Forces, with review- implement active conservation measures where ing offshore military shooting and exercise areas. necessary. Any restrictions imposed on activity in All relevant planning authorities in different sec- such areas must be proportional to the purpose of tors are involved in the work. The purpose is to protection. look at how to formalise and manage these areas. Marine protected areas under the Nature The project also includes a review of the structure Diversity Act may be established in Norway’s ter- of the shooting and exercise areas and possible ritorial waters, which extend to 12 nautical miles adjustments in the light of future needs, and it will beyond the baseline. Around Svalbard, important make recommendations for decommissioning or marine species and habitats are protected where changing existing shooting and exercise areas they are included in the marine parts of the and for establishing new areas. The project will national parks and nature reserves established also consider the possibility of sharing the use of under the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act. such areas with civilian interests, and is to be com- In addition to the areas that are protected pleted by mid-2020. under these two Acts, marine protected areas can 132 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Tanafjorden transect

Andfjorden transect

Kaldvågfjorden and Innhavet

Røstrevet reef

Nordfjorden (Rødøy municipality)

Iverryggen reef

Froan archipelago and Sula reef

Grandefjæra etc

Remman archipelago

National parks in 2020 Marine protected areas in 2020 Ongoing protection processes Other areas proposed for inclusion in the marine protection plan (2004) Protected coral reefs (under fisheries legislation) Lurefjorden with Lindåspollene Territorial limit

Date: April 2020 Source: Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Mapping Authority and Directorate of Fisheries

Skagerrak transect

Figure 7.7 Existing and planned marine protected areas around mainland Norway. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Mapping Authority and Directorate of Fisheries 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 133 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans be established under the Marine Resources Act in clearly delimited areas. Regulatory measures and all Norwegian waters and on the Norwegian conti- spatial needs vary from one type of fishing gear to nental shelf. another. The distribution of some species, for Efforts to safeguard marine areas and their example herring, is highly dynamic. In addition, species and habitat diversity for the future have changes are being observed in the distribution been in progress for many years. In 2004, a broad- and migration patterns of many fish species as a based advisory committee identified 36 marine result of climate change. areas along the coast that for further evaluation as Currents along the Norwegian coast often part of these efforts. As of April 2020, six marine form eddies rich in plankton and nutrients in the protected areas and four national parks including shallow bank areas. The availability of food and substantial marine areas had been established good light conditions result in high densities of under the environmental legislation, and a further fish locally in these waters. In addition, bottom 18 marine protected areas including coral reefs conditions are favourable for the use of fishing had been established under the Marine Resources gear, and the bank areas are therefore important Act. Work on marine protected areas was dis- fishing grounds. cussed in more detail in the white paper Nature The use of marine space by the fisheries is for life: Norway’s national biodiversity action plan regulated under the Marine Resources Act (Min- (Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016)) and the 2017 update of istry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries). the Norwegian Sea management plan (Meld. St. 35 (2016–2017)). Work on an overall national plan for marine protected areas has been started. A Maritime transport review of relevant area-based conservation meas- Maritime transport accounts for more than 70 % of ures has also been started so that appropriate fish- transport work in areas under Norwegian jurisdic- eries management measures can be included when Norway reports to the Convention on Bio- logical Diversity and other international forums on the proportion of marine and coastal areas cov- ered by conservation measures.

Tourism The tourism sector in Norway has been growing steadily for the past 10 years. Few countries have as long and varied a coastline as Norway, and the coastal environment, fjords and marine areas have great potential in terms of tourism. No areas of sea are set aside specifically for tourism activities, as is done for several of the other ocean-based industries. However, certain restrictions have recently been introduced to avoid conflicts with fishing operations. It is now prohibited for whale-watching vessels to sail closer than 370 m to fishing vessels or fixed fish- ing gear, or for people swimming, diving or canoe- ing/kayaking to approach closer than 750 m. These restrictions have been introduced under the Marine Resources Act (Ministry of Trade, Legend Industry and Fisheries). Management plan areas Fisheries activity (low–high)

Fisheries Figure 7.8 Level of fisheries activity in Norwegian The level of fisheries activity varies over the year, waters. from year to year, depending on stock develop- ment and changes in distribution and migration Source: Directorate of Fisheries/Marine spatial management tool patterns (see Figure 7.8). Fishing grounds are not 134 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans tion and 90 % of the volume of international trans- sive risk assessments and IMO’s approval. In port. Maritime transport is thus very important other cases, this would not be possible, because both for the Norwegian business sector and for moving a route would have negative impacts on foreign trade. The volume of shipping (expressed maritime safety or would seriously impede pas- as distance sailed) is expected to rise by about sage in the area. Moving recommended routes 40 % by 2040. further away from the coast could increase the Areas are designated for traffic separation distance sailed, increase greenhouse gas emis- schemes, recommended routes and other regula- sions and make it more complicated to provide tory measures for fairways under the Act relating assistance to ships when necessary. to ports and navigable waters. Traffic separation schemes and recommended routes in Norway’s exclusive economic zone must also be approved Petroleum activities by the International Maritime Organization Petroleum activities may take place in areas (IMO). The introduction of traffic separation opened by the Storting (Norwegian parliament) schemes and recommended routes along the under the conditions set out in the ocean manage- coast has helped to move shipping further out ment plans. from the coast, separate traffic streams in oppo- Acreage for petroleum activities is allocated site directions and establish a fixed sailing pattern through two equally important types of licensing (Figure 7.9). This reduces the likelihood of colli- rounds. New acreage in frontier areas is allocated sions and groundings and makes it easier to inter- in numbered licensing rounds, which are nor- vene in the event of an accident. mally held every other year. In more mature In some cases, it might be possible to move areas, where more is known about the geology recommended routes in the interests of other and that are closer to planned or existing produc- activities, but this is a process that requires exten- tion and transport infrastructure, licences are issued every year through the system of awards in predefined areas (APA). The licensing process involves a number of steps. Numbered licensing rounds are opened by inviting companies to nomi- nate blocks. The authorities assess the nomina- tions, and a proposed announcement is submitted for public consultation. After this, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy announces the round. After the applications have been processed and after negotiations with the companies on licensing conditions, the government makes the final deci- sion on which areas are to be covered by produc- tion licences and the mandatory work programme for each licence. More details can be found in Chapter 5. Petroleum infrastructure, including platforms, subsea installations, pipelines and safety zones around installations, occupies large areas. At the beginning of 2020, 87 fields on the Norwegian continental shelf were producing oil and gas: 66 in Legend the North Sea, 19 in the Norwegian Sea and two Management plan areas in the Barents Sea. The total length of gas pipe- Shipping lines installed on the Norwegian continental shelf No. of vessels 1–50 No. of vessels 50–250 is 8 800 km. No. of vessels 50–250 In addition to the permanent installations, seis- Traffic separation schemes Boundary mic surveys occupy considerable areas while they Separation zone are in progress. Seismic surveys are carried out at all stages from exploration to final production. Figure 7.9 Map of shipping density. Even though seismic surveys only last for a rela- Source: Norwegian Coastal Administration/Marine spatial ma- tively short time in each phase, this is the activity nagement tool that leads to the greatest conflict with the fisher- 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 135 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Legend

Management plan areas

Petroleum activity APA areas 2019 Active production licences

Installations Onshore facilities Fixed installations Surface installations Pipelines

Fields Gas Gas and condensate Oil and gas Oil

Figure 7.10 Petroleum activity on the Norwegian continental shelf. Source: Norwegian Petroleum Directorate/Marine spatial management tool 136 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans ies. Delaying seismic surveys can be extremely activities, and also to develop coherent costly for the petroleum industry. networks of protected areas. Petroleum activities are licensed under the – It will protect the environment through early Petroleum Act (Ministry of Petroleum and identification of impacts and opportunities for Energy). multiple use of space.

Under the MSP Directive, the 23 coastal states of 7.3 Coordinated marine spatial the EU are required to establish national maritime planning in other countries spatial plans by 31 March 2021. Member states themselves are responsible for determining the About 70 of the member states of the Intergovern- content of their plans and finding a balance mental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO- between the use of the maritime space by differ- IOC) now have some form of marine spatial plan- ent sectors. However, their plans must include all ning. Norway’s ocean management plans are con- activities at sea, and these must be considered in sidered to constitute an established marine spatial conjunction with land-based activities. The plans planning system. Different countries’ systems must also facilitate cooperation between authori- vary widely. In 2014, the EU adopted a directive ties in different sectors and different sectoral establishing a framework for maritime spatial interests, and with third countries that have juris- planning (2014/89/EU, MSP Directive). The diction over adjoining coastal and marine areas. expected benefits of maritime spatial planning are: The MSP Directive has not been incorporated into – It will reduce conflicts between sectors and cre- the EEA Agreement. ates synergies between different activities. Together with the EU Commission, the IOC – It will encourage investment by creating pre- has initiated a global project to promote marine dictability, transparency and clearer rules. spatial planning as a tool for implementing Sus- – It will increase cooperation between countries tainable Development Goal 14 on life below water to develop energy infrastructure, shipping and the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustaina- lanes, pipelines, submarine cables and other ble Development. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 137 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

8 International cooperation on ocean governance

The white paper The place of the oceans in Nor- channels for promoting Norwegian policies and way’s foreign and development policy (Meld. St. 22 ocean interests. We have also played a part in the (2016–2017)) stated that the Norwegian Govern- development of similar organisations in other ment will continue to advocate broad support for parts of the world. the Convention on the Law of the Sea and will Norway is an active participant in work under intensify efforts to promote Norwegian ocean the Convention for the Protection of the Marine interests. In the white paper, the Government Environment in the North-East Atlantic (the charted how Norway can play a leading role in OSPAR Convention). The next OSPAR ministerial international ocean issues, particularly in efforts meeting has been postponed from July 2020 to to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals 2021, and according to plan will be held in Lisbon. (SDGs). It will focus mainly on adopting OSPAR’s strategy Many of the drivers of change that are for the period 2020–2030. adversely affecting marine ecosystems can only The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commis- be addressed through a concerted international sion (NEAFC) is an important forum for fisheries effort. Long-range transboundary pollution, cooperation between Norway and other countries global warming and ocean acidification, and the in the region. Norway plays an active role in the spread of plastic waste are all issues that require NEAFC and has been an advocate of close cooper- closer international cooperation. ation between OSPAR and the NEAFC. The pur- Norway is therefore giving high priority to pose of this cooperation is to ensure coordination support for multilateral environmental agree- of the work of the two organisations, for example ments, ambitious implementation of the Paris to prevent illegal fishing and protect vulnerable Agreement, and further development of interna- areas. tional cooperation to ensure ocean health and pro- For almost 50 years, Norway and Russia have ductivity in the future. This is followed through been cooperating on joint management of the rich within the framework of international and regional fish stocks in the Barents Sea through the Joint environmental agreements and governance mech- Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. This anisms, by cooperating on ocean management cooperation has developed into a system covering with neighbouring countries, and by assisting a broad range of areas, including resource con- developing countries to develop sound ocean trol, cooperation on coast guard and SAR opera- management regimes. tions, technical measures and Norwegian-Rus- sian resource cooperation. The result is that the Northeast Arctic cod stock is one of the best man- 8.1 Institutions and arenas for aged fish stocks in the world, and is of vital impor- international cooperation on ocean tance for Norwegian coastal communities. governance The Joint Norwegian–Russian Commission on Environmental Protection gives high priority to Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, cooperation on the marine environment. One of states have a general duty to cooperate at global the main purposes of its work is to obtain the best and regional level on protection and preservation possible scientific basis for ecosystem-based man- of the marine environment. Norway shares eco- agement of the whole Barents Sea, and to share systems and important marine resources with Norwegian experience that can be used in devel- other countries, and bilateral and regional cooper- oping an integrated management plan for the Rus- ation is therefore an essential basis for sound sian part of the Barents Sea as well. A coordinated ocean management. Norway has played a key role environmental monitoring system for the entire in the development of regional fisheries and ocean Barents Sea and cooperation to deal with marine management organisations, which are important litter are being developed. Knowledge developed 138 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans through the Norwegian-Russian fisheries cooper- ation provides important input to the work of the Box 8.1 The Green Voyage2050 project Environmental Protection Commission. Iceland has included oceans and the blue Norway is supporting the Green Voyage2050 economy among its priorities during its chairman- project, a major international project that is ship of the Arctic Council in 2019–2021. The part of IMO’s strategy to reduce greenhouse Council’s work on the marine environment will be gas emissions from shipping. The project will strengthened when its new marine mechanism is promote global measures to reduce these launched in autumn 2020. In addition, the Council emissions and test new technological solu- has a Working Group for the Protection of the Arc- tions that can reduce emissions. The project tic Marine Environment (PAME). will also support capacity-building activities in However, it is not possible to resolve every developing countries in order to put them in a issue at regional level; in certain areas, global position to meet their obligations to reduce cooperation is needed. Progress in implementing greenhouse gas emissions and improve the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea energy efficiency. In the initial phase of the and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement is monitored project, eight countries in Africa, Asia, the Car- through conferences of the states parties, infor- ibbean, Latin America and the Pacific region mal consultations and two annual resolutions that are taking pilot roles, and they will later sup- are debated and adopted by the UN General port other countries in the development of Assembly. Norway plays an active part in negotia- green shipping in their regions. tions in areas including the environment, mari- time safety and security, fisheries and continental shelf issues. Since 2006, the General Assembly has for example developed rules on the conduct of fisheries to avoid damage to corals and other vul- put the oceans, and particularly marine litter, nerable benthic habitats. The Food and Agricul- higher on UNEP’s agenda. In 2019–2021, Nor- ture Organization of the UN (FAO) has prepared way’s Minister of Climate and Environment is guidelines for the conduct of fisheries in vulnera- President of the UN Environment Assembly ble areas. These provisions have subsequently (UNEA), which is UNEP’s governing body. Nor- been implemented by regional fisheries manage- way is working actively towards a new compre- ment organisations such as the NEAFC and in hensive global agreement to combat marine litter Norwegian legislation. FAO has also prepared and microplastics, and has been working for sev- guidelines and action plans that are important in eral years to bring this issue to the forefront at strengthening sustainable management of fisher- sessions of UNEA. ies resources globally. FAO developed the Agree- Norway is playing a leading role in the devel- ment on Port State Measures to combat illegal, opment of safe, environmentally friendly maritime unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing on the transport. The International Maritime Organiza- basis of a Norwegian initiative. tion (IMO) is the most important forum for The Convention on Biological Diversity is the achieving progress in this field. IMO has adopted global instrument for conservation of biodiversity various conventions to protect the marine environ- and ecosystems. A post-2020 global biodiversity ment against releases of oil, chemicals and waste framework is to be negotiated under the Conven- from ships and against the spread of alien species. tion in 2021. Key Norwegian priorities for this IMO’s ambition is to reduce greenhouse gas emis- work are effective follow-up of the conclusions of sions from international shipping by half by 2050, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on and work is now in progress to find ways of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), achieving this in practice. Norway’s ambitions for strengthening the convention’s implementation a transition to green shipping, and its advanced mechanism, and promoting nature-based solu- maritime industry, are also driving the develop- tions. Norway’s national follow-up of the Conven- ment of a green shipping industry at international tion includes developing specific goals and policy level. instruments to support efforts to maintain the bio- Reducing global CO2 emissions is the most diversity and productivity of marine ecosystems. important way of limiting the negative impacts of The United Nations Environment Programme climate change on the oceans. The overall aim of (UNEP) promotes global cooperation on environ- the Paris Agreement, which is to hold global mental protection. Norway has been seeking to warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 139 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increased value creation. Clean, healthy oceans increase to 1.5°C, is of crucial importance for are an essential basis not only for achieving SDG marine ecosystems. The Agreement contains pro- 14, but also for success in achieving various other visions on emission reductions, adaptation to cli- SDGs, including those relating to poverty, hunger, mate change, and support to developing countries health, energy and climate change. in their transition to a low-emission development The Ocean Panel was originally to present a pathway. It is vital to ensure broad support for and comprehensive report at the second UN ocean effective implementation of the Paris Agreement. conference in June 2020, but this was postponed The oceans are receiving growing attention in the in view of the pandemic. The conference will prob- climate negotiations, both because of the rapid ably be postponed for a year, and the Ocean Panel changes they are undergoing and because they will launch its report and recommendations in late offer part of the solution to the problem. Norway 2020/early 2021. The report will draw on 16 Blue advocates an integrated approach to the oceans Papers commissioned by the Panel and prepared and climate change, using sound measures that by an international group of experts. Each of both promote adaptation and enhance natural car- these synthesises existing research and innova- bon sinks. In December 2019, Norway joined the tive solutions in ocean-related areas such as cli- International Alliance to Combat Ocean Acidifica- mate change, IUU fishing and pollution, and sets tion, or OA Alliance, a network to raise awareness out recommendations for international action to of ocean acidification and of solutions that can achieve a sustainable ocean economy. The Ocean limit acidification. Panel’s recommendations will draw on this knowl- edge base, and multi-stakeholder coalitions and partnerships will be encouraged as a means of 8.2 International initiatives to ensuring that the recommendations are imple- promote integrated ocean mented. Sustainable ocean management will be an management important tool for achieving the SDGs.

In the white paper The place of the oceans in Nor- way’s foreign and development policy, the Govern- The Our Ocean conferences – 2019 conference hosted ment expressed its ambition for Norway to play a by Norway leading international role in work on ocean- The Our Ocean conferences bring together gov- related issues. Since then, it has taken various ini- ernments, civil society, science and industry for tiatives at international level with a view to achiev- discussion and awareness raising, and to build ing this. Some of the most important of them are partnerships to protect the oceans and ensure discussed below. they are sustainably managed. The first conference took place in June 2014 following an initiative by former US Secretary of The High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy State John Kerry. The conference in Oslo on 23– The High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean 24 October 2019 was the sixth in the series, and Economy was established on the initiative of brought together 600 leaders from governments, Prime Minister Erna Solberg in 2018, against a civil society, science and industry, from a total of backdrop of growing recognition of the great pres- 100 countries. The importance of knowledge- sure that climate change, pollution and over- based stewardship and integrated ocean manage- exploitation are putting on the ocean environment ment was a central theme of the conference. The and marine ecosystems. The Panel consists of programme had six main topics: climate change, heads of state and government from Australia, ocean pollution, fisheries governance, food and Canada, Chile, Fiji, Ghana, Indonesia, Jamaica, livelihoods from the ocean, a sustainable ocean Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Palau and Portu- economy and promoting and protecting healthy gal in addition to Norway. The Panel is also sup- oceans. Governments, businesses and organisa- ported by the UN Secretary-General’s Special tions announced 374 voluntary commitments to Envoy for the Ocean, Peter Thomson. action for clean, healthy and productive seas, with The purpose of the Panel is to create interna- a total value of at least USD 63 billion. The confer- tional awareness of the economic importance of ence gave Norway an opportunity to strengthen the oceans, and an understanding that sustainable cooperation with other countries and organisa- use of marine resources and safeguarding a tions to improve ocean stewardship, and for spe- healthy marine environment will result in cial initiatives in certain fields, such as combating 140 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans marine litter, intensifying efforts to stop fisheries international action. In addition to representatives crime, and raising awareness of forms of fisheries from relevant public authorities, these dialogues subsidies that contribute to overfishing. Norway may include participants from academia, business announced commitments worth over NOK 3 bil- and civil society. An ocean dialogue was estab- lion to contribute to sustainable ocean manage- lished with Australia in 2018 and with India in ment in the period 2020–2024. 2019. There are plans to establish similar arrange- ments with Indonesia and China in 2020. Norway is also seeking to strengthen its dialogue on ocean Norway’s ocean policy and international relations affairs with key European countries and with Ocean-related issues are a key part of Norway’s organisations such as the African Union and the cooperation with most countries and regional and Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN). international organisations. The substance of the cooperation will vary, but may include promotion of Norwegian ocean industries, ocean-related Marine litter and the spread of microplastics development cooperation, research cooperation Norway has been working for some years to and cooperation to promote the international enhance international cooperation to address the ocean agenda. A more strategic ocean dialogue problem of marine litter and plastic waste. In 2017, has been started with some countries, as a forum following an initiative by Norway, the UN Environ- for sharing experience and expertise and cooper- ment Assembly reached agreement on a long- ating on possible action for clean and healthy term zero vision to eliminate discharges of plas- oceans, sustainable use of ocean resources and tics and microplastics to the oceans. Norway is growth in the blue economy. The formal dialogue advocating a more concerted international effort framework and broad-based approach allow for a to achieve this. In Norway’s view, the most impor- strategic exchange of views on approaches to tant development will be to put in place a new ocean management and cooperation to promote global instrument obliging all countries to take

Figure 8.1 High-level participants at the 2019 Our Ocean conference. Photo: Stine Østby/Medvind 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 141 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans action to halt inputs of plastic waste and on scientific cooperation and knowledge sharing. microplastics to the oceans and the environment They are intended to support developing coun- generally. An agreement must cover all sea- and tries in building public-sector expertise and capac- land-based sources, and must lead to stronger and ity through institutional cooperation and by sup- more targeted action and more effective use of porting civil society actors, education and resources. research, and industrial development. The follow- Norway established a development pro- ing development programmes administered by gramme to combat marine litter and microplastics Norad are particularly relevant in the context of in 2018. This is intended to play a part in achiev- sustainable ocean management: ing one of the targets of SDG 14, which is to pre- – Oil for Development was established in 2005, vent and significantly reduce marine pollution of and its objective is economically, socially and all kinds by 2025, particularly from land-based environmentally responsible management of activities. NOK 1.6 billion has been allocated to petroleum resources in partner countries. This the programme for the period 2019–2022. The is to be achieved through 1) establishing a transfer of knowledge and expertise on marine lit- legal and regulatory framework for the petro- ter and microplastics will also be part of the leum sector, 2) building up the capacity of the Oceans for Development programme. relevant administrative authorities, and 3) Norway is playing a key role in implementa- increasing transparency in management of the tion of the IMO action plan to address marine petroleum sector and holding the authorities plastic litter from shipping and fisheries. In 2019, accountable. The programme collaborates with Norway entered into an agreement with IMO, public authorities and civil society organisati- which in cooperation with FAO is launching the ons. Glo-Litter Partnerships Project. The purpose of – Fish for Development was established in 2016 the project is to assist developing countries to with the objective of increasing the ability of fis- implement the IMO plastics action plan. Norway heries and aquaculture to contribute to socio- also gives high priority to Nordic cooperation, and economic development in partner countries, during its most recent chairmanship of the Nordic for example through higher employment and Council, used its long experience of retrieving lost better food and nutrition security. Programme fishing gear to establish the Clean Nordic Oceans activities are intended to help public authorities project. Norway is also following up the IMO to build up their capacity for sustainable mana- action plan on marine plastic litter as part of gement, encourage research and educational regional cooperation on the marine environment institutions to assist the authorities and busi- under OSPAR, and in the development of a nesses with knowledge, data and advice about regional action plan on marine litter under the sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, and Arctic Council. In 2019, Norway became a mem- ensure that businesses exploit fisheries resour- ber of the Global Ghost Gear Initiative, and ces and engage in aquaculture production in a intends to support specific projects to tackle the sustainable manner. The largest area of invest- problem of lost and abandoned fishing gear under ment under Fish for Development is the EAF- the initiative. Norway has also taken the initiative Nansen programme, which involves coopera- for bilateral cooperation on marine litter as part of tion between Norad, FAO, the Institute of Norwegian-Russian environmental cooperation Marine Research and the Directorate of Fis- and cooperation with a number of other countries. heries. – Oceans for Development was launched in Oslo during the Our Ocean conference in October Development programmes intended to enhance ocean 2019, and is now being established. It is inten- governance ded to supplement existing ocean-related pro- Norway’s model of integrated ocean management grammes and initiatives and will focus on inte- is often highlighted internationally as an example grated ocean management, cross-sectoral coor- for others to follow. Sound ocean management dination and a framework for sustainable ocean and good governance generally are closely industries. Regional cooperation will also be a related, and development assistance in this area key element of the programme. therefore requires a long-term approach. The development programmes described below are all Norway has also played an active role in the estab- demand driven, make use of Norwegian experi- lishment of the PROBLUE multi-donor trust fund ence and public-sector expertise, and are based in the World Bank system. Its overall goal is to 142 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans achieve integrated, sustainable economic develop- achieving the SDGs, particularly SDG 14 on life ment and clean, healthy oceans. Activities will below water. The objective is not only knowledge include analytical work, generating and sharing development, but also to ensure that knowledge is knowledge, supporting policy reform and encour- used in policy development and sustainable use of aging private and public investment to support the the oceans. ocean economy. PROBLUE focuses on four key The two objectives of the Ocean Decade are to themes: sustainable fisheries and aquaculture; generate the scientific knowledge and underpin- marine litter and pollution management; sustaina- ning infrastructures and partnerships needed for ble development of key oceanic sectors; and build- sustainable development of the ocean, and to pro- ing government capacity for integrated manage- vide ocean science, data and information to inform ment of marine and coastal resources. The fund policy development in support of the SDGs. was established in 2019. Apart from Norway, The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Com- donors include Canada, Denmark, the EU, Ice- mission (UNESCO-IOC) is responsible for pro- land, France, Germany and Sweden. Norway and moting and coordinating ocean science at global the World Bank are co-chairing the Partnership level, and has been tasked with planning the Council of PROBLUE in 2020. Ocean Decade. The IOC is being assisted in this work by an international group of experts. The IOC has drafted a roadmap for the Ocean Decade, Cooperation to fight maritime crime and an implementation plan is to be completed in Agencies such as the police, coast guard and 2020. During the planning phase, research com- supervisory authorities often lack sufficient munities, businesses and other stakeholders are capacity and systems for exchanging information, being encouraged to participate and provide which makes it very challenging to fight against input. Global planning meetings are being held, fisheries and environmental crime and other mari- and a series of regional workshops is being organ- time crime. ised in 2019 and 2020, for example for the North In 2018, Norway took the initiative for an inter- Atlantic and for Arctic seas. Norway is playing an national declaration on organised fisheries crime. active part in the planning process. The declaration has so far been supported by 27 Norwegian marine research is already of a countries, and its aim is to provide a political high calibre both nationally and in an interna- framework for international cooperation to com- tional context. The Government’s ocean-related bat transnational organised fisheries crime. Nor- strategies give prominence to research and scien- way is seeking to strengthen political support for tific knowledge, and management of ocean combating transnational organised fisheries crime resources and the marine environment and ocean- through a resolution of the UN Commission on based commercial activities are expected to be Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. knowledge-based. The High-level Panel for a Sus- Modern technology and satellite tracking tainable Ocean Economy will be presenting its make it possible to collect data from large areas, recommendations as the Ocean Decade begins. It and are valuable in the fight against fisheries and will therefore be vital to ensure coherence environmental crime. Such techniques are par- between the High-level Panel’s recommendations ticularly important in areas where it can other- and the research tasks that must be completed wise be difficult to gain a good overview, such as during the decade. Norway’s northernmost waters. This was further The Ocean Secretariat of the Research Council discussed in a white paper on space-related activi- of Norway has been tasked with national coordi- ties (Meld. St. 10 (2019–2020). nation and follow-up of the Ocean Decade. This includes proposing goals for Norway’s efforts, pri- ority research areas and what resources will be 8.3 UN Decade of Ocean Science for needed. Sustainable Development It is important to involve key Norwegian marine research groups and institutions in this The UN General Assembly has proclaimed the planning process, and an expert group has been period 2021–2030 as the UN Decade of Ocean Sci- established to plan Norwegian contributions, initi- ence for Sustainable Development, with the aim of atives and priorities related to the Ocean Decade. enhancing knowledge about the oceans globally. The group includes representatives of relevant Research activities will be promoted and coordi- research groups, the business sector and interest nated at national and global level with a view to groups. In addition, dialogue meetings will be 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 143 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans organised in various parts of Norway. These 8.5 Further development of arrangements will be important for national coor- international ocean governance dination and follow-up, and as a means of obtain- ing input about the best ways of using Norway’s The Law of the Sea provides a stable and predicta- contributions during the Ocean Decade in efforts ble framework for all use of the oceans, but at the to achieve the SDGs. same time is constantly being developed and adapted as new challenges arise. Negotiations are currently in progress on an international legal 8.4 UN Decade of Action on Nutrition instrument under the Law of the Sea on the con- (2016–2025) servation and sustainable use of marine biodiver- sity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This pro- The UN Decade of Action on Nutrition runs from vides one example of global willingness to 2016 to 2025. Under SDG 2, the world has adopted enhance the framework for international ocean the goal of ending hunger and malnutrition. To governance. Another example is the work in pro- provide sufficient safe, nutritious food for a grow- gress under the International Seabed Authority to ing population, we will need to produce more food develop a regulatory framework for deep-seabed from the oceans. It is therefore logical to coordi- mining activities in what is known as ‘the Area’ nate work under the two UN decades. There is a beyond national jurisdiction. The starting point for certain potential for harvesting more from the this work is the provision of the Law of the Sea oceans and a considerable potential for increasing stating that the resources of the Area are the com- aquaculture production, as set out in the report mon heritage of mankind. The purpose of this The Future of Food from the Sea commissioned work is to avoid a situation where only the techno- from a group of experts by the Ocean Panel. As logically most advanced states are able to benefit part of the Decade of Action on Nutrition, Norway from seabed mineral resources, and at the same has established an Action Network for Sustainable time ensure that strict environmental standards Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food are maintained. Norway also considers it impor- Security and Nutrition. Food from the oceans pro- tant to work towards a regulatory framework that vides important nutrients that are often in short will support the implementation of the SDGs. supply in other types of food, and seafood produc- tion can and should be increased. Norway can make use of its waters to contribute to this, espe- cially by increasing aquaculture production. 144 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

9 Overall framework and measures for conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems in the management plan areas

Norway has a long tradition of taking a long-term may be further intensified by ocean acidification approach to ocean resource management for the and oxygen loss, shrinking sea ice cover and benefit of society as a whole. The basis for value human activity. Achieving sustainable manage- creation from Norway’s ocean-based activities ment of Norway’s sea areas will require knowl- now and in the future depends on maintaining the edge about how these factors interact and how the value of Norway’s marine and coastal environ- impacts can be limited through ocean manage- ment, safeguarding the oceans as a source of food ment. and using ocean resources sustainably. In this white paper, the Government describes how it intends to continue and consolidate Norway’s The Government will: integrated, ecosystem-based ocean management – work to ensure climate-resilient management plan system. of living marine resources and marine biodiver- This white paper brings together all three sity so that it is possible to maintain viable management plans for the first time. It includes a populations and ecosystem services as far as revised management plan for the Barents Sea– possible in a changing climate, and so as to Lofoten area and updated management plans for safeguard natural carbon sinks; the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea and Skager- – monitor changes in the implications of climate rak. The management plans previously published change for marine ecosystems and ocean for the separate areas have established an overall industries and use the management plans to framework and measures for the conservation report on status, trends and implemented and and sustainable use of marine ecosystems. The planned measures; present white paper is based on current policy, – as part of work on the management plans, con- and proposes certain new measures. duct a risk analysis for the management plan areas of direct and indirect effects of climate change on marine ecosystems and other rele- 9.1 Oceans and climate change vant factors under different emission scena- rios; Ocean management must take into account the – further develop the knowledge base for climate increasing impacts of climate change and ocean change adaptation in ocean industries and acidification, while at the same time promoting a ocean-dependent sectors of society; green transformation and reducing greenhouse – continue to monitor acidification and climate gas emissions. trends and the impacts on vulnerable calcifying organisms such as plankton and corals; – enhance knowledge of the effects of climate 9.1.1 Adapting to climate change and a change and ocean acidification on marine eco- warmer ocean systems and how they interact with other pres- According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- sures. mate Change (IPCC), the oceans are entering a new state as a result of rising CO2 levels and global warming. This may lead to far-reaching 9.1.2 Green transformation in the ocean impacts on marine ecosystems and living industries resources, including those in Norwegian waters, Ocean management can play a significant part in which in turn will affect ocean industries and the global transition to a low-emission future, a coastal communities. Pressure on ecosystems goal that Norway is also pursuing. Norway’s 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 145 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement has recently been updated and The Government will: enhanced. The target is to reduce greenhouse gas – work to maintain natural carbon sinks and safe- emissions by at least 50 % by 2030 compared with guard marine biodiversity; the 1990 level. It is also a Government target for – enhance knowledge about carbon fixation by Norway to be a low-emission society by 2050, marine plankton and marine vegetation types where emissions have been reduced by 90–95 %. such as kelp forests, seaweed communities and The Government’s strategy for green competitive- eelgrass meadows, and apply this knowledge ness, which was presented in 2018, links together to assess potential restoration measures; industrial development and climate action. The – facilitate the development of new ocean indus- Government will facilitate value creation by pro- tries such as environmentally friendly cultiva- moting the establishment of new green jobs and tion of seaweed and kelp as a measure for encouraging existing businesses to adapt in order boosting carbon uptake. to compete as climate policy becomes stricter and technology development proceeds rapidly. Offshore wind, carbon capture and storage 9.2 Sustainable use, overall framework under the seabed, and green shipping are among for activities and spatial the areas where Norway has much to offer and management where sound ocean management can promote the green transition. The ocean industries are vital to employment and value creation in Norway, and the oceans provide livelihoods for many coastal communities. Norwe- The Government will: gian waters contain rich oil and gas resources, – pursue its ambition of reducing emissions from which have played a key role in the country’s domestic shipping and fishing vessels by half development. The oceans are also the basis for by 2030, and promote the deployment of zero- Norway’s large, sustainable seafood industry and and low-emission solutions in all vessel cate- its large maritime industry. Some of the country’s gories; most innovative businesses, jobs and knowledge – promote further green growth and boost the institutions have their origins in human settle- competitiveness of the Norwegian maritime ment along the coast and use of the oceans. For industry and facilitate an increase in exports of the foreseeable future, the oceans will continue to low- and zero-emission technology in the mari- be a vital basis for jobs, value creation and welfare time sector; throughout Norway. – continue work on carbon storage under the The management plans are a tool for spatial seabed in Norwegian waters as a climate management of Norway’s sea areas. Sound knowl- change mitigation measure; edge of these areas and marine ecosystems is an – facilitate restructuring towards low-emission essential basis for finding a balance between con- production of seafood; servation and sustainable use across sectors. – facilitate economically viable offshore renewa- Activities in each management plan area are regu- ble energy production. lated on the basis of existing legislation governing different sectors. 9.1.3 Strengthening the oceans’ capacity for carbon uptake 9.2.1 Sustainable, safe food production from Marine ecosystems such as kelp forests, seaweed the oceans communities and eelgrass meadows absorb CO2 Norwegian fisheries and aquaculture manage- through photosynthesis, thus helping the ocean to ment has evolved over many decades as new absorb much of the CO2 emissions. These ecosys- knowledge has developed, and Norway is one of tems comprise natural carbon sinks in the ocean the world’s leading coastal states in sustainable and are sometimes called ‘blue forests’. They are harvesting and use of the oceans. This develop- also important for marine biodiversity and can ment will continue. Monitoring results indicate protect the coastline against extreme weather that concentrations of contaminants are generally events by moderating wave action. below the maximum permitted levels for food safety, but frequent monitoring is needed. 146 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

reflected by an increase in shipping. Maritime The Government will: transport projections indicate that by 2040, dis- – review the possibility of sustainable harvesting tance sailed will increase by about 40 % from the of new species, particularly species lower in the 2013 level. food chain; Maritime transport comprises many shipping – build up knowledge about the impacts on eco- segments, a number of which have lower emis- systems of harvesting new species and harve- sions than alternative modes of transport. sting at lower trophic levels for all Norwegian Other segments result in substantial emis- sea areas; sions to air of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides – strengthen the knowledge base for the mana- (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOx), which have a gement and sustainable harvesting of snow negative impact on local air quality. From 1 March crab in the Barents Sea. 2019, Norway introduced stricter requirements – continue to collect data on bycatches and for releases to air and water from ships, largely assess whether further measures are needed specifically relating to cruise traffic in the West to reduce bycatches of marine mammals in fis- Norwegian Fjords World Heritage Site. heries; Maritime safety in Norwegian waters is gener- – intensify efforts to prevent and expose fis- ally high, and the annual number of accidents has heries crime; been reduced in recent years. – support measures and initiatives to improve utilisation of resources and reduce food waste; – maintain good monitoring systems for docu- The Government will: menting healthy and safe seafood. – work to maintain and strengthen the high level of safety in maritime transport; – consider whether to extend the environmental 9.2.2 Offshore aquaculture requirements for shipping in the West Norwe- Offshore aquaculture will use facilities that can be gian Fjords World Heritage Site to other fjords sited farther from shore than is normal at present. in Norway; These facilities may be self-propelled or be – consider whether to extend the current prohi- designed to be towed between locations or to be bition against carrying heavy bunker oil in the static, and will produce substantially more than protected areas around Svalbard and introduce the capacity of current facilities. The environmen- a general prohibition in the territorial waters tal problems encountered are expected to be the around Svalbard; same as those associated with coastal aquaculture – consider whether to introduce size restrictions activities, but new issues may also arise. The scale for ships in the protected areas around Sval- of environmental problems will also depend on bard; whether facilities are fixed or mobile, and whether – consider whether to impose stricter require- they use open cages or closed systems. ments relating to discharges of sewage from ships in Norwegian waters; – consider new measures to prevent the spread The Government will: of alien organisms through hull fouling and – develop a legal framework for offshore aqua- review the introduction of requirements based culture that will facilitate further growth in the on IMO’s regulatory framework. aquaculture sector and promote value creation within an environmentally sustainable fra- mework; 9.2.4 Framework for petroleum activities in – facilitate the availability of adequate knowledge the management plan areas about the vulnerability of biodiversity to the Each of the ocean management plans sets out a impacts of offshore aquaculture. framework for petroleum activities in specific geo- graphical areas. The management plans provide a good basis for sound resource management and a 9.2.3 Safe, environmentally friendly predictable regulatory framework for the oil and maritime transport gas industry. In the light of new knowledge about Maritime activities in Norwegian waters are vulnerable species and habitats and the environ- extensive and varied. The volume of both freight mental impacts of oil and gas activities, parts of and passenger transport has increased over time, the framework from the previous management 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 147 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans plans have been revised. Some geographical areas, such as the polar front, are no longer speci- Framework for petroleum activities in the Barents Sea– fied in the framework for petroleum activities now Lofoten area that more is known about environmental condi- The Government will use the following framework tions. Certain adjustments have been made to as a basis for petroleum activities in the Barents ensure coherence across the management plan Sea–Lofoten area: areas. The framework for each of the manage- – Coastal waters off Troms and Finnmark county ment plan areas is shown in Figures 9.1, 9.2 and to the Russian border 9.3, and the information is also available through – No petroleum activities will be initiated wit- the marine spatial management tool on the Bar- hin a zone stretching 35 km outwards from entsWatch portal, https://kart.barentswatch.no/ the baseline from the Troms II petroleum arealverktoy. province along the coast to the Russian bor- The framework for specific geographical areas der. will be used as a basis in the licensing rounds. – In a zone stretching between 35 km and 100 Unless otherwise specified, the framework set out km outwards from the baseline, no explora- below will apply until any changes are made when tion drilling in oil-bearing formations will be the management plans are updated. permitted in the period 1 March– 31 August. This will be reviewed when the delimitation of the particularly valuable and Framework for petroleum activities that applies to all vulnerable area ‘coastal waters, Tromsøfla- the management plan areas ket to the Russian border’ has been comple- The Government will use the following framework ted. as a basis for petroleum activities in all the man- –Tromsøflaket bank area agement plan areas: – In coastal waters of the Tromsøflaket, – In connection with numbered licensing restrictions apply corresponding to those rounds, and when licences are issued through set out in the framework for the area ‘coas- the system of awards in predefined areas tal waters, Troms and Finnmark county to (APA), the authorities will continue to hold the Russian border’. public consultations and take into account all – No exploration drilling will be permitted in available new knowledge about the effects of oil-bearing formations on the Tromsøflaket produced water and drill cuttings and other outside 65 km from the baseline in the impacts on the environment and living marine period 1 March–31 August. resources; – Eggakanten North – New production licences must include require- – There is a general principle that new produ- ments for any necessary measures to ensure ction licences must include requirements that the coral reefs and other vulnerable bent- for surveys to identify any coral reefs or hic fauna are not damaged by petroleum activi- other valuable benthic communities that ties. Operators must be prepared to meet spe- may be affected by petroleum activities and cial requirements in order to avoid direct phy- ensure that they are not damaged. This will sical damage to the reefs from bottom gear and be particularly strictly applied in the Egga- anchor chains, sediment deposition from drill kanten North area. Special conditions may cuttings and pollution from produced water; be included in licences in vulnerable areas – Continue efforts and follow-up to achieve the to avoid damage. zero-discharge target for releases of hazardous – The marginal ice zone substances to the sea from petroleum activi- – No new petroleum activities will be initiated ties; in areas where sea ice is found on 15 % of – Seek to reduce uncertainty as regards acoustic the days in April, based on sea ice extent disturbance and other possible negative data for the 30-year period 1988–2017. This impacts of seismic surveys on marine life; will apply until any changes are made when – Establish stricter requirements for activities in the management plans are updated, in 2024 vulnerable areas to avoid damage (in line with at the earliest. the risk-based approach of the health, safety –Bjørnøya and working environment legislation). – No new petroleum activities will be initiated within a 65-km zone around Bjørnøya. 148 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Management plan area No petroleum activities to be initiated APA areas 2019 Areas opened for petroleum activities No exploration drilling to be permitted in oil-bearing formations, Gas fields 1 Mar–31 Aug. Around Bjørnøya this applies 1 Apr–15 Aug Oil fields and 65–100 km from the baseline. Production licences Particularly strict application of requirements relating to coral reefs and other valuable benthic communities

Figure 9.1 Framework for petroleum activities in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency/Marine spatial management tool 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 149 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

– In a zone stretching from 65 km to 100 km – Particularly effective oil spill preparedness outwards from the baseline around Bjør- and response system, including short nøya, no exploration drilling will be permit- response times. ted in oil-bearing formations in the period d) Coastal waters, northern part 1April–31August. – No further opening of areas of coastal – Nordland IV (unopened part), Nordland V waters that are not currently open for petro- (unopened part), Nordland VI (open part), leum activities. Nordland VI (unopened part), Nordland VII e) Remman archipelago and coastal waters, south- and Troms II ern part – The waters off the Lofoten and Vesterålen – No exploration drilling in oil-bearing forma- Islands and Senja will not be opened for tions in the spawning season and breeding petroleum activities and no impact assess- and moulting seasons (1 March– ments under the Petroleum Act will be car- 31 August); ried out in the period 2017–2021. – Particularly effective oil preparedness and – Other conditions response system, including short response – In areas less than 50 km from observed sea times. ice,1 exploration drilling in oil-bearing for- f) Entrance to the Vestfjorden, open part mations will not be permitted in the period – No exploration drilling in oil-bearing forma- 15 December–15 June. tions in the spawning season (1 February– 1June); – No exploration drilling in oil-bearing forma- Framework for petroleum activities in the Norwegian tions in the breeding and moulting seasons Sea (1 March–31 August); The Government will use the following framework – No seismic surveys during spawning as a basis for petroleum activities in the Norwe- migration/in the spawning season (1 gian Sea: January–1 May); a) The Møre banks – Particularly effective oil spill preparedness – No production licences will be awarded for and response system, including short the Møre banks. This does not apply to the response times. parts of the Møre banks that are included in Delimitation of the area – blocks: 6609/ the system of awards in predefined areas 1, 2, 3 and 6610/1, 2, 3, 6611/1, 2. (APA). g) Iverryggen reef b) Halten bank, open part – No new petroleum activities will be initiated – No exploration drilling in oil-bearing forma- in the Iverryggen reef area until an overall tions in the spawning season (1 February– marine protection plan for all Norwegian 1June); sea areas has been presented to the Stor- – No seismic surveys during spawning ting. migration/in the spawning season (1 h) Froan archipelago/Sula reef January–1 May); – No new petroleum activities will be initiated – Use of technology to deal with drill cuttings in the Froan archipelago/Sula reef area and drilling mud on herring spawning gro- until an overall marine protection plan for unds. all Norwegian sea areas has been presen- c) Sklinna bank, open part ted to the Storting. – No exploration drilling in oil-bearing forma- i) Eggakanten South tions in the spawning season (1 February– – There is a general principle that new produ- 1June); ction licences must include requirements – No seismic surveys during spawning for surveys to identify any coral reefs or migration/in the spawning season (1 other valuable benthic communities that January–1 May); may be affected by petroleum activities and – Use of technology to deal with drill cuttings ensure that they are not damaged. This will and drilling mud on herring spawning gro- be particularly strictly applied in the Egga- unds; kanten South area. Special conditions may be included in licences to avoid damage. 1 As shown on the Norwegian Meteorological Institute’s daily ice charts. 150 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Jan Mayen

Management plan area No exploration drilling in oil-bearing formations APA areas 2019 in breeding/moulting seasons (1 Apr–31 Aug) Areas opened for petroleum activities No exploration drilling in oil-bearing formations Gas fields when fish eggs and larvae present (1 Apr–1 Jun) Oil fields Production licences No exploration drilling in oil-bearing formations in spawning season (1 Feb–1 Jun). No seismic surveys during spawning No petroleum activities to be initiated migration/spawning season (1 Jan–1 May) Particularly strict application of requirements relating No exploration drilling in oil-bearing formations in to coral reefs and other valuable benthic communities spawning/breeding/moulting seasons (1 Mar–31 Aug) Particularly effective oil spill preparedness and No seismic surveys in the exploration phase landward response system, including short response times. of the 500-metre depth contour, 1 Jan–1 Apr. This restriction does not apply to site surveys No new petroleum activities to be initiated until an overall marine protection plan for all Norwegian waters has been presented to the Storting

Figure 9.2 Framework for petroleum activities in the Norwegian Sea. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency/Marine spatial management tool 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 151 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans j) Jan Mayen/West Ice conditions in the areas of sandeel habitat to – No petroleum activities will be initiated a minimum. around Jan Mayen. k) Other areas that have been opened for petroleum activities in the Norwegian Sea 9.2.5 Offshore wind power – No seismic surveys in the exploration Offshore wind power is growing globally. The phase are to be carried out landward of the pace of development is rapid and accelerating, 500-metre depth contour in the period particularly in the North Sea. At present, develop- 1 January–1 April. This restriction does not ment costs are considerably higher for offshore apply to site surveys. wind power than for land-based wind power, and – No exploration drilling in oil-bearing forma- there are other challenges associated with off- tions in the period 1 April–15 June in the shore industrial activity than with similar land- blocks 6204/1,2,3,4,5,7,8 and 6304/12 wit- based activities. The technical and cost-related hin the 500-metre depth contour; quadrant problems can to some extent be compensated for 6305 within the 500-metre depth contour, by better wind conditions offshore, and the fact quadrants 6306, 6307, 6407/ that larger wind turbines can be built than is possi- 2,3,5,6,8,9,11,12; 6408/4,7; 6508, 6509, ble onshore. Floating wind power may become a 6510, 6608/3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12; 6609, 6610 substantial energy source if the costs can be and 6611. reduced sufficiently for it to be competitive. Nor- – No exploration drilling in oil-bearing forma- wegian ocean industries have considerable mari- tions in the breeding and moulting seasons time and petroleum-related expertise that could (1 April–31 August) in the blocks 6204/ play a role in the development of floating wind 7,8,10,11; 6306/6,8,9; 6307/1,2,3,4,5,7. farms. Knowledge about the environmental impacts of offshore wind power is variable, depending on Framework for petroleum activities in the North Sea the species, geographical area and other matters and Skagerrak under consideration. Based on the knowledge The Government will use the following framework available in 2012, the Norwegian Water Resources as a basis for petroleum activities in the North Sea and Energy Directorate concluded in its strategic and Skagerrak: impact assessment of offshore wind power in a a) Skagerrak number of areas of interest that the impacts would – No petroleum activities will be initiated in vary between undetectable and small for fish, the Skagerrak. marine mammals and benthic communities and b) North Sea coastal waters from small to moderate for seabirds, but it also – In a zone stretching 25 km outwards from pointed out that mapping of benthic communities the baseline, licensees must ensure adequ- in the areas of interest was incomplete. ate preparedness and response capacity for coastal waters and shoreline clean-up that is not based on municipal and government The Government will: resources. – open certain areas for licence applications for c) Sandeel habitat south and sandeel habitat north offshore renewable energy production and (Viking Bank) adopt regulations under the Offshore Energy – Exploration drilling in the areas of sandeel Act; habitat and in a zone surrounding them – give weight to new knowledge when assessing must be carried out in a way that minimises whether to open areas and setting environmen- disturbance to spawning, and there must be tal requirements for licences, including no discharges of drill cuttings, to ensure knowledge about habitat use by seabirds and that the quality of these areas is not redu- the impacts of offshore wind power on sea- ced by sediment deposition from drilling birds; activities. – build up expertise and knowledge on environ- – Any field developments in these areas must mental impacts of offshore wind power. use solutions that keep changes to benthic 152 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Management plan area No petroleum activities to be initiated APA areas 2019 Areas opened for petroleum activities Exploration drilling in the sandeel habitat zones and in zone Gas fields surrounding them must be carried out so as to minimise Oil fields disturbance to spawning. There must be no discharges of drill Production licences cuttings, to ensure that the quality of the areas is not reduced by sediment deposition from drilling. Any field developments must use solutions that minimise changes to benthic conditions in sandeel habitat.

In a zone 25 km outwards from the baseline, licensees must ensure adequate preparedness and response capacity for coastal waters/shoreline clean-up, not based on municipal and government resources.

Figure 9.3 Framework for petroleum activities in the North Sea and Skagerrak. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency/Marine spatial management tool 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 153 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

safety and security and environmental conside- 9.2.6 Extraction of minerals from the seabed rations. In accordance with the Seabed Mineral Act, an area must as a general rule have been officially opened before licences can be issued for explora- 9.2.8 Offshore military shooting and tion and extraction. Before an area is opened, a exercise areas strategic environmental assessment must be car- Offshore military shooting and exercise areas are ried out under the auspices of the Ministry of essential to the Norwegian Armed Forces’ opera- Petroleum and Energy. A strategic environmental tional activities and ultimately for national emer- assessment under the Seabed Mineral Act has gency preparedness and crisis management capa- been started. The Norwegian Petroleum Directo- bilities. When using these areas for exercises or rate is working on a resource assessment and other purposes, it is important to safeguard the study programme. A strategic environmental environment properly. A review of the future spa- assessment under the Act is intended to elucidate tial needs of the Armed Forces and the potential the possible environmental, industry-related, eco- for coordinating use of areas set aside for defence- nomic and social impacts of opening an area. related activities for several purposes is under way. This work will result in changes to the formal status and structure of these areas. Closing down The Government will: or altering boundaries of some areas, may open – in accordance with the Seabed Mineral Act, up opportunities for civilian uses such as aquacul- conduct a strategic environmental assessment ture or renewable energy production. If any new for mineral extraction on the Norwegian conti- military shooting and exercise areas are to be nental shelf. established, military and other spatial interests will be weighed up against each other. 9.2.7 Sustainable tourism and leisure activities The Government will: More and more tourists from around the world – consider changes in offshore military shooting are visiting Norway to experience its clean, rich and exercise areas to make their structure and undisturbed environment. Few countries more efficient and strengthen the Armed For- have as long and varied a coastline as Norway, ces’ operational capabilities. and the coastal environment, fjords and marine areas have great potential in terms of tourism. However, growing numbers of tourists are putting 9.2.9 Coordinated spatial management and greater pressure on the environment, resources coexistence between ocean-based and coastal communities. Cruise traffic around industries Svalbard has also increased significantly, and In view of the expected growth in new and emerg- larger ships and more frequent calls are causing ing ocean industries, the Government will con- problems in a number of areas. sider whether there are certain geographical areas where many different interests intersect.

The Government will: – safeguard the species and habitats that provide The Government will: the basis for ocean-based tourism and leisure – facilitate sound decision-making on coexis- activities; tence between ocean-based industries and – build up knowledge about the use of marine coordinated spatial management by reviewing and coastal areas for outdoor recreation, the impacts, including the economic impacts, leisure activities and nature-based tourism and of various options for the use of Norway’s how people’s experience of these areas is affe- marine areas, and will consider potentially con- cted by changes in activity levels and environ- flicting interests in individual cases at political mental status in the management plan areas; level as necessary. – review whether cruise traffic around Svalbard can be restricted on the basis of preparedness, 154 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

9.3 Measures to ensure good 9.3.2 Marine protected areas and other environmental status and effective area-based conservation conservation of marine ecosystems measures Environmental status in Norway’s rich, productive Conservation measures are needed for a selection seas is in many respects good, but climate change of Norway’s marine areas, habitats and ecosys- is having growing impacts. In the North Sea, rising tems, both to safeguard valuable biodiversity and temperatures have resulted in changes in the zoo- ecological functions, and to reduce pressures on plankton community and a less productive ecosys- and the vulnerability of marine ecosystems that tem. In the Norwegian Sea, climate change is are exposed to climate change and ocean acidifica- resulting in higher seawater temperatures, and tion. Marine protected areas and other effective acidification has been registered. The loss of sea area-based conservation measures can also play a ice is causing changes in the ecosystem in the part in maintaining natural carbon sinks, both northern part of the Barents Sea. It is vital to main- because physical disturbance of the seabed is tain efforts to alleviate long-standing environmental avoided and because a healthy flora and fauna in problems and to promote continued value creation. marine and coastal waters contributes to carbon uptake and storage in seabed sediments. 9.3.1 Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas The Government will: Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas have – continue work on the establishment of marine been identified as being of great importance for protected areas; biodiversity and biological production in an entire – draw up an overall national plan for marine pro- management plan area. New information about tected areas in the course of 2020; seabird populations has been obtained through – assess the need to protect distinctive and rare the mapping and monitoring programme SEA- species and habitats in deep-sea areas. POP. Knowledge about the seabed in the particu- larly valuable and vulnerable areas has been improved and the value of these areas has been 9.3.3 Safeguarding species and habitat confirmed through the MAREANO programme types which is mapping the seabed in Norwegian There is still a lack of knowledge about the eco- waters. logical relationships between different parts of The Forum for Integrated Ocean Management marine ecosystems and about marine habitats that has begun a review of all the particularly valuable are particularly important for the structure, func- and vulnerable areas identified in the manage- tioning and productivity of ecosystems. Species ment plan areas on the basis of the new knowl- that are essential to the structure, functioning and edge that has been built up. productivity of ecosystems will be managed in such a way that they are able to maintain their role as key species in the ecosystem concerned. The The Government will: Norwegian Red List for ecosystems and habitat – On the basis of the recommendations from the types 2018 indicates which habitat types are at Forum for Integrated Ocean Management, risk of being lost in Norway. delimit the boundary of the marginal ice zone as a particularly valuable and vulnerable area using the line where ice is found on 15 % of the The Government will: days in April, as calculated using ice data for – continue efforts to maintain viable populations the 30-year period 1988–2017; of and improve the conservation status of – by the end of 2021, complete the review of endangered and vulnerable species in Norwe- valuable species and habitats and their vulnera- gian waters; bility for all the particularly valuable and vulne- – continue efforts to protect coastal cod stocks; rable areas identified in the management plan – continue efforts to protect coral reefs and other areas; vulnerable benthic fauna against the use of bot- – review whether areas containing underwater tom fishing gear; mountains meet the criteria for designation as – build up knowledge about the occurrence, vul- particularly valuable and vulnerable areas. nerability and conservation status of vulnera- 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 155 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

ble and endangered species and habitat types will affect food supplies and the viability of Nor- in Norwegian waters. wegian seabird populations; – make map services on seabird habitat use avai- lable by publishing data through the marine 9.3.4 Improving the situation for seabird spatial management tool for the ocean manage- populations ment plans. Populations of a number of seabirds have shown a considerable decline over time. We know a certain amount about the reasons behind these major 9.3.5 Preventing the spread of alien species changes, but more knowledge is needed about The spread of invasive alien species is regarded as ecological interactions in ecosystems that are one of the most serious threats to biodiversity. Alien important for seabird populations, together with species can cause severe damage by displacing natu- an overview of pressures on seabirds and meas- rally occurring species. A number of alien species ures that can be introduced to avoid seabird mor- have become established in Norwegian waters. Most tality. Earlier work involving cooperation between of them are benthic plant and animal species found seabird experts and marine scientists should be near the coast, such as Pacific oysters (Crassostrea further developed. gigas) and japweed (Sargassum muticum). There are A national action plan for seabirds is being various vectors for the spread of marine species drawn up, in which various policy instruments and across the world’s oceans, for example shipping, measures will be considered, including whether aquaculture activities and unintended release. certain seabirds should be designated as priority species. Work on seabirds was also discussed fur- ther in the white paper on Norway’s national bio- The Government will: diversity action plan (Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016)). – continue efforts to reduce numbers of Pacific Knowledge about seabirds is being built up oysters along the shoreline and around coastal through the SEAPOP mapping and monitoring islands and skerries; programme, including the SEATRACK module, – improve knowledge about and monitor the which is mapping the non-breeding distribution of occurrence, spread and impacts of alien spe- seabirds. A considerable amount of new informa- cies in Norwegian waters. tion on seabird populations in Norwegian waters has been acquired through the programme. It is important to update and further develop this infor- 9.3.6 Reducing pollution by hazardous mation, since it forms part of the knowledge base substances on seabirds and on the major marine ecosystems. Monitoring of pollution levels in the management plan areas shows that inputs of most persistent, bio- accumulative and toxic substances and radioactive The Government will: substances that are monitored are stable or in some – present a national action plan in order to cases declining. A slight rise in inputs via air to the improve the situation for seabird populations; Barents Sea has been measured in recent years. – establish a permanent monitoring system for Concentrations of the persistent, bioaccumula- seabird bycatches in fisheries and consider tar- tive and toxic substances that are monitored in geted measures for reducing the scale of these sediments and marine organisms are stable or unintentional bycatches; declining. There are environmental quality stand- – further develop the systematic efforts to build ards for a number of pollutants, which have been up knowledge about seabirds through the map- set at very low levels to protect the most vulnera- ping and monitoring programme for seabirds, ble ecosystem components. These levels are still SEAPOP, including the SEATRACK module for exceeded for certain pollutants, including mer- their non-breeding distribution; cury, PCBs and polybrominated diphenyl ethers – carry out a new total census of breeding, sta- (PBDEs), in most of the species that are moni- ging and wintering seabirds along the Norwe- tored. The management plan goals related to haz- gian coast ardous substances are therefore not considered to – establish cooperation between seabird experts, have been achieved. The focus on reducing inputs marine scientists and climate researchers to of pollutants must therefore be maintained. further develop research on seabirds and Much more information is still needed to give marine ecosystems and how climate change a complete picture of the levels of hazardous sub- 156 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans stances in the management plan areas. The moni- possible will also be required to reduce the quan- toring programmes only include a limited selec- tity of plastic waste in the marine environment. tion of substances, and new chemicals are con- There must be a systematic effort to ensure the use stantly being taken into use. of the best available and up-to-date scientific knowl- Transport from other countries with ocean cur- edge, which may involve training, regulatory meas- rents and in the atmosphere accounts for a large ures, agreements or other instruments in relevant proportion of inputs of hazardous substances to the industries and sectors. International cooperation management plan areas. Extensive international will also be of crucial importance for reducing cooperation is therefore needed to deal with the marine litter in the management plan areas. problem. There are known to be considerable inputs with ocean currents, but only very rough estimates of inputs are available for individual substances, so The Government will: that there is little information on changes in inputs. – intensify monitoring of marine litter and micro- Climate change may influence inputs of persistent, plastics in the marine and coastal environment; bioaccumulative and toxic substances and other pol- – revise Norway’s strategy to combat marine lutants to the management plan areas. plastic waste and the spread of microplastics; – introduce legislation on the delivery free of charge for waste retrieved at sea, in line with The Government will: the revised Port Reception Facilities Directive; – work for a stricter international regime gover- – assess how producer responsibility for fishing ning persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic sub- gear and aquaculture equipment best can be stances through instruments including the implemented in Norway, in line with the dire- Stockholm Convention, the Minamata Conven- ctive on reducing the impact of certain plastic tion and the regional Convention on Long- products on the environment; Range Transboundary Air Pollution; – take steps to improve the coordination and effi- – continue monitoring and mapping of hazard- ciency of clean-up and retrieval operations in ous substances in marine ecosystems; Norway, including developing and deploying – continue screening studies to detect new per- digital tools and maintaining central govern- sistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances ment involvement, for example through the in the management plan areas and develop new Norwegian Centre for Oil Spill Preparedness methods to make it easier to detect the potenti- and Marine Environment. ally most dangerous pollutants; – build up knowledge about the cumulative impacts on marine ecosystems of long-range 9.3.8 Underwater noise transport of hazardous substances and about Ambient noise levels are rising, primarily a result inputs from different sectors; of the growing volume of shipping. Noise can dis- – build up knowledge about the combined effe- turb acoustic communication between marine cts of climate change and hazardous substan- mammals and make it more difficult for them to ces on marine ecosystems. find and catch food and to navigate. Intense sound pulses produced by seismic activity, military sonar, detonations and pile-driving can result in 9.3.7 Combating marine litter and behavioural changes in fish and marine mammals. microplastics Although much more has been learned over the It is still uncertain how much waste ends up in the past 10–15 years, little specific information is marine environment in Norway. No data are availa- available about how noise pollution over time, ble for estimating the total quantity of waste in Nor- often combined with other pressures, may affect way’s marine and coastal areas. To ensure effective populations of vulnerable species. reduction of inputs of plastic litter and microplas- tics to the marine environment, national and inter- national measures must be designed so that they The Government will: are targeted as precisely as possible to give the – build up knowledge about the impacts of under- best possible effect. To do this, better documenta- water noise on fish and marine mammals; tion is needed of established and new sources and – establish pressure indicators for underwater the quantities that come from different sources. noise and harmonise them with the OSPAR Effective waste recovery as close to the sources as system. 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 157 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

detailed knowledge, but many countries do not 9.3.9 Strengthening preparedness and have sufficient capacity to acquire the knowledge response to acute pollution they need. Norway is a world leader in several Norway’s goal is to keep the risk of environmental areas of marine research, and shares and devel- damage from acute pollution at a low level, and to ops its knowledge through extensive international make continuous efforts to reduce it further. The cooperation. environmental authorities need information on the potential environmental consequences, the severity of the potential consequences and the 9.4.1 Marine ecosystems associated uncertainty when assessing levels of Basic knowledge about marine ecosystems, natu- environmental risk. ral fluctuations and the impacts of human activity is needed to develop an integrated ecosystem- based ocean management regime. The Government will: More knowledge and a better understanding – continue the establishment of test and exercise are needed of ecosystem function, the impacts on facilities for oil spill response equipment at ecosystems of climate change, ocean acidification, Fiskebøl in Nordland county; pollution, plastic and microplastics, and physical – continue to play a part in developing a prepa- pressures arising from human activity. Better redness and response system for Arctic waters, methods of estimating the cumulative impacts on partly in response to recommendations by the marine ecosystems should be developed. Office of the Auditor General in a report on the To make it possible to evaluate progress authorities’ efforts to safeguard the environ- towards the goals set in the ocean management ment and fisheries in connection with petro- plans, a system for coordinated monitoring of leum activities in the Arctic; environmental status has been established, based – continue the development of Norway’s nuclear on a representative set of indicators. The indicator emergency preparedness system under the set needs to be further developed to include more leadership of the Crisis Committee for Nuclear pressure and impact indicators, and should be Preparedness. coordinated with relevant work under OSPAR. Monitoring and measuring environmental status in the marine environment will be coordinated 9.4 Strengthening the knowledge base with the system of scientifically based criteria and – mapping, research and management objectives for good ecological status, monitoring which is being developed.

More knowledge and a better understanding are needed of ecosystem function and the impacts on The Government will: ecosystems of factors such as human activity, cli- – build up knowledge about marine ecosystems mate change, ocean acidification, pollution and and how they are changing as a result of grea- plastic and microplastics. This understanding is a ter human activity, climate change and pol- vital basis for sustainable use of natural resources, lution; innovation and economic development. Marine – build up knowledge about the role of marine research and monitoring are international in ecosystems in global climate evolution; nature, and are of crucial importance for effective – improve knowledge about the links between international cooperation on ocean management. marine and coastal ecosystems; There is a pressing global need for more – further develop the monitoring system for eco- knowledge about the oceans, mapping and moni- systems and environmental status in the mana- toring of different areas, and sharing of experi- gement plan areas, and coordinate it with rele- ence and expertise. Norway supports interna- vant elements of the OSPAR monitoring sys- tional processes to develop the necessary knowl- tem; edge, for example through the Intergovernmental – consider the use of satellite data in monitoring Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Inter- Norwegian waters; governmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodi- – continue to support the development of rese- versity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Admin- arch infrastructure and good test facilities for istrative bodies in individual countries need more the ocean industries; this includes work on Ocean Space Laboratories. 158 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

The IPCC’s special report on the ocean and 9.4.2 Mapping marine habitat types and the cryosphere points out that pollution, runoff and seabed – the MAREANO programme other factors that have negative impacts on The interdisciplinary MAREANO programme marine ecosystems also make them more vulnera- maps the seabed in Norway’s marine and coastal ble to climate change. Reducing other forms of waters, and provides information on the seabed pollution and environmental pressures is there- based on its own surveys and syntheses of exist- fore an important approach for ensuring that the ing data. Information provided by the programme oceans can be used as a basis for nature-based is used to promote sustainable management and solutions to the problem of climate change. Inter- the development of ocean-based industries. national cooperation will be vital for the develop- The MAREANO programme has registered ment of a basis for forward-looking, climate-resil- many new coral reefs, and as a result, a further ient ocean management. This cooperation ten areas of cold-water coral reefs in Norwegian includes ocean-related processes during the UN waters were given special protection by designa- General Assembly and within specialised agencies tion as marine protected areas under the Marine such as FAO and UNESCO and programmes such Resources Act. Information from the programme as UNEP, work in the regional fisheries manage- has also resulted in the closure of fisheries in ment organisations, cooperation under the areas around Svalbard, for example to protect sea OSPAR Convention, and cooperation on imple- pen communities. Knowledge acquired through mentation of the Convention on Biological Diver- the MAREANO programme, for example about sity and agreements on reducing pollution. vulnerable habitat types such as coral reefs, gor- The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustaina- gonian forests and sponge communities, is impor- ble Development (2021–2030) is intended to gen- tant for sustainable management of the seabed. erate knowledge that can be used in achieving the More knowledge is needed about habitat-forming Sustainable Development Goals. The new knowl- species such as sea pens and soft corals that have edge it generates will also benefit Norwegian a dispersed distribution pattern, and about species ocean management and the Norwegian ocean and habitats in deep-sea areas. Data obtained industries. Norway’s promotion of knowledge through the MAREANO programme is being generation through mapping, research and envi- used for marine ecosystems in the preparation of ronmental monitoring during the ocean science maps of ecological information for Norway. The decade will also be useful in the global effort to Norwegian system for classifying habitats, eco- develop knowledge of the oceans. The ocean sci- systems and landscapes developed by the Norwe- ence decade overlaps with the UN Decade of gian Biodiversity Information Centre will be used Action on Nutrition (2016–2025), and will be able to describe variation in the marine environment. to supply knowledge that can be used in promot- ing food from the oceans in efforts to achieve food security and improved nutrition. The Government will: – continue the MAREANO programme for map- ping the seabed in Norway’s marine and coas- The Government will: tal waters; – continue to promote integrated, ecosystem- – continue to map important marine habitat based management in international ocean types, including endangered and vulnerable cooperation; habitat types such as coral reefs and deep-sea – advocate using knowledge about the impacts species and habitat types. on the oceans of climate change in combination with other factors as a basis for work in rele- vant international forums and agreements; 9.5 International ocean cooperation – work internationally towards sustainable mana- gement and restoration of existing carbon sinks Norway advocates integrated, ecosystem-based in marine ecosystems, such as mangrove fore- management and the inclusion of key topics such sts, eelgrass meadows and kelp forests; as sustainable fisheries management, the oceans – work towards a new comprehensive global as a source of food, climate change, ocean acidifi- agreement to combat marine litter and micro- cation and marine litter in international ocean plastics, which will have the aim of eliminating cooperation. inputs from all ocean- and land-based sources; 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 159 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

– continue to support the efforts of developing been presented to the Storting (Norwegian parlia- countries to combat marine litter and plastic waste; ment). However, this is the first time all of Norway’s – through participation in international research integrated ocean management plans have been pre- cooperation, play a part in building up knowledge sented together in one white paper. This approach about global sources and environmental impacts will make the management plan system more of marine litter and microplastics; dynamic and flexible, and will for example make it – continue cooperation on the marine environ- possible to focus on specific topics across all three ment within OSPAR to ensure good ecological management plan areas. The Forum for Integrated status in Norwegian waters and the North East Ocean Management and the Advisory Group on Atlantic as a whole; Monitoring provide an efficient framework for work – strengthen cooperation on fisheries manage- on the scientific basis for the management plans, ment measures in the North East Atlantic Fis- and there is a smoothly functioning monitoring sys- heries Commission (NEAFC), including tem for all three management plan areas. The man- cooperation on the protection of vulnerable agement plan system now has the capacity to com- areas against fisheries activities; pile a sound, up-to-date scientific basis for a new – promote the role of seafood in achieving global white paper on the management plans every four food security and improved nutrition, for exam- years, as requested by the Storting. ple through the Global Action Network Sustai- The mandates of the Forum for Integrated nable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters Ocean Management and the Advisory Group on for Food Security and Nutrition as part of the Monitoring will be reviewed on the basis of expe- UN Decade of Action on Nutrition; rience from the preparation of the scientific basis – strengthen ocean cooperation under the Nor- for the present white paper, with a view to main- dic Council of Ministers and the Arctic Council, taining scientific integrity and ensuring effective and continue cooperation with Russia on the use of resources. Participation by a range of stake- marine environment; holders is an important part of the management – take the initiative for an assessment by the plan work. There are plans to make the scientific Arctic Council of future ecological impacts of results of work on the management plans more climate change on the marine environment in readily available in order to strengthen stake- the Arctic; holder participation. – encourage Norwegian participation in the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development and in the mission area on The Government will: healthy oceans in the new EU research and inn- – present a new white paper to the Storting on ovation framework programme; the integrated ocean management plans every – by establishing the Oceans for Development four years; programme, assist developing companies to – review the mandates of the Forum for Integra- establish and comply with a framework for inte- ted Ocean Management and the Advisory grated, sustainable ocean management, and Group on Monitoring with a view to ensuring through this contribute to food security, sustai- high scientific quality and effective use of nable value creation and employment in an resources; inclusive ocean economy; – continue the development of digital systems for – assist with capacity development in recipient communication information on Norway’s countries to promote understanding and imple- ocean management plans; mentation of the Convention on the Law of the – ensure that public authorities that own data Sea as a basis for conservation and sustainable make their datasets and information available use of marine resources. for use in the marine spatial management tool for the management plans; – promote closer dialogue between local, regio- 9.6 Further development of the nal and national authorities by making use of management plan system the forum for dialogue on ocean issues in the management plan work. The forum involves It will soon be 20 years since Norway began the representatives of the Government, the coun- development of its system of integrated ocean man- ties, the Sámediggi (Sami parliament) and the agement plans. Including the present white paper, coastal municipalities. Others are invited to eight white papers on the management plans have take part when appropriate. 160 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

10 Economic and administrative consequences

This white paper focuses mainly on the further paper can be predicted with varying degrees of development of existing policy instruments and accuracy, but as the proposals are implemented, measures. Management of Norway’s seas and the consequences for public and private actors oceans is to be based on the best possible knowl- will be assessed in the usual way as set out in Nor- edge, and the intention is to strengthen the knowl- way’s official instructions for planning and man- edge base for ecosystem-based management of agement of central government programmes and Norwegian waters through mapping, monitoring projects. and research. Measures announced in this white paper will be funded within the existing budgetary frame- The Ministry of Climate and Environment work. If any additional funding is needed, propos- recommends: als for priority areas will be put forward in the ordinary budgetary processes. Follow-up of meas- that the Recommendation from the Ministry of ures in the years to come will depend on eco- the Environment concerning Norway’s integrated nomic developments and the budget situation. ocean management plans dated 24 April 2020 The economic and administrative conse- should be submitted to the Storting. quences of the measures proposed in the white 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 161 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Appendix 1

Scientific basis and reports commissioned for this white paper

Samlet påvirkning og miljøkonsekvenser – Fag- Reports from the Forum for Integrated Ocean grunnlag for revisjon av forvaltningsplanen for Management: Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten. Næringsaktivitet og påvirkning – Faggrunnlag for [Cumulative impacts and environmental revisjon av forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet impacts – Scientific basis for revision of the og havområdene utenfor Lofoten. [Ocean indus- management plan for the Barents Sea–Lofoten tries and associated pressures and impacts – area] M-1299/2019. Scientific basis for revision of the management Risiko for og beredskap mot akutt forurensning – plan for the Barents Sea–Lofoten area] M- endringer og utviklingstrekk – Faggrunnlag for 1245/2018. revisjon av forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet Status for gjennomføring og effekt av tiltak – Fag- og havområdene utenfor Lofoten. [Acute pollu- grunnlag for revisjon av forvaltningsplanen for tion: risk and the preparedness and response Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten. system – changes and trends – Scientific basis [Status report on implementation and effects of for revision of the management plan for the measures – Scientific basis for revision of the Barents Sea–Lofoten area] M-1304/2019. management plan for the Barents Sea–Lofoten Særlig verdifulle og sårbare områder – Faggrunnlag area] M-1179/2018. for revisjon og oppdatering av forvaltningspla- Økosystemtjenester – grunnlaget for verdiskaping – nene for havområdene. [Particularly valuable Faggrunnlag for revisjon av forvaltningsplanen and vulnerable areas – Scientific basis for revi- for Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofo- sion of the ocean management plans] M-1303/ ten. [Ecosystem services as the basis for value 2019. creation – Scientific basis for revision of the Verdiskaping i næringene – Faggrunnlag for revi- management plan for the Barents Sea–Lofoten sjon av forvaltningsplan for Barentshavet og area] M-1178/2018. områdene utenfor Lofoten. [Value creation in Status for gjennomføring og effekt av tiltak – Fag- the ocean industries – Scientific basis for revi- grunnlag for oppdatering av forvaltningsplan for sion of the management plan for the Barents Norskehavet og for Nordsjøen–Skagerrak. [Sta- Sea–Lofoten area] M-1297/2019. tus report on implementation and effects of measures – Scientific basis for revision of the management plan for the North Sea– Publications commissioned by the Forum for Skagerrak] M-1244/2018. Integrated Ocean Management: Vurdering av måloppnåelse – Faggrunnlag for revi- Polarfrontens fysiske beskaffenhet og biologiske sjon og oppdatering av forvaltningsplanene for implikasjoner – en verdi- og sårbarhetsvurdering havområdene. [Assessment of progress av polarfronten i Barentshavet [Physical fea- towards goals – Scientific basis for revision of tures of the polar front and their biological the ocean management plans] M-1302/2019. implications – an assessment of the value and Næringsaktivitet og påvirkning – Faggrunnlag for vulnerability of the polar front in the Barents oppdatering av forvaltningsplan for Norskehavet Sea]. Fisken og Havet no. 8–2018, Institute of og for Nordsjøen–Skagerrak. [Ocean industries Marine Research. Lien, V. S., Assmy, P., Bog- and associated pressures and impacts – Scien- stad, B., Chierici, M., Drinkwater, K. F., Duarte, tific basis for revision of the management plan P., Gjøsæter, H., Hop, H., Ivshin, V., Jørgensen, for the North Sea–Skagerrak] M-1280/2019. L. L., Loeng, H., Lydersen, C., McBride, M. M., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Buhl-Mortensen, P., Kes- 162 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

sel Nordgård, I., Skjoldal, H. R., Strøm, H., Monitoring 2017] Fisken og Havet, special Sundfjord, A., Von Quillfeldt, C. H., Vongraven, issue 1b-2017, Institute of Marine Research, D. (2018). Arneberg, P and Jelmert, A. (Ed.). Miljøverdier og sårbarhet i iskantsonen [Valuable Statusrapport for Nordsjøen og Skagerrak: Status species and habitats in the marginal ice zone for miljøet og ytre påvirkning i Nordsjøen og Ska- and vulnerability of the zone] (Brief Report no. gerrak – rapport fra Overvåkingsgruppen 2018. 047): Norwegian Polar Institute 2018, 263pp. [Status report on the North Sea–Skagerrak Von Quillfeldt, C. H., Assmy, P., Bogstad, B., environment and external pressures – report Daase, M., Duarte, P., Fransson, A., Gerland, from the Advisory Group on Monitoring 2018] S., Jørgensen, L. L., Lydersen, C., Kessel Nor- Fisken og Havet, special issue 3–2018, Insti- dgård, I., Renner, A., Sandø, A. B., Strøm, H., tute of Marine Research, Arneberg, P., van der Sundfjord, A., Vongraven, D. (2018). Meeren, G.I. and Frantzen, S. Ed.) (2018). Statusrapport for Norskehavet: Status for miljøet i Norskehavet – Rapport fra Overvåkingsgruppen Reports from the Advisory Group on Monitoring: 2019. [Status report on the Norwegian Sea Statusrapport for Barentshavet: Status for miljøet i environment – report from the Advisory Group Barentshavet og ytre påvirkning – rapport fra on Monitoring 2018] Fisken og havet, no. Overvåkingsgruppen 2017. [Status report on 2019–2, Institute of Marine Research, the Barents Sea environment and external Arneberg, P., Frantzen, S. and van der Meeren, pressures – report from the Advisory Group on G.I. (Ed.) (2019). 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 163 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Appendix 2

Indicators used in the monitoring system

A set of state and pressure indicators are used to the indicators are also available at https://miljos- monitor conditions in the management plan areas. tatus.miljodirektoratet.no/tema/hav-og-kyst/ The results are reported to the management plan havindikatorer/ (in Norwegian only). system. The results and further information about

Barents Sea

Topic Indicator Ocean climate Temperature, salinity and nutrients in the Barents Sea Transport of Atlantic water into the Barents Sea Sea ice extent in the Barents Sea Plankton Phytoplankton biomass and production in the Barents Sea Species composition of phytoplankton in the Barents Sea Spring bloom of phytoplankton in the Barents Sea Species composition of zooplankton in the Barents Sea Zooplankton biomass in the Barents Sea Fish stocks Juvenile herring in the Barents Sea Capelin in the Barents Sea Blue whiting in the Barents Sea Northeast Arctic cod in the Barents Sea Greenland halibut Golden redfish Beaked redfish Benthos Red king crab Coral reefs, soft corals and sponge communities in the Barents Sea Benthic fauna in the Barents Sea Seabirds and marine Kittiwakes in the Barents Sea mammals Common guillemots in the Barents Sea Puffins in the Barents Sea Brünnich’s guillemots in the Barents Sea Spatial distribution of seabirds in the Barents Sea Spatial distribution of whales in the Barents Sea 164 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Topic Indicator Alien species Alien species in the Barents Sea Threatened species and Threatened species and habitat types in the Barents Sea habitat types Pollutants Pollutants in mussels along the coast of North Norway Pollutants in polar bears in the Barents Sea Pollutants in capelin in the Barents Sea Pollutants in Brünnich’s guillemots in the Barents Sea Pollutants in polar cod in the Barents Sea Pollutants in shrimps in the Barents Sea Pollutants in ringed seals in the Barents Sea Pollutants in sediments in the Barents Sea Pollutants in cod in the Barents Sea Inputs of hazardous substances from the atmosphere to the Barents Sea Radioactivity in seaweed along the Barents Sea coast Beach litter in Svalbard Inputs of pollutants via rivers to the Barents Sea Human activity Fish mortality

Source: Advisory Group on Monitoring, status report on the Barents Sea, 2017

Norwegian Sea

Topic Indicator Ocean climate Ocean acidification Temperature, salinity and nutrients in the Norwegian Sea Transport of Atlantic water into the Norwegian Sea Plankton Phytoplankton biomass in the Norwegian Sea Species composition of phytoplankton in the Norwegian Sea Spring bloom of phytoplankton in the Norwegian Sea Warm-water zooplankton in the Norwegian Sea Zooplankton biomass in the Norwegian Sea Fish stocks Norwegian spring-spawning herring in the Norwegian Sea Mackerel in the Norwegian Sea Blue whiting in the Norwegian Sea Northeast Arctic saithe in the Norwegian Sea Tusk in the Norwegian Sea Brosme Ling in the Norwegian Sea 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 165 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Topic Indicator Greenland halibut Golden redfish Beaked redfish Seabirds and marine Hooded seals in the Norwegian Sea mammals Kittiwakes in the Norwegian Sea Common guillemots in the Norwegian Sea Puffins in the Norwegian Sea Shags in the Norwegian Sea Common eider in the Norwegian Sea Alien species Alien species in the Norwegian Sea Threatened species and Threatened species and habitat types in the Norwegian Sea habitat types Pollutants Pollutants in coastal cod in the Norwegian Sea Pollutants in Norwegian spring-spawning herring in the Norwegian Sea Pollutants in shrimps in the Norwegian Sea Pollutants in sediments in the Norwegian Sea Inputs of hazardous substances from the atmosphere to the Norwegian Sea Pollutants in Greenland halibut in the Norwegian Sea Pollutants in mussels along the Norwegian Sea coast Hazardous substances in tusk in the Norwegian Sea Hazardous substances in hooded seals Hazardous substances in blue whiting in the Norwegian Sea Hazardous substances in seabirds in the Norwegian Sea Radioactive pollution in seawater in the Norwegian Sea Inputs of pollutants via rivers to the Norwegian Sea Human activity Fish mortality in the Norwegian Sea Inputs of oil from petroleum installations in the Norwegian Sea

Source: Advisory Group on Monitoring, status report on the Norwegian Sea, 2019 166 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 2019–2020 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

North Sea and Skagerrak

Topic Indicator Ocean climate Ocean acidification in the North Sea and Skagerrak Oxygen levels in bottom water in the Skagerrak Sea temperatures in the North Sea and Skagerrak Transport of water masses in the North Sea and Skagerrak Nutrients in the Skagerrak Plankton Phytoplankton biomass and production in the Skagerrak Spring bloom of phytoplankton in the North Sea Species composition of zooplankton in the North Sea Fish stocks North Sea herring Cod in the North Sea Saithe in the North Sea Haddock in the North Sea Norway pout in the North Sea Sandeels in the North Sea Seabirds and marine Lesser black-backed gulls in the North Sea and Skagerrak mammals Shags in the North Sea and Skagerrak Cormorants in the North Sea and Skagerrak Common eider in the North Sea and Skagerrak Alien species Alien species in the North Sea and Skagerrak Threatened species and Threatened species and habitat types in the North Sea and Skagerrak habitat types Pollutants Inputs of hazardous substances from the atmosphere to the North Sea and Skagerrak Inputs of pollutants via rivers and from coastal areas to the North Sea and Skagerrak Pollutants in mussels in the North Sea Pollutants in shrimps in the North Sea Pollutants in plaice in the North Sea Pollutants in sandeels in the North Sea Pollutants in cod in the North Sea Pollutants in North Sea herring Imposex in dog whelks along the coast of the North Sea and Skagerrak Radioactivity in seawater in the North Sea Radioactivity in seaweed in the North Sea 2019–2020 Meld. St. 20 Report to the Storting (white paper) 167 Norway’s integrated ocean management plans

Topic Indicator Oiled common guillemots in southwestern Norway Plastics in fulmar stomachs in the North Sea Chronic exposure of fish to oil in the North Sea Area of seabed contaminated with hydrocarbons (THC) and barium Human activity Inputs of oil from petroleum installations in the North Sea Releases of radioactive substances from oil and gas to the North Sea Releases from the nuclear power industry to the North Sea Fish mortality in the North Sea Bottom trawl activity in the North Sea (under development)

Source: Advisory Group on Monitoring, status report on the North Sea, 2018

Published by: Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment

Additional copies may be ordered from: Norwegian Government Security and Service Organisation www.publikasjoner.dep.no Telephone: + 47 22 24 00 00 Publications are also available on: www.government.no

Cover illustration: “By the frozen sea” by Kai Fjell ET RK TRY ME K Ø K J S Photo © Helene Fjell L A I K M

Print: Departementenes sikkerhets- og 2 0 6 4 4 1 4 D 0 serviceorganisasjon 04/2021 – Impression 150 e p M e d i a