1. International Marine Spatial Planning Symposium: Sharing Practical Solutions/11th Annual Ronald C.
Baird Sea Grant Science Symposium (IMSPS)
May 14th 2012
Implementation of the ecosystem
approach through Marine Spatial
Planning:
the Norwegian case
”‹ Ž
 •‡
‡ƒ† ‘ˆ”‡•‡ƒ” ’” ƒ ˆ
…Š ‘‰” ‘”‘‹
Žƒ† ˆ•Š
‹

2. Overview
1. Overview of the Norwegian planning
process
1. Structure
2. Governance
3. New regulatory tools
2. Final product
3. What difference did it make?
4. Challenges and potential for improvement
Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck

3. Norway; the
”ocean state”
• Area
– Waters under Norwegian
jurisdiction:
2,3 million km2
– Land territory:
385 000 km2
• Economic importance
– Petroleum, aquaculture
and fisheries are the main
exports and foundation our
welfare

4. A growing understanding for
integrated ocean management
• Response to challenges and pressures:
– Climate change and pollution
Potential Petroleum
– Petroleum industry seeking expansion into the Fields
north and coastal areas Exp. Value: $100 billion
– Increased shipping
• External pressure for implementing the
Ecosystem Approach:
– North Sea ministerial meeting 1997 calling for
implementation of the Ecosystem Approach
– Johannesburg Declaration 2002 calling for
implementation of EA by 2010
• The cumulative impacts necessitate integrated
and ecosystem‐based approaches to
management.
– Marine Spatial Planning, Ocean Zoning, ICZM etc

5. The Norwegian
Management plans
• Initiated in 2001 to
implement integrated and Barents sea
ecosystem‐based Norwegian sea
management for Nor. EEZs
• Barents sea: 2006 (revision in
2011)
• Norwegian sea: 2009
(revision due in 2014)
• North Sea: under
development (expected in
2013) North Sea

6. Organization
Similar process for the Norwegian Sea and North Sea plans

7. Development process

8. Governance Structure

9. Implementation and review
Ministerial steering group
Monitoring group Management forum Environmental risk
forum
Outside
events
2007 2010
Knowledge Political 2011
2008 New Gov.
base for process:
2009 review of White paper.
Management
New
Annual Plan priorities
reports Revised plan

10. Hybrid top‐down approach
• Led and initiated by the government
(political decision)
• Development carried out by government
research institutes and directorates
• Input from stakeholders at various stages:
– Hearings
– Public meetings
• Important zoning decisions made at
political level

11. Zoning aspects
• Identification of valuable areas
• Shipping lanes moving ship traffic further
off‐shore
• Area‐based management framework for
petroleum activities

12. Valuable areas
Spawning areas for cod, Larvae areas for cod, herring,
herring, capelin, haddock and capelin, haddock and saithe
saithe
Olsen et al. 2010. ICES JMS

13. Barents Sea
Shipping
lanes
350 18
16
300
14
250
12
200 10
150 8
Antall transitter
6
100
4 Antall tonn
50
2
0 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Vessle traffic pr year

14. -75 ° -50 ° -35 ° -25 ° -15 ° -5 ° 0 ° 5 ° 15 ° 25 ° 35 ° 45 ° 55 ° 65 ° 75 ° 85 °
-30 ° -40 ° -65 °
81 ° 80 °
Petroleum management Greenland
framework
65 °
Franz Josef Land
2006‐2010
-20 °
60 °
-15 °
Spitzbergen
55 °
76 °
No Petroleum Activities
-Lofoten – Vesterålen
50 ° 76 °
Ice-edge
-Eggkanten Polar front
-5 °
-Bear Island
-Polar front
Bear Island
-Ice-edge 65 km zone
-Coastal zone 0 – 35km
71 °
71 ° 45 °
Tromsøflaket
No NEW Petroleum Activities bank area
-Coastal zone 35 – 50 km Lofoten - Norway
Vesterålen
No drilling March - August te
n Russia
fo Olsen et al. 2007, ICES JMS,
Lo
-Coastal zone 50 - 65 km 5° 10 ° 15 ° 20 ° 25 ° 30 ° 35 ° 40 °
-Tromsøflaket Management plan area High intensity fishing
Shipping routes Framework for petroleum industry
Ecologically valuable areas No petroleum activity
Disputed area No new petroleum activities
Oil/gas discoveries No drilling, March - September

15. Barents Sea 2011 revision
• Changes:
– Area from 50‐65 km opened with
for petroleum with no
restrictions
– Area between 50 and 35 km
offshore opened for petroleum
activities (w date restrictions)
– Eggakanten valuable area
opened for petroleum activities
– Discharges of produced water
(containing oil residues) allowed
– Collection of knowledge
– Framework to be revised in 2013
following election

16. What differences did it make?
• No legislation specifically for the plans. Implemented through
existing legislation
– ‘Marine resources act’ has been designed with this in mind
• New meeting places for advisors, managers and stakeholders
• Annual reporting of status (ecosystem, human use) and state of
knowledge
• Development of an indicator‐based reporting system
(ecosystem state)
• Assessment of environmental risk
• Routing system for shipping
• Area‐based management framework for petroleum
Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck

17. Key Science Challenges
• Effects of climate change and ocean
acidification
• Assessing vulnerability and ecological
risk assessment
– Identifying , quantifying and mapping
ecological value
• Ecosystem goods and services
– Mapping and setting value to GS
• Mapping all human impacts
– Fishing activities and fishing grounds
– Effects on benthic habitats
• Total and cumulative impacts of
human activities
Photo: E Olsen

18. Potential for improvements
• STRUCTURAL / ORGANIZATIONAL:
– Based on science, but need transparency and peer review
– Improve sectoral cooperation, especially at ministerial level
– Identifying and clarifying disagreements (between sectors) to
improve decision‐making and enhancing the scientific ethos
• SCIENTIFIC
– Socioeconomic effects are not assessed although they are
instrumental in the decision‐making process
– Economic impact on communities, region and nation should be better
assessed
– Ecosystem services should be assessed
– Communication of uncertainties!
Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck

19. Concluding remarks
• The applicability of the Norwegian management
plans to other countries can be questioned.
– Norway is a small, homogenous and rich country.
– Its central administration is highly concentrated and by
international standards well coordinated.
– Its research institutions are well funded and have
substantial capacity to carry out the research for
Integrated oceans management.
• Even under these conditions implementing MSP
has been challenging!

20. Thank you for your attention!
Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck