ImplementationoftheecosystemapproachthroughMarineSpatial

Planning:theNorwegiancase

��������

� ������ �������� � �������� ������

International Marine Spatial Planning Symposium: Sharing Practical Solutions/11th Annual Ronald C. Baird Sea Grant Science Symposium (IMSPS)

May 14th 2012

Overview

1. Overview of the Norwegian planning process1. Structure2. Governance3. New regulatory tools

2. Final product3. What difference did it make?4. Challenges and potential for improvement

Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck

Norway;the”oceanstate”• 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

Agrowingunderstandingforintegratedoceanmanagement

• Response to challenges and pressures:– Climate change and pollution – Petroleum industry seeking expansion into the 

north and coastal areas– 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

Potential PetroleumFieldsExp. Value: $100 billion

TheNorwegianManagementplans• Initiated in 2001 to 

implement integrated and ecosystem‐based management for Nor. EEZs

• Barents sea: 2006 (revision in 2011)

• Norwegian sea: 2009 (revision due in 2014)

• North Sea: under development (expected in 2013)

Barents sea

Norwegian sea

North Sea

Organization

Similar process for the Norwegian Sea and North Sea plans

Developmentprocess

GovernanceStructure

ImplementationandreviewMinisterial steering group

Monitoring group Management forum Environmental risk forum

2010 Knowledge

base for review of

Management Plan

Political process:

New priorities

2011New Gov.

White paper.

Revised plan

20072008

2009

Annual reports

Outside events

Hybridtop‐downapproach

• 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

Zoning aspects

• Identification of valuable areas• Shipping lanes moving ship traffic further off‐shore

• Area‐based management framework for petroleum activities

Spawning areas for cod, herring, capelin, haddock andsaithe

Olsen et al. 2010. ICES JMS

Larvae areas for cod, herring, capelin, haddock and saithe

Valuableareas

BarentsSeaShippinglanes

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Antall transitter

Antall tonn

Vessle traffic pr year

Petroleummanagementframework2006‐2010

40 °35 °30 °25 °20 °15 °10 °5 °

85 °75 °65 °55 °45 °35 °25 °15 °5 °0 °-5 °-15 °-25 °-35 °-50 °-75 °

81 °

76 °

71 °

76 °

71 °

-65

°-4

0 °

-30

°-2

0 °

-15

°-5

°

45 °

50 °

55 °

60 °

65 °

80 °

Management plan areaShipping routes

Ecologically valuable areasDisputed area

Oil/gas discoveries

High intensity fishingFramework for petroleum industry

No petroleum activityNo new petroleum activities

No drilling, March - September

Norway

Russia

Spitzbergen

Franz Josef Land

Greenland

Lofoten

Polar front

Bear Island65 km zone

Ice-edge

Lofoten - Vesterålen

Tromsøflaketbank area

Olsen et al. 2007, ICES JMS,

No Petroleum Activities-Lofoten – Vesterålen-Eggkanten-Bear Island-Polar front-Ice-edge-Coastal zone 0 – 35km

No NEW Petroleum Activities-Coastal zone 35 – 50 km

No drilling March - August-Coastal zone 50 - 65 km-Tromsøflaket

BarentsSea2011revision• 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

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

KeyScienceChallenges

• 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 G&S

• Mapping all human impacts– Fishing activities and fishing grounds– Effects on benthic habitats

• Total and cumulative impacts of human activities

Photo: E Olsen

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

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!

Thankyouforyourattention!

Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck