Nature for life Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment Chapter 4-9 - Regjeringen.no
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Norwegian Ministry
Chapter 4–9
of Climate and Environment
Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper)
Nature for life
Norway’s national biodiversity action plan
Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) Nature for life Norway’s national biodiversity action plan Translation from Norwegian. For information only.
Contents
Summary .......................................................... 5 6 Safeguarding threatened
species and habitats ................... 43
4 Indirect drivers of biodiversity 6.1 Introduction .................................... 43
loss and general framework .... 9 6.2 Safeguarding threatened species . 44
4.1 Introduction .................................... 9 6.3 Safeguarding threatened habitats . 47
4.2 The value of ecosystem goods 6.4 Safeguarding threatened species
and services .................................... 10 and habitats in each of Norway’s
4.3 The EEA Agreement, trade and major ecosystems ........................... 49
investment ...................................... 11 6.4.1 Marine and coastal waters ............. 49
4.3.1 The EEA Agreement and broader 6.4.2 Rivers and lakes .............................. 52
cooperation with the EU on 6.4.3 Wetlands ......................................... 52
biodiversity ..................................... 11 6.4.4 Forest ............................................... 53
4.3.2 Trade and environment ................. 12 6.4.5 Cultural landscapes ........................ 54
4.3.3 Investments and green markets ... 14 6.4.6 Mountains ....................................... 55
4.4 Development cooperation ............. 17 6.4.7 Polar ecosystems ............................ 56
6.5 Genetic resources .......................... 56
5 Sustainable use and good
ecological status in ecosystems 19 7 Conservation of a representative
5.1 Introduction .................................... 19 selection of Norwegian nature 58
5.2 The Nature Diversity Act .............. 20 7.1 Introduction .................................... 58
5.3 Developing management 7.2 Choice of long-term conservation
objectives for good ecological measures ......................................... 58
status ............................................... 21 7.3 Protection of areas in each of
5.4 Overall land-use management Norway’s major ecosystems .......... 61
policy ............................................... 23 7.3.1 Marine and coastal waters ............. 61
5.5 Management policy for each of 7.3.2 Rivers and lakes .............................. 61
Norway’s major ecosystems ......... 24 7.3.3 Wetlands ......................................... 62
5.5.1 Marine and coastal waters ............ 24 7.3.4 Forest ............................................... 62
5.5.2 Rivers and lakes ............................. 29 7.3.5 Cultural landscapes ........................ 63
5.5.3 Wetlands ......................................... 33 7.3.6 Mountains ....................................... 63
5.5.4 Forest .............................................. 35 7.3.7 Polar ecosystems ............................ 64
5.5.5 Cultural landscapes ....................... 36
5.5.6 Mountains ....................................... 37 8 Improving knowledge on
5.5.7 Polar ecosystems ........................... 38 biodiversity ................................... 65
5.6 The management plan for the 8.1 Why is knowledge so important? .. 65
Norwegian Sea ............................... 39 8.2 Mapping biodiversity and
5.6.1 Introduction .................................... 39 establishing maps of ecological
5.6.2 The marine environment – information for Norway ................. 65
ecological status and trends in the 8.3 Monitoring ...................................... 67
Norwegian Sea ............................... 39 8.4 Research and development and
5.6.3 Patterns of activity and pressures education ......................................... 68
and impacts associated with 8.5 Traditional knowledge ................... 71
industrial activities ......................... 41 8.6 Access to information .................... 73
5.6.4 Value creation and its importance 8.7 Syntheses, risk assessments and
for Norwegian society ................... 42 analyses ........................................... 73
5.6.5 Assessment of progress towards
goals ................................................ 42 9 Responsibilities of local and
5.6.6 Stakeholder participation .............. 42 regional authorities .................... 75
5.6.7 Further work on the management 9.1 Nature as a resource for Norway’s
of the Norwegian Sea .................... 42 municipalities .................................. 75
9.2 Land-use planning as an 9.4 The municipal revenue system ..... 78
instrument for biodiversity 9.5 Guidance on integrating
management ................................... 75 biodiversity into planning
9.2.1 General application of the processes ......................................... 79
Planning and Building Act ............ 75 9.6 Biodiversity in towns and built-up
9.2.2 Municipal sub-plans for areas ................................................. 80
biodiversity ..................................... 76
9.3 Municipal capacity, expertise
and commitment ............................ 78
2015–2016 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 5
Nature for life
Nature for life
Norway’s national biodiversity action plan
Recommendation of 18 December 2015 from the Ministry of Climate and Environment,
approved in the Council of State the same day.
(Government Solberg)
Summary
Safeguarding biodiversity for current and future
Why do we need a white paper on biodiversity? generations is essential to the success of this
The natural world is the foundation for human life ‘green shift’. The green shift is intended to facili-
and livelihoods. A huge variety of species, habitats tate production and consumption patterns that
and ecosystems provides us with everything from have far less negative environmental and climate
food and medicines to building materials, opportu- impact than is the case today. Through conserva-
nities for outdoor activities and aesthetic and tion and sustainable use, we will seek to maintain
spiritual benefits. Pollination, natural flood control the supply of ecosystem goods and services for
and CO2 uptake are just a few examples of the the future.
variety of ecosystem services that nature pro-
vides. Many Norwegian industries are dependent
on the environment and natural resources. Nor- Biodiversity under pressure globally and in Norway
wegian outdoor traditions developed from peo- In recent decades, human activity has resulted in
ple’s close contact with the natural world, and considerable losses of biodiversity and caused
have given rise to activities in other sectors, such deterioration of ecological status in many ecosys-
as tourism. tems. Climate change is adding to the pressure on
Norway’s previous white paper on biodiversity ecosystems. Some of the world’s ecosystems are
was published 14 years ago. A great deal has hap- under such pressure that they are no longer able
pened in the intervening years. The preparation of to provide the goods and services on which peo-
a new white paper has been a fresh opportunity to ple depend.
look at the challenges we face as regards biodiver- In many ways, the biodiversity situation in
sity and the priorities, tools and instruments we Norway is more positive. But here too, there is
should use to safeguard biodiversity. work to be done. Land-use conversion and land-
use change are vital for society, for example in
connection with road construction, housing devel-
Biodiversity is essential in the green shift opments and industrial and commercial activities,
The Norwegian Government is actively promot- but is also the most important driver of biodiver-
ing a transition to a greener Norwegian economy. sity loss in terrestrial ecosystems. Ocean acidifica-
6 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 2015–2016
Nature for life
tion, pollution and the spread of alien species are tems. The Government will therefore take steps to
other drivers of biodiversity loss. Climate change ensure that Norwegian nature is used sustainably,
is already affecting Norway’s ecosystems, particu- prevent the loss of species and ecosystems, and
larly polar ecosystems, and is expected to have continue efforts for the conservation of a repre-
increasingly negative impacts on other ecosys- sentative selection of Norwegian nature.
tems as well in future. The Government’s policy for biodiversity man-
Healthy ecosystems provide vital goods and agement in Norway can be summarised under the
services. Ecosystems consist of many different following main headings:
organisms that interact with each other and the 1. More clearly targeted nature management
physical environment. Species are the building 2. Climate-resilient nature management
blocks of ecosystems. Habitat loss or degradation 3. Strengthening municipal expertise on biodi-
may threaten species or populations with extinc- versity
tion, and the loss of species or populations may 4. Safeguarding threatened species and habitats
alter ecosystem functioning. Species that are con- 5. Long-term conservation of a representative
sidered to be at risk of extinction are classified as selection of Norwegian nature
threatened. In Norway’s latest assessment, 2355 6. Knowledge-based management
species have been classified as threatened. This 7. Adaptation of tools and instruments to the dif-
corresponds to 11.3 % of the approximately 21 000 ferent ecosystems
species that were assessed.
More clearly targeted nature management
National and international targets for biodiversity Decisions are constantly being made that require
conservation a balance to be found between biodiversity consid-
The Government’s policy is designed to play a erations and other important public interests.
part in achieving national and international tar- Overall, the many different decisions that are
gets for biodiversity, particularly the Aichi targets made may cause the ecological status of ecosys-
under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The tems to deteriorate, which in the long run is
Aichi targets are reflected in Norway’s three unsustainable. At present, there is a lack of clear,
national biodiversity targets, which are concerned agreed management objectives related to ecologi-
with: cal status for several major ecosystems: forests,
– achieving good ecological status in ecosys- wetlands, cultural landscapes, mountains, polar
tems; ecosystems and to some extent marine waters.
– safeguarding threatened species and habitats; The Government will initiate the development of
– maintaining a representative selection of Nor- management objectives based on scientific defini-
wegian nature (the conservation of areas cov- tions of good ecological status for different eco-
ering the whole range of habitats and ecosys- systems. Once this has been done, it will be possi-
tems). ble to target the use of policy instruments more
The Aichi targets are global in nature but require clearly in order to achieve and maintain the
action at national level. Norway’s contributions in desired ecological status. The Government’s pro-
this field will focus primarily on national action, posals in this area are discussed in Chapter 5.3.
but we are part of a globalised economy. We are For rivers and lakes and coastal waters, a system
responsible for the environmental pressure Nor- of management objectives has already been estab-
wegian activities cause outside the country’s bor- lished through the Water Management Regula-
ders through trade and investment. Norway’s tions.
efforts to reduce pressure from Norwegian activi-
ties in other countries are therefore an important
part of its national policy for biodiversity at global Climate-resilient nature management
level. Climate change will become an increasingly
important pressure on biodiversity. This will have
a number of implications for nature management.
Norwegian policy It will be possible to reduce the cumulative envi-
The Government takes a long-term approach to ronmental effects by limiting other environmental
the management of Norwegian nature. We must pressures. For example, if climate change reduces
ensure that future generations also have opportu- the availability of food for certain species so that
nities for wealth creation based on healthy ecosys-
2015–2016 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 7
Nature for life
they produce fewer young, it may be necessary to Government’s policy for threatened species and
restrict harvesting of these species. habitats.
The Government will assess whether Nor-
way’s existing protected areas will be adequate if
climate change results in shifts in the geographi- Long-term conservation of a representative selection
cal distribution of species. Moreover, the Govern- of Norwegian nature
ment will manage Norwegian nature in such a The long-term conservation of a selection of Nor-
way that it can play a part in climate change adap- wegian nature has been part of Norway’s policy
tation. For example, wetlands can help to moder- for many years. Area-based measures to achieve
ate flooding. this include the national park plan, county protec-
tion plans, the protection plan for watercourses,
the designation of key forest biotopes that are not
Strengthening municipal expertise on biodiversity to be felled, and the protection of coral reefs
Land conversion and land-use change is the most against fisheries.
important driver of biodiversity loss in Norway. The Government will ensure that the value of
Since the municipalities have extensive responsi- conservation areas is maintained through sound
bilities for land-use management, it is vital that management. The Government will also consider
they organise this work in a way that ensures whether the areas concerned are sufficiently rep-
sound management of the natural environment. resentative of the whole range of Norwegian
The Government will provide a framework to nature. The Government will expand the scope of
enable the municipalities to build up their exper- voluntary forest protection and continue work on
tise on biodiversity. It proposes to achieve this marine protected areas. Some other habitat types,
through a sound knowledge base and the provi- particularly in the lowlands, are also poorly repre-
sion of better guidance, and by initiating a pilot sented. The Government will initiate county-level
project on municipal sub-plans for biodiversity as supplementary protection of areas under the
a tool for biodiversity management. The pilot pro- Nature Diversity Act, and will test protection on a
ject will focus on biodiversity of national, regional voluntary basis in ecosystems other than forest.
and local value. Application of the Marine Resources Act will also
Chapter 5.4 discusses the main principles of be considered.
Norway’s land-use policy. Chapter 9 deals with the Chapter 7 deals with the Government’s policy
responsibilities of local and regional authorities, for conservation of a representative selection of
which include responsibility for biodiversity in Norwegian nature.
towns and built-up areas.
Knowledge-based management
Safeguarding threatened species and habitats One of the principles of Norway’s environmental
One of Norway’s national targets is to ensure that policy is that management must be knowledge-
no species or habitats are lost as a result of the based. The Government will therefore continue
cumulative effects of human activity. Special safe- initiatives to map Norwegian nature and establish
guards will continue to apply to threatened spe- maps of ecological information for Norway. The
cies and habitats when decisions are made under Government also proposes further development
sectoral legislation and in connection with land- of the environmental monitoring system to ensure
use planning. Protection of areas under the satisfactory monitoring of all ecosystems, and fur-
Nature Diversity Act, priority species and selected ther development of good indicators for pressures
habitat types are instruments the Government and ecosystem services.
will use to safeguard threatened species and habi- Other forms of knowledge generation, for
tats. example research, analyses and syntheses, will
The Government’s first priority will be species also be further developed and improved. New edi-
that are critically endangered or endangered in tions of the Norwegian Nature Index, red lists and
Norway and also have a substantial proportion of ecological risk assessments for alien species will
their population in Norway. Some species are criti- be presented regularly. To ensure that decision
cally endangered or endangered not only in Nor- makers and the general public have adequate
way but also in the rest of Europe or globally. information about what knowledge is available,
There is even more urgent reason to take steps to databases will be improved and coordinated. Envi-
safeguard such species. Chapter 6 deals with the
8 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 2015–2016
Nature for life
ronmental data and statistics will be of good qual- The marine management plans and the river
ity and will be available in public databases. basin management plans are tools for ecosystem-
based management of marine and coastal waters
and rivers and lakes. Sectoral legislation and the
Adaptation of tools and instruments to the different Planning and Building Act are used to regulate
ecosystems activities that can put pressure on biodiversity. It
Every ecosystem is different. The environmental is a principle of Norwegian environmental policy
pressures affecting them vary, and the tools and that each sector is responsible for dealing with
instruments used to safeguard them must be pressures and impacts resulting from its own
adapted accordingly. The Government’s main activities. Instruments such as priority species,
principles for safeguarding biodiversity are the selected habitat types and area-based protection
same for all ecosystems, but this white paper sets are relevant in all ecosystems, but can only be
out proposals for adapting the use of tools and pol- used out to twelve nautical miles from the baseline
icy instruments to different major ecosystems: in sea areas, since this is the limit for the geo-
marine and coastal waters, rivers and lakes, wet- graphical scope of the relevant provisions in the
lands, forest, cultural landscapes, mountains and Nature Diversity Act.
polar ecosystems. These include proposals for
achieving or maintaining good ecological status in Note to the reader: Chapter 1–3 describe the need
different ecosystems (Chapter 5), safeguarding for a national biodiversity action plan, the state of
threatened species and habitats (Chapter 6) and Norway’s ecosystems and achievement of the
conservation of a representative selection of Nor- Aichi-targets. These chapters have not been trans-
wegian nature (Chapter 7). lated into English.
2015–2016 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 9
Nature for life
4 Indirect drivers of biodiversity loss and general framework
4.1 Introduction these environmental challenges are intrinsically
linked to our consumption and resource use pat-
The loss of biodiversity must be considered from terns. And thirdly, they are closely interwoven, so
both a global and a national perspective. Pres- that the existence of one environmental problem
sures on some of the world’s ecosystems are hav- may exacerbate the effects of others. Their evolu-
ing such serious negative impacts that they are no tion also depends on European and global trends,
longer able to deliver the goods and services or including those related to demographics, eco-
maintain the natural processes on which people nomic growth, trade patterns, technological pro-
depend. gress and international cooperation. International
At the same time, living conditions for people cooperation is therefore vital if we are to resolve
across the world are improving. According to the global and European environmental problems.
UN,1 the world population is projected to rise to Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodi-
9.6 billion in 2050, while at the same time large versity 2011–2020 adopted by the Convention on
population groups will need to be lifted out of pov- Biological Diversity is the world community’s
erty. Globally, the number of people in the middle most important tool for safeguarding biodiversity.
class is projected to rise from about 1.8 billion in In 2014, a mid-term evaluation of progress so far
2008 to 4.9 billion by 2030.2 World energy demand was published in Global Biodiversity Outlook 4.
is expected to rise by about 50 % up to 2050.3 In This report describes some significant progress
themselves, these trends will improve people’s but finds that a great deal still remains to be done
welfare, but they will also intensify pressure on to achieve the plan’s targets.
the natural environment at both national and inter- The complex nature of the environmental chal-
national level, through processes such as land-use lenges facing us means that a wide range of policy
change and climate change. The World Economic instruments and processes of change will be
Forum report Global Risks 2015 identifies climate- needed to address them. In the short term, tack-
related risks and biodiversity loss and ecosystem ling biodiversity-related problems will require pol-
collapse among the top risks that may have an icy instruments and action that can give results
impact on macroeconomic developments in the rapidly where the threats are most serious, for
years ahead. example if species or habitats are at risk of extinc-
The European environment – state and outlook tion or destruction. In addition, it is vital to stimu-
2015, published by the European Environment late processes of social change that address the
Agency,4 lists three characteristics that are com- underlying causes of biodiversity loss and will
mon to many of the environmental challenges fac- have long-term effects.
ing Europe today. Firstly, they directly and indi- The European environment – state and outlook
rectly affect human health and well-being, as well 2015 and other reports5 indicate that neither envi-
as prosperity and standards of living. Secondly, ronmental policies alone nor economic and tech-
people are responsible for their existence, since nology-driven efficiency gains are likely to be suf-
ficient to achieve the vision set out in the EU’s 7th
1
Medium-variant projection as published in: United Nations, Environment Action Programme: ‘In 2050, we live
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population well, within the planet’s ecological limits.’ Achiev-
Division (2013). World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revi-
sion, Highlights and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ing this will require fundamental changes in pro-
ESA/P/WP.228. duction and consumption systems, which are the
2
Kharas, Homi. The emerging middle class in developing main drivers of the growing pressure on the envi-
countries. Working paper 185. Paris: OECD, 2010.
3
There is uncertainty associated with all these prognoses.
4 5
EEA, 2015, The European environment – state and outlook OECD (2012), OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050,
2015: synthesis report, European Environment Agency, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
Copenhagen 9789264122246-en
10 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 2015–2016
Nature for life
ronment. And this in turn will necessitate pro- tion.’ Moreover, the Convention states that, sub-
found changes in dominant institutions, practices, ject to the rights of other states, its provisions
technologies, policies, lifestyles and thinking. apply to processes and activities carried out under
Unless we devise more resource-efficient pro- the jurisdiction or control of a party to the Con-
duction and consumption systems, in other words vention, regardless of where their effects occur
systems that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, (Article 4(b)).
material use and environmental pressures, the Businesses can help to reduce environmental
cumulative environmental effects will become pressure by improving their environmental per-
more and more serious, and will hinder growth formance and making efficient use of resources.
and improvements in welfare. A transition to a Companies can develop processes and technolo-
greener society, often called the ‘green shift’, gies to make more efficient use of scarce
denotes a transformation process to create a soci- resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
ety where production and consumption have far Ensuring that suppliers and the entire value chain
less negative environmental and climate impact meet high environmental standards is an impor-
than today. This is both part of sustainable devel- tant element of corporate environmental responsi-
opment and an essential basis for it, and ecologi- bility. This applies to all companies, regardless of
cal sustainability is an essential concern here. their ownership structure.6
The Aichi targets are global in nature but
require action at national level. Norway’s contri-
butions in this field will focus primarily on national 4.2 The value of ecosystem goods and
action, but we are part of a globalised economy services
and must take responsibility for the environmen-
tal pressure Norwegian activities cause outside The value of nature, and thus the cost to society of
the country’s borders through trade and invest- environmental degradation, is often not readily
ment. Aichi targets 1, 2, 3 and 4 (under strategic apparent. Countries’ national accounts and calcu-
goal A) are important in this context. They lations of the national wealth do not include envi-
include raising people’s awareness of the value of ronmental resources. The prices of goods and ser-
biodiversity, sustainable production and consump- vices will not reflect the environmental costs asso-
tion, and developing and reporting on systems to ciated with their production and consumption
ensure that the whole range of biodiversity values unless policy instruments are used to change this.
is incorporated into planning and national The true value of nature thus tends to be underes-
accounting systems. According to the targets, ‘by timated in private and public decision-making pro-
2020, at the latest, governments, business and cesses, particularly if it takes a long time before
stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to any damage becomes apparent or if the damage is
achieve or have implemented plans for sustaina- caused in a distant part of the world.
ble production and consumption and have kept International initiatives have therefore been
the impacts of use of natural resources well within taken to develop methods for demonstrating and
safe ecological limits.’ This means that authorities, raising awareness of the value of ecosystem ser-
the business sector and other stakeholders in vices (both those with a market price and those
Norway too must take steps to ensure that pro- without) in various types of decision-making pro-
duction and consumption are sustainable and cesses and documents. The Government will con-
within safe ecological limits – both within Norway tinue Norway’s active participation in this work,
and abroad. for example in the UN system (UNEP and the UN
It is an important principle that states have a Statistics Division), the World Bank, the OECD,
responsibility for the environmental impacts their the EU and the Nordic Council of Ministers.
activities have in other countries. This follows Even though many people in Norway are
from international law, and is specifically men- knowledgeable about biodiversity and its value,
tioned in the Convention on Biological Diversity. knowledge about nature, the state of ecosystems
Article 3 establishes that states have ‘the sover- and pressures on them nationally and internation-
eign right to exploit their own resources pursuant ally can still be improved among both decision
to their own environmental policies’, but also that
they have the ‘responsibility to ensure that activi-
ties within their jurisdiction or control do not 6
Meld. St. 27 (2013–2014) Diverse and value-creating owners-
cause damage to the environment of other States hip, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, www.reg-
or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdic- jeringen.no2015–2016 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 11
Nature for life
makers and the general public. Knowledge needs ment are thus important as regards biodiversity
and related action are discussed in Chapter 8. too. A large body of harmonised food law (includ-
ing food safety, animal health and intermediate
inputs) has also been established through the
The Government will: EEA Agreement. Norway’s animal health legisla-
• Promote the development of methods, indicators tion is fully harmonised with EU law. It includes
and models to demonstrate the values associated legislation on disease control and on trade in live
with biodiversity and ecosystem services from a animals and animal products within the EEA and
macroeconomic perspective. with non-EEA countries.
• Raise the awareness of the general public, deci- Norway and the EU also cooperate closely in
sion makers and the business sector about the global and regional biodiversity initiatives, for
possible implications for society of changes in eco- example through the system of EEA and Norway
systems at national and global level. Grants. This includes projects relating to imple-
• Contribute to international efforts under the UN mentation of the Convention on Biological Diver-
Statistics Division to continue to develop and test sity and to mapping and assessing the economic
the system of environmental-economic accoun- value of ecosystem services.
ting, and consider whether to incorporate this Improving resource efficiency is one element
into Norway’s reporting and accounting systems. of the EU’s efforts to develop a circular economy.
• Develop better methods for integrating the whole Greater resource efficiency is also vital to the suc-
range of values associated with biodiversity and cess of efforts to reduce pressure on species and
ecosystem services (both those with a market ecosystems to a sustainable level. The aim of a cir-
value and those without) into economic analyses cular economy is to maintain the value of materi-
and decision-making processes at different levels. als and energy along the value chain, thus mini-
• Continue international cooperation to highlight mising waste and resource use. By avoiding a loss
and value ecosystem services; this includes conti- of value along material flows, it is possible to cre-
nuing the development of qualitative, quantita- ate sustainable economic opportunities and com-
tive and monetary approaches to valuation. petitive advantages.
The European Commission has announced
that an EU action plan for the circular economy
4.3 The EEA Agreement, trade and will be presented towards the end of 2015. The EU
investment has indicated that specific, binding proposals for
revision of the waste legislation will be put for-
4.3.1 The EEA Agreement and broader ward. These will include requirements for more
cooperation with the EU on recycling and re-use to improve resource effi-
biodiversity ciency and reduce environmental pressure and at
The EU plays a leading role as regards environ- the same time promote economic growth and
mental policy, and much of the EU’s environmen- employment. The proposals will also be designed
tal legislation is incorporated into Norwegian law to contribute to the achievement of the EU’s cli-
through the Agreement on the European Eco- mate targets and to reduce its dependence on
nomic Area (EEA Agreement). Legislation on imports of raw materials from outside the Union.
nature management, including the Birds and Hab- In summer 2015, Norway submitted its contri-
itats Directives, is not part of the EEA Agreement. bution to the consultation on the Commission’s
However, some EU legislation with important action plan for the circular economy, and among
implications for biodiversity has been incorpo- other things highlighted consumer and product
rated into the Agreement, including the Water policy, waste and chemicals policy and green pub-
Framework Directive and the Directive on the lic procurement.
deliberate release into the environment of geneti- Norway also pointed out that developing a
cally modified organisms. The EEA Agreement non-toxic circular economy requires coherence
also includes a range of legal acts relating to the between the legislation on chemicals, waste and
climate and environment, and these play a part in products. We consider it important to ensure satis-
reducing pressure on the environment. They factory consumer rights and legal guarantees, par-
include legislation on waste, chemicals and air pol- ticularly as regards the durability of products. It is
lution. Norway’s participation in EU processes, its important to develop good indicators and meth-
cooperation with the EU and its influence on EU ods that cover the entire life cycle of products in
environmental policy through the EEA Agree- order to reduce their environmental and carbon12 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 2015–2016
Nature for life
footprint. Effective national waste management is the top priorities in the next funding period, which
a key instrument for preventing marine litter. Nor- runs from 2014 to 2021.
way also gives high priority to action to reduce The European Environment Agency describes
food waste, including cooperation with the food its mission as ‘to support sustainable development
industry. and to help achieve significant and measurable
Strategic use of public procurement to drive improvement in Europe’s environment through
progress towards overall policy goals was an the provision of timely, targeted, relevant and reli-
important reason for developing the new EU pro- able information to policymaking agents and the
curement legislation. With the new legislation, public.’ Norway and 32 other European countries
member states have a better instrument for are members of the Agency, which is an important
achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy information source for those involved in develop-
for ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’. The ing, adopting, implementing and evaluating envi-
new legislation encourages wider use of green ronmental policy.
procurement than before. It is a new development
that the EU is promoting strategic use of procure-
ment and clearly defining procurement as an The Government will:
instrument for achieving overall social goals. Nor- • Through continued cooperation with the EU and
way plans to implement the new legislation in Nor- the European Environment Agency, supply data
wegian law during the first six months of 2016. and report on indicators in such a way that the
One of the goals of the EU’s 7th Environment information on status and trends for Norwegian
Action Programme is to protect nature and biodiversity in relevant European compilations
strengthen ecological resilience. The programme of environmental information is comparable to
is a common strategy that provides an overall that available from other sources.
framework for EU policy and priorities. It sets out • Contribute to the EU’s work on development of
common objectives that are to underpin the devel- the circular economy where relevant, parti-
opment of new policy and the implementation of cularly as regards waste, chemicals and product
existing legislation. The 7th Environment Action policy.
Programme was adopted by the EU in 2014 and is
being incorporated into Protocol 31 of the EEA
Agreement. 4.3.2 Trade and environment
The first thematic priority of the programme
deals with ‘natural capital’, which includes vital Introduction
services such as pollination of plants, natural pro- In accordance with its political platform, the Nor-
tection against flooding, and climate regulation. wegian Government is promoting freer trade and
Through the EEA and Norway Grants, Nor- pursuing an active trade policy that emphasises
way is contributing to the reduction of social and Norway’s national interests. Trade agreements
economic disparities in the EEA. Under these provide an opportunity to shape the course of glo-
schemes, grants can be awarded to funds and pro- balisation through international cooperation. The
grammes that have clear goals and use results- Government’s objective is to maintain and develop
based management. In the period 2009–2014, a trade framework that maximises Norwegian
Norway allocated a total of EUR 550 million to the value creation while at the same time contributing
programme areas environmental protection and to global growth and sustainable development.
management, climate change and renewable In recent decades, Norway’s ties to other
energy, and green industry innovation. Funding countries have become even closer, through
has for example been granted for projects to step trade, labour migration and capital flows. Produc-
up work on climate change mitigation and adapta- tion and consumption are increasingly taking
tion, improve the management of marine and place in a global market with global supply chains.
inland waters, biodiversity and ecosystems, safe- The international trade in goods and services
guard the cultural heritage, strengthen environ- makes it possible to specialise and thus contribute
mental monitoring and improve the management to better use of resources and greater productiv-
of chemicals and hazardous waste. About EUR 65 ity.
million was allocated to projects on biodiversity Norway has an open economy and a consider-
management and ecosystem services. Adaptation able volume of trade with other countries. About
to climate change is also a key funding area. Cli- 30 % of domestic demand is met through imports.
mate, energy and environment will also be among Norwegian production and consumption there-2015–2016 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 13
Nature for life
Figure 4.1 Trade opens up access to a wider selection of products. The world’s genetic resources are the
origin of almost all the food we eat.
Photo: Svein Magne Fredriksen
fore have an influence on the exploitation of agreement on port state measures. The EU has
nature in other parts of the world. adopted a Regulation to prevent, deter and elimi-
The multilateral trading system includes vari- nate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing,
ous provisions allowing countries to take steps to and Norway has entered into a bilateral agree-
implement a sound environmental and climate ment with the EU to implement the same rules.
policy. For example, it is possible to introduce sub- Fisheries management is not part of the EEA
sidies, prohibitions, restrictions and labelling sys- Agreement, but Norway has close, broad coopera-
tems, provided that such measures are in accord- tion with the EU on the management of pelagic
ance with trade rules. Measures may be intro- fish stocks and shared stocks in the North Sea.
duced at national, regional or international level. Considerable progress has been made in this field
in recent years.
Sustainable fisheries
Norway is one of the countries that has been Trade in threatened species
advocating the development of effective rules The Convention on International Trade in Endan-
under the World Trade Organization (WTO) to gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is
prohibit fisheries subsidies that contribute to intended to ensure that trade in species to which it
overfishing, excess capacity and illegal, unre- applies is sustainable. Trade in these species is
ported and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing). organised through a licensing system, with
Norway also played an active role in work under licences issued by national authorities. CITES spe-
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN cies are placed on one of three lists, depending on
(FAO) resulting in the conclusion of the global how seriously threatened they are by interna-14 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 2015–2016
Nature for life
tional trade. In all, about 35 000 species are cur- A white paper on globalisation and trade pub-
rently listed, about 1000 of them in Appendix I, lished in 2015 (Meld. St. 29 (2014–2015)) dis-
which puts the strictest restrictions on trade. cusses the interactions between trade policy and
The Convention was implemented in Norwe- climate and environment. It is crucial that both
gian law by the Regulations of 15 November 2002 the international trade regime and Norway’s free
No. 1276. New regulations are being drawn up trade agreements promote green growth and take
which in some respects will go beyond the mini- climate change and environmental considerations
mum requirements of the convention. The regula- into account. The international trade regime can
tions will also implement decisions made by the play a role in facilitating more environmentally
Conference of the Parties after the adoption of the sound and climate-friendly development. It can
current regulations, and will widen their scope to also advance the ‘green shift’ by promoting
include keeping or possession and trade within increased trade in environmental goods and ser-
Norway. vices and by reducing unnecessary barriers to
such trade. Trade commitments must be designed
to take into account countries’ need to implement
Globalisation and trade effective environmental and climate policies, and
By trading with and investing in other countries, must facilitate green growth. Policy instruments
Norway is contributing to a global division of that can be used in this connection include neces-
labour in the production of goods and services. sary climate and environmental standards, envi-
Norwegian companies are increasingly turning ronmental taxes on goods and services, informa-
towards and becoming established in new growth tion and labelling requirements, environmental
markets, which may be in countries where gov- subsidies and facilitation of increased trade in cli-
ernance is weak and the environmental legislation mate and environmentally friendly goods and ser-
is poorly developed. This trend is bringing about vices. At the same time, it is important that coun-
economic growth and improvements in welfare, tries are not permitted to unilaterally implement
but is also causing growth in production, con- discriminatory or protectionist measures that
sumption and transport. The latter may increase unnecessarily obstruct trade.
pressure on the environment, for example
through heavier use of scarce natural resources,
releases of greenhouse gases and pollutants and The Government will:
the spread of alien species. However, international • Continue to include a separate chapter on trade
trade and investment can also promote more cli- and sustainable development in the free trade
mate friendly and environmentally sound develop- agreements Norway enters into, as a contribu-
ment, for instance by deploying more effective tion to achieving international biodiversity tar-
and greener technology and encouraging the loca- gets.
tion of different forms of production in areas • Support efforts to combat environmental crime,
where they will put least pressure on the environ- including fisheries-related crime, among other
ment. In principle, there is thus no contradiction things through relevant international processes
between an open world trading system and a and programmes.
sound climate and environmental policy.
Like EU treaties and law, the EEA Agreement
includes a wide range of provisions designed to 4.3.3 Investments and green markets
promote conservation and sustainable use of
nature. Trade agreements are increasingly incor- Introduction
porating environmental provisions, for example in Norway has substantial financial investments
the form of separate chapters on trade and sus- abroad, held both by the Government and by pri-
tainable development. Norway and the European vate investors. Most of these investments are in
Free Trade Association (EFTA) have decided that Europe and North America (about 80 % of the
a trade and sustainable development chapter Government Pension Fund Global and 70 % of for-
should be part of the standard model for free eign direct investments).
trade agreements. Norway is also playing an There is no clear definition of the term ‘green
active part in the negotiations on the Environmen- investments’. According to the OECD, green
tal Goods Agreement, which is intended to pro- growth means fostering economic growth and
mote trade in environmental goods and if possible development while at the same time ensuring that
also related services. natural assets continue to provide the resources2015–2016 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 15
Nature for life
and environmental services on which our well- supply chain can help companies to manage envi-
being relies.7 Green investments can therefore be ronmental risk better.
understood as investments that promote green The white paper Diverse and value-creating
growth, including investments that are made tak- ownership (Meld. St. 27 (2013–2014)) describes
ing into consideration environmental issues in the what the Norwegian Government expects in
broad sense (including greenhouse gas emis- terms of responsible corporate governance,
sions, air pollution, chemicals, biodiversity and including environmental responsibility, from com-
waste management). panies in which the state has an ownership inter-
Actors in the financial sector, both in Norway est. All Norwegian companies, regardless of
and abroad, have shown growing interest in green whether they are privately or publicly owned and
and sustainable investments in recent years. At of whether they operate in Norway or abroad, are
the UN Climate Summit in New York in Septem- expected to apply good corporate governance
ber 2014, a new coalition of institutional investors practices. The white paper emphasises that the
was launched. Their goal is to substantially Government expects companies in which the
reduce the carbon footprint of their portfolios by state has an ownership interest to work systemati-
December 2015. In the past year, several pension cally on corporate governance and seek to be at
funds have been reducing their allocation to coal the forefront in their respective fields. The corpo-
and petroleum and shifting their assets towards rate environmental responsibility of the business
green investments. Several of the funds have sector involves ensuring that environmental and
highlighted the fact that manging environmental resource use considerations, including the pres-
risk and making use of opportunities for green sure a company puts on the environment, are inte-
investment are vital considerations in their invest- grated into financial decision making. In addition
ment decisions.8 to complying with national and international envi-
ronmental standards, companies should take a
proactive approach in order to reduce the adverse
Private-sector investments environmental impacts of their operations beyond
Environmental risk in the financial sector includes what is stipulated in such standards.
the risk that environmental problems themselves, According to the white paper on private sector
or restructuring of environmental policy involving development in Norwegian development coopera-
stricter regulation or substantially higher carbon tion (Meld. St. 35 (2014–2015)), the Government
prices, will influence economic developments and wishes to provide strong support to Norwegian
financial variables in the future. companies abroad, and is stepping up the efforts
Actors in the financial sector have been paying to assist companies in new, demanding markets.
growing attention to climate and environmental As part of this support, guidance, dialogue and
issues in recent years. For example, institutional practical cooperation on challenges posed by local
investors are to a greater degree assessing and framework conditions and governance issues are
disclosing the environmental risk associated with being strengthened.
their portfolios. One system they can use is devel- A number of cooperation forums have been
oped by CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure established by and for the private sector with the
Project), an independent, not-for-profit organisa- aim of building knowledge and developing sys-
tion that collects and publishes environmental tems to address challenges related to biodiversity.
information on companies, including their green- Within the EU, this work is being organised under
house gas emissions, contribution to deforestation the European Business and Biodiversity Platform.
and water consumption. Identifying the environ- The Natural Capital Coalition (formerly the TEEB
mental pressure caused by different parts of the for Business Coalition) is a global cooperation
forum where the business sector can cooperate to
7
Inderst, G., Kaminker, Ch., Stewart, F. (2012), Defining and safeguard natural capital, for example by raising
Measuring Green Investments: Implications for Institutional awareness of the impacts on business of loss of
Investors’ Asset Allocations, OECD Working Papers on
Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions, No.24, OECD natural capital. The coalition is seeking to bring
Publishing; OECD (2011) Towards green growth – A sum- about a shift in corporate behaviour and thus
mary for policy makers, OECD Publishing, Paris. avoid unsustainable use of natural resources. The
8
See for example UNEP et. al (2014) Financial Institutions coalition is developing a Natural Capital Protocol
taking action on Climate Change http://www.unepfi.org/
fileadmin/documents/FinancialInstitutionsTakingAction- and systems for natural capital disclosure and risk
OnClimateChange.pdf assessments.16 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 2015–2016
Nature for life
budget, this criterion was worded as follows:
The Government Pension Fund Global ‘Observation or exclusion may be decided for
The overriding goal for investments by the Gov- mining companies and power producers which
ernment Pension Fund Global is to obtain the themselves or through entities they control derive
highest possible returns at moderate risk. The 30 % or more of their income from thermal coal or
Fund’s position as a long-term investor with a base 30 % or more of their operations on thermal
broad global portfolio of equities, bonds and real coal’.
estate means that climate change and climate pol- A white paper giving an account of the man-
icy measures may have implications for portfolio agement of the Government Pension Fund Global
return in future. Climate change has therefore is published each year during the spring parlia-
been a key area in the management of the Fund mentary session.
for a long time. Climate change can also be
included as one element of a broader risk assess-
ment of business models and the long-term sus- Green bonds
tainability of companies in which the Fund has The green bond concept was developed in 2008 by
invested. the World Bank and the Swedish bank SEB.
About 6 % of the value of the Fund’s bench- These bonds are intended specifically to raise cap-
mark index for equity investments, which at the ital to fund environmentally sound investments.
end of the first six months of 2015 corresponded The market for green bonds is growing rapidly9,
to about NOK 260 billion, is in companies that but is still a very small proportion of the total
obtain more than 20 % of their return from envi- world market for bonds. In 2014, USD 36.6 billion
ronment-related activities, including renewable was issued in green bonds, three times as much
energy. In principle, the Fund’s equity invest- as in 2013.
ments in environment-related companies will Several different analysts have pointed out
increase if their share of the world’s equity market that it may be an attractive proposition for institu-
rises. tional investors to make long-term investments in
In 2009, it was decided to establish environ- infrastructure, including in environment-related
ment-related mandates for the Fund. They have sectors.10 Green bonds are a type of financial
the same risk and return requirements as the instrument that to a large extent targets institu-
Fund’s other investments. In the white paper The tional investors, and can therefore be an impor-
Management of the Government Pension Fund in tant way of expanding environmentally sound
2014 (Meld. St. 21 (2014–2015)), the Government investments. However, the environmental profile
proposed that the upper limit for such invest- of the green bonds that have been issued is dis-
ments should be raised to NOK 30–60 billion. The puted, since there is as yet no specific standard or
Storting (Norwegian parliament) endorsed this clear definition of what is meant by ‘green bonds’.
when it considered the white paper. It is up to the issuer to label bonds as ‘green’ and
In the same white paper, the Government pro- to provide information on how funds are used.
posed a new conduct-based criterion for observa- Several independent bodies currently provide
tion and exclusion from the Fund’s portfolio. This evaluations of green bonds, and Norwegian bod-
is an ethical criterion, and applies if there is an ies include CICERO and DNV GL. In addition, the
unacceptable risk that companies contribute to or Green Bond Principles provide guidelines clarify-
are responsible for ‘acts or omissions that on an ing which bonds can be called ‘green bonds’. It
aggregate company level lead to unacceptable has been questioned whether issuing green bonds
greenhouse gas emissions’. This proposal was results in more investment in environmentally
also endorsed by the Storting when it considered sound projects than would have been the case if
the white paper. In the 2016 Norwegian budget, they were not labelled as ‘green’. In January 2015,
the Government followed up a recommendation to the Oslo Stock Exchange published separate lists
the Storting (Innst. 290 S (2014–2015)) on the of green bonds, and was the first stock exchange
white paper, in which the standing committee in the world to do so.
asked the Government to propose a new product-
based criterion for observation and exclusion 9
OECD Mapping channels to mobilise institutional invest-
from the Fund’s portfolio for mining companies ments in sustainable energy, 2015
10
and power producers that base a substantial pro- Kaminker, C. et al. (2013), Institutional Investors and
Green Infrastructure Investments: Selected Case Studies,
portion of their operations on thermal coal (coal OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private
that is used for energy production). In the 2016 Pensions, No. 35, OECD Publishing2015–2016 Meld. St. 14 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting (white paper) 17
Nature for life
Figure 4.2 Tropical rainforests contain a large proportion of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. Rain-
forests also play a vital part in regulating climate and moderating climate change. Norway is contributing
to rainforest conservation through its International Climate and Forest Initiative.
Photo: Thomas Martens, Rainforest Foundation Norway
strategies and planning processes. It also applies
Green equity indices to Norwegian development cooperation.
A number of equity indices focus on climate- and Norwegian aid contributes to the conservation
environment-related sectors, but because ‘green’ of biodiversity in a number of ways, both through
is not a clearly defined term, they use a number of specific programmes and through the integration
different approaches. However, one common fea- of biodiversity considerations into development
ture has been that the composition of these indi- cooperation as a whole. This topic is discussed in
ces has changed considerably over time, which is the annual budget proposal from the Ministry of
partly a reflection of the dynamic nature of this Foreign Affairs. The Government’s objective is for
market segment and the high level of risk. Norway to play a leading role in role in integrating
environmental issues into development coopera-
tion and to play a part in the green shift interna-
The Government will: tionally.
• Encourage and provide opportunities for the Norway is a key supporter of programmes that
Norwegian business sector to take part in Euro- involve systematic competence building in devel-
pean and international cooperation to safeguard oping countries in the fields of green economy,
biodiversity. knowledge-based nature management and tools
for green industrial development.
Norway’s International Climate and Forest Ini-
4.4 Development cooperation tiative is seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions from deforestation and forest degradation in
Aichi target 2 is for biodiversity values to be inte- developing countries. Important rainforest coun-
grated into development and poverty reduction tries are therefore key partners, and Brazil, Guy-You can also read
