norwegian biodiversity policy and action plan – cross-sectoral ...summary in english: report no....

Summary in English: Report No. 42 to the Storting (2000-2001)

Norwegian biodiversity policy and action plan – cross-sectoralresponsibilities and coordination

Published by:Royal Ministry of the Environment

Additional copies may be ordered from:Statens forvaltningstjenesteInformasjonsforvaltningE-mail: [email protected]: +47 22 24 27 86

Publication number: T-1414Translation: Alison CoulthardCoverdesign: Seedesign as

Printed by: www.kursiv.no, Oslo 8/2002

Ministry of the Environment

Side 1 Cyan Magenta Yellow Sort

Summary in English: Report No. 42 to the Storting (2000–2001)

Norwegian biodiversity policyand action plan – cross-sectoralresponsibilities and coordination

SIDE 2 Cyan Magenta Yellow Sort

ISBN 82-457-0366-4

www.kursiv.no


Table of Content

0 Summary ......................................... 5

1 Introduction .................................... 81.1 Implementation of the UN

Convention on Biological Diversity– challenges at international level .. 8

1.2 Implementation of the UNConvention on Biological Diversity– challenges at national level .......... 10

1.3 About the white paper ..................... 11

2 A coordinated approach to theconservation and use ofbiological diversity ........................ 12

2.1 Vision, targets and strategy ............ 122.1.1 Vision ................................................. 122.1.2 Targets .............................................. 122.1.3 Strategy ............................................. 132.2 Main tasks ......................................... 172.2.1 Identifying cross-sectoral and

sectoral responsibilities andcoordinating the use of policyinstruments ....................................... 17

2.2.1.1 Cross-sectoral and sectoralresponsibilities .................................. 17

2.2.1.2 Coordinating the use of policyinstruments ....................................... 20

2.2.2 Coordinating and improvingknowledge of biological diversity ... 23

2.2.3 Ensuring sustainable use ofbiological resources ......................... 26

2.2.4 Avoiding the undesirableintroduction of alien species ........... 29

2.2.5 Ensuring sustainable land use ....... 312.2.6 Avoiding pollution ............................ 342.2.7 Enhancing international

cooperation ....................................... 37

3 A new policy: towardsknowledge-based managementof biological diversity .................... 39

3.1 Main conclusion of the whitepaper: a new management systemfor biodiversity is needed ................ 39

3.2 Joint action forming part of theseven main tasks in the period2001–2005 .......................................... 41

3.2.1 Identifying cross-sectoral andsectoral responsibilities andcoordinating the use of policyinstruments ....................................... 41

3.2.1.1 Cross-sectoral and sectoralresponsibilities .................................. 41

3.2.1.2 Coordinating the use of policyinstruments ....................................... 41

3.2.2 Coordinating and improvingknowledge of biological diversity ... 45

3.2.2.1 Surveying and monitoringbiological diversity ........................... 45

3.2.2.2 Research and development ............. 483.2.3 Ensuring sustainable use of

biological resources ......................... 483.2.4 Avoiding the undesirable

introduction of alien species ........... 493.2.5 Ensuring sustainable land use ....... 503.2.6 Avoiding pollution ............................ 513.2.7 Enhancing international

cooperation ....................................... 513.2.7.1 Coordination of environmental

agreements ....................................... 523.2.7.2 The relationship between

environment and trade agreements 523.2.7.3 Development cooperation ............... 523.2.7.4 Marine resources, the Arctic and

indigenous peoples .......................... 533.2.7.5 Other fora .......................................... 53

52000–2001 Summary in English: Report No. 42 to the StortingNorwegian biodiversity policy and action plan – cross-sectoral responsibilities and coordination


0 Summary

Norway’s action plan for the conservation of biodi-versity was presented to the Storting (Norwegianparliament) in the form of a white paper. The En-glish translation consists of three chapters of thewhite paper: the introduction (Chapter 1), a pre-sentation of a coordinated approach to the conser-vation and sustainable use of biological diversity(Chapter 2) and a description of a new policy to-wards knowledge-based management of biologicaldiversity (Chapter 3). Chapter 3 presents the gov-ernment’s most important priorities, a new man-agement system for biodiversity and joint actionfor the period 2001–2005.

The white paper is a political tool for use inNorway’s efforts to follow up the Convention onBiological Diversity. It is subtitled «Cross-sectoralresponsibilities and coordination» in direct refer-ence to Article 6 of the convention, which statesthat all sectors must take responsibility for inte-grating biological diversity considerations intotheir administrative tasks.

The most important conclusion drawn by thegovernment in the white paper is that it is neces-sary to establish a new management system forbiological diversity (see Figure 1). Three cross-sectoral priority areas will be of particular impor-tance in ensuring that the value of Norway’s bio-logical diversity is maintained. The governmentwill give special priority to the following areas inthe period 2001–2005 (see Figure 1):1. National programme to survey and monitor

biological diversity2. Coordination of legislative and economic in-

struments3. Information, research and expertise

The new management system for biodiversity willhelp Norway to make progress towards a numberof goals:– the conservation and sustainable use of biologi-

cal diversity– simplifying the public administration and mak-

ing it more effective– the transfer of more authority and responsi-

bility from the central to the municipal level– making it easier for decision-makers to weigh

up different public interests

– making planning processes more cost-effective– making land-use management more predict-

able, for example for the Ministry of Transportand Communications, Ministry of Defence,Ministry of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment and Ministry of Trade and Indu-stry

The new management system for biodiversity willrequire the identification of areas that are of greatimportance for biological diversity. To obtain thisinformation, surveys and monitoring programmesmust be initiated. In addition, a species data bankis to be established (see Figure 1).

Information on areas of great value for biodi-versity must be readily available. This will providethe factual basis for management at central, re-gional and local level.

To ensure the conservation and sustainablemanagement of biological diversity, legislative andeconomic instruments must be coordinated. Theymust also focus on areas that are of great value forbiodiversity (see Figure 1).

Work is already in progress on the legislativeinstruments. A committee has been appointed toevaluate the legislation on biological diversity andrelevant sectoral legislation. Another committee isevaluating amendments to the Planning and Build-ing Act to ensure that it takes biodiversity con-cerns more fully into account.

A review of all economic instruments that mayhave an impact on biological diversity will also beinitiated. The review will consider changes in exist-ing policy instruments and the need for new onesthat clearly target areas of great value for biologi-cal diversity.

The government’s new management system isto be knowledge-based. Information, research andexpertise will constitute the scientific basis for thedevelopment of the new system, which is to bebuilt up in the period 2001–2005.

These three priority areas are the main ele-ments of the new management system for biologi-cal diversity. To make the system operative, stepsmust be taken to improve and coordinate surveysand monitoring of biodiversity (see Figure 1).

The government will also give priority to action

6 2000–2001Summary in English: Report No. 42 to the StortingNorwegian biodiversity policy and action plan – cross-sectoral responsibilities and coordination


by the 17 ministries within the framework of thefollowing main tasks:1. Identifying cross-sectoral and sectoral respon-

sibilities and coordinating the use of policy in-struments

2. Coordinating and improving knowledge of bio-logical diversity

3. Ensuring sustainable use of biological re-sources

4. Avoiding undesirable introduction of alien spe-cies

5. Ensuring sustainable land use6. Avoiding pollution7. Enhancing international cooperation.

Using the seven main tasks as a framework, theSámediggi (Sami parliament) and the followingministries made contributions to the white paperthat included about 300 different actions:– Ministry of Agriculture– Ministry of Children and Family Affairs– Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs– Ministry of Defence– Ministry of Education and Research– Ministry of the Environment

– Ministry of Finance– Ministry of Fisheries– Ministry of Foreign Affairs– Ministry of Health– Ministry of Labour and Government Adminis-

tration– Ministry of Petroleum and Energy– Ministry of Social Affairs– Ministry of Trade and Industry– Ministry of Transport and Communications

These actions are not included in the English sum-mary. Chapter 3 was drawn up on the basis of theconclusions reached in Chapter 2 and the actionslisted by the ministries and the Sámediggi. Thesewere used to draw up a new management systemfor biological diversity in Norway.

The white paper on biological diversity (ReportNo. 42 (2000–2001) to the Storting) was presentedto the Storting in spring 2001. The English trans-lation has therefore been updated to take accountof changes in the structure of the central govern-ment administration, changes in protected areasand deadlines for the implementation of measuresthat are being implemented.



Figure 1: Areas of great value for biological diversity are to be identified. This is to be done bymeans of surveys, monitoring programmes and the development of a species data bank. Legislativeand economic instruments are to be adapted to protect the most valuable areas. Information,research and expertise are to be used for quality assurance of the system and to develop it into auseful tool for all parts of the central government and local administration.



1 Introduction

People are a part of the diversity of life on earth.And the rich diversity of living organisms is thebasis for our very existence, for economic growthand for the quality of people’s lives and their well-being (see Box 1.1). The world’s biodiversity hasevolved naturally over millions of years. This is adynamic process, and involves the disappearanceof some organisms and the evolution of new spe-cies. Only a small proportion of the overall diversi-ty of species has been domesticated or cultivated,but these species are of vital importance for globalfood production. Population growth, rising con-sumption and accelerating technological develop-ments have resulted in losses of biological diversi-ty that are many times greater than the natural rateof loss. In Norway, we believe that at least 130plant and animal species have been lost in the past150 years. The UN has stated that «the adverseeffects of human impacts on biodiversity are in-creasing dramatically and threatening the veryfoundation of sustainable development» (cf. GlobalBiodiversity Assessment, UNEP 1995). It is there-fore essential to take steps to conserve biodiversi-ty. The concept of biological diversity is defined inFigure 1.1.

Biological diversity can be looked upon as na-ture’s own form of insurance. Every species showsa range of genetic diversity that makes it adaptableto stresses or changes in external conditions, suchas pollution or climate change. Thus, genetic var-iation acts as an insurance that enables species tosurvive over time and under varying environmen-tal conditions. Similarly, species diversity is impor-tant for the functioning and long-term survival ofecosystems. And ecosystem diversity is a form ofinsurance for the sustainable development of hu-man societies in the future.

Given this background, it is obvious that bio-logical diversity is a vital resource for every humansociety, and that current losses of biodiversitymust be stopped. This requires a coherent policy,which can only be achieved through binding coop-eration in which all sectors and interest groupsassume their share of the responsibility. Eventhough the responsibility of all sectors for sustain-able conservation and use of biological diversity isan accepted principle in Norway, a new policy is

needed to ensure that our efforts are coordinated.The white paper describes the new policy and setsout the action that is to be taken in the period2001–2005.

The Government’s objective in publishing thiswhite paper is to bring about changes in the wayour society is organized and thus in the drivingforces that are currently resulting in losses of bio-logical diversity, so that they become progressiv-ely less of a threat to the conservation and sustain-able use of biological diversity.

1.1 Implementation of the UNConvention on BiologicalDiversity – challenges atinternational level

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity is aclear expression of the world community’s con-cern over current losses of biological diversity andits recognition of the need to take steps to counter-act this through the conservation and sustainableuse of biodiversity. At the same time, the benefitsarising out of the utilization of genetic resourcesmust be shared fairly and equitably. The conven-tion also includes provisions on burden-sharing be-tween the parties. Negotiations on the conventionwere completed in 1992, and it has now been rat-ified by 183 countries. Norway ratified the conven-tion in 1993. The convention is a process-orientedframework convention, which means that it laysdown overall goals, principles and the general obli-gations of the parties, while more specific obliga-tions are to be developed through protocols andwork programmes drawn up under the convention.All parties are required to take measures for theconservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity by developing national strategies, plans andprogrammes that must apply to all sectors of theirsocieties. This imposes a heavy burden on devel-oping countries, which are responsible for stew-ardship of a large proportion of the world’s biologi-cal diversity. To ensure equitable burden-sharing,the industrial countries have undertaken to pro-vide financing, transfers of technology and takeother action to ensure that benefits arising from



biological diversity are shared fairly with devel-oping countries.

Further development of the convention inter-nationally is a major challenge. One important ad-vance was the negotiation of the Cartagena Proto-col on Biosafety. This was opened for signature inMay 2000, and has so far been signed by more than100 countries: Norway has already ratified it. Theprotocol deals with trade, technology and econom-ic activity involving living modified organisms, anddemonstrates the willingness of the internationalcommunity to take responsibility for ensuring apositive course of development in this field. It isimportant to build on the foundation provided bythe adoption of the protocol.

Implementation of the convention will involve anumber of major challenges. These include safe-guarding access to genetic resources and the ben-efits arising from their use. Steps must also betaken to to ensure that important sectors of societyshoulder their share of the responsibility for devel-opment of the convention. The conservation andsustainable use of forests, marine and coastal ar-eas, agricultural biodiversity and inland waters areconsidered to be particularly important. Finally, itis important to improve coordination between theconvention and other international environmentalagreements such as the UN Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change and the Convention toCombat Desertification. Another important task

Figure 1.1. Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the variability among living organisms (plants,animals and microorganisms) and their genetic material and the ecological complexes of which theyare a part. It can be divided into the diversity of ecosystems and biotopes, species diversity andgenetic diversity.



will be to improve coordination between tradeagreements and environmental agreements.

1.2 Implementation of the UNConvention on BiologicalDiversity – challenges at nationallevel

Like an increasing number of other importanttasks for Norwegian society, the conservation ofbiological diversity in Norway presents cross-sec-toral challenges. The principle that all sectorsmust take responsibility for the pressure they put

on the environment has been put into practice inthe last few years, and many sectors have madeimportant progress towards sustainable manage-ment of biological diversity. Exploiting the oppor-tunities offered by purposeful cooperation betweenthe authorities responsible for administration ofthe various sectors will enable us to make evenbetter arrangements for sustainable managementof biological diversity. At the same time, ourknowledge of biological diversity has grown andthe need for coordinated efforts by the public auth-orities has become more apparent in various fields.Cross-cutting instruments and measures are fre-quently needed in priority areas related to biologi-cal diversity, and this makes new demands on thecoordination of the public administration. In re-sponse, Norway needs a cross-sectoral national ac-tion plan for the management of biological diversi-ty according to the principles of the convention.

In 1994, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministryof Defence, the former Ministry of Education, Re-search and Church Affairs, the Ministry of Agricul-ture, the Ministry of the Environment, the formerMinistry of Industry and Energy, and the Ministryof Transport and Communications all drew up sec-toral action plans for the conservation of biologicaldiversity. Norway described these in its 1998 re-port to the 4th Conference of the Parties (COP) tothe convention. The action plan that has now beenpresented to the Storting in the form of a whitepaper is the result of cooperation between 17 min-istries. The action plan forms the basis for cooper-ation within the public administration on principlesfor following up the convention and the specificaction to be taken.

The white paper on biological diversity is basedon Report No. 58 (1996–1997) to the Storting on anenvironmental policy for sustainable developmentand Reports No. 8 (1999–2000) and 24 (2000–2001)on the Government’s environmental policy and thestate of the environment in Norway.

The white paper deals mainly with the conser-vation and sustainable use of biological diversity.However, a number of measures that belong toother priority areas are included here becausethey are important in relation to biodiversity. Thus,the white paper also provides support for environ-mental policy efforts in areas such as outdoor rec-reation, the cultural heritage, climate, hazardouschemicals, the northern areas, environmental con-siderations in connection with the Antarctic Treatyand Local Agenda 21 (LA 21).

Box 1.1 Values assigned tobiological diversity

– Direct use values: the value of biological re-sources that are used for food, medicines,stimulants, art, clothes, buildings and fuel,as well as the use of components of biodi-versity for play, recreation, tourism, teach-ing and research.

– Indirect use values: the value of life-sustain-ing processes and ecosystem services suchas biological production, soil formation,cleansing of air and water, regulation of lo-cal and global climate, carbon, nitrogen andother cycles, ecological stability and theability of the environment to mitigate theeffects of environmental pressures such aspollution, flooding and drought. These val-ues are an essential basis for human exist-ence and economic activity.

– Option value: value that is not used or rec-ognized at present. This may include bothdirect and indirect use values as describedabove, and includes for example the use ofcurrently unutilized genetic resources bothin traditional cultivation and breeding andin gene technology to manufacture newproducts that have direct use value.

– Intrinsic values (also known as non-use orpassive values): values that are based onethical and moral considerations, for exam-ple related to the desire to know that a spe-cies exists, to the opportunities open to fu-ture generations and the quality of theirlives, and to the desire to maintain the land-scape and natural environment as part ofour heritage and a source of aesthetic expe-rience.



1.3 About the white paper

The white paper is a political tool for use in Nor-way’s efforts to follow up the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity. It is subtitled «Cross-sectoral re-sponsibilities and coordination» in direct referenceto Article 6 of the convention. Article 6 requires theparties to draw up national plans for the conserva-tion and sustainable use of biological diversity andto ensure that all sectors take responsibility forintegrating biological diversity considerations intotheir administrative tasks, both within each sectorand in cooperation between sectors.

The white paper describes action that is to betaken during the four-year period 2001–2005.Chapter 2 contains an analysis of the government’sstrategy for conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity, in order to identify the mainjoint tasks and the role of the central government

authorities in translating the global perspective ofthe convention into national and local action. Newenvironmental policy initiatives are to be intro-duced to ensure coordination between sectoralauthorities and a coherent central government ap-proach to the use of policy instruments and todealing with cross-cutting challenges. On the basisof the main tasks identified in Chapter 2, 17 minis-tries and the Sámediggi (Sami parliament) madecontributions to the white paper that include about300 different actions. These are not included in theEnglish summary. Chapter 3 draws together con-clusions on how to structure a joint effort by theentire public administration on the basis of themain tasks identified in Chapter 2 and the materialpresented by individual ministries and the Sáme-diggi. The contribution from the Sá mediggi is animportant element of Norwegian efforts to followup the Convention.



2 A coordinated approach to the conservation anduse of biological diversity

2.1 Vision, targets and strategy

2.1.1 Vision

The government’s vision is for Norway, in accord-ance with its obligations under the Convention onBiological Diversity, to play its part in the followingby means of national action and international coop-eration:1. safeguarding the world’s biological diversity,2. making use of the values associated with bio-

logical diversity to the benefit of human societyas a whole,

3. ensuring that benefits and burdens are equi-tably distributed within and between genera-tions and communities.

Norway is only directly responsible for managing asmall fraction of the world’s overall biological di-versity, but the species and ecosystem diversityfound in the country is important and in somecases unique both in the Nordic region and glob-ally. We also manage some of the most productivemarine areas in the northern hemisphere. Our na-tional policy will mean that Norway assumes itsshare of the global burdens, as the principle ofconservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity set out in the Convention requires. Actionat national level to follow up the Convention is ofcrucial importance for development opportunitiesand economic growth in Norway, for the quality ofpeople’s lives and for their welfare (see Box 1.1,chapter 1). It is also essential to maintain Norway’scredibility internationally.

2.1.2 Targets

When considering the targets for conservation ofbiological diversity set out in Report No. 58 (1996–1997) to the Storting, the Standing Committee onEnergy and the Environment stated in Recommen-dation S. No. 150 (1997–1998) that Norway’s targetmust be to maintain viable populations of all knownorganisms and to continue efforts to identify as yetunknown species. This has been incorporated into

the government’s strategic objective and the sevennational targets set out in Report No. 24 (2000–2001) to the Storting, see Box 2.1.

In the Convention on Biological Diversity, theprecautionary principle underlies the objective oflimiting or preventing serious reduction or lossesof biological diversity. The precautionary principlewas launched at a conference in Norway in 1990 tofollow up the report of the World Commission on

Figure 2.1 Divers: from top to bottom, red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), great northerndiver (Gavia immer), black-throated diver (Gaviaarctica). All three species are red-listed. Red-throated and black-throated divers are classifiedas «declining, care-demanding» and greatnorthern as «rare». Water-colour by Annegi Eide.



Box 2.1 Goals for conservationand sustainable use of

biological diversity

Strategic objective:

The environment shall be managed in a waythat maintains the diversity of habitats andlandscape types and ensures that there areviable populations of naturally-occurring spe-cies: this will ensure that biological diversitycan continue to evolve.

National targets:

1. A representative selection of Norwegianhabitats shall be protected for future gener-ations.

2. Major disturbance (such as infrastructuredevelopment) shall be avoided in endan-gered habitats, and in vulnerable habitatsimportant ecological functions shall bemaintained.

3. The cultural landscape shall be managed insuch a way that biological diversity, the his-torical and aesthetic value of the landscapeand its accessibility are maintained.

4. Harvesting and other use of living re-sources shall not cause species or popula-tions to become extinct or endangered.

5. The introduction of alien species throughhuman activity shall not damage or limitecosystem functions.

6. Populations of endangered species shall bemaintained or restored to viable levels.

7. The needs of future generations shall betaken into account when managing soil re-sources that are suitable for cereal produc-tions.

Environment and Development. It gained interna-tional acceptance in the Rio Declaration in 1992,and is a basis for both the Climate Change Conven-tion and the Convention on Biological Diversity.The principle states that «where there are threatsof serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scien-tific certainty shall not be used as a reason forpostponing cost-effective measures to prevent en-vironmental degradation».

Implementing the objectives of the Conventionon Biological Diversity requires that ecologicalsystems and their functions are taken into consid-eration as fully as possible. This idea has beenfurther elaborated internationally as a framework

for action under the Convention, known as theecosystem approach. At the 1999 Trondheim con-ference, the twelve principles of this approach, alsoknown as the Malawi principles, were agreed on.They may be briefly summarized as follows:1. Management should be based on all types of

information, including scientific, traditionaland local knowledge, to maintain ecosystemfunctioning and ensure that human activitytakes place within the tolerance limits of thenatural environment.

2. Management should be evaluated on a contin-uum from intensive use to strict protection.

3. Management should be planned so that it isadapted to temporal ecological variations andeffects on neighbouring ecosystems.

The government considers the precautionary prin-ciple and the ecosystem approach to be fundamen-tal management principles for all administrativesectors in Norway.

2.1.3 Strategy

To intensify the effort to ensure the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversity bymeans of coordinated policies and actions, the gov-ernment has drawn up the following strategy inearlier white papers:1. The causes of loss of biological diversity must

be addressed.2. Biological diversity shall be used sustainably.3. Endangered and vulnerable components of bio-

logical diversity shall be protected and if neces-sary restored.

The government considers that the objective of astrategy that requires a cross-sectoral approachmust be to reduce losses of biological diversityeffectively. This means that the various tasks mustbe put in order of priority and that action to achievespecific goals must be practical and cost-effective.

The rest of this section contains an analysis ofthe strategy in order to identify the main tasks thatshould be given priority in the period 2001–2005.

1. The causes of loss of biological diversity mustbe addressed

It is less costly to prevent environmental damagethan to repair it. And a preventive strategy does notonly result in cost savings: it also reduces conflict.The government therefore considers it very impor-tant to address the causes of loss of biodiversity.These are many and varied, but the most impor-



Figure 2.2 All cultivated plants have been bred from wild species. The map shows the original areasof distribution for wild plants that now provide centres of genetic diversity for major crops.Source: Primack, R.B., 1993. Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.

Box 2.2 An example of direct benefitsfrom complex ecological interactions

The day-flying moth Urania fulgens, of north-ern South America and Mexico, provides anexample of how complex interactions betweenspecies can provide ecological goods. The cat-erpillars of the moth feed exclusively on treesand vines of the genus Omphalea. When thecaterpillar population reaches locally high lev-els the plants become heavily defoliated, andthis heavy defoliation causes the trees andvines to produce protective chemical toxins.As the plants in a location become unpalatablethe moths begin to migrate to new areas. Inthis case, the toxic plant compounds, whichhave been shown to be effective against theHIV virus in vitro, are produced only from theinteraction between plant and moth and onlywhen moth populations reach a threshold in-tensity.Source: UNEP 1995, Global Biodiversity Assessment

tant direct causes are changes in land use, over-exploitation of biological resources, pollution and

the introduction of alien species. Such direct caus-es are the result of underlying factors, or drivingforces, that arise from the way human society isorganized.

Two important driving forces behind the loss ofbiological diversity are rising consumption andpopulation growth. Technological advances, in-creasing globalization and trade, transport and theintroduction of alien species also add to the pres-sure on the environment. Many of the choices wemake as a society today are governed by the needsof the market economy. However, as a generalrule, the market can only reflect the direct usevalues of biological diversity. Indirect use values,option value, and intrinsic value are not normallyincluded in a market-based approach. All in all,these developments mean that an active govern-ment policy for the conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity is needed to counteractthe driving forces that are currently causing lossesof diversity. It is only possible to implement such apolicy if all sectors assume a share of the respon-sibility and coordinate their efforts.

Another fundamental reason for the loss of bio-diversity is our lack of knowledge. For example,estimates of the number of species that exist in the



world today are still so uncertain that they varyfrom seven to 20 million. In Norway, the total num-ber of species is estimated at 60 000, but only abouttwo thirds of them have been identified.

There are similar gaps in our knowledge ofspecies biology and of how ecosystems function.We therefore need a coordinated effort includingsurveys and monitoring of biological diversity andresearch and development. And it is equally impor-tant to improve access to information for decision-makers and the general public. Information tech-nology has opened up new opportunities to store,spread and analyse information on biological di-versity, thus making it possible to integrate bio-logical diversity considerations into planning proc-esses.

2. Biological diversity shall be used sustainably

The Convention on Biological Diversity definessustainable use as «... the use of components ofbiological diversity in a way and at a rate that doesnot lead to the long-term decline of biological di-versity, thereby maintaining its potential to meetthe needs and aspirations of present and futuregenerations.» This definition is valid for both di-rect and indirect uses of biological diversity. Inother words, sustainability is a requirement re-gardless of what kind of pressure is being put onthe environment, and whether we are talkingabout the use of biological and genetic resourcesand land use or the introduction of alien speciesand pollution. Species diversity is dynamic and isinfluenced by the interactions between people andthe environment. Sustainable use of biological di-versity is thus of crucial importance for all sectors,whether we are considering the harvesting of bio-logical production in the agricultural, forestry andfisheries sectors, the use of non-living resourcessuch as minerals, hydropower, oil and gas, or theuse of land for residential, industrial and transportpurposes.

There is another important way in which peo-ple influence biodiversity. We deliberately alter or-ganisms and then release them in the environmentfor particular purposes. Species whose evolutionhas been influenced by humans to satisfy theirown needs are called domesticated or cultivatedspecies (see Figure 2.2). Hundreds of plant andanimal species have been domesticated or culti-vated, but they only make up about 0.01 per cent ofthe world’s species diversity. Nevertheless, theseare the species that feed the entire human pop-ulation of the world. Their genetic diversity provid-ed the basis for crop varieties and livestock breeds

that give high yields and that are adapted to a widevariety of growing conditions, cultivation methodsand quality standards.

With the rising demands for efficiency andhigh yields in food production, there has been asteady reduction in the number of varieties andbreeds of domesticated species. In other words,specialization is reducing the range of variation inthe genetic material of these species, and thus re-stricting the choices and development potentialavailable in the future. This trend must be counter-acted by a policy that ensures that both geneticvariability within species and access to this var-iability are maintained in the interests of futurefood and agricultural production.

Gene technology has given us opportunities toalter the characteristics of plants, animals, fungiand micro-organisms. It has opened up almost un-limited possibilities for the use of genetic diversity,and increased its potential value correspondingly.Used in the right way, gene technology can be-come one of our most important tools in the future.But the release of genetically modified species andthe introduction of domesticated or wild speciescan cause serious damage and have adverse ef-fects on health, biological diversity and the econo-my. Even small numbers of organisms that areonly slightly different from those that occur nat-urally can cause a great deal of damage if they ortheir genes spread at the expense of native spe-cies. Production, trade, transport and tourism haveresulted in a substantial increase in the spread ofalien species, both intentionally and accidentally.One example is the spread of the salmon parasiteGyrodactylus salaris, which has had serious eco-nomic consequences in Norway. We need to focusmore on this trend and take steps to reverse it.

The overall effect of population growth and ris-ing consumption is to put severe pressure on theenvironment, which becomes apparent for exam-ple through the adverse impacts of pollution. Thisthreatens biological diversity both globally and lo-cally. Acid rain, emissions of hazardous chemicalsand greenhouse gas emissions are the anthropo-genic pollution problems that have the greatestimpact on biological diversity. In the long term,climate change may have serious consequences,although some components of biological diversityhave the ability to fix greenhouse gases and thusact as a buffer against climate change. As a generalrule, pollution damages ecosystems. However,within certain limits ecosystems can repair them-selves and render pollutants harmless, so thattheir productivity is not permanently affected. Oneimportant task is therefore to clarify the effects of



Figure 2.3 National parks in Norway. For more information, see State of the Environment Norway,http://www.environment.noSource: Directorate for Nature Management.

various types of pollution in relation to the ob-jective of ensuring conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity.

3. Endangered and vulnerable components ofbiological diversity shall be protected and ifnecessary restored

The Convention on Biological Diversity naturallygives high priority to the protection of threatenedand vulnerable components of biological diversity.

Norway’s Report No. 8 (1999–2000) to the Stortingon the Government’s environmental policy and thestate of the environment in Norway includes a listof 56 ecosystems that are endangered or vulner-able and therefore of particular importance for bio-diversity. These are grouped into seven main typesas described in the manual on surveys of ecosys-tems and identification of the value of biologicaldiversity published by the Directorate for NatureManagement.

Norway’s 1998 national Red List (published by



the Directorate for Nature Management) contains3062 species, of which 1725 are placed in the cate-gories extinct, endangered, vulnerable and rare.The threats are particularly serious for endan-gered and vulnerable wild species and a number ofcultivated plant varieties and livestock breeds. Tosave some of these species, ex-situ conservationmeasures (i.e. measures outside their natural hab-itat) are also necessary. For example, material maybe collected in gene banks, as has been done forsome stocks of Atlantic salmon, livestock breedsand crop varieties. The Atlantic salmon provides agood example of the economic value that may lie innew uses of biological diversity: salmon farminghas become one of Norway’s largest export indus-tries in the last 25 years.

About 9.35 per cent of the Norwegian mainlandis currently protected in some way pursuant to theNature Conservation Act (Figure 2.3). After theStorting considered Report No. 62 (1991–1992) tothe Storting on a new nationwide plan for nationalparks and other large protected areas, it was decid-ed that the target should be to increase this pro-portion to 12–13 per cent. Most of this will consistof national parks in largely mountainous areas, andonly a small proportion will be in low-lying produc-tive areas where species diversity is high and thereare important ecosystems. The need to safeguard arepresentative selection of ecosystem types is metmainly through county protection plans and pro-tection plans for coniferous forest. The purpose ofprotecting areas pursuant to the Nature Conserva-tion Act is to safeguard a representative selectionof Norwegian nature and some of the most valua-ble areas of natural environment. Protected areasare also intended to serve as reference areas forcomparison with developments in other areas.

In Svalbard, almost 60 per cent of the total landarea is protected as national parks or nature re-serves (Figures 2.4 and 2.5).

Even when areas or species have been protect-ed, control and inspection measures must be con-tinued to maintain conservation value, and an ac-tive management regime is often needed as well. Aselection of protected areas forms the basis for theconservation of biodiversity, but the remaining 90per cent of the country, where no special protec-tion measures are in force, must also be managedsustainably. This is of central importance in follow-ing up the Convention. Agricultural landscapes arevery valuable in biological, historical and culturalterms, but their value can only be maintained byactive use. Such landscapes are also constantlychanging, and it is a challenge to maintain or re-store biodiversity in such areas.

2.2 Main tasks

The Government’s vision, targets and analysis ofthe strategy for the conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity provide a basis for identi-fying the following seven main tasks for the period2001–2005:1. Identifying cross-sectoral and sectoral respon-

sibilities and coordinating the use of policy in-struments

2. Coordinating and improving knowledge of bio-logical diversity

3. Ensuring sustainable use of biological re-sources

4. Avoiding the undesirable introduction of alienspecies

5. Ensuring sustainable land use6. Avoiding pollution7. Enhancing international cooperation.

2.2.1 Identifying cross-sectoral and sectoralresponsibilities and coordinating theuse of policy instruments

2.2.1.1 Cross-sectoral and sectoralresponsibilities

Components of biological diversity are renewableresources that can be utilized on a long-term basis,but only if they are managed sustainably. Non-renewable resources, on the other hand, can onlybe extracted and used once. Sound management ofboth types of resources is needed to satisfy theneeds of human society, but all utilization of re-sources will have consequences for the resources,the environment and society. Sustainable use of alltypes of natural resources is therefore an over-riding objective in the management of biologicaldiversity.

The Government’s position is that all authori-ties, industrial sectors and other relevant actorsmust play their part in efforts to ensure the conser-vation and sustainable use of biological diversity.The ministries are responsible for integrating bio-logical diversity concerns into their administrativeresponsibilities, and for encouraging subordinateagencies, industrial sectors and voluntary organi-zations in areas related to their spheres of respon-sibility to follow up the national targets for biologi-cal diversity. The following principles and respon-sibilities are intended to apply to the central gov-ernment administration in its efforts to ensure theconservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity:



Figure 2.4 Protected areas in Svalbard. These are protected pursuant to the 1925 Svalbard Act. Thereare plans to establish new protected areas in autumn 2002Source: Norwegian Polar Institute.

1. Each ministry shall maintain an overview of theenvironmental impact of activities within itsfield of responsibility, and shall survey andmonitor biological diversity in accordance withthe national programme (see further details inChapter 3.2.2).

2. In principle, each ministry is administrativelyand financially responsible for action within itsown sphere of responsibility. This must be ex-plicitly laid down wherever the ministry’s au-thority is exercised and includes action to en-sure the conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity, preventive measures, res-toration, and the mitigation of adverse effects

on biological diversity associated with activitieswithin the ministry’s sphere of responsibility.Every ministry is expected to follow up theserequirements.

3. The ministries shall actively seek cross-secto-ral cooperation in order to make the conserva-tion of biological diversity more effective and tomake joint efforts possible. Any agreements oncooperation frameworks or the division of re-sponsibility shall be financially binding. Suchcooperation is the basis for the actions de-scribed for each of the main tasks in Chapter 3.

4. Wherever possible, the responsibility for actionshall be delegated to the local level. This will



make it possible to take local choices and pri-orities into account within the framework ofnational targets and priorities.

5. Each ministry is expected to provide reportsand other information on environmental trendsand impacts and on the costs of planned orimplemented actions included in the annualbudgets within its own sphere of responsibility.

These principles are primarily intended to apply tocurrent and future policy instruments and activ-ities. However, vulnerable elements of biologicaldiversity may also be associated with areas wherethe form of land use has changed. The nationalprogramme to survey and monitor biological di-versity should help to improve our knowledge ofsuch areas as well, and to identify cases wherethey should be evaluated separately so that theirvalue for vulnerable elements of biological diversi-ty is maintained or restored.

The administrative responsibilities of the min-istries relating to biological diversity can be divid-ed into three categories.

1) Some ministries have sectoral responsibil-ities for the management of biological resources.This applies particularly to the Ministry of Agricul-ture, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry ofthe Environment. These have all developed sub-stantial expertise and experience relating to thesustainable management of biological resources.Their activities have direct impacts on biologicaldiversity, but to different degrees and in differentways. The ministries have used their expertise toimplement measures both separately and jointlyand thus fulfil their sectoral responsibilities underthe Convention.

2) Other ministries have sectoral responsibil-ities for the use of physical resources: these in-volve various types of uses and developments thatmay have impacts on biological diversity. The min-istries particularly concerned here are the Minis-try of Defence, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Min-istry of Local Government and Regional Develop-ment, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Min-istry of Petroleum and Energy and the Ministry ofTransport and Communications. The scope oftheir responsibilities is wide, and they deal withmatters of major public interest that can have sub-stantial impacts on biological diversity. Several ofthem have developed considerable expertise andhave taken steps to incorporate biological diversityconcerns into their activities.

3) A third group of ministries has sectoral re-sponsibilities that indirectly influence the manage-ment of both biological and physical resources andthe conservation and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity. These are the Ministry of Children andFamily Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministryof Cultural Affairs, the Ministry of Local Govern-ment and Regional Development, the Ministry ofEducation and Research, the Ministry of Healthand the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Ministry ofLabour and Government Administration also playsa role here because it has administrative respon-sibility for overall management processes and re-gional administration. This group includes severalministries that have a very important role to play inthe establishment of new processes and types ofaction that should be used as a basis for conserva-tion and sustainable use of biological diversity asset out in the white paper.

The Norwegian public administration musttake steps to implement Article 8j of the Conven-tion, which lays down that parties must «respect,preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and

Figure 2.5 Kovalskifjellet cliffs in SouthSpitsbergen National Park.The largest colony ofBrünnich’s guillemots in Svalbard nests hereand on the neighbouring cliffs. Photo: VidarBakken/ARC.



practices of indigenous and local communities em-bodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the con-servation and sustainable use of biological diversi-ty». The parties have drawn up a separate workprogramme for this field, which in the Norwegiancontext must be related to the traditional way oflife and culture of the Sami people. All authoritiesthat play a part in the management of land andnatural resources in areas used or settled by theSami are expected to evaluate whether measuresare in accordance with Article 8j in their planningand management activities. The Government willfor example make use of reports produced by theSami Rights Council on Finnmark county and oth-er areas of particular importance for Sami cultureand land use to ensure that the requirements ofArticle 8j of the Convention are fulfilled.

2.2.1.2 Coordinating the use of policyinstruments

A complete analysis of policy instruments for theconservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity is a very complex task. There are manydriving forces, sectoral targets and needs to betaken into account, and our knowledge of biologi-cal diversity and causal relationships is far fromcomplete. It has therefore been necessary to re-strict the scope of the analysis. The focus has beenon ensuring the development of cost-effective in-struments that meet the both the need for coor-dination and sectoral needs. International condi-tions must also be taken into consideration.

Legislative instruments

The Convention on Biological Diversity provides anew international framework for comprehensivemanagement of the environment. It is the first ma-jor international agreement that so clearly focuseson the links between use and conservation of biodi-versity and on the equitable sharing of benefits.Norway’s legislation on biological diversity shouldreflect these principles, and should be based oninternationally agreed premises for managementof the environment and sectoral responsibilities. Acohesive legislative framework must be devel-oped, in which sectoral legislation provides thebest possible support for targets and obligationsrelating to biological diversity. The governmentwill consider whether it is most appropriate todraw up a single act on biological diversity or toregulate various issues in already existing acts.

The requirement for all sectors to incorporatebiological diversity concerns into sectoral legisla-

tion relating to natural resources was first intro-duced when the Storting considered Report No. 46(1988–1989) to the Storting on environment anddevelopment. The results can be seen in legisla-tion for which both the Ministry of the Environ-ment and other ministries are responsible. Exam-ples include the Gene Technology Act, the sectionof the Land Act describing its purpose, regulationspursuant to the Forestry Act, the legal authority tolay down prohibitions or restrictions on aquacul-ture operations provided by the Aquaculture Act,and the new Water Resources Act. However, expe-rience shows that considerably more can be done,both in applying the legislation and in its furtherdevelopment.

There are currently many acts of legislation thatprovide the authority to make decisions on activ-ities with an impact on biological diversity, but thatleave considerable room for the use of discretion.We must ensure that such discretionary decisionsare based on the best possible information aboutimpacts on biological diversity. The main gaps inNorwegian legislation dealing with the manage-ment of biological diversity are as follows:– The legislation relating to disturbance and de-

velopment of endangered and vulnerable eco-systems and habitats for endangered and vul-nerable species is not properly coordinated.The various sectoral acts must be consideredtogether, and an appropriate balance must befound between protection and sustainable use.There are also weaknesses in the current Na-ture Conservation Act, which deals with classi-cal nature conservation. It is important to carryout a review and evaluation of these mattersand to use the conclusions reached as a basisfor any changes.

– The existing legislation does not link the pro-tection of species closely enough with theirhabitats. For example, the basis for better pro-tection of wild plants must be evaluated.

– The legislation does not deal adequately withthe introduction of alien species.

– There is no legislation regulating access to andthe use of naturally occurring genetic re-sources.

– The relationship between human impacts onthe environment/traditional knowledge andbiological diversity should be better reflectedin the legislation.

– Supplementary rules are needed on compensa-tion and restoration in cases where biologicaldiversity is adversely affected by illegal devel-opments.

– At present, the Planning and Building Act is not



formulated to provide optimal protection forbiological diversity when decisions involvingland use and the use of natural resources are tobe taken. The government has appointed acommittee to review the planning legislation,and one of its tasks is to review the provisionson land use and the use of natural resources(cf. section 2.2.5).

Economic instruments

Until now, there has been little emphasis on eco-nomic instruments as a means of safeguarding bio-logical diversity in Norway or internationally. How-ever, they are a familiar and important tool forexample in pollution control policy and in the agri-cultural sector, where environmental taxes, grantsand subsidies are used to provide economic in-centives for environmentally-sound operations.The market rarely reflects the real value of biologi-cal diversity, and there has been little integrationof biodiversity concerns into the economy.

During its deliberations on Report No. 58(1996–1997) to the Storting, the Storting unani-mously stated that a systematic review of the ex-penditure side of the central government budgetwas needed in order to remove subsidies that havea negative impact on biological diversity.

The same white paper also included plans for areview of whether to introduce taxation of the useof the environment in the form of a land use tax.This work is at a preliminary stage and should beconsidered in conjunction with similar internation-al work based on the «User Pays Principle». This isa parallel to the «Polluter Pays Principle» (whichstates that no-one has a right to pollute and thatpolluters must bear the costs of preventing andcontrolling pollution), but is concerned with use ofthe natural resource base. The reasoning behindthis is that biological diversity is a public good thatin many contexts is not priced, but that is oftendepleted or lost as a result of commercial devel-opments. The principle underlying the introduc-tion of a land use tax is that anyone who usesimportant elements of biological diversity, which isa public good, should in return pay a tax to society.In particular, taxation will be considered in thecase of developments that are not in accordancewith national targets and that significantly depletepublic goods that are of importance for sustainableuse. One purpose of such taxation is to ensure thatthe use of biodiversity does not come into conflictwith the agreed national targets. It will apply todevelopments that involve a change in existingland use. A land use tax could become a cost-

effective policy instrument, but it would be a newelement of land-use management and would there-fore raise a number of questions.

There has been no real tradition of economicvaluation of biological diversity in Norway up tothe present, but requirements to mitigate damagehave been enforced for many years in specific ar-eas: for example, requirements to stock water-courses with fish after regulation. These issueshave also been in focus internationally for manyyears – for instance, there has been long-term re-search into ways of valuing biodiversity in econom-ic terms. Resources of this kind, which often haveno direct market value or link with the market, arevery difficult to compare with other goods and ser-vices. The OECD (Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development) has recently pub-lished Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation: A Guidefor Policy Makers. This focuses on the nature ofvalues associated with biological diversity and themethodological approaches that can be adopted toassign values for policy purposes.

Organizational mechanisms and instruments

Instruments of this type are as a general rule adapt-ed to the way sectoral responsibilities are assignedin the Norwegian public administration. However,the problems and challenges we have to deal withare becoming increasingly cross-sectoral, and theconservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity is a good example. It is therefore essentialto improve coordination across administrative sec-tors and levels.

The government’s result monitoring systemhas been presented in several white papers (Re-ports No. 58 (1996–97), No. 8 (1999–2000) and No.24 (2000–2001) to the Storting). It includes regularreports using a system of key figures based on thenational targets for environmental policy. The na-tional targets are used in drawing up sectoral tar-gets that in turn are used to devise the measureslisted in the ministries’ sectoral environmental ac-tion plans. All the ministries are required to reportannually on the results they achieve to the envi-ronmental authorities. The result monitoring sys-tem is still being developed, and few key figuresare operative for biological diversity at present. Itwill be necessary to evaluate the national targetsand key figures for biodiversity regularly with aview to establishing an optimal system thatachieves its purpose and is practical for all sectorsof the public administration.

At the beginning of 2001, the following minis-tries had completed sectoral environmental action



plans: the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry ofTransport and Communications, the Ministry ofPetroleum and Energy, the Ministry of Fisheries,the Ministry of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment, the Ministry of Trade and Industry,the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry ofEducation and Research. No final decision hasbeen taken on revision of the action plans. Thepurpose of this white paper is to ensure that thevarious ministries coordinate their efforts to followup the Convention on Biological Diversity and theprinciples of sustainable development. It will beparticularly important to ensure coordination ofaction and policy instruments introduced by thepublic administration in areas such as biologicaldiversity, outdoor recreation, the cultural heritageand certain other priority areas.

Information

A coordinated information strategy is needed in-volving all the sectors, and each of them must takeresponsibility for ensuring that information ismade available and provide guidance on its usewithin the sector and for relevant target groups.

Children and young people will be tomorrow’susers and managers of biodiversity, and are there-fore a particularly important target group. With theincreasing urbanization of society, we are losingknowledge of the values associated with biologicaldiversity (see Box 1.1 in Chapter 1). It is importantto focus on improving levels of knowledge at alllevels from primary to upper secondary school,and to focus on interdisciplinary project work inaccordance with the latest reform of the curricu-lum (L97). The Norwegian Environmental Educa-tion Network, which is coordinated by the Minis-try of Education and Research, and support for thechildren’s organization Inky Arms Eco-Detectivesare examples of interministerial cooperation tar-geting children and young people.

People who make decisions in fields such asthe harvesting of biological resources, transport,production and trade, recreation and tourism, de-velopment and other forms of land use are all im-portant target groups for education, training andthe use of the available data. A publicly-appointedcommittee has evaluated the rights and duties ofvarious actors as regards the provision of envi-ronmental information pursuant to Article 100 b ofthe Norwegian Constitution, and whether amend-ments to the existing legislation are needed. Thisis partly in response to the Aarhus Convention,which Norway signed in 1998, and whose objectiveis that «each Party shall guarantee the rights of

access to information, public participation in deci-sion-making, and access to justice in environmen-tal matters.» This will be given priority in efforts tofollow up sectoral and cross-sectoral responsibil-ities and to promote greater public participationthrough Local Agenda 21 and the involvement ofvoluntary organizations and other actors.

Cooperation with voluntary organizations

Voluntary organizations play an important role inefforts to follow up the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Their overall expertise in the field ofbiodiversity means that they have a great deal tooffer. Through their activities and participation inthe public debate, these organizations make a valu-able contribution to efforts to conserve biologicaldiversity. They play a central role in educationaland advisory work, particularly where children andyoung people are the target groups. Many of theseorganizations also have considerable expertise inenvironment and development issues. Their com-bined expertise is useful for local authorities intheir efforts to register and map biological diversi-ty. The organizations therefore have an importantrole to play in Local Agenda 21 processes. Theyalso have a part to play in voicing the interests ofthe public in local planning processes and otherpolitical decision-making processes. Furthermore,they are important in cooperation between peo-ples, both because they have international net-works and because they can initiate small-scalelocal cooperation projects.

Conservation and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity is an important issue for a number of thevoluntary organizations, including the NorwegianSociety for the Conservation of Nature/Friends ofthe Earth Norway, the Norwegian Association ofHunters and Anglers, and SABIMA (the Norwe-gian Council for the Conservation of Biodiversity).Other organizations involved in this work include4-H and forestry and gardening organizations.

The kind of work these organizations do can beexemplified by SABIMA, which focuses mainly onbiological diversity. This is an umbrella organiza-tion for 13 different societies, all dealing with dif-ferent aspects of biology. Their overall member-ship totals about 15 000 and includes most of Nor-way’s biological expertise. SABIMA has for exam-ple run 10 regional courses that providedtheoretical and practical training in surveying andvaluing biodiversity for the Directorate for NatureManagement. They were intended as a supple-ment to the directorate’s manuals for the munici-pal programme to survey biological diversity and



identify and classify its value. SABIMA’s other ac-tivities include registering biodiversity and takingpart in Local Agenda 21 processes, and it plays animportant role as an environmental NGO and as asource of expertise for various sectoral authorities,organizations and business and industry.

2.2.2 Coordinating and improvingknowledge of biological diversity

There are many gaps in our knowledge of biologi-cal diversity today, and a coordinated effort includ-ing surveying, monitoring, research and develop-ment is needed to close them. It is just as impor-tant to improve access to this knowledge for deci-sion-makers and the general public. To meet theseneeds, the government has followed up the deci-sion announced in Report No. 58 (1996–1997) tothe Storting and has initiated a five-year pro-gramme involving the central and local authoritiesto provide a better basis for decisions concerningbiological diversity (See figure 2.6). The pro-gramme has three phases:I. Identification of the information currently avail-

able and of gaps in our knowledge.II. Steps to encourage surveys of biological diver-

sity and the identification and classification ofits value, to be organized at municipal level.

III. Establishment of a national monitoring pro-gramme for biological diversity.

The purpose of phase 2 is to complete surveys andmapping of areas that are important for biologicaldiversity by 2003, and to classify their value. Themonitoring programme is intended to provide in-formation on changes in species distribution,abundance, etc. and in ecosystems over time, andthe causes of such change.

Information technology will be an importanttool in work on biodiversity, but this requires coor-dination of different systems and steps to makethem more accessible for all users. The competentauthorities should ensure that national standardsare used for mapping. Geographical informationsystems (GIS) are a priority area for the Norwe-gian Mapping Authority. They can be used to pro-vide clear information on most topics of relevanceto land use and to produce time series that showchanges, and maps can be combined to illustratecausal relationships. New technology can be em-ployed to make the results even more useful, forexample by combining satellite data with othertypes of data.

It is considered very important to develop cost-effective methods of surveying and monitoring bio-

logical diversity, and the use of new technology forthis purpose is therefore being reviewed. This is afield that is developing rapidly, and the environ-mental authorities have been working closely withthe Norwegian Space Centre since 1993. At pre-sent, ways of using satellite data to survey andmonitor biological diversity are limited in Norway,but they should be further developed in closecooperation between the environmental authori-ties, the Norwegian Space Centre and other rele-vant actors. However, if satellite data are to beused on a large scale in surveying and monitoringbiodiversity, specific user needs must be satisfiedand several sectors must be involved.

Surveying biological diversity

The Ministry of the Environment has carried out afour-year nationwide programme to provide betterdata on land use and classify areas used for differ-ent purposes according to their value. The pro-gramme had a wide scope to ensure that it encom-passed all information on the value of differentareas that could be useful in municipal land-useplanning. The programme included a number ofprojects, the largest of which was called AREALIS.This is still being continued, and is a national pro-ject designed to make land-use, environmental andplanning information readily available to munici-palities and counties. AREALIS is a digital informa-tion system that is being developed through coop-eration between national, regional and local auth-orities. Land use data gathered by the municipalsurveys of biological diversity and identificationand classification of its value is being made avail-able through AREALIS. This will provide informa-tion on which ecosystems are most important asregards the conservation of biological diversity.The Directorate for Nature Management has pro-duced guidelines for surveys of biodiversity, in-cluding a list of 56 particularly important types ofecosystems that should be identified and mapped.The survey of ecosystems, together with other da-ta sets, will provide a basis for mapping all the mostimportant area for biological diversity.

The other area that must be given priority toobtain a satisfactory survey at ecosystem level isgathering data on marine ecosystems. This is nec-essary to gain an overview of all important ecosys-tems in Norway and satisfy the national targets forbiodiversity. A good deal of work is also needed tomap the distribution of endangered and vulnerablespecies, i.e. the red-listed species. Another impor-tant task is to ensure that data currently held byuniversities, other research institutions, voluntary



Figure 2.6 Surveys of biological diversity provide an important basis for land-use planning and themanagement of natural resources. At present, 170 of Norway’s municipalities are taking part insurveys of biodiversity organized by the Ministry of the Environment and the Directorate for NatureManagement. The map shows the area around Brumunddal in Hedmark county.Source: Ringsaker municipality and Directorate for Nature Management.

organizations and the public administration aremade accessible. This work should lead to the es-tablishment of a national species data bank.

Monitoring biological diversity

Until now, environmental monitoring programmesin Norway have focused mainly on pollution and onspecies and natural resources that are of economicimportance today. Other components of biologicaldiversity and ecosystems and species that are valu-able in other ways or have economic potential havegenerally not been included in monitoring pro-grammes. There has been little systematic mon-itoring of the impact of changes in land use, har-vesting, pollution and the introduction of alien spe-cies on biodiversity. It is therefore a high priority

task to establish a coherent monitoring pro-gramme for biological diversity. The results will bemade available through joint information channelsfor the various sectors, including AREALIS, thespecies data bank and a portal for environmentalinformation on the Internet.

The Directorate for Nature Management hasdrawn up a plan for a national monitoring pro-gramme for biological diversity in cooperationwith several sectors. The plan proposes monitor-ing of eight mainecosystem types: agriculturallandscapes, forest, mountains, coastal areas, freshwater, mires and wetlands and the Norwegian Arc-tic. It is based on already established monitoringprogrammes organized by several different minis-tries, but includes proposals to expand such pro-grammes, new topics and coordination in a nation-



al monitoring programme. Access to the data col-lected by surveys and monitoring programmes isnecessary to enable the authorities to manage bio-diversity along the lines determined by the govern-ment on the basis of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity.

Responsibility for surveying and monitoringbiological diversity

All the ministries share the responsibility for gath-ering more data on biological diversity. This fol-lows from the principle that sectoral authoritiesare responsible for monitoring and reporting onenvironmental impacts within their own sectors.Furthermore, each ministry is responsible formaking its own data available by ensuring that datasets are compatible, and for making sure thatwherever possible, data are accompanied by ge-ographical coordinates. The government consid-ers it important to improve cooperation betweenthe ministries by means of an interministerial pro-gramme in order to ensure that programmes tosurvey and monitor biological diversity use a uni-form methodology and are cost-effective. A systemmust also be developed for accessing data on theconservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity and for the exchange of such data betweendatabases under different ministries.

Separate monitoring programmes have beendeveloped for the northern areas. Data collectionfor the environmental monitoring programme forSvalbard and Jan Mayen (MOSJ) started in 2001.The environmental monitoring programme for theNorwegian and Russian Arctic seas (MONRA) isstill in the planning stage, and data collection hasnot yet started.

The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry ofFisheries are responsible for surveying and mon-itoring biological diversity within their spheres ofresponsibility, and for providing data on trends inenvironmental pressures in the same fields. Thetwo ministries are responsible for valuableelements of Norway’s biodiversity and major bio-logical resources, and therefore have a particularresponsibility, together with the Ministry of Edu-cation and Research and the Ministry of the Envi-ronment, for ensuring that data are made acces-sible and for ensuring that databases are compat-ible.

The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible forsurveying and monitoring genetic resources of im-portance for food production, crop varieties, live-stock breeds, and the introduction of alien speciesor genetically modified organisms connected with

the agricultural sector. Together with the Ministryof the Environment, the ministry is also responsib-le for surveying and monitoring agricultural land-scapes and forested areas. The Ministry of Fisher-ies is responsible for surveying and monitoringcommercially important marine species, and haswell-established programmes for this purpose. Italso has a responsibility for promoting surveys ofthe effects of harvesting resources and surveys ofother marine species and their habitats that arevulnerable or of particular importance for biodi-versity.

The Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Trans-port and Communications, the Ministry of Petro-leum and Energy and the Ministry of Trade andIndustry are responsible for surveys and data col-lection as a basis for development projects andother activities within their spheres of responsib-ility. They are also required to monitor the effectsof their activities on biological diversity.

The Ministry of Education and Research is ad-ministratively responsible for the universities andthe natural history museums, which have a sub-stantial and expanding knowledge base as regardsbiodiversity. One of the ministry’s special respon-sibilities is to provide a framework enabling theseinstitutions to take an active part in cooperation toestablish a species databank. It is also importantfor the ministry to make its own data available inthe species databank. This includes data on threat-ened and vulnerable species.

Research and development

There is a pressing need to improve our knowl-edge of biodiversity. This includes both a basicknowledge of ecological interactions and a knowl-edge of the challenges that may arise from theinterplay between the natural environment and ouruse of it. Such knowledge is needed to give a betterunderstanding of causal relationships and to makeappropriate choices as regards management ofbiodiversity and which measures to implement.This means that research must be given priority,especially research involving cooperation betweenthe natural and social sciences. Research on bio-logical diversity must also be better coordinated.Moreover, it is important to obtain data that willprovide a better basis for decision-making on thebasis of political targets and targets for the man-agement of biological diversity for all administra-tive levels, from local to regional to national, andfor all relevant sectors. Basic research on biodi-versity is mainly carried out at the universities andcolleges. Most applied research takes place within



programmes organized or financed by the Re-search Council of Norway, at applied research in-stitutions such as the Institute of Marine Research,and as in-house research organized by businessenterprises. It is important to forge closer ties be-tween all these institutions and provide better op-portunities for research cooperation both at nation-al level and internationally, especially within theEU and the OECD.

In Report No. 39 (1998–1999) to the Storting onresearch at the beginning of a new era, the govern-ment emphasized that environmental concerns arecross-cutting and should be incorporated into re-search in all sectors. The white paper requires allsectors to take responsibility for ensuring that envi-ronmental research is integrated into and specifi-cally considered in their research and developmentstrategies. Moreover, Report No. 58 (1996–1997) tothe Storting states that research on biological di-versity and the impact of sectoral activities on bio-logical diversity is the responsibility of each secto-ral authority, and must be integrated into all rele-vant areas in the Research Council’s work.

In order to follow up these points, cooperationwith the Research Council should be established.In this connection, Norway’s participation in theUN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment should bereviewed. The assessment started up international-ly in 2001 and will focus on the consequences ofthe loss of biodiversity. The UN Secretary-Generalhas asked member states to take part in this work,for example by carrying out national assessments.The project was first discussed at a meeting hostedby Norway in July 2000.

2.2.3 Ensuring sustainable use of biologicalresources

Introduction and principles

In Norway, agriculture, forestry, fishing, whalingand sealing, aquaculture, and various outdoor ac-tivities such as hunting, angling, and collectingberries and mushrooms involve the direct use ofbiological resources. These areas are important inthe management of biodiversity. Both directly andindirectly, the primary industries and harvesting ofbiological resources on uncultivated land accountfor a large proportion of wealth creation in Norwayand are important for employment, especially inoutlying districts. The government’s targets for theconservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity will also help to make it possible to contin-ue activities based on the use of renewable biologi-cal resources. Thus, wealth creation in the primary

industries and harvesting as a part of outdoor rec-reation can be further developed: these activitiesalso have positive effects on the quality of people’slives, their well-being and sense of identity, andprovide opportunities for experiencing the naturalenvironment.

The agricultural sector can help to maintain anintegrated and living agricultural landscape by re-taining some of the traditional forms of use andlandscape types, protecting the cultural heritage,conserving biological diversity, and maintainingvariation in the landscape and opportunities forrecreation. Agricultural activities are also impor-tant for the maintenance of biodiversity associatedwith cultural landscapes. New technology andgrowing demands for efficiency in harvesting andproduction have resulted in changes in harvestingand farming techniques, and to the abandonmentof traditional forms of use. Intensive farming andthe abandonment of farmland or of particularforms of management can be a threat to speciesthat are adapted to specific living conditions. Sometypes of cultural landscapes such as meadows,wooded pastures, hay meadows and semi-naturalpasture are changing character or becoming over-grown. A substantial proportion of Norway’sthreatened and vulnerable species, about 30 percent, are associated with such habitats in the agri-cultural landscape. However, compared with muchof Europe, Norway still has considerable areas ofsuch semi-natural vegetation types, and their valuecan be maintained by taking steps to maintain tra-ditional farming and management techniques.

About half of Norway’s species diversity andhalf of all threatened and endangered species inthe country are associated with forests, and forest-ry operations are listed as an important threat tomany red-listed species. This means that anotherpriority area of Norway’s efforts to conserve biodi-versity is to strike a balance between ecologicaland economic considerations in the forestry indus-try by adapting it better to the environment. Theforestry sector already has a good overview of itsresource base and a tradition of sustainable use,but this sector too will meet new challenges relat-ed to surveying and valuing forest biodiversity,improving knowledge of particular species and un-derstanding ecosystems better. One importanttask is to improve the quality of the Norwegian RedList and develop it into a more functional tool forthe forestry industry in its efforts to conserve for-est species. The Ministry of the Environment andthe Directorate for Nature Management havestarted cooperation with the Ministry of Agricul-ture to this end.



The fisheries and aquaculture industry has be-come one of Norway’s largest export industries,with a potential for very significant economicgrowth. Economic growth based on managementof living marine resources is dependent on a com-prehensive regulatory system that includes bothmeasures to ensure sustainable harvesting ofstocks and appropriate technical regulatory mea-sures, for example on the use of selective gear,bycatches, minimum sizes, mesh sizes and the clo-sure of fishing grounds. The number of aquacul-ture facilities is rising rapidly, and the industry isgrowing fast in economic terms as well. This hasresulted in various forms of pressure on the envi-ronment, conflict with other user groups and prob-lems for the industry itself. Although the industryhas already solved many of its problems and takensteps to reduce its environmental impact over theyears, there are still challenges to be met as re-gards the impact of aquaculture on biodiversity,not least because the industry’s own goal is contin-ued rapid expansion. The most important tasks areto prevent the escape of farmed fish and to resolveconflicts relating to land use in the coastal zone.Administrative bodies for fisheries and aquacul-ture must also continue the development of thelegislation, survey marine biological diversity andfind ways of taking environmental concerns morefully into account.

Close cooperation between the Ministry ofAgriculture, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Min-istry of the Environment is important in systematicefforts to take environmental concerns into ac-count in the harvesting of renewable biological re-sources, and thus ensure the conservation and sus-tainable use of biological diversity. The three min-istries therefore cooperate systematically, and oneparticularly important task is carrying out uniform

surveys and monitoring of Norway’s biological re-sources. The Ministry of the Environment is alsoresponsible for coordinating this work by devel-oping national targets and indicators and auditingthe results that are obtained.

Genetic resources and gene technology

The foundation for species diversity lies in thegenes and genetic diversity. Genetic resourcesprovide the basis for breeding domesticated spe-cies and for the development of varieties and pop-ulations of species that are adapted to specific hab-itats. People have so far only made use of a tinyproportion of the known genetic resources of theworld. There are an estimated 80 000 plant speciesin the world that could be used for food, but inpractice, very few of them are used in food produc-tion: and there are roughly 50 000 species of ver-tebrates, only about 30 of which are widely used inagricultural production. About 200 aquatic speciesof plants and animals are used for food and in otherproducts. A growing number of fungi and micro-organisms are being used for food production, fer-mentation processes, industrial processes andmedicine production. Almost 40 per cent of ourmedicines have been developed from wild plants.

Genetic variation in domesticated plants andanimals can be preserved by the use of these spe-cies in agricultural production today. Modern live-stock and crop plants have been bred from tradi-tional domesticated breeds and varieties and fromwild species, and these ancestral stocks must alsobe preserved to maintain genetic diversity. Oneimportant and cost-effective means of preservinggenetic resources is to use gene banks, and theNordic countries have established gene banksboth for plant genetic resources and farm animalsunder the Nordic Council of Ministers.

Both wild species and domesticated varietiesare important resources for cultivation in the fu-ture, and genetic diversity is a form of life insur-ance for every species in the world. There areseveral Norwegian examples of the economic po-tential of naturally-occurring genetic resources.The interest being shown in the genetic resourcesof marine biodiversity and in breeding pro-grammes to make use of fisheries resources in-dicates that people are aware of this potential. Forexample, Norwegian farmed salmon were devel-oped by breeding from around 20 of the most suit-able wild salmon stocks. The aquaculture industrythat has grown up now has an export value of morethan NOK 10 billion per year (about EUR 1.25billion). And a Swiss company has achieved profits

Figure 2.7 The fungus Tolypocladium inflatumfrom which Cyclosporin A has been produced.Occurs on the Hardangervidda, a Norwegianmountain plateau. Photo: Norvartis



of the same order by manufacturing the substancecyclosporin, which prevents the body from reject-ing transplanted organs. Cyclosporin was original-ly discovered in a fungus that occurs on a Norwe-gian mountain plateau, the Hardangervidda (Fig-ure 2.7).

According to the Convention on Biological Di-versity, states have sovereign rights over their ge-netic resources and the authority to determine ac-cess to them. Parties to the Convention undertaketo facilitate access to such resources for other sig-natories, but based on the principle of prior in-formed consent and on mutually agreed terms.The country of origin must be guaranteed a fairand equitable share of the results of research anddevelopment and the benefits arising from the uti-lization of genetic resources. Developing countriesare the stewards of the largest proportion of theworld’s genetic resources today, but it is the indus-trial countries that have the technology needed toexploit these resources.

So far, 50–60 developing countries and threeindustrial countries have drawn up national legisla-tion governing access to genetic resources and thebenefits arising out of their use. Depending onhow such legislation is formulated, it might causeproblems for the exchange of plant genetic materi-al between countries. Norway took part in the ne-gotiations to develop a mechanism based on theInternational Undertaking on Plant Genetic Re-sources for Food and Agriculture in order to en-sure access to these resources. However, Norwe-gian legislation is inadequate in this field. It con-tains very little in the way of provisions on accessto and conditions for access to Norwegian geneticresources, and no provisions on the use by Norwe-gian nationals of any genetic resources they take toother countries.

Access to genetic resources is also related tothe issue of patents on inventions involving biologi-cal material. EU Directive 98/44 on the legal pro-tection of biotechnological inventions (known asthe biotech patents directive) lays down as a gener-al rule that inventions concerning products con-sisting of or containing biological material shall bepatentable in the same way as inventions usingother materials. Both products and processes forthe production of plants, animals and micro-orga-nisms, and biological material from such orga-nisms, i.e. genes, cells and tissues, are consideredto be patentable. Biological material from the hu-man body is also patentable, but the directive pro-hibits the patenting of human beings as such. Thedirective also states that the following shall not bepatentable: plant and animal varieties, essentially

biological processes for the production of plants oranimals, and inventions whose commercial exploi-tation would be contrary to ordre public or moral-ity (for example processes for cloning human be-ings).

A patent can only be granted for an invention.Patents are not granted for discoveries, such as thesequencing of a genome. However, if biologicalmaterial that exists naturally is isolated and cultur-ed outside its natural surroundings, and the in-ventor has in addition found a way of using thematerial to solve a technical problem (e.g. in themanufacture of a medicinal product), the resultmay be considered to be a patentable invention.According to current practice, the material is con-sidered to exist in another form than the naturallyoccurring one, and constitutes an invention.

A patent granted pursuant to the directive givesthe holder of the patent the right to make commer-cial use of the invention for a limited period of time(normally 20 years), but no more than this. A pat-ent does not for example give the holder any rightto make practical use of the invention. This is regu-lated by other legislation – in the case of biotechn-ological inventions, the relevant Norwegian legis-lation is the Gene Technology Act.

It has been claimed that the types of patentspermitted by the directive will result in activitiesthat are in conflict with the objectives of the Con-vention on Biological Diversity, for example ensur-ing that countries retain rights over their own ge-netic resources and ensuring fair and equitablesharing of the benefits arising from the utilizationof genetic resources. It has also been claimed thatthe directive allows patents of such broad scopethat it may in practice hinder competition and fur-ther product development.

In June 2000, the Norwegian government de-cided to appoint an interministerial working groupto consider what could be done to meet the mainobjections that have been raised to the objective,both in Norway and internationally, if it is incorpo-rated into the EEA Agreement. The group’s reportwas submitted to the Minister of Justice on 2 No-vember 2000. The actions proposed in the reportwill be further reviewed by the committee appoint-ed to review legislation on biodiversity (see Chap-ter 3) and by the relevant ministries (this work willbe coordinated by the Ministry of Justice).

In the World Trade Organization (WTO), Nor-way will maintain that states must have the powerto refuse patents on plants and animals under theTRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellectual Property Rights).

Genetically modified organisms are plants, ani-



mals, fungi and micro-organisms whose geneticmake-up has been altered by means of gene or celltechnology. If an organism’s genetic make-up isaltered or genetic material is transferred from oth-er organisms, it may acquire new properties suchas resistance to pesticides or insect pests. Genetechnology has the potential to give us many prod-ucts that can be useful in fields including medicine,food production and industry, or that can be usedas pesticides or for combating pollution. However,the technology can also create problems related tobiological diversity and health. Genetically mod-ified crops that tolerate pesticides or are resistantto insect pests may hybridize with wild-living spe-cies and transfer these properties to them, or haveother unintended effects on ecosystems. Orga-nisms that have been made resistant to antibioticsmay transfer the genes for resistance to pathogen-ic bacteria, thus indirectly contributing to the prob-lems of dealing with resistant pathogenic orga-nisms. Although the probability of this happeningis low, there is a possibility of very serious conse-quences if antibiotics are no longer effective. Thus,the risks associated with the use of gene tech-nology, especially the long-term risks, can be diffi-cult to evaluate. This is an important reason forNorway’s strict legislation in the field. The GeneTechnology Act lays down that the production anduse of genetically modified organisms must be eth-ically and socially justifiable, in accordance withthe principle of sustainable development and with-out detrimental effects on health and the environ-ment. The government considers it necessary tocontinue a policy of strict regulation and control ofthe production and control of living geneticallymodified organisms.

To ensure coherent administration of genetechnology, several ministries must cooperateclosely. This applies particularly to the Ministry ofAgriculture, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministryof Health, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Minis-try of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of theEnvironment. This field involves important foreignpolicy interests as well, particularly as regards pol-icy vis-à-vis Europe and the WTO. The Ministry ofForeign Affairs therefore also plays an importantrole in this cooperation. The Ministry of Healthcoordinates administration of the contained use ofgenetically modified organisms, for example in lab-oratories, while the Ministry of the Environment isresponsible for coordination between the minis-tries as regards the release of and trade involvinggenetically modified organisms. Gene technologyis a rapidly changing field, and Norway is heavilyinfluenced by international developments. It is

therefore important to take preventive action na-tionally, as follows:1. A prohibition against genes for resistance to

antibiotics in foods and feedstuffs. Strict crite-ria must be used to evaluate whether suchgenes are to be permitted in other geneticallymodified products .

2. When national funding is provided for the de-velopment of gene technology, research onhealth, the environment, ethics, social benefitsand sustainability shall as far as possible bemade an integral part of the research projects.

3. Environmental impact assessments pursuantto the Gene Technology Act relating to trade inand the release of genetically modified orga-nisms must be carried out in a way that will alsohelp to improve levels of knowledge and ex-pertise at national level.

4. Norway will continue its efforts to persuade theEU to make its legislation in this field stricterand more in line with Norway’s.

5. Priority must be given to support for buildingup expertise in the control and inspection ofproduction and use of genetically modified or-ganisms in developing countries.

In its efforts to follow up the Cartagena Protocol onBiosafety, the government will give special priorityto global rules for labelling and tracing geneticallymodified organisms and to striking a balance vis-à-vis WTO rules.

2.2.4 Avoiding the undesirable introductionof alien species

People have been responsible for the introductionof alien invasive species throughout history and inall parts of the world, both within and betweencontinents. Species have been introduced both de-liberately and accidentally. Through ratification ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity, Norwayhas undertaken «as far as possible and as appropri-ate» to «prevent the introduction of, control oreradicate those alien species which threaten eco-systems, habitats or species». This undertakinghas been incorporated into the national targets setby the government, and will be one of the mostimportant challenges we have to meet in the fu-ture. In addition, there will always be a certainnatural flow of new species into ecosystems. Thisis not included in the concept «introduction of alienspecies».

There are two main reasons why the introduc-tion of alien species is more difficult to deal withthan many other serious environmental problems.



Figure 2.8 Many of Norway’s most important salmon rivers are infested with the salmon parasiteGyrodactylus salaris, which was introduced into Norway with salmon smolt from Sweden. Photo: TorAtle Mo.

Firstly, it is very difficult to predict the impact ofintroducing species to ecosystems where they donot occur naturally. The deliberate introduction ofa species may result in the desired effects, but inmany cases there is a negative impact and theresults are not as anticipated. Secondly, it is gener-ally difficult to reverse the introduction of a spe-cies. If an introduced species becomes securelyestablished, experience shows that it is almost im-possible to eradicate it from the ecosystem. In Nor-way, the following species are good examples ofthis: the waterweed Elodea canadensis, sycamore(Acer pseudoplatanus), mink (Mustela vison), Can-ada goose (Branta canadensis), the kelp Sargas-sum muticum, minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) andthe salmon parasite Gyrodactylus salaris (Figure2.8).

The expansion of trade, tourism and travel, andthe elimination of border controls between Nor-way and the rest of Europe, mean that the intro-duction of alien invasive species is a growing prob-lem for Norway. Legislation and control systemsmust be expanded and improved to prevent theintroduction of alien micro-organisms, fungi,

plants and animals that are a threat to biologicaldiversity. It is particularly important to develop abetter basis for predicting the effects of new spe-cies on natural ecosystems.

There will be few other ways of dealing withthe environmental consequences of imports, otherthan through the existing control system for plantimport, which largely targets weeds, diseases andinsect pests on agricultural plants. There are cur-rently no restrictions on the import of timber fromEuropean countries.

Recently, the introduction of marine organismshas also become a problem, especially the unin-tentional introduction of species with ballast water.Because of the growing volume of oil exports, fargreater volumes of ballast water are now dis-charged into Norwegian waters, together with anyorganisms living in the ballast. This can result inthe establishment of new species. The scale of theproblem is illustrated by the fact that more than 18million tonnes per year of ballast water from vari-ous parts of the world is released into the harbourarea near the crude oil terminal at Sture near Ber-gen.



As regards fresh-water organisms, we have ac-cumulated some knowledge and experience of theeffects of alien invasive species. There are manyexamples both from Norway and from other coun-tries of substantial costs associated with the in-troduction of species. One well-known example isthe unintentional introduction of Gyrodactylus sala-ris to Norwegian salmon rivers, which has resultedin substantial losses. Ecological and economicproblems related to the introduction of alien spe-cies were discussed at a conference on the issue in1996, one of several conferences hosted by Nor-way under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The introduction and import of plants, animalsand micro-organisms to Norway are regulated by anumber of acts and regulations, which are intend-ed to prevent diseases and protect commercial in-terests and natural ecosystems. The legislationand administrative system are designed to meetsectoral responsibilities, including those related tobiodiversity. However, it is clear that national legis-lation and international agreements need to be re-viewed in order to improve coordination and en-

sure that the legislation and administration areconsolidated and cover all aspects of this issue.This will require a joint effort to build up expertiseon alien species.

2.2.5 Ensuring sustainable land use

Larger and larger areas of Norway are being affect-ed by various forms of development and activitiesthat have an impact on biological diversity. If weare to succeed in maintaining biodiversity and en-suring sustainable use, all actors and sectoral auth-orities must follow up the national targets thathave been set, see Chapter 2.1. It is also importantto plan follow-up measures so that particularly val-uable areas and ecosystems are given priority.This means large continuous areas of natural envi-ronment that meet the following criteria:1. There is little disturbance of the environment.2. They include threatened and vulnerable eco-

systems.3. They are particularly representative of Nor-

way’s biological diversity.4. The ecosystems are rare, unique or have spe-

cial biological functions5. They provide habitats for threatened, vulner-

able, rare or commercially important popula-tions and species.

6. They are suitable for cereal production for hu-man consumption.

Construction and other developments that requirelarge areas of land may be in conflict with thetarget of ensuring conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity. This may be true both ofsingle major developments and of the overall effectof a number of smaller projects. All authorities thathave administrative responsibility for changes inland use are expected to integrate biodiversity con-cerns into their policies, legislation, plans and ac-tivities. In the longer term, good systems shouldbe developed for reporting the scale and type ofdisturbance in areas that have been identified ascomprising threatened or vulnerable ecosystems.Other activities may include building up expertiseand developing advisory material for subordinateagencies and relevant sectors.

In order to meet society’s needs, we have tomake use of land and resources. This has conse-quences for both natural and cultivated biologicaldiversity. In the last 40–50 years, breeding pro-grammes and technological advances have in-creased plant and livestock production and greatlyincreased the efficiency of agriculture. Thesechanges were necessary, but they have also result-

Figure 2.9 Remaining areas of wilderness-likehabitat in Norway in 1998 and areas of suchhabitat lost in the period 1940–1998.Wilderness-like areas are defined as being morethan 5 km in a straight line from majorinfrastructure development.Source: Directorate for Nature Management.



ed in many changes in the agricultural landscapeand put great pressure on biodiversity. Road con-struction has also had a major impact: in the last 30years, the total length of the public road systemand forest roads in Norway has risen from 90 000km to more than 200 000 km. The total length ofthe forest roads is now 65 000 km, and in addition,there is a total of 50 000 km of tractor tracks inforest and uncultivated areas. Hydropower devel-opments and the facilities associated with themalso involve a change of land use with major conse-quences for biological diversity. However, 20 percent of Norway’s hydropower potential has beenpermanently protected against development. Thisis one case where society has decided that theintrinsic value of the natural environment takespriority over the substantial economic benefits thatcan be gained by its development and use.

A white paper on the forestry sector (ReportNo. 17 (1998–1999) to the Storting) drew attentionto the fact that forests include areas of special envi-ronmental value, such as wilderness-like areaswithout recent traces of infrastructure develop-ment and areas along permanently protected wa-tercourses. The white paper indicated that morerestrictions on forestry activities should be intro-duced in such areas than in other areas of forest.

Registration of areas without major infrastruc-ture development in the period 1988–1998 hasshown that 74 per cent of the reduction in size ofthese areas during the ten-year period was a resultof road construction in the agricultural sector (Fig-ure 2.9). Forest roads are often built with the helpof public grants. In a number of cases, the roadswould probably not be constructed if no grantswere available, because the areas in question arenot very productive and operating costs are high.

The remaining areas of forest without majorinfrastructure development are very valuable foroutdoor recreation and for the opportunities theyoffer to experience undisturbed nature, and mayalso be important in terms of biodiversity. Theyoften include large continuous areas of old-growthforest, and are therefore important for species thatare dependent on large areas of this type of habitat.In addition, a number of Red List species that needa stable microclimate and specific habitats are like-ly to have relatively large, viable populations insuch forests. Road construction followed by inten-sive felling in such areas results in fragmentationof the old-growth forest, and can have a negativeimpact on various species because the size andquality of their habitats is reduced. Road construc-tion generally results in more traffic in nearby ar-eas and is often followed by the construction of

cabins: these changes may have a negative impacton species that are sensitive to disturbance.

Both economic and other instruments shouldbe used to ensure that the environmental quality oflarge areas of old-growth forest is maintained.

More knowledge of the value of such areas forbiological diversity is needed. As a continuation ofthe «Living Forests» project, a review of the litera-ture on the importance of old-growth forest forbiodiversity is to be made. In addition, the Ministryof the Environment and the Ministry of Agricul-ture, together with the Directorate for NatureManagement, are starting cooperation to gathermore information on species, develop quality as-surance routines for the Red Lists, etc. This coop-eration is based on processes that are already un-der way and is also to be linked to work on thespecies data bank and environmental monitoring.The cooperation is intended to include work onundisturbed areas of forest and on threatened andvulnerable forest species in order to improve ourknowledge of the issues discussed above.

The Planning and Building Act is an importantlegislative instrument as regards land use and theconservation of biological diversity. It was dis-cussed in some detail in Report No. 29 (1996–1997) to the Storting on regional planning andland-use policy. The purpose of the act is to ensurecoordinated planning as a basis for the use andprotection of land and other natural resources. Itprovides the legal authority for several differenttypes of planning processes:1. The act gives the municipalities responsibility

for adopting municipal master plans, includingthe land-use part of such plans, and local devel-opment plans. Both types of plans are legallybinding provided that the plans adopted are inagreement with the framework and targets setby national and regional authorities.

2. Within the same system, the municipalities canadopt plans dealing with specific topics or spe-cific areas. The relevant central authoritieshave both a right and a duty to play a part inmunicipal planning processes in order to en-sure that national policies are taken into con-sideration and implemented. This is an impor-tant element of municipal planning.

3. The act lays down that county plans may in-clude guidelines for municipal-level planning,and if necessary also for planning across mu-nicipal boundaries.

4. According to the act, the government may laydown national policy guidelines that must beused as a basis for municipal and county plan-ning, by any relevant sectors when they partici-



pate in municipal planning, and in the munici-palities’ own sectoral activities if so decided.

5. The act lays down that if necessary, the centralauthorities may require the adoption of a localdevelopment plan, for example if required byimportant considerations of the public interest,and regulations may be laid down pursuant tothe act, for example giving guidelines for howbiological diversity considerations are to betaken into account in decisions on the use ofland and natural resources.

6. The act also contains provisions requiring envi-ronmental impact assessment before any deci-sion is made to start major development pro-jects.

7. The act also contains provisions on buildingapplications. These specify the types of build-ing projects and projects involving alteration ofthe terrain for which a permit is required, andthus the projects for which the various planshave legal effect.

The legislation for a number of administrative sec-tors contains provisions relating to land use in ad-dition to provisions regulating the sector itself. Im-portant examples are the Land Act, the ForestryAct, the Nature Conservation Act, the CulturalHeritage Act, the Act relating to Salmonids andFresh-water Fish, the Roads Act, the WatercourseRegulation Act, the Water Resources Act, the En-ergy Act and the Pollution Control Act.

The municipalities have responsibilities and ex-ercise authority pursuant to a number of acts relat-ing to specific sectors. It is important for both themunicipalities and the administrative bodies re-sponsible for these sectors to take active steps tofulfil their responsibility for the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity in areaswhere they have authority, for example by resolv-ing conflicts by means of open and transparentplanning processes. The same applies to the cen-tral authorities for these sectors. The interests ofparticular actors and overall policy considerationsmust be weighed up and used as a basis for deci-sions.

Sustainable land use is essential to prevent theloss of biological diversity. In addition, certain ar-eas must be protected against use, in some casesby means of direct protection measures to safe-guard threatened and vulnerable species and theirhabitats. The sectoral legislation for which the en-vironmental authorities are responsible is largelydesigned to ensure conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity. Other sectoral authori-ties are administratively responsible for legislation

that is primarily intended to ensure economicgrowth, and where the degree to which the princi-ple of sustainable use is incorporated varies. Bothenvironmental and other sectoral legislation mustbe developed in such a way that biological diversi-ty concerns are properly incorporated.

In the most recent white paper on the Govern-ment’s environmental policy and the state of theenvironment in Norway (Report No. 24 (2000–2001) to the Storting), the government approved anew national target for biological diversity whichreads as follows: «The needs of future generationsshall be taken into account when managing soilresources that are suitable for cereal production.»

Only about three per cent of the total area ofNorway is used for agriculture, and only about onethird of this is suitable for cereal production forhuman consumption. Long-term conservation ofsoil resources is therefore an important element ofNorway’s environmental policy. Long-term conser-vation of areas where cereal for human consump-tion can be grown is important because these re-sources are in scarce supply. It does not matterwhether or not such areas are in active use foragricultural production today, provided that theyare not irreversibly developed for other purposes.

The municipalities and control of land use

Biological diversity is part of the municipalities’natural resource capital. It provides the basis forlocal wealth creation and for the local population’swelfare and sense of identity. Norway’s municipal-ities control and influence land use in both thepublic and the private sector through the Planningand Building Act. This means that the municipal-ities have a very important part to play in safe-guarding national biodiversity by following up thegovernment’s targets and thus helping to ensurethat the objectives of the Convention are achieved.Both the Local Government Act and the Planningand Building Act give Norwegian municipalities agreat deal of authority and a high degree of autono-my, but this also means that they must take anindependent responsibility for maintaining up todate information on their own land and naturalresources, including biological diversity. The mu-nicipalities’ knowledge of these issues and the waythey approach them will be of crucial importancein efforts to safeguard biodiversity in the yearsahead.

The municipalities and the Ministry of the En-vironment have cooperated in a number of ways tobuild up local environmental expertise and ensurethat national environmental targets are followed up



by the local administration. The most extensivecooperation project, the local environmental devel-opment programme, ran from 1991 to 1996, andplans for it were set out in Report No. 34 (1990–1991) on environmental protection at local level. Inits response to the white paper (RecommendationS. No. 190 (1990–1991)), the Storting stated thatlocal politicians must take their share of the re-sponsibility for efforts to follow up national targets,both to ensure that obligations under internationalenvironmental agreements are met and to improvethe quality of the local environment. It also empha-sized that one important task for the municipalitieswas to strengthen environmental protection effortsby building up expertise, particularly in land-useplanning, nature management and general ecol-ogy. Furthermore, the Storting stressed the impor-tance of an approach based on solidarity in thewidest sense of the word, including all forms of lifeand future generations, and concluded that ecolog-ical considerations must be used as a basis for alllocal administration and all decisions at municipallevel.

In order to follow up the principles describedabove as regards the Convention on Biological Di-versity, important tasks will be to develop metho-dology, produce guidelines and information mate-rial and develop the available databases, for exam-ple by means of GIS technology. These are toolsthat are being prepared for the municipalities foruse in planning processes, both for the land usepart of the municipal master plan and for plansfocusing on biological diversity, in which the mu-nicipalities can identify and classify areas of partic-ular importance for biodiversity.

The Directorate for Nature Management hasdrawn up manuals describing standardized meth-ods for surveying and classifying valuable biologi-cal diversity: there are separate manuals for eco-systems, wildlife, marine biodiversity and fresh-water localities. The Norwegian Red List of threat-ened species, last published in 1999, identifies thethreatened species that are to be given priority insurveys of biodiversity. The manual on surveyingecosystems was prepared in cooperation with sev-eral sectors and deals with the valuation of biologi-cal diversity.

The manuals should be used by all sectors in-volved in surveys of biodiversity, and are a usefultool for municipalities that are taking part in thevoluntary programme to survey biological diversi-ty and identify and classify its value, which wasstarted in 1999. By the end of 2000, about 170municipalities had begun to survey and classify thevalue of different areas within their boundaries, so

that the programme is making an important contri-bution to a nationwide survey of biodiversity. Thevaluation of areas according to their importancefor biological diversity will be an essential basis forplanning in accordance with both national targetsand the principle of sustainable use of biodiversity.At a later stage, it will be useful for the municipal-ities to make annual reports to the central authori-ties on the consequences of changes in land use inthe areas that are most important for biologicaldiversity, and the status of surveys and plannedmunicipal activities. It is planned to develop rou-tines for reporting as part of the KOSTRA project,which is developing a system of annual reportingfrom the municipalities to the central administra-tion.

Agenda 21 was adopted at the Rio conferencein 1992 together with the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. This is a global plan of action based onthe idea of dialogue across administrative bounda-ries and other dividing lines in society, such as theresponsibilities and roles of authorities, businessand industry and voluntary organizations. Partici-pation by indigenous peoples is considered veryimportant, and local authorities are urged to taketheir share of responsibility for the processthrough the development of Local Agendas 21. InNorway, the municipalities have indicated theirwillingness to participate through the FredrikstadDeclaration, adopted at a conference held in 1998in the town of Fredrikstad. This marked the begin-ning of the Local Agenda 21 process in Norway.The declaration has been endorsed by about halfof all Norway’s municipalities and all the counties.The Ministry of the Environment is cooperatingwith the Norwegian Association of Local and Re-gional Authorities and the Sámediggi (Sami parlia-ment) in efforts to facilitate and encourage localparticipation through Local Agenda 21 processes.At local level, land use, resources, wealth creation,welfare, and provision for children and young peo-ple are all elements that are important in relation tosustainable management of biological diversity.

Other sectoral legislation, for example the Wa-ter Resources Act, also provides the legal authorityfor decisions on the location of developments thatmay have a significant impact on land use. Biodi-versity concerns will be given considerable weightwhen the pros and cons of the proposed location ofsuch projects are being weighed up.

2.2.6 Avoiding pollution

Pollution is an important cause of the loss of bio-logical diversity, and national targets relating to



pollution are therefore important in relation to theconservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity. One important task in this field is to docu-ment the impacts of pollution. Changes in the pol-lution load can be used as an indicator for changesin biological diversity. All inputs of pollutants havesome biological effect, and efforts to combat pollu-tion have been given high priority for many years.Municipal discharges and emissions from industryand agriculture are well-known: much has alreadybeen done to reduce pollution from these sources,and they are followed up continuously. Other pri-ority areas of great importance for biodiversity aremore complex to deal with and in their impacts.The most important are acidification, emissions ofhazardous chemicals and emissions of greenhousegases.

Acidification

Although international agreements have resultedin substantial reductions in emissions of sulphurand nitrogen from Norway and the rest of Europein the last 10–15 years, acidification is still one ofthe most serious threats to the environment inNorway. Between 80 and 90 per cent of acidifyingsubstances originate from other countries in Eu-rope and enter the Norwegian environment as aresult of long-range transport. Sulphur and nitro-gen in air and precipitation are monitored by anationwide network of measuring stations in orderto register trends in the deposition of acidifyingsubstances. Calculations show that critical loadsfor acidification of surface water are exceededacross almost 20 per cent of the country. Even ifthe full reductions set out in the new GothenburgProtocol under the Convention on Long-rangeTransboundary Air Pollution are achieved, criticalloads for acidification will still be exceeded across7–8 per cent of Norway after 2010. Most of the areaaffected will be in the southern half of the country.Sulphur emissions are mainly related to industrialprocesses and metal production, while emissionsof nitrogen are largely generated by coastal ship-ping and road traffic. The action that has beentaken to reduce acidification is a good example ofhow successful cooperation across sectoral and na-tional borders can help to safeguard biodiversity.

Hazardous chemicals

Emissions and use of hazardous chemicals consti-tute one of the most serious threats to biologicaldiversity worldwide. Hazardous chemicals enterthe Norwegian environment both as a result ofdirect releases to air, water and soil from Norwe-gian sources and as a result of long-range transportvia the atmosphere and ocean currents. The largevolume of international trade in products that con-tain hazardous chemicals is also an importantcause of their dispersal across national borders.During the last 50 years, the numbers and quanti-ties of chemicals used have risen alarmingly.There are now 8 000 – 10 000 chemical substancesin about 50 000 chemical products on the Norwe-gian market. Many of these substances are harm-ful to health and the environment, and most end upin the environment sooner or later and may thushave an impact on the state of the environment. Anumber of chemicals are only very slowly degrad-ed in the environment and can therefore accumu-late in food chains, thus representing a seriousthreat to biological diversity. The most dangerouschemicals, including persistent organic pollutants

Box 2.3

TBT (tributyltin) is an endocrine disruptorthat has negative effects on reproduction andis extremely toxic to marine organisms. Seri-ous environmental effects caused by TBT havebeen documented along the Norwegian coast.For example, the use of TBT in antifoulingpaints for ships has caused female dogwhelksto develop male sexual organs and thus be-come sterile. This phenomenon is called impo-sex, and can threaten whole populations ofdogwhelks along the coast.

Figure 2.10. Dogwhelk (Nucella lapidus). Thespecies is found from Gibraltar to Greenlandand is common all along the Norwegiancoast. Photo: Erling Svensen.



such as PCBs and dioxins, can cause damage evenat very low concentrations. Hazardous chemicalscan reduce fertility or damage the immune system,the nervous system and other internal organs andthus threaten individuals, populations and species.For example, earlier releases of heavy metals suchas lead, copper, cadmium, mercury and zinc frommines and industry have harmed or wiped out liv-ing organisms in a number of lakes and streams.Residues of pesticides have been found in manystreams and rivers as a result of run-off from in-tensively farmed areas. In some cases, they havebeen found at concentrations close to those thatmay have a negative impact on aquatic ecosys-tems. Some river systems that were previously un-affected are now believed to be under constantpressure from the deposition of hazardous chem-icals as a result of long-range atmospheric trans-port. Such chemicals gradually accumulate in ani-mals and plants and in bottom sediments, and candamage the fauna and flora if concentrations reach

critical levels. In addition, acidification of the aq-uatic environment releases hazardous metals.High concentrations of lead have been found in theliver and kidneys of black grouse and willowgrouse in southern parts of Norway. The lead orig-inates largely from long-range transport of air pol-lutants. The levels are currently under those thatcause mortality or reproductive failure in thesespecies.

There are very high concentrations of hazard-ous chemicals in bottom sediments and biologicalmaterial from many fjords where substantial inputsof pollution from land-based industry, mining andbuilt-up areas have persisted for long periods oftime. Disruption of the hormonal system has alsobeen observed in animals such as dogwhelks thatlive in the marine environment (see Box 2.3 andFigure 2.10). This is probably caused by exposureto chemicals that mimic the effects of hormones,and can threaten populations of the species thatare affected.

Box 2.4 Polar bears and hazardous chemicals

It has been shown that the long-range transportof pollutants to the Arctic via the atmosphere,ocean currents and ice has negative effects onpolar bears in the Svalbard region. Special atten-tion is being paid to PCBs. An international sur-vey in 1998 showed that concentrations of PCBsin polar bears in this area are up to six times thelevels found in Alaska and three times those inCanada. PCBs can be traced back to emissions inNorth America and Europe. Experiments haveshown that PCBs weaken the immune system ofpolar bears. The numbers of white blood cellsand the amounts of antibodies they produceagainst diseases are reduced on exposure to thelevels of PCBs found in Svalbard and the BarentsSea. Heavy loads of PCBs have also been shownto have a negative impact on the production ofsex hormones, stress hormones, hormones thatregulate metabolism, and Vitamin A. In recentyears, 1.5 per cent of all polar bears that havebeen tagged have been females with abnormallydeveloped male sexual organs. No such individu-als have been registered in the American or Can-adian Arctic. One hypothesis is that the level ofintersex or pseudohermaphroditism is caused byhigh concentrations of PCBs. Cancer tumours inthe adrenal cortex or ovaries of female bears se-crete male sex hormones that can be transferred

to their cubs via the placenta. Suppression ofimmune function caused by PCBs has also beendemonstrated in the glaucous gull. Indicationsof reduced survival rates have been found inpopulations of both polar bear and glaucous gull.Recent research on polar bears and persistentorganic pollutants has also shown measurableconcentrations of brominated flame retardantsand the pesticide toxaphene.

Figure 2.11 Adult female intersex polar bearfrom south-eastern Svalbard with a partly-developed male sexual organ. Photo: AndrewDerocher, Norwegian Polar Institute.



Discharges of oil-contaminated drill cuttingsfrom offshore petroleum activities have resulted inthe pollution of large areas of the sea floor aroundpetroleum installations with oil and chemicals. Asmuch as 100 km2 can be affected around a singleinstallation. Organic compounds such as PCBs,which are only very slowly biodegraded, rapidlybecome concentrated in the short food chains ofthe Arctic. The concentrations that have been reg-istered in animals at the top of food chains, in-cluding mammals such as polar bears (see Box 2.4and Figure 2.11) and seabirds, are well above thelevels at which damage is expected to appear.

Climate

The UN Framework Convention on ClimateChange, like the Convention on Biological Diversi-ty, was adopted at the Rio conference in 1992. TheConvention on Climate Change laid the first vitalfoundation for international efforts to prevent an-thropogenic climate change caused by emissionsof greenhouse gases. It entered into force in 1994,and in 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was adopted underthe convention. The protocol lays down specificemission commitments and opens the way foremissions trading and other flexible mechanismsto achieve these commitments.

Climate change could have very serious nega-tive impacts on biological diversity. It is thereforeof crucial importance that the Convention on Cli-mate Change is followed up effectively and thatwork under this convention and the Convention onBiological Diversity is well-coordinated at both na-tional and international level. Management of for-est resources offers one good example of the needfor coordination. The Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) has calculated the globalpotential for carbon sequestration in forests for theperiod 1995–2050. About 80 per cent of the poten-tial is in tropical forests, which also contain 50–90per cent of the world’s overall biological diversity.Thus, the protection of these areas against defor-estation and clearing for plantation-type forestryshould be a priority for both conventions as ameans of avoiding developments that underminetheir objectives.

The IPCC’s calculations also indicate that theNordic forest areas as a whole will be of little im-portance globally for CO2 sequestration, since theyonly account for 0.04 per cent of the total potential.Nevertheless, the annual uptake of CO2 by Norwe-gian forests is substantial in relation to Norwegianemissions. In 1995, uptake by forests was equiv-alent to 37 per cent of total Norwegian CO2 emis-

sions. In addition to sequestration of CO2 by for-ests, wood has a positive effect as regards climatechange when it is used to replace the use of fossilfuels.

In the Nordic countries, including Norway,more than half of all biological diversity and morethan half of all threatened and vulnerable speciesare associated with forests. The work of followingup the white paper will include a review of howcoordinated strategies can be drawn up to takemaximum advantage of synergies in the furtherdevelopment of the two Rio conventions.

2.2.7 Enhancing international cooperation

The Convention on Biological Diversity is to befurther developed on the basis of its provisions andthrough new agreements in the form of protocols.The Ministry of the Environment is coordinatingthis work in Norway. The parties to the Conven-tion have decided to develop the content of itsprovisions further by means of thematic work pro-grammes addressing marine and coastal biodi-versity, agricultural biodiversity, forest biodiversi-ty and the biodiversity of inland waters, and aprogramme of work on the implementation of Arti-cle 8(j). Norway considers it important to ensurethat operational principles, criteria and indicatorsfor the sustainable use of biological diversity aredeveloped in the work programmes. Norway isparticularly well-qualified to contribute to the workprogrammes on marine and coastal biodiversityand the biodiversity of inland waters.

It is of crucial importance to ensure that thereis a sound scientific basis for following up the Con-vention. This is an essential basis for achievingsustainable use of biodiversity. Sound knowledgeis needed to meet the challenges posed by theConvention and to develop a joint understanding ofthe need to implement the right measures. It is aweakness of the Convention on Biological Diversi-ty that it has no associated scientific body to servethe same purpose as the IPCC does for the ClimateChange Convention. At the Fifth Conference of theParties (COP 5) in 2000, Norway proposed the useof scientific panels, and received support for this.Norway has also arranged three conferences and aworkshop in Trondheim to provide a forum forscientific dialogue between representatives of in-dustrial and developing countries on central topicsunder the Convention. These have focused on ba-sic knowledge, building up expertise, and formu-lating recommendations that for further cooper-ation under the Convention. Norway plans to con-tinue this series of conferences, which have been



jointly arranged by the Ministry of the Environ-ment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministryof Agriculture, the Ministry of Fisheries and rele-vant UN bodies.

The commitments to national action under theConvention lay heavy burdens on developing coun-tries, which are stewards of a substantial propor-tion of the world’s biological diversity. To ensureequitable distribution of benefits and burdens, theindustrial countries have undertaken to help devel-oping countries by contributing financing, trans-fers of technology and appropriate action. TheGlobal Environment Facility (GEF) is the financialmechanism for global action under the Conven-tion. The GEF has invested about USD 0.75 billionin projects to address the loss of biodiversity, andby doing this has triggered co-financing from othersources totalling almost USD1.25 billion. The Nor-wegian government supports the use of GEF fund-ing to encourage the implementation of the Con-vention in developing countries. The equitable dis-tribution of benefits and burdens is an importantprinciple of the Convention, and also emphasizesits development dimension. Support for the Con-vention is therefore a central element of Norwe-gian environment and development programmes,based on developing countries’ own priorities intheir national strategies and action plans for imple-mentation of the Convention. Norway seeks to en-sure that projects on conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity within the framework ofits environmental assistance focus on the imple-mentation of developing countries’ national strate-gies and action plans for following up the Conven-tion. There is special emphasis on institutional de-velopment, capacity-building and local participa-tion.

Norway will focus particularly on cooperationin the Nordic region and in Europe to follow up anddevelop the Convention. This is important for Nor-way because of the close economic and politicalties within the region, and because biological di-versity and many of the most important environ-mental pressures are transboundary in nature.Norway will follow up the action plan for sustain-

able development in the Nordic region adopted bythe Nordic Council of Ministers. This is entitledNew Bearings for the Nordic Countries, and coversthe period 2001–2004. The plan is based on a strat-egy with a 20-year perspective for the developmentof a sustainable Nordic region. The strategy in-volves wide-ranging commitments for the Nordiccountries at both national and Nordic level. Thefollowing priority areas will be important: strength-ening Nordic participation in international proc-esses, following up the Cartagena Protocol, pro-moting public access to the countryside, develop-ing methods for monitoring biological diversity,the importance of safeguarding cultural land-scapes, safeguarding the variation in Nordic land-scape types, intensifying work on the Arctic envi-ronment, continuing the development of a genebank for Atlantic salmon and developing huntingwithin the framework of sustainable development.Action within each of these priority areas is dis-cussed in the chapters of the white paper contrib-uted by individual ministries. It will also be veryimportant to cooperate more closely with the EUon following up the Convention, for example onEU directives that are related to biological diversi-ty. Cooperation on the Pan-European Biologicaland Landscape Diversity Strategy will also be con-tinued. The strategy is sponsored by the Council ofEurope and UNEP’s Regional Office for Europe,and is an important element in implementation ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity.

The content and provisions of the Conventionon Biological Diversity must be taken into accountand promoted in all relevant international forawithin nature management, industry, trade, Eu-ropean cooperation, human rights, democracy-building and development cooperation. If Norwayis to play its part here, all the country’s internation-al activities must be coordinated effectively. Allsectors must therefore ensure that the importanceof the Convention is recognized in their interna-tional activities, in consultation with the Ministryof the Environment and the Ministry of ForeignAffairs.



3 A new policy: towards knowledge-based management ofbiological diversity

An analysis of the seven main tasks discussed inChapter 2 and the contributions by individual mini-stries shows that joint efforts are needed in threeareas:1. Surveys and monitoring programmes to identi-

fy and classify the value of biodiversity.2. Coordination of legal and economic instru-

ments to provide a better basis for joint mana-gement of biodiversity.

3. Coordination of information, research and ex-pertise as a scientific basis for management ofbiodiversity by all sectors.

The most important conclusion drawn by the go-vernment in the white paper is that it is necessaryto establish a new management system for biologi-cal diversity. This conclusion is the result of a jointprocess involving all Norway’s 17 ministries. Thenew system is discussed in more detail in section3.1, and the joint action that is to be taken as part ofeach of the seven main tasks listed in Chapter 2 isdescribed in section 3.2.

3.1 Main conclusion of the whitepaper: a new management systemfor biodiversity is needed

A new management system needs to be establis-hed in Norway to prevent unnecessary loss of bio-logical diversity. The new system will require theidentification of areas that are of great value forbiodiversity. To obtain this information, surveysand monitoring programmes must be initiated, in-cluding the establishment of a species data bank(see Figure 3.2).

Information on areas of great value for biodi-versity must be readily available. This will providethe factual basis for management at central, regio-nal and local level.

To ensure the conservation and sustainablemanagement of biological diversity, legislative andeconomic instruments must be coordinated. Theymust also focus on areas that are of great value forbiodiversity (Figure 3.2).

Work is already in progress on the legislativeinstruments. A committee has been appointed toevaluate the legislation on biological diversity andrelevant sectoral legislation. Another committee isevaluating amendments to the Planning and Buil-ding Act to ensure that it takes biodiversity con-cerns more fully into account.

A review of all economic instruments that mayhave an impact on biological diversity will also beinitiated. The review will consider changes in exis-ting policy instruments and the need for new onesthat clearly target areas of great value for biologi-cal diversity.

The government’s new management system isto be knowledge-based. Information, research andexpertise will constitute the scientific basis for thedevelopment of the new system, which is to bebuilt up in the period 2001–2005 (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1 The topshell Gibbula tumida is foundall along the Norwegian coastline. It is commonfrom the littoral zone and down to a depth ofabout 130 m. It lives on small algae and deadalgal material. Water-colour by Annegi Eide.



Figure 3.2 Areas of great value for biological diversity are to be identified. This is to be done bymeans of surveys, monitoring programmes and the development of a species data bank. Legislativeand economic instruments are to be adapted to protect the most valuable areas. Information,research and expertise are to be used for quality assurance of the system and to develop it into auseful tool for all parts of the central government and local administration.



3.2 Joint action forming part of theseven main tasks in the period2001–2005

3.2.1 Identifying cross-sectoral and sectoralresponsibilities and coordinating theuse of policy instruments

3.2.1.1 Cross-sectoral and sectoralresponsibilities

The Storting and the government have clearly laiddown the responsibility of all sectors for sustai-nable management in relation to both biodiversityand consumption. This responsibility has been es-tablished in various official documents, including:– Act of 16 July 1999 No. 69 relating to public

procurement,– Report No. 46 (1988–1989) to the Storting on

environment and development,– Report No. 58 (1996–1997) to the Storting on

an environmental policy for sustainable deve-lopment,

– Report No. 40 (1998–1999) to the Storting onconsumer policy,

– White papers on the government’s environ-mental policy and the state of the environmentin Norway (Reports No. 8 (1999–2000) and No.24 (2000–2001) to the Storting).

This chapter contains the government’s proposalsfor measures that require joint action, based on thedescription of cross-sectoral and sectoral responsi-bilities in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.1.1).

3.2.1.2 Coordinating the use of policyinstruments

Legislative instruments

A committee appointed by the government is toconsider whether a separate act relating to biodi-versity should be proposed, and if so how its scopeis to be delimited in relation to that of sectoral actsdealing with this field (box 3.1). The committee isalso to consider whether the existing Nature Con-servation Act should be incorporated into a newbiodiversity act. Moreover, the committee will revi-ew the ways in which it would be appropriate tolink a new biodiversity act to other legislation un-der the Ministry of the Environment, particularlythe Wildlife Act, the Act relating to salmonids andfresh-water fish, the Cultural Heritage Act, theOutdoor Recreation Act and the Act relating tomotor traffic on uncultivated land and in water-courses.

The evaluation of new legislation on biologicaldiversity is to include a review of general principlesfor the conservation and sustainable use of biologi-cal diversity, which are to apply to all sectors. Thisis to be based on the current distribution of re-sponsibility and authority between the Ministry ofthe Environment and other ministries. Legislationfor the various sectors will be retained: this in-cludes the Forestry Act, the Land Act, the waterresources and energy legislation, the AquacultureAct, the Act relating to sea-water fisheries, the Actrelating to seeds and other propagative material,the Act relating to plant health, the Act relating toanimal health and the Act relating to pesticides.

One desire expressed by several ministries isfor work to be started on the regulation of access toand the equitable sharing of the benefits arisingfrom the utilization of genetic resources, partly as away of following up the report from the interminis-terial working group on the EU biotech patentsdirective. This will be another of the tasks of thecommittee reviewing legislation on biodiversity.

Box 3.1 Coordination of legislativeinstruments

The government has appointed a committee toreview a new legislative basis for coordinatedmanagement of biodiversity. The committee isto evaluate the legislation that should be in-corporated into a single act relating to biodi-versity. It will also consider the relationshipbetween this and existing acts. The mandateof the committee also includes a review of thelegislation governing the introduction of alieninvasive species and the legislation governingaccess to and the use of naturally occurringgenetic resources. Other issues within themandate of the committee are described inChapter 2.

The Planning and Building Act is not beingconsidered by this committee, but by a sepa-rate committee appointed to review the plan-ning legislation.

The government will consider whether na-tional policy guidelines for biodiversity shouldbe drawn up. These should be coordinatedwith other relevant policy instruments, inclu-ding the national programme to survey andmonitor biological diversity. A high level ofprecision can be achieved by linking the natio-nal policy guidelines to GIS-based data sets.



Box 3.2 Coordination of economicinstruments

The Ministry of Finance and other ministriesthat are involved are to start a review of theuse of economic instruments in 2001 and putforward any proposals that are formulated inthe course of 2003.

The tasks included in the review are asfollows:– To identify state-level financial arrange-

ments, grants, subsidies, transfers, and fi-nancing, loan, guarantee and compensa-tion schemes that have an impact on bi-odiversity.

– To review all these arrangements to evalu-ate what impact they have on biodiversity,and to consider how they can be altered totake into account biodiversity concerns orincorporate criteria or conditions to avoiddamage to or loss of biodiversity.

– To propose amendments on the basis ofthe review, including a time schedule gi-ving an order of priority and specifyingwho is to be responsible for further work.

– To review the possibility of introducing aland use tax. This review will take into ac-count the review of legislative instrumentsand other green taxes.

– To take steps to ensure that the use ofeconomic instruments by the various sec-tors to conserve biological diversity is re-flected in their budgets.

The ministries involved have also asked forsteps to be taken to strengthen the legislation andcontrol routines relating to the introduction of ali-en species. This is another of the committee’stasks, but immediate action may also be neededwhere there is a risk of damage to biological diver-sity. Under the existing legislation, it is alreadypossible to ensure that the deliberate release ofalien species is based on comprehensive risk ana-lyses that include adverse effects on biodiversity,and to require monitoring programmes to be carri-ed out. The government will also establish controlroutines and satisfactory coordination between theauthorities in this field, so that the undesirableimport and spread of alien species can be moreeffectively prevented and detected at an early sta-ge. In order to do this, expertise in the field mustbe strengthened, and advisory material will be de-veloped for subordinate agencies and relevantbranches.

The Planning and Building Act governs deci-sions on land use and the use of natural resources,and is therefore an important legislative instru-ment for safeguarding biological diversity. In all,about 80 per cent of the total area of Norway hasbeen designated as agricultural areas, areas of na-tural environment and outdoor recreation areas inapproved municipal master plans. The governmentwill consider possible changes in the rules thatapply to areas in these categories.

The Planning and Building Act is also a tool forweighing up the importance of different user inter-ests and purposes in lakes, rivers and in relation tocoastal areas. The management of marine resour-ces is largely governed by sectoral legislation.

Open and democratic planning processes pur-suant to the Planning and Building Act help tomaintain a balance between business and indu-strial activities, conservation, and compensatorymeasures, so that integrated solutions can befound for society as a whole and developments arebased on the sustainable use of resources.

Economic instruments

The state administers many different economicschemes including grants, subsidies, taxes, andloan and guarantee schemes. The primary purposeof all of these arrangements is to stimulate deve-lopments in specific fields that will benefit societyas a whole, in accordance with the government’spolicies. However, it is important to ensure thatthese arrangements are administered in such away that they do not unnecessarily conflict withthe government’s objective of ensuring the conser-

vation and sustainable use of biological diversity.This means that it is necessary to consider chan-ges in economic schemes for those areas that areidentified as being particularly important for bio-diversity (see Figure 3.2).

A similar review will be necessary in connec-tion with the incorporation of biodiversity con-cerns into the criteria for the official eco-labellingsystems and into consumer policy measures rela-ting to sustainable production and consumption.

Many development projects can have irrever-sible effects on biological diversity. In such cases,the developer uses up or depletes assets of value tosociety as a whole, and benefits from this in finan-cial terms. This is why it is relevant to consider aseparate land use tax that the state or municipalauthorities could, subject to further conditions,levy on a developer to compensate for develop-



Box 3.3 Coordination of information andexpertise

The Ministry of the Environment will, in con-sultation with the Ministry of Education andResearch, the Ministry of Labour and Govern-ment Administration, the Norwegian CentralInformation Service and other relevant mini-stries, propose joint action to improve the flowof information and build up expertise. This willbe important in the development of the newmanagement system for biological diversity.One step should be to develop an interminis-terial information strategy for biological diver-sity.

ments in areas of particular value for biologicaldiversity (Box 3.2).

Organizational instruments

The white paper makes it clear that there are widevariations in the information available in differentsectors and the expertise they possess to take bi-odiversity concerns into account. A recurrent the-me in the chapters by individual ministries is theneed for more information and to build up admini-strative capacity in the field of biological diversity(Box 3.3).

The committee appointed by the governmentto review the legislation on environmental infor-mation presented a report on its recommendationsin 2001. The committee recommended that stricterrequirements should be introduced for all sectorsto provide information on aspects of their activitiesthat may have a significant impact on the environ-ment. Provisions to this effect were included in adraft act on the right to environmental information.They include a statutory requirement for the pu-blic authorities to obtain information on the stateof the environment and a duty to make such infor-mation available to the public. To fulfil the require-ments proposed by the committee, it will be essen-tial for the ministries to cooperate more closely oninformation and expertise in this field.

In order for Norway to follow up its commit-ments under the Convention on Biological Diversi-ty satisfactorily, a high degree of coordination ofpolicy instruments and cooperation between sec-tors will be required. Three important conclusionscan be drawn from experience gained during thedevelopment of the result monitoring system, from

the action plans for biological diversity producedby seven ministries in 1994 and from the sectoralenvironmental action plans:1. It has been easier for each sector to identify

and carry out pollution-related measures than itis to do the same in the fields of nature manage-ment and biodiversity. This is because pollu-tion control policy deals with measurable pro-blems, because of the way the legislation isdesigned and because the required results canbe quantified, whereas the value assigned toareas and resources is largely based on qualita-tive assessments.

2. In pollution control policy, requirements rela-ting to emissions, the use of chemicals andre-use are largely determined by standards thatare the same for all administrative sectors. Thismakes cross-sectoral control possible. To achi-eve the same results for biodiversity, betterdata must be obtained through surveys andmonitoring programmes. This will form the ba-sis for management by all sectors.

3. The results of pollution control measures aregenerally immediately apparent to local com-munities. In contrast, measures to protect bio-logical diversity maintain the status quo and donot have obvious short-term results. This af-fects the level of motivation for action and con-trol measures to meet biodiversity concerns inthe central and local authorities. It also influen-ces the reasoning that can be used in discus-sions with business and industry and voluntaryorganizations.

These conclusions are in general agreement withthose of the 17 ministries involved, and demonstra-te the need for greater joint efforts across sectors.

Cooperation with voluntary organizations

Steps to follow up important action described inthis white paper will be greatly helped by the parti-cipation of voluntary organizations. It will be parti-cularly important to support NGOs such as SABI-MA (the Norwegian Council for the Conservationof Biodiversity) and make use of their broad-ba-sed, nationwide biological expertise and practicalexperience. The development of cooperation bet-ween voluntary organizations and the central go-vernment will be a priority in the period 2001–2005. Funds will be earmarked for municipal sur-veys of biodiversity by the organizations.



Box 3.4 National programme to survey and monitor biological diversity, including theestablishment of a species data bank

Aims of the programme

A national programme is to be established tosurvey and monitor biological diversity, inclu-ding ecosystems, species and genetic resources.The programme will provide a framework forcoordinated efforts to obtain information on bio-logical diversity and thus enable Norway to ma-nage its natural environment in accordance withthe target of conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity.

The aims of the programme are to obtaininformation on:– the location and value of areas that are im-

portant for biological diversity– changes in biological diversity over time– the causes of such changes and proposals for

action– evaluation the effects of action that is taken.

It must also be possible to incorporate the resultsinto the national system for result monitoring bythe various sectors. Furthermore, the results mustdocument to extent to which the national targetsand strategic objectives set by the government arebeing achieved, and meet requirements for repor-ting at Nordic and European level and for otherinternational reporting. Important results are to bepresented in the periodic white paper on the Go-vernment’s environmental policy and the state ofthe environment in Norway and will be made av-ailable on the Internet. The results of the program-me are to be available to the public.

Progress plans

– The cross-sectoral committee is to start itswork in 2001.

– The establishment of a species data bank isto start in 2001. This work is to proceed rapid-ly, so that the data bank has been establishedand is operative by 2003.

– By 2003, a coordinated system for surveyingand monitoring biological diversity is to beavailable, including agreed criteria for classi-fying the value of habitats. Data for areas who-se value has been classified are to be enteredin a GIS-based database linked to the AREAL-IS project. A similar system should be develo-ped for recording data from marine areas. By

2003, these databases will be operational andavailable to the public administration.

– By 2005, all elements of the national pro-gramme are to be operative. Data collectionwill continue.

Progress will depend on allocations in the annualbudgets.

Organization

The work is being headed by the Ministry of theEnvironment, which is responsible for coordina-tion and the progress of the programme. The Di-rectorate for Nature Management is functioningas the secretariat. The Ministry of Fisheries, Mi-nistry of Agriculture, Ministry of Petroleum andEnergy, Ministry of Education and Research, Mi-nistry of Transport and Communications, Mini-stry of Defence, Ministry of Local Governmentand Regional Development, Ministry of Tradeand Industry and the Research Council of Norwayare important participants. The Research Councilis responsible for advice on the R&D componentof the programme. A committee consisting of re-presentatives of the ministries involved will followup the work. Working groups at directorate levelwill be appointed as needed, and may includerepresentatives of other relevant institutions. Aworking group to oversee the development of aspecies data bank will be appointed as soon aspossible. International expertise will be drawn in-to the work as needed.

The committee’s tasks

1. Evaluation of current status and proposals foran integrated survey and monitoring programme

When the Directorate for Nature Manage-ment was preparing its plan for monitoring ofbiological diversity, a list was drawn up of cur-rent programmes of relevance to monitoring andsurveying biological diversity. The Directoratealso made proposals for which of these program-mes should be included in an integrated nationalprogramme. The committee is to review and eva-luate this material. Since the Directorate publis-hed its report, several more survey and moni-toring programmes have been started. In addi-tion, the development of the result monitoringsystem has been started.

Box 3.4 continues



Box 3.4 continue

The committee is therefore to:– establish a species data bank– identify the projects and programmes in the

various sectors that meet the recommenda-tions of the plan for monitoring of biologicaldiversity drawn up by the Directorate for Na-ture Management

– obtain an overview of the resources andcosts currently involved in surveys and moni-toring of biological diversity in various sec-tors

– identify important gaps in the current surve-ys and monitoring programmes

– put forward proposals for the expansion oralteration of existing activities and if appro-priate propose new activities or programmes

– suggest priorities for activities and program-mes in order to create an integrated nationalprogramme to survey and monitor biologicaldiversity.

2. Coordination and data managementTo coordinate activities in the national pro-

gramme more closely and make it more cost-effective, the committee is to:– consider the scientific and administrative co-

ordination of various surveys and monitoringprojects and put forward proposals for impro-vement

– clarify who owns the rights to the data collec-ted, for example pursuant to the CopyrightAct

– draw up guidelines for administration of thedata from sectoral projects to improve their

cross-sectoral accessibility. In this connec-tion, projects such as AREALIS, MAREA-NO, the species data bank, the referencesystem for environmental information andState of the Environment Norway should beevaluated

– Ensure that the necessary links to relevantNordic, European and global agreementsand processes are in place.

3. Responsibilities and fundingThe six principles for the responsibilities of

sectoral authorities in connection with surveysand monitoring of the environment set out inthis chapter, and the principles and responsibili-ties described in Chapter 2, must be used as abasis for the proposed national programme.

The committee is to:– propose specific tasks and allocate responsi-

bilities to the various sectors.– make cost-benefit analyses of the program-

mes and activities that are proposed.– within the financial framework that is defi-

ned, put forward proposals for funding for anational programme to survey and monitorbiological diversity, and seek to find an agre-ed model for contributions from each sec-tor. The committee should also make re-commendations for the distribution of re-sponsibility for funding between the munici-palities and the state.

– develop annual budgeting and other routi-nes.

3.2.2 Coordinating and improvingknowledge of biological diversity

3.2.2.1 Surveying and monitoring biologicaldiversity

Knowledge of Norway’s biological diversity and itsgeographical distribution is an essential basis fornational management of biodiversity. The Conven-tion on Biological Diversity also requires parties tothe convention to make overall surveys of theirbiological diversity and monitor its status andtrends.

The government will therefore initiate a natio-nal programme to survey and monitor biologicaldiversity. We still lack an agreed methodology formapping ecosystems and land use. Standard met-hods are also needed for classifying areas accor-

ding to their value for biological diversity and mea-suring these parameters quantitatively, and thedata available are inadequate. The pollution con-trol authorities were in much the same position upto the end of the 1980s, when a state pollutionmonitoring programme with a yearly financialframework of NOK 40 million (ca EUR 5 million)was started up. Through this programme, it waspossible to develop an overview that has enabledthe Norwegian administration to work systemati-cally and effectively to reduce pollution. The Go-vernment intends to use a similar system to deve-lop the management of biodiversity.

To establish an integrated programme to sur-vey and monitor biological diversity, it will be ne-cessary to start more systematic programmes tocollect data on groups such as threatened and vul-



nerable species (Red List species), domestic speci-es and alien species. The government will esta-blish a species data bank (see Box 3.4) as reques-ted by the Storting (Recommendation S No. 256(1999–2000)). The species data bank will also con-tain relevant information on mapped localities.

The ministries involved have together drawnup a mandate for a committee appointed to es-tablish a national programme to survey and moni-tor biological diversity and a species data bank(Box 3.4). The mandate can be elaborated as ne-cessary by the Ministry of the Environment in con-sultation with the relevant ministries. This can bedone if it is necessary to include more topics toensure that the quality of the national programmeis as high as possible.

The government will seek to ensure that theenvironmental data collected are made publicly av-ailable, in accordance with Article 110 of the Nor-wegian Constitution and the objective of the Aar-hus Convention. This is also a basic premise of thedraft act on the right to environmental information.Data on biodiversity must therefore be collectedusing standardized methods. The government willensure that land use and environmental informa-tion is readily accessible by making spatially-re-ferenced data from various surveys and monito-ring programmes available, for example throughAREALIS. This is a national project designed tomake land-use, environmental and planning infor-mation readily available to municipalities andcounties.

The provisions of the Planning and BuildingAct relating to environmental impact assessmentinclude requirements to investigate whether a pro-ject is likely to have a negative impact on biodiver-sity. One step that should be taken vis-à-vis allsectors is to ensure that all surveys of biodiversityrequired by these provisions are compatible withand included in central databases.

At present, surveys and monitoring program-mes are being organized by a number of mini-stries. The chapters of the white paper written byindividual ministries indicate that many of theseprogrammes do not adequately meet sectoral andcross-sectoral responsibilities relating to biologicaldiversity. The programmes must therefore beadapted or developed so that they contribute effec-tively to the national programme to survey andmonitor biological diversity. Some of the existingprogrammes are discussed below.

An important element of efforts to survey andmonitor biological diversity is to obtain data onland use by the agricultural and forestry sectors inrelation to biological diversity. It should be pos-

sible to develop existing registration and moni-toring systems to generate more complete data forthese sectors as well. It is important to ensure thatthe data are available to all authorities and to thegeneral public, which is a basic premise of thedraft act on the right to environmental information.

As regards agriculture, there is limited infor-mation on biological diversity in cultural landsca-pes, including both cultivated and uncultivated are-as. However, a monitoring programme has beenstarted up in cooperation between the Ministry ofAgriculture and the Ministry of the Environment.This deals with baseline monitoring and result mo-nitoring of the agricultural landscape, and revealschanges in the landscape, but does not includecultivated areas in the mountains. The programmemust be further developed to satisfy the require-ments of an expanded survey and monitoring pro-gramme for all cultivated and uncultivated agricul-tural areas.

A rather similar programme has been startedto survey and monitor the state of lichen grazingresources in inland parts of western Finnmarkcounty. This is financed through the reindeer hus-bandry agreement. It is primarily concerned withreindeer grazing, but could be expanded.

Forestry measures, either alone or in combi-nation, have an impact on biodiversity by alteringthe structure and age composition of the forest, thedistribution of different types of forest and the ac-cessibility of areas of forest. It is therefore im-portant that valuable areas are registered and map-ped in a way that can be utilized by the forestryindustry. The «Living Forests» cooperation projectand the forest certification schemes can providemomentum in this work. A major project to surveyareas that are valuable for biological diversity isalready under way, organized by the Ministry ofAgriculture. The first phase, which included thedevelopment of methodology, was completed in2000, and a registration scheme is now being putinto practice. Environmental information fromschemes of this type, which receive public grants,will be made publicly available.

Surveys and monitoring of biological diversityare one of the priority tasks of the Ministry ofFisheries. The ministry and the Institute of MarineResearch have continuous time series of data fromsurveys and monitoring programmes dating backmore than 100 years, particularly for oceanograp-hy and commercial fisheries. The ecosystem ap-proach and multi-species models are used in re-source management and are continually updated.The Institute of Marine Research plays a centralrole in surveys of fisheries, aquaculture, marine



Box 3.5 Coordination of research

To strengthen research on biodiversity and im-prove cooperation across sectors, the Ministryof the Environment, in cooperation with the Mi-nistry of Education and Research and the Rese-arch Council of Norway, is to arrange an openresearch forum for biological diversity in 2001and again in 2003. The discussions should in-clude participants from research institutions,the administration and NGOs, and the aimshould be to achieve a common understandingand agree on recommendations relating to thetopics below. The first forum should proposemeasures to be initiated and the second shouldevaluate how these have been followed up. Thethree central topics should be as follows:– What can be done to ensure better inte-

gration of biological diversity concern intoresearch in different sectors, thus streng-thening sectoral responsibilities for themanagement of biological diversity?

– Should Norway carry out a national millen-nium ecosystem assessment? The forumshould also discuss what should be includedin the assessment.

– Should a national assessment panel on thepattern of the IPCC be established, and if so,which tasks should be given priority? Thepanel could for example make scientific ana-lyses of the action and types of developmentthat should be given priority in conservingbiological diversity. At the Fifth Conferenceof the Parties to the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity, the parties decided to start sci-entific assessments relating to diversity.

The forum itself will discuss further details ofthe topics to be discussed.

mammals and kelp harvesting, and is taking part indata collection through the AREALIS project. Sur-veys and monitoring programmes include species,their habitats and the impacts of harvesting andother environmental pressures. An inter-discipli-nary group has recently put forward a proposal fora large-scale mapping project entitled «MAREANO– Marine Areal Database for the Norwegian Sea».

The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy has ge-neral responsibilities for natural resource manage-ment, particularly as laid down by the new WaterResources Act, and is responsible for managingabout 340 permanently protected watercoursesand for the development of hydropower plants andthe transmission grid. The Norwegian Water Re-sources and Energy Directorate has considerableexpertise and a large volume of data that will makean important contribution to surveys and moni-toring of biological diversity in lakes, rivers andassociated areas. Other responsibilities of the Mi-nistry of Petroleum and Energy include layingdown requirements for monitoring the effects ofoil-related activities on marine biodiversity and forensuring that the results are made available toother sectors.

The Ministry of Education and Research hasadministrative responsibility for the country’s fouruniversities and their natural history museums.The ministry has also provided part of the funding

for a project to transfer data on the museums»collections to GIS-based databases. This makes in-formation much more easily accessible for mana-gement and decision-making processes centrallyand locally. It is important for the ministry to takeresponsibility for the continuation of the project,which will contribute to the species data bank.

The nationwide programme to survey biologi-cal diversity and identify and classify its value, andsurveys and monitoring programmes under theMinistry of the Environment are discussed inChapter 2.

Principles for sectoral responsibilities for surveyingand monitoring the environment

Surveying and monitoring the state of the environ-ment and factors that have an impact on it is anessential basis for the development of environmen-tal targets and policy instruments. When sectoralauthorities and municipalities are given greaterand more independent responsibility for followingup and implementing environmental policy, the en-vironmental authorities must ensure that an ade-quate knowledge base is available to them. Func-tioning systems for surveying and monitoring theenvironment are essential for integration of en-vironmental policy into the various sectors and forgreater delegation of authority for environmental



Box 3.6 Avoiding the undesirableintroduction of alien species

– Review proposals for amendments to thelegislation to improve the way Norway res-ponds to introduced alien species and thespread of such species, see Box 3.1.

– Improve border controls to deal with intro-duced species, and establish a permanentreception facility for these species.

protection to the municipalities. Good data fromsurveys and monitoring programmes will becomeincreasingly important, and such data are there-fore given high priority in the result monitoringsystem for environmental policy.

The general principles set out below are to beused as a basis in developing the national program-me to survey and monitor biological diversity.

Principles for the sectoral authorities’responsibilities for surveys and monitoring of theenvironment

1. The sectoral authorities are responsible forsurveying and monitoring their own share ofenvironmental pressures, including the im-pacts of harvesting on ecosystems.

2. The sectoral authorities are responsible for car-rying out surveys and monitoring the state ofthe environment in areas where they are re-sponsible for a substantial share of environ-mental pressures.

3. The sectoral authorities are responsible foridentifying the effects and costs of environmen-tal protection measures that are implemented.

4. Each sector is responsible for quality assuran-ce of data collected during surveys and moni-toring programmes and for ensuring that theyare accessible.

5. The environmental authorities are responsiblefor ensuring satisfactory monitoring of the sta-te of the environment in Norway. They have aspecial responsibility for maintaining a broadoverview of the state of the environment andcultural heritage in Norway, and for monitoringenvironmental trends. The environmental auth-orities also have a general responsibility vis-à-vis other sectors for coordination of surveysand monitoring, and for ensuring that othersectors carry out quality assurance of their en-vironmental data.

6. Comprehensive surveys and monitoring of theenvironment require extensive resources andgood coordination of activities to ensure thatfunds and expertise are used effectively andduplication of effort is avoided. Extensive coo-peration between the sectoral authorities andthe environmental authorities is therefore es-sential.

3.2.2.2 Research and development

In their individual chapters, the ministries descri-be both single-sector and cross-sectoral researchprogrammes on biodiversity. Several ministries ex-

press the opinion that research on biological diver-sity should be strengthened across sectoral andinstitutional boundaries (Box 3.5).

This will be an important task for the ResearchCouncil of Norway in cooperation with the mini-stries, as laid down in the national programme tosurvey and monitor biological diversity. The Rese-arch Council is expected to contribute to the deve-lopment of knowledge related to environment anddevelopment. In addition, it plays a central role incoordinating research policy. The Research Coun-cil should therefore evaluate methods and rese-arch topics that can further improve integration infields such as surveys and monitoring of biologicaldiversity and the development of expertise. At so-me of Norway’s universities and colleges, morecapacity is needed for field work in certain areas.Expertise in these areas is required to obtain infor-mation on biological diversity as required by thedraft act on the right to environmental information.

The Ministry of Education and Research hasstated that Norway’s research effort is to be ex-panded and that long-term basic research will begiven priority. The government also wishes thefocus on environmental research to be continuedand strengthened by means of a special researcheffort in areas involving both environment andenergy issues. This will also have a positive effecton research on biological diversity.

3.2.3 Ensuring sustainable use of biologicalresources

Principles

A country’s national wealth depends on the state ofits natural environment, supplies of natural resour-ces, its production capital, human resources, andforeign trade and the balance of payments. If theyare well managed, the components of the nationalwealth give a return on capital and are a source of



Box 3.7 Sustainable land use

One important measure in connection withsustainable land use is delegation of authorityto the municipal level. The new managementsystem for biological diversity, cf. Figure 3.2,will facilitate delegation by coordinating sig-nals from central government agencies better.

This follows up the principle that authorityshould be delegated to the lowest possiblelevel, as set out in the convention, and thegovernment’s objective of simplifying the pu-blic administration. To make it possible todelegate authority to the local level and ensureefficient local management of biological diver-sity, the new management system must be es-tablished and put into operation.

The work of the committee appointed toreview the planning legislation will also be im-portant in ensuring that biodiversity concernsare taken into account when authority is dele-gated to municipal level.

welfare. Degradation of natural resources reducesopportunities for production and consumption.The objective of sustainable management of bio-diversity also entails seeking a path of economicdevelopment which avoids pressures on the en-vironment in excess of nature’s carrying capacityor that reduce biological diversity. Activities thatdamage biodiversity either directly or indirectlyare generally intended to obtain short-term econo-mic benefits for varying numbers of people. Suchactivities have long-term costs that are impossibleto calculate, but the losses affect all of us. We cansee examples of this on a limited scale if a farmercuts down the entire forest capital belonging to afarm before handing it on to the next generation, inthe overfishing of herring and capelin stocks andthe subsequent closure of the fisheries, or in thefailure of those responsible for salmon manage-ment to prevent the loss of salmon stocks in cer-tain rivers.

Because of the lack of a comprehensive over-view and of ways of calculating the annual losses ofeconomic and other values associated with biologi-cal diversity, we have traditionally assessed deve-lopments individually and on the basis of the im-mediate economic benefits they can offer. Cross-sectoral cooperation on the actions proposed in thewhite paper, particularly surveying and classifyingthe value of biological diversity and monitoring

programmes, is intended to bring us a step closerto more comprehensive and sustainable manage-ment of this element of our national wealth. This isalso in accordance with the duty of the parties tothe Convention on Biological Diversity to use theprecautionary principle in following up the con-vention.

3.2.4 Avoiding the undesirable introductionof alien species

Globally, the anthropogenic introduction and esta-blishment of new species is now considered to beone of the greatest threats to the maintenance ofbiological diversity. Introduced species often re-place or wipe out local species or populations. Theintroduction of invasive alien species to the marineenvironment via shipping and aquaculture is a gro-wing problem. There are larger numbers of biggerand faster ships sailing the world’s oceans thanever before, and this increases the probability thatorganisms will survive and be moved to new areaswith ballast water and as fouling organisms onships’ hulls. It is estimated that on a global basis,about 3000 different marine species are being mo-ved from one sea to another at any given time.

Norway has many different types of species-poor ecosystems that are vulnerable to new, alienspecies. Norway also forms part of the north-wes-tern coast of Europe, and still has large continuousareas of distinctive and varied natural habitat thatare important to preserve for future generations.As a result of the growth in trade, tourism andtravel and the elimination of border controls bet-ween Norway and the rest of Europe, Norway mayfind that the introduction of alien species causesgrowing environmental problems. The rising num-ber of cases where alien species are detected bycustoms stations is already giving an indication ofa rise in the number of introductions.

In most cases, the deliberate introduction ofalien species today is associated with agriculture,horticulture, fisheries and hobby activities. Thesecases are dealt with under legislation for the appro-priate sectors. However, Norway’s legislation doesnot contain adequate provisions regulating the in-troduction of plants and invertebrates. There is apressing need for comprehensive legislation toprevent the introduction and spread of alien speci-es. One of the main challenges will be to devise ajoint central government strategy for the use ofpolicy instruments, so that gaps in the legislationare closed and impact assessment is required be-fore any introductions of new species to the en-vironment. This work will be included in the deve-



Box 3.8 Avoiding pollution

Biodiversity concerns will be given greaterweight in pollution control policy. One mea-sure will be to use pollution monitoring pro-grammes to reveal the impact of pollution onbiological diversity. This can for example bedone by using suitable biological indicators toclarify the impact of pollution. This has alreadybeen done in the case of acid rain, where thegeographical distribution of acidification, criti-cal loads and the impacts on different ecosys-tems have been surveyed and changes havebeen followed through pollution monitoringprogrammes. In the government’s view, thisshould be evaluated in the national program-me to survey and monitor biological diversity.

lopment of coordinated legislation for biologicaldiversity.

Together with the review of the legislation, theactivities of the authorities with responsibilities inthis area must be coordinated. It will be natural forthe Ministry of the Environment to be responsiblefor coordination until improved legislation for thisfield has been adopted.

In this connection, more knowledge of thesources of introductions and clarification of theresponsibilities of the competent authorities in thisfield is needed. Information to the various sectoralauthorities will also be important. The customsauthorities are often in the first line in such cases,and they urgently need to improve their knowled-ge in this field to meet growing internationaliza-tion.

Contingency planning in this field must also beimproved: how do we deal with the illegal import ofalien species, and how do we deal with accidentalintroductions and limit the damage caused by in-troduced species? Quarantine and facilities for kee-ping species that have been introduced illegallyare two problems that arise in connection with theintroduction of alien species (see Box 3.6).

3.2.5 Ensuring sustainable land use

Report No. 34 (1990–1991) to the Storting on en-vironmental protection at local level set out ex-tensive plans for improving municipal expertise inthe field of nature management, and resulted inthe local environmental development programmethat was implemented by the Ministry of the En-

vironment. The municipalities used the program-me and organized activities under it in many diffe-rent ways, as would be expected given the widevariations in size, tasks and priorities from onemunicipality to another. However, a general resultof the programme was that municipalities providedmore resources for and gave higher priority tonature management. The Local Agenda 21 pro-cess, with its emphasis on public participation, hasprovided further impetus in this direction, and sohas the higher priority that many municipalitieshave given to environmental and biodiversity con-cerns in their application of the Planning and Buil-ding Act. So far, about 170 municipalities have cho-sen to take part in the nationwide programme tosurvey biological diversity and identify and classifyits value.

Local Agenda 21 and the participation of NGOsare important and necessary elements of the mana-gement of biological diversity at national level.FRIFO, an umbrella organization for Norway’s lar-gest outdoor recreation associations, organizes co-operation between these associations at countylevel, particularly to deal with developments in-volving major changes in land use. There are alsomany other organizations that are active in areassuch as outdoor recreation, protection of the cul-tural heritage and conservation of biological diver-sity. Examples include the Norwegian Society forthe Conservation of Nature/Friends of the EarthNorway, Nature & Youth, Inky Arms Eco-detec-tives, WWF-Norway, the Environmental Home Gu-ard and SABIMA (the Norwegian Council for theConservation of Biodiversity). However, small mu-nicipalities have only limited resources, and 70 percent of all Norwegian municipalities use less thanthe equivalent of one full-time position on land usemanagement and other matters that come withinthe scope of the Planning and Building Act. Stepsto strengthen Local Agenda 21 efforts, especiallythe participation and assistance of NGOs, shouldtherefore continue to be given priority in the pe-riod covered by the white paper.

The committee appointed to review the plan-ning legislation has already submitted the first partof its report. The final report, including proposalsfor amendments to the Planning and Building Act,will be submitted at the end of 2002. The commit-tee is considering a number of issues related tospecial statutes and to the planning legislation.These include strengthening the legal authorityfor national policy guidelines and decisions, fordesignating areas for particular purposes (as agri-cultural areas, areas of natural environment andoutdoor recreation areas) in municipal master



Box 3.9 Enhancing internationalcooperation

In international efforts to conserve biologicaldiversity, Norway will give special priority tothe following:– contributing to the harmonization, coordi-

nation and simplification of internationalenvironmental agreements

– contributing to further development of theConvention on Biological Diversity, for ex-ample by negotiating protocols

– helping to arrange global and regional ex-pert meetings

– intensifying scientific cooperation betweenthe various environmental conventions

– seeking to ensure that the WTO systemand the environmental agreements toget-her promote the objective of sustainabledevelopment

– ensuring that the WTO system and the en-vironmental agreements are mutually sup-portive

– reviewing the relationship between theConvention on Biological Diversity and theTRIPS Agreement and working to ensurethat environmental considerations are bet-ter integrated into multilateral trading ru-les

– supporting the developing countries intheir efforts to take part in and implementthe Convention on Biological Diversity

– continuing to host the Trondheim confe-rences on biodiversity dealing with impor-tant issues relevant to the Convention onBiological Diversity. This is part of Nor-way’s assistance to capacity-building underthe convention.

plans, and for soil conservation and the protectionof beaches, cultural landscapes and biodiversity.The report also proposes amendments to streng-then provisions relating to particularly valuable un-cultivated areas in the Planning and Building Actand link them to county plans and municipal mas-ter plans. Coordination with the municipal land-useplanning process and appropriate legal authoritywill be an essential basis for safeguarding areasthat have been surveyed and classified on the basisof their value for biological diversity.

The core areas for the conservation of biologi-cal diversity are areas that are already protectedunder the Nature Conservation Act, those for

which some form of protection is proposed (newnational parks and large protected areas, areas in-cluded in regional protection plans for coniferousforest and the remaining county protection plans)and the remaining large areas of undisturbed natu-ral environment. The Ministry of the Environment,in cooperation with the Ministry of Fisheries, isnow starting to develop a similar network of pro-tected areas in marine and coastal waters, and theprotection plans for watercourses provide extensi-ve protection for river systems. Nevertheless, mostof the area of Norway will always be outside protec-ted areas, and this is also where most human ac-tivity will take place. To avoid disturbance in areasof particular value for biological diversity, theseareas must be clearly identified and it must bepossible to take steps to ensure that, whereverpossible, they are sheltered from land-use changesthat reduce biodiversity.

3.2.6 Avoiding pollution

Pollution control policy is important in relation tomanagement of biodiversity, and several of the mi-nistries emphasize this in their chapters. This poli-cy area is also thoroughly dealt with in the sectoralenvironmental action plans. The white paper doesnot deal with pollution control policy as such, butwith the links between this and biological diversity.Chapter 2 identifies acidification, climate changeand emissions of hazardous chemicals as particu-larly important in relation to biodiversity because oftheir widespread and long-lasting impacts. Theyare also more complex to deal with and requiremore closely coordinated management than otherproblems. There are close relationships betweenthe international agreements on long-range trans-port of pollutants, the Climate Change Conventionand the Convention on Biological Diversity.

3.2.7 Enhancing international cooperation

All Norwegian public authorities share the respon-sibility for following up the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity. This responsibility also applies in allforms of international cooperation in which theyare engaged. This is discussed in the chapter bythe Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is respon-sible for coordination of foreign and developmentpolicy.

Further development of the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity is a major task, and will involveimportant matters that are the subject of discus-sion in international environmental policy, such asbetter coordination between the global environ-



mental agreements and between environmentaland trade agreements.

3.2.7.1 Coordination of environmentalagreements

The development of a stronger institutional struc-ture for international environmental governancewas a central topic at the informal ministerial mee-ting of environment ministers held in Bergen in2000. The meeting pointed to the need to coordina-te existing international structures and agree-ments in the environmental field. This will involvemany challenging tasks, including the following:– evaluation of possible gaps in binding inter-

national agreements that need to be closed inorder to solve high-priority international envi-ronmental problems

– harmonization, coordination and simplificationof international agreements

– mechanisms for compliance, control and effec-tive implementation

– organizational coordination and improvements– practical cooperation on follow-up (research,

reporting, analyses of the state of the environ-ment).

Norway is giving priority to this work, and believesthat enhanced synergy and better coordination ofconventions and agreements related to biologicaldiversity will make it possible to find better solu-tions to environmental problems in this field. It isnatural to consider drawing up a new system usingthe Convention on Biological Diversity as a basisand including the most important substance of allthese agreements. Norway has maintained a highprofile in work under the Convention and intendsto continue this approach in efforts to coordinatethe Convention on Biological Diversity with otherimportant environmental conventions.

Experience gained from work under the en-vironmental conventions will also be used in broa-der-based efforts to strengthen international en-vironmental governance that have been started un-der the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

3.2.7.2 The relationship between environmentand trade agreements

Within the UNEP system, a clear need has beenidentified for a body to act as a counterweight tothe World Trade Organization (WTO) in environ-mental matters. The multilateral environment ag-reements are too weak in relation to the system ofagreements in the economic sectors, including the

financial, trade and industrial sectors. One reasonfor this is that they lack stronger and more uni-fying international organizations and instruments.The strength and authority of the WTO must beseen against the background of its long history andfundamental features of its development. Nevert-heless, there appears to be a need to strengthenthe international architecture of environmental ag-reements and coordinate them better.

To improve the coordination of environmentand trade agreements, they must be consideredtogether to a greater degree as multilateral agree-ments are further developed. For example, the in-ternational trade regime is to a large degree basedon standards set by experts in the appropriate fi-elds. One way of ensuring that environmental con-siderations are given higher priority is therefore todevelop standards that incorporate fundamentalenvironmental requirements, either by giving theenvironmental agreements a role in the develop-ment of standards or by recognizing the environ-mental conventions as competent to set standardsunder the WTO system.

Norway has an administrative system wherecoordination between the environment and tradesectors functions well, and is therefore in a goodposition to work actively towards the above deve-lopments internationally. To start with, we will tryto cooperate with organizations that are acceptedas competent to set standards within the WTOsystem. One interesting initiative in this context isthe proposal from the International Plant Protec-tion Convention (IPPC) for collaboration with theConvention on Biological Diversity as regards ali-en species and GMOs (genetically modified orga-nisms). In the long run, this may result in theConvention on Biological Diversity becoming re-sponsible for setting standards within the WTOsystem (see Box 3.9).

3.2.7.3 Development cooperation

The fundamental goals of Norwegian developmentcooperation coincide with the main objectives ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity: sustaina-ble use and conservation of biological diversity andequitable distribution of benefits. One priority inNorwegian development cooperation will be to ob-tain more information on the economic and directand indirect use value of biodiversity in relation toboth ecosystem services and products. Other pri-orities will be training and education, advisory ser-vices, capacity-building and institutional coopera-tion in the administrative systems of partner coun-tries.



3.2.7.4 Marine resources, the Arctic andindigenous peoples

Marine resources, the Arctic and indigenous pe-oples are particularly relevant fields of cooperationfor Norway. High priority will be given to promo-ting sound management of marine resources ininternational waters and further developing inter-national law in this field. Sustainable use with asound scientific basis is not in conflict with theconservation of biological diversity. This is an im-portant principle that will primarily be used in rela-tion to decisions in the International Whaling Com-mission (IWC) and the Convention on Internatio-nal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora (the CITES Convention). The principleis already laid down in the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity.

There are four main issues that should receiveattention in relation to Arctic ecosystems. The firstis the transport of pollutants that accumulate infood chains, which in recent years has been recog-nized as a problem for certain marine mammalsand Arctic bird species. Secondly, there is the en-vironmental pressure caused by harvesting of na-tural resources, especially marine resources, innorthern areas. The third problem, which has alsobecome more urgent in recent years, is the intro-duction of alien species that may cause environ-mental damage or injury to health. Finally, explora-tion for oil and gas is in progress in both the Nor-wegian and the Russian sectors of the Barents Sea.Large deposits have already been found in Russianwaters. Oil and gas activities may become a se-rious threat to Arctic ecosystems. These areas willbe addressed in Norwegian foreign policy. In addi-tion, Norway is involved in a programme for theconservation of Arctic flora and fauna through thecooperation the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is coor-dinating in the Arctic Council and other relevantfora.

Norway has an indigenous population, the Sa-mi. Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention require theparties to respect the rights of indigenous peoplesand encourage their participation in the manage-ment of biodiversity. These matters are being dealtwith at national level through the work of the SamiRights Council and other initiatives. In addition,the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will seek to ensurethat Norway actively supports indigenous peoplesthrough its international participation in the Con-vention. The programme of work on the implemen-tation of Article 8(j) adopted at the Fifth Meeting ofthe Conference of the Parties (COP 5) in May 2000will be particularly relevant for Norway’s interna-tional participation, which must also include parti-cipation by the Sami population.

3.2.7.5 Other fora

The Convention on Biological Diversity is beingfollowed up in various international fora in additionto work within the system of the Convention itself.For example, regional cooperation has been orga-nized in the form of the Pan-European Biologicaland Landscape Diversity Strategy, which is spon-sored by the Council of Europe and UNEP’s Regio-nal Office for Europe. This work has been continu-ed in the form of a strategy for biological diversityfor the EU and the Nordic Council of Ministers.The Nordic Council has published a report on Nor-dic implementation of the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity.

The fundamental principles and directions setout in the report from the Nordic Council of Minis-ters are followed in the white papers on the Go-vernment’s environmental policy and the state ofthe environment in Norway (Reports No. 8 (1999–2000) and 24 (2000–2001) to the Storting) and arebeing further followed up through the action listedin the white paper.

Summary in English: Report No. 42 to the Storting (2000-2001)

Norwegian biodiversity policy and action plan – cross-sectoralresponsibilities and coordination

Published by:Royal Ministry of the Environment

Additional copies may be ordered from:Statens forvaltningstjenesteInformasjonsforvaltningE-mail: [email protected]: +47 22 24 27 86

Publication number: T-1414Translation: Alison CoulthardCoverdesign: Seedesign as

Printed by: www.kursiv.no, Oslo 8/2002

Ministry of the Environment

norwegian biodiversity policy and action plan – cross-sectoral ...summary in english: report no....

Documents