The Norwegian plan for integrated ecosystem ...

Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

The Norwegian plan for integrated ecosystem-based management of the marine environment in the Norwegian Sea Geir Ottersen a,b,n, Erik Olsen c, Gro I. van der Meeren d, Are Dommasnes c, Harald Loeng c a

Institute of Marine Research, Gaustadalleén 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biology, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1066 Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway c Institute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870 Nordnes, NO-5817 Bergen, Norway d Institute of Marine Research, Austevoll Research Station, NO-5392 Storebø, Norway b

a r t i c l e in f o

abstract

Article history: Received 30 September 2010 Accepted 31 October 2010 Available online 30 November 2010

A White Paper on a new integrated management plan for the Norwegian Sea was launched by the Norwegian government in May 2009. Following international guidelines for ecosystem-based management, the plan provides an overall framework for managing all human activities (mainly oil and gas industry, fishing, and shipping) in the area to ensure the continued production and function of the ecosystem. The plan is based on an assessment of the present and projected future impact of human activities and of the interactions between them, taking into account deficits in current knowledge of ecosystem state and dynamics. Areas of particular value in terms of biodiversity or biological production were identified. In each of these valuable areas, any access for substantial human activity is to be carefully managed. To monitor the overall development of the Norwegian Sea, a set of indicators with associated environmental quality objectives have been selected. The approach used builds upon experience gained from the first integrated Norwegian management plan for a marine area, the Barents Sea–Lofoten region, developed in 2002–2006. Work towards a Norwegian management plan for the North Sea, including Skagerrak, was initiated in 2009. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ecosystem approach Ecosystem-based management Integrated management Management plan Norwegian Sea

1. Introduction: background and objectives for the plan There is an emerging paradigm shift in ocean management, a move towards explicit consideration of the impacts of all ocean sectors on the marine environment, both separately and in aggregate. This comes from an increasing awareness of the cumulative effects of human activities on the ecosystem and the need to take a holistic and integrated approach to management to ensure the sustainability of marine ecosystems [1]. There is also an increasing demand for a more ecosystem-based management. The principle behind ‘‘the ecosystem approach to management’’ (EA) is that the management of human activities is based on the limits within which ecosystem structure, functioning, productivity and biological diversity can be maintained. The concept has gained growing international acceptance at both the scientific level (e.g., [2–6]) and the policy level (1993 Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.cbd.int/; [7,8]) and has been developed and incorporated into a number of international agreements over the past 10–15 years. EA, as defined in the ‘‘Malawi principles’’ under the Convention on Biological Diversity has served as an important framework for the management plan presented in this work [9]. n Corresponding author at: Institute of Marine Research, Gaustadalleén 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: + 47 22857288; fax: + 47 22854001. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Ottersen).

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.017

Even if the ecosystem approach to management of the marine environment and it’s living resources has received considerable attention over recent years, there are still few examples which demonstrate its practical implementation, it by and large remains a promise unfulfilled [10]. Perhaps the main obstacle lies in the history of existing marine monitoring and assessment programmes, which most often are sectorial, making it difficult to integrate monitoring data and knowledge across programmes at the operational level [11,12]. The foundation for integrated, ecosystem-based management of Norwegian coastal and marine areas was laid in the coming to power declaration to the parliament of the government elected in September 2001 [13], followed by a more in-depth government white paper [14]. The first integrated management plan for a large Norwegian marine area covers the Barents Sea–Lofoten area and was developed in 2002–2006 [15]. Both the development process and this plan itself have been used as a model for the development of the plan for the Norwegian Sea (Fig. 1; [9]). At the time of writing the development of a Norwegian management plan for the North Sea, including Skagerrak, has started. The state of the Norwegian Sea environment is generally considered to be healthy [16]. However, management of the area poses considerable challenges, particularly with regards to the potential future impacts of climate change and ocean acidification, carrying capacity for different trophic levels, overfishing of some

390

G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398

Fig. 1. Geographical delimitation of the integrated management plan for the Norwegian Sea (thick red line) with administrative boundaries (yellow lines) and bathymetry. Source: Norwegian Hydrographic Service.

fish stocks, the decline of seabird populations, the need for protection of habitat-building benthic organisms, e.g. coral and sponge communities, and the risk of acute pollution. The Norwegian government considers it important to safeguard the ecosystems of the Norwegian Sea over the long term, so that they continue to be clean, rich and productive [14], and the plan presented here will serve as a basis for these efforts. Further, the plan should provide a framework for value creation and coexistence between different sectors through the sustainable use of natural resources and ecosystem services. In addition, ecosystem structure, functioning and productivity must be sustained and the diversity of the natural environment protected. The management plan clarifies the overall framework for both existing and new activities. Until now, the various uses of Norway’s sea areas and their resources have been assessed and managed

separately, sector by sector. The combined effects of the many different pressures and impacts that affect ecosystems have neither been taken sufficiently into account nor has the principle that the cumulative effects must not exceed sustainable levels. The management plan will be used as a tool both to facilitate value creation and to maintain the high environmental value of the area [9].

2. Development of the plan 2007–2009 2.1. Organization of the work The organization of the work followed, to a large degree, the same approach as for the Barents Sea–Lofoten plan [17,18]. The work was led by a ministerial-level steering group chaired


2.2. Environmental impact assessments

by the Ministry of the Environment, with representatives from eight other ministries. The main foundations for the plan were developed by experts from government agencies, institutes and directorates associated with the various ministries. Cooperation across management sectors was a fundamental challenge throughout the process because, traditionally, the responsibility for the marine environment has been split between several ministries. Furthermore, different sectors (e.g., oil and gas development, fisheries, aquaculture, recreational tourism, etc.) have historically defined objectives in terms that predominantly relate to their own specific activities. This has resulted in a suite of different objectives for the industries impacting the common marine ecosystem [1]. The steering group appointed an expert group, consisting of members from government directorates and research institutes, to compile a number of background reports as a foundation for the integrated management plan. The expert group established several working groups which were tasked with most of the synthesising and report-writing. The development of the plan followed a threestep process (Fig. 2), similar to that employed for the Barents Sea– Lofoten plan [17,18] and not unlike the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management project [19]. During Step 1 the expert group compiled five reports that provided a common factual basis for impact assessments on: the environment and natural resources including determination of particularly valuable areas, fisheries activities, petroleum related activities, maritime transport and finally commercial activities and social conditions in the Norwegian counties bordering the Norwegian Sea.

Description of the environment and living resources

Using the factual reports from Step 1 as a basis, four extensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) were conducted in Step 2. The EIAs covered the impacts of fisheries, petroleum related activities and maritime transport, which were the sectors deemed most likely to affect the state of the environment. In addition, the impacts of external pressures such as climate change, long-range transboundary pollution, ocean acidification, emissions from activities in the coastal zone, and the introduction of alien species were assessed. Each EIA described and discussed the relation between the activities within the sector and the following pressures: release of pollutants to the atmosphere and ocean, waste, seismic and other sources of noise, changes in ocean climate, physical disturbances of the sea floor, introduced species and the removal of living resources (e.g., fish). Impacts were assessed in relation to the current situation (based on the activity levels of 2006) and for scenarios for projected levels of activity in the different sectors in 2025 (2025 and 2080 for climate change). To ensure compatibility among the four EIAs, a set of common assessment themes was defined (Table 1). Specifically, the use of common themes and sub-themes was employed to facilitate comparison of impacts and the determination of cumulative effects across sectors. As opposed to the largely ad hoc development of these variables for the Barents Sea–Lofoten plan [17], they were now agreed upon prior to the EIAs. However, the process around the development of the common variables was still suboptimal and the more hierarchical ‘‘unpacking’’ approach discussed in [1] might

Report on socioeconomic and societal issues

Status reports by sector

Petroleum

External pressures

Fisheries

Step 1

S1

Environmental impact assessment by sector Maritime transport

391

Step 2 S2

Step 3 Coordinated environmental monitoring; indicators, reference values and action thresholds

Assessment of cumulative effects Conflicts Needs for Cumulative of further effects interest knowledge

Vulnerability of particularly valuable areas

S3

Integrated management plan for the Norwegian Sea Fig. 2. The process behind the integrated ecosystem-based management plan for the Norwegian Sea. S1: written feedback from stakeholders on plan for Environmental impact assessments (EIAs), S2: written feedback from stakeholders on EIAs, S3: stakeholder hearing conference on Assessment of cumulative effects.

392


Table 1 The set of common themes, sub-themes and parameters (species, nature types) employed in the EIAs. Focal area

Assessment theme

(a) For the biological environment Biological environment Plankton

Benthic communities Fish

Sub-theme

Parameter

Phytoplankton

Impact of timing of spring bloom on biological production. Effect of biomass (chlorophyll a) on biological production. Biomass. Geographical distribution. Biomass. Geographical distribution. Biomass. Geographical distribution. Degree of damage/destruction. Degree of damage/destruction. Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass). Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution. Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass). Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution. Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass). Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution. Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass). Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution. Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass). Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution. Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution. Impacts on nesting areas. Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution. Impacts on nesting areas. Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution. Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution. Species structure/relative abundance. Migration/distribution.

Macrozooplankton Fish eggs Larvae Benthic fauna Coral reefs Herring Blue whiting Mackerel Saithe Sandeel

Seabirds

Marine mammals

Beach zone

(b) for societal issues Society Industry and commerce and employment

Marine archaeology Local society

Pelagically diving birds (Common guillemot/ murre, puffin) Benthically diving birds (common eider) Minke whale Hooded seal The pelagic whale community in the southern part of the assessment area. Harbour seal Harbour porpoise Underwater meadow Near shore meadow Kelp influenced meadow

Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution. Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution. Area affected. Restitution time. Area affected. Restitution time. Area affected. Restitution time.

The present situation: importance for industry and commerce and employment regionally and nationally Future scenario: expected development of employment regionally and nationally Future scenario: expected development of value production regionally and nationally Accidents: the direct cost for society of major accidents Accidents: the risk of negative economical consequences of major accidents Ship wrecks Remains of early settlements Coastal culture Sami culture Recreational fishing Leisure boating and bathing

have been advantageous. An issue that caused some complications was how levels of impact should be classified.

2.3. Assessment of cumulative impacts across sectors In Step 3 the results from the four EIAs were considered as a whole to assess (i) cumulative effects across sectors, (ii) conflicts of interest between sectors and (iii) needs for further knowledge. Cumulative effects were assessed for current (based on 2006) activity levels and for scenarios for projected levels of activity in the different sectors in 2025 (and also 2080 for climate change). Separate evaluations were done for the normal ‘‘business as usual’’ conditions and accident situation for both current and future activity levels. Two additional reports, ‘‘Vulnerability of particularly valuable areas in relation to petroleum activity, fisheries, maritime transport

Information from the management plan’s report on society. Subjective evaluation, figures based on experience and from economical calculations. Subjective evaluation, figures based on experience and from economical calculations. Figures based on experience and from economical calculations. Figures based on experience and from economical calculations. Destruction. Movement. Destruction. Movement. Figures based on experience. Subjective evaluation. Figures based on experience. Subjective evaluation. Figures based on experience. Subjective evaluation. Figures based on experience. Subjective evaluation.

and other pressures’’ [20] and ‘‘Suggested indicators, reference values and action thresholds in aid of a coordinated monitoring system for the state of the ecosystem’’ [21] were also taken into consideration during this process. A five-point scale was developed to indicate level of impact (insignificant, minor, moderate, major, catastrophic; Table 2). It is important to note that the scale is largely based on possible effects on the Norwegian Sea ecosystem as a whole. In most cases, the cumulative effects have been assessed at population level or for larger areas, rather than at individual level or more locally. This means that in cases where the category insignificant is used here, smaller-scale assessments (e.g., related to development of petroleum activities or impacts of fishing on benthic habitat) may indicate more serious impacts on individuals, sub-populations or on smaller areas. A summary of the evaluation of accumulated consequences under normal operations and current activity levels for a selection of assessment themes and subthemes is given in Table 3.


Some work had to be put in to unify the somewhat different classifications used in the four EIAs and supporting expert reports. Firstly, slightly different nominal classifications schemes had been used, but this was readily dealt with. Secondly and more problematic, it was revealed that the actual intent or value implied by one and the same category (e.g., ‘‘major impact’’) differed between the EIAs. Similar problems arose in the evaluations of experiences from managing by the Barents Sea–Lofoten plan during 2005–2010. Here the five-point scale turned out to be of little practical value due to the different intents and values implied by the host of government directorates and research institutes. Levels of impact are in the Barents Sea–Lofoten evaluation report [22] instead presented as a selection of numerically described human activities. Quantifying the different activities is useful, but this approach does not really facilitate comparison of impacts between sectors. For instance, what makes the highest impact, 320 Norwegian fishing vessels larger than 24 metres with activity in the area in 2009, 353 loaded oil-tankers or 40,969 tonnes of garbage? The lesson to be learnt here is that using enough time to achieve good coordination early in the process simplifies cross-sectoral comparisons and analyses later on. Experience gained from both the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea–Lofoten process demonstrates that the simplification necessary in order to fit the impacts into the five-point scale, or similar, easily leads to misunderstandings, and the procedure for assessing cumulative effects needs to be improved.

393

In particular, there were discussions, and indeed some confusion, related to how close to the coastline the inner boundary should lie and also on how to deal with the waters around the important ˚ Lofoten and Vesteralen Islands. It was decided that the management plan should cover the areas in the Norwegian exclusive economic zone outside the baseline from 621N at Stad and north to 801N at Framstredet, northwest of Svalbard, including the deep-water areas west of the Barents Sea and in the fisheries protection zone around Svalbard, and the fisheries zone around Jan Mayen. The scientific basis for the management plan also includes the area of international waters known as the Banana Hole (Fig. 1; [9]). Geographically ˚ speaking, the waters off the Lofoten and Vesteralen Islands are also part of the Norwegian Sea. However, since there is a close ecological ˚ relationship between the spawning areas off Lofoten–Vesteralen and the fish stocks in the Barents Sea, these areas were covered by the integrated management plan for the Barents Sea–Lofoten area and thus not included in the Norwegian Sea plan. An area inside the baseline in the Vestfjorden, between Lofoten and the mainland, has been included in the management plan area for the Norwegian Sea. This was done because the thematic scope of the management plans for sea areas includes the important ecological goods and services provided by the Vestfjorden and the types of activities carried out in this area. Vestfjorden has been a main spawning area for cod and at times the most important overwintering area for herring.

2.4. Geographic delimitation The borders of the area to be covered by the plan were not defined initially and were actually changed several times during the process. Table 2 Five-point scale used to indicate level of impact [30]. Catastrophic Substantial, extensive loss of ecosystem services and irreversible damage to ecosystems. Major Serious loss of ecosystem services and considerable risk of irreversible damage to ecosystems and ecosystem functions. Moderate Isolated but considerable damage to ecosystems and risk of irreversible damage, although this is unlikely. Minor Isolated cases of minor, reversible damage to ecosystems Insignificant No damage to ecosystems.

3. Areas of particular biological value 3.1. Criteria for selection Within the management plan region, certain areas have been identified as being particularly valuable in terms of the environment and natural resources. Areas were selected using predefined criteria, much the same set as for the Barents Sea–Lofoten. The two main criteria were that the area in question was important for biodiversity or for biological productivity. In addition, a number of secondary criteria were taken into consideration, accounting for both biological and other values (economic, social, cultural, scientific; Table 4).

Table 3 Summary of evaluation of accumulated consequences for a selection of assessment themes and sub-themes in the Norwegian Sea under normal operations for current (2006) activity levels. Excerpts from table in Anon [30]. Assessment theme

Evaluation of accumulated consequences, normal activity in 2006

Sub-theme

Insignificant

Plankton

X

Minor

Moderate

Seabirds Murre Puffin Eider Marine mammals Minke whale Hooded seal Common (harbour) seal

Catastrophic

Sector with largest consequences identified None

Benthic communities Benthic fauna Coral reefs Fish Herring Blue whiting Mackerel Saithe

Major

X X

Fisheries Fisheries Fisheries

X

Fisheries Fisheries Fisheries Fisheries Fisheries

X X X

External pressures/Fisheries External pressures/Fisheries External pressures/Fisheries

X X

Fisheries/hunting Fisheries/hunting Fisheries/hunting Fisheries/hunting

X X X

X

394


Table 4 Selection criteria for identification of geographical areas of particular biological and (to a lesser degree) cultural value. Criteria Main criteria

Sub-criteria Importance for biodiversity

Details

Especially large biodiversity

Ecosystem level. Species level. Genetic level. Habitat for species/populations of particular Endemic species. importance Vulnerable, rare, threatened species. Ecological indicator species. Keystone species. Umbrella species. Flagship species. Populations of (inter)national value. Special nature types and habitats

Importance for biological productivity

Additional criteria

Rare. Threatened. Vulnerable. Border areas Boundary for species distribution. Especially large biological productivity High primary productivity. High secondary productivity. High concentration of species or individuals Areas used for reproduction. Nursery areas. Feeding-, resting-, moulting areas. Migration routes.

Importance for representation of all Secure representation typical for the area biogeographical zones, nature types, habitats, species and cultural heritage in the region

Secure representation characteristic for the area

Secure representation within a larger network Marine–terrestrial coupling

Virginity/disturbance

Characteristic or rareness Economical importance

Social or cultural importance

Scientific value

Pedagogical value

Accessibility

International or national value

Common.

Unique, representative for the region. Areas that have retained original character. Rare nature qualities. Areas threatened by human activities. Especially important species. Circumpolar in the Arctic.

North-south gradient. Degree of influence of marine organisms on Vegetation at bird cliffs. the terrestrial environment Nourishment resource. Degree of anthropogenic disruption Technical intervention/area use. Harvest/fisheries catch Pollution. Nature values Characteristic and rare nature types. Cultural heritage Characteristic and rare cultural site. Tourism Areas of recreational value. Fishing/hunting Areas used for reproduction Nursery areas. Feeding-, resting-, moulting areas. Value for local, regional, national, Historical value. international society Esthetical value. Recreational value. Areas/species/ecosystems of particular Biological. scientific interest Geophysical. Geological. Cultural heritage. Reference area Research. Source value Monitoring. Locality of specimen/type Biological. Geological. Illustration of causal mechanisms Ecological. Nature phenomena. Cultural heritage and nature. Scientific activity Pedagogical activity Tourism/outdoor recreation Existing agreements Agreements/Commitments. International conventions. Potential for incorporation in an Networks: international system Protected areas. Measurement stations. Research programs. International/national protection value.


3.2. The areas selected Eleven particularly valuable areas were identified (Fig. 3). These areas meet at least one of the two main criteria for selection, generally also several of the secondary criteria (e.g. high concentrations of individuals/species, distinctiveness, undisturbed areas or economic importance). The selected areas are very diverse,

395

including key spawning and nursery areas for herring, cod and saithe, coral reef complexes, seabird colonies, and the highly productive edge of the continental shelf and Arctic front. While some areas are relatively small and well-defined (coral reefs, banks) others are large with less clear borderlines (coastal zone, edge of the continental shelf) or even change with time-varying current systems (Arctic front).

Fig. 3. Particularly valuable areas within the management plan region (see legend for description).

396


3.3. Vulnerability of selected areas

3.4. Evaluation of impacts on valuable areas

The seasonal and cumulative vulnerability of the valuable areas to various anthropogenic pressures was also assessed [20]. Vulnerability can be defined as a measure of how liable a species or habitat is to be negatively affected by external, often anthropogenic pressures. Factors such as seasonal variations, distribution patterns, age/stage of the life cycle, and behaviour and biological characteristics were used to determine the vulnerability of a particular species. Vulnerability to environmental pressures was assessed on the basis of the likely impacts of different pressures on the development and survival of a species or population. There may also be temporal variations in vulnerability; some species being particularly vulnerable at times of the year when a large fraction of the population is concentrated in a limited area (for example fish during the spawning season and seabirds during the breeding season). The vulnerability of benthic habitats depends on factors such as the substrate type and whether it contains sessile or motile species. Certain areas dominated by long-lived, habitat-forming species such as corals and sponges may be particularly vulnerable to environmental pressures because habitat formation is a very slow process. Vulnerability can be measured at individual, population, community and ecosystem level. The Møre Bank area (Fig. 3) was classified as most vulnerable because of how high intensity fishing, shipping and (future) coastal petroleum activities may threaten key spawning grounds, large seabird colonies, kelp forests and marine mammal habitats. Similarly, the more northern Bank ˚ areas and Vesteralen were also considered highly vulnerable due to high intensity fishing and potential petroleum activities in important spawning grounds and larval retention areas. Deep-water coral reefs along Iverryggen, Sularevet and Eggakanten were classified as highly vulnerable due to the particular fragility of these reef-forming species where human impacts from fishing and petroleum may lead to damage it may take thousands of years to repair [20]. For management purposes, impacts at population, community and ecosystem level are most important [9].

Based upon the work described in the previous paragraph the impacts of activities on each of the particularly valuable areas were compared between sectors and accumulated impacts evaluated. Also here separate studies were done for normal activity and consequences of accidents for both the current situation and 2025 (Table 5). For each area the impacts on the themes/values that gave rise to the area’s status as particularly valuable were weighted highly. For ship traffic and petroleum activities acute oil spills (accidents) will have the highest impact, while for fisheries prolonged high fishing pressure is most influential. The management plan emphasises that the particularly valuable areas should be managed with special care. This means that knowledge development and environmental impact assessment for these areas should be given high priority, and further that a particularly cautious approach must be taken to activities in such areas and strict regulation enforced.

4. Implementation of the management plan 4.1. Ecosystem based management from principles to operationalization Generally, the extent to which ecosystem based management principles are adopted by managers is highly variable. The details outlined in the scientific literature are often only loosely incorporated into management plans and actions [23]. However, recent literature illustrates how the process of making the ecosystem approach operational in specific large marine ecosystems can be stimulated (see, e.g., [24] on the Baltic and [25] on US waters). The development as well as the implementation of the plan described here is initiated and driven top-down by a coalition of governmental agencies/ministries. This may be a strength, since cooperation is forced upon the participators. However, by attempting to

Table 5 Summary of evaluation of accumulated consequences for biologically particularly important areas in the Norwegian Sea. The sectors evaluated are petroleum (P), ship transport (S), fisheries (F), and pressures from sources external to the management area (E; see main text for explanation). ‘‘?’’ indicates that the knowledge level is too low for a conclusion to be drawn. Current (2006) activity levels assumed. Adapted from Anon [30]. Locations shown in Fig. 3. Area of particular biological value

(a) Assuming normal operations Mørebankene/Stad Haltenbanken Sklinnabanken Iverryggen Jan Mayen/Vesterisen Eggakanten Arctic front Remman Froan including the Sula reef Vestfjorden Coastal zone (in general) (b) assuming accident scenarios Mørebankene/Stad Haltenbanken Sklinnabanken Iverryggen Jan Mayen/Vesterisen Eggakanten Arctic front Remman Froan including the Sula reef Vestfjorden Coastal zone (in general)

?

Evaluation of accumulated consequences on valuable areas

E

E E

Insignificant

Minor

P P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P,

S S, S, S, S S, F, S, S S S

E E E

Moderate

Major

F F F

F E F F F E, F

F F F

P

S, E

P

P, S, E S, E

P

S

P, S P

S

P, S P, S P

Sector with largest consequences identified

Fishing Fishing Fishing Fishing None in particular Fishing External pressures None in particular Fishing and external pressures Fishing Fishing

F F, E

E S E

Cata-strophic

S, E P, S, E P, S, E

Ship transport (external, North Sea) Ship transport Ship transport None in particular Ship transport Ship transport Ship transport None in particular Ship transport and petroleum activities Ship transport and petroleum activities Ship transport and petroleum activities


envelop a very broad range of sectors there is a real danger for the measures actually implemented being loose and rather general in order to meet approval from all involved parties. Close coordination between sectors and between the public institutions involved is clearly required. The Ministry of the Environment is coordinating the work and heading an interministerial Steering Committee. To ensure enhanced cooperation among government institutions new advisory groups have been appointed and the terms of reference of existing groups have been expanded. 4.2. Development of indicators In the same way as for the Barents Sea [15], the management plan for the Norwegian Sea describes a set of elements for evaluating the ecological quality, including indicators and action thresholds which will be used to monitor biological diversity, sustainability of fishing, pollution, and the safety of marine foods harvested in the area. Data for many of the proposed indicators are already available as time series, but for others new time series are needed or existing data need to be analyzed. The plan particularly states that more knowledge about pollution in the open parts of the Norwegian Sea is needed. It also recognizes that development of good indicators requires time, both with regard to selection and description of indicators and how they should be used. The proposed indicators are therefore not to be considered as a final selection, but rather as a starting point for the development of good management tools. 4.3. Expanding from the Barents SEA to include the Norwegian Sea In connection with the management plan for the Barents Sea– Lofoten area an ‘‘Advisory group on monitoring of the Barents Sea and the areas off Lofoten’’, (the ‘‘monitoring group’’), responsible for coordinating monitoring activities and reporting annually on the state of the ecosystem, an operational ‘‘Forum on environmental risk management of the Barents Sea and the sea areas off Lofoten’’ (the ‘‘risk group’’), responsible for monitoring potential risks to the ecosystem and ensuring dissemination of information, and ‘‘Forum for ecosystem-based management of the Barents Sea and the areas off Lofoten, ‘‘the expert forum’’ responsible for following up the implementation plan and giving advice on desirable revisions (the first being scheduled for 2010) were established. In addition a ‘‘reference group’’ consisting of representatives of stakeholders, including the business sector and nongovernmental organisations, was created [15,17]. To implement the Norwegian Sea plan the terms of reference of the existing ‘‘monitoring group’’ and ‘‘risk group’’ will be expanded to include the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea, and, the mandate of the ‘‘reference group’’ established for the Barents Sea–Lofoten area is to be expanded to include the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea. A separate expert group, paralleling the one for the Barents Sea–Lofoten, will be appointed to follow up the implementation of the management plan (the Forum for ecosystem-based management of the Norwegian Sea). The steps above are intended to improve the coordination of the management of the different regions and provide a better foundation for management of the Norwegian Sea. It should, however, be noted that during the development of the plan some parties were opposed to the concept of the Barents Sea groups being expanded to include responsibility also for the Norwegian Sea, because the groups already were overloaded with practical work related to gathering and synthesising data sampled by different institutions. Furthermore, they noticed that the initial enthusiasm for the management plans had cooled down and that fewer people now participated in the meetings. By having joint groups responsible for both the Barents and the Norwegian Seas the

397

task will become further complicated both geographically and biologically, they argued. More people and more money are needed. Furthermore, the priorities of each of the monitoring institutions are still tightly connected to the traditional sector-by-sector monitoring. Inter-disciplinary monitoring approaches have to a certain degree been developed for the Barents Sea region, but it is hard to allocate enough time and money for furthering this development either there or in the Norwegian or North Seas. In our opinion a main obstacle towards the development of interdisciplinary monitoring and reporting on the ecosystems, is the simultaneous growth within all sectors of ministryrequired demand for sector-specific data and reporting. Each institution has continued to produce separate reports on the state of selected parts of the Barents Sea–Lofoten environment and ecosystem, while concurrently using much of the same data for the integrated Norwegian reports on the ecosystem [26,27] and for 2009 also a large joint Norwegian–Russian report [28], i.e., a semi-independent duplication of work. There is reason to be worried that including also the Norwegian Sea and eventually the North Sea in a reporting regime like this will be costly and inefficient. On the other hand, the Barents Sea is obviously heavily influenced by processes in the (upstream) Norwegian Sea so the ecosystems are interlinked. Also, by joining forces one should be better equipped to utilize the overall competence on integrated marine management that is being built up [29]. Still, a more cost-efficient reporting regime must be developed. Furthermore, methods for evaluating if and how the initiated integrated marine management plans actually make a difference in the efficiency and success of managing the large marine ecosystems are still to be developed. So far, the existing Barents Sea management plan has not been subject to a rigorous peer-review that is common (even compulsory) in countries like the US and Australia. Subjecting the plans to a peer-review at regular intervals, would better ensure their scientific validity, and thereby increase their standing in the scientific as well as management communities.

Acknowledgements This work was financed through basic funding from the Norwegian Ministry of fisheries and coastal affairs to the Institute of Marine Research. References [1] O’Boyle R, Jamieson G. Observations on the implementation of ecosystembased management: experiences on Canada’s east and west coasts. Fisheries Research 2006;79:1–12. [2] Browman HI, Stergiou KI. Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 2004;274: 269–70. [3] Garcia SM, Cochrane KL. Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2005;62:311–8. [4] Bianchi G, Skjoldal HR, editors. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Rome: FAO—Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations; 2008. [5] McLeod K, Leslie H, editors. Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2009. [6] Tallis H, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus M, Lester SE, McLeod KL, Fluharty DL, Halpern BS. The many faces of ecosystem-based management: making the process work today in real places. Marine Policy 2010;34:340–8. [7] U.N. Plan of implementation of the world summit on sustainable development (Johannesburg declaration). New York, United Nation; 2002. [8] Ridgeway L, Maquieira C. Report on the work of the United Nations open-ended informal consultative process on oceans and the law of the sea at its seventh meeting; 2006. 28p. [9] Anon. Integrated management of the marine environment of the Norwegian Sea. Report no. 37 (2008–2009) to the storting; 2009a. 150p. [10] Murawski SA. Ten myths concerning ecosystem approaches to marine resource management. Marine Policy 2007;31:681–90. [11] Kenny AJ, Skjoldal HR, Engelhard GH, Kershaw PJ, Reid JB. An integrated approach for assessing the relative significance of human pressures and environmental forcing on the status of large marine ecosystems. Progress in Oceanography 2009;81:132–48. [12] Curtin R, Prellezo R. Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review. Marine Policy 2010;34:821–30.

398


[13] Anon. Politisk grunnlag for en Samarbeidsregjering (Sem Erklæringen). Oslo, In Norwegian; 2001. 52p. [14] Anon. Protecting the riches of the sea. Report no. 12 (2001–2002) to the storting; 2002. 85p. [15] Anon. Integrated management of the marine environment of the Barents Sea and the sea areas off the Lofoten islands. Report no. 8 (2005–2006) to the storting; 2006. 142p. [16] Skjoldal HR. An introduction to the Norwegian Sea ecosystem. In: Skjoldal HR, editor. the Norwegian Sea ecosystem. Trondheim: Tapir; 2004. p. 15–32. [17] Olsen E, Gjøsæter H, Røttingen I, Dommasnes A, Fossum P, Sandberg P. The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2007;599–602. [18] Knol M. Scientific advice in integrated ocean management: the process towards the Barents Sea plan. Marine Policy 2010;34:252–60. [19] O’Boyle R, Sinclair M, Keizer P, Lee K, Ricard D, Yeats P. Indicators for ecosystem-based management on the Scotian Shelf: bridging the gap between theory and practice. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2005;62:598–605. [20] Olsen E, Auran JA., editors. Helhetlig forvaltningsplan for Norskehavet: ˚ ˚ Sarbarhet for særlig verdifulle omrader i forhold til petroleumsvirksomhet, ˚ fiskeri, skipstrafikk og annen pavirkning. , Bergen: Havforskningsinstituttet. In Norwegian; 2008. 55p. [21] Dommasnes A, van der Meeren GI, Aarefjord, H., editors. Helhetlig forvaltningsplan for Norskehavet: Forslag til indikatorer, referanseverdier og tiltaksgrenser ˚ til samordnet overvakingssystem for økosystemets tilstand. In Norwegian; 2008. 152p. [22] Anon. (von Quillfeldt CH, editor). Det faglige grunnlaget for oppdateringen av ˚ forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet og havomradene utenfor Lofoten 2010. ˚ Rapport fra Faglig forum, Overvakingsgruppen og Risikogruppen til den interdepartementale styringsgruppen for forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet ˚ og havomradene utenfor Lofoten. Fisken og havet, særnummer 1a–2010. In Norwegian; 2010. 306p.

[23] Arkema KK, Abramson SC. Dewsbury BM. Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2006;4(10):525–32. ¨ sterblom H, Gardmark ˚ ¨ L, Muller-Karulis ¨ [24] O A, Bergstrom B, Folke C, Lindegren M, ¨ Casini M, Olsson P, Diekmann R, Blenckner T, Humborg C, Mollmann C. Making the ecosystem approach operational—can regime shifts in ecologicaland governance systems facilitate the transition? Marine Policy 2010;34: 1290–9. [25] McFadden KW, Barnes C. The implementation of an ecosystem approach to management within a federal government agency. Marine Policy 2009;33: 156–63. [26] Anon. (von Quillfeldt CH, editor). Økosystembasert forvaltning av Barentsha˚ vet og havomradene utenfor Lofoten. Rapport fra Faglig forum til den interdepartementale styringsgruppen for forvaltningsplanen. In Norwegian; 2009b. 147p. [27] Sunnana˚ K, Fossheim M, van der Meeren GI, editors. Forvaltningsplan ˚ Barentshavet—rapport fra overvakingsgruppen 2009. Bergen: Fisken og havet, særnr. 1b–2009. In Norwegian. 125p. [28] Stiansen JE, Korneev O, Titov O, Arneberg P., editors. Filin A, Hansen JR, Høines ˚ Marasaev S., co-editors. Joint Norwegian–Russian environmental status A, 2008. Report on the Barents Sea ecosystem part II—complete report. IMR/ PINRO joint report series 2009(3); 2009. 375p. [29] Ottersen G, van der Meeren, GI., editors. Helhetlig forvaltningsplan for Norskehavet: Vurdering av kunnskapsstatus og kunnskapsbehov. Bergen: Havforskningsinstituttet. In Norwegian; 2008. 106p. [30] Anon. (Østbye, C, Postmyr E., editors). Helhetlig forvaltningsplan for Norske˚ havet. Konsekvenser av samlet pavirkning pa˚ Norskehavet ved dagens aktiviteter og i 2025 (Report on cumulative environmental effects in the Norwegian Sea). In Norwegian.; 2008. 144 p.