International Marine Spatial Planning Symposium: Sharing Practical Solutions/11th Annual Ronald C.Baird Sea Grant Science ...
Overview1. Overview of the Norwegian planning    process  1. Structure  2. Governance  3. New regulatory tools2. Final pro...
Norway;	the	 ”ocean	state”• Area   – Waters under Norwegian      jurisdiction:     2,3 million km2   – Land territory:    ...
A	growing	understanding	for	    integrated	ocean	management• Response to challenges and pressures:    – Climate change and...
The	Norwegian	Management	plans• Initiated in 2001 to   implement integrated and                               Barents sea ...
OrganizationSimilar process for the Norwegian Sea and North Sea plans
Development	process
Governance	Structure
Implementation	and	review                     Ministerial steering group  Monitoring group        Management forum        ...
Hybrid	top‐down	approach• Led and initiated by the government   (political decision)• Development carried out by governmen...
Zoning aspects• Identification of valuable areas• Shipping lanes moving ship traffic further   off‐shore• Area‐based manag...
Valuable	areas Spawning areas for cod,         Larvae areas for cod, herring,  herring, capelin, haddock and   capelin, ha...
Barents	Sea	       Shipping	         lanes350                                      18                                     ...
-75 ° -50 ° -35 ° -25 °    -15 °       -5 ° 0 ° 5 °   15 °    25 °   35 °   45 °   55 °     65 °   75 ° 85 °              ...
Barents	Sea	2011	revision• Changes:   – Area from 50‐65 km opened with      for petroleum with no      restrictions   – Ar...
What differences did it make?• No legislation specifically for the plans. Implemented through   existing legislation    – ...
Key	Science	Challenges• Effects of climate change and ocean   acidification• Assessing vulnerability and ecological   risk...
Potential for improvements• STRUCTURAL / ORGANIZATIONAL:   – Based on science, but need transparency and peer review   – I...
Concluding remarks• The applicability of the Norwegian management   plans to other countries can be questioned.   – Norway...
Thank	you	for	your	attention!                         Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Implementation of the ecosystem approach through Marine Spatial Planning: the Norwegian case

740

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
740
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Implementation of the ecosystem approach through Marine Spatial Planning: the Norwegian case

  1. 1. International Marine Spatial Planning Symposium: Sharing Practical Solutions/11th Annual Ronald C.Baird Sea Grant Science Symposium (IMSPS)May 14th 2012 Implementation of the ecosystem approach through Marine Spatial Planning: the Norwegian case ”‹ Ž  •‡ ‡ƒ† ‘ˆ”‡•‡ƒ” ’” ƒ ˆ …Š ‘‰” ‘”‘‹ Žƒ† ˆ•Š ‹
  2. 2. Overview1. Overview of the Norwegian planning  process 1. Structure 2. Governance 3. New regulatory tools2. Final product3. What difference did it make?4. Challenges and potential for improvement Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck
  3. 3. Norway; the ”ocean state”• Area – Waters under Norwegian  jurisdiction: 2,3 million km2 – Land territory:  385 000 km2• Economic importance – Petroleum, aquaculture  and fisheries are the main  exports and foundation our  welfare
  4. 4. A growing understanding for integrated ocean management• Response to challenges and pressures: – Climate change and pollution  Potential Petroleum – Petroleum industry seeking expansion into the  Fields north and coastal areas Exp. Value: $100 billion – Increased shipping• External pressure for implementing the  Ecosystem Approach: – North Sea ministerial meeting 1997 calling for  implementation of the Ecosystem Approach – Johannesburg Declaration 2002 calling for  implementation of EA by 2010• The cumulative impacts necessitate integrated  and ecosystem‐based approaches to  management. – Marine Spatial Planning, Ocean Zoning, ICZM etc
  5. 5. The Norwegian Management plans• Initiated in 2001 to  implement integrated and  Barents sea ecosystem‐based  Norwegian sea management for Nor. EEZs• Barents sea: 2006 (revision in  2011)• Norwegian sea: 2009  (revision due in 2014)• North Sea: under  development (expected in  2013) North Sea
  6. 6. OrganizationSimilar process for the Norwegian Sea and North Sea plans
  7. 7. Development process
  8. 8. Governance Structure
  9. 9. Implementation and review Ministerial steering group Monitoring group Management forum Environmental risk forum Outside events2007 2010 Knowledge Political 2011 2008 New Gov. base for process: 2009 review of White paper. Management New Annual Plan priorities reports Revised plan
  10. 10. Hybrid top‐down approach• Led and initiated by the government  (political decision)• Development carried out by government  research institutes and directorates• Input from stakeholders at various stages: – Hearings – Public meetings• Important zoning decisions made at  political level
  11. 11. Zoning aspects• Identification of valuable areas• Shipping lanes moving ship traffic further  off‐shore• Area‐based management framework for  petroleum activities
  12. 12. Valuable areas Spawning areas for cod,  Larvae areas for cod, herring,  herring, capelin, haddock and capelin, haddock and saithe saithe Olsen et al. 2010. ICES JMS
  13. 13. Barents Sea Shipping lanes350 18 16300 14250 12200 10150 8 Antall transitter 6100 4 Antall tonn50 2 0 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Vessle traffic pr year
  14. 14. -75 ° -50 ° -35 ° -25 ° -15 ° -5 ° 0 ° 5 ° 15 ° 25 ° 35 ° 45 ° 55 ° 65 ° 75 ° 85 ° -30 ° -40 ° -65 ° 81 ° 80 °Petroleum management Greenland framework 65 ° Franz Josef Land 2006‐2010 -20 ° 60 ° -15 ° Spitzbergen 55 ° 76 °No Petroleum Activities-Lofoten – Vesterålen 50 ° 76 ° Ice-edge-Eggkanten Polar front -5 °-Bear Island-Polar front Bear Island-Ice-edge 65 km zone-Coastal zone 0 – 35km 71 ° 71 ° 45 ° TromsøflaketNo NEW Petroleum Activities bank area-Coastal zone 35 – 50 km Lofoten - Norway VesterålenNo drilling March - August te n Russia fo Olsen et al. 2007, ICES JMS, Lo-Coastal zone 50 - 65 km 5° 10 ° 15 ° 20 ° 25 ° 30 ° 35 ° 40 °-Tromsøflaket Management plan area High intensity fishing Shipping routes Framework for petroleum industry Ecologically valuable areas No petroleum activity Disputed area No new petroleum activities Oil/gas discoveries No drilling, March - September
  15. 15. Barents Sea 2011 revision• Changes: – Area from 50‐65 km opened with  for petroleum with no  restrictions – Area between 50 and 35 km  offshore opened for petroleum  activities (w date restrictions) – Eggakanten valuable area  opened for petroleum activities – Discharges of produced water  (containing oil residues) allowed – Collection of knowledge – Framework to be revised in 2013  following election
  16. 16. What differences did it make?• No legislation specifically for the plans. Implemented through  existing legislation  – ‘Marine resources act’ has been designed with this in mind• New meeting places for advisors, managers and stakeholders• Annual reporting of status (ecosystem, human use) and state of  knowledge• Development of an indicator‐based reporting system  (ecosystem state)• Assessment of environmental risk• Routing system for shipping• Area‐based management framework for petroleum Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck
  17. 17. Key Science Challenges• Effects of climate change and ocean  acidification• Assessing vulnerability and ecological  risk assessment – Identifying , quantifying  and mapping  ecological value• Ecosystem goods and services – Mapping and setting value to GS• Mapping all human impacts – Fishing activities and fishing grounds – Effects on benthic habitats• Total and cumulative impacts of  human activities Photo: E Olsen
  18. 18. Potential for improvements• STRUCTURAL / ORGANIZATIONAL: – Based on science, but need transparency and peer review – Improve sectoral cooperation, especially at ministerial level – Identifying and clarifying disagreements (between sectors) to  improve decision‐making and enhancing the scientific ethos• SCIENTIFIC – Socioeconomic effects are not assessed although they are  instrumental in the decision‐making process – Economic impact on communities, region and nation should be better  assessed – Ecosystem services should be assessed – Communication of uncertainties! Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck
  19. 19. Concluding remarks• The applicability of the Norwegian management  plans to other countries can be questioned.  – Norway is a small, homogenous and rich country.  – Its central administration is highly concentrated and by  international standards well coordinated.  – Its research institutions are well funded and have  substantial capacity to carry out the research for  Integrated oceans management.• Even under these conditions implementing MSP  has been challenging!
  20. 20. Thank you for your attention! Photo: T. de Lange Wenneck
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×