Opportunities and Challenges in the North€¦ · Opportunities and Challenges in the North been established across this border could also be useful to the Norwegian petroleum industry

Report No. 30 (2004–2005) to the Storting

Opportunities and Challenges in the North

Translation from the Norwegian. For information only.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.1 Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.3 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.4 Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.5 Intensified efforts in the

High North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 Central features of the High North policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1 From polar exploration to petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 A new security policy focus. . . . . . . 122.3 Oil and gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.4 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.5 Environmental protection . . . . . . . . 162.6 Transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.7 Integrated management of the

marine environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.8 Business co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . 192.9 Knowledge base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.10 Indigenous peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.11 Svalbard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3 Issues of international law . . . . . 243.1 Delimitation of the continental

shelf and the 200-mile zones in the Barents Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2 The outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.3 The Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.4 Protection of the marine environment in the High North . . . 26

4 Co-operation on nuclear safety . 274.1 Norway’s aims and priorities . . . . . 274.2 The main challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.3 A framework for co-operation

with Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5 Regional co-operation in the North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.1 The Barents Co-operation . . . . . . . . 325.2 The Arctic Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335.3 Other co-operation arrangements . 34

6 A coherent Norwegian High North policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6.1 Dialogues on the High North . . . . . 366.2 Bilateral co-operation with Russia . 366.3 The Barents Co-operation and

the Arctic Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386.4 Knowledge base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396.5 Improved co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . 40

7 Economic and administrative consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Annex1 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Utenriksdepartementet

Opportunities and Challenges in the North

Report No. 30 (2004–2005) to the Storting

Recommendation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 15 April 2005,approved in the Council of State on the same date.(White paper from the Bondevik II Government)

1 Introduction

The High North has been important for Norway forhundreds of years in terms of business opportuni-ties and resources, and interest in these areas isgrowing rapidly today. Technological advanceshave opened up many new opportunities for mak-ing use of the resources in this area, and othercountries are also taking more interest in theregion. Thus the High North presents great oppor-tunities for Norway.

Norway’s territorial waters cover a very largearea and the country possesses very considerablenatural resources in relation to the size of its popu-lation and the extent of its political influence. Thisgives rise to a number of very important foreignpolicy issues. Thus the High North also posesgreat challenges for Norway.

In its new, comprehensive policy on the HighNorth, the Government aims to take advantage ofthe opportunities and meet the challenges throughbilateral and multilateral co-operation and throughcloser dialogue on the High North with the rele-vant countries. By clarifying goals and instru-ments, the Government wishes to formulate acoherent and offensive High North policy thatstrikes a balance between different interests andsustainable development considerations.

In March 2003 the Government appointed acommittee of experts on the High North to identifythe new opportunities and challenges Norway isfacing in the North and to evaluate from an overallperspective how Norwegian interests in this regioncan best be safeguarded.

The committee’s report was published as NOU2003: 32 (Official Norwegian Report), entitled LookNorth! Challenges and opportunities in the northernareas, and was circulated for comment to a widerange of institutions whose work is concerned withthe High North.

The committee’s report, the ensuing debateand the consultative comments, together with thereport on the High North by the Executive Com-mittee for Northern Norway, have been given con-siderable weight in the deliberations and prioritiesthat are described in the present report.

In the following emphasis is given to the for-eign policy aspects of the High North policy. Indrawing up the policy other factors will also havean impact, such as defence issues and the frame-work conditions for business activities, but theGovernment has proceeded on the assumptionthat these factors will be taken up in other con-texts.

6 Report No. 30 to the Storting 2004– 2005Opportunities and Challenges in the North

1.1 Opportunities

For forty years developments in the High Northwere dictated by the logic of the Cold War. Thelarge Soviet military build-up in the North was asource of concern, and although it was not prima-rily aimed at Norway, it dominated Norwegiansecurity policy.

The situation was one of mutual scepticism andmistrust, and there was little contact between thepeople on either side of the Norwegian-Soviet bor-der. Co-operation was confined to practical issueslike the management of common fish stocks.

Today the situation in the High North haschanged. Although there remain some difficult andcomplex challenges, the emphasis now is on theopportunities offered by the region.

Until recently the focus was on the abundantfishery resources in the area. The Barents Sea isshallow and rich in nutrients, and biological pro-duction is high. The warm waters of the NorthAtlantic Drift transport nutrients and juvenile fishof important species to the nurseries in the BarentsSea. These fish stocks have been harvested forthousands of years, and we will be able to continueharvesting them for many more thousands if theyare managed in a sustainable way.

The new opportunities that have opened up arerelated to the large oil and gas resources that arethought to exist under the sea bed. The exploita-tion of these resources will influence developmentsin the region for decades to come. In fact the HighNorth may in the long term become Europe’s mostimportant petroleum province. Northern Russiaalready has large-scale onshore production, and ina few years’ time both Norway and Russia willbegin offshore production.

The development of petroleum resources in theHigh North is taking place at a time when produc-tion on other parts of the Norwegian continentalshelf is reaching its peak. This makes it especiallyimportant to develop production in the High North.This will help safeguard our prosperity and welfareas production further south is phased out, andensure that Norway’s technological and otherexpertise and experience in this field are made useof and further developed, and that existing jobs inthe industry are maintained.

These factors are creating new opportunities,especially for those living in the North. The mostimportant aspect of this development for Norway isthe activity on the Norwegian continental shelf, butit will also be important to promote the use of Nor-wegian offshore technology and experience in theRussian part of the continental shelf. Proximity to

the oil and gas resources in northwestern Russiawill give the people and business sector in NorthNorway an advantage.

Furthermore Russian immigration is a sourceof qualified labour that can contribute to privatesector development in North Norway.

The development of petroleum resources in theNorth will also make Norway an interesting part-ner for other countries. This will provide newopportunities for closer co-operation in a widerange of fields, including research and the environ-ment. Greater international political focus on theHigh North could enhance the importance of theBarents Council and the Arctic Council as co-oper-ation fora.

1.2 Challenges

One of the main challenges in the North is to com-bine petroleum production with protection of thevulnerable marine environment. This will requirethat petroleum production is carried out in a waythat takes account of the marine environment.There are a number of activities taking place innorthern waters that affect or that could affect themarine environment and living resources. Theeffects of the various activities must be weighedagainst each other so that a coherent ecosystem-based management regime can be established thatwill safeguard the quality of the environment andensure that the resources are exploited in a sus-tainable way.

It is important that the people of North Norwaybenefit from the exploitation of resources in theNorth. The development of these resources coin-cides with great changes in parts of the traditionalindustrial structure in this part of the country.

Another challenge is to take advantage of thenew opportunities offered by the reforms andgrowth in the Russian economy in terms of jobsand value creation in Norway’s northernmost coun-ties. Commercial co-operation between North Nor-way and northwestern Russia has not increased asmuch as it was expected to after the new opportu-nities for co-operation arrangements opened up inthe early 1990s. However, Norwegian investmentin northwestern Russia is now on the rise and tradehas grown considerably during the past two years.An effective High North policy must include mea-sures designed to encourage this trend.

A more effective High North policy must alsoinclude measures that will enable North Norway tomake better use of its position as a gateway tonorthwestern Russia. The close contacts that have

2004– 2005 Report No. 30 to the Storting 7Opportunities and Challenges in the North

been established across this border could also beuseful to the Norwegian petroleum industry in itsefforts to develop co-operation with the Russianpetroleum industry.

There are also a number of major challenges inthe region in connection with the environment andnuclear safety. The Cold War left a legacy of inade-quately secured nuclear facilities, decommis-sioned submarines and radioactive waste, whichare a threat to the environment. There is also a dan-ger that radioactive material from these facilitiescould fall into the wrong hands. The environmentin Norway and the northern waters is becomingheavily polluted by industrial installations on theKola Peninsula and in the area around Archangel.Long-range transport of pollutants by air and seacurrents from areas further south is also creatinghealth and environmental problems in the North.

Svalbard is the site of one of the last largeuntouched wilderness areas in Europe. It is veryimportant to preserve this unique natural legacyfor present and future generations and to ensurethat all activities on the archipelago are carried outin accordance with the rules established by Nor-way under the Treaty concerning Spitsbergen.

According to the findings of the Arctic ClimateImpact Assessment, anthropogenic climate changecould have considerable consequences for theregion and for the exploitation of resources there.This underlines the need for a reduction in green-house gas emissions and for strategies for adaptingto climate change in the North.

The security policy situation in the High Northis completely changed now that the Cold War hasended. Russia is becoming a partner in interna-tional co-operation structures such as the NATO-Russia Council and in a number of European insti-tutions.

Today safeguarding Norwegian interests in theNorth is increasingly becoming a matter of the sus-tainable use of natural resources and monitoringthe environment. Developments in the law of thesea since the early 1970s have given Norway juris-diction over large sea areas. This imposes a consid-erable responsibility on Norway to manage theresources in these areas in a sound way. A soundenvironmental and resource policy requiresresources and environmental monitoring andsupervision of industrial activities to ensure com-pliance with the relevant legislation.

Because the marine environment knows noboundaries and because the fish stocks in thesewaters are fished by a number of countries, it isimportant for Norway to further develop the practi-

cal co-operation arrangements that have beenestablished between Norway and Russia, and Nor-way and other countries.

There are also major challenges in the foreignpolicy field. Other countries are showing a growinginterest in Norwegian and Russian petroleumresources. This is partly because these resourcesare located in politically stable areas, and manycountries are concerned about securing theirenergy supplies. This makes the High North moreinteresting than many other areas that are rich inenergy sources.

Periods when there is an insufficient supply ofenergy may give rise to high expectations andpolitical pressure. It cannot be taken for grantedthat Norwegian interests will always coincide withthose of key partners. It is therefore important toensure that Norway’s interests continue to deter-mine developments in the Norwegian part of theHigh North.

The indigenous institutions in Norway have astrong position internationally, and their role there-fore extends beyond Norway’s borders. The indig-enous dimension is thus an important part of ourHigh North policy.

The outstanding international law issues in theHigh North pose a particular foreign policy chal-lenge. Unresolved delimitation issues betweenstates can lead to a conflict of interests, and so candisagreement on the basis for jurisdiction over seaareas.

The Government gives very high priority to theefforts to settle issues of international law. Theissue of the delimitation of the continental shelfand zones in the Barents Sea can only be resolvedthrough political agreement between Norway andRussia.

Thus there are a number of challenges thatmust be dealt with before a coherent High Northpolicy can be formulated. During the Cold WarNorway’s High North policy was shaped by secu-rity policy considerations. This made it easier topursue a coherent policy that incorporated the indi-vidual sectors. Since the end of the Cold War, how-ever, the High North policy has become frag-mented between the various sectors, without suffi-cient co-ordination.

Thus we must ensure that the working meth-ods used in the formulation of the new High Northpolicy will result in a coherent policy that isexpressed in a consistent way. It is also importantthat the policy has broad political support in Nor-way. This will give Norway more influence interna-tionally.


1.3 Goals

The principal goals of the High North policy are toensure political stability and sustainable develop-ment in the North.

Political stability is essential for the develop-ment of the resource-rich High North. Because somany countries have an interest in the region, andbecause of the outstanding issues, Norway needsto make political stability an overriding objective.

Sustainable development in the North can beensured by sound resource management and theconservation of biodiversity. The Government willdeal with the environmental challenges by impos-ing stringent environmental requirements and set-ting high standards for the use of resources andother activities in the North.

The safeguarding of Norwegian interests isalso an important policy goal. However consider-able efforts are required to deal with the many chal-lenges related to the control and management ofthe natural resources in these vast sea areas.

Another goal of our High North policy is toinvolve Norwegian businesses actively in the co-operation with Russia in the North. This will bothpromote development in northwestern Russia andlead to growth and new jobs in Norway. The devel-opment of the Russian part of the continental shelfis particularly important in this connection. Norwe-gian-Russian co-operation in this area will pave theway for the use of the advanced, environmentallyfriendly Norwegian offshore technology that hasbeen developed to meet the needs of petroleumproduction in the harsh weather conditions of theNorth Sea.

A further goal is to ensure that the indigenouspeoples of the region take a real part in the deci-sion-making processes that are concerned with theprotection and development of their history, cul-ture, livelihoods and society.

Enhancing our cultural co-operation with Rus-sia is both a means and an end in itself. Cross-border cultural co-operation makes a significantcontribution to the development of people-to-peo-ple relations in the region, and provides fora wherepeople can meet on an equal basis and form con-tacts and networks.

Since the beginning of the 1990s North Norwayhas contributed to network- and confidence-build-ing across the divide that formerly separated Nor-way and Russia. The Government will encouragethis positive trend by strengthening the efforts topromote knowledge about the Russian languageand culture in North Norway.

1.4 Means

The Government will seek to promote understand-ing and knowledge of the conditions specific to theHigh North through bilateral dialogues with keycountries that have interests in the North. The dia-logues will include issues related to the marineenvironment and resource use. At the same time itis important that Norway safeguards its interestsand gains acceptance for its views and assessmentson other issues. By these means Norway will beable to present a coherent picture of High Northissues at the national and international levels.

Energy issues will occupy a central place in sev-eral of these dialogues, which will provide anopportunity for these issues to be discussed in thebroader context of foreign and environmental pol-icy. These broader bilateral dialogues could be asupplement to the energy dialogue Norway alreadyconducts with Russia, and to those that the USA,France, Germany and the EU conduct with Russia.

Norway’s bilateral co-operation with Russia willcontinue to occupy an important place in its HighNorth policy. This co-operation is essential forensuring the sound and sustainable managementof the fish stocks in the Barents Sea and for solvingthe environmental problems in the North. TheNorwegian authorities and business sector willalso benefit from close co-operation with Russia inconnection with petroleum production in the HighNorth and investment in onshore industries. TheGovernment’s goal is to ensure that there are strictenvironmental and safety requirements for petro-leum activities in the whole of the Barents Sea.Close co-operation with Russia on safety at sea andan oil pollution emergency response system willalso be important in the light of the increasing vol-ume of maritime transport in the High North.

People-to-people co-operation across the Nor-wegian-Russian border provides a sound founda-tion for the development of good relations withNorway’s largest neighbour, and has been verysuccessful in the Barents Region. The North Nor-wegian county administrations and the BarentsSecretariat have played an important role in thisconnection, and it is due to their efforts that theBarents Co-operation has become such a vitalinstrument in Norway’s High North policy. TheBarents Co-operation has also become an impor-tant forum for Norwegian-Russian co-operation.Norway has invested almost NOK 3 billion in co-operation with Russia in the North and this hasresulted in mutual openness and trust and co-oper-ation in a wide range of fields.


However, the Barents Co-operation can bemade more effective and up to date. The Govern-ment will therefore take the initiative for an evalua-tion of this co-operation, including the question ofwhether an international secretariat should beestablished and whether the co-operation has beenable to identify the new issues that must beresolved in the region.

The Arctic Council is another valuable instru-ment, and a forum for the discussion of broad cir-cumpolar issues, including indigenous issues andenvironmental issues, particularly pollution and cli-mate change.

Norway will take over the chairmanship of theCouncil in 2006. This will give the authorities agood opportunity to take initiatives that willenhance circumpolar co-operation and the Coun-cil’s role.

The integrated management plan for the Bar-ents Sea that is being drawn up will provide guide-lines and a framework for activity in the northernwaters over which Norway has jurisdiction. Theplan will establish framework conditions that willmake it possible to strike a balance between thecommercial interests related to the petroleumindustry, maritime transport and fisheries, and sus-tainable development.

1.5 Intensified efforts in the High North

In the present report the Government proposes anumber of measures for strengthening Norway’sHigh North policy. Some measures are specific toindividual policy areas and others are related to co-ordination of issues related to the High North.

The Government wishes to strengthen projectco-operation with Russia and the other CIS coun-tries and will submit concrete proposals for alloca-tions to the Storting at a later date. It intends toincrease support for the Barents Secretariat.

The Government also intends to propose to theStorting that funds are set aside for co-operationprojects that will be initiated during Norway’schairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2006–2008.

The Government will propose to the Stortingthat funds are set aside for national knowledge-building in the marine field, including an activepresence in the High North.

The Government will facilitate closer researchco-operation in the North, especially in Svalbardand with Russian scientists, and will propose to theStorting that funds are set aside for this purpose.

The Government will take the initiative for aninternational research fund for the High Northunder the auspices of the Arctic Council and willadvocate that the fund’s administration should belocated in Tromsø. The fund should focus particu-larly on the impact of climate change on the envi-ronment and natural resources, and indigenousissues. The Government will urge the members ofthe Arctic Council to contribute to the fund and willsubmit a proposal concerning Norway’s contribu-tion to the Storting at a later date.

The Government wishes Norway to continue toplay a leading role in the international nuclearsafety co-operation with Russia within the frame-work of the Plan of Action for Nuclear SafetyIssues. The Government will submit a specific pro-posal to the Storting concerning allocations for thispurpose at a later date.

The Government will continue to give high pri-ority to co-operation with Russia on environmentalissues, particularly co-operation on the manage-ment of the marine environment.

In the light of the new opportunities for Norwe-gian-Russian co-operation in the North, especiallyin connection with oil and gas production in theBarents Sea, the Government will, in co-operationwith Innovation Norway, seek to establish a newposition for a commercial officer at the consulategeneral in Murmansk as a trial arrangement. In co-operation with the Norwegian Confederation ofBusiness and Industry, the Government will createopportunities for Norwegian, especially North Nor-wegian, companies to present themselves in north-western Russia. The Government recognises theimportance of promoting co-operation between thesocial partners in connection with private sectordevelopment in Norway and Russia.

In the light of the increase in the transport ofgoods and services across the border with Russiain Sør-Varanger, the Government will propose tothe Russian authorities that the opening hours beextended and customs procedures expedited atboth countries’ border control stations at Storskog.

In order to enhance international co-operationin the field of reindeer husbandry, the Governmenthas decided to establish an international reindeerhusbandry centre in Kautokeino. The centre willpromote the publication and exchange of informa-tion, and co-operation between reindeer herders,the authorities and research and academic commu-nities at the national and international levels.

The Government wishes to strengthen the co-operation on contingency planning in the HighNorth. The Barents Rescue 2005 exercise, whichwill be carried out in autumn 2005, is a joint alarm


and field training exercise with participants fromthe Nordic countries and Russia. When the exer-cise has been completed, the Government will con-sider how the co-operation on contingency plan-ning can best be strengthened, using the lessonslearned from the exercise and on the basis of theco-operation Norway already has with Russia, forexample in connection with coast guard activitiesand contingency planning.

Norwegian-Russian co-operation was intensi-fied in 2003 with a view to improving safety at seaand further developing the oil pollution emergencyresponse system in the Barents Region. The Gov-

ernment will further develop this co-operation withRussia.

With a view to enhancing the effectiveness ofour High North policy, the Government will assignresponsibility for co-ordinating the work on issuesrelated to the High North to a state secretary in theMinistry of Foreign Affairs. An inter-ministerial co-ordinating committee will also be established, anda liaison committee for the High North with broadrepresentation whose mandate will be to promotecloser contact between the central governmentadministration, the regional authorities, the busi-ness community and NGOs.


2 Central features of the High North policy

2.1 From polar exploration to petroleum

The High North has occupied a central place inNorwegian policy for a long time. A hundred yearsago Roald Amundsen’s and Fridtjof Nansen’s polarexpeditions were in the limelight. At that time itwas the polar areas that were the focus of attention.

After the First World War the focus shifted toterritories in the North where sovereignty issueshad yet to be settled. This applied to most of theislands in the area. However, within a few years theissue of sovereignty over the various islands hadbeen settled.

In the 1970s, 200-mile zones were establishedon the basis of the development of the law of thesea. Within these zones the coastal states had rec-ognised sovereign rights over the fisheryresources and the resources on the seabed and theright to implement environmental controls. Thisgave Norway jurisdiction over an area that was sixtimes the size of mainland Norway.

During the Cold War the High North was char-acterised by military tension between East andWest, but the end of the Cold War resulted in a newsituation, in which military considerations gradu-ally became less important both to Norway and toRussia. This was the basis for the establishment ofthe Barents Co-operation in 1993.

In the first years after the dissolution of theSoviet Union, Norway and Russia continued to co-operate on fisheries and expanded their co-opera-tion to cover the new areas that were generated bythe Barents Co-operation. Since the mid-1990s, par-ticular priority has been given to co-operation ondealing with the nuclear legacy of the Cold War.

For over 50 years Norway and Russia have co-operated closely on research concerning the man-agement of living marine resources and the marineenvironment in the Barents Sea. This co-operationis a good example of the importance of a commonscientific basis for advice on management issues.

Since the mid-1990s natural resource issueshave become increasingly prominent. At first polit-ical attention focused on the large oil and gas

Figure 2.1 Coast Guard vessel Svalbard conducting a fisheries inspectionPhoto: Norwegian Coast Guard


resources. However, because of the vulnerability ofthe area, environmental issues began to receivegreater attention, as the did the possibility of con-flict between the use of renewable resources andnon-renewable resources.

2.2 A new security policy focus

The reduced level of tension has gradually led to areduction in the Russian military presence on theKola Peninsula, although it is still considerable.The headquarters of the strategically importantNorthern Fleet is there, and there is still a largeconcentration of nuclear weapons in northwesternRussia. The large quantities of radioactive materialin the many and often inadequately securednuclear facilities pose a challenge to the efforts toprevent the proliferation of material that could beused in terrorist operations.

Russia’s High North policy shows that thecountry still considers this region to be strategi-cally significant. However, civilian activities aregradually gaining in importance, and there is everyindication that Russian business interests, espe-cially in the petroleum sector, will become increas-ingly influential in the years to come.

During the Cold War Norway was vulnerablebecause of its geographical location. Norway’s stra-tegic importance, especially that of North Norwayand the northern sea areas, meant that the coun-try’s position and views were of great interest to itsallies. The Soviet Union’s dissolution and the endof the Cold War put an end to the greatest threat toNorway’s security, and this resulted in less interna-tional interest in the country.

It is important for Norway that NATO countriescontinue to have a focus on the High North, andthe close co-operation between NATO and Russiahas a positive effect on Norway’s bilateral relationswith Russia. Norway wishes to strengthen its co-operation with Russia on civil crisis managementand to further develop the co-operation betweenthe Norwegian and Russian armed forces.

The Norwegian military presence has changedin response to the changes in the security policysituation. However, maintaining a military pres-ence in the region is still important since the pri-mary task of the defence establishment is to safe-guard Norway’s sovereignty and sovereign rights.The defence establishment also exercises author-ity on behalf of civil institutions in cases where ithas been given such authority. The Coast Guardplays an important role in this work.

It is also important for Norway that the EU andindividual EU countries have a focus on the HighNorth. The development of resources in the North,the attendant environmental challenges and cli-mate change in the region are all issues that makeit necessary for Norway to have close contact withthe EU. The wider scope of the EU’s relations withRussia, and the significance of northwestern Rus-sia in the context of these relations, are importantin this connection. Norway’s European policy isthus closely linked with its High North policy.

2.3 Oil and gas

Much of the attention focused on the High North isdirected at the petroleum resources. Many of theworld’s undiscovered petroleum resources arethought to lie in the Arctic, and the High North isregarded by the world as a large potential petro-leum province. Thus the High North may wellbecome Europe’s most important petroleum prov-ince in the long term.

The first production licence in the Barents Seawas awarded as early as 1980, but the whole of theSouthern Barents Sea was formally opened forpetroleum operations in 1989. So far a total of 41production licences have been awarded and over60 exploration wells have been drilled in this area.In comparison, well over 1000 exploration wellshave been drilled in the other parts of the Norwe-gian continental shelf. Thus the Barents Sea is theleast explored petroleum province on the Norwe-gian continental shelf.

Estimates of the undiscovered resources indi-cate that about one billion cubic metres of oil equiv-alents remain to be discovered in the Southern Bar-ents Sea. This is about a third of the total undiscov-ered resources on the continental shelf and may beof enormous value. Since we know little about thegeology of the Norwegian part of the continentalshelf in the Barents Sea, these estimates are veryuncertain. However, the potential is great and dis-coveries of petroleum in new areas will lead to aconsiderable upward adjustment of the potentialresources in this area.

The Barents Sea is also the part of the Norwe-gian continental shelf where the probability oflarge discoveries is highest. However, the area willhave to be extensively explored before it can bedeveloped as a petroleum province.

The sea areas north of the Lofoten Islands,including the Barents Sea, also contain substantialnatural resources in the form of fish, seabirds andmarine mammals. They are therefore very valuable


from an ecological and a fisheries point of view. Forthis reason the Government decided when it cameinto power in 2001 that the impact of year-roundpetroleum operations in the High North should beassessed before the area could be opened further.The results of the environmental impact assess-ment of the sea areas north of the Lofoten Islandsto the Barents Sea were published in July 2003. InDecember of the same year the Governmentdecided to open up for further petroleum activitiesin the southern part of the Barents Sea, apart fromthe areas around Bjørnøya, Tromsøflaket, theareas around the Polar Front and the ice edge, andthose off the coast of Finnmark, which are particu-larly valuable in environmental terms.

On the basis of the assessment, the Govern-ment is giving priority to further exploration of theBarents Sea. The exploration activities have twogoals: to prove additional resources in the rela-tively well known area around the Snøhvit field,and to ensure effective exploration of the little-known areas in the Southern Barents Sea.

In 2003 the Government carried out a compre-hensive reorganisation of the licensing system forthe mature parts of the shelf. A system was intro-duced of awarding licences in previously-defined

exploration areas which allowed the petroleumindustry to apply for production licences from Jan-uary to October each year. The objective of thisarrangement was to ensure that the industry hadaccess to the areas of the shelf where timing wascritical. In 2004, the areas around the Snøhvitdevelopment were included in the previouslydefined area. This was to ensure that the industryhad access to areas with resources that might berecoverable as satellites of Snøhvit. In December2004, a production licence was awarded in this areato the licensees of Snøhvit. The previously definedarea in the Barents Sea was not extended from2004 to 2005, but as the geological knowledge ofthe new areas increases, whether around Snøhvitor in other areas of the Barents Sea, further exten-sions may be made.

The 19th licensing round will form the mainbasis for the further exploration of the little-knownareas of the shelf. In October 2004, the Govern-ment invited the petroleum industry to nominateareas for inclusion in this round. The companieswere given the opportunity to nominate blocks inthe Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea to beopened up for petroleum activities, with the excep-tion of environmentally significant areas and areas

Figure 2.2 Important oil and gas discoveries in the Barents Sea


of particular value to the fisheries. In February2005, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energyreceived nominations for the 19th licensing roundfrom a total of 19 companies. The interest shown inthe Barents Sea through these nominations wasvery high.

The available areas to be announced in the 19th

licensing round before the summer in 2005 will bebased on these nominations together with theauthorities’ own assessments. The Governmentintends that the announcement of these areas willensure a sound basis for efficient exploration ofcentral parts of the undisputed Norwegian part ofthe Southern Barents Sea. According to plan, thelicences will be awarded in the first quarter of 2006.

So far, a number of small and medium-sized dis-coveries have been proven in the Barents Sea,most of which are gas. The gas field Snøhvit, whichis the first field to have been approved for develop-ment, is now being developed with a LNG process-ing plant on Melkøya, off Hammerfest. This devel-opment has had considerable ripple effects both inthe Hammerfest region and in Northern Norway asa whole.

The prospects of new discoveries in the Bar-ents Sea are good. A number of large structureshave been charted, and it is hoped that they will beexplored in the next few years. New discoveriesmay lead to further developments off Troms and/or Finnmark. It will probably be possible for dis-coveries of gas around Snøhvit, including discover-ies outside the current area defined for the awardof licences, to be phased into the Snøhvit process-ing plant on Melkøya. Gas discoveries further eastor west could, however, result in independentdevelopments, with their own processing plantsonshore. Building transportation pipelines to Halt-enbanken is also a possibility.

The future prospects for petroleum activities inthe Barents Sea are good, and discoveries couldhave considerable ripple effects on land. It should,however, be noted that extensive exploration is stillneeded before the petroleum potential in the areahas been fully charted. Due to the distance to themarkets and the lack of infrastructure, develop-ments in the Barents Sea will require major invest-ment. Large petroleum resources will have to beproven to justify this investment. As more infra-structure is established, however, it will be possi-ble to develop smaller discoveries as in the NorthSea.

Another factor that makes the Barents Sea aninteresting Norwegian petroleum province is thefact that major deposits of oil and gas have beenproven in the Kara Sea and on the Russian side of

the Barents Sea. For example, the world’s largestoffshore gas field, Shtokman, is situated there. Sofar, only the oil field Prirazlomnoye is under devel-opment. Russia has recently announced plans forsystematic exploration activities in the undisputedRussian part of the Barents Sea.

Russia has so far concentrated on developingdiscoveries on land, and has not, therefore, devel-oped any extensive offshore expertise. Russiancompanies have shown considerable interest indeveloping oil and gas fields offshore. There is,however, still some uncertainty as to what prioritywill be given to the development of offshore oil andgas fields in the North.

Norwegian companies have developed consid-erable expertise in connection with advanceddevelopment projects both on the Norwegian con-tinental shelf and in international projects, and thisgives them a competitive advantage as regards par-ticipation in operations on the Russian shelf. Thiswould provide new activities for Norwegian oilcompanies, the contractor industry and local busi-nesses in North Norway.

The activities we are now starting up on theNorwegian side are subject to stringent environ-mental requirements. The experience we gainfrom these activities will help to set the standardfor petroleum operations in the northern sea areas.Increased petroleum activity in the High North willalso lead to a higher level of oil spill preparedness,which could also be used in the event of acute pol-lution from shipping.

It is believed that there may be interestingdeposits of petroleum resources in what is cur-rently an area of overlapping claims in the BarentsSea. Future petroleum co-operation in this area willprovide commercial opportunities for both coun-tries. However, co-operation will only be possible ifthere is agreement on a delimitation line thatclearly and unambiguously defines the respectiveareas of jurisdiction.

2.4 Fisheries

The fisheries and aquaculture industry is impor-tant for Norway and the High North, and is one ofour most important export industries. From 2003to 2004, export earnings from this industryincreased by NOK 1.9 billion, to a total of NOK 28.1billion. The industry thus has considerable poten-tial for value creation.

The authorities attach importance to establish-ing internationally competitive framework condi-tions that will release the potential for value cre-


ation and promote the development of a morerobust industry. Profitable companies createsecure, long-term jobs and viable coastal communi-ties.

This applies to the whole coast, but especiallythat of the three northernmost counties. Of theapproximately 15 600 fishermen registered in2004, some 7 650 lived in Nordland, Troms andFinnmark counties, and 60 per cent of the approxi-mately 2 000 year-round fishing vessels were regis-tered in these counties.

Over 30 per cent of the approximately 12 000persons employed in processing plants along thecoast live in the three northernmost counties.About 20 000 persons are employed in the aquacul-ture industry and in companies supplying theindustry with goods and services in the country asa whole. Of these, 4 000 persons are employed inaquaculture, and one third of these live in the threenorthernmost counties.

These figures show the importance of the fish-eries and aquaculture industry for employment,value creation and settlement in North Norway.

Fisheries resources must be managed in sucha way that they continue to secure jobs and incomefor future generations. Thus Norway’s policy in

this area is based on the principle of sustainablemanagement and harvesting.

It is essential that decisions concerningresource management are based on sound scien-tific knowledge. Norway is a pioneer in usingmarine research as the basis for its fisheries man-agement. As part of its up-to-date ecosystem-ori-ented approach to marine resources management,Norway also gives priority to promoting under-standing and support for the management ofmarine mammals (whales and seals) based on sci-entific principles.

Within its areas of jurisdiction Norway has aspecial responsibility for the sound management ofmarine resources and for ensuring that all actorsoperating in Norwegian waters comply with themanagement, conservation and enforcement mea-sures that are adopted. Norway will actively seekthrough international co-operation to ensure thatthe necessary regulation of fisheries enjoys legiti-macy and support, and to promote greater accep-tance of the necessary enforcement and controlmeasures.

It is important to continue the close co-opera-tion with Russia in the fisheries sector in order toensure sustainable management of harvestableresources in the Barents Sea. Fisheries are amongthe most important areas of co-operation betweenthe two countries. Such management is based onresearch that is the result of longstanding co-oper-ation in the International Council for the Explora-tion of the Sea (ICES).

The fisheries co-operation between Norwayand Russia was formalised by the Agreement of 11April 1975 on co-operation in the fisheries sectorand the Agreement of 15 October 1976 on bilateralrelations in the fisheries sector. The Joint Norwe-gian-Russian Fisheries Commission was estab-lished in accordance with the first of these agree-ments. At the annual meetings of the commissionthe parties determine the total allowable catches ofcommon fish stocks and divide them between Nor-way, Russia and third countries. They also deter-mine reciprocal fishing rights in each other’s zonesand other management measures for the BarentsSea. Norway and Russia base their total allowablecatches on the recommended harvesting levelsdetermined by the ICES.

The co-operation between Norway and Russiaon fisheries management in the Barents Sea facescertain challenges. A difference of views on theprinciples on which the establishment of the Fish-eries Protection Zone around Svalbard is based hasin certain cases led to protests concerning Norwe-gian regulatory and enforcement measures. The

Figure 2.3 Norway and Russia are engaged in con-sultations on the delimitation of an area of over-lapping claims, whereas fishing activities in the «grey zone» are governed by a provisional agree-ment.


lack of access to the Russian Economic Zone forfisheries research vessels and Russia’s difficultiesin carrying out reliable resource monitoring havealso created problems.

2.5 Environmental protection

Generally, the state of the environment in the HighNorth is satisfactory, and human activity has hadless impact on the environment there than furthersouth. The region also contains some of the lastlarge areas of untouched nature in our part of theworld. However, the environment in the HighNorth is also vulnerable to pollution, over-exploita-tion and development, and is under pressure as aresult of the growing utilisation of naturalresources and external factors such as long-rangepollution and climate change. Moreover, in certainparts of the Russian High North, a major challengeis to deal with pollution from industrial and militaryactivity during the Soviet era.

The Government considers it important thatthe framework for all activities in the High North,

including resource utilisation, transport, tourismand research, is such that biodiversity is main-tained and that there is no serious impact or pres-sure on untouched areas of natural environment orthe cultural heritage.

The Arctic areas are particularly vulnerable toclimate change. There is a good deal of evidencethat climate change in the Arctic may be morerapid and unpredictable than previously thought.The results of the Arctic Climate Impact Assess-ment (ACIA), which were presented to the ArcticCouncil in autumn 2004, show that climate changeis already taking place in the Arctic. Winter temper-atures in parts of the Arctic have risen by 3–4degrees Celsius in the last 50 years, and the meantemperature in the region has risen considerablymore than the global mean temperature in thesame period. The extent of the sea ice in summerhas decreased markedly in the last few decades,and this trend is expected to accelerate. Theimpacts of climate change on the environment, liv-ing resources and human health may be substan-tial. Thawing of the permfrost may cause damageto buildings, roads and other infrastructure.

Figure 2.4 The nickel works in NikelPhoto: Morten Günther/Svanhovd Environmental Centre


Norway has viewed the ACIA process as thebeginning of a long-term national and internationaleffort to improve our knowledge of climate pro-cesses and of climate change and its impacts in theArctic. The ACIA has documented large gaps inour knowledge, and has proposed a series of mea-sures relating to infrastructure co-operation andknowledge production to close these gaps. It hasbeen decided to continue the ACIA process,among other things by means of a national follow-up programme that will provide the governmentadministration with a better basis for political deci-sions. Efforts to follow up the ACIA will also belinked to research and data collection in connec-tion with the International Polar Year 2007–2008and work under the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) and the Arctic Council.

The alarming pace of climate change in theHigh North also underlines the need for consider-ably larger cuts in global greenhouse gas emis-sions after the first commitment period under theKyoto Protocol ends in 2012. The Government willtake active steps to ensure that future climateagreements are as ambitious and global in scope aspossible.

The High North acts as a sink for a number ofpersistent organic pollutants (POPs) that are trans-ported with air and ocean currents from moresoutherly latitudes to the Arctic, where they accu-mulate in organisms at the top of food chains, suchas marine mammals and seabirds. The markets forfish and seafood are also very sensitive to this typeof pollution. Norway is giving high priority toefforts to limit inputs of such substances, and thisis an important issue for all the member states ofthe Arctic Council. In addition, there is a greatneed to further develop existing global andregional UN agreements designed to regulate theuse and emissions of hazardous substances.

In recent years, environmental protection hasbecome an increasingly important part of Norwe-gian Svalbard policy, and it has become a high-pri-ority goal to protect the unique wilderness charac-ter of the archipelago. To this end, a new SvalbardEnvironmental Protection Act has been adopted,and the protected areas in Svalbard have beenexpanded. Norway has a responsibility to ensurethat all actors operating in the area abide by thedecisions that have been made concerning envi-ronmental protection measures.

Oil and gas production in the vulnerable HighNorth will require very high environmental stan-dards. The Government has laid down zero dis-charges to the sea under normal operating condi-tions as a condition for continued activity in the

Barents Sea. The oil companies on the Norwegiancontinental shelf are required to monitor environ-mental conditions both on the seabed and in thewater column. The Russian authorities have indi-cated that they share the Norwegian position onenvironmental standards. Thus, there should be abasis for closer co-operation with the Russianauthorities on the development of environmentalstandards for petroleum projects in the northernsea areas.

The prospect of extensive offshore petroleumactivities underscores how important it is for theNorwegian and Russian authorities to co-operateon the environmental criteria for exploiting andmanaging the petroleum and fisheries resourcesand for ensuring that the environment in the north-ern sea areas is adequately protected.

In this connection, the Government considers itto be very important for Russia to ratify the multi-lateral environmental agreements that provide themost important international framework for envi-ronmental protection and resource management. Itwas a very positive step that Russia ratified theKyoto Protocol in 2004, so that it could enter intoforce in February 2005.

In the Government’s view, it is still important toassist Russia in its efforts to deal with the seriousenvironmental problems the country is facing inthe High North, and that both directly and indi-rectly also affect important Norwegian interests.This is why Norway is providing substantial fund-ing towards the modernisation of the nickel worksat Nikel on the Kola Peninsula, and one of the mainmotives behind Norway’s efforts in the field ofnuclear safety.

Norway will continue to give high priority toenvironmental co-operation with Russia. The high-est priority area will be co-operation related to themarine environment, based on the ecosystemapproach. Priority will also be given to projects thatare relevant to multilateral agreements such as theKyoto Protocol, and to projects within the frame-work of the Barents Co-operation and the ArcticCouncil.

Co-operation between the authorities at centraland regional level, the development of expertise inRussian industry and co-operation on the conserva-tion of biodiversity in the High North are otherimportant priority areas.

2.6 Transport

In the High North, most people and industrial activ-ity are concentrated in a few central areas, with


long distances between them and often a poorlydeveloped communications infrastructure. Thetransport infrastructure has been developed tomeet purely national needs and was not designedfor transport across national borders. It is both achallenge and a goal to develop an infrastructureacross the borders that will allow greater mobilityand lower transport costs, while at the same timelimiting the impact on the natural environment.

In the last few years there has been a consider-able increase in oil transport from northwesternRussia along the North Norwegian coast. A futuredevelopment of the large offshore oil and gas fieldswill contribute to a further increase in maritimetransport in these areas.

Maritime transport is in principle a safe, envi-ronmentally sound means of transport, but shipsare a potential source of discharges into the sea.Thus in its efforts to facilitate effective, up-to-date,environmentally sound shipping, the Governmentis giving priority to safety at sea and the oil pollu-tion emergency response system. The Norwegianauthorities have already taken a number of mea-sures for dealing with the challenges posed by theincreasing coastal traffic. In Report No. 14 (2004–2005) to the Storting on safety at sea and the oil pol-

lution emergency response system, further mea-sures have been proposed based on an environ-mental risk analysis of a future increase in coastaltraffic.

Close co-operation with Russia in this field isessential, and in 2003 the two countries agreed tointensify co-operation on measures to improvesafety at sea and further develop the oil pollutionemergency response system in the BarentsRegion. In the field of safety at sea the focus is ondeveloping a joint notification and information sys-tem. The work on the emergency response systemis partly a continuation of the efforts under a Nor-wegian-Russian co-operation agreement of 1994 oncombating oil pollution in the Barents Sea andpartly co-operation on new measures.

Growth in the Russian economy is likely toresult in increased transport of goods in the HighNorth, which will put greater strain on the Norwe-gian transport system. On the other hand, thisincrease in transport, especially maritime trans-port, will open up new opportunities for the Norwe-gian shipping and transport industries.

An international transport corridor acrossnorthern Finland, Norway and Sweden (the regionknown as Nordkalotten) is being considered that

Figure 2.5 The floating oil storage facility BelokamenkaPhoto: Thomas Nilsen/Barents Secretariat


will include the port of Narvik and a railway run-ning east from Narvik. There is increasing interestin this east-west link owing to the increased inter-national focus on safety and the growing pressureon international transport facilities. The corridorcould also contribute to regional development.

Kirkenes could be a bridgehead for maritimetransport to and from Murmansk and the rest ofnorthwestern Russia. The port is close to the heavyindustry on the Kola Peninsula and would be ableto take a lot of the pressure off Murmansk, with itslimited port facilities. The port of Kirkenes isimportant for the Russian fishing fleet and this,together with the road connections leading east-wards, has potential for the export of Norwegianfish products to the rapidly expanding Russianmarket. The building of a railway from Kirkenes toNikel is unrealistic unless industrial interests aredirectly involved.

2.7 Integrated management of the marine environment

A number of human activities and long-range trans-port of pollution with air and water currents havean impact on marine ecosystems. In order toensure that the overall pressure on the environ-ment is not too great and that environmental qual-ity and the resource base are maintained, the man-agement of human activity must be co-ordinated.The Government will therefore promote an inte-grated ecosystem-based management regime forthe marine environment and coastal areas in orderto achieve sustainable use of natural resources andgoods while at the same time maintaining thestructure, functioning and productivity of ecosys-tems.

The establishment of an integrated manage-ment regime for the marine environment was thesubject of Report No. 12 (2001–2002) to the Stort-ing: Protecting the Riches of the Seas. The whitepaper also announced that an integrated manage-ment plan for the Barents Sea would be drawn upthat would take account of the various consider-ations relating to the environment, fisheries, petro-leum activities and maritime transport.

The purpose of the management plan is toestablish a framework that enables a balance to bestruck between the commercial interests of fisher-ies, maritime transport and petroleum activities onthe one hand and sustainable development on theother. This will make it easier to see where reduc-tions in the overall pressure on the environment

are needed and evaluate measures that can beimplemented across sectors.

The management plan will include measuresfor avoiding undesirable impacts of activities in thearea and recommendations for cost-effective mea-sures that will apply to all sectors where needed.This will help to maintain the quality of the environ-ment and stable framework conditions for com-mercial actors in the area.

The management plan will serve as a tool forfacilitating value creation and maintaining the qual-ity of the environment in sea areas. The plan is nowbeing finalised with a view to submitting it to theStorting in 2006.

2.8 Business co-operation

The Russian economy has expanded in recentyears, and this positive trend is also apparent in theNorth. The framework conditions for businessactivities in Russia have improved. This also cre-ates new opportunities for business co-operationbetween Norway and northwestern Russia.

Trade between Norway and Russia accounts foronly 1.5 per cent of Norway’s total trade. However,the volume of trade between the two countries hasincreased by 67 per cent since 2002 and its valuenow totals NOK 10.8 billion a year. Fish and fishproducts are the fastest growing Norwegianexports, and account for over 70 per cent of totalNorwegian exports to Russia.

The Russian market is also the fastest growingmarket for exports of Norwegian fish and fish prod-ucts. In the course of only a few years, Russia hasbecome one of Norway’s most important markets,particularly for salmon, trout and herring. Tradefigures for commodities in other areas are alsoshowing a positive trend.

Norwegian investments in Russia, includingnorthwestern Russia, are increasing significantly.Investments in the North cover a wide range ofindustries, from fisheries to electronics productionand explosives for use in the oil industry. Miningand forestry are also potential growth industriesfor Norwegian interests in northwestern Russia.

Russia is becoming an increasingly importantmarket for many North Norwegian companies, anda considerable share of the fish landed by Russianfishing vessels in Norway is sold by North Norwe-gian companies.

The authorities have various tools for encour-aging economic co-operation. Innovation Norwaymanages an investment fund for northwestern Rus-sia and one for the country as a whole. The Indus-


trial Development Corporation of Norway, SIVA,operates an industrial park in Murmansk. Small-scale actors will continue to be dependent on sup-port from the authorities through such channelsfor a long time to come.

Active business co-operation across the north-ern borders must be developed by the businesssector itself. Experience so far indicates, however,that the authorities have to open doors and pavethe way. It must also be underlined that good, sta-ble framework conditions for business activities inRussia are essential if there is to be any significantincrease in Norwegian investment in the country.

Many of the opportunities for growth in theHigh North are connected to natural resources, thesea areas and the contact between Norway andRussia. In addition to the direct effect of fisheriesand petroleum operations, development in theregion should create opportunities for growth inindustries such as knowledge-based activities, ser-vices, transport, shipping and tourism. The num-ber of Russian tourists is Norway is increasing, andthis trend should be encouraged. The travel andtourism section in Innovation Norway is thereforerunning a project on Russia from 2004 to 2005.

The business sector in Finnmark suffers fromtime to time from a shortage of both skilled andunskilled labour, partly due to the large-scalemovement of labour to the rest of the country. Tohelp the fishing industry, a provision has been setout in the Immigration Act that makes it possible togrant a work permit for up to two years to unskilledjob seekers from the Russian part of the Barentsregion who want to work in the fishing industry inFinnmark and Troms. In addition the generalquota system for skilled workers gives qualifiedapplicants from Russia access to the Norwegianlabour market in all industries.

2.9 Knowledge base

Norway has direct administrative responsibility forlarge areas of the Arctic, and research and monitor-ing activities in the High North are important forNorway from a political and administrative point ofview, and in relation to building up expertise.

A thorough knowledge base will be vital for theprotection and sustainable management of ourland, coast and sea areas in the North. Therefore,research efforts must be intensified in order toidentify the specific knowledge that needs to beacquired for the management of these areas.Another equally important activity in this connec-tion is environmental monitoring.

It is essential to have an efficient monitoringsystem that enables us to follow and documentchanges in the state of the environment and naturalresources, detect new problems at an early stage,rank measures in order of priority, disseminateinformation that is needed to raise awarenessabout resources and the environment, and followup our obligations under international agreementssatisfactorily. National measures such as the man-agement plan for the Barents Sea will also requirefollow-up systems to ensure that information onthe environment and natural resources is alwaysavailable. A solid knowledge base is also essentialfor gaining acceptance for our views in interna-tional negotiations on new agreements and legisla-tion.

With growing international attention currentlybeing directed to the High North, research will beused by a number of countries as a means to safe-guard national interests and achieve foreign policyaims in the polar areas. Maintaining Norway’s pres-ence and activities in the polar areas must, there-fore, be seen in close connection with the enforce-ment of national sovereignty and jurisdiction overNorwegian territory.

In the last ten years, Norway has made substan-tial investments in research infrastructure in Sval-bard. This has formed the basis for the develop-ment of the international research community inSvalbard today. This infrastructure is also animportant factor in the Norwegian involvement inthe international research community.

Norwegian participation in internationalresearch co-operation in the polar regions is veryimportant for Norway’s role as a polar nation. Inrecent years, Norway has given high priority to thedevelopment of research and educational co-opera-tion with Russia. The Government wants this co-operation to be further developed. In particular, theGovernment wants to intensify research co-opera-tion between Norway and Russia in Svalbard.

It is important that Norway takes advantage ofthe opportunities offered by more extensiveresearch co-operation on the High North with theUS and Canada. It is also important that we partici-pate actively in drawing up EU research pro-grammes and in EU research projects.

In order to manage our valuable environmentand resources in the North soundly, we have to beat the forefront in knowledge production. TheInternational Polar Year 2007–2008 is currently atthe planning stage. This will give an impetus tointernational polar research. Taking part in theInternational Polar Year will bolster Norwegianresearch and the Norwegian presence in the polar


regions while Norway will also take on a share ofthe international community’s obligations withregard to building up the expertise that will, forexample, form the basis for sustainable develop-ment.

The Government attaches importance to devel-oping the knowledge base needed to ensure sus-tainable, ecosystem-based management of ourcoast and sea areas in the North. The livelihoodsthat the sea provides are vital for a coastal nationlike Norway. Nevertheless, we do not knowenough about the seabed off Norway and the eco-systems it is home to and the resources it provides.The environment in the coastal and sea areas of theNorth is particularly vulnerable and is affected byclimate change, hazardous substances, shipping,fishing and petroleum activities. We do not knowenough about how ecosystems work or about thecombined effects of various forms of humanencroachment on the environment.

The Government will promote greater Samiinvolvement in research in connection with itsefforts in the High North.

2.10 Indigenous peoples

Issues relating to indigenous peoples have come toplay an increasingly important part in internationalco-operation. Norway is actively involved in effortsto promote the rights of indigenous peoples inter-nationally. The central government authorities, theSámediggi (the Sami parliament), and NGOs withties to indigenous communities in Norway, such asthe Association of World Reindeer Herders, all playa part in this work.

The Norwegian Government is giving high pri-ority to the adoption of a UN declaration on therights of indigenous peoples. However, the negoti-ations on the declaration have proceeded veryslowly because of various procedural and substan-tive problems. The Government wishes to continuethese efforts with a view to achieving the broadestpossible consensus on the substance of the decla-ration, and will continue its close co-operation withthe other Nordic countries and other like-mindedcountries in this process.

In April 2001, the UN Commission on HumanRights appointed a Special Rapporteur on the situ-ation of the human rights and fundamental free-doms of indigenous people. The Government isseeking to contribute to this work by providingpolitical support and submitting reports on the sit-uation of the Sami in Norway. Furthermore, theGovernment will continue to give priority to efforts

to promote the rights of indigenous peoples duringthe annual sessions of the UN General Assemblyand the UN Commission on Human Rights.

The University of Tromsø, Bodø UniversityCollege and and the Saami University College inKautokeino all play a key role in different ways indeveloping expertise on the Sami people and offer-ing educational programmes for the Sami popula-tion. Measures should be taken to promote highereducation among the indigenous peoples. It is alsoimportant to promote student and staff mobilitybetween educational institutions in the North thatwork with indigenous issues. The exchange pro-gramme “north2north” facilitates student andteacher mobility between indigenous peoples inthe North.

Priority is also being given to research in rele-vant fields as a means of developing expertise onthe indigenous peoples in the North. The Govern-ment will therefore ensure that the IndigenousPeople Research Network is continued and willprovide it with basic funding from 2005 onwards.

In 2002, the Resource Centre for the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples was established in Kau-tokeino. The Centre’s tasks are to collect, analyse,and disseminate information on the rights of indig-enous peoples in Norway and internationally.

Reindeer husbandry is of great importance forthe preservation and development of indigenouscommunities in the North. Many of the challengesfacing this sector are common to all the countriesin the High North, for example how to make use oftraditional knowledge as a basis for progress.Closer co-operation between reindeer herders inthe High North would therefore have a positiveeffect.

The dissemination and exchange of experienceand information will be key elements of this co-operation. The Government has therefore decidedthat an international reindeer husbandry centre forArctic reindeer herders is to be established in Kau-tokeino in close co-operation with the Associationof World Reindeer Herders. In addition to the tasksmentioned above, the centre will provide supportfor the Association’s secretariat and its interna-tional activities. The centre will open in autumn2005.

Climate change in the Arctic and the HighNorth will probably have an impact on many of theindigenous groups who make a living from huntingpolar bears, walruses, seabirds, seals, whales andwild reindeer. Changes in biodiversity and theavailability of game may have an impact on manypopulation groups in future. Growing volumes oftransport and growing pressure from the commer-


cial use of natural resources may cause conflictswith indigenous groups.

2.11 Svalbard

The 1920 Treaty concerning Spitsbergen grantsNorway the full and absolute sovereignty over thearchipelago in accordance with the conditions laiddown in the treaty. In accordance with this, the1925 Norwegian Act relating to Svalbard laid downthat Svalbard is part of the Kingdom of Norway.

Norwegian administration of Svalbard is basedon the principle that Norway not only has a right toexercise authority within the framework set by thetreaty, but also a duty to enforce its sovereignty ina proper and credible manner. This means amongother things that Norway must implement an effec-tive environmental and natural resource manage-ment regime for the archipelago in accordancewith the non-discrimination provisions of thetreaty.

The overriding goals of Norway’s Svalbard pol-icy have been the same for many years, and weremost recently confirmed in connection with thedebate on Report No. 9 (1999–2000) to the Stortingon Svalbard, in which they are set out as follows:“The Government’s overriding objectives inrespect of the policy towards Svalbard compriseconsistent and firm enforcement of sovereignty,proper observance of the Treaty concerning Spits-bergen and control to ensure compliance with thetreaty, maintenance of peace and stability in thearea, preservation of the area’s distinctive naturalwilderness and maintenance of Norwegian com-munities on the archipelago.”

The debate on this white paper in the Stortingshowed that there was broad support for thesegoals, and the Government considers it importantto maintain this national consensus on Norway’sSvalbard policy. The Government also advocatesfurther developing contacts and co-operation withcommercial and research actors from other coun-tries in Svalbard.

Svalbard’s geographical location means that itis of strategic importance for the management ofour resources in the North. Research activities inSvalbard give us new knowledge about global cli-mate processes and about the state of the environ-ment and pollution in the High North. Controlledand varied industrial and commercial activities andtourism make it possible to protect the unique envi-ronmental qualities of the archipelago. This clearenvironmental priority was emphasised as early asin the Treaty concerning Spitsbergen of 1920.

The Interministerial Committee on the PolarRegions was established to co-ordinate the admin-istration of Svalbard. It is chaired by the Ministry ofJustice and considers all matters relating to Sval-bard, Jan Mayen and the Antarctic. The committeeadvises the Government in such matters, andmeets about ten times a year. However, the factthat polar affairs are discussed by the committeedoes not alter the authority of line ministries tomake decisions.

In Svalbard, Norway is responsible for manag-ing one of Europe’s last large undisturbed wilder-ness areas. The protection of Svalbard’s distinctivewilderness character has been one of the overrid-ing goals of Norway’s Svalbard policy for manyyears, and environmental protection has becomean increasingly important part of Norway’s admin-istration of the archipelago in the last 30 years. TheStorting and the Government have made it clearthat their objective is for Svalbard to be one of theworld’s best-managed wilderness areas, and that inthe event of a conflict between environmentalobjectives and other interests, environmental con-siderations are to prevail within the limits dictatedby treaty obligations and sovereignty consider-ations.

The comprehensive protection regime and thestringent environmental regulations that apply inSvalbard are not intended to prevent commercial,industrial and other activities in the archipelago.They provide a framework for such activities that isin accordance with the goal of protecting the wil-derness areas. All activity outside the settlementsand the established mining areas must be organ-ised in such a way as to minimise undesirable dis-turbance of the environment and permanent tracesof human activity.

Svalbard has a number of natural advantagesover other parts of the Arctic as an area for activi-ties such as research, education and ecotourism. Aworking group under the Nordic Council of Minis-ters is currently developing a Nordic strategy forArctic tourism. Research, education and tourismare activities that in most cases can be adapted to astrict environmental framework.

In recent years, the number of cruise ships andother vessels calling at Svalbard has increased.Because of the special conditions in Svalbard’swaters, this poses particular challenges related tosafety and the environment. Shipping is important,and locally-based cruise traffic, for example, is aproduct that helps to maintain tourism in Svalbardand thus to achieve the objective of maintaining theNorwegian settlements on the archipelago. Effortsto improve conditions therefore have high priority.


The University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS) is animportant institution for international co-operationin the fields of research and education, and as suchfacilitates Norwegian policy implementation.About half of the students and staff at UNIS comefrom abroad. The Centre’s international profileshould be further developed. The new SvalbardScience Centre in Longyearbyen should be used tomake fuller use of the potential for co-operationbetween the research communities in Longyear-byen and Ny-Ålesund.

Researchers from about 20 countries are nowinvolved in research in Svalbard. Ny-Ålesund nowhas all-year research stations run by Germany, theUK, France, Italy, Japan, China and South Korea.In addition, there is a Russian research station inBarentsburg and a Polish research station in Horn-sund. In Longyearbyen there are research groupsfrom several countries that are associated with theEISCAT (European Incoherent Scatter) facility andwith the Auroral Station in Adventdalen.

More countries are expected to establishresearch activities in Ny-Ålesund when the marineresearch centre is completed in summer 2005. TheGovernment intends to develop Ny-Ålesund fur-ther as an international Arctic research centrewithin the constraints imposed by infrastructureand capacity. The Government is also drafting leg-islation that will ensure that research in Ny-Åle-sund is provided with the necessary frameworkconditions in the years ahead. This will include aproposal to close part of the Kongsfjorden to fisher-ies.

The Government considers that Norwegian-Russian research co-operation in Svalbard shouldbe strengthened, and will put forward proposals forhow this can be done. Activities in Longyearbyen,Barentsburg and Ny-Ålesund should all beincluded in the co-operation.

Svalbard’s geographical location, combinedwith its relative accessibility and a climate that isnot particularly inhospitable by Arctic standards,gives Norway an advantage as regards the estab-

lishment of new space-related ground infrastruc-ture for research and commercial purposes. Sval-bard is the only reasonably accessible part of theworld where it is possible to communicate with sat-ellites in polar orbit during all orbits. Svalbard Sat-ellite Station (SvalSat) therefore helps to ensurethat Norway is an important actor in the field ofspace-related ground infrastructure. The numberof polar satellites in low orbit is rising rapidly,which means that the need for both operationalservices and data processing is also growing. Aspecial licence is required to download data fromsatellites.

For many years, employment in coal miningand related activities has played an important rolein maintaining stable, year-round Norwegian activ-ity and settlements in Svalbard. The state retainsits ownership in Store Norske Spitsbergen Kul-kompani AS and its subsidiary, Store Norske Spits-bergen Grubekompani, as a means of ensuring thatthe community in Longyearbyen develops in a waythat satisfies the overriding goals of Norway’s Sval-bard policy. In addition, the state wishes to ensurean acceptable rate of return on the capital it hasinvested in the two companies.

When the Storting considered the Svea Nordproject in December 2001, it was made clear thatthe coal mine must be run according to businessprinciples, independently of government support.It was also emphasised that environmental andsafety standards must be fully met.

The Government also gives priority to maritimesafety in Svalbard. Navigation in many of thewaters around Svalbard is often difficult. This isdue to ice, wind, light and depth conditions, all ofwhich make both accident prevention and contin-gency planning particularly challenging in thesewaters.

In response to developments such as the risingvolume of cruise traffic around Svalbard, measuresto improve maritime safety in the area are beingconsidered, such as making the Harbour Act appli-cable to Svalbard.


3 Issues of international law

3.1 Delimitation of the continental shelf and the 200-mile zones in the Barents Sea

During President Putin’s visit to Oslo in November2002, Prime Minister Bondevik and the RussianPresident confirmed that both Norway and Russiagive high priority to the timely conclusion of anagreement on a delimitation line for the continentalshelf and the 200-mile zones in the Barents Sea.Considerable progress has been made in the con-sultations, which started in 1970 with regard to thecontinental shelf and since 1984 have also includedthe zones. The two parties agree to continue thediscussions on the basis of a comprehensiveapproach that takes account of all relevant ele-

ments, including fisheries, petroleum activities anddefence interests.

Such a boundary line will not affect the free-doms of the high seas, which are essential, forexample, to ensure the freedom of navigation fornaval operations. The line will, however, make itclear which state’s legislation and jurisdiction mayapply in the maritime areas concerned for certainspecific purposes, in particular in relation to explor-ing or exploiting resources. This is essential forensuring sufficiently predictable conditions underwhich commercial and other actors can operate.

Agreement on a delimitation line will release anunprecedented potential for co-operation relatingto the area of overlapping claims, which covers176 000 square kilometres. This is particularly rel-evant for the petroleum sector. The Norwegian andRussian authorities have agreed that no petroleum-related activities are to begin in the area of overlap-ping claims until a delimitation agreement hasbeen concluded. The moratorium applies to bothexploration and exploitation activities. However,there is agreement in the delimitation consulta-tions to continue work on possible modalities forco-operation in the petroleum sector in this area.Such co-operation may start as soon as the delimi-tation agreement is in place.

Norway’s position in the consultations is basedon the rules for maritime delimitation set out in theinternational law of the sea. Recent case law estab-lished by the International Court of Justice in TheHague has confirmed that a median line provision-ally drawn shall be employed as a starting pointand may thereafter possibly be adjusted or shiftedin light of relevant geographical factors. In additionto discussing delimitation issues, the parties arealso seeking to agree on co-operation arrange-ments for energy and fisheries issues.

3.2 The outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles

Extensive work has already been carried out inconnection with the surveying of the extent of theNorwegian continental shelf beyond the 200-milezone. Since Norway ratified the Convention on the

Figure 3.1 Norwegian 200-mile zones, established in accordance with the existing law of the sea


Law of the Sea in 1996, it has been required to meeta time limit for submitting information on the outerlimits of the continental shelf to the Commissionon the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Under theprovisions of Article 76 and Annex II of the Conven-tion, it is necessary in certain cases to submit doc-umentation concerning the thickness of sedimen-tary rocks and other physical features of the conti-nental margin where it meets the internationalseabed area, which is common heritage of man-kind. Norway will submit such information after2005 and no later than 2009.

The Russian Federation was the first state tosubmit documentation to the commission, in 2001.The Norwegian side is co-operating with, amongothers, the Russian authorities on the collection ofgeological data, including in the areas north ofSvalbard. Norway and the Russian Federation havejointly submitted a precise definition of the area ofoverlapping claims in the Barents Sea to the com-mission. This will enable the commission to makea recommendation on the question of the physicalextent of the continental shelf and thus on its outerlimit towards the international seabed area in thePolar Sea, without prejudice to the outcome of theon-going delimitation consultations between Nor-way and the Russian Federation. The commissionhas already concluded that the seabed of the “LoopHole”, i.e. the area beyond the respective Norwe-gian and Russian 200-mile zones in the BarentsSea, is continuous continental shelf that must bethe subject of a delimitation agreement betweenNorway and the Russian Federation.

The above survey has yielded a substantialamount of data, which can also be put to scientificuse in other contexts. Considerable expertise hasalso been developed in this connection, and thismust be further developed and used to obtain fur-ther scientific knowledge of the High North.

A broad, systematic review is being carried outin the relevant ministries as regards research onthe High North, including surveys of the sea areas.This will also cover the organisation of researchcruises for collecting more data.

3.3 The Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard

The Fisheries Protection Zone is a 200 nauticalmile zone of fisheries jurisdiction around the Sval-bard archipelago. It was established on 3 June 1977pursuant to the Act of 17 December 1976 relatingto the Economic Zone of Norway.

Norway exercises full and absolute sovereigntyover Svalbard, in conformity with the provisionsset out in the Treaty concerning Spitsbergen of 9February 1920. Norway’s sovereignty over Sval-bard has moreover been recognised by the wholeinternational community. As a coastal state Nor-way has the right under the modern law of the seato establish a 200-mile economic zone around thearchipelago and to exercise fisheries jurisdiction inthe zone. All Norwegian legislation and regulatoryand other measures in the Fisheries ProtectionZone around Svalbard are fully in accordance withthe rights and obligations that Norway, as a coastalstate, has under international law.

In accordance with the existing law of the sea,vessels and nationals of other states that are fish-ing in the Fisheries Protection Zone must complywith the management measures and conditions setout in the legislation and regulatory measures ofthe coastal state and must comply with that state’senforcement measures. Under the UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, Nor-way, as a coastal state, must ensure that the livingresources in the Fisheries Protection Zone are notoverharvested. Under the Convention the author-ity to implement measures in this respect restssolely with the coastal state.

There are different views on the geographicalscope of the Treaty concerning Spitsbergen. Nor-way has always based itself on the position that thetreaty, in accordance with its wording, only appliesto the archipelago and the territorial waters. How-ever, in relation to potential economic interests,other states have claimed that the treaty alsoapplies to maritime areas beyond the territorialwaters. It is inter alia against this background thatNorway chose in 1977 until further notice to estab-lish a fisheries protection zone rather than a fulleconomic zone. One of the purposes of the zonewas to ensure the protection and sound manage-ment of the living resources, since this is one of themost important nursery areas for important fishstocks.

The rules governing the Fisheries ProtectionZone are formulated in such a way that they wouldnot be in conflict with those of the Treaty concern-ing Spitsbergen even if the latter had applied to theFisheries Protection Zone. The regulatory mea-sures for fisheries are based on objective protec-tion and management needs and take into accountany previous foreign fishing patterns in the area.Thus even though Norway maintains a legal rightto reserve fishing in the zone exclusively for Nor-wegian fishermen, its management practices arenon-discriminatory.


The Norwegian management measures in theFisheries Protection Zone have generally beencomplied with in practice. However, there is not aninternational consensus on Norway’s right to regu-late fishing and exercise jurisdiction over the con-tinental shelf in this area. For example, Iceland andRussia have disputed such a right on grounds ofprinciple, referring to the provisions of the Treatyconcerning Spitsbergen. It is maintained that thetreaty and its provisions concerning the equalrights of ships and nationals of all the contractingparties to engage in fishing also apply beyond theterritorial waters of the archipelago, and that Nor-way may not impose restrictions or take necessaryenforcement measures. This view is not in keepingwith the rules of the international law of the sea,the Treaty concerning Spitsbergen or fundamentalprinciples for responsible resource management.

A credible and predictable exercise of Norwe-gian jurisdiction in the maritime areas around Sval-bard in keeping with the rules of international lawis necessary to promote stability and, in the longerterm, to promote common understanding with allstates concerned. As a coastal state, Norway has aspecial responsibility for the management of theliving resources in these areas. The Norwegianauthorities take this responsibility seriously, andwill continue to practise sound resource manage-ment in accordance with Norway’s obligations andrights under international law through appropriateregulations, as well as necessary control andenforcement measures. This is also in keepingwith Norway’s declared aim to combat illegal andunreported fishing, which is one of the most seri-ous threats to sound resource management and ishighly detrimental to efforts to ensure conserva-tion and management of living marine resources.

The Norwegian authorities are actively seekingto promote international co-operation on responsi-ble resource management within the framework ofthe international law of the sea, primarily togetherwith relevant coastal states with a view to adoptingand implementing international regulatory mea-sures for fish stocks in their entire area of distribu-

tion. The co-operation with Russia is particularlycomprehensive in this regard.

3.4 Protection of the marine environment in the High North

The Government has instituted efforts to establisha national network of protected marine areas. Thenetwork will comprise areas that are protectedunder the Nature Conservation Act or other legis-lation. A more detailed account of the plans is to befound in Report No. 12 (2001–2002) to the Storting:Protecting the Riches of the Sea. In the report of theBiodiversity Commission, NOU 2004: 28 (OfficialNorwegian Report), it is recommended that theauthority for cross-sectoral marine conservationshould be extended to include the Economic Zoneof Norway out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline.

In connection with the increase in shipping offNorth Norway, the question has been raisedwhether the Norwegian authorities should,through the International Maritime Organisation(IMO), establish parts of the sea areas in the vicin-ity of the coasts of North Norway as a ParticularlySensitive Sea Area (PSSA). This proposal is cur-rently being considered by the relevant ministries,also in connection with the development of a coher-ent management plan for the Barents Sea. TheGovernment’s primary aim is to establish as soonas possible concrete measures that reduce the like-lihood of accidents in the area. One important mea-sure could be the establishment of sea lanes in theEconomic Zone of Norway beyond the outer limitof the territorial sea. The establishment of such sealanes is subject to the approval of the IMO. Suchapproval may be obtained by submitting a separateapplication for a routing system, or in combinationwith a PSSA application. The Government intendsto submit a proposal to the IMO for establishingsea lanes outside the territorial waters betweenVardø and Røst, and will consider which of theapplication procedures is most expedient.


4 Co-operation on nuclear safety

Levels of anthropogenic radioactive pollution ofthe environment in the High North are low, exceptin specific geographical areas. The most importantsources of radioactive pollution in the North arefallout from atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950sand 1960s, fallout from the Chernobyl accident in1986, and discharges to the marine environmentfrom Western European reprocessing facilities.

There have not been any significant emissionsof radioactive substances to the air since the Cher-nobyl accident, and emissions from reprocessingfacilities have also been reduced during recentyears. The levels of radioactive pollution in theHigh North are therefore decreasing.

However, the concentration of nuclear facilitiesand the accumulation of radioactive waste andnuclear material in northwestern Russia constitutea potential risk of radioactive pollution that couldaffect Norwegian interests.

The establishment of the Northern DimensionEnvironmental Partnership Support Fund (theNDEP Fund), the signing of the MultilateralNuclear Environment Programme in the RussianFederation (the MNEPR agreement) and thelaunching of the G8’s Global Partnership againstthe Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass

Destruction have provided new tools for resolvingthe nuclear challenges in Russia.

Russia itself is dedicating significant resourcesto nuclear safety efforts. This applies not least tothe dismantling of decommissioned submarines.The Russian authorities are also using substantialresources on facilitating projects that are beingfinanced by Norway and other Western countries.

Many nuclear safety measures are being imple-mented in facilities where there are strict restric-tions on access for foreigners. This has at timeshampered the implementation of projects. Duringrecent years the Russian authorities have, how-ever, gradually shown more openness and willing-ness to facilitate the increasing activity we are cur-rently witnessing on the part of Western donorcountries.

The scope of the nuclear safety co-operationwith Russian has been increasing during the pastfew years, and large, complex projects have beeninitiated. This has necessitated a review of the dis-tribution of roles between the Ministry of ForeignAffairs, the Norwegian Radiation ProtectionAuthority and project managers. The NorwegianRadiation Protection Authority is now the director-ate responsible for implementing this co-operationwith Russia on behalf of the Ministry of ForeignAffairs.

4.1 Norway’s aims and priorities

Since 1995 Norway has allocated more than NOK 1billion to nuclear safety projects in Russia andformer Soviet republics. Most of the measureshave been implemented in northwestern Russia.About two thirds of the funds have been used onmeasures to reduce the risk of accidents at Russiannuclear power plants in areas adjacent to Norwayand on safe handling and storage of radioactivematerial and spent nuclear fuel.

The Norwegian efforts have two main goals:– to safeguard health, the environment and eco-

nomic activity from radioactive pollution– to prevent radioactive and fissile material from

falling into the wrong hands and being used forterrorist purposes.Figure 4.1 Nuclear facilities on the Kola Peninsula


During the past few years the Norwegian effortshave had four main priorities:– the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear

submarines from the Northern Fleet– the securing of highly radioactive strontium

batteries from lighthouse lanterns along thecoast of northwestern Russia

– infrastructure measures at the closed NorthernFleet service base at Andreyev Bay on the KolaPeninsula, which in 2005 will be expanded toinclude physical protection

– intensified co-operation between Norwegianand Russian inspection and administrativeauthorities.

These Norwegian priorities have been establishedin consultation with Russian authorities and inaccordance with priorities on which there is agree-ment in international nuclear safety co-operation.In all Norwegian priority areas, close co-operationhas been established with other donor countries,especially the UK.

In the years to come, we will see considerablygreater international involvement in the area ofnuclear safety in northwestern Russia. The num-ber of projects will increase, and many of theprojects will be large and involve a certain level ofrisk. This will call for more stringent requirementsas regards planning and priorities.

In 2004 the Russian authorities were commis-sioned by the European Bank for Reconstructionand Development (EBRD) to develop an overall,coherent plan for the efforts to resolve the environ-mental and security problems in northwestern Rus-sia. The plan has led to a better understanding ofthe problems that need to be dealt with, identifiesthe critical spots and indicates where resourcesshould be applied. It thus provides a basis for a co-ordinated and targeted effort.

The main responsibility for setting prioritiesand co-ordinating international efforts must restwith Russia. At the same time it is important thatdonor countries co-ordinate their efforts with othercountries’ activities in order to ensure synergy andthe efficient use of resources, and to prevent bottle-necks. In 2003 Norway advocated consultations onhow the co-ordination of the work could beimproved. As a result of the consultations, the Con-tact Expert Group (CEG) for international nuclearsafety projects has in practice been generallyaccepted as the most important forum for projectco-ordination.

There are risks involved in implementing mea-sures that require handling of radioactive waste orspent nuclear fuel. In order to reduce the probabil-

ity of accidents and negative effects on health, theenvironment and safety, the Government thereforeconsiders it to be important that the measures aresubject to prior impact assessments.

The Government also considers it importantthat the approach of Western donor countries andinternational financial institutions should be assimilar as possible as regards the criteria for andmethodology used in the impact assessments. Inthe autumn of 2003, Norway therefore proposedinternational consultations on this topic. The Nor-wegian initiative has led to broad agreementamong donor countries about where responsibilityfor impact assessments should lie, and what crite-ria the assessments should be subject to.

Generally speaking, Russian legislation in thefields of radiation protection, nuclear safety andenvironmental protection follows the same stan-dards and norms that apply to the equivalent legis-lation in Norway and other Western countries. Theadministrative responsibility is, however, dividedbetween more bodies, and the complexity of thelegislation makes it difficult to get a proper over-view of how the measures are implemented in prac-tice.

The co-operation with Russia has shown thatcompliance with the legislation can be improved.For this reason Norway attaches great importanceto developing close co-operation between the Nor-wegian Radiation Protection Authority and Russianinspection and administrative authorities, and toensuring that this co-operation is closely linked tothe practical implementation of nuclear safetyefforts.

4.2 The main challenges

The nuclear safety challenges in northwesternRussia are numerous and complex. Often thechoice lies between solutions that are not optimal,but where postponing measures may prove to bethe worst solution. In other cases an assessmentmay indicate that the best solution is to leave thewaste where it is.

The treatment of spent reactor fuel, particularlyfrom nuclear-powered vessels, is the most impor-tant, but perhaps also the most difficult, issue in thenuclear safety co-operation with Russia. A numberof measures financed by Norway and other West-ern countries deal with the handling of such fuel,which is currently being sent to the Mayak facili-ties in the Urals for further processing.

The Russian authorities recognise the prob-lems at the Mayak reprocessing plant, and that


there is still a need for substantial investments toavoid environmental damage. As part of the Norwe-gian-Russian environmental co-operation, Norwe-gian experts, together with Russian nuclear author-ities, conducted extensive investigations at thefacilities in the 1990s. The investigations revealedthat the emissions during the first years of opera-tion and the accidents in the 1950s and 1960s arethe primary causes of the extensive pollution ofland areas and river systems.

Greater international involvement in resolvingthe nuclear safety problems in Russia could putmore pressure on the Mayak plant. For this reasonthere is currently a need for more knowledge aboutthe possible impact of operations at the plant. TheMinistry of Foreign Affairs has thereforerequested the Norwegian Radiation ProtectionAuthority to resume its co-operation with the Rus-sian authorities with a view to further investiga-tions with particular emphasis on the impact of nor-mal operation on the environment and security,and on the possible impact of accidents at the tech-nical facilities.

There is also a need for further consultations toexplore whether intermediate storage could be analternative to reprocessing. At present Russia hasinsufficient capacity for intermediate storage, andwe must therefore be prepared for proposals tobuild such storage facilities in areas adjacent toNorway. In the Government’s view, the crucialpoint is that such facilities must fulfil strict safetyrequirements, not their location. We must alsobear in mind that the process of assessing locationalternatives and technical solutions, and the actualbuilding of the facilities, will take many years.

The choice does not always lie between repro-cessing and direct storage. Certain types of nuclearfuel can be put directly into intermediate storage,while others have to be treated before the residualproducts can be stored as waste. There is noupdated expert assessment of all relevant aspectsof future treatment and storage of spent fuel in Rus-sia. There is therefore no basis for claiming thatintermediate storage pending the upgrading ofMayak is better or worse than reprocessing at theexisting facilities.

Figure 4.2 Decommissioned Victor III submarine to be dismantled at the Nerpa Shipyard outside MurmanskPhoto: Nerpa Shipyard


The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel gener-ates emissions of radioactive substances to the sur-roundings. This will be part of the basis for Nor-way’s position on further operations at facilitiessuch as the Mayak plant. In northwestern Russiathe situation at certain nuclear facilities is, how-ever, so critical that is considered inadvisable topostpone measures until alternatives to reprocess-ing at Mayak are available.

Russia possesses a total of 30 nuclear reactorsat 11 nuclear power plants. The oldest reactorshave passed the 30-year limit, which is their designlifetime. However, the principle of a design lifetimeof 30 years is based partly on the fact that this is thepay-back period for the initial investment, ratherthan on the technical lifetime of the systems andcomponents. The demand for power and the pro-duction capacity in the region have a decisive influ-ence on decisions regarding the service lifetime ofa nuclear power plant.

Operating nuclear reactors beyond the 30-yearlimit is by no means a purely Russian phenomenon.Reactors in Sweden have also been grantedlicences extending their operating lives, and reac-tors in the USA have been granted extensions oftheir operating lives to 60 years.

This does not change the Government’s posi-tion on the continued operation of Russian nuclearpower plants. An accident at one of these powerplants could have a far greater impact, on Norwe-gian interests as well, than an accident at othertypes of nuclear facilities in areas adjacent to Nor-way. Consequently our desire to see them closedremains unchanged. This has repeatedly beentaken up with the Russian authorities. In our prac-tical approach to the issue we have, however, hadto take into account Russia’s desire to extend theiroperation. Our short-term goal has therefore beento help to improve safety standards at these facili-ties until they are closed down.

Safety analyses and statistics document thatNorwegian and other Western assistance withsafety measures at Russian nuclear power plantshas helped to resolve the most pressing safetyproblems. The contributions are therefore cur-rently being reduced. It will, however, continue tobe advisable in the years ahead to provide a certainamount of assistance in order to maintain thesafety measures that have already been imple-mented, if necessary by adapting them to changesin the facilities themselves. This will also ensurethat Norwegian inspection authorities and expertsare able to remain in close contact with the powerplants in question. This is important from the pointof view of emergency preparedness, and because

contact between Russian nuclear power plants andWestern expertise will encourage the continueddevelopment of the safety culture at the plants.

4.3 A framework for co-operation with Russia

The Norwegian-Russian co-operation on nuclearsafety is governed by the Multilateral NuclearEnvironment Programme in the Russian Federa-tion (the MNEPR agreement) and by a bilateralimplementation agreement. A Norwegian-Russiancommission meets yearly to review the projectwork and current issues. A bilateral agreement onemergency preparedness and early notification incase of a nuclear accident was concluded in 1993. Aprotocol on the lowering of the threshold for notifi-cation was signed in 2003.

Since 1992 the efforts of the Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Commission have focusedon the threats posed by radioactive pollution of theoutdoor environment. Priority will continue to begiven to further developing the co-operationbetween the authorities in the years to come.

The nuclear safety co-operation with Russiaalso has a strong international component. Thefirst formalised multilateral co-operation Norwayentered into in this field was the Arctic MilitaryEnvironmental Co-operation (AMEC), which wasestablished between Norway, the USA and Russiain 1996. The UK joined in 2003.

Norway also participates in a number of inter-national nuclear safety funds administered by theEBRD. The most important of these is the North-ern Dimension Environmental Partnership (theNDEP fund), to which Norway is contributing atotal of EUR 10 million. Over 40 per cent of the con-tribution was paid in 2002, and the rest will be paidin equal instalments during the period 2003–2006.At the beginning of 2005 the NDEP fund had at itsdisposal EUR 148 million earmarked for nuclearsafety measures in northwestern Russia.

In 2002 the G8 established the Global Partner-ship against the Spread of Weapons and Materialsof Mass Destruction. The partnership aims to raiseUSD 20 billion for measures over a ten-year periodrelated to non-proliferation, disarmament, antiter-rorism and nuclear safety, particularly in Russia.The dismantling of nuclear submarines and secur-ing of nuclear material are among the priorityareas. The USA alone will contribute USD 10 bil-lion.

In 2003 Norway became the first country out-side the G8 to be invited to join the co-operation.


Norway has indicated that it will contribute EUR100 million over a ten-year period, subject to theapproval of the Storting. These funds are allocatedto the Action Plan for Nuclear Safety Issues, whichis generally used to finance bilateral Norwegian-Russian projects in northwestern Russia.

The close co-operation with Russia on environ-mental issues and nuclear safety through manyyears has given Norway a key position in the inter-national arena as regards these matters. Thisenables us to play a role in setting the agenda ininternational consultations on future priorities andmeasures.


5 Regional co-operation in the North

During the 1990s a number of regional councilsand co-operation arrangements for NorthernEurope and the Arctic emerged. There is a certainamount of overlapping between them, both interms of participants and of priorities. However,the various councils and arrangements play differ-ent roles and have different strengths. Therefore, itwould not be expedient to merge them or formallyestablish a division of labour between them. None-theless, the Government attaches great impor-tance to further developing routines for co-ordinat-ing their efforts.

Norway’s priorities and practical efforts in theHigh North are focused particularly on the BarentsCo-operation, but the Arctic Council is also animportant forum.

5.1 The Barents Co-operation

The Barents Co-operation was established in 1993in response to a Norwegian initiative. It includesboth a government level (the Barents Council) anda regional level (the Regional Council). The Bar-ents Co-operation has contributed considerably tothe close ties that have developed between theNordic countries and Russia in the North. This isnot least due to the efforts that are being under-taken at the regional level, on the Norwegian sideby our three northernmost counties, and by theBarents Secretariat.

The Barents Co-operation provides a frame-work both for political contact and for co-operationon concrete measures. Particular emphasis isplaced on measures in the areas of trade and indus-try, transport, energy, environmental protection,

Figure 5.1 The Barents Region


resource management, health, education and cul-ture. Co-operation is also being developed in areassuch as emergency and rescue services and effortsto combat crime.

Norway is chairing the Barents Council in theperiod 2003–2005. Our main priorities are businessand the economy, education, the police and justicesector, emergency and rescue services co-opera-tion and health.

So far Norway has provided approximatelyNOK 3 billion for various co-operative measures inthe Barents Region. This includes annual alloca-tions to the Barents Secretariat in Kirkenes, whichis owned by the three northernmost counties ofNorway. The Secretariat has considerable exper-tise on northwestern Russia and an extensive net-work of contacts. It provides secretarial services tothe three county administrations and to some ofthe working groups in the regional Barents Co-operation.

Since 1993 approximately 2000 Norwegian-Rus-sian projects in the High North have received sup-port from the funds the Government has allocatedthrough the Barents Secretariat. In addition theSecretariat assists the Regional Council by provid-ing analyses, documents and overviews. It also per-forms tasks for others in the Barents Region. TheBarents Secretariat runs information offices inMurmansk, Archangel and Naryan-Mar.

The Barents Secretariat has recently beenworking on issues related to future petroleumactivities in the Barents Sea and the effects theymay have on the Barents Region. The Secretariathas also proposed that a Barents Institute be estab-lished in Kirkenes, which would primarily exploreissues related to energy production and regionalco-operation. In the Government’s view, this is aninteresting proposal that should be followed up. Anincrease in the support for the Barents Secretariatwould make this possible.

Environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment are important priority areas in theBarents Co-operation. The question of closer co-operation on environmental protection and sustain-able development in the region is linked to theimpact that increased resource exploitation andactivities related to energy and transport may haveon the environment, and to the need for frameworkconditions and mitigating measures that willensure that environmental concerns are addressedappropriately.

In the economic area the focus is on how smalland medium-sized enterprises can co-operate oncross-border trade and investments. In this contextarrangements to facilitate border crossing and cus-

toms clearance are vital. The Barents Co-operationhas actively contributed to this, for example byraising awareness of how the authorities can stim-ulate a good business climate, both at the regionaland at the local level.

The Barents Co-operation also covers areassuch as health and education. In the area of healthspecial priority is given to the fight against tubercu-losis and HIV/AIDS, to measures to combat vari-ous lifestyle diseases and to better integration ofprimary health care services with social services.

In the field of education and research, strongacademic and institutional bonds have been forgedbetween institutions of higher learning in the Bar-ents Region. This has also had a positive effect ondevelopments in the business sector and society ingeneral. During the past few years the Barents Co-operation has focused on the goals set out in thepan-European Bologna Process, particularlystressing the importance of student and teachermobility.

In recent years other countries have shownincreasing interest in the experience we havegained from people-to-people co-operation in theBarents Region.

5.2 The Arctic Council

The Arctic Council is the only regional co-opera-tion body in which all the eight Arctic countries arefull members. These are Norway, Denmark (theFaeroe Islands and Greenland), Sweden, Finland,Iceland, the USA, Canada and Russia.

In connection with the Arctic Council, separateco-operation between Arctic parliamentarians hasbeen established in the form of the Standing Com-mittee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region,which plays a significant role in promoting and con-solidating circumpolar co-operation. From thebeginning in 1993, the Arctic parliamentarianshave taken several concrete initiatives to increaseco-operation, and these are now being followed upin the Arctic Council.

However, the Arctic Council has failed to agreeon the establishment of a permanent secretariatand assessed contributions from the memberstates. Norway has advocated the establishment ofsuch a secretariat. In spite of these weaknesses,the Arctic Council has taken on a role that is grow-ing in importance. Currently, the Council is dis-cussing important regional issues related to theenvironment and sustainable development. Thevarious co-operation measures are financedthrough voluntary contributions.


In the Government’s view, the Arctic Councilshould continuously update the scientific knowl-edge base related to climate change in the Arctic,for example in the form of special surveys as a con-tinuation of the ACIA process. The ACIA effortscould be an important regional contribution to theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). The Arctic Council and its member stateshave an important role to play in describing,assessing and imparting knowledge about theimpact of climate change on the Arctic, and theconsequences this may have for the global environ-ment. In this way the Arctic Council can help toensure that new knowledge about climate changein the Arctic reaches the right fora, including theIPCC.

One of the most important results of the co-operation in the Arctic Council has been the docu-mentation of the transboundary pollution that iscarried northwards by air and ocean currents andrivers. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Pro-gramme (AMAP) has produced thorough docu-mentation of the environmental status, and has pro-vided opportunities to present it to major emissioncountries (especially Russia) and to develop a com-mon approach in order to achieve real reductionsin emissions.

The Arctic Council is seeking to maintain biodi-versity in the Arctic by supporting the establish-

ment of an international network of conservationareas and more effective legislation and conserva-tion practices. There is also extensive co-operationon the recording and management of importantseabird populations. The ministerial meeting in2004 adopted the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan, inwhich the ecosystem approach is a key principle.

An important aspect of the co-operation in theArctic Council is the indigenous peoples’ status aspermanent participants. Their participation fostersbroader understanding of the complexity of theenvironmental problems and of the communities inthe North. Many environmental problems affectindigenous groups more severely than othergroups, and in other ways.

The University of the Arctic was established bythe Arctic Council to promote co-operation in thefield of higher education in the Arctic. The Univer-sity is a network of institutions of higher learning inthe High North. The University Centre on Svalbardand Finnmark University College both play anactive role in the University of the Arctic.

Norway will assume the chairmanship of theArctic Council in the autumn of 2006. The chair-manship will coincide with the International PolarYear 2007–2008. This means that there will be con-siderable focus on polar issues during the Norwe-gian chairmanship, which Norway should takeadvantage of to promote co-operation in the ArcticCouncil.

5.3 Other co-operation arrangements

The EU Northern Dimension was adopted by theEuropean Council in December 1997, and hassince become an integral part of the EU’s regionalco-operation. The Northern Dimension is a frame-work designed to promote political dialogue andco-operation in the northern part of Europe. Twoaction plans have been adopted and two partner-ships established, one for environmental protec-tion and one for public health and social well-being.

For Norway it is important that the EU isactively involved in Northern Europe and the HighNorth. Norway has therefore attached great impor-tance to developing the Northern Dimension intoan important instrument for the EU. Norway partic-ipated actively in drawing up the current actionplan, not least in order to ensure that the Arcticregion was included in the plan as an area with spe-cial needs.

The EU Interreg initiative is designed to pro-mote social and economic cohesion in Europethrough cross-border, transnational and interre-

Figure 5.2 Member states of the Arctic Council


gional co-operation. The Government attachesgreat importance to participating actively in theprogrammes that concern Norway and northwest-ern Russia. Furthermore, the Government consid-ers it important to ensure Norway’s participation inthe EU’s new neighbourhood and partnershipinstrument, which is intended to promote co-oper-ation across the EU’s external borders, and whichwill affect the Barents Region and the Interreg pro-grammes that Norway participates in. The North-ern Maritime Corridor (NMC) is an example of animportant multilateral project aimed at ensuringsustainable resource use through safer sea trans-port and co-operation on regional economic devel-opment.

The Nordic Council of Ministers’ neighbourprogramme covers northwestern Russia and theBaltic states. It focuses particularly on democracyand welfare, the promotion of culture, sustainabledevelopment and scholarships.

In the time to come, the Nordic Council of Min-isters will give more priority to co-operation withnorthwestern Russia, and from 2006 it will have aspecific programme for Russia. It also has a spe-cific Arctic programme, which in 2005 has a budgetof DKK 7 million. The programme focuses espe-cially on welfare and quality of life, indigenous peo-ples, sustainable development, natural resources,pollution and biological diversity.

In 1990 the Nordic Council of Ministers estab-lished the Nordic Environment Finance Corpora-tion (NEFCO), which is an important instrument inthe efforts to reduce pollution from northwesternRussia that affects the environment in the HighNorth. NEFCO is fulfilling both its financial and itsenvironmental targets effectively, and the co-ordi-nation between environmental projects underNEFCO, Norwegian bilateral projects, BarentsCouncil projects and Arctic Council projects isgood. It has been decided to continue the Nordicfunding of NEFCO until the end of 2007.

The ministers of education and science of theNordic countries and their counterparts from theArctic Council member states met in Reykjavik in2004, in response to an initiative taken by the chair-manship of the Nordic Council of Ministers. Theyadopted a declaration on future co-operationbetween the two bodies in the areas of educationand research. The matter is being followed up bythe Danish chairmanship of the Nordic Council ofMinisters in 2005. In 2006, Norway will chair boththe Nordic Council of Ministers and the ArcticCouncil. This places a particular responsibility onNorway for following up the co-operation betweenthe two bodies in the areas of education andresearch in 2006.


6 A coherent Norwegian High North policy

The Government is basing its efforts to strengthenits High North policy on two pillars:– establishment of dialogues on High North with

like-minded Western countries, and– further development of the bilateral co-opera-

tion with Russia.

One of the major challenges in the practical imple-mentation of the High North policy will be to com-bine the various dialogues on the High North withthe further development of co-operation with Rus-sia.

The Government regards the Barents Co-oper-ation as an especially important instrument in itsnew High North policy, and will therefore evaluateand intensify this co-operation and make it moreeffective.

The Government plans to implement an inte-grated ecosystem-based management regime inthe sea and coastal areas under Norway’s jurisdic-tion in the North.

In order to make the policy more coherent, theGovernment will strengthen the co-ordinationbetween the various policy areas in the Ministry ofForeign Affairs, between the other competent min-istries and between the central government admin-istration and other actors.

The Government will give priority to measuresand solutions that will mobilise broad political sup-port for its High North policy in Norway. This willgive the policy greater influence abroad.

6.1 Dialogues on the High North

An important part of the new policy is the establish-ment of dialogues on the High North with keyWestern countries.

To begin with the Government will initiate dia-logues with the USA, Canada, Germany, the UK,France and the EU, all of which have or will haveinterests in the High North in the fields of energyand other resources, climate change, environmen-tal issues and sustainable development.

The starting point for the dialogues is thatmany countries are now showing increasing inter-est in the development of this region, especially

given its future role as an energy supplier. Thismeans that a number of new actors with differentinterest in these areas will be arriving on the scene.

The dialogues on the High North will give theGovernment a better understanding of the variousactors’ interests and priorities and will serve as anarena for promoting Norwegian views and priori-ties. This applies for example to the importance ofstriking a balance between petroleum productionon the one hand and environmental considerationsand the need to conserve fish stocks on the other.The overall objective is to ensure that the use ofresources in the North is based on the principle ofsustainable development.

The dialogues will also help to foster greaterunderstanding of Norwegian views and priorities inthe North, and could serve as a basis for co-opera-tion with the country concerned on issues that arerelevant to the High North.

The Government will seek to include represen-tatives of the business sector and various otherfields in the dialogues.

The dialogue with Germany was begun at thepolitical level in 2004, and took as its starting pointGermany’s status as the largest buyer of Norwe-gian gas. Germany co-operates closely with Russiain a number of areas, and this will provide a basisfor considering concrete new co-operation projectsin the North, including in the Russian part of theBarents Sea.

Norway has also begun a dialogue with theUSA, mainly on the country’s interest in future oiland gas supplies from the Barents Sea. However,the Government would underline that this dialogueis also concerned with topics in a broad range offields, including environmental issues.

Preparations are under way for dialogues withCanada, France and the UK.

6.2 Bilateral co-operation with Russia

Bilateral co-operation with Russia is the other mainpillar of the High North policy.

The increasingly closer co-operation Norwayenjoys with Russia has helped to break down scep-ticism and suspicion on both sides, not least as


regards the military field. In 2006 a military exer-cise on Russian soil with Norwegian participationwill be carried out for the first time. The Govern-ment is giving priority to further developing thecontact and dialogue with Russia at the militarylevel.

Norway and Russia jointly manage livingmarine resources in the Barents Sea, and share theresponsibility for maintaining satisfactory environ-mental status in the area. The Government willtherefore intensify co-operation with Russia with aview to ensuring the sustainable use of resourcesand environmental protection in the North. Thisincludes a reliable system for control of resourceutilisation.

The development of petroleum resources in theHigh North will provide new opportunities for eco-nomic co-operation between Norwegian and Rus-sian companies. The Government will make activeefforts to promote Norwegian participation on acommercial basis in the development of Russian oiland gas fields in the North. This will also increasethe competitiveness of the Norwegian petroleumindustry at the international level, especially asregards offshore development and productionmethods that maintain high environmental andsafety standards.

The Government will therefore actively supportthe dialogue Norwegian companies are conductingwith their Russian partners and other actors on co-operation on oil and gas production in the Norwe-gian and Russian sectors.

The positive economic development in north-western Russia is providing new opportunities forcloser commercial co-operation across the border.Since Russia continues to be a demanding market,especially for small and medium-sized enterprises,the Government considers it important to supportNorwegian companies’ efforts to establish them-selves in the Russian market.

In co-operation with Innovation Norway, theGovernment will support the posting of an Innova-tion Norway employee to the consulate general inMurmansk as a trial arrangement.

In the light of the increase in the transport ofgoods and services across the Norwegian-Russianborder in Sør-Varanger, the Government will alsopropose to the Russian authorities that the openinghours be extended and customs procedures expe-dited at both countries’ border control stations atStorskog.

The Government will continue to work throughthe established co-operation arrangements formore stable framework conditions for business

activities, particularly in the light of increased Nor-wegian investment in northwestern Russia.

The Government wishes to strengthen projectco-operation with Russia and the other CIS coun-tries and will submit concrete proposals for alloca-tions in connection with the annual budget propos-als. This will contribute to further expansion of co-operation, both at the bilateral level and in the Bar-ents Region. Support for the Barents Secretariat inKirkenes will also be increased.

The state of the environment in the Barents Seaand the Barents Region is strongly influenced byRussian environmental management and the envi-ronmental standards imposed on activities on theRussian side of the border. Whether or not the Rus-sian authorities succeed in preventing dischargesinto the sea from the increased oil and gas activi-ties, maritime transport and previous military andindustrial activities in northwestern Russia willhave considerable consequences for Norway. TheGovernment will therefore give high priority toenvironmental co-operation with Russia, especiallyin areas that affect the marine environment in theNorth.

The many nuclear facilities in northwesternRussia are a threat to the environment and pose arisk in the sense that radioactive material from thefacilities could fall into the wrong hands. It is inNorway’s interest as a neighbouring country toparticipate in the international co-operation onremedying the situation. The Government willtherefore intensify its nuclear safety co-operationwith Russia and will present a proposal for alloca-tions for this purpose to the Storting at a later date.

The Government will intensify co-operationwith Russia on safety at sea and the oil pollutionemergency response system.

Close research co-operation with Russia will beimportant for dealing with the many common tasksrelated to resource management, climate changeand environmental protection. Current researchco-operation should now be expanded to coveractivities in Svalbard, and the Government will setaside funds for strengthening polar research.

Cultural and educational exchanges and co-operation are an important part of the broad peo-ple-to-people co-operation in the northern parts ofFinland, Norway and Sweden (known as Nordkal-otten) and Russia. A large number of activities inthese fields take place every year, and there are aconsiderable number of Russian students at NorthNorwegian educational institutions. These stu-dents make an important contribution to compe-tence-building and co-operation in many areas. Cul-tural co-operation with Russia is also a fruitful


source of contact and co-operation in the BarentsRegion as a whole.

Increasing the allocations to project co-opera-tion with Russia, including projects under the Bar-ents Co-operation, will enhance cultural and educa-tional co-operation in the whole region. The Gov-ernment is also giving priority to the furtherdevelopment of co-operation with Russia in thefields of health and social welfare.

The foreign service missions in the region musthave the necessary resources and competence asregards visas if the important people-to-people co-operation is to be enhanced. Visa issues are regu-larly discussed between the Norwegian and Rus-sian authorities, and the Government has thereforeestablished a new position for a visa officer at theconsulate general in Murmansk. The Govern-ment’s aim is that the visa requirements betweenRussia and the Schengen countries should eventu-ally be dropped.

The Government gives high priority to thedemanding task of reaching a mutually satisfactoryagreement with Russia on a delimitation line in theBarents Sea. This is essential if the two countriesare to fully realise the potential for co-operation inthe area of overlapping claims.

6.3 The Barents Co-operation and the Arctic Council

The Barents Co-operation has become an impor-tant instrument for the development of Norway’sHigh North policy. The many co-operation mea-sures represent a long-term investment in thebuilding of confidence and networks across theformer East-West divide, and thus in the develop-ment of closer commercial co-operation betweenNorway and Russia in the North.

The success of the Barents Co-operation liespartly in the fact that the three North Norwegiancounties have managed to develop co-operationwith Russia at the regional level. The Barents Sec-retariat in Kirkenes has played a significant role inthese efforts.

The Government wishes to strengthen projectco-operation with Russia and the other CIS coun-tries and will submit concrete proposals for alloca-tions to the Storting at a later date. This will con-tribute to further expansion of the Barents Co-operation. Support for the Barents Secretariat willalso be increased, as a means of strengthening itsrole as a co-operation instrument for the threeNorth Norwegian counties.

Increased support will make it possible for thesecretariat to move ahead on its proposal for a Bar-ents Institute affiliated with the secretariat. Theinstitute would focus particularly on issues relatedto resource use and regional co-operation, andwould be expected to co-operate closely with estab-lished research and educational institutions.

Greater support for project co-operation wouldalso make it easier for indigenous peoples and civilsociety to participate in the Barents Co-operation.

People-to-people co-operation in the BarentsRegion is steadily increasing. However, it hasbecome necessary to review the formal structuresof the Barents Co-operation in order to make themmore effective. The Government will therefore pro-pose to the other member states that an evaluationof the Barents Co-operation should be carried out,which could explore whether the co-operationwould be strengthened by establishing an interna-tional Barents Secretariat. Norway considers thatsuch a secretariat should be established inKirkenes. Relations between the current Norwe-gian secretariat and a new international secretariatwill also have to be discussed.

The successful people-to-people co-operation inthe North has attracted attention and interest inother parts of Europe where ethnic groups have fora long time been separated by closed borders. TheGovernment will take steps to enable the experi-ence gained in the Barents Region to be sharedwith other interested parties.

The Arctic Council is the most important co-operation forum for the Arctic part of the HighNorth. It focuses mainly on environmental protec-tion, climate change issues and sustainable devel-opment in the Arctic. Norway will take over thechairmanship in autumn 2006, which means thatthe chairmanship period will coincide with theInternational Polar Year 2007–2008.

During the Norwegian chairmanship the Gov-ernment wishes to encourage Norwegian-ledprojects related to the environment and sustain-able development. The Government will presentproposals for allocations to the Storting during thechairmanship.

The Arctic Council is funded through voluntarycontributions. The Government will consult theother member states on introducing more bindingarrangements for financing joint measures. Theestablishment of a project fund in co-operation withthe Nordic Environment Finance Corporation(NEFCO) was the first step, and in 2004 Norwayinformed the other member states that it intendedto contribute to the fund and urged them to do thesame.


The Government considers that the ArcticCouncil should have a permanent secretariat thatcould follow up matters between ministerial meet-ings, and will raise the matter with the other mem-ber states. The Government will seek to ensurethat such a secretariat is established in Tromsø.

The Government considers that the ArcticCouncil’s sphere of responsibility should beexpanded to include political and project-relatedco-operation. This would involve initiating studieson issues of interest to the Arctic as a whole. TheCouncil should also be able to contribute to shap-ing the framework for national and internationalmeasures. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessmentshows what good results the Council can achievethrough co-operation with a wide range of scientificinstitutions.

The Government believes in the role the ArcticCouncil can play as a forum for strengthening theposition of indigenous peoples. These peoples andtheir interests are directly affected by most of theCouncil’s decisions. Furthermore, since these peo-ples have valuable experience and knowledge,involving their representatives in all aspects of theco-operation would be of great benefit. Thus in thefurther work of the Council the Government willgive priority to matters relating to the living condi-tions and traditional livelihoods of the indigenouspeoples in the region.

The major challenges we are facing in the Arc-tic can only be met if we have a thorough knowl-edge of the causes. The Government will work tostrengthen international research co-operationwithin the framework of the Arctic Council.

The Government will propose to the Councilthat an international research fund for the HighNorth is established under its auspices. This fundwould finance research activities and smallprojects in specific areas, with a focus on climatechange issues, biodiversity and indigenous issues.The Government will urge the members of theCouncil to contribute to the fund and will presentproposals for allocations to the Storting at a laterdate. The Government will seek to have the fundlocated in Tromsø, which will strengthen Tromsø’sposition as a centre for polar research.

In order to enhance international co-operationin the field of reindeer husbandry, the Governmenthas decided to establish an international reindeerhusbandry centre in Kautokeino. The centre willpromote the publication and exchange of informa-tion, and technical co-operation and will be tar-geted at the reindeer husbandry industry, theauthorities, research and academic communities,

and international organisations and co-operationbodies. The intention is that the centre shouldopen in autumn 2005.

6.4 Knowledge base

Norway is a coastal state, and many people aredependent on the sea for their livelihoods. In spiteof this we know too little about the seabed off Nor-way and its ecosystems and resources. We doknow that the coastal and marine environment inthe North is particularly vulnerable and that it isbeing affected by climate change, environmentallyhazardous substances, shipping, fisheries andpetroleum activities. However, there are gaps inour knowledge of how the ecosystems function andhow the various anthropogenic influences affectthe environment. Thus we need a sound knowl-edge base for sustainable, ecosystem-based man-agement of the coastal and sea areas.

Since Norway ratified the Convention on theLaw of the Sea, the country has been required tomeet a time limit for submitting scientific informa-tion on the outer limits of the continental shelf tothe Commission on the Limits of the ContinentalShelf, which is in New York. Extensive work hasalready been done on surveying the extent of theNorwegian continental shelf beyond 200 nauticalmiles, but the work must be speeded up if Norwayis to submit adequate information to the commis-sion before the time limit expires in 2009.

The Government intends to set aside funds forincreasing knowledge through more extensivemarine surveys, research and environmental mon-itoring, with a focus on the High North. The Gov-ernment will present proposals for allocations forthis purpose to the Storting at a later date. Theseefforts will also strengthen the Norwegian pres-ence in the region.

The Government will make active efforts to fur-ther develop Svalbard as an international researchplatform. In order to follow up the large invest-ments in infrastructure and research in Svalbard inrecent years, the Government wishes to increasethe allocations for Norwegian polar research. TheGovernment will propose to the Storting that fundsare set aside for improving co-ordination ofresearch in Svalbard, increase operational alloca-tions for Norwegian research in Svalbard,strengthen Norwegian-Russian co-operation onpolar research and improve co-ordination of inter-national research co-operation.


6.5 Improved co-ordination

The Norwegian authorities’ work on High Northissues covers a wide range of areas. Many of theissues concern vital Norwegian interests, and mostof them are dealt with in co-operation with othercountries and institutions. The High North policymust be well co-ordinated in order to take intoaccount the many complex tasks and problems inthe North. There is therefore a need for close con-tact between the various parts of the central gov-ernment administration and between the centralgovernment administration, the regional authori-ties and the various business and other interests.

The Government will work to enhance co-ordi-nation of Norway’s High North policy, and willassign responsibility for the day-to-day co-ordina-tion of the work on High North issues to a state sec-retary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The statesecretary will chair an interministerial High Northcommittee where all the relevant ministries will berepresented. The new committee will supplementthe Interministerial Committee on the PolarRegions, which will continue to be the co-ordinat-ing body for matters relating to Svalbard, JanMayen and Antarctica for the government as awhole. The mandate for the new committee mustbe formulated with this in mind.

The state secretary will also chair a broad-based contact forum for High North issues, wherecurrent matters can be discussed by representa-tives of the central government administration, the

regional authorities, the business community,expert institutions and NGOs.

The complex challenges and opportunities inthis region make it necessary to promote morenational and international interest in and aware-ness of developments in the North. The Govern-ment will seek to create appropriate meetingplaces and fora for debate and exchange of infor-mation on these issues.

The Government aims to stimulate more dia-logue on High North issues, among other thingsthrough an annual seminar to be called ForumNorth, which will be open to participants from Nor-way and the other Nordic countries, EU countries,the USA, Canada and Russia. In order to promoteclose contact with political and other circles inNorth Norway, the seminar will usually be held inthat part of the country.

An integrated management plan for the Bar-ents Sea is currently being developed. It will be theGovernment’s most important tool for implement-ing an ecosystem-based management regime forthe sea areas in the North. The purpose of the planis to establish framework conditions that will makeit possible to strike a balance between the commer-cial interests related to the petroleum industry,maritime transport and fisheries on the one hand,and sustainable development on the other. TheGovernment’s aim is to present the new manage-ment plan to the Storting in 2006. The plan willcover the period up to 2020.


7 Economic and administrative consequences

The Government’s aim is to continue to pursue anactive High North policy. This white paper gives anaccount of developments in the region and the Gov-ernment’s goals and priorities and the measures itintends to implement. The annual financial alloca-tions for following up the white paper will dependon the development of the economy and the bud-get situation. The Government will submit con-crete proposals for allocations in the annual budgetproposals.

The white paper contains proposals that willstrengthen project co-operation with Russia andthe other CIS countries, as well as the nuclearsafety co-operation with Russia. It proposes thatadditional allocations should be granted for variousco-operation measures during the forthcomingNorwegian chairmanship of the Arctic Council andfor knowledge development and an increased pres-ence in the High North, and points out the advan-tages of intensifying international research co-operation in the North, especially with Russia.

The white paper also discusses the establish-ment of an international research fund for the HighNorth that focuses mainly on climate change,biodiversity and indigenous issues. The Govern-ment will advocate that the fund is located inTromsø. The Government will present a proposalto the Storting concerning the size of Norway’scontribution to such a fund at a later date

The costs of running an international reindeerhusbandry centre in Kautokeino will be coveredwithin the existing budgetary limits of the minis-tries concerned.

The annual international High North seminar,Forum North, is not expected to require extrafunds, nor are the dialogues on this subject withlike-minded countries.

The proposal to establish a position for a repre-sentative of Innovation Norway at the consulategeneral in Murmansk and to extend the openinghours of the border control station at Storskog inSør-Varanger will have to be examined in moredetail before the costs can be established.


Annex 1

Abbreviations

ACIA Arctic Climate Impact AssessmentAMAP Arctic Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeAMEC Arctic Military Environmental CooperationCEG (IAEA) Contact Expert GroupEBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentEISCAT European Incoherent ScatterG8 Group of 8 (industrialised countries)IMO International Maritime OrganisationICES International Council for the Exploration of the SeaMNEPR Multilateral Nuclear Environment Programme in the Russian FederationND (EU) Northern DimensionNDEP Northern Dimension Environmental PartnershipNEFCO Nordic Environment Finance CorporationPSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea AreaUNIS University Centre on Svalbard

Documents

Opportunities and Challenges in the North€¦ · Opportunities and Challenges in the North been established across this border could also be useful to the Norwegian petroleum industry