Ladies and gentlemen,

Over the last decade, the situation in the High North has changed dramatically, along with the rest of Europe. Cooperation has replaced confrontation. Contacts are flourishing at all levels. The amount of people-to-people contacts across borders that used to be hermetically sealed is truly amazing.

Security remains part of our common agenda in the High North. But it is a new and more comprehensive concept of security compared to that of the Cold War. Military aspects of security have not vanished. But today the focus has shifted to issues such as environmental safety and nuclear safety – the kind of security that can only be built through broad international cooperation.

And that is why it is so important to us in Norway to engage in active dialogue with our friends in the European Union as well as with Russia and the other circumpolar nations, including the United States and Canada, on issues of common interest and concern. Hence, we are extremely pleased that so many of you, including prominent members of the European Parliament, could join us this morning.

The fact is that the challenges of the High North are not and cannot be treated as purely regional or even sub-regional issues.

Issues related to the protection of the fragile Arctic environment and to the effects of possible climate change;

Isssues related to the exploitation of the region’s copious stocks of marine living resources as well as deposits of oil and gas on the Arctic continental shelf;

Issues related to safe handling and storage of vast amounts of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in Northwestern Russia;

and issues related to preventing the spread of communicable diseases such as HIV and tubercolosis :

All of these challenges – depending on how the international community deals with them – have the potential to cause repercussions in other parts of Europe and in a wider international setting. In other words: It is in the enlightened self-interest of Europe to take an interest in the challenges of the High North.

In addition there is the political and moral imperative of preventing new dividing lines on a European continent which is finally coming together as a result of the historic process of EU and the parallel enlargement of the North Atlantic Alliance.

All of this as we see it are convincing arguments why the European Union, with its unique political and economic clout and its wide range of instruments to promote positive change, should take a lead role in the international response to the challenges of the High North, in cooperation with countries such as the United States, Canada and Norway as well as regional bodies such as the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and the Arctic Council.

In this regard the importance and the potential of the Northern Dimension can hardly be exaggerated. Precisely because of the necessity of avoiding new dividing lines on the periphery of the enlarged Union, it is essential that the Northern Dimension is put to effective use with a view to promoting cooperation and prosperity in the areas along the new border between the EU and Russia. As an ND partner, we for our part are committed to contributing actively to that end.

But from our perspective it is equally essential that the Arctic Window of the Northern Dimension remains open. This is necessary partly because the issues are interrelated and partly because – in the absence of effective and determined remedial action on the part of the international community, including of course the European Union – the looming problems of the High North have the potential for causing repercussions also in parts of Europe farther to the south. Hence, we appreciate the fact that the concept of the Arctic Window is now firmly embedded in the Evolution of the Nortthern Dimension. Again, we on the Norwegian side are committed to supporting actively that process. You will find, in the folders before you, a copy of the Norwegian input to the preperation of the Northern Dimension Action Plan for 2004-06.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I should like to use the second part of my presentation this morning to outline two of the main challenges facing the international community in the High North.

First on my list is the environmental challenge.

The High North contains rich and valuable natural resources. At the same time the region is among the most environmentally fragile in the world. Hence, the riches of the region will have to be exploited in a sustainable and responsible way. What we do today will have an impact for years and years to come. We owe it to future generations not to squander resources or imperil the environment.

The maritime areas of the High North are particularly important in this regard. The marine ecosystems are among the most productive in the world and include crucially important spawning areas for essential fish stocks such as cod. We are becoming increasingly aware of the existence of important deposits of oil and gas offshore as well as onshore.

The vision of the Norwegian government is to safeguard a clean and healthy sea, from which future generations, too, can harvest its rich resources. To that end, we must draw up management policies that will allow us to balance commercial interests – fisheries, aquaculture, shipping and petroleum extraction – with the imperative of protecting the fragile Arctic environment.

We have decided, for example, that no new permits for petroleum exploitation in the northern sea areas will be granted until a comprehensive and stringent impact assessment has been completed. And we are looking into the possibility of establishing exclusive fisheries zones where no petroleum-related activities will be permitted. These measures will be included in a forthcoming integrated management plan for the Barents Sea. This plan will be firmly based on the principle of sustainable development.

Maritime traffic out of Russia’s Kola Peninsula and along the Norwegian coast line is expected to increase considerably. There are plans to build a major oil-terminal in the Russian port of Murmansk, from which large quantities of oil will be taken to markets farther south on tankers of up to 300 000 tons. Obviously, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that this will create a higher risk of accidents and spills.

A Prestige-like accident in the fragile waters of the High North would obviously be a major catastrophe. We on the Norwegian side therefore wish to strengthen our coastal-state control of maritime transport. But obviously, international cooperation is also required. We have established a good dialogue with our Russian neighbours on these issues.

The scientific community has alerted us to the fact that pollution in the High North largely originates from areas far south of the region. Due to prevailing air and sea currents, residues of pesticides used in developing countries end up in the North, causing increasing health hazards to humans as well as wildlife. This is yet another illustration that measures to protect the environment of the High North cannot be limited to the region itself.

But looking ahead, global warming has the potential to become the dominant item on the High Northe agenda. Science has already documented climate changes that are more pronounced in

the High North than in other parts of the world. A warmer climate could obviously have a profound impact on living conditions, particularly as regards indigenous populations, as well as on the environment.

We may also face new foreign and security policy challenges as a result of less ice and new navigable waters in the northern sea areas. How will we respond if and when the Arctic tundra melts, thereby literally undermining the foundation of Arctic housing, roads, economic enterprises and other essential infrastructure? And what happens to local communities when living marine resources on which they depend move elsewhere or become drastically depleted?

The issue of the effects of global warning in the High North needs to be tackled head-on. All the more so since the High North is an indicator region for environmental problems that will later also come to the fore in more southern latitudes. In addition, the Arctic plays an essential role in the regulation of global climate and ocean processes. Changes in the High North therefore are likely to have significant effects elsewhere.

We need to know more about these phenomena. Knowledge remains the only viable basis for sound decision-making. This is why we and other circumpolar nations attach paramount importance to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a pioneering study sponsored by the Arctic Council. We will hear more about the study shortly.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The second High North Challenge that I wanted to discuss with you this morning is the challenge of nuclear safety, which is intimately linked to the twin challenges of fighting international terrorism and curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

We have worked closely with the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear safety since 1995, when the Norwegian Government launched its Action Plan for Nuclear Safety in the North. Since then we have implemented a broad variety of projects and so far spent approximately 100 mill Euro. In the current budget year we are spending some 17 mill Euro.

This is not a trifling amount. Yet in light of the magnitude of the problem it is a drop in the bucket. Dealing effectively with the problem of nuclear safety in Northwestern Russia will require broad international involvement for years to come.

Unsafe storage of nuclear waste and radioactive material from retired nuclear submarines and weapons, mainly on the Kola Peninsula, represents a formidable challenge to the environment. For example, more than 300 nuclear reactors are located in this area, many of them inside rusting and dilapidated nuclear submarines that have been taken out of service.

In addition to the environmental aspects, nuclear safety has become an integral part of our fight against non-proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction and international terrorism.

Let me illustrate these points by outlining some issues and projects that we on the Norwegian side have prioritised. All of them are very much in line with the priorities embedded in the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership. Dealing with these problems will be both costly and time-consuming. Hence, international cooperation is absolutely necessary.

My first example is the rehabilitation of the now closed main storage site in the Andreev Bay is one priority area. The site contains spent fuel from one hundred nuclear submarines and enormous amounts of liquid and solid nuclear waste. The site and its facilities are in a disastrous state. Last summer, Russia and Norway signed contracts to improve nuclear safety here. First the way must be paved for international efforts by improving the site’s infrastructure. This work is well under way. Then we must embark upon the difficult process of ensuring safe handling and storage.

Similar problems are found at the former Russian naval base Gremikha. When Norwegian officials visited the site last year, they found 16 decommissioned submarines in addition to some 1800 fuel assemblies with spent fuel. Here, too, there is an urgent need for remedial action – and for international involvement.

My second example of a particularly urgent problem is dismantlement of nuclear submarines, which is a new priority in Norway’s nuclear safety strategy. The Soviet Union built 250 nuclear submarines, more than all other nuclear powers taken together. Around 200 have been decommissioned. Of these some 80 strategic submarines have been dismantled with American support. Two thirds of those that are awaiting dismantlement are located in the northwestern part of Russia.

Most of these are multi-purpose subs that fall outside the scope of American assistance programs. Getting to grips with the problem of multi-purpose subs is an urgent priority, all the more so since these boats are among the oldest and generally in the poorest condition. .Norway has committed to to finance the dismantling of two multi-purpose submarines. We urge others to follow our example. We are gratified that an interest in this has been expressed by, among others, Canada and the UK.

My third example of an urgent nuclear safety priority is related to the existence along the Russian coastline of around a thousand nuclear-powered lighthouses. In the Kola and Archangel districts there are approximately 150 such lighthouses, which are powered by strontium batteries. Many are in very bad condition and easily accessible. If such batteries were to fall into the hands of terrorists they could easily be used for constructing dirty bombs. So far we have financed their replacement with solar energy technology in five Russian lighthouses, and we will continue this work. Such projects make a valuable contribution to preventing nuclear proliferation. Again we urge others to chip in.

We welcome a strong EU engagement in the nuclear safety field in Northwestern Russia, as a supplement to the important contributions made by individual EU members such as the UK, France, Sweden, Finland and others. The Union is uniquely qualified to play a major role in this work. And through the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership Trust Fund it can wield an important financial instrument. We for our part have committed ourself to supporting the Trust Fund to the tune of 10 mill Euro.

We are also extremely encouraged by the G8 countries Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. This 20 billion USD commitment – in which major EU countries play a crucial role – will make a vast difference in our efforts towards greater nuclear safety in the North.

Nuclear projects require concerted international action; they are complicated and costly. And they require a legal framework. Only a few countries have agreements with the Russian Federation regulating tax and liability questions connected with nuclear project implementation. In a few weeks time we will have a comprehensive multilateral framework agreement. On 21 May, in Stockholm, western partners and Russia will sign the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme (MNEPR). At the same time the nuclear window of the NDEP and the G8 Global Partnership can enter into concrete operation.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me conclude this brief curtain-raiser by reverting to where I started – by underlining to basic points that I have tried to make in my presentation this morning. The first is that the issues confronting us in the High North are not merely regional concerns – they have the potential to affect all Europeans and indeed the wider international community. For this reason, and because of the magnitude and complexity of the issues there an indispensable need for broad and concerted international cooperation. We on the Norwegian side hope and trust that the European Union will assume a leading role in this regard, and we are committed to cooperating closely with you.

I thank you for your attention.