Integration of biodiversity considerations in sectoral policy

Biodiversity in Europe, Budapest 25 February 2002
State Secretary A. Støylen, Ministry of Environment, Norway.

Integration of biodiversity considerations in sectoral policy

Thank you Mr. Chairman,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to attend this important conference on "Biodiversity in Europe" kindly hosted by the Hungarian Ministry of Environment. This Pan-European initiative has a potential for improving the outcome of the COP-6 in The Hague in April as well as for strengthening the biodiversity component in the Environment for Europe process.

Biodiversity must be acknowledged as living basis for human development and for the world economy, with all that implies for food supply, jobs, housing and health.

Today I would like to share with you some of our experiences in Norway, and the challenges we are facing in our efforts to integrate biodiversity issues into the various sectors of society.

Our follow-up of the Convention on Biological Diversity has since 1993 had a strong focus on sectoral integration of biodiversity concerns. As early as in 1994 seven ministries had developed their own sectoral plans on biodiversity in accordance with common guidelines based on the Biodiversity Convention. The Norwegian strategy on biodiversity was presented in 1997, and our national integrated action plan on biodiversity was presented as a government White Paper to the Parliament last year.

This action plan covers sixteen ministries; some of these are directly responsible for managing biological resources through harvesting, land-use activities, planning and the like, while others are more indirectly involved with biodiversity issues. At present this plan is being discussed in the Parliament.

Sectoral integration is vital if we are to fulfil the obligations of the Convention. Here I refer not only to the importance of integration, but also to a process through which we can avoid creating areas of conflict between development and long term biodiversity. It is through this process that we gain experience of biodiversity as a positive good, and learn to accept responsibility for activities with an impact on biodiversity. A process involving all the sectors at the same time ensure better cooperation and a more holistic approach, compared to the single-sector approach applied in our first generation sectoral-plans.

As an example on this, I will mention an initiative taken by Norwegian fisheries authorities. Without any pressure from the environmental authorities they decided to protect areas with deep-water coral reefs, and stop trawling and other activities over the reefs. Vital for biodiversity and the reproduction of fishery resources, it was in the sectors own interest to protect these areas.

Based on the national action plan we are now in the process of developing an improved new management system for biodiversity in Norway. The improvement covers three main components;

1. Improved, and easily available knowledge and information
2. Co-ordination of legal instruments, and
3. Development of new economic incentives and co-ordination of financial instruments.

The central element is however the integration of these into a coherent system.

A comprehensive national mapping of endangered and vulnerable ecosystems and habitats is at present being carried out. In fact mapping activities for such areas of essential value to biodiversity is ongoing in approximately 75 % of all the Norwegian municipalities. This information is to be used by all sectors of society. Our assumption is that the availability of this kind of information will limit the number of potential conflicts between sectors.

The use of financial instruments is therefore given high priority. We are in a process of trying to limit economic incentives that have turned out to be harmful to biodiversity. All subsidies and loans given to local authorities and private sector will here be examined. In this process the Ministry of Finance has a leading role. At the same time introduction of a nature damage tax is to be considered – as well as looking for new positive instruments for biodiversity conservation.

One possibility could be to alter the farming subsidies more in direction of paying for biodiversity and nature preservation, instead of supporting higher output from the sector.

Last year the government appointed an expert group to examine national legislation with the aim of strengthening measures for the protection of biodiversity in Norway and improving implementation of the Biodiversity Convention and other relevant international instruments.

The expert group will look at ways of improving and restructuring Norwegian legislation as a whole – not only environmental legislation as such – so as to ensure that biodiversity is taken into account wherever it is relevant. The group will also advise on how internationally recognised environmental concepts – the precautionary principle, the ecosystem approach, sustainable use, and so on – might be reflected in national law. Other priorities include access to genetic resources, benefit sharing, and problems associated with the introduction of alien species.

We regard communication and information as important tools in developing the new management system. In order to ensure wide-ranging public participation we will develop a communication strategy for the biodiversity White Paper. Key actors in the implementation of the Convention need effective instruments on communication, education and public awareness to engage major stakeholders and to convey the appropriate messages to mainstream biodiversity. I am therefore pleased to see that this topic will be further discussed at both regional and global level.

Sectoral integration is important at several levels, national, regional and global. Obviously most of the work has to take place at the national and local level, but other processes at the international level have to be designed and managed to ensure that processes are mutually supportive to the objectives of the Biodiversity Convention and other environmental conventions.

The ongoing work on international environmental governance is important, and through this process we might be able to strengthen UNEP as the main environmental multilateral organisation, and to streamline the work within the different environmental areas. But still the huge challenge at the international level is to achieve adequate sectoral integration.

One important tool for promoting sector integration, both internationally and nationally, is comprehensive and reliable information on status, threats, changes and trends in biodiversity. Norway has promoted the idea of an "Intergovernmental Panel for Assessing Global Environmental Change" in order to establish an authoritative source of knowledge and information. I would also like to highlight the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment project. Under the Norwegian chairmanship of the Nordic Council of Ministers we have launched a small-scale Nordic Millenium Ecosystem Assessment to be started up this year.

In order to serve the purpose of easing and promoting sectoral integration, information and knowledge have to be communicated in an understandable language to the relevant sectors. Building a common arena among the sectors is perhaps the most important step in this work. Unless we achieve this, we are likely to fail in our effort to secure the living basis for sustainable development.

I wish you all a successful conference.

Thank you.