The Minister of the Environment Thorbjørn Berntsen

Environmental policy statement

Statement to the Storting, 18 April 1996

1. Introduction

In 1997, it will be 25 years since the UN Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, and as many years since Norway, as the first country in the world, established a separate Ministry of the Environment. It will be 10 years since the World Commission on Environment and Development presented its report. Furthermore, it will be five years since the UN Conference on Environment and Development was held in Rio, and all countries are expected to present reports on their efforts to implement Agenda 21 at a special session of the UN.

The Government will submit a Report to the Storting on sustainable development in which it will systematically review what has been done to achieve the goal of sustainable development, identify areas where much still remains to be done, and describes what we can do in the years ahead at both national and international level. The Government's ambition is to ensure that Norway's environmental policy and the results it yields put Norway among the leading nations in this field, and that the country continues to play a catalytic role in the international arena. The challenges we face are of such magnitude that a systematic, goal-oriented environmental policy is essential to our success.

Both at home and abroad, one of the Government's primary objectives is to promote sustainable development. The report from the World Commission, Our Common Future, defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development is a broad concept which encompasses the ecological, the social and the economic aspects of development at both national and international level. Sustainable development requires solidarity across borders and across generations. It requires us to take special care in the management of common resources such as air, water, soil and biological diversity. To achieve sustainable development, we must manage to combine sound management of the environment and natural resources with greater social equity both within countries and between countries, and we must put efforts to combat poverty before all other tasks. Economic development is essential if we are to alleviate poverty, and poor countries must be drawn more fully into the international economy by the elimination of barriers to trade, investment and debt reduction. The report calls for stronger economic growth in developing countries, but emphasizes that it must be a form of growth that enhances the natural resource base, and that it must benefit the poorest groups in the population.

In my opinion, it is essential to commit ourselves to this framework for sustainable development, a framework which of course includes far more than purely environmental issues. With its definition of the concept of sustainable development, the World Commission sought to form the basis for a new global ethic. The Commission believed that the welfare and indeed the very survival of mankind might depend on the success of this process. We must never forget these ideals.

Environmental policy has undergone several phases of development since it first became an important part of the agenda at the 1972 Stockholm conference.

• We have moved away from a mainly national environmental policy towards the concept of a global village.
• There has been a growing emphasis on the quality of life and the intrinsic value of our natural and cultural heritage.
• Environmental protection has ceased to be regarded as a sectoral task and has become cross-sectoral and transboundary in character. Policies in most fields must now be based on environmental considerations.
• We are still in the process of cleaning up pollution and reversing environmental damage, but will gradually enter a phase where the main task is prevention.
• We are moving away from an emphasis on end-of-pipe solutions to deal with pollution and towards cleaner technology and production.
• We will find ways of using a growing proportion of waste as a resource, and product life cycles will increasingly be based on the cradle-to-cradle principle.

In today's situation, we must set clear goals, find the most effective ways of using environmental policy instruments, and maintain the results we have already achieved.

2. What have we achieved and what work is in progress?

We have achieved a great deal at national level in recent years. For example, we have substantially reduced pollution from industry, agriculture and waste water treatment. A growing proportion of waste is being recycled instead of being dumped on landfills. Furthermore, efforts to protect and preserve our natural and cultural heritage are yielding satisfactory results. The same is true of efforts to strengthen the emergency response to oil and chemical pollution.

The work of safeguarding biological diversity and the natural environment in our own country has been in progress for many years. In the past five years alone, we have completed 10 county plans for the conservation of biological diversity and given legal protection to a total of 193 areas. Since a Report to the Storting on new national parks was submitted, we have taken the first steps towards the protection of 20 large areas.

Good progress has also been made as regards outdoor recreation and safeguarding the right of public access to the countryside. For instance, in recent years several coastal parks have been established along the coast of Telemark, Aust-Agder and Vest-Agder.

As a result of the principle that all species are protected until otherwise decided, which was introduced by the Wildlife Act, 83 per cent of all game species on the mainland of Norway are now protected against ordinary hunting, as compared with only 14 per cent in 1980. In addition, various measures have been introduced to safeguard stocks of salmon and fresh-water fish and their habitats. The fish farming industry has also shown positive development trends, with a reduction in pollution, a lower incidence of disease and fewer escapes.

In the four years since a Report to the Storting was submitted on waste minimization, waste recovery and recycling and sound waste management, developments in this sector have been extremely rapid. New policy instruments have been implemented vis-à-vis both municipalities and the business sector, and have resulted in the recycling of a growing proportion of waste. Special return and recovery schemes have been established for various waste fractions, and more and more municipalities are introducing schemes for separating waste at source and ensuring that organic waste is recovered.

Important tasks still remain to be done in order to divert waste streams away from landfills and towards recycling. The Government will consider whether a tax on final disposal for waste that is landfilled or incinerated is an appropriate instrument. There are also plans to establish special return schemes for waste containing electronic components, waste from building and demolition activities, packaging for hazardous waste, refrigeration equipment and small batteries, and to ensure that a larger proportion of the residual waste is used for energy purposes.

Even though more and more waste is being recycled, the amount of waste generated will nevertheless increase if our current patterns of production and consumption continue. Prevention must therefore be our main strategy in future; we must reduce the amounts of dangerous substances in waste and ensure that we reduce the amounts of waste generated. The instruments we use to achieve these goals must not only be targeted towards production processes and waste management, but also be linked to the design of products.

In this connection, I would like to mention that we have now, after several years' work, found a permanent, safe solution to the treatment of practically all hazardous waste in Norway. This has been achieved with the decision by Norwegian Waste Management AS to establish a national facility for the treatment of organic hazardous waste in Brevik in Telemark county.

Another major issue is also now nearing a solution. During President Boris Yeltsin's visit to Norway in March, a protocol was signed in which the Russian Government undertook to implement the necessary measures to finance modernization of the Pechenganikel smelter on the Kola Peninsula. This issue has been on the agenda of all political talks we have had with Russia and the Soviet Union since 1988, and Norway is very pleased that the matter has been brought to a successful close. However, this is a large project and very costly, and the construction period will last for four to five years. It is now up to the Russian company Norilsk Nikel to take responsibility for carrying out the project in a way that benefits everybody and that halts pollution and damage to the environment in areas near the border.

It has been called into question whether the environmental authorities have been efficient enough in dealing with the problems associated with landfills containing hazardous waste and contaminated sites and sediments. In my opinion, as I said in the Storting on 24 January this year, we have made good progress in this work. One of the reasons why it has not yet been completed is that we have had to reorganize our priorities during the process. New, serious problems have been revealed, and cases which originally had lower priority have become more important as a result of changes in land use and construction projects. Pollution of this kind is not generally a direct hazard before the areas affected are taken into use or excavated. It has therefore been necessary to give priority to localities which are to be used for various purposes. We consider it important to follow the polluter pays principle in these cases, and to use the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority's licensing and control system to prevent further pollution of this type. The first phase of this work, an assessment of the measures to be implemented, is now nearing its conclusion, and this will be used as a basis for determining the long-term goals of the next phase.

Measures to reduce emissions of environmentally hazardous substances are another high-priority area in which we have achieved satisfactory results. During the last ten years, emissions of 37 such substances have been reduced by between 50 and 100 per cent. A number of different measures have been implemented to reduce emissions from industry, and clean-up operations have been carried out in the ten largest mines.

We have introduced approval procedures for new chemicals, required environmental hazard labelling, imposed restrictions on marketing and use, improved health hazard labelling and devised better routines for handling chemicals in the industrial sector. These developments are also in line with various regulations included in EEA legislation. In areas where Norway still has stricter rules than the EU, such as hazard labelling for carcinogenic substances and direct testing of products that may be sensitizing, Norway still enjoys exemptions from the provisions of the EEA Agreement. I would like to add that Norway's general goal is to combine open, well-regulated world trade with an active environmental policy.

Discharges of phosphorus from Norway to the North Sea have already been reduced by 50 per cent, and discharges of nitrogen by 20 per cent. This is a result of substantial reductions in nutrient discharges from the agricultural sector and in municipal waste water. Changes in agricultural policy instruments have been designed to promote maintenance of the cultural landscape and to conserve our cultural heritage and biological diversity. The use of pesticides has been almost halved. As regards municipal waste water treatment, we are well on the way to achieving our goal, which is to renovate waste water treatment facilities by the year 2000. Large investments have been made in waste water treatment plants in recent years.

As the Storting knows, a group of experts has made a thorough review of the importance of reducing nitrogen discharges into the outer Oslofjord. The group has now completed its work, and an agreed scientific basis has been drawn up for further work in this field.

In recent years, we have implemented stricter standards for discharges to water from the petroleum sector. Discharges of oil-contaminated drill cuttings have been practically eliminated, and stricter standards are enforced in the use of chemicals. It is also clear that individual companies are taking greater account of environmental considerations when planning their operations by setting clearly defined and steadily higher environmental standards both for their own activities and for suppliers. The emergency response to acute pollution has also been strengthened.

The petroleum industry has gradually been expanding into areas where conditions are more difficult and the potential environmental problems greater. The authorities therefore face major tasks in reconciling the interests of the industry and employment with environmental issues, and in finding balanced solutions. Another important issue is to find a way of dealing with old oil platforms. It is important to choose the solutions which are genuinely best on the basis of environmental considerations. This may mean that all or parts of such installations should be dumped on the seabed, or it may mean that they should be dismantled for re-use or disposal onshore. We must consider each case on its own merits. The two platforms that have been evaluated to date will be brought ashore.

There have been many positive developments in the Norwegian business sector; for example, insurance companies and banks are developing environmental standards which will gradually result in stricter environmental requirements in connection with insurance, credit and investment policies. In recent years, Norwegian environmental technology has been developing rapidly. A comprehensive review now available confirms that the support the public authorities have provided in this field has contributed to its positive development. In the light of this, the Government is considering changes in the way it supports the development of environmental technology. Any proposals will be presented in the state budget for 1997.

These encouraging developments do not mean that we have reached our goals in the areas I have discussed. Results have largely been achieved by the introduction of regulations, licensing, mandatory requirements and prohibitions, and by the use of environmental taxes, which have played an increasingly important role. Other OECD countries have experienced much the same as Norway. We have made good progress, but in the years ahead it will still be important to maintain, monitor and further improve the results we can now see. Important tasks in progress include the implementation of the national park plan, projects dealing with protection of the cultural heritage, and efforts to reduce emissions of environmentally hazardous substances. I would like to emphasize that if we are to pursue an increasingly ambitious environmental policy, we must give greater weight to devising cost-effective ways of using policy instruments, including economic instruments. Our goal must be to ensure that environmental costs are reflected more and more closely in prices.

A political framework designed to promote sustainable development will have an impact on us all - consumers, business and industry and the public sector. We must therefore follow an integrated approach to the challenges facing us, which cuts across the various environmental problems and the sectors involved. At the same time, different approaches are needed according to whether the challenges we are considering are global, regional, national or local in character.

The transport sector contributes substantially to a number of Norway's environmental problems. The Government therefore considers it important to limit pollution, local noise problems and disturbance of the natural environment associated with transport. Developments in the transport sector must be kept within the tolerance limits of the environment, and we must ensure that land use and the use of resources are environmentally sound in a long-term perspective.

One element of the Government's environmental policy is the principle that global and regional pollution problems should as far as possible be resolved by means of instruments that have an impact across the various sectors, preferably general taxes on emissions and other environmental agreements. Norway's relatively high taxes on the use and ownership of cars have helped to slow down the growth in road transport and thus slow the rise in emissions of pollutants such as CO2 and NOx. The development of stricter emissions standards has reduced NOx emissions from road transport by about 10 per cent from 1989 to 1994, although the volume of traffic has risen somewhat in the same period.

Local environmental problems linked to transport can most effectively be solved through measures with a purely local impact that can be adapted to the wide variations in local traffic volumes and environmental stresses, and should be largely the responsibility of the local authorities. Nevertheless, the state takes an important share of the responsibility through investments in transport and environmental measures along existing roads and railways, in drawing up the framework for the local authorities' transport and environmental policies and determining minimum standards for environmental quality, and through research and information.

There are still major environmental problems to be solved in the transport sector. We must therefore continue to develop current measures and instruments to meet these challenges, but it may also be necessary to make use of new policy instruments both centrally and locally. In following up the recommendations of Report to the Storting No. 41 (1994-95) on Norwegian policy to mitigate climate change and reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and of the Environmental Policy Instrument Committee, instruments that may be of interest include road pricing, the framework for local parking regulations, regulation of heavy traffic in towns and restrictions on the use of studded tyres. These will be considered during the preparation of Norway's road and road traffic plan for 1998-2007. Internationally, the Government views the transfer of a larger share of transport from roads to shipping to be an important goal.

Norway has maintained a high profile in environmental affairs both globally and at European level, and will continue to do so. We play an active role in organizations such as the CSD, the ECE, UNEP, the OECD and UNESCO. The EEA Agreement has given Norway an opportunity to discuss environmental problems with the EU in fora where economic and trade policy issues are also under debate. Through the EEA Agreement, Norway is integrated into the EU's internal market and takes part in drawing up new legislation, for instance on environmental standards for products.

Internationally, very good progress has been made in renegotiating agreements and drawing up new conventions. I would particularly like to draw attention to efforts to reduce the problem of acid rain. The new Sulphur Protocol from 1994 is based on the critical loads approach, and we have tried to distribute the emission reductions required cost-effectively between countries. Norway is ahead of schedule in fulfilling its obligations under this protocol. The next major challenge facing us is the negotiation of a new NOx protocol. Norway is advocating an agreement which governs a wider range of substances and types of effects.

Substantial progress has also been made in reducing the consumption and production of substances that deplete the ozone layer. We are meeting our obligations as regards efforts to reduce marine pollution, and are well on the way to establishing more satisfactory, result-oriented cooperation to deal with the serious environmental problems in the northern areas and Antarctica. The Environment for Europe process has resulted in substantial investments in environmental protection that are benefiting Eastern Europe. We have opened the way for increasingly close contact with several countries in Eastern Europe and developing countries in Africa and Asia.

3. New challenges

Our most urgent task at present is to ensure that the long-term path of global development is sustainable. The most important challenges to which we must rise to achieve this are to alter production and consumption patterns in industrial countries, to take steps to alleviate poverty, and to ensure more equitable distribution of resources on a global basis.

Agenda 21, like the Brundtland Commission's report, considers both environment and development. Threats to biological diversity, the risk of climate change, over-exploitation of groundwater supplies, desertification, conflict and war threaten the lives of millions of people. It is therefore essential to acknowledge the close links between environment and development. Norway is to draw up a strategy for environmentally-oriented development cooperation, as described in Report to the Storting No. 19 (1995-96), A changing world. This will focus on the following main issues:

• The development of sustainable production systems.
• The protection and sustainable use of biological diversity.
• The reduction of pollution of soil, air and water.
• The protection of the cultural heritage and management of the cultural value of the natural environment.

Successful integration of environmental considerations into development cooperation may have a very positive impact both on the state of the environment and living conditions locally in developing countries and on the opportunities these countries have to play a part in solving global environmental problems. This work has very high priority, and is well under way.

In addition, the Ministry of the Environment has established the Norwegian Environmental Assistance Network, which is intended to assist in the transfer of Norwegian environmental expertise to developing countries, Russia and Eastern Europe. Norwegian experts will be able to provide these countries with assistance in developing systems and procedures for monitoring, pollution control, management of the natural environment and cultural heritage, and land and resource use planning.

Current production and consumption patterns in the industrial countries of the world are one of the main causes of global environmental problems. Every country must play its part in the changeover to more environmentally sound forms of energy use, in safeguarding biological diversity and in reducing the use and discharges of environmentally hazardous substances in production processes and products. Every country and every sector, both public and private, must pull its weight in these efforts.

Norway has played an active role in implementing the recommendations of Agenda 21, the programme adopted at the Rio conference. As the Storting knows, Norway has hosted two conferences which focused on production and consumption patterns in industrial countries. The results of these initiatives have now been incorporated into the working programme of the CSD. The OECD is an important partner in this work, and at the organization's meeting of ministers of the environment in January, it was further emphasized that the industrial countries must play a leading role in efforts to change production and consumption patterns.

Norway must also review its overall efforts to follow up Agenda 21 and consider its goals and policy instruments for the years ahead. We must continue to move towards a more sustainable society.

If we are to succeed in this, every sector and group of society must take independent responsibility for its share of the overall solutions - the central authorities, non-governmental organizations, business and industry, consumers and local authorities. It is important to ensure that policy instruments used in different sectors are coordinated, so that we achieve the greatest possible positive effect on the environment for our efforts.

These will be fundamental issues both in the Government's long-term programme and in the forthcoming report to the Storting on sustainable development which I mentioned earlier.

Norway has already made substantial progress in ensuring environmentally sound waste management, reducing emissions of environmentally hazardous substances and other pollutants, and promoting environmental protection and sound land-use planning. The Government will continue its efforts to reduce emissions of substances that are hazardous to health, to reduce local air pollution and noise, and to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in land-use planning.

In addition, the Green Tax Commission is continuing its work. It is evaluating the possible environmental benefits and positive impact on employment of a shift in the burden of taxation away from labour and towards pollution and the extraction of resources. This is one of the most important steps we can take to ensure that our work gives results.

A green public procurement policy is another important element of this work, and one with symbolic effect. The public authorities purchase goods and services for billions of kroner. They must therefore ensure that the products they buy meet tomorrow's high standards. In connection with the 1994 state budget, the Government established a programme dealing with state procurement policy. One element of this programme is to evaluate how central government agencies can take environmental considerations into account in their purchases. In this way, the state can ensure that its own activities help to reduce environmental stresses and encourage the manufacture of environmentally less harmful products. Furthermore, this may be instrumental in the development of environmental expertise in the Norwegian business sector, which may provide competitive advantages in the international market. In order to find practical, effective solutions, pilot projects run by the Norwegian Centre for Sustainable Production and Consumption (GRIP) will be carried out in selected government agencies. We have also made proposals to the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities with a view to incorporating environmental criteria in municipal procurement policy. Several organizations have responded to this initiative, and there is growing interest in purchasing durable products that can be repaired.

Voluntary eco-labelling of consumer goods has proved to be a successful means of giving consumers the information they need if they are to alter consumption patterns in a way that reduces the burden on the environment. The Nordic eco-labelling scheme, which uses a swan as its symbol, was established as a result of an initiative taken by the Nordic Council of Ministers in 1989, and is the first international scheme of its type in the world. So far, labelling criteria have been drawn up for about 40 product groups, and almost 300 products have been licensed to use the label. In addition to Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland are taking part in the project. During the Nordic meeting of ministers of consumer affairs in January this year, Denmark indicated that the country is considering joining the Nordic scheme, since this has made considerably more progress than the corresponding EU scheme.

Norway has also allocated NOK 15 million to a fund administered by the WTO, which is to be used to help least developed countries to develop trade expertise and to become better integrated into the international trade system. This process should take place in a way that does not cause any further damage to the environment. Norway hopes that more of the industrial countries will contribute to this fund.

"Think globally, act locally" was one of the appeals made by the Brundtland Commission, and it was reiterated in Agenda 21. In this country, a major effort has been made to strengthen the role of the municipalities in environmental management. Since the end of the 1980s, the municipalities and the state have together allocated substantial resources to the development of environmental protection at local level as a cross-sectoral area of responsibility. The mainstay of this has been the local environmental development programme. About NOK 700 million has been allocated to the programme in the state budget, and in addition the municipalities themselves have provided substantial funding. The results of this concerted effort include the following:

• Almost all the country's municipalities have now appointed coordinators for environmental affairs, most of whom are highly qualified.
• Most municipalities have given environmental affairs an organizational position, in both political and administrative terms, which reflects the high priority they give to this sector, and have linked it closely to municipal planning and administrative systems.
• The municipalities are playing a much more active role in environmental affairs. This applies to traditional areas such as water supplies, waste water treatment, refuse collection, classical nature conservation, outdoor recreation and the management of natural resources, and to newer issues that have emerged recently, such as source separation and the collection, recycling and recovery of waste.

Considerable progress has been made in the reforms involved in the local environmental development programme, but this is still not enough. One of the most important target areas in the future is the effort to develop Local Agenda 21s. The following elements, which are in keeping with the recommendations of Agenda 21, will play a central role in this work:

• There must be a clear shift towards sustainable development.
• The global perspective of local efforts in the field of environmental protection must be recognized and made visible.
• The inclusion of NGOs, clubs and societies and the local business community in these efforts must be a priority. Women and children must be represented at all stages of the process.

Naturally enough, Agenda 21 does not contain any specific instructions as to what should be included in local agendas. A majority of Norwegian municipalities already have some form of local action plan for the environment, but these vary widely in quality and content. Nevertheless, such "first-generation" plans do provide a good basis for the further development of Local Agenda 21s. We must ensure that the recommendations of Agenda 21 are more closely integrated into our own work at local level, and that cross-sectoral environmental work is actively promoted.

In addition to Agenda 21, the Rio conference resulted in two conventions. These were the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Implementation of these conventions is essential if we are to ensure sustainable development in the future, and is therefore a high-priority task.

The Convention on Biological Diversity requires each country to draw up a national action plan. This work is well under way in Norway, and the plan will be presented to the Storting in the forthcoming Report on sustainable development. The plan emphasizes the importance of ensuring that our policies are effective and purposeful by improving the basis for decision-making and developing cross-sectoral control and reporting systems. The maintenance of biological diversity will also be given high priority in nature conservation and the management of natural habitats. We must recognize the close links between land use and the loss of biological diversity, and the fact that we are not merely experiencing a shortage of natural habitats as a result of land-use patterns in Norway, but are in fact approaching a critical situation. For example, the Storting has decided that we are to maintain populations of four species of large predators, but to do this requires extensive areas of suitable habitat. We must find answers to the unresolved conflicts caused by this situation.

The large predators and the danger they represent to livestock and domestic reindeer are constantly in focus. Although the numbers of animals lost to predators are small compared with the total losses of animals during the grazing season, I recognize that in certain areas of the country, some farmers are involved in a severe conflict of interests. A working group is now considering this problem, and its conclusions will form the basis of our future strategy to prevent further damage. The Government will also submit a Report to the Storting on the management of predators which will include a thorough review of the current situation and how we are trying to meet management needs.

We need to improve arrangements for enforcing legislation to protect the environment in various national parks, nature reserves, etc, and the growth of environmental crime makes it necessary to focus more strongly on inspection activities in wilderness areas. The Government has therefore submitted a proposal for statutes governing a national environmental inspectorate and its organizational structure. This will be an important means of improving the efficiency and organization of current arrangements.

During its discussion of the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Energy and the Environment concerning allocations in the 1995 state budget, the Storting asked the Government to review legislation and normal administrative procedure for state land and state common land with a view to ensuring that the general public has opportunities for hunting and fishing. The Directorate for Nature Management has investigated this matter, and found that as a general rule, the situation is already satisfactory on state land, especially in areas that are managed by Statskog. The Government will propose improvements for other areas where such opportunities are currently more limited.

Gene technology and biotechnology will create entirely new major challenges that we must deal with in the years ahead. There is growing awareness of these issues, particularly the danger of the uncontrolled spread of genetically modified organisms and foodstuffs. Most of the legal framework for administration of this technology in Norway has been established, and we have built up the necessary expertise. Norway has also taken an initiative within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity with a view to improving opportunities for regulating cross-border movements of genetically modified organisms.

The Government considers coordination between relevant sectors at national level to be important in ensuring that a coherent, systematic policy is followed in the field of biotechnology. The Government will advocate the adoption of our national safety and ethical standards and our requirements for the sustainability of products manufactured by means of modern gene technology and biotechnology as international norms.

As regards the implementation of the Convention on Climate Change, I would like to refer you to the debate on the Report to the Storting. I would also like to emphasize that a number of national measures have already been implemented, including the introduction of high CO2 taxes. The Report to the Storting on climate change also included a number of proposals for further measures. Now that the IPCC has established that there is a high probability that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities, it is important to intensify international cooperation in this field and to accelerate the process of drawing up agreements on joint implementation of measures to mitigate climate change. In this connection, the agreements of intent Norway has entered into with Denmark and Finland are of interest. As far as possible, these countries are to replace coal and possibly nuclear power with gas and electricity imported from Norway.

The international efforts to protect the North Sea are very important for Norway because they involve cooperation with neighbouring countries which are also important trade partners. At the ministerial meeting in 1995, it was agreed that the long-term goal as regards environmentally hazardous substances is to achieve environmental concentrations that are near background levels for naturally-occurring substances, and concentrations near zero for anthropogenic or synthetic substances. The North Sea countries also agreed to work towards the elimination of discharges of environmentally hazardous substances within one generation. These ambitious goals can lead us towards our vision of sustainable patterns of production and consumption. For the present, we must work steadily and systematically towards achieving these goals.

In this connection, it is very important to focus on the content of products, because it is during production that the kinds of injury to health and damage to the environment that a product may cause are determined. This is something that business and industry must take seriously, particularly because of the growing market demand for high environmental standards. Every step from raw material inputs to waste management must be evaluated, and this applies throughout business and industry - in manufacturing, transport, services and trade. However, it is important to ensure international coordination of this work, because of the impact of changes on the competitive position of Norwegian business and industry.

There is growing interest and involvement in the management of our cultural heritage. Archaeological and architectural monuments and sites are an irreplaceable source of information about people's lives and activities through the ages. As living memorials, they allow us to understand and experience the relationship between past and present, between man and nature and between culture and culture. Monuments and sites and cultural environments give us information, they are a source of emotional and aesthetic experience, and they can be of practical use. The cultural heritage is a non-renewable resource, and we must ensure that these assets are managed in a way that shows respect for those who have lived before us and consideration for those who will come after us. In order to raise public awareness of the importance of this work, and to encourage participation, 1997 will be designated Cultural Heritage Year in Norway.

The work of implementing the Plan of action for the cultural heritage is now in progress. In this, county conservation plans were proposed as a means of improving the efficiency of protection work. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage has also drawn up conservation plans for twentieth-century architecture, industrial and other man-made structures, cultural monuments along the coast, lighthouses, more recent monuments and sites in Telemark county and buildings owned by the Norwegian State Railways. Efforts to protect such monuments and sites are in progress in accordance with the plans. Protection of the cultural heritage is another field where international cooperation is of growing importance, and it is becoming more fully integrated with other policy areas. This was illustrated by the establishment of the Nordic World Heritage Office in Oslo at the beginning of this year.

ØKOKRIM (the National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime in Norway) focuses on cultural monuments and sites as well as environmental crime. In 1996, the Authority will complete a manual on crime in connection with monuments and sites which is to be used in training the police.

The importance of land use planning as an instrument of a coherent policy for sustainable development is steadily growing. Next year, we will present a new Report to the Storting on regional planning and land-use policy, which will also focus on the application of the Planning and Building Act to environmental protection. A relevant example is the work of coordinating transport planning and land-use planning. In addition, I would like to remind you of the efforts the state, counties and municipalities put into the design of local communities and the promotion of the visual and aesthetic qualities of our surroundings.

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are another important instrument in efforts to prevent environmental problems and to ensure sustainable development. In recent years, EIAs have been required for about 50 major development projects in this country. Our experience of their use so far is encouraging.

4. Looking to the future

Ideals such as freedom, equality and solidarity are under threat in a society undergoing radical change. To put them into practice, we will have to muster all our human resources and steer the development of society on a course that respects the opportunities and limitations set by nature itself. The precepts of sustainable development, which incorporate the ideas of more equitable distribution and sound management of natural resources, must guide economic development at both national and global level.

We are nearing the end of a century which has seen the most dramatic changes in the entire history of the world. It has spanned a period of extraordinary economic growth, which has brought with it both severe environmental damage and breath-taking progress. Our knowledge has expanded to an unparalleled extent. At the beginning of this century, human activity hardly interfered with natural cycles. Today, we are capable of changing the biosphere in which we live beyond recognition, but we are also capable of saving it for future generations.

The world population has risen by a factor of five during this century. We have virtually eradicated many diseases, and democracy has taken root and is spreading to countries that have never known it before. Never before have so many people lived in such prosperity as today.

Yet at the same time, never have so many people lived in abject poverty as today. Never before has the very basis for our existence been so severely threatened. Our progress has at times been accompanied by appalling pollution, especially in our part of the world.

In Europe and North America, we are now winning the fight against the worst of the pollution that was caused by industrialization. The situation is improving in many ways. London, for example, experienced its worst pollution episodes in 1953. Some reforms were carried out in time before irreversible damage was done.

Today, economic growth rates in parts of Asia have reached double figures. In contrast, there is decline and stagnation in much of Africa. Global resources are inequitably distributed. Although many countries are working hard to put this right, others are doing little, and far too many are doing almost nothing.

It is meaningless to talk about sustainable development in a single country. All people throughout the world are part of an indissoluble community. A country can solve some problems alone at national level, but the greatest problems of all, such as poverty, the threat of climate change, and the loss of living species - all the transboundary problems - will either be solved by all of us acting together or not at all.

This is why countries must join together to direct the course of technological, and political and social developments. Even the largest country is too small to face these challenges on its own.

Together, we must ensure that we have the political instruments, economic mechanisms, technological solutions, legally binding agreements and sanctions, expertise and knowledge needed in efforts to achieve a decent quality of life for everybody. We must acknowledge the fact that we all live in the same global village, and find a path to sustainable development that can maintain our sense of community and preserve biological diversity.

Within each nation, these overriding goals must be integrated into developments in all sectors of society, including business and industry, education and research, developments in the transport and energy sectors, etc. Voluntary organizations have a central role to play here in providing information and initiating action. There is a great deal of enthusiasm among people at grass-roots level which can be enlisted in the service of a better environment.

We must intensify the debate on the content of growth and consumption. In our society too, there are sectors where growth also helps to maintain our welfare standards, environmental standards and the quality of life, and these should be given high priority. I would like to mention some examples:

• The concept of welfare should be expanded to include the right to clean air, clean water and clean food and access to our cultural and natural heritage. We must ask critical questions about our use of time and about lifestyle diseases, we must fight against pollution and hazardous chemicals, and we must develop a society with a sense of community and time to care for one another.
• We are entering an era of lifelong learning and rapid expansion in knowledge, expertise and research activities. We must learn to master modern communication technology for the benefit of mankind.
• There is room for much greater participation in cultural activities, and for people to gain a better understanding of each others' societies. In this way, people's creativity can be given full rein and they can make better use of their talents.
• In other words, we can consume more by growth in areas which improve the quality of life, but at the same time we must reduce consumption that leads to environmental degradation. In addition, efforts to achieve a more equitable global distribution of resources must be given top priority.

In the final analysis, these are existential questions. Our international commitments and national priorities reflect this. Climate policy and conservation of biological diversity and the cultural heritage will be major challenges in the years ahead, and will become an integral part of the structure of our society. These challenges will also be woven into a policy designed to bring about changes in patterns of production and consumption, so that we reduce the amounts of raw materials and energy used and use them far more effectively, turn waste into a resource, develop cleaner technology, minimize the use of hazardous substances, control and guide developments in gene technology, and assure people everywhere access to their natural and cultural heritage. We must strive to make steady progress in these fields, to make the best possible political and strategic choices and to select the most appropriate instruments. In other words, we must take a long-term view and work purposefully, systematically and coherently towards our goals.

The Government will discuss these issues further in the forthcoming Report to the Storting. It is also important to continue a debate on the dilemmas we face, on conflicting goals, conflicts of interest, the areas where we lack knowledge, expertise and appropriate instruments, and on how we can intensify and strengthen international cooperation. This will give the Storting an opportunity to take an overall view of the major challenges we face as we approach the beginning of a new century.

We will also continue our active participation in processes that have already been set in motion. These include the further development of the Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, cooperation to reduce long-range transport of air pollutants, the management of northern areas and Antarctica, and joint efforts to deal with energy issues and marine pollution and waste problems, to determine development patterns and to devise traffic solutions. At national level, we will continue to clean up pollution and maintain environmental standards, and at the same time draw up a strategy for preventive environmental management. We will also focus on the protection of irreplaceable assets of our natural and cultural heritage.

At the beginning of this statement, I described the major challenges involved in a transition to sustainable development. I would like to conclude by saying that this Government's ambition is to ensure that the principle of sustainable development forms an integral part of practical policies in all fields and thus guides every choice we make in the future.