Biannual address to the Storting on important EU and EEA matters

Translated from the Norwegian
Check against delivery

Mr President,

One of the main objectives of the biannual address on EU and EEA matters is to reflect on important developments in Europe that affect Norway. My task today is to highlight some of the major issues on the agenda in Norway’s relations with the EU, and to discuss EEA issues of particular relevance for Norway.

Norway and the EU enjoy good, close relations. The visit of the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, at the end of February bore witness to this. Norway shares the EU’s ambitions in a number of key areas – including climate change, which I will return to later.

There is a breadth in our relations with the EU that is not always apparent. I believe our debate on Europe would be more constructive and less polarised if we could make this fact clearer. And I hope that I can play a part in doing so through these addresses to the Storting.

We have a structural overview over the aspects of our relations with the EU that are regulated by the EEA Agreement. And there are many of these. But we must also be aware of and respond to the way EU countries are developing increasingly close cooperation in a growing range of areas – far beyond the cooperation established in the original internal market. We must follow these developments carefully and seek both familiar and innovative forms of cooperation.

Norway seeks to participate in EU cooperation wherever we see that a joint effort will produce the best results – and this is the case in many fields. As I mentioned in my previous address, our European policy is our “closest globalisation project”.

The prospects of closer integration with the rest of Europe have been an important factor in bringing about peaceful development in the Western Balkans, just as they have been in Central and Eastern Europe ever since the early 1990s. The adaptation process and new legislation that are necessary in candidate countries offer a way out of authoritarian regimes, planned economies and their consequences, including uncontrolled environmental degradation.

Ever closer cooperation between Kosovo and Serbia on the one hand and the EU on the other will be decisive for future developments in this part of Europe.

As the EU cooperation expands to include more and more countries, we see a growing tendency towards the development of constellations of like-minded countries within the Union – not necessarily as permanent groupings, but rather on an ad-hoc basis. Cooperation between the Nordic countries and within the Nordic–Baltic area has also become closer in recent years. The Nordic countries have a common approach to issues such as climate change and the environment, conflict resolution, human rights, social issues and food security.

Norway gives priority to making maximum use of the opportunities offered by Nordic cooperation, and works together with the other Nordic countries, or sometimes just two or three of them, on various issues. There have been times when the different affiliations of the five Nordic countries to NATO and the EU have posed challenges. Perhaps we should rather seek to identify the opportunities this offers. We are seeing that NATO and the EU are cooperating more closely in several areas. Increasingly, the dividing lines in Europe are being erased.

Norway, Sweden and Finland maintain close contact on matters such as cross-border regional issues in relation to northwestern Russia. In NATO, Norway is cooperating with Denmark and Iceland in seeking to increase the Alliance’s focus on the challenges in the North Atlantic area, and all five Nordic countries have a common approach to Afghanistan.

Norway promotes a stronger EU engagement in the High North. And developments in this area are of significance to the EU. The High North will be Europe’s new energy province, and it is in the interests of the EU countries that it remains stable and peaceful. Fish from these northern waters end up on European tables, so the sound management of resources is also in the interests of the EU members. This is why we need to find partners in the EU in our efforts to prevent illegal fishing and protect the vulnerable marine environment in the High North.

We can see that it is a major challenge for the EU to ensure that all its 27 member states speak with a single voice. This may lead to tugs of war on some issues, and initiatives being made by groups of countries. With 27 member states, the EU has limited time and resources for meetings with third countries, such as Norway. This makes our work vis-à-vis the EU more difficult.

In principle, a non-member country can never be higher than number 28 on the list of priorities. But in practice, we find that, in many areas, we have a far more important role to play in developing and safeguarding both Norwegian and EU interests. The EU also has interests in Norway, and we must make use of the leverage this gives us. Key factors here are energy, fish, the environment, climate change, technology, and our experience of international diplomacy.

I have already mentioned Mr Barroso’s visit to Norway in February. We also have regular bilateral meetings with EU institutions. Here are some figures by way of example. During the previous – Portuguese – EU presidency, we had 18 meetings at prime-ministerial, ministerial and state-secretary level. Under the present – Slovenian – presidency, we will have 13 meetings at the same levels, despite the pressure of work this new EU member state is experiencing. In this connection, I would like to mention that Norway, together with the Slovenian EU presidency and the European Commission, is to host an informal meeting of education ministers in Oslo on 5 and 6 June, as part of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, under the title of The Institutional Foundations for Dialogue and Respect.

Mr President,

I would now like to take a closer look at some other key issues for today. Firstly, climate change.

The main topic for Mr Barroso’s visit to Norway was precisely climate change and energy security. He took part in the opening of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, thus training a spotlight not only on the historic event itself, but also on environmental issues in general and on the broad range of issues relating to the High North that are highly relevant today. Mr Barroso expressed the EU’s support for Norway’s environmental efforts, and showed particular interest in carbon capture and storage.

Earlier this year, on 23 January, the European Commission presented a package of proposals to fight climate change and promote renewable energy. The Council and the European Parliament are expected to agree on the details of this package by the spring of 2009. It includes ambitious and binding targets.

The EU has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, and is ready to scale up this target to 30% if other countries, such as the US, China and India, are willing to take part in a new binding agreement. Norway is working together with the EU and other parties to reach an agreement at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in the autumn of 2009.

In addition to its emission reduction targets, the Commission also proposes an increase in the share of renewable energy in EU energy supplies. The target is to increase the share of renewables to 20% of the EU’s total energy supply by 2020. To achieve this overall target, each country is to increase its share of renewable energy by 5.5%, and the remaining burden is to be shared in such a way that countries with strong economies and good production opportunities undertake the largest commitments.

The Commission’s proposals are part of an overall strategy to move towards a low-carbon economy. A sound climate policy is intended to form the basis for the development of new technology and business opportunities.

In the public debate in Norway, there are differing views on the EU and the importance of the EU cooperation in a global perspective, just as there are differing views on whether or not Norway should become a member. The debate is a familiar one. But there are few who would deny that the EU has played and continues to play an important part in international efforts to address climate change. It is my view that the EU has taken a leading role, and should have Norway’s support and cooperation in this area.

Several of the proposals in the Commission’s climate change and energy package, such as the reform of the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), are likely to be defined as EEA-relevant and thus have direct significance for Norway.

The ETS, which Norway has now joined, is the largest scheme of its kind in the world. During his visit, Mr Barroso emphasised that the EU’s goal is for the scheme to be expanded to include countries outside the EU/EEA. Indeed, the vision is to establish a global carbon trading system. This is the whole point, for it is only then that it will be really effective.

The European Commission also proposes that the allocation of emissions allowances free of charge should gradually be discontinued. This is in line with the Norwegian Government’s approach, which I believe has broad support in the Storting.

The Commission also wishes greenhouse gases other than CO2 to be included in emissions trading scheme. Moreover, the ETS is to cover more sectors, including aviation, petrochemicals, ammonia and aluminium. And the length of the ETS periods will be extended, from three years for the first period to five years for the present period and eight years for the next period. This will make the system more effective and enhance predictability for companies. This – we believe – is the right way to proceed.

We are very pleased that the Commission proposes including carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the ETS. This will mean that companies will not have to purchase allowances for CO2 that is safely stored. We are also pleased that the Commission is not proposing limitations on the use of state aid for CCS projects.

We have also noted that the Commission has proposed a directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide. This would be a constructive development, as it would provide a common framework for carbon capture and storage and would also reassure the public that carbon storage is being undertaken in an environmentally sound way.

The Government is giving priority to the development of CCS and will promote the application of this technology. The planned CCS projects in Norway cannot be carried out without substantial state aid. The Commission has established that, given the ground-breaking nature of CCS projects, it is not appropriate to set guidelines for state aid for such projects at present.

This question will still have to be discussed in relation to the state aid rules, including the derogation provisions of the EEA Agreement and the EC Treaty. However, this is a good starting point for Norway. The EU would like to see up to 12 CCS plants by 2015, and I hope that these will include one or more of the Norwegian projects.

Mr President,

Research and innovation has been an important area of cooperation between Norway and the EU, but it has not received the public attention it deserves. I would like to look more closely at this area in my address today.

Norway has taken part in the EU’s Research Framework Programmes for more than 20 years, and has participated through the EEA Agreement since 1994. These are the largest EU programmes that Norway is involved in.

As much as 75% – nearly NOK 1 billion in 2008 – of all the funding Norway provides for participating in EU programmes is channelled to the Research Framework Programme. Research is thus an area of major significance in Norway’s EEA cooperation. The importance of the Research Framework Programme is illustrated by the extent to which Norwegian research institutions and companies are involved in this cooperation.

Let me give an example. There was extensive Norwegian involvement in the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), which was officially concluded in 2006. Norwegian research institutions and companies participated in around 850 projects, or approximately 10% of all the projects in the programme. Some 3 500 Norwegian researchers were involved. For Norwegian actors, FP6 was an important gateway to international networks, which can enhance the quality and relevance of Norwegian research. Meanwhile, Swedish researchers took part in around 1 700 projects, and Danish researchers in around 1 100. So there is still room for improvement.

In terms of total per capita funding under FP6, Sweden, Denmark and Finland were in first, second and fourth place respectively, and Norway was in seventh place among the 20 best participating countries. All in all, this demonstrates the ability of the Nordic countries to take advantage of these opportunities.

Norway is currently taking part in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). Figures from the European Commission show that Norwegian actors have done well in the first calls for proposals within most of the thematic areas included in the programme, especially the environment, energy and security. This is positive.

We have set ourselves the target of putting polar research, Svalbard and marine research on the agenda both in the EU as a whole and in FP7. We are also promoting these areas through the Government’s High North Strategy, which sets out the aim of actively drawing the EU countries into closer cooperation on the challenges and opportunities in the High North. The problems related to energy, climate change and the environment can only be resolved through cooperation between research institutions and authorities in different countries.

Marine and maritime research is one of several important topics in An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, also known as the “blue book”. I will say more about the blue book and the active role Norway is playing in this field in a later address to the Storting.

Norway is also taking a leading role in European forest cooperation, which gives us good opportunities to discuss the important role forests play in relation to climate change with the EU countries.

The Research Framework Programme is the EU’s most important instrument for funding and promoting research cooperation in Europe and the largest international research and innovation programme of its kind. Our research cooperation with the EU is increasing significantly and extends beyond the cooperation we have traditionally taken part in through the framework programme. Closer links are being developed between the EU’s research efforts and our own national research and innovation policy.

By way of illustration, I would like to highlight three specific EU processes. The first is the development of a roadmap for the research infrastructure in Europe, the second is the establishment of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), and the third is the development of the European Research Area. 

To start with the first of these, the EU has taken initiatives to develop a roadmap for the research infrastructure in Europe in response to the increasing complexity and costs of modern research activities. European cooperation on major and expensive research infrastructure and the sharing of the costs entailed makes good sense. The roadmap is to set out an overall proposal for meeting European infrastructure needs and priorities in this field for the next 10–20 years.

In this connection, Norway has put forward three proposals: on clean energy, aquaculture and the development of Svalbard as a research platform, all of which are important areas for us. I would particularly like to underline the importance of Svalbard as a research platform. The archipelago has the potential to become a beacon for international research on climate change and the environment. Our proposal includes the establishment of a knowledge centre that would provide services for the European research community and help to streamline European research on the Arctic. This proposal has been met with considerable interest in the European Commission.

Now to the second EU process, and the recent decision to establish the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). This will not be a traditional research and education institution, but rather a network-based institution with a small central administration. Its mission is to integrate research, education and innovation in Europe more closely. Energy and climate change have been highlighted as particularly suitable areas for the initial networks. The Government is advocating Norwegian participation in the EIT and will present a proposition to this effect to the Storting this spring.

These two initiatives and the Research Framework Programme FP7 are helping to unify research across Europe and establish the common European Research Area (ERA). This is the third process.

The vision of creating the ERA was set out in the EU’s Lisbon Strategy. The idea is to encourage major technological advances through a public-private partnership that includes the business sector, member states and associated countries like Norway. Cooperation between national research programmes and joint calls for proposals will be encouraged.

I believe, Mr President, that it is essential for a country like Norway to participate actively in these processes, which will boost European research and competitiveness in the time to come. As I see it, the EU is now changing gear in order to realise the vision of the European Research Area.

This is demonstrated by the new measures that are being taken to reduce administrative and other barriers in Europe and thus encourage researcher exchanges both within Europe and with other parts of the world. Norway’s participation in the EEA cooperation links us to the internal market and the familiar four freedoms – the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital. At the Spring Summit this year, the EU heads of state and government recommended creating a “fifth freedom”, the free movement of knowledge in Europe.

To achieve this, the member states and the EU are to facilitate cross-border mobility for researchers, university teaching staff and students. Cooperation in the field of education is also essential. The Commission has emphasised the importance of the knowledge triangle of research, innovation and education in several of its communications in connection with the Lisbon Process in the last few years. Norway is participating in two key education programmes – the Lifelong Learning Programme and Erasmus Mundus. Our contributions to these programmes are the second largest item of the funding Norway provides for participation in EU programmes, after funding for FP7.

The labour market for researchers is to be opened up. I am convinced that Norway stands to benefit from this. Although joint EU projects are of great importance to the counties that participate in them, responsibility still lies mainly with the individual member states. In the 2007 national budget, Norway allocated NOK 16.6 billion to research and development, of which about 5% was earmarked for these EU research programmes.

Mr President,

The institutional changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon are extensive, and this will be increasingly apparent. The purpose of these changes is to make the EU better able to function with 27 member states, and probably even more in the future. Eliminating the pillar structure is intended to make it easier to take a coherent approach to the various policy areas.

In my opinion, the European Parliament will be considerably strengthened by the Treaty of Lisbon – in its role as a legislative body, in the Community budget process and because it will have the authority to propose treaty amendments. Greater powers for the European Parliament will strengthen democracy in the EU. These changes will pose a new challenge in our efforts to communicate and promote Norway’s views, because the Parliament is probably the EU institution that we have the weakest links with. This is something we must seek to change.

At the same time, national parliaments will have more influence in the EU. The greatest change will be that they will be able to play a more active role vis-à-vis EU institutions in enforcing the principle of subsidiarity when new EU legislation is proposed.

Another purpose of the Treaty of Lisbon is to give the EU a stronger and more coherent voice globally. The aim is to ensure that the EU takes a more consistent stance on external affairs. Particularly important changes are the new post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the establishment of the European External Action Service.

I welcome these developments, since Norway and the EU share common views on a range of foreign policy issues. They will not have repercussions on the close cooperation and ongoing dialogue between Norway and the EU on many important foreign policy matters.

However, these developments may pose challenges for us. The EEA and Schengen agreements between Norway and the EU are sector agreements, and the EU is now seeking greater policy coherence. As I have already mentioned, the pillar structure will be eliminated. We may see an increase in the number of EEA- and Schengen-related legislative acts that contain elements that are not covered by our agreements with the EU. How serious these challenges will be is impossible for me to say at this point in time. But it is something we have to follow closely.

The Treaty of Lisbon will strengthen the role of the European Parliament in decision-making processes, which are generally to become quicker and more efficient. It will be possible to make more extensive use of qualified majority, and this will have an effect on how the Council of the European Union works. One obvious consequence for us is that we will have to speed up our own handling of EEA and Schengen matters accordingly. This will require action by the Government and the Storting.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not make significant changes to the rules governing the internal market. But we have already seen that the EU is increasingly using internal market directives for purposes such as fighting terrorism and serious crime. These are areas that strictly speaking fall outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, but that nevertheless have an influence on the internal market.

The most obvious examples of this are found in the transport sector, particularly in relation to aviation security, but there are also other examples, such as the Data Retention Directive – which I will return to – and new proposals for legislation on explosives. The Treaty of Lisbon involves considerable changes in cooperation on justice and home affairs. Some of these directives and regulations will affect us directly through the Schengen cooperation. In addition, we are indirectly affected by the cooperation on justice and home affairs, and we must therefore review our approach in the light of the new legislation.

The Treaty of Lisbon is likely to lead to a widening and deepening of EU cooperation in areas that lie outside the scope of the agreements we have concluded. This means that a smaller proportion of the EU’s overall activities will be covered by our agreements with the Union. This coincides with a decrease in Norway’s political and economic weight in relation to the EU as a result of the enlargement. Structural factors explain the changes to some extent. But political factors also play a role, and this is something we must take into account in our active efforts to gain influence.

Norway’s agreements with the EU are not changed by the Treaty of Lisbon since the framework for our cooperation with the EU will continue to be the EEA and Schengen agreements. As you know, these are both agreements under international law and are not directly affected by amendments to the EU treaties. However, Norway’s cooperation with the EU will not be unaffected by the Treaty of Lisbon.

What I am getting at is the following: all the points I have mentioned, combined with the EU’s enlargement and its focus on making internal cooperation more efficient, may make it more difficult for Norway to gain acceptance for its views and have its interests taken into account. Unless we manage to adapt.

This means that when the treaty enters into force, which according to plan will be in 2009, it will become even more important to communicate Norway’s views and develop Norwegian positions at an early stage, build alliances, and carry out targeted efforts to maximise Norway’s influence in EU capitals and institutions.

The EU’s goal is for all member states to ratify the treaty by 1 January 2009. So far it has been ratified by eight countries and by the European Parliament, and Ireland is planning to hold a referendum on the treaty on 12 June this year.
 
Mr President,

I would now like to turn to some current EEA issues.

At the beginning of my address I mentioned that EU cooperation is constantly being extended to new areas – beyond the original internal market. This cooperation is increasingly cross-sectoral, and policies are being coordinated across the pillars on which the cooperation is based.

This creates a challenging situation for Norway. EU law may be developed for purposes that are technically outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, but may nevertheless have implications for economic actors in the internal market. This will make it difficult to assess how far new legislation is EEA-relevant. We will need to find ways of dealing with this.

We are already seeing examples of internal market directives being used for purposes such as fighting terrorism and organised crime. One piece of EU legislation that has triggered debate in this connection is the Data Retention Directive. Its purpose is to harmonise member states’ rules on the retention of telecommunications data, i.e. traffic data, location data, and subscriber and user data generated in connection with the use of electronic communications such as fixed and mobile telephony and the Internet. In other words, data that are necessary to trace and identify sources, from where to where calls have been made, the time and their duration, and the type of communication and the equipment utilised. It is important to note that the content of the communication will not be retained.

The directive was adopted by the Council in February 2006. As mentioned, its purpose is to prevent serious crime and terrorism, areas that fall outside the scope of the EEA Agreement. The EU member states are now in the process of implementing this legislation, but the Government has not yet determined whether the directive is to be considered to be EEA-relevant.

We are currently reviewing the directive thoroughly, and I will revert to the bodies of the Storting with a more detailed presentation of this matter at a later point in time. I have noted that in the debate on this directive, questions of principle related for example to the protection of privacy have been raised. We will therefore consider these questions in depth later.

On 1 April this year the European Court of Justice delivered a judgment in a case that Denmark and the European Parliament had brought against the Commission aimed at reinstating the prohibition against the use of decaBDE, a brominated flame retardant used in electrical and electronic equipment. The court supports Denmark’s and the European Parliament’s view that decaBDE should not be exempted from the prohibition in the directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (the RoHS Directive).

This means that in the EU, decaBDE may not be used in such equipment from 1 July this year. Norway has already prohibited the use of decaBDE in such equipment and intervened in support of Denmark and the European Parliament in the court case. In line with our view, the court applied a strict interpretation of the possibility of granting exemptions. This indicates that it is unlikely that the EU will allow decaBDE to be reintroduced into the market.

In my view, this judgment is a good example of successful Norwegian efforts to gain acceptance for its view in the European Court of Justice.

At the EEA Joint Committee’s meeting on 26 October 2007, it was decided to incorporate the EU’s extensive new legislation on food safety into the EEA Agreement.

There are two decisions. One is concerned with the EU Food Law and Norwegian participation in the European Food Safety Authority. The other decision concerns a total of 19 legislative acts on food hygiene and official controls to ensure compliance with the legislation on food and feed and on animal health and welfare. The decisions mean that Norwegian legislation will be harmonised with EU legislation in these important areas. The decisions were made subject to the Storting’s consent, and bills on these matters were presented to the Council of State for approval on 14 March this year.

I would also like to mention the new EU chemicals legislation REACH (registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals), which was adopted in December 2006 and entered into force on 1 June 2007. Norway took part in the preparation of the legislation and sought to ensure the highest possible level of protection of health and the environment. The decision to incorporate the REACH Regulation into the EEA Agreement was made by the EEA Joint Committee on 14 March this year, subject to the Storting’s consent. The decision also contains an adaptation text, which includes rules on the procedures for authorising products and on participation in the recently established European Chemicals Agency. On 11 April this year the Government presented a bill on consent to the approval of the EEA Joint Committee’s decision.

The Commission’s new guidelines on state aid for environmental protection are also relevant to Norway. In these, the EU has widened the scope for providing state aid for measures that benefit the environment, even if they could impede competition. Corresponding guidelines will be adopted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) and will be decisive in determining what Norwegian state aid can be approved.

Twice a year, ESA publishes the Internal Market Scoreboard, which monitors the performance of the EEA EFTA states in transposing internal market directives into national legislation. In February, Norway was number 22 of the 30 EEA states. Norway thus complied with the EU target that the proportion of directives not implemented on time should not exceed 1.5%. From 2009 this target will be lowered to 1%.

In the time ahead, ESA plans to focus more on the transposition deficit for regulations. If Norway has still not implemented a regulation one year after it has entered into force for Norway, ESA intends to bring an infringement case before the EFTA Court. This shift of focus to regulations will increase the challenges we face in complying with our EEA obligations.
 
As regards the Services Directive, Mr President, the Government’s main objective – in line with its policy platform – has been to avoid a directive that would lead to social dumping and lower standards for health, safety, the environment and local democracy. We therefore took active steps to influence the content of the directive before it was adopted.

Following its adoption, the Ministry of Trade and Industry has chaired a working group tasked with identifying any necessary amendments to Norwegian law that result from the directive. The Government has conducted three broad-based consultation rounds on the Services Directive. It wants to have the best possible basis for its decisions on this matter. Six external actors were therefore commissioned by the Ministry of Trade and Industry to explore various issues related to the directive. The reports were published on 3 March this year and were presented at the FAFO Foundation’s Forum on EU Enlargement the following week. The Government will now study the reports thoroughly before taking a position on the Services Directive.

Mr President,

Norway is contributing to the reduction of economic and social disparities in Europe through the EEA Financial Mechanisms. The current differences in salaries can be illustrated by the fact that the average salary in Luxembourg, the richest EU member state, is 23 times that in Bulgaria, the poorest member state. It is evident that the EU is maintaining its focus on these huge economic disparities, as the measures it introduces, for example to address climate change, are designed in such a way that the burdens are shared according to member states’ capacity to shoulder them.

In the five-year period from 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2009, Norway’s contributions to the 15 poorest EU countries through the EEA Financial Mechanisms will total more than NOK 10 billion. So far Norway has approved about 450 projects and funds amounting to a value of about NOK 4.5 billion, i.e. about half of the total. Around 20% of the approved projects and funds involve partnerships with Norwegian actors. Protection of the environment, sustainable development, conservation of European cultural heritage and the Schengen acquis are the main sectors. Calls for proposals are still open or remain to be issued in eight of the recipient countries.

We can now see that our efforts are having results. The projects cover a wide range of fields. This is also great interest in the EEA grants in the recipient countries. In addition, the mechanisms are helping to increase knowledge about and interest in Norway. They are in fact helping to build a positive image of Norway. Take this one example: when I visited Slovenia, my Slovenian colleague enthusiastically told me about Norway’s support for the conservation of the Church of St. George, the most famous landmark in the port of Piran on the Adriatic. This is just one of several hundred projects that are being carried out from Estonia in the north to Malta in the south. In Poland, the largest recipient, Norway is supporting a number of energy- and climate change-related projects. More than 300 public buildings such as schools and hospitals will be modernised, which will reduce energy use by about half and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The current Financial Mechanisms expire on 30 April 2009. Norway is not legally bound to continue them. However, the Government believes that Norway should contribute to further reduction of the economic and social disparities in the enlarged EU. This serves fundamental Norwegian interests.

We will therefore, probably before the beginning of the summer, enter into negotiations with the EU on future contributions from the EEA EFTA countries. We aim to conclude the negotiations by the end of this year.

The Government’s goal is for the agreement reached through these negotiations to draw on the lessons learned and the experience gained so far as regards both the focus of the mechanisms and the way they are organised. It is clear that one goal we will share with the recipient countries is to increase efforts related to the environment and climate change. It is also necessary to ensure that projects are of interest to participating Norwegian actors and are in line with general Norwegian interests. These are things we will place emphasis on in the upcoming negotiations.

The Government will consider whether to present a white paper on the projects under the EEA Financial Mechanisms and their results. The Government will also consider what other areas of its European policy could be presented in the form of white papers, as previously discussed in this chamber. We will revert to this matter.

Mr President,

Norway’s participation in European cooperation is one of our very most important tools for meeting the common challenges facing us all – at global, European and national level. Our cooperation with the EU also gives us access to resources, for example in terms of research, technology and networks. Furthermore, our cooperation with the EU makes it possible to devise solutions – often in the form of institutionalised mechanisms – that are legally binding. This means that Norway is part of a mesh of arrangements that secures both rights and obligations.

We can see that the solutions that are being negotiated between the 27 EU member states and the European Parliament are becoming increasingly complex. Given Norway’s form of association with the EU, this poses certain challenges. At the same time, it is possible to gain acceptance for our interests in important areas. And we are strengthening our cooperation in areas where we have common goals and interests with the EU member states, for example the environment, climate change and research, which I have discussed in this address.