Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre

A sea of opportunities – A sound policy for the High North

University of Tromsø, 10 November 2005

Translation from the Norwegian

Not to be released until 10 November at 17.00

Check against delivery

I was last in Tromsø exactly five weeks ago for the annual meeting of the Norwegian Red Cross, which brought together 850 delegates. This was the first time since 1924 that the meeting was held in Tromsø. We were here to look ahead. We chose Tromsø as our venue this time to highlight a new perspective, to look northwards and eastwards at our part in the people-to-people cooperation in the north. We came together to get a better understanding of the opportunities and responsibilities before us.

Actually, the topic of our meeting was very like the one we will be addressing today: A sea of opportunities – A sound policy for the High North.

It’s all about opportunities and responsibilities.

And about consolidating a new perspective, not only for the High North, but also for Norway and for the whole of Northern Europe.

It’s about nothing less than new, intriguing possibilities for people’s lives and futures.

I want to thank Rector Jarle Aarbakke and the University of Tromsø for inviting me to talk to you about how the government intends to address the opportunities in the High North only four weeks after our taking office.

It’s not as if we have the answers. Most of them are to be found here, in the northernmost part of our country. Our task as a society is to define the opportunities and responsibilities in the north, identify the questions, challenges, obstacles and possibilities and, in the best Norwegian tradition, together seek good answers.

This ultimately has to do with people’s opportunities and responsibilities. Their opportunities for improving their everyday lives, for having a livelihood, for gaining new knowledge, for fostering cultural ties and new contacts. It has to do with our responsibility for the environment and natural resources, and for development in peace and security.

Tromsø has been the setting for many great events. It was from here that the Fram set out for the North Pole in 1893. And it was from here that Amundsen set out on his ill-fated flight in June 1928. It is the home of the Norwegian Polar Institute, and the world’s northernmost university. It is a town the likes of which we might find on the Continent, but not elsewhere in Norway. A town with a football team that beat the Istanbul team Galatasaray and that plays against teams from Strasbourg and Rome. A dramatic town, which now has its own striking theatre. Which opened, not surprisingly, with Hamsun’s Benoni and Rosa as its first production.

Thus, the northern stage is set. Let the action begin.

Today I would like to share my reflections on four topics with you:

• First, the importance of the perspective we choose for understanding our opportunities and responsibilities in the north
• Second, the importance of investing in knowledge
• Third, the importance of contact and cooperation with our neighbour Russia and High North dialogues with other Western countries
• And fourth, the importance of exercising our sovereignty and jurisdiction firmly and clearly

* * *

Let me begin with the perspective.

Here we’re not starting from zero. The High North has been moving up the political agenda since the end of the cold war. And the perspective has gradually changed.

What was once a region characterised by the cold war, tensions between East and West and almost no people-to-people contact across the borders has become a more open region that presents new challenges and opportunities.

Previously, security policy and the military and strategic balance of power overshadowed all other approaches. But in a historical perspective perhaps we should regard the cold war as a parenthesis, as in the north the iron curtain was in stark contrast to the trade and contact that had been going on here for centuries.

Then the fog lifted, and we could discern new dimensions. Let me give you an illustrative example. One of the first tasks I was given when I began working at the Prime Minister’s Office in 1990 was to deal with a popular protest here in the north against what were called the clouds of death from the east. It involved stopping the pollution caused by heavy industry in Nikel, only a few kilometres east of our border with the Soviet Union. The threat to the environment and the living conditions of the industrial workers on the Russian side of the border made a strong impression on me. What life was really like on the other side of the border was new to us. Suddenly we could begin to deal with the issue, and Prime Minister Brundtland could raise it in her talks with President Gorbachev. Today the cooperation project we laid the foundations for then is now being realised through a comprehensive Norwegian-Russian cooperation project in which other Nordic countries are also participating.

The environmental dimension continued to unfold and gradually included the formidable task of cleaning up the nuclear waste from the decommissioned submarines of the Northern Fleet. Norway took the lead in developing international cooperation involving Russia in order to deal with this. Today a large number of countries are engaged in an intensive international effort to solve the problems. The decommissioned submarines will be disposed of in five years’ time. As will other hazardous nuclear installations.

We’re not there yet, but we are beginning to see the results of our efforts. Last week I met the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, who is a pioneer in the field of disarmament. In his conference room there is a map where he puts an X for every submarine or missile that has been properly dismantled. Many of the X’s are on Murmansk. We have financed the dismantling of three of the submarines, and a fourth is now in line.

The situation has continued to evolve, with an increasingly stronger people-to-people dimension in the Barents Region and growing trade in a region where people are gradually resuming the old pre-Soviet trade patterns across the borders. The figures speak for themselves:

• In 1990 there were about 3500 border crossings at Storskog in eastern Finnmark. Today there are about 110 000. This has happened in the course of 15 years.
• The flow of tourists from Russia to Norway increased by 50 per cent from 2003 to 2004, when the number of overnight visitors recorded reached 27 000. The increase is continuing this year.
• There are around 60 Russian students at this university today, and there have never been so many. This is also the case with other educational institutions. In the course of a four-year period, the total number of Russian students in Norway has doubled – to some 500. Today there are a total of 8000 Russians living in Norway.
• Norwegian exports to Russia increased by 25 per cent from 2003 to 2004, and now amount to NOK 3.5 billion. Two thirds of this is fish. So far this year fish exports have increased by 75 per cent. Russia is now Norway’s largest single export market for fish.
• The economy in Northern Norway is showing growth, particularly the export economy. In 2004 the number of newly established firms increased by 12 per cent on the previous year. The manufacturing industry, the fisheries sector and the fish farming industry are doing well, and Finnmark is experiencing what can only be described as a building boom. In 2004 the growth in the construction sector was 20 per cent.

The energy dimension is emerging as perhaps the most important in the High North. There are vast undiscovered petroleum resources in the Arctic regions. While other energy regions in the world are marked by unrest and conflicts, the High North is stable and peaceful. Norway is the second largest exporter of gas to the rest of Europe, and produced 25 per cent of the gas consumed in Western Europe in 2003. Only Russia produces and exports more gas.

The High North is Europe’s new energy region. Decisions made by Norway and Russia on petroleum activities in the Barents Sea are followed with great interest all over the world. We are used to taking responsibility for managing resources in northern waters, both on our own and together with the Russians. Throughout the cold war, too, Norway and the Soviet Union sat down routinely every year and agreed on the management of the true jewel of white fish – the Northeast Arctic Cod. Now we will extend this tradition – this responsibility – further and take advantage of the potential for cooperation and joint projects with Russia in the energy field.

When the chapter on energy production in the northern sea areas is written, the Snøhvit project will feature as a pioneer. Now we are looking at openings for petroleum development in the near future on both the Norwegian and the Russian part of the Barents Sea. With prospects of large-scale projects and new tasks. And visions of transporting energy southwards, eastwards and westwards.

Now it is the energy issue that is overshadowing other issues and changing our perspective, not only here in Norway and in neighbouring Russia, but in all countries that are concerned with energy production, supply security and climate and environmental challenges. And I see that there are many of them. This is what the people I’ve met in my few weeks as Foreign Minister have been interested in hearing more about – whether they were the British Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, or the US Secretary of State.

I believe that our greatest challenge is to alter our perspective. To acknowledge that the policy parameters for the High North have changed so fundamentally in the space of such a short time.

We have made progress. The Orheim committee provided us with important input and reflections. The Barlindhaug committee gave us new insights on the regional challenges. The white paper on the High North submitted by the previous government earlier this year was endorsed by a broad majority in the Storting. It provided a good account of the situation, so I won’t spend time here repeating it. Our main focus now is the same as it was then: to ensure political stability and sustainable development in the High North.

The most positive thing about the white paper was that it put a number of important issues on the agenda and led to broad political acceptance of the main principles. But in my view it was submitted too late and included too little discussion of the room for manoeuvre, the scope of opportunities, we have before us. We have lost valuable time. But there’s no use brooding over that now.

One more reflection on perspective. I note that what we mean when we talk about the Norwegian concept of the High North varies. It might mean Finnmark or eastern Finnmark. It might mean the three northernmost counties. And it might mean the Barents Sea.

In fact, it means all of these. But I think that as a nation, we should take an even broader perspective. In this respect Tromsø itself is an inspiration.

Tromsø has a strong position as a resource and cultural centre, precisely because it offers a broad horizon. People from more than 120 countries are said to be living in this town. Here we take up global and national challenges and put them in a regional and local perspective. The University of Tromsø is located in the centre of town and, with its Centre for Peace Studies, has highlighted international peace and conflict issues as a priority area.

When I was working in the World Health Organisation, Tromsø was regarded as a leader in the field of telemedicine. Representatives from Botswana made a stopover in Geneva on their way to the world centre for telemedicine, and they weren’t headed for Lyon or Milan, but for Tromsø. Tromsø is the place where you can meet Nelson Mandela or Peter Gabriel and spotlight what is probably the greatest challenge of our time, the fight against AIDS.

How we deal with the opportunities and responsibilities in the High North has to do with the ability of the people of Norway – and Northern Norway – to seize the day. But we will only succeed if we take a broader, more cohesive perspective:

• If we take advantage of the potential that lies in cooperation with resource communities throughout Norway, all of Europe and beyond.
• If we take advantage of the potential that lies in cooperation with our neighbour Russia.
• If we seize the opportunities inherent in the regional perspective that was opened up by the Barents Cooperation when Thorvald Stoltenberg revitalised foreign policy by drawing counties, municipalities and representatives of indigenous peoples directly into what had until then been a closed policy area reserved for the elite.
• If we utilise our fishery and petroleum resources in a way that takes account of the vulnerability of the Arctic environment.
• If we foster a new understanding among our friends and allies of the opportunities and responsibilities presented by the vast sea areas in the north.
• If we successfully address the challenge inherent in the fact that a credible exercise of sovereignty is contingent on the maintenance of activities. We have sovereignty and sovereign rights over large land and sea areas. We must be present in order to ensure effective enforcement. We will further develop a viable community in Svalbard, in areas ranging from mining and tourism to space technology and, not least, the international cutting-edge research being carried out in Ny-Ålesund.

The government intends to consolidate this broad perspective as we proceed with the important debate on responsibilities and opportunities in the north. Earlier this week, the government had its first discussion about how we should follow up our ambition of pursuing an active High North policy. This discussion involved virtually all areas.

On the basis of this discussion, the Prime Minister has appointed a government commission, headed by the Foreign Minister, made up of the ministers responsible for fisheries, oil and energy, the environment, trade and industry, justice, defence, municipal and regional policy, knowledge and labour – including indigenous peoples – health, transport and communications and Nordic cooperation. In the time ahead we will clarify how we together can coordinate all these areas so that we are pulling in the same direction.

The government is generally concerned that we should be working at the regional, national and international level. Here in Norway we intend to formalise the dialogue between the central government and the elected authorities in the north, i.e. the Sami Parliament and the county authorities. We should come together on a regular basis to take stock of the situation and the tasks before us.

The government will continue to promote the Barents Cooperation. I came here directly from a meeting of the Barents Council in Harstad, which was attended by the foreign ministers of Iceland, Finland and Russia. A high-level representative from the EU Commission was also there.

We discussed the status of the cooperation, which is progressing well. And we agreed in principle that an international secretariat for the Barents Cooperation should be established. This was proposed in an evaluation report drawn up by Director Erling Fløtten for the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I have proposed that Norway should be the host nation for such a secretariat. In the government’s view, the international Barents Secretariat should be located in Kirkenes, which is where our own Barents Secretariat is today and where the Barents Institute is being established.

It is important to view the establishment of the Barents Institute as part of the process of developing knowledge and expertise on the High North in Northern Norway. Not in competition with the established research and educational institutions in the north, but as a supplement, with Kirkenes as the logical venue, for example for dealing with issues related to cross-border regional cooperation. I would encourage the major institutions, particularly the University of Tromsø, to give high priority to developing their expertise on the High North, including by supporting the institute in Kirkenes.

I will now turn to the importance of knowledge.

The government wants to signal clearly that we will help to mobilise and will be responsive to the knowledge, competence and expertise in the north. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs previously established a contact forum for High North issues. I intend to use it as a basis for an operational group made up of people with knowledge and experience that can provide us with input as we develop our High North policy.

This will be a challenge for this part of the country. We must create conditions here that are conducive to innovation. This not only requires resources for competence building, it also calls for close cooperation between institutions, authorities, the business sector and key persons here in the north.

We must aim for cooperation that includes the whole of this part of the country. Have we been good enough at this so far? Is the cooperation between resource institutions and between towns in Northern Norway good enough? And what about their cooperation with resource communities further south? Will we succeed in creating a knowledge network that includes the Barents Secretariat and the new Barents Institute in Kirkenes and the resource communities in Alta, Tromsø, Harstad and Bodø, and that extends to Trondheim and the university towns further south?

Will we succeed in linking up the experience of industrial development on Melkøya with that of the industrial communities in Nordland and further south?

These are challenges we must address. The importance of this will be evident when we later look back and assess whether Northern Norway was given the influence the government intended it to have on the development of the High North.

We want to see the Barents Sea be developed into a “sea of cooperation”, a peace project involving cooperation between Norwegian interests and Russian interests and, where appropriate, with interested parties in Western countries. We want to weave together partners from a number of countries in a far-reaching northern web of cooperation.

This has important European policy implications. It can become an important northern contribution towards integrating Russia even more closely into European cooperation structures. In this sense High North policy will become part of European policy.

We cannot develop extensive cooperation in the High North without concrete projects.

We must design projects that are important for petroleum production in the north, for the fisheries, for the environment and resource management and for new forms of business, industrial and cultural cooperation.

We must develop projects that are also of interest to our Russian and Western partners.

While thinking along new lines, we will of course also have to build on the important work being done at institutions like the University and the Norwegian Polar Institute here in Tromsø, the Institute of Marine Research and the Research Council of Norway, and on the petroleum and technological expertise found in leading Norwegian companies. In other words, we must take account of the work that is already in progress as we develop research strategies for the High North.

But we will also need new tools, and an overarching, co-ordinated approach will be essential if Norway is to lead the way in the development of the north. The government has therefore decided to launch a long-term, cross-sectoral initiative for research and development in the High North. We have called this initiative Barents 2020.

We will use this initiative to find new Russian and Western partners for Norwegian-led development projects in the High North.

The purpose of Barents 2020 will be to initiate concrete Norwegian-led cooperation projects, which may involve both Russia and Western countries. It is intended to function as a link between international centres of expertise, academic institutions and business and industry in countries that are interested in the High North.

I envisage the following main objectives for Barents 2020:

• to be an arena that links research communities and promotes cooperation between experts, especially across national borders
• to identify knowledge gaps and outline strategies for filling them through international cooperation
• to strengthen cooperation between the authorities, the business sector and academic communities in Norway

Two areas will be of key importance in Barents 2020:

• developing petroleum technology for areas where conditions are more difficult than those we are accustomed to in the North Sea
• increasing our knowledge of how to master the challenges involved in environmental and resource management in the north

Projects in these areas can turn Barents 2020 into a tool for making Norway the chief custodian of knowledge and expertise in the High North. Our aim must be clear: It is to consolidate Norway’s position as the leading knowledge nation in the north. We will be innovative. We want the world to look to Norway in order to understand the challenges and opportunities of the north.

We must build up a broader knowledge base on environmental and resource issues in the north. Here we can draw on the experience gained through the integrated management plan for the Barents Sea and the sea areas off the Lofoten Islands, which will presented to the Storting in the course of the 2006 spring session.

It will also be essential to consider the Barents 2020 initiative in conjunction with the Research Council’s focus on the High North and to link this initiative to the High North research strategy currently being developed by the Research Council.

The challenge will be to strike a balance between the interests of the fisheries, the maritime transport industry and the petroleum industry.

Fish and petroleum. Fishing vessels and LNG carriers. The coastal steamer and drilling platforms. They all have to coexist in the same waters and the same shipping lanes.

Then there is one important point that we must keep in mind. The scope of the management plan will be limited to the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea. But the ecosystem of the Barents Sea is not delimited by national borders. The vast energy resources on the Russian continental shelf will be developed irrespective of the choices we make in Norway. There is no point in fighting to keep Norway’s sea areas clean while ignoring the sea on the Russian side. This means that we must cooperate more closely with Russian researchers.

It will therefore be important for us to further develop the well-established cooperation with Russia on fisheries management in the Barents Sea, to work towards common, high environmental standards and over time to persuade Russia that it is in the country’s own interest to establish an integrated management plan for the Russian part of the Barents Sea. In these efforts our own ability to develop and share knowledge may prove to be our most important asset.

Barents 2020 can also become an arena for closer cooperation with Russia on energy development in the north. This applies particularly to efforts to make use of Norwegian experience and technology on the Russian continental shelf. If we manage to become involved in the development of the Russian shelf, the Norwegian oil era could be prolonged by several decades. This is a win-win scenario.

Once again knowledge is the key: Statoil and Hydro’s knowledge in the fields of technology, infrastructure and environment. And the Norwegian authorities’ knowledge in the fields of management, taxation and environmental legislation. If Norwegian technology is used on the Russian shelf, it can only be an advantage that it is adapted to high Norwegian health, environmental and security standards. But I would be surprised if it doesn’t also ensure that the projects are highly profitable, and thus that there is more money for the community – in Russia as well.

In the government budget proposal, which was presented earlier today, the government has allocated NOK 10 million for launching the initiative. This comes in addition to the previously earmarked project funds for cooperation with Russia in the north. With time, some of these funds can be channelled through Barents 2020.

Furthermore, the government has reversed the Bondevik government’s policy of cutting the allocations for press, culture and information. In the original budget proposal for 2006, this allocation was cut by 40 per cent. We have reversed the trend, proposing an allocation of NOK 20 million instead. Of this, NOK five million is earmarked for Barents 2020 for an information campaign targeted at decision-makers and key groups in important countries. We will invite some of the key people to see the region for themselves. This does not cost much, but provides new insight, knowledge and networks. It’s all about people.

Dear friends,

I would now like to move on to our dialogue with our friends and partners. And I will start with Russia. When I am abroad, I usually remind my audience of the fact that Norway and Russia have lived in peace for 1000 years. The Red Army liberated Finnmark in 1944 and withdrew in 1945. For a long period, our frontier was where East met West, where NATO bordered on the Warsaw Pact. It was an ideological border that divided people. There are few borders where there is such a contrast in living conditions.

Now we are developing cooperation along new paths, paths that cross the border, paths to areas we used to avoid. All of this is progress. Our cooperation has a considerable upside, indeed many upsides. We are following and supporting the development of a democratic Russia.

We can see that this is a demanding process, and not everything we see is encouraging. There are worrying signs that the democratic principles of the rule of law are not gaining a foothold. This in turn raises questions about the stability of societal development in Russia. We have a good dialogue with Russia, and it covers all topics. Yesterday and today I had frank and substantive talks with my Russian colleague, Sergei Lavrov. This dialogue will continue. We are about to start work on an action plan for strengthening our cooperation and our contact with Russia.

Earlier this year President Putin said he had chosen Norway as a strategic partner for broad-based energy cooperation on the continental shelf in the north. This decision has been made at the highest political level in Russia, and it has the backing of the authorities and companies according to the President, who added that Russia has the resources and Norway has the expertise.

We accept this invitation. We wish to engage in a strategic energy partnership with Russia in the north. We wish to co-operate on developing the energy resources and to deepen our cooperation to safeguard the vulnerable maritime environment and valuable fish stocks. Statoil and Hydro are two of the five companies on the final shortlist of possible cooperation partners for the Russians in the development of the Shtokman field. That was a wise decision. The Norwegian companies have positioned themselves based on their experience, technological expertise and financial strength. The Norwegian authorities support them and will clearly express this in their contact with the Russian authorities. This may become the most tangible expression of our cooperation on developing energy resources in the north. This and other types of close cooperation can then be extended to new fields – in Norwegian areas as well.

And further new opportunities will open up once we have agreed on a maritime delimitation line as good neighbours should. Negotiations are now resuming after a two-year break.

Russia is of course the most important country for Norway to have a dialogue with on opportunities and responsibilities in the north. But we will also, as the Storting recommended this spring, engage our European and American partners in a close dialogue. We are in the process of doing so.

The countries have responded positively to the Norwegian invitation to participate in what we have called High North dialogues. They know that energy security is giving the concept of geopolitics new substance. An industrialised country that is not able to secure stable energy deliveries is heading for big trouble.

In the dialogues with Western countries and the EU we attach great importance to explaining the specific challenges related to energy production in the vulnerable Arctic maritime environment. Several of these countries import fish from the Barents Sea. They want to see more cod on the dinner tables in Amsterdam and Hamburg.

We will also invest time in explaining some basic interconnections. We know that resources are of key importance. But we will take time to explain something else. During the cold war, Norway made an independent and valued contribution to stability and a low level of tension in the north by taking our sovereignty and jurisdiction seriously. We conducted correct bilateral co-operative relations with the Soviet Union. We managed our resources in a consistent manner.

We will continue this line, and we will explain why this will be if anything even more important now. If we fail at sustainable management, the fishing grounds will be fished out in a few years. If we fail to establish a predictable framework for energy development, this region will lose the very things that are its strengths: stability, transparency and peaceful development.

It is therefore appropriate to conclude with a few reflections about how we exercise our sovereignty or, to be more precise, about how we exercise our jurisdiction in the sea areas in the north.

The first issue I had to deal with as Foreign Minister was the arrest of the fishing vessel Elektron. It involved suspicions of overfishing and use of illegal equipment, and reminded us that illegal fishing represents an enormous amount of money.

The Elektron affair was resolved in a sensible manner, although the weather prevented the Coast Guard from seizing the vessel and escorting it to a Norwegian port. The vessel was removed from the Barents Sea and brought to port, and the captain and shipowner are being investigated and prosecuted. That is as it should be. It did not become an issue of contention between Norway and Russia. If anything, I would say that it strengthened our relations. Because we agree that overfishing and environmental crime can and must be combated.

This was affirmed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission when it met shortly after the incident. The Norwegian and Russian authorities have agreed to strengthen surveillance cooperation and to improve cooperation between the two countries’ judicial and prosecuting authorities regarding contraventions of the fisheries legislation. This is a positive development.

At the same time the media focused attention on issues related to our sovereignty in the sea areas in the north. A lot of allegations were made – by the learned and the unlearned alike. I would therefore like to give you my assessment of some of these questions. These are not straightforward issues. We wish to make our stance as clear as possible. It is important for us to ensure the broadest possible understanding of and backing for Norway’s positions.

In my view, a sound management regime is important for us, for the world – indeed for the resources themselves – particularly in these areas. There are differing views on some key legal questions. But I believe that most people will, after some reflection, agree that over the years Norway has met the requirements of sound stewardship. They realise that the alternative could easily turn into some kind of resource anarchy. In that case we would all end up as losers.

Norway not only has the right and the obligation to exercise sound stewardship. We also have the resources and the means. The Coast Guard is our main tool. We are proud of the quality of the officers and personnel of the Norwegian Coast Guard, who are in charge of exercising our jurisdiction and sovereignty, and who form part of our overall environmental preparedness along the coast.

For the fiscal year 2006 the Minister of Defence is redirecting efforts in this area in the direction announced in the Soria Moria declaration. We will strengthen the Coast Guard, enhance our ability to patrol our extensive sea areas with Orion maritime surveillance aircraft and increase our military presence in the High North. The Navy’s operational capacity will be strengthened and it will conduct more of its training and exercise activities off Northern Norway.

In the Soria Moria declaration we made a clear statement. The government will seek international acceptance for Norway’s views regarding Svalbard, the fisheries zone, oil and gas production and sound environmental management.

This will guide Norwegian policy. Through our conduct in forums relevant to international law, in High North dialogues and by means of other contacts, we will seek to gain acceptance for our positions. It goes without saying that a dialogue does not mean one party lecturing the other.

We can use visits to Svalbard as a means of advancing our position. The last time Jens Stoltenberg was Prime Minister, Norway made preparations to host the Nordic Prime Ministers’ Meeting. For such meetings, it is customary to choose a location we wish to focus attention on. Previous venues have been the Lofoten Islands in 1993 and the Troll oil platform in 1997. Then Kjell Magne Bondevik became Prime Minister. He changed the plans and moved the meeting from Svalbard to his native town, Molde. Now Jens is Prime Minister again, and Norway will be hosting the Nordic meeting in 2006. Our main priority area during our chairmanship will be the High North. Once again we have opted for Svalbard, and the majority government is confident we will succeed this time.

Now let’s begin at the beginning: Norway’s sovereignty over Svalbard is recognised by the entire international community. According to the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, Norway has the obligation to give nationals of the contracting parties equal treatment in particular areas that are specifically mentioned in the treaty. For example, we lay down the rules for business activity on Svalbard. Within the framework of these rules, which also protect the vulnerable natural environment, nationals of all 39 contracting parties have an equal right to engage in business activity on the archipelago.

Thus Norway has full and absolute sovereignty over the archipelago in accordance with the treaty. The treaty’s provisions on equal treatment apply only to the areas that are mentioned in the treaty and to Svalbard’s land areas and territorial waters. At the time when the treaty was concluded, continental shelves and 200 mile maritime zones were unknown concepts. The deep-sea fishing capacity of the fishing vessels of the time was not sufficient to threaten the resource base. That situation arose only much later.

Then, in the 1970s, the right of coastal states to establish economic zones was recognised. This principle was established in international law following protracted negotiations. In 1977 Norway established a fisheries protection zone around the archipelago. Its main purpose is to facilitate sound management of the vulnerable fisheries resources. We do not regard it merely as a right, but equally as an obligation, to ensure that these renewable resources are protected so they can be harvested by future generations as well.

Some have claimed that Norway cannot lay down and enforce rules in a zone around Svalbard without prior negotiations and agreement with other states. In the press we see critical comments from a variety of quarters about Norway having established the zone unilaterally. But formally all such zones are established unilaterally. For that matter we established the 200 mile zone around the Norwegian mainland and the fisheries zone round Jan Mayen unilaterally – in accordance with our right as a coastal state. Seeking other countries’ prior approval would not be in keeping with the Svalbard Treaty, which accords Norway full and absolute sovereignty over the archipelago.

The right to establish maritime zones derives from sovereignty over land area. Therefore, in our view Norway has the right to establish a fisheries protection zone in the sea areas around the archipelago in accordance with international maritime law.

Some have also claimed that the Norwegian Fisheries Protection Zone has no parallel. This is by no means correct. A large number of states have chosen to establish various types of fisheries zones rather than full economic zones. France, for instance, has established an ecological protection zone in the Mediterranean, just to give you an example.

So which legislation applies? The system set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea takes precedence over other treaties. According to it, other states must respect national legislation in the 200-mile zone and on the continental shelf. Under no circumstance may any party take the law into their own hands in contravention of such legislation.

Then there is the question of other parties’ recognition of the zone. We often read that few states have openly supported Norway’s view on the Fisheries Protection Zone. In itself this is correct. But it is turning the issue upside down. Only very rarely do states declare their support for another state’s establishment of a zone. And in terms of international law, it is not the number of declarations of support that determine the validity of maritime zones.

The fisheries resources in the zone represent a great deal of money. This may trigger conflicts of interest. Much of the discussion about the zone must therefore be viewed as vying for resources. Nevertheless, by far the majority of contracting parties to the Svalbard Treaty have never entered any reservations regarding the Fisheries Protection Zone. Furthermore, our legislation is respected in practice, including by states that have made objections or reservations in principle.

I interpret this as a recognition of the need for sound management of the fish stocks. I interpret it as a recognition of the importance we attach to carrying out such management with the required surveillance and enforcement measures. The alternative would be a barren sea after a few years.

In terms of international law we are on firm ground. We have a responsibility to manage the environment and resources in a vulnerable area. Therefore we emphasise exercising the authority vested in us by international law in a firm, credible and predictable way. The Elektron affair was an example of this. The measures we have implemented in the Fisheries Protection Zone meet indisputable environmental and resource-related needs.

It is not the first time that Norway’s right to adopt regulations unilaterally has been questioned. This happens as a result of other states advocating views they believe will serve their interests. In the 1970s the Soviet Union disputed our right to lay down environmental legislation for the archipelago itself. Bearing in mind the increasing knowledge we are gaining about the fragile environment in the north, we should be glad the Norwegian authorities have stood firm on this point.

Norway has always promoted an international legal order. Consequently, we support the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. For our part, we have not seen the need to bring issues related to the sea areas around Svalbard before the ICJ. We are confident that we have a good case. However, we have noted that certain others have mentioned the possibility of doing so. Therefore, we are relaxed about the prospect of such a legal hearing.

The fact that we have firm backing in international law does not mean we are unwilling to enter into dialogue to explain our positions. By means of dialogue we will seek to gain broad political acceptance for the necessity of sound and responsible resource management in the rich, but vulnerable sea areas off Svalbard as well.

Let me once more underline that activity underpins the credible exercise of sovereignty. Being present as a responsible fishing nation strengthens our position as a sound steward of fisheries resources. I believe the same will hold true for the energy chapter that is just opening.

Dear friends,

I have chosen two keywords for this lecture: opportunities and responsibilities in the High North. It will be our policies and attitudes in the long term that determine whether we manage to take advantage of the opportunities and shoulder the responsibilities in a way that will gain us the respect of future generations.

These are some of the main features of our policy:

• We will exercise Norwegian jurisdiction in a firm and predictable manner.
• We will maintain a high level of ambition regarding the environment and nature.
• We will be present in the new chapters that will be written about the exploitation of both renewable and non-renewable natural resources in the High North.
• We will continue to build on our good neighbourly relations with Russia.
• We will further develop our cooperation with our European and American friends and allies.

Thorvald Stoltenberg launched the initiative that led to the establishment of the Barents Region. He presented the idea here in Tromsø in 1992. The inspiration behind the idea is – like almost any aspect of Thorvald’s undertakings – expressed in the title of his autobiography: It’s All about People. In the book he writes about a new approach in the north: “The idea is that the people who live in the region should come up with the ideas and be the driving force of the cooperation.” And he goes on: “This cooperation should be a stabilising factor, not only for the people who live in the region, but for our part of the world.”

It’s all about people. It begins and ends with people. When I was here five weeks ago at the Red Cross annual meeting, one of the topics on the agenda was the people-to-people cooperation run by the local branches in Northern Norway. Organisations like the Red Cross, Norwegian People’s Aid and many others have been active in northwestern Russia for many years. New bonds are being forged in addition those related to trade and tourism. A lot of progress has been made. But more needs to be done.

A few weeks ago Helga Pedersen and I received a letter from Thor Robertsen. He has long experience of cooperation between Norway and Russia, for example in the field of fisheries. Mr Robertsen observes that the cooperation between the Norwegian and Russian authorities is progressing well. He describes how the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise, the Red Cross and other organisations in a number of sectors and spheres of society have developed close cooperation with their sister organisations in northwestern Russia in a wide range of fields over a period of many years. “It’s sort of like growing into the future together,” he writes. But then he adds that this is not the case in the fisheries area. He recommends taking measures designed to improve the dialogue within and between fisheries communities and professional organisations. He also recommends aiming more information at the Russian fisheries sector. These are good suggestions, which we will consider carefully.

I believe this is important. We intend to support the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise and the fisheries organisations in their efforts to strengthen contact with their Russian partners. Closer ties and more dialogue between Norwegian and Russian representatives is a way of building new bridges. The Fridtjof Nansen Institute has published a report on the perception of Norwegian fisheries management in the fisheries sector in Murmansk. It clearly describes how thinking in terms of “we” and “them” is being cemented. We saw the same thing after the Elektron affair. The reactions in the ports on both sides of the border were pretty patriotic in tone, to put it mildly.

Dear friends,

I told Foreign Minister Lavrov that for Norway, its relationship with Russia is the bilateral cooperation that is developing the fastest and that has the most exciting perspectives. As you know, the High North is one the government’s priority areas. Today I have shared our views on the direction of our policy with you. As for the follow-up, we will remain in close contact.

We say that Norway is a country of opportunity, and in that case the northern part of Norway is a region of opportunity. That was the inspiration for my lecture here this afternoon. If we are to succeed, we must all pull in the same direction, in all parts of the country. In June Nelson Mandela announced to a concert audience in Tromsø: “Now you’re all Africans.” This opens new perspectives. In that case, certainly all of us present here should be able to unite in our focus on the High North, whether we are from Majorstua or from Kvænangen.

Good luck!