See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/215865832

The Norwegian plan for integrated ecosystem-based management of the

marine environment in the Norwegian Sea

Article in Marine Policy · May 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.017

CITATIONS READS

48 1,223

5 authors, including:

Geir Ottersen Erik Olsen

Institute of Marine Research in Norway Institute of Marine Research in Norway
140 PUBLICATIONS 16,611 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 1,939 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gro I. van der Meeren Harald Loeng

Institute of Marine Research in Norway Institute of Marine Research in Norway
113 PUBLICATIONS 1,393 CITATIONS 91 PUBLICATIONS 6,492 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Geir Ottersen on 22 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

The Norwegian plan for integrated ecosystem-based management of the

marine environment in the Norwegian Sea
Geir Ottersen a,b,n, Erik Olsen c, Gro I. van der Meeren d, Are Dommasnes c, Harald Loeng c
a
Institute of Marine Research, Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway
b
Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biology, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1066 Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway
c
Institute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870 Nordnes, NO-5817 Bergen, Norway
d
Institute of Marine Research, Austevoll Research Station, NO-5392 Storebø, Norway

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: A White Paper on a new integrated management plan for the Norwegian Sea was launched by the Norwegian
Received 30 September 2010 government in May 2009. Following international guidelines for ecosystem-based management, the plan
Accepted 31 October 2010 provides an overall framework for managing all human activities (mainly oil and gas industry, fishing, and
Available online 30 November 2010
shipping) in the area to ensure the continued production and function of the ecosystem. The plan is based on
Keywords: an assessment of the present and projected future impact of human activities and of the interactions between
Ecosystem approach them, taking into account deficits in current knowledge of ecosystem state and dynamics. Areas of particular
Ecosystem-based management value in terms of biodiversity or biological production were identified. In each of these valuable areas, any
Integrated management access for substantial human activity is to be carefully managed. To monitor the overall development of the
Management plan
Norwegian Sea, a set of indicators with associated environmental quality objectives have been selected. The
Norwegian Sea
approach used builds upon experience gained from the first integrated Norwegian management plan for a
marine area, the Barents Sea–Lofoten region, developed in 2002–2006. Work towards a Norwegian
management plan for the North Sea, including Skagerrak, was initiated in 2009.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: background and objectives for the plan
There is an emerging paradigm shift in ocean management, a
move towards explicit consideration of the impacts of all ocean
sectors on the marine environment, both separately and in
aggregate. This comes from an increasing awareness of the
cumulative effects of human activities on the ecosystem and the
need to take a holistic and integrated approach to management to
ensure the sustainability of marine ecosystems [1].
There is also an increasing demand for a more ecosystem-based
management. The principle behind ‘‘the ecosystem approach to
management’’ (EA) is that the management of human activities is
based on the limits within which ecosystem structure, functioning,
productivity and biological diversity can be maintained. The concept
has gained growing international acceptance at both the scientific
level (e.g., [2–6]) and the policy level (1993 Convention on Biological
Diversity http://www.cbd.int/; [7,8]) and has been developed and
incorporated into a number of international agreements over the
past 10–15 years. EA, as defined in the ‘‘Malawi principles’’ under the
Convention on Biological Diversity has served as an important
framework for the management plan presented in this work [9].
n poses considerable challenges, particularly with regards to the
Corresponding author at: Institute of Marine Research, Gaustadalléen 21,
NO-0349 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: + 47 22857288; fax: + 47 22854001.
E-mail address: geir.ottersen@bio.uio.no (G. Ottersen).
Even if the ecosystem approach to management of the marine
environment and it’s living resources has received considerable
attention over recent years, there are still few examples which
demonstrate its practical implementation, it by and large remains a
promise unfulfilled [10]. Perhaps the main obstacle lies in the
history of existing marine monitoring and assessment pro-
grammes, which most often are sectorial, making it difficult to
integrate monitoring data and knowledge across programmes at
the operational level [11,12].
The foundation for integrated, ecosystem-based management
of Norwegian coastal and marine areas was laid in the coming to
power declaration to the parliament of the government elected in
September 2001 [13], followed by a more in-depth government
white paper [14]. The first integrated management plan for a large
Norwegian marine area covers the Barents Sea–Lofoten area and
was developed in 2002–2006 [15]. Both the development process
and this plan itself have been used as a model for the development
of the plan for the Norwegian Sea (Fig. 1; [9]). At the time of writing
the development of a Norwegian management plan for the North
Sea, including Skagerrak, has started.
The state of the Norwegian Sea environment is generally
considered to be healthy [16]. However, management of the area
potential future impacts of climate change and ocean acidification,
carrying capacity for different trophic levels, overfishing of some

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.017
390 G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398

Fig. 1. Geographical delimitation of the integrated management plan for the Norwegian Sea (thick red line) with administrative boundaries (yellow lines) and bathymetry.
Source: Norwegian Hydrographic Service.

fish stocks, the decline of seabird populations, the need for
protection of habitat-building benthic organisms, e.g. coral and
sponge communities, and the risk of acute pollution. The Norwe-
gian government considers it important to safeguard the ecosys-
tems of the Norwegian Sea over the long term, so that they continue
to be clean, rich and productive [14], and the plan presented here
will serve as a basis for these efforts.
Further, the plan should provide a framework for value creation
and coexistence between different sectors through the sustainable
use of natural resources and ecosystem services. In addition,
ecosystem structure, functioning and productivity must be sus-
tained and the diversity of the natural environment protected. The
management plan clarifies the overall framework for both existing
and new activities. Until now, the various uses of Norway’s sea
areas and their resources have been assessed and managed
separately, sector by sector. The combined effects of the many
different pressures and impacts that affect ecosystems have neither
been taken sufficiently into account nor has the principle that the
cumulative effects must not exceed sustainable levels. The man-
agement plan will be used as a tool both to facilitate value creation
and to maintain the high environmental value of the area [9].
2. Development of the plan 2007–2009
2.1. Organization of the work
The organization of the work followed, to a large degree, the
same approach as for the Barents Sea–Lofoten plan [17,18].
The work was led by a ministerial-level steering group chaired
 G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398
by the Ministry of the Environment, with representatives from
eight other ministries. The main foundations for the plan
were developed by experts from government agencies, institutes
and directorates associated with the various ministries. Coopera-
tion across management sectors was a fundamental challenge
throughout the process because, traditionally, the responsibility
for the marine environment has been split between several
ministries. Furthermore, different sectors (e.g., oil and gas devel-
opment, fisheries, aquaculture, recreational tourism, etc.) have
historically defined objectives in terms that predominantly relate
to their own specific activities. This has resulted in a suite of
different objectives for the industries impacting the common
marine ecosystem [1].
The steering group appointed an expert group, consisting of
members from government directorates and research institutes, to
compile a number of background reports as a foundation for the
integrated management plan. The expert group established several
working groups which were tasked with most of the synthesising
and report-writing. The development of the plan followed a three-
step process (Fig. 2), similar to that employed for the Barents Sea–
Lofoten plan [17,18] and not unlike the Eastern Scotian Shelf
Integrated Management project [19]. During Step 1 the expert
group compiled five reports that provided a common factual basis
for impact assessments on: the environment and natural resources
including determination of particularly valuable areas, fisheries
activities, petroleum related activities, maritime transport and
finally commercial activities and social conditions in the Norwe-
gian counties bordering the Norwegian Sea.
Description of the
environment and
living resources
Environmental impact assessment by sector
Maritime
Petroleum
transport
Coordinated
environmental
monitoring; indicators,
reference values and
action thresholds
Integrated management plan for the Norwegian Sea
Fig. 2. The process behind the integrated ecosystem-based management plan for the Norwegian Sea. S1: written feedback from stakeholders on plan for Environmental
impact assessments (EIAs), S2: written feedback from stakeholders on EIAs, S3: stakeholder hearing conference on Assessment of cumulative effects.
391
2.2. Environmental impact assessments
Using the factual reports from Step 1 as a basis, four extensive
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) were conducted in Step
2. The EIAs covered the impacts of fisheries, petroleum related
activities and maritime transport, which were the sectors deemed
most likely to affect the state of the environment. In addition, the
impacts of external pressures such as climate change, long-range
transboundary pollution, ocean acidification, emissions from
activities in the coastal zone, and the introduction of alien species
were assessed. Each EIA described and discussed the relation
between the activities within the sector and the following pres-
sures: release of pollutants to the atmosphere and ocean, waste,
seismic and other sources of noise, changes in ocean climate,
physical disturbances of the sea floor, introduced species and the
removal of living resources (e.g., fish). Impacts were assessed in
relation to the current situation (based on the activity levels of
2006) and for scenarios for projected levels of activity in the
different sectors in 2025 (2025 and 2080 for climate change).
To ensure compatibility among the four EIAs, a set of common
assessment themes was defined (Table 1). Specifically, the use of
common themes and sub-themes was employed to facilitate
comparison of impacts and the determination of cumulative effects
across sectors. As opposed to the largely ad hoc development of
these variables for the Barents Sea–Lofoten plan [17], they were
now agreed upon prior to the EIAs. However, the process around
the development of the common variables was still suboptimal and
the more hierarchical ‘‘unpacking’’ approach discussed in [1] might
Report on socio-
Status reports Step 1
economic and
by sector
societal issues
S1
Step 2
External
Fisheries
pressures
S2
Step 3
Assessment of cumulative effects
Vulnerability of
Conflicts Needs for Cumulative
particularly
of further effects interest
valuable areas
knowledge
S3
392 G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398

Table 1
The set of common themes, sub-themes and parameters (species, nature types) employed in the EIAs.

Focal area Assessment theme Sub-theme Parameter

(a) For the biological environment

Biological environment Plankton Phytoplankton Impact of timing of spring bloom on biological production. Effect of
biomass (chlorophyll a) on biological production.
Macrozooplankton Biomass. Geographical distribution.
Fish eggs Biomass. Geographical distribution.
Larvae Biomass. Geographical distribution.
Benthic communities Benthic fauna Degree of damage/destruction.
Coral reefs Degree of damage/destruction.
Fish Herring Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass).
Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution.
Blue whiting Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass).
Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution.
Mackerel Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass).
Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution.
Saithe Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass).
Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution.
Sandeel Development of stock (size and structure, spawning stock biomass).
Availability as food for seabirds. Migration/distribution.
Seabirds Pelagically diving birds (Common Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution.
guillemot/ murre, puffin) Impacts on nesting areas.
Benthically diving birds (common Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution.
eider) Impacts on nesting areas.
Marine mammals Minke whale Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution.
Hooded seal Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution.
The pelagic whale community in Species structure/relative abundance. Migration/distribution.
the southern part of the assessment
area.
Harbour seal Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution.
Harbour porpoise Development of stock (size and structure). Migration/distribution.
Beach zone Underwater meadow Area affected. Restitution time.
Near shore meadow Area affected. Restitution time.
Kelp influenced meadow Area affected. Restitution time.

(b) for societal issues

Society Industry and commerce and The present situation: importance for industry and commerce and Information from the management plan’s report on
employment employment regionally and nationally society.
Future scenario: expected development of employment regionally Subjective evaluation, figures based on experience and
and nationally from economical calculations.
Future scenario: expected development of value production Subjective evaluation, figures based on experience and
regionally and nationally from economical calculations.
Accidents: the direct cost for society of major accidents Figures based on experience and from economical
calculations.
Accidents: the risk of negative economical consequences of major Figures based on experience and from economical
accidents calculations.
Marine archaeology Ship wrecks Destruction. Movement.
Remains of early settlements Destruction. Movement.
Local society Coastal culture Figures based on experience. Subjective evaluation.
Sami culture Figures based on experience. Subjective evaluation.
Recreational fishing Figures based on experience. Subjective evaluation.
Leisure boating and bathing Figures based on experience. Subjective evaluation.

have been advantageous. An issue that caused some complications
was how levels of impact should be classified.
2.3. Assessment of cumulative impacts across sectors
In Step 3 the results from the four EIAs were considered as a
whole to assess (i) cumulative effects across sectors, (ii) conflicts of
interest between sectors and (iii) needs for further knowledge.
Cumulative effects were assessed for current (based on 2006)
activity levels and for scenarios for projected levels of activity in the
different sectors in 2025 (and also 2080 for climate change).
Separate evaluations were done for the normal ‘‘business as usual’’
conditions and accident situation for both current and future
activity levels.
Two additional reports, ‘‘Vulnerability of particularly valuable
areas in relation to petroleum activity, fisheries, maritime transport
and other pressures’’ [20] and ‘‘Suggested indicators, reference
values and action thresholds in aid of a coordinated monitoring
system for the state of the ecosystem’’ [21] were also taken into
consideration during this process. A five-point scale was developed
to indicate level of impact (insignificant, minor, moderate, major,
catastrophic; Table 2). It is important to note that the scale is largely
based on possible effects on the Norwegian Sea ecosystem as a
whole. In most cases, the cumulative effects have been assessed at
population level or for larger areas, rather than at individual level or
more locally. This means that in cases where the category insig-
nificant is used here, smaller-scale assessments (e.g., related to
development of petroleum activities or impacts of fishing on
benthic habitat) may indicate more serious impacts on individuals,
sub-populations or on smaller areas. A summary of the evaluation
of accumulated consequences under normal operations and cur-
rent activity levels for a selection of assessment themes and sub-
themes is given in Table 3.
 G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398 393

Some work had to be put in to unify the somewhat different
classifications used in the four EIAs and supporting expert reports.
Firstly, slightly different nominal classifications schemes had been
used, but this was readily dealt with. Secondly and more proble-
matic, it was revealed that the actual intent or value implied by one
and the same category (e.g., ‘‘major impact’’) differed between the
EIAs. Similar problems arose in the evaluations of experiences from
managing by the Barents Sea–Lofoten plan during 2005–2010. Here
the five-point scale turned out to be of little practical value due to
the different intents and values implied by the host of government
directorates and research institutes. Levels of impact are in the
Barents Sea–Lofoten evaluation report [22] instead presented as a
selection of numerically described human activities. Quantifying
the different activities is useful, but this approach does not really
facilitate comparison of impacts between sectors. For instance,
what makes the highest impact, 320 Norwegian fishing vessels
larger than 24 metres with activity in the area in 2009, 353 loaded
oil-tankers or 40,969 tonnes of garbage?
The lesson to be learnt here is that using enough time to achieve
good coordination early in the process simplifies cross-sectoral
comparisons and analyses later on. Experience gained from both the
Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea–Lofoten process demonstrates
that the simplification necessary in order to fit the impacts into the
five-point scale, or similar, easily leads to misunderstandings, and
the procedure for assessing cumulative effects needs to be improved.
In particular, there were discussions, and indeed some confusion,
related to how close to the coastline the inner boundary should lie
and also on how to deal with the waters around the important
Lofoten and Vesterålen Islands. It was decided that the management
plan should cover the areas in the Norwegian exclusive economic
zone outside the baseline from 621N at Stad and north to 801N at
Framstredet, northwest of Svalbard, including the deep-water areas
west of the Barents Sea and in the fisheries protection zone around
Svalbard, and the fisheries zone around Jan Mayen. The scientific
basis for the management plan also includes the area of international
waters known as the Banana Hole (Fig. 1; [9]). Geographically
speaking, the waters off the Lofoten and Vesterålen Islands are also
part of the Norwegian Sea. However, since there is a close ecological
relationship between the spawning areas off Lofoten–Vesterålen
and the fish stocks in the Barents Sea, these areas were covered by
the integrated management plan for the Barents Sea–Lofoten area
and thus not included in the Norwegian Sea plan. An area inside the
baseline in the Vestfjorden, between Lofoten and the mainland, has
been included in the management plan area for the Norwegian Sea.
This was done because the thematic scope of the management plans
for sea areas includes the important ecological goods and services
provided by the Vestfjorden and the types of activities carried out in
this area. Vestfjorden has been a main spawning area for cod and at
times the most important overwintering area for herring.

2.4. Geographic delimitation

3. Areas of particular biological value

The borders of the area to be covered by the plan were not defined
initially and were actually changed several times during the process.
3.1. Criteria for selection
Table 2
Five-point scale used to indicate level of impact [30]. Within the management plan region, certain areas have been
identified as being particularly valuable in terms of the environment
Catastrophic Substantial, extensive loss of ecosystem services and irreversible
and natural resources. Areas were selected using predefined
damage to ecosystems.
Major Serious loss of ecosystem services and considerable risk of criteria, much the same set as for the Barents Sea–Lofoten. The
irreversible damage to ecosystems and ecosystem functions. two main criteria were that the area in question was important
Moderate Isolated but considerable damage to ecosystems and risk of for biodiversity or for biological productivity. In addition, a
irreversible damage, although this is unlikely.
number of secondary criteria were taken into consideration,
Minor Isolated cases of minor, reversible damage to ecosystems
Insignificant No damage to ecosystems.
accounting for both biological and other values (economic, social,
cultural, scientific; Table 4).

Table 3
Summary of evaluation of accumulated consequences for a selection of assessment themes and sub-themes in the Norwegian Sea under normal operations for current (2006)
activity levels. Excerpts from table in Anon [30].

Assessment theme Evaluation of accumulated consequences, normal activity in 2006

Sub-theme Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic Sector with largest consequences identified

Plankton X None

Benthic communities Fisheries

Benthic fauna X Fisheries
Coral reefs X Fisheries

Fish Fisheries
Herring X Fisheries
Blue whiting X Fisheries
Mackerel X Fisheries
Saithe X Fisheries

Seabirds
Murre X External pressures/Fisheries
Puffin X External pressures/Fisheries
Eider X External pressures/Fisheries

Marine mammals Fisheries/hunting

Minke whale X Fisheries/hunting
Hooded seal X Fisheries/hunting
Common (harbour) seal X Fisheries/hunting
394
Table 4
Selection criteria for identification of geographical areas of particular biological and (to a lesser degree) cultural value.
Criteria
Main criteria Importance for biodiversity
Importance for biological productivity
Additional criteria Importance for representation of all
biogeographical zones, nature types,
habitats, species and cultural heritage in the
region
Marine–terrestrial coupling
Virginity/disturbance
Characteristic or rareness
Economical importance
Social or cultural importance
Scientific value
Pedagogical value
Accessibility
International or national value
G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398
Sub-criteria Details
Especially large biodiversity Ecosystem level.
Species level.
Genetic level.
Habitat for species/populations of particular Endemic species.
importance
Vulnerable, rare, threatened species.
Ecological indicator species.
Keystone species.
Umbrella species.
Flagship species.
Populations of (inter)national value.
Special nature types and habitats Rare.
Threatened.
Vulnerable.
Border areas Boundary for species distribution.
Especially large biological productivity High primary productivity.
High secondary productivity.
High concentration of species or individuals Areas used for reproduction.
Nursery areas.
Feeding-, resting-, moulting areas.
Migration routes.
Secure representation typical for the area Common.
Unique, representative for the region.
Areas that have retained original character.
Secure representation characteristic for the Rare nature qualities.
area
Areas threatened by human activities.
Especially important species.
Secure representation within a larger Circumpolar in the Arctic.
network
North-south gradient.
Degree of influence of marine organisms on Vegetation at bird cliffs.
the terrestrial environment
Nourishment resource.
Degree of anthropogenic disruption Technical intervention/area use.
Harvest/fisheries catch
Pollution.
Nature values Characteristic and rare nature types.
Cultural heritage Characteristic and rare cultural site.
Tourism Areas of recreational value.
Fishing/hunting Areas used for reproduction
Nursery areas.
Feeding-, resting-, moulting areas.
Value for local, regional, national, Historical value.
international society
Esthetical value.
Recreational value.
Areas/species/ecosystems of particular Biological.
scientific interest
Geophysical.
Geological.
Cultural heritage.
Reference area Research.
Source value Monitoring.
Locality of specimen/type Biological.
Geological.
Illustration of causal mechanisms Ecological.
Nature phenomena.
Cultural heritage and nature.
Scientific activity
Pedagogical activity
Tourism/outdoor recreation
Existing agreements Agreements/Commitments.
International conventions.
Potential for incorporation in an Networks:
international system
 Protected areas.
 Measurement stations.
 Research programs.
International/national protection value.
 G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398 395

3.2. The areas selected
Eleven particularly valuable areas were identified (Fig. 3). These
areas meet at least one of the two main criteria for selection,
generally also several of the secondary criteria (e.g. high concen-
trations of individuals/species, distinctiveness, undisturbed areas
or economic importance). The selected areas are very diverse,
including key spawning and nursery areas for herring, cod and
saithe, coral reef complexes, seabird colonies, and the highly
productive edge of the continental shelf and Arctic front. While
some areas are relatively small and well-defined (coral reefs,
banks) others are large with less clear borderlines (coastal zone,
edge of the continental shelf) or even change with time-varying
current systems (Arctic front).

Fig. 3. Particularly valuable areas within the management plan region (see legend for description).
396 G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398

3.3. Vulnerability of selected areas 3.4. Evaluation of impacts on valuable areas

The seasonal and cumulative vulnerability of the valuable areas
to various anthropogenic pressures was also assessed [20]. Vulner-
ability can be defined as a measure of how liable a species or habitat
is to be negatively affected by external, often anthropogenic
pressures. Factors such as seasonal variations, distribution pat-
terns, age/stage of the life cycle, and behaviour and biological
characteristics were used to determine the vulnerability of a
particular species. Vulnerability to environmental pressures was
assessed on the basis of the likely impacts of different pressures on
the development and survival of a species or population. There may
also be temporal variations in vulnerability; some species being
particularly vulnerable at times of the year when a large fraction of
the population is concentrated in a limited area (for example fish
during the spawning season and seabirds during the breeding
season). The vulnerability of benthic habitats depends on factors
such as the substrate type and whether it contains sessile or motile
species. Certain areas dominated by long-lived, habitat-forming
species such as corals and sponges may be particularly vulnerable
to environmental pressures because habitat formation is a very
slow process. Vulnerability can be measured at individual, popula-
tion, community and ecosystem level. The Møre Bank area (Fig. 3)
was classified as most vulnerable because of how high intensity
fishing, shipping and (future) coastal petroleum activities may
threaten key spawning grounds, large seabird colonies, kelp forests
and marine mammal habitats. Similarly, the more northern Bank
areas and Vesterålen were also considered highly vulnerable due to
high intensity fishing and potential petroleum activities in impor-
tant spawning grounds and larval retention areas. Deep-water
coral reefs along Iverryggen, Sularevet and Eggakanten were
classified as highly vulnerable due to the particular fragility of
these reef-forming species where human impacts from fishing and
petroleum may lead to damage it may take thousands of years to
repair [20]. For management purposes, impacts at population,
community and ecosystem level are most important [9].
Based upon the work described in the previous paragraph the
impacts of activities on each of the particularly valuable areas were
compared between sectors and accumulated impacts evaluated.
Also here separate studies were done for normal activity and
consequences of accidents for both the current situation and 2025
(Table 5). For each area the impacts on the themes/values that gave
rise to the area’s status as particularly valuable were weighted
highly. For ship traffic and petroleum activities acute oil spills
(accidents) will have the highest impact, while for fisheries
prolonged high fishing pressure is most influential.
The management plan emphasises that the particularly valuable
areas should be managed with special care. This means that
knowledge development and environmental impact assessment
for these areas should be given high priority, and further that a
particularly cautious approach must be taken to activities in such
areas and strict regulation enforced.
4. Implementation of the management plan
4.1. Ecosystem based management from principles to
operationalization
Generally, the extent to which ecosystem based management
principles are adopted by managers is highly variable. The details
outlined in the scientific literature are often only loosely incorpo-
rated into management plans and actions [23]. However, recent
literature illustrates how the process of making the ecosystem
approach operational in specific large marine ecosystems can be
stimulated (see, e.g., [24] on the Baltic and [25] on US waters). The
development as well as the implementation of the plan described
here is initiated and driven top-down by a coalition of govern-
mental agencies/ministries. This may be a strength, since coopera-
tion is forced upon the participators. However, by attempting to

Table 5
Summary of evaluation of accumulated consequences for biologically particularly important areas in the Norwegian Sea. The sectors evaluated are petroleum (P), ship
transport (S), fisheries (F), and pressures from sources external to the management area (E; see main text for explanation). ‘‘?’’ indicates that the knowledge level is too low for a
conclusion to be drawn. Current (2006) activity levels assumed. Adapted from Anon [30]. Locations shown in Fig. 3.

Area of particular biological value ? Evaluation of accumulated consequences on valuable areas

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Cata-strophic Sector with largest consequences identified

(a) Assuming normal operations

Mørebankene/Stad E P S F Fishing
Haltenbanken P, S, E F Fishing
Sklinnabanken P, S, E F Fishing
Iverryggen P, S, E F Fishing
Jan Mayen/Vesterisen P, S F, E None in particular
Eggakanten P, S, E F Fishing
Arctic front P, F, S E External pressures
Remman P, S, E F None in particular
Froan including the Sula reef E P, S F F Fishing and external pressures
Vestfjorden E P, S F F Fishing
Coastal zone (in general) P, S E, F F Fishing

(b) assuming accident scenarios

Mørebankene/Stad P S, E Ship transport (external, North Sea)
Haltenbanken P, S, E Ship transport
Sklinnabanken P S, E Ship transport
Iverryggen P, S None in particular
Jan Mayen/Vesterisen P S Ship transport
Eggakanten P S Ship transport
Arctic front P, S Ship transport
Remman P, S None in particular
Froan including the Sula reef P S, E Ship transport and petroleum activities
Vestfjorden P, S, E Ship transport and petroleum activities
Coastal zone (in general) P, S, E Ship transport and petroleum activities
 G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398
envelop a very broad range of sectors there is a real danger for the
measures actually implemented being loose and rather general in
order to meet approval from all involved parties. Close coordination
between sectors and between the public institutions involved is
clearly required. The Ministry of the Environment is coordinating
the work and heading an interministerial Steering Committee. To
ensure enhanced cooperation among government institutions new
advisory groups have been appointed and the terms of reference of
existing groups have been expanded.
4.2. Development of indicators
In the same way as for the Barents Sea [15], the management
plan for the Norwegian Sea describes a set of elements for
evaluating the ecological quality, including indicators and action
thresholds which will be used to monitor biological diversity,
sustainability of fishing, pollution, and the safety of marine foods
harvested in the area. Data for many of the proposed indicators are
already available as time series, but for others new time series are
needed or existing data need to be analyzed. The plan particularly
states that more knowledge about pollution in the open parts of the
Norwegian Sea is needed. It also recognizes that development of
good indicators requires time, both with regard to selection and
description of indicators and how they should be used. The
proposed indicators are therefore not to be considered as a final
selection, but rather as a starting point for the development of good
management tools.
4.3. Expanding from the Barents SEA to include the Norwegian Sea
In connection with the management plan for the Barents Sea–
Lofoten area an ‘‘Advisory group on monitoring of the Barents Sea
and the areas off Lofoten’’, (the ‘‘monitoring group’’), responsible
for coordinating monitoring activities and reporting annually on
the state of the ecosystem, an operational ‘‘Forum on environ-
mental risk management of the Barents Sea and the sea areas off
Lofoten’’ (the ‘‘risk group’’), responsible for monitoring potential
risks to the ecosystem and ensuring dissemination of information,
and ‘‘Forum for ecosystem-based management of the Barents Sea
and the areas off Lofoten, ‘‘the expert forum’’ responsible for
following up the implementation plan and giving advice on
desirable revisions (the first being scheduled for 2010) were
established. In addition a ‘‘reference group’’ consisting of repre-
sentatives of stakeholders, including the business sector and non-
governmental organisations, was created [15,17].
To implement the Norwegian Sea plan the terms of reference of
the existing ‘‘monitoring group’’ and ‘‘risk group’’ will be expanded
to include the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea, and, the mandate
of the ‘‘reference group’’ established for the Barents Sea–Lofoten
area is to be expanded to include the Norwegian Sea and the North
Sea. A separate expert group, paralleling the one for the Barents
Sea–Lofoten, will be appointed to follow up the implementation of
the management plan (the Forum for ecosystem-based manage-
ment of the Norwegian Sea).
The steps above are intended to improve the coordination of the
management of the different regions and provide a better foundation
for management of the Norwegian Sea. It should, however, be noted
that during the development of the plan some parties were opposed to
the concept of the Barents Sea groups being expanded to include
responsibility also for the Norwegian Sea, because the groups already
were overloaded with practical work related to gathering and synthe-
sising data sampled by different institutions. Furthermore, they noticed
that the initial enthusiasm for the management plans had cooled down
and that fewer people now participated in the meetings. By having joint
groups responsible for both the Barents and the Norwegian Seas the
397
task will become further complicated both geographically and biolo-
gically, they argued. More people and more money are needed.
Furthermore, the priorities of each of the monitoring institutions are
still tightly connected to the traditional sector-by-sector monitoring.
Inter-disciplinary monitoring approaches have to a certain degree been
developed for the Barents Sea region, but it is hard to allocate enough
time and money for furthering this development either there or in the
Norwegian or North Seas. In our opinion a main obstacle towards
the development of interdisciplinary monitoring and reporting on the
ecosystems, is the simultaneous growth within all sectors of ministry-
required demand for sector-specific data and reporting. Each institu-
tion has continued to produce separate reports on the state of selected
parts of the Barents Sea–Lofoten environment and ecosystem, while
concurrently using much of the same data for the integrated Norwe-
gian reports on the ecosystem [26,27] and for 2009 also a large joint
Norwegian–Russian report [28], i.e., a semi-independent duplication of
work. There is reason to be worried that including also the Norwegian
Sea and eventually the North Sea in a reporting regime like this will be
costly and inefficient. On the other hand, the Barents Sea is obviously
heavily influenced by processes in the (upstream) Norwegian Sea so
the ecosystems are interlinked. Also, by joining forces one should be
better equipped to utilize the overall competence on integrated marine
management that is being built up [29]. Still, a more cost-efficient
reporting regime must be developed. Furthermore, methods for
evaluating if and how the initiated integrated marine management
plans actually make a difference in the efficiency and success of
managing the large marine ecosystems are still to be developed. So far,
the existing Barents Sea management plan has not been subject to a
rigorous peer-review that is common (even compulsory) in countries
like the US and Australia. Subjecting the plans to a peer-review at
regular intervals, would better ensure their scientific validity, and
thereby increase their standing in the scientific as well as management
communities.
Acknowledgements
This work was financed through basic funding from the
Norwegian Ministry of fisheries and coastal affairs to the Institute
of Marine Research.
References
[1] O’Boyle R, Jamieson G. Observations on the implementation of ecosystem-
based management: experiences on Canada’s east and west coasts. Fisheries
Research 2006;79:1–12.
[2] Browman HI, Stergiou KI. Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
management of marine resources. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 2004;274:
269–70.
[3] Garcia SM, Cochrane KL. Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of
implementation guidelines. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2005;62:311–8.
[4] Bianchi G, Skjoldal HR, editors. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Rome:
FAO—Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations; 2008.
[5] McLeod K, Leslie H, editors. Ecosystem-based management for the oceans.
Washington, DC: Island Press; 2009.
[6] Tallis H, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus M, Lester SE, McLeod KL, Fluharty DL, Halpern
BS. The many faces of ecosystem-based management: making the process
work today in real places. Marine Policy 2010;34:340–8.
[7] U.N. Plan of implementation of the world summit on sustainable development
(Johannesburg declaration). New York, United Nation; 2002.
[8] Ridgeway L, Maquieira C. Report on the work of the United Nations open-ended
informal consultative process on oceans and the law of the sea at its seventh
meeting; 2006. 28p.
[9] Anon. Integrated management of the marine environment of the Norwegian
Sea. Report no. 37 (2008–2009) to the storting; 2009a. 150p.
[10] Murawski SA. Ten myths concerning ecosystem approaches to marine resource
management. Marine Policy 2007;31:681–90.
[11] Kenny AJ, Skjoldal HR, Engelhard GH, Kershaw PJ, Reid JB. An integrated
approach for assessing the relative significance of human pressures and
environmental forcing on the status of large marine ecosystems. Progress in
Oceanography 2009;81:132–48.
[12] Curtin R, Prellezo R. Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a
literature review. Marine Policy 2010;34:821–30.
398 G. Ottersen et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 389–398
[13] Anon. Politisk grunnlag for en Samarbeidsregjering (Sem Erklæringen). Oslo, In
Norwegian; 2001. 52p.
[14] Anon. Protecting the riches of the sea. Report no. 12 (2001–2002) to the
storting; 2002. 85p.
[15] Anon. Integrated management of the marine environment of the Barents Sea
and the sea areas off the Lofoten islands. Report no. 8 (2005–2006) to the
storting; 2006. 142p.
[16] Skjoldal HR. An introduction to the Norwegian Sea ecosystem. In: Skjoldal HR,
editor. the Norwegian Sea ecosystem. Trondheim: Tapir; 2004. p. 15–32.
[17] Olsen E, Gjøsæter H, Røttingen I, Dommasnes A, Fossum P, Sandberg P. The
Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 2007;599–602.
[18] Knol M. Scientific advice in integrated ocean management: the process
towards the Barents Sea plan. Marine Policy 2010;34:252–60.
[19] O’Boyle R, Sinclair M, Keizer P, Lee K, Ricard D, Yeats P. Indicators for
ecosystem-based management on the Scotian Shelf: bridging the gap between
theory and practice. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2005;62:598–605.
[20] Olsen E, Auran JA., editors. Helhetlig forvaltningsplan for Norskehavet:
Sårbarhet for særlig verdifulle områder i forhold til petroleumsvirksomhet,
fiskeri, skipstrafikk og annen påvirkning. , Bergen: Havforskningsinstituttet. In
Norwegian; 2008. 55p.
[21] Dommasnes A, van der Meeren GI, Aarefjord, H., editors. Helhetlig forvaltnings-
plan for Norskehavet: Forslag til indikatorer, referanseverdier og tiltaksgrenser
til samordnet overvåkingssystem for økosystemets tilstand. In Norwegian;
2008. 152p.
[22] Anon. (von Quillfeldt CH, editor). Det faglige grunnlaget for oppdateringen av
forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten 2010.
Rapport fra Faglig forum, Overvåkingsgruppen og Risikogruppen til den
interdepartementale styringsgruppen for forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet
og havområdene utenfor Lofoten. Fisken og havet, særnummer 1a–2010. In
Norwegian; 2010. 306p.
View publication stats
[23] Arkema KK, Abramson SC. Dewsbury BM. Marine ecosystem-based manage-
ment: from characterization to implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2006;4(10):525–32.
[24] Österblom H, Gårdmark A, Bergström L, Müller-Karulis B, Folke C, Lindegren M,
Casini M, Olsson P, Diekmann R, Blenckner T, Humborg C, Möllmann C.
Making the ecosystem approach operational—can regime shifts in ecological-
and governance systems facilitate the transition? Marine Policy 2010;34:
1290–9.
[25] McFadden KW, Barnes C. The implementation of an ecosystem approach to
management within a federal government agency. Marine Policy 2009;33:
156–63.
[26] Anon. (von Quillfeldt CH, editor). Økosystembasert forvaltning av Barentsha-
vet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten. Rapport fra Faglig forum til den
interdepartementale styringsgruppen for forvaltningsplanen. In Norwegian;
2009b. 147p.
[27] Sunnanå K, Fossheim M, van der Meeren GI, editors. Forvaltningsplan
Barentshavet—rapport fra overvåkingsgruppen 2009. Bergen: Fisken og havet,
særnr. 1b–2009. In Norwegian. 125p.
[28] Stiansen JE, Korneev O, Titov O, Arneberg P., editors. Filin A, Hansen JR, Høines
Å, Marasaev S., co-editors. Joint Norwegian–Russian environmental status
2008. Report on the Barents Sea ecosystem part II—complete report. IMR/
PINRO joint report series 2009(3); 2009. 375p.
[29] Ottersen G, van der Meeren, GI., editors. Helhetlig forvaltningsplan for
Norskehavet: Vurdering av kunnskapsstatus og kunnskapsbehov. Bergen:
Havforskningsinstituttet. In Norwegian; 2008. 106p.
[30] Anon. (Østbye, C, Postmyr E., editors). Helhetlig forvaltningsplan for Norske-
havet. Konsekvenser av samlet påvirkning på Norskehavet ved dagens
aktiviteter og i 2025 (Report on cumulative environmental effects in the
Norwegian Sea). In Norwegian.; 2008. 144 p.