Norway 2011.

203 Pages·2011·1.952 MB·English

by  OECD

OECD Environmental
Performance Reviews:
Norway 2011
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2011), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Norway 2011, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264098473-en
ISBN 978-92-64-09845-9 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-09847-3 (PDF)
Series: OECD Environmental Performance Reviews
ISSN 1990-0104 (print)
ISSN 1990-0090 (online)
Photo credits: Cover © Alexander Mertz/Fotolia.com and Ica/Fotolia.com.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2011
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and
multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable
acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should
be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be
addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC)
at [email protected].
FOREWORD
Foreword
S
ince the last Environmental Performance Review in 2001, Norway has promoted new policy
approaches that continue to challenge and inspire.
Norway’s sustainable development policy represents a unique approach for integrating
economic and environmental policies. Particular attention is paid to ensuring that the depletion of oil
and gas reserves contributes to increasing other forms of capital, especially human and natural
capital. Policy implementation is overseen by the Ministry of Finance, and is supported by a strong
analytical framework, and society’s broad participation in policy making.
By virtue of its membership in the European Economic Area Agreement, Norway has adopted
most EU environmental policies, and, with a few exceptions, is now fully compliant with their
provisions. In some areas, Norwegian requirements are more stringent. As a result of effective policy
implementation, the quality of Norway’s air and water is relatively high, and the number of species
threatened by extinction is relatively low.
Norway also plays a leading and innovative role in international environmental co-operation,
especially in the areas of climate change, marine environment protection and chemicals. These efforts
have been supported by substantial financial commitments: in recent years about one-quarter of
Norway’s bilateral ODA was allocated to the environment, which is high by OECD standards. This
contribution is supported by Norway’s official development assistance (ODA) which, at 1.06% of its
gross national income, is the second largest in OECD.
Norway’s continued environmental progress has been achieved against a backdrop of relatively
high economic growth. Norway’s pattern of economic development, including oil and gas
exploitation, which accounts for more than 20% of GDP, has intensified some environmental
pressures. For example, greenhouse gas emissions, municipal waste generation and pesticide use
have all increased. This increases the need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
environmental policies. This Review is intended to support Norway in this regard. It presents several
recommendations, including:
● Strengthen incentives for environmental protection in the main economic sectors by further
removing environmentally harmful subsidies and exemptions to environmentally-related taxes.
● Agree on clear, realistic and cost-effective domestic targets for mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions by 2020 and 2050, and strengthen the policies to meet these targets.
● Prevent and reduce waste generation more efficiently and effectively.
● Strengthen the management of protected areas, and promote environmentally sustainable
aquaculture.
● Further reduce the use of hazardous chemicals.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: NORWAY 2011 © OECD 2011 3
FOREWORD
This Review is the result of a rich and co-operative dialogue between Norway and other
members and observers of the OECD Working Party on Environmental Performance. It is meant to
provide support for Norway to further strengthen its environmental performance. Norway’s
experiences should also provide insights for policy makers in other countries about effective and
efficient approaches for achieving ambitious environmental policy objectives.
Angel Gurría
OECD Secretary-General
4 OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: NORWAY 2011 © OECD 2011
PREFACE
Preface
T
he principal aim of the OECD Environmental Performance Review programme is to help
member and selected partner countries to improve their individual and collective performance
in environmental management by:
● helping individual governments to assess progress in achieving their environmental
goals;
● promoting continuous policy dialogue and peer learning;
● stimulating greater accountability from governments towards each other and the public
opinion.
The present report reviews the environmental performance of Norway since the
previous review in2001. Progress in achieving domestic objectives and international
commitments provides the basis for assessing environmental performance. Such objectives
and commitments may be broad aims, qualitative goals, or quantitative targets. A
distinction is made between intentions, actions and results. Assessment of environmental
performance is also placed within the context of a country’s historical environmental
record, present state of the environment, physical endowment in natural resources, economic
conditions, and demographic trends.
The OECD is indebted to the Government of Norway for its co-operation in providing
information, for the organisation of the review mission to Norway (21-28March2010), and
for facilitating contacts both inside and outside governmental institutions.
Thanks are also due to all those who helped in the course of this review, to the
representatives of member countries participating in the OECD Working Party on
Environmental Performance, and especially to the examining countries: Ireland, Japan,
New Zealand and Sweden.
The team that prepared this Review comprised experts from reviewing countries:
Mr.Joseph Curtin (Ireland), Mr. Koji Shimada (Japan), Ms. Dana Peterson (New Zealand),
and Mr. Mark Marissink and Mr. Ulrik Westman (Sweden); members of the OECD
Secretariat: Mr.Gérard Bonnis, Mr. Brendan Gillespie, Mr. Krzysztof Michalak, Mr. Tappei
Tsutsumi and Ms. Frédérique Zegel. Nils-Axel Braathen contributed valuable input to
several chapters while Ms. Carla Bertuzzi, Ms. Sara Margaret Crohem, Mr.Shayne
MacLachlan and Ms. Sarah Sentier (OECD Secretariat) provided statistical and editorial
support during the preparation of the report.
The OECD Working Party on Environmental Performance discussed the draft
Environmental Performance Review of Norway at its meeting on 30November2010in
Paris, and approved the Assessment and Recommendations.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: NORWAY 2011 © OECD 2011 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Part I
Sustainable Development
Chapter 1. Developments since the2001 Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Key socio-economic developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Key environmental pressures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Framework for environmental and sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Chapter 2. Towards Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Assessment and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. The National Sustainable Development Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2. Economic recovery and environmental policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3. Linking the National Sustainable Development Strategy and key sectors . . . . . 43
4. Innovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Chapter 3. Implementation of Environmental Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Assessment and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
1. Environmental policy instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2. Environmental democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3. Review of progress in air and water management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Chapter 4. International Co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Assessment and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
1. Marine environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2. Bilateral and regional co-operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3. Official development assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: NORWAY 2011 © OECD 2011 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part II
Selected Issues
Chapter 5. Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Assessment and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2. Emission performance and Kyoto compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3. Policies and measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4. Post-Kyoto climate policy: 2020and2050. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5. Adaptation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6. Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Chapter 6. Nature and Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Assessment and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
1. Setting the scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2. Key issues in nature and biodiversity policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
3. Nature and biodiversity in sectoral policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4. Financing nature and biodiversity management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Chapter 7. Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Assessment and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
1. Policy and institutional setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
2. Trends in waste generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
3. Performance in managing non-hazardous waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4. Improving management of hazardous waste and substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
5. Contaminated sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Reference I.A. Selected Environmental Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Reference I.B. Selected Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Reference I.C. Selected Social Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Reference II. Actions taken on the2001 OECD recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Reference III. Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Reference IV. Selected Environmental Websites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
8 OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: NORWAY 2011 © OECD 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables
1.1. Socio-economic trends and environmental pressures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1. Sustainable development indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2. Revenue from environmentally related taxes, 2000-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3. Environmentally harmful subsidies, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.4. Energy end-use prices and taxes, 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.5. Energy and transport related taxes, rates and exemptions, 2000, 2009 and 2010. 46
2.6. Direct payments to farmers, 2000-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.7. Public expenditure on forestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.1. Atmospheric emissions by source, 2000and2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.1. Biological status of some of the most important species in Norwegian fisheries 103
5.1. Norway’s Kyoto inventory: projected emissions and acquisitions of permits. . . . . 121
5.2. GHG emission intensities of selected industries, 1990-2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.3. Policy measures, estimated effect on domestic emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.4. Norwegian CO tax rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
2
5.5. Emission trading sector, key figures2008-12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
7.1. Exports and imports of waste, 2002-09. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.2. Collection and recovery programmes for specific waste streams in Norway. . . 178
I.A. Selected Environmental Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
I.B. Selected Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
I.C. Selected Social Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Figures
1.1. Selected environmental indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.1. Total national capital and net national income, by category1986-2009. . . . . . 36
2.2. Indigenous production of energy, 1970-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.3. Total final consumption of energy, by sector, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4. Energy structure and intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.5. Transport sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.6. Road fuel prices and taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.7. Planned investment in roads and railways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.8. R&D on energy and environment, by sector, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.1. Emissions of conventional air pollutants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.2. Freshwater use, 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.3. Agriculture inputs and livestock density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.4. Population connected to public wastewater treatment plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.5. Water bodies classified as “not at risk” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.1. Discharges into the sea from offshore installations, 2000-08. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.2. Official development assistance, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.1. GHG emissions and energy supply per capita. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.2. Norwegian GHG emissions, 1990-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.3. CO2 emission intensity, 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.4. Trends in GHG emissions per sector, 1990-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.5. Average CO tax by sector, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
2
5.6. The marginal cost of CO emissions, 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
2
6.1. Threatened species, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.2. Protected areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: NORWAY 2011 © OECD 2011 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.3. Protected areas per vegetation zone, 1995-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.4. Total state expenditure on nature/biodiversity and outdoor recreation, 2002-10 159
6.5. State expenditure on selected nature/biodiversity and outdoor
recreation measures, 2002-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.1. Waste generation, trends, 1995-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.2. Waste generation, state, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.3. Municipal and household waste generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.4. Trends in waste treatment, 1995-2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
7.5. Waste in manufacturing industries, by type of treatment, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
7.6. Household waste, by type of treatment, 2000-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
7.7. Waste landfilling, 2001-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
This book has...
StatLinks2
A service that delivers Excel® files
from the printed page!
Look for the StatLinks at the bottom right-hand corner of the tables or graphs in this book.
To download the matching Excel® spreadsheet, just type the link into your Internet browser,
starting with the http://dx.doi.org prefix.
If you’re reading the PDF e-book edition, and your PC is connected to the Internet, simply
click on the link. You’ll find StatLinks appearing in more OECD books.
10 OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: NORWAY 2011 © OECD 2011