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