Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of
Agenda
21
to
Act
on
Environmental
Issues
in
Norway
LX5103 Environmental Law Assignment
10th October 2011
A0066563Y
" The promises made at Rio can only be fulfilled in time to secure our future if
governments are inspired and pressured by their citizens - by people willing to
support difficult decisions and to demand change"
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Introductory message to Agenda for Change, Centre
for our Common Future, Geneva, 1993.
A0066563Y
Introduction
Looking back at the entire Rio process, now almost 20 years after and with the
ongoing battle against business-as-usual attitudes, climate change deniers, fossil fuel
lobbyists and crumbling international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol, the Rio
documents stands out as an incredible achievement by the world leaders and citizens.
It is therefore somewhat surprising that the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem
Brundtland, who was attending the Earth Summit, returned from the meetings
disappointed.1 There had been a strong drive in Norway before the meetings and
expectations were high. Preparatory meetings were held, including the Bergen
Conference in 1990 where the precautionary principle was added to the sustainable
development principles and later included in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21.2
Before Rio, Norway already had existing policies, regulations and legislation in place
for some of the sections of Agenda 21, such as integrating sustainability concerns into
environmental protection, ensure proper waste management, protecting the cultural
heritage, strengthening the role of woman, youth and workers, and increasing
assistance to developing countries.2
This paper will describe the most pressing environmental issues in Norway and
evaluate how they can be addressed under Agenda 21 and by other environmental
laws. The implementation of Agenda 21 in Norway will also be reviewed.
1
Lafferty
WM,
Nordskag
M,
Aakre
HA.
Realizing
Rio
in
Norway.
Evaluative
Studies
of
Sustainable
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud
A0066563Y
A0066563Y
6
See
www.environment.no
a
MoE
website
7
Bellona:
rsrapport
2010,
www.bellona.org
8
WHO:
http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise
9
OECD
in
Figures:
http://www.oecdobserver.org
10
http://www.klif.no/no/english/english
/
11 Simonsen, S.: Electronic recycling done right, The Environmental Magazine, 6 June 2010, see
www.emagazine.com/archive/5187
A0066563Y
emissions, there is need for a review of existing transport systems and for more
effective design and management of traffic and transport systems (Agenda 21,
section 9.13).12 The promotion of national development action programmes for
urban air pollution and indoor air pollution is also particularly relevant and is set out
in chapter 6, section 6.41 of Agenda 21.12 Thousands of residents in the cities of
Bergen and Trondheim are affected by periods of severe air pollution mainly from
high volume of traffic and poor road planning. Therefore, both chapter 8 and 10
which aims at bringing consideration for the environment into the decision-making
process and land-use planning are important for policymakers and local authorities
too.
The problem of transboundary air pollution and the resulting acidification of water
courses are thoroughly addressed in chapter 9, section D on transboundary
atmospheric pollution, and to some degree in chapter 18 on the protection of
freshwater resources where transboundary air pollution is problematic. The general
objective set out in chapter 18 is to make certain that adequate supplies of
water of good quality are maintained for the entire population of this planet,
while preserving the hydrological, biological and chemical functions of
ecosystems.12 Further, deposits of chemicals such as mercury in lakes and rivers
are to some extent addressed by chapter 19 (management of toxic chemicals) and 20
(management of hazardous wastes). The long range effects of pollution mentioned in
section 19.2 can be reduced if point sources in relevant countries are controlled.
Although there are only low levels of radiaoctive pollution remaining in Norway from
the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, chapter 22 remains highly relevant for Norway, being
in such proximity of Russia. The country is therefore an active partner in Russias
nuclear programme and assists with risk assessments and funding of maintenance
programmes.13 Agenda 21s chapter 34 on Transfer of environmentally sound
technology also covers aspects of this cooperation.
Norway is mostly a recipient of transboundary air pollution, but we cannot neglect the
high levels of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industries. The Minister
of Environment from 1990-1997, Thorbjrn Bentsen was criticised for his comments
in Parliament during a climate debate: We can turn off all the lights in Norway, stop
all the cars, close down all the factories and we still wont make more than a
minuscule contribution to reversing global greenhouse emissions.14 Although
Norways contribution to global emissions is only 0.3% this goes directly against the
Polluter Pays principle and the democratic responsibility to share the burden of
sustainable development.14 Chapter 9 points to sustainable development for energy
12
Agenda
21:
United
Nations,
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm
13
See
Norwegian
Radiation
Protection
Agency
http://www.nrpa.no/
14
See
the
Norwegian
Ministry
of
Foreign
affairs:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud
A0066563Y
development and efficiency has had an impact on the oil and gas industry in Norway
which is working on technology to reduce emissions and clean up production as well
as contributing to carbon offsetting programs and other CSR initiatives.15
Loss of biodiversity
Chapter 15 in Agenda 21 is dedicated entirely to conservation of biological diversity
and points at human activity as the main cause of the decline in biodiversity.
International cooperation, national action and local participation are essential to
observe, study and evaluate biodiversity to restore richness. As mentioned in chapter
9, committed international cooperation is necessary to reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, in the same way sulphur and nitrogen emissions were successfully
regulated to ensure less acidification of land and water. On a national level, Norway
needs to aim at implementing factors such as demographic dynamics and land-use
planning addressed in chapter 5 and chapter 7 of Agenda 21. Protection of the oceans
and freshwater sources (chapters 17 and 18) is also the responsibility of the
government and industries, although transboundary pollution needs to be dealt with
through international channels. Local Agenda 21 which has been widely implemented
in Norway is also a useful tool to protect biodiversity, in particular to educate the
public who can mobilize their local government and industries to action.
Noise
Noise is affecting more than 1 in 10 residents living in Norway. Thus, it is an
important environment issue that Agenda 21 is addressing as part of the section on
environmental health programmes aimed at reducing health risks (section 6.41). The
government has tried to reduce the problem but is working against an uphill battle
since the volume of traffic is increasing. Although the primary concern of section 7.48
is reducing energy consumption in transport it also describes noise arising from poor
traffic management as one of many nuisances to be dealt with under sustainable
transport systems. Perhaps aspects of the root cause of increased transport ought to be
examined, such as unsustainable consumption, as it is addressed in chapter 4 of
Agenda 21: Changing Consumption Patterns.
Waste
The first thought that comes to mind in the context of waste generation is that Norway
is a typical use and discard society. Chapter 4 of Agenda 21 states that deterioration
of the global environment is caused by industrialised countries unsustainable
consumption and production.16 Strong words are used in section 4.3: [This] is a
matter of grave concern, aggravating poverty and imbalances.16 Thus, the
government, industries and consumers must raise the efforts to increase life cycles
and cradle to cradle design of products, reducing the amount of waste and ensure
proper handling and recycling. In particular, chapter 30 in Agenda 21 stresses that
governments should strengthen businesses and industries to clean up their production
and reducing wastes, including toxic and hazardous substances. At the other end of
the life cycle comes disposal by consumers. In the example of wastes from electrical
and electronic equipment (WEEE), a large portion of global WEEE ends up on
landfills in developing countries, such as Ghana. This not only destroys their
environment, but children from poor families are putting their health and lives in
15
U.T.O.G
(Utdanning
til
Olje
og
Gassindustrien):
www.utog.no
16
Agenda
21:
United
Nations,
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm
A0066563Y
serious danger by extracting metals from the discarded equipment.17 Since Rio,
Norway has worked to reduce waste and today 78% of the total waste is recovered.18
Also, most of the hazardous waste is treated within the country with 11% being
exported to approved locations abroad. Less than 5% is handled in unknown ways.18
The trade in dangerous goods have been curbed by new laws, for example, the
number of carcinogenic compound that can be legally sold dropped from 3500 in
1988 to below 550 in 1995.19 Treatment of different types of wastes are widely
covered in chapters 19-22 of Agenda 21. However, for Norway which already has
good infrastructure and regulations in place to manage waste disposal, the challenge
remains to significantly reduce total waste production through a fundamental change
in consumption and production patterns.
A0066563Y
21
See
the
Norwegian
Ministry
of
Foreign
affairs:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud
22
See
www.regjeringen.no/ Norwegian Government Report 40 (1998-1999)
23
See
www.miljofyrtarn.no
A0066563Y
regulations/acts.html?id=704
26
See
www.klif.no/no/english/english/Legislation/
27 See www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/acts-and-
regulations/acts.html?id=704
A0066563Y
10
A0066563Y
Conclusion
Norway has a good track record of cleaning up industries and taking care of its natural
resources, but there are still environmental issues that are hard to tackle. Air pollution
in Norway is interlinked with the demands for domestic economic growth as well as
transboundary pollution involving the international arena. The continuous increase in
transportation volumes not only leads to more air pollution problems in cities, but also
unhealthy noise levels for the population. Factors such as climate change and
pollution is affecting the biodiversity and this are also issues that are difficult to
address, whereas the problem of waste is an issue that can be effectively regulated and
monitored at the end of the pipe. Agenda 21 is a powerful tool for addressing these
environmental issues, ranging from providing action plans for local authorities in
most Norwegian counties, to increasing Norways pressure on foreign countries that
cause transboundary pollution.
During the 1980s and 1990s there was a strong drive for change to incorporate
sustainable development in Norway and it is therefore difficult to attribute policy
implementations to specific contents of the Rio Documents. However, the desire for
incorporating the pressing issues addressed in those documents was evident, and the
influence between Agenda 21 and Norway went both ways.
Although Norway is a leading country in development assistance, carbon offsetting
and recycling efforts, there is still a need for a fundamental change in the
individualistic materialism and energy intensive lifestyles that comes with wealth.
Thus, it is not necessarily the peoples conviction or the legal framework that
represent the greatest challenge in Norway, but to change the culture of a typical
developed country in which unsustainable consumption forms the baseline for
economic growth and prosperity.
11
A0066563Y
Bibliography
Dannoritzer, C.: Pyramids of Waste Documentary, Article Z Media Production,
(2010)
Agenda 21: United Nations, www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm
Bellona: rsrapport 2010, www.bellona.org
Climate and Pollution Agency, www.klif.no
Lafferty WM, Nordskag M, Aakre HA. Realizing Rio in Norway. Evaluative Studies
of Sustainable Development. ProSus, Oslo (2002)
Miljfyrtrn www.miljofyrtarn.no. Last accessed 6 Oct. 2011
Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority:
http://www.nrpa.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=240. Last accessed 6 Oct. 2011
OECD in Figures:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/search.php?_FB[q]=waste&SUBMIT[submit2]=S
earch (2005)
Simonsen, S.: Electronic recycling done right, The Environmental Magazine, 6 June
2010, www.emagazine.com/archive/5187.
SOE (State of the Environment Norway) under MoE: www.environment.no. Last
accessed 6 Oct. 2011
The Norwegian Constitution www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-theStorting/The-Constitution/The-Constitution/
The 2010 Norwegian Red List for Species, Norwegian Biodiversity Information
Centre, 2010.
The Norwegian Governments website, Long term programmes:
http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fin/dok/regpubl/stmeld
The Norwegian Ministry of the Environments website:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md.html
The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign affairs guidelines and brochures: Norways
implementation of agenda 21: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud
U.T.O.G (Utdanning til Olje og Gassindustrien): www.utog.no. Last accessed 6 Oct.
2011
WHO: http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-andhealth/noise
12