In a consultation memo in spring 2022, the Ministry of Climate and Environment has proposed that coral reefs should be defined as a “selected topographic feature” under the Nature Diversity Act. The consultation has been followed up by the Seafood Companies, Seafood Norway and others who have prepared consultation statements. These are on the Ministry’s website.
Here, I will comment on the question of what this proposal might mean - and justify my scepticism towards it. In my opinion, this is an example of a negative development in the public management of sea areas. It is a one-sided development where consideration of isolated individual interests is allowed to be decisive for the management of the sea areas. At the same time, the authorities are failing to develop the more general measures that are necessary for the successful management of the sea areas as a societal resource.
The current proposal to define coral reefs as a special type of topographic feature has unclear consequences. In practice, the proposal means that coral reefs are included in the regulations on selected topographic features under Section 52 of the Nature Diversity Act. In the proposed regulations, coral reefs are defined as colonies of living and dead parts of reef-building coral animals that cover at least 25 m2. The colonies must cover at least 75% of this area.
The consequence of being faced with such a coral reef is that this must be emphasised in decisions that may affect the coral reef; among other things, the location of aquaculture facilities and fisheries installations in the vicinity. There is no protection, nor is there an absolute ban on business. In practice, the consequence in the first instance will probably be that it will be easier for the environmental authorities to refuse the establishment of aquaculture facilities and other measures that require permission near coral reefs. However, the legal access for refusal will hardly be greater than that which already follows from the Pollution Act. It is therefore more important that the inclusion of coral reefs in the rules on special topographic features creates a potential for the development of new and stricter rules through the regulatory body managed by the Ministry of Climate and Environment.
The consultation documents show that there is currently insufficient knowledge about coral reefs and how other activities in the sea affect them. Based on what is stated in the consultation documents, I agree with the Seafood Companies that the knowledge base is too poor for coral reefs to be given the special status contained in the regulations on selected topographic features. It is too early to conclude that this is an appropriate measure. This applies in particular because this is not a “trial scheme”. If coral reefs are included in the regulations on selected topographic features, there is no reason to believe that they will be removed if further knowledge acquisition shows that it was not a good idea.
In general, the situation is that we are in the midst of a knowledge development where we are gaining ever better knowledge of the marine environment and the ecological processes that take place there. This is of course very positive. However, such a development should be followed up with appropriate administrative measures that ensure the best possible management of the marine environment.
New knowledge about coral reefs is a typical example of knowledge development that the administration lacks appropriate means to deal with. New knowledge can, for example, create conflicts in relation to the location of farming facilities, as we have seen several examples of. In the current administrative regime, the measures will be refusal of a site application - or eventual loss of permission. However, the conflict can often be resolved by a limited relocation of a facility. Today’s regulations mean that such a move is very time-consuming, as completely new permits must be obtained, which must go through full case processing. Here, there is a need for more flexible solutions where business actors and authorities in such situations can more easily discuss the best location for a farming facility that comes into conflict with “newly discovered” environmental interests. In most cases, it is possible to secure environmental interests without incurring large losses to the fish farming business.
In my opinion, it is therefore unfortunate that the Ministry of Climate and Environment contributes to complicating the management of marine areas through its proposal to make coral reefs a selected topographic feature. There is every reason to support the development of knowledge when it comes to coral reefs in particular and the marine environment in general, but the development should entail more coordinated regulation that gives the authorities the opportunity to find solutions that provide the best possible use of land. We don't need more legislation that gives sector authorities the opportunity to “veto” business that could be detrimental to the business they are supposed to enforce. We need more legislation that makes it easier to manage the sea areas as a common societal resource.