‘Oil versus fish’ in northern Norway: perspectives of the market, the law, and the citizen

Abstract

The coastal marine area constitutes one of humanity’s most important food baskets. However, food production must compete with other uses of scarce coastal resources, demanding high-stakes tradeoffs. This paper focuses on one particularly heated trade-off: that of ‘oil versus fish’ in the Lofoten area of northern Norway. Lofoten is an important spawning ground for numerous fish species, but also contains petroleum reservoirs estimated at 1,300 billion barrels. In order to highlight the complexity of this trade-off this paper examines it from three broad perspectives: the market, the law, and the citizen. From a market perspective, the ‘oil versus fish’ trade-off is relatively simple, and can be reduced to a single monetary measure. Petroleum resources are today worth more than fish, and have brought 2,800 billion NOK to the Norwegian state since 1970. From this market perspective the trade-off is framed as a technical issue: the best decision is to allow oil production in Lofoten, and trust in the ability of current and future technologies to deal with an oil spill. From the perspective of the law, the trade-off is governed by the ‘Barents Sea - Lofoten Management Plan’ of 2006, and its updated version of 2011. This policy document recommends a precautionary approach to petroleum activity in the Lofoten area, which extends to a moratorium on petroleum activities, and suggests standards for minimum environmental harm, such as the ‘zero discharge’ of chemical substances to sea. Finally, from the citizens’ perspectives, the trade-off is more complex. Indeed, it does not implicate only one measure, but as many measures as there are citizens concerned; ranging from culture, to identity, socio-economic development or the protection of nature’s intrinsic value. The best political decision is less straightforward as it needs to take into account these various arguments and measures. These three perspectives show the ‘oil versus fish’ trade-off as multifaceted, and in making a decision, all of these perspectives need to be taken into account.