Iceland and Norway – Neighbours in the High North

Check against delivery

Dear Ólafur Hardason, Dean of the School of Social Sciences,
Students, friends,

Kæru vinir
Ágætu námsmenn

Back in August, when I started looking forward to this visit to Iceland, and to meeting you here at the university, the world looked quite different.

We were watching the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing on TV; we were looking forward to sporting highlights and highlights of China.

Then we became deeply absorbed in the shocking events unfolding in Georgia. On 8 August, two messages were sent out to the world: the emergence of China on the world stage; and the return of armed power politics in Europe.

Both events will have profound implications in the years to come.

Then suddenly, the US financial markets began their rapid downward spiral. We were shocked – and yet not so shocked. “We saw it coming,” many said. “It was only a matter of time.” Then the financial crisis hit Europe, and we were taken by storm, literally. We have all felt the implications. And nowhere in Europe have the consequences been tougher than here in Iceland.

Now, at the beginning of November, the international backdrop for my visit to Reykjavik is very different from what it was in August.

But before we start to reflect together on what has changed, let me state one fact that has not changed, and that is Norway’s close and deep relations with Iceland.

Iceland is Norway’s friend, ally and neighbour across the sea.

We have similar geography. We share a common history and heritage.

We share common resources. We must meet the major political and economic challenges together.

We share a common future. This is why so many Norwegians are following Iceland’s situation so closely today. This is why the Norwegian Government is giving this clear message: when a brother is in need, we will stand up for him.

In my discussions with Prime Minister Haarde and other ministers earlier today, we discussed the financial crisis, which concerns us all. Certainly, the crisis will have a profound and lingering impact on the world economy. It will also have serious consequences for many societies, in both developed and developing countries.

Right now, the priority is to bring back order and stability to currencies, exchange rates and national accounts.

This crisis is said to have been the first real “internet crisis”. The speed of the internet accelerated trends and events to a dramatic level. At the same time – and let us not forget this – the internet also helped the authorities to realise how interdependent we all are, and how important it is to seek coordinated remedies.

But then, as the dust settles, we also need to engage in profounder discussions. On how all this was allowed to happen. On how recklessness in the financial marketplace swept away the hard-won gains of ordinary people. On how public and democratic control of institutions had been sidelined and even silenced as “turbo capitalism” raced to a seemingly never ending peak. Until it all crashed and many ordinary, decent people were left with the bill.

For years, an overly zealous part of the private sector told governments to stay away. Now – when so much is in shambles – the task of restoring order and bailing out banks goes back to those very governments.

We will need a thorough discussion on responsibilities, remedies and options for creating a much safer system. Risk should still be welcomed and encouraged, but never again should we allow a system where the risk-taking of a very few puts the future for very many in danger.

In Norway, we too feel the consequences. No one in this global economy remains shielded.

This is a particularly difficult time for Iceland. Your government will have to make some tough decisions. Norway, as your close neighbouring country, friend and ally, stands ready to support Iceland’s effort to stabilise public finances, the krona, and to help to restore trust and confidence both within and outside the country.

Of course, it was no natural disaster that struck Iceland. It was a global financial storm that hit a vulnerable and exposed financial sector. All of this was man-made. And men and women have to take responsibility. I am certain that Iceland will stand up to that test.

We welcome Iceland’s decision to enter into an agreement with the IMF on a stabilisation programme. It was not an easy decision. But I am confident that this will increase stability and confidence in the Icelandic economy.

It will also allow other governments and central banks to support the stabilisation efforts. Norway has been ready to join this effort from day one, in fact months before the storm erupted, the Bank of Norway opened new credit lines to the Central Bank of Iceland.

At the Nordic Council meeting last week, the Nordic prime ministers confirmed their support for the IMF programme. A Nordic working group, which will respond to the situation in close contact with Icelandic authorities, has been established.

We now need to maintain a very open and frank dialogue to map out the needs, to understand the consequences and to tailor the right responses. I am confident that you will succeed – that we will succeed together.

*****

Let me then return to the main theme for my address – the High North. As you see, I have brought a map with me, the globe as seen from above, from the north, as a general overview.

When I travel to other capitals I travel east, west and south. But to Reykjavik, I travel north and west.

Over the past few years, we have witnessed a marked increase in international interest in this region.

Well, what region? The High North in the widest sense, includes the whole circumpolar Arctic –the top of the world.

Why is the High North commanding our attention? Here are a few powerful reasons:

Firstly – resources: the global demand for energy, the prospects of new transportation routes, and improved access to the region’s resources. And the importance of the key renewable resource – fish.

Secondly – the alarming evidence of climate change and damage to the environment that is particularly apparent in the Arctic. Iceland and Norway have front row seats to these dramatic developments. And one immediate consequence will be the opening up of new sailing routes from Europe to Asia, through the Northwest Passage, the Northeast Passage or even straight across the North Pole.

Thirdly – we have seen a growing interest among countries in the region in matters of sovereignty and jurisdiction. One even planted a flag on the seabed of the North Pole as a demonstration – well, it is hard to know why – of its ambitions.

And fourthly – as we all witness almost daily, the increasing presence and growing strength of Russia which is rising from its turbulent Soviet past.

*****

There are six important areas where Iceland and Norway should work together in the years ahead:

• Sustainable management of fish stocks and other living marine resources;
• Nordic cooperation. New relevance;
• Credible security in the North Atlantic area, by actively involving our Allies and promoting the role of NATO;
• Integration of Russia in all relevant structures of binding international cooperation;
• Strengthened research efforts in the Arctic region to find ways of combating climate change at the global level; and finally
• Ensuring that our future economic activities in the region are environmentally sound.

I will, therefore, point to the need for more knowledge in a number of fields. Knowledge is at the core of our High North efforts. We need to build experience and expertise so that we can show the way, utilise existing opportunities and discover new ones. We must invest and share knowledge in such diverse areas as the management of fish stocks, combating climate change and green energy efforts.

Here you can play your part, and the invitation is hereby given to you.

*****

The good relations between Iceland and Norway are of long standing – ever since Flóki Vilgerdarson [Raven-Flóki] left Ryvarden (near present-day Haugesund) in Norway more than 1100 years ago.

Your poets have written Norway’s history. Your footballers and handball players are our champions. And your bands and musicians – Sigur Rós, Björk, and many, many others – rule the clubs and the stadium stages around the world.

We need people who lead the way. The other day, I was reading about Hannes Hafstein, your first Minister under home rule (1904–1918), who brought about impressive improvements to communications in Iceland  – bridges, roads and even a railway.

But perhaps one of Hafstein’s greatest achievements was to bring Iceland in contact with the rest of the world through the telegraph. According to the book I read, these plans were realised in 1905, with the signing of a contract with the Great Nordic Telegraph Company for a cable to be stretched from Scotland via the Faroe Islands to the eastern part of Iceland.

Just think about that – one hundred years ago – installing a telegraph cable down on the seabed, hundreds of kilometres below the sea, while we still find it incredible today to think of the gas pipelines in the North Sea. Well, there was plenty of protest back in 1905, and more than 300 farmers rode to Reykjavik in order to stop the project.

Over the next few years, telegraph wires were put up all around the country, bringing untold benefits for private homes and for business communities. The telegraph and later the telephone soon won universal approval and the protest was forgotten.

*****

In the midst of a crisis, let us always remember this: we can rise to the occasion if we pull together. We can turn the tide if we emphasise the need for collective action and collective responsibilities. We can reap new benefits for all if we share the fruits of progress in an equitable fashion.

Norway and Iceland have done that before. Now, it is time to do it again.

******

The rest of the Minister’s speech was based
on the following talking points (check against delivery)

 

Key elements of Norway’s High North Policy

During the Cold War the High North was just a frozen area. It is still pretty cold, but it is getting alarmingly warmer in a physical sense.

It is an area where we need to take a broad and generational perspective. Our policy must be based on predictability and knowledge.

I think we still have to update our mental maps of what the High North entails in terms of challenges and opportunities, and what it means for Norway and Iceland, and for our relations with our other neighbours, partners and allies.

Upon taking office in 2005, the Norwegian Government declared that the High North would be Norway’s most important strategic priority area in the years ahead. This goal was elaborated in our High North Strategy, which was presented two years ago, and you’ll find it on the Foreign Ministry’s website in English and Norwegian.

Its objectives can be summed up as: promoting presence, activity, knowledge and international cooperation in the High North. It involves both domestic and foreign policy, and we are implementing the strategy along a number of tracks. One of these is an intensified contact with the countries in the region – and Iceland is indeed among them.

I have given emphasis to establishing what we call “High North dialogues” with our Nordic partners, with Russia, the United States, Canada, Germany, France, other countries in Europe and the EU institutions. And my meetings in Reykjavik today can be seen in this context.

From day one, my goal has been to raise the profile of Norway’s High North policy in talks with colleagues and in regional and international forums. It is, some times, a real challenge.

As you know, knowledge of High North is not always very impressive further south. As a German professor once told me in Berlin, “I thought Schleswig-Holstein was the High North!”

To address challenges as well as opportunities we need political visions and ambitions. In the years to come, my task as a politician – and your task as future politicians, lawyers, scientists, civil servants, journalists or teachers – will be to manage all these dimensions in a responsible fashion.

*****

One of the dimensions is quite frightening. The Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than experts predicted only a few years ago. The changes are of dramatic and historic proportions. The truth is inconvenient.

To many of us, the transformation is best illuminated by the plight of the polar bear, and its struggle to survive as the ice recedes. We have all seen the famous National Geographic photographs of lonely polar bears; they still appear in the newspapers almost every week.

Another species that is severely affected – but not so often referred to – is the ivory gull. The number of ivory gulls living in the Canadian Arctic has been reduced by 80 per cent over the last 20 years. Studies in the Norwegian–Russian Arctic have also found smaller populations than previously.

The Norwegian Polar Institute has raised strong concerns about the pollutant levels in these birds. They are dependent on the ice for finding food, and, through the food chain, they have become carriers of pollutants originating from afar.

What we should realise – and the point I want to make here – is this: that the ivory gull and the polar bear play a similar role to the canaries once used in the coal mines in the United Kingdom. Do they have enough “oxygen”? Do they have the conditions they need to survive?

Meeting the global challenge of climate change must be our first priority. I cannot at all share the “delight” of those who welcome the melting of the ice cap because they think this will be beneficial for the economy. It isn’t. Climate change is the “greatest and
widest-ranging market failure ever seen” to quote the Stern Review.

Global warming, if it continues unchecked, is a looming disaster for the whole world. And it will be a real disaster, in a way that the financial crisis is not. We know that a one-metre rise in sea levels – which many scientists forecast could soon become inevitable – will cause serious flooding of major cities. The global consequences will be so destructive and destabilising that the effects of the financial crisis will pale into insignificance in comparison. That is if we do not act on a global scale.

The Arctic Council – which brings the five Nordic countries together with Russia, Canada and the United States – has monitored and led research on climate change in the region, and has provided important input to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

It is vital that we – indeed that you who are studying and working at universities and research institutes – continue to learn about the causes and consequences of climate change in the High North.

I mentioned the rich resources of this region.

This morning, Norway and Iceland signed a bilateral agreement on cross-boundary petroleum resources. The backdrop is Iceland’s planned activity in the north-eastern reaches of its shelf. Once again we found common ground by working together, taking the time needed and focussing on mutual advantages.

I welcome this development and look forward to cooperating with Iceland in this field in the future.

Looking ahead to future oil and gas activities in offshore areas, we always underline that exploration and production must be in accordance with the highest standards for health, safety and the environment. There is no room for compromise there.

Norway’s approach is to take a cautious, step-by-step approach to the development of our petroleum sector in the High North – precisely as we have been doing in the Norwegian Sea since the 1960s.

In 2006, we adopted an Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea–Lofoten Area. Its overriding concern is to ensure that the development of the energy sector does not take place at the expense of the fisheries.

*****

I mentioned the fisheries. Cooperation with Russia is a key element for us here and in our High North efforts in general. Norway and Russia have a proud tradition of sound management of the important fishery resources in the north, including the North-East Arctic cod. We also cooperate closely with Iceland with regard to straddling stocks in the North-Atlantic.

In other waters fisheries management has not been as successful.

Therefore, the Norwegian–Russian cooperation on fisheries management will remain very high on our priority list. We have achieved remarkable results in an intensified cooperation with Russia over the past couple of years, not least in combating illegal fishing. Our goal is to continue to preserve the stocks in the Barents Sea and the North Atlantic.

Moreover, Norway and Iceland will continue to play a leading role in the management of living marine resources. Our fish stocks are well managed and together we have influenced EU resource management towards sustainability.

Norway and Iceland also stand together in promoting a scientifically based approach to the exploitation of marine mammals in the IWC and in the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, NAMMCO.

In addition, we have been pioneers in the fight against illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) catches in home waters, as well as regionally and globally. In 2005, it was estimated that around 25 per cent of all cod caught in the Barents Sea – every fourth fish that is – was illegal.

We have brought these figures down. Through a comprehensive effort by the Norwegian Government, agreements have been entered into with European coastal states. And coastguard inspections on both the Norwegian and the Russian side have been strengthened.

As a result, the illegal fishing of cod was reduced by more than 50 per cent in two years – from 100 000 tonnes in 2005 to 40 000 tonnes in 2007. This is equivalent to a saving of 1.2 billion Norwegian kroner.

The Barents Sea is one sea and it is one ecosystem. We have been fishing in these waters for centuries, and we will continue to do so.

*****

Exploration and production of petroleum is one of the other main focus areas in the Arctic.

The first major Norwegian field development in the Barents Sea – the Snøhvit oil field off western Finnmark – is a relatively small project. Nevertheless, it has had a significant positive impact on the communities onshore. So far, most of the activity has taken place in the Norwegian Sea, but there is also major potential on the Russian side. There are huge opportunities for cooperation.

The Norwegian town of Kirkenes – where you find street signs in both Norwegian and Russian – is the closest harbour to the Shtokman gas field in the Barents Sea. Shtokman is a Russian field, and the Russians are intent on proceeding on their own terms.

Inevitably though, such major developments as the Stockman field, where Norway’s StatoilHydro holds a 24 per cent share in the development project, will bring about significant changes in the whole Barents region.

My point to you is this: both Norway and Iceland are well placed along important transportation routes.

Take another look at the map. The knowledge-based and innovative maritime industries in Norway, Iceland and Russia can expect to benefit in terms of construction activity, supply and procurement, transportation, expertise, and so on.

However, developing the northern energy province is a tremendously expensive and technologically demanding task. It will be a long-term project. As I have said, we must have a generational perspective.

And we should respect that. Nevertheless, I have raised the issue of infrastructure in my discussions with my Russian colleagues. Is the infrastructure along the coast able to support the extensive offshore activities that are expected to develop in this area? With increased energy production comes an increase in transport, which will need careful management.

What if 3 000 Russian tankers from the inner parts of the Barents Sea start passing along the coast of Northern Norway every year? Their distance from the shore will be significant for us. Their distance from the Icelandic shores will be significant for you.

We have taken this issue to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which in 2006 adopted a mandatory routing scheme that ensures that ships sail further north from the Finnmark coast – the northernmost Norwegian county. This illustrates the fact that we really do need the IMO to regulate activities in this region. In other words, we need global rules.

The increase in traffic we are witnessing today is probably only a prelude to what will come as the Arctic ice continues to melt.

Container ships travelling between Rotterdam and Yokohama in Japan via the Northeast Passage will reduce the length of their journey by 40 per cent. Taking the Northwest Passage would give a reduction of 25 per cent.

And if ships are able to sail straight through the Arctic, the distance will be even shorter. The first container ships might be able to cross the Arctic Basin in the summer of 2009 or 2010. If so, the volume of traffic is likely to increase quite rapidly.

How should we address this new situation? There will be drifting ice in these waters, and in the winter it will be dark day and night. How will we deal with the accidents that may occur? How will we ensure search and rescue capacity?

What kind of logistical opportunities and challenges does all of this pose? What is the potential for the county of Finnmark and the Norwegian coastline – or for the Icelandic coastline – as a platform for serving the vast seas of the far north?

Both Norway and Iceland must raise these questions and be ready find answers.

The safety of the new sea routes was also raised at the high-level meeting between the five coastal states bordering on the Arctic Ocean that took place in Illulissat, Greenland in May 2008. There was a clear understanding of the need for enhanced search and rescue capabilities and capacity around the Arctic Ocean. Cooperation and sharing of information will be vital for addressing these challenges.

Of no less importance, there was also agreement that the Law of the Sea provides the basic foundation for resolving differences. The Arctic Ocean is not “a legal vacuum” in need of international regulation. We already have the necessary international legal instruments to solve outstanding jurisdictional questions regarding these areas in an orderly way.

This is very promising, but a lot of discussion will still be needed before we have an adequate traffic management scheme in the region.

The bottom line is that we will need effective and enlightened cooperation between all states concerned. I believe we have the institutions we need. The Arctic Council and the Barents Cooperation are two key bodies for us to turn to and develop further.

The issue of traffic brings me to a concrete example of an important initiative –Barentswatch – a pioneering project that is being run by the Norwegian research institute SINTEF.

The aim of the project is to link civil and military capacity to monitor the region and link up real-time knowledge and photos of the situation.

In the event of an accident, what ships are in the best position to provide help? Where are the closest helicopter bases? What is the situation as regards wind and currents?

If successful, the project may be expanded to include Iceland and Denmark and have links to the United States, Canada and Russia. At a later stage, it may be extended to the Baltic Sea, where traffic is even denser.

This scheme is going to require extensive efforts and funding, but we need to pursue it. Maybe one day we will have a joint rescue coordination centre for the Barents Sea and for the seas even further north?

*****

One of today’s global dilemmas is that the world will not be able to manage without oil, gas and coal in the foreseeable future.

But it should be possible to significantly reduce the carbon emissions stemming from the use of fossil fuel.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a priority area for research in both Iceland and Norway. We have already made progress. I have been informed about the geothermal power plant at Hellisheidi, and next time in Iceland I look forward to learn more about storing of CO2 in basaltic rock.

Iceland is richly endowed with renewable energy resources, including hydropower and geothermal power. Green energy will become a vitally important and profitable sector of the world economy in the years ahead, and Iceland and Norway are among the countries taking the lead.

*****

I have already referred to Norway’s neighbour Russia, and Russia is clearly one of the reasons why the High North is at the top of our policy agenda. Norway has been at peace with Russia for a thousand years, and we have managed our neighbourly relations in a responsible way during very different times.

We have been through some very demanding periods, and we may be entering new ones. This will require wisdom and steadfastness on our part – and on the part of our partners and allies.

What happened in Georgia this summer – and let me spend a few comments on this topic, I’m sure you have been discussing it a lot – clearly raises the issue of Russia’s relations with its neighbours. It raises the issue of Russia’s respect for international law.

I have made Norway’s position clear in multilateral forums such as NATO, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the UN – and together with Iceland and the other Nordic friends.

Both parties, including Georgia, bear responsibility for what happened. We see Russia’s military operation, its invasion far into Georgia as a clear breach of international law. It failed to use the toolbox that Europe has provided for resolving differences. Resorting to military force and attempting to change borders is not in accordance with the principles for how Europe should address such issues.

At the same time, we are making a huge mistake conceptually, I think, if we say that this was the start – or a sign – of a new Cold War. We were facing a complex situation. It might have been just as serious as the situations we faced during the Cold War, but it was different. And we have to analyse it.

In the Norwegian debate – and to some extent in the international debate, and perhaps also in the debate here in Iceland – some of the old arguments of the Cold War seemed to be taken out of the freezer and simply defrosted. These arguments are too simplistic.

Norway will maintain its policy of developing, strengthening and expanding its bilateral relations with Russia. It is our neighbour, and we are managing important resources and ecosystems together, as I have mentioned.

Besides, there is an ocean of difference between our relations during the Cold War and today. Here are some figures: in 1990, there were 3 000 border crossings at Storskog border station in Finnmark. In 2007 the number was 105 000. Contacts, networks, joint projects and investments matter. They make a positive contribution to the way we are working with Russia in Europe.

*****

Meanwhile, it goes without saying that NATO is Norway’s anchor – as well as Iceland’s – as regards security. It is of paramount importance to maintain NATO and to keep it relevant, despite the fact that we are in a different situation today than we were during the Cold War.

Norway still depends on NATO to balance its relations in the north. The key in this respect is Article 5 – the collective security guarantee and the lifeline of our security.

At the same time, many of the future challenges in the north will not be threats to Norway’s or Iceland’s security in the traditional meaning. These will be day-to-day difficulties that arise because we are neighbours and are engaged in a great number of different activities.

Let me illustrate my point. Two hours after I took office as Foreign Minister in October 2005, the Russian trawler Elektron escaped with Norwegian inspectors on board after having been seized on suspicion of illegal fishing in the Barents Sea.

We had to deal with the Russians in the way we are used to. We had to point out our responsibility as the coastal state, and emphasise our procedures for inspecting fishing operations. We had to do what we have done before when necessary, we had to stand tall.

There are now many different security issues that both Norway and Iceland need to deal with on a daily basis.

Norwegian Rear Admiral Trond Grytting, who is Commander at the North Norway Headquarters, put it this way during a briefing: “Yesterday we were faced with one big military threat. Today we are confronting ten to fifteen important risk factors.”

He explained that some of them are military, but many are linked to transport, energy, the environment, potential nuclear accidents, migration and climate change.

This is a much wider range of issues than before, both for Norway and Iceland, and it is going to require the continuous development of a broader web of modern security.

*****

Since I became Foreign Minister three years ago, I have been struck by the way our European High North perspective has merged with the broader Arctic perspective.

I mentioned the meeting in Illulisat, Greenland, in May that confirmed the Arctic coastal states’ commitment to the Law of the Sea as the key point of departure for how we deal with our responsibilities.

Another important development – that I’d like to mention now before I conclude – is that the Nordic countries are working much more closely together on foreign policy issues in the far north.

Former Foreign Minister Thorvald Stoltenberg has been charged by the Nordic foreign ministers to map out what Nordic foreign policy and security cooperation might look like in a ten-year perspective.

I think there is great potential here, and I have already discussed these issues with my good colleague Ingibjörg Solrún several times. In December we will receive Stoltenberg’s report and then discuss it with our other Nordic colleagues.

The Nordic countries remain are our closest partners, with regard to values, law, civil society and social affairs, the economy and labour market, the environment and development cooperation. They are also our closest partners in international affairs, as in the United Nations, and in various settings such as in the High North.

However, for a long time the distinction between NATO membership and non-alignment meant that the close political dialogue and cooperation between Nordic countries did not extend into the sphere of security policy in the traditional sense.

One of the most remarkable changes in our region is that this barrier has now been overcome. The fact that security policy coordination was the first item on the agenda, when the Nordic Foreign Ministers met in Helsinki just a week ago, is a good illustration.

And I would like to underline that Iceland has in many ways been a catalyst of this development.

Iceland’s initiative to hold a NATO seminar here in Reykjavik on 29 January next year provides us with a timely and most welcome opportunity to discuss important security matters of the north.

It serves to stress the importance of the High North on the Alliance’s agenda. The NATO Defence College seminar the following day will be open to all who are interested, and will be a useful contribution to the public debate.

Realities have changed here in Iceland – as they did when the United States decided to pull out of Keflavik. But the pull-out triggered the development of stronger ties and closer cooperation between Iceland and Norway, and well as with others. Only last week, we held security policy consultations here in Reykjavik. And our aircraft are now using Iceland as a basis for exercises.

We look forward to participating in more exercises in Iceland and further developing the cooperation between our coastguards and on the training of radar operators and aircraft controllers.

We are pleased to provide refuelling facilities for Icelandic helicopters on Jan Mayen, and we are interested in the possibility of jointly acquiring new search and rescue helicopters.

We also welcome the way in which Denmark and other NATO allies have been included in the collective efforts to meet Iceland’s security needs. This testifies to the enduring solidarity at the Nordic level, and among NATO countries.

The signing of the Icelandic–Norwegian memorandum of understanding on security policy cooperation last year was an important step. We are facing a broad range of common challenges in the High North, and cooperation in such areas as maritime traffic surveillance, search and rescue at sea and protecting the environment is vital.

So, lesson one: we can only meet these new security challenges together. And lesson two: the scope for common Nordic efforts is now greatly increased.

Personally, I have a strong preference for frameworks involving all five Nordic countries. But with this as our solid foundation we can also explore other formats. This philosophy has led Norway to develop cooperation with Iceland and Denmark on security challenges in the Northern Atlantic, and with Sweden and Finland on issues relating to our neighbourhood relations with Russia.

*****

Let me, again, sum up.

We have to strike the right balance between the various activities in the northern areas, including the interests of the fishery, energy, transport and security sectors.

I have touched upon six important areas where Iceland and Norway should work together in the years ahead:

• We should continue our efforts to ensure sustainable management of fish stocks and other living marine resources;
• We should strengthen the Nordic cooperation;
• We should maintain credible security in the North Atlantic area, by actively involving our Allies and promoting the role of NATO;
• We should continue our efforts to integrate Russia in all relevant structures of binding international cooperation; and
• Norway and Iceland should strengthen our research efforts in the Arctic region to find ways of combating climate change at the global level; and finally
• We must ensure that our future economic activities in the region are environmentally sound.

*****