Norway has more than 100,000 km of coastline and associated shore zone. The shore zone is an attractive area for development and infrastructure on the one hand, and recreation and protection of biological diversity on the other. The Norwegian Planning and Building Act contains a general ban on any building in the area between the ordinary high water mark and up to 100 m inland from the shoreline. Exemptions can be granted, however, by the competent municipality through land planning and individual decisions. The importance attached to leaving the shore zone untouched varies from region to region. There are large geographical differences in terms of biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscape, development, development pressure, migration and depopulation, and commercial activity, as well as public access to the coastal areas and the ocean. Since 2011, the entire Norwegian shore zone became subject to guidelines that regulate a geographical differentiation of management and a more severe protection of central areas. This article analyses key aspects of the Norwegian shore zone regulation.

No abstract

ISBN 978 1 78471 810 7 (cased) ISBN 978 1 78471 811 4 (eBook)

No abstract

This paper discusses what constitutes ‘necessary’ requirements for private actors who gain public permits - and thus the right to use often untouched land which again can affect natural resources, etc. The overarching question is whether ‘necessary’ should be understood in more general terms of nature, environment, and societal interest, or determined from the perspective of the actor who usually will have a narrower perspective on what constitutes ‘necessary’ infrastructure and relevant measures – based on the actor’s own interests and goals. This article demonstrates that the rules that apply to private actors’ responsibility for such issues as climate, the environment and other common benefits are formulated differently in different laws, in different provisions and at different stages of overall planning and detailed planning – as well as in development agreements and decisions. The rule is often vague and has repeatedly been the subject of several disputes in both the public administration – cases of interpretation of law – and in the court system. The cases concerning the interpretation of legal terms and legal remedies in both the Planning and Building Act and the Aquaculture Act point to some problems, but perhaps also to solutions and possibilities. A general weakness in the law and in regulations is that private actors and the industry experience that use of conditions which will meet the “sum effects” of several measures can come into conflict with expectations of a clear causal connection and proximity, but perhaps especially the matter of equality between private actors in the same market. In conclusion, the article looks at how such challenges can be solved through greater use of strategic instruments for cost allocation between actors.