Q: Why is Oslofjord such an interesting case study?

“The Oslo Fjord is a bit of an outlier as a case study for BGG. When BGG started, there already was an Oslofjord Action Plan, prepared and adopted by the national government, with the Minister for climate and environment as the responsible for implementation. There was a recognition of the severe environmental challenges in the fjord and the need for national coordination. We thought it would be an interesting case to see what happens in governance when a national government intervenes in what otherwise would be considered local issues. A policy experiment, so to say, very top-down, unique for Norway and perhaps even Europe. As such, it differs from the other case studies, in that we jumped on the wagon of a process that was already structured and running.”

Q: Did BGG assert any influence on the Oslofjord Action plan?

“As BGG researchers, we were granted observation status at meetings in the Oslofjord Council, where the Minister for climate and environment meet national and local stakeholders. We also interviewed politicians and civil servants involved in the preparation of the plan.  This led to the article Beneath the Surface: Can the Oslofjord Plan Create Transformative Change Through Institutional Layering? in a BGG special of the scientific magazine Ocean & Society. A key issue was to explain why four years of implementation had not resulted in improvements in the Oslofjord. The article, supplemented by advice on what should be done when the plan is to be revised, caught attention and gained positive responses. Now, we are looking forward to the publication of a revised plan in May to see what new initiatives it will contain.”

Q: Are you looking at the Oslofjord from all directions?

“We have had to choose our focus areas. After a long process, the government adopted a ban on commercial as well as leisure fisheries in most of the Oslofjord for the next 10 years. It’s quite controversial, as fishing is such a cultural value in Norway, but the decision is taken, and major revisions of the ban seem unlikely for the coming years.  So, we decided to focus on the run-off of nutrients instead. That involves primarily agriculture and wastewater from a huge catchment area.”

Q: Are the e-tools proving useful in the process?

“Since the Oslofjord case already includes political discussions of concrete measures, it was important for us to adapt the use of e-tools in stakeholder meetings to avoid confusion between existing measures, new measures up for political discussion, and modelled effects of measures by e-tools. Colleagues at NIVA have developed a model for nutrient runoff to the Oslofjord, which they have applied to provide a basis for the government to set concrete targets for reduction of the nutrient load. This provides more nuanced insights than the BGG digital twin.

We intended to use the results in a workshop, but because the measures and the modelled results were politically sensitive, we had to await quality assurance and approval of the report before we could use the results towards stakeholders. This did not align with the BGG timeline. Thus, in the end, we ran our workshops using qualitative scenario descriptions instead. This illustrates one of the challenges of conducting project work alongside existing political processes.”

Q: What can different layers of government learn from this?

“There are many difficult trade-offs that need to be solved politically. The run-off of nutrients to the Oslofjord is mainly caused by agriculture and wastewater treatment, and there is political commitment to reduce this. At the same time, there is a national priority to increase food security and self-sufficiency in Norway. This may conflict with reducing agricultural run-off.  

At municipal level, wastewater treatment is the responsibility of the municipalities. Upgrading the treatment plants for reduced runoff comes with enormous costs. Not just along the coast, but in the whole catchment area, which includes 118 municipalities. The required upgrades could double costs for inhabitants through the municipal water bills. It is understandable that this is politically contentious for local politicians representing municipalities and inhabitants up to 30 miles away from the Oslofjord.

Our job through the BGG is to understand the different stakeholders’ concerns and barriers for supporting measures that reduce runoff, and to provide holistic input to the ongoing national processes. Then it’s up to the politicians to find solutions. We’ll have to see what solutions the new Oslofjord Action Plan will contain.”