The Oslofjord faces severe ecosystem deterioration due to pollution, runoff, overfishing, and coastal developments. The area is governed by multiple authorities, requiring complex cross-sectoral and territorial coordination.
The River Basin Management offers a cross-sectoral approach, but focuses on freshwater and lacks marine indicators, excluding sectors like fisheries. Municipal spatial plans, while crucial for land-based activities impacting the fjord, rarely regulate the use of the fjord itself.
While Norway has robust ecosystem-based ocean management for its open waters, coastal zones like the Oslofjord have lagged behind. This gap underscores the need for more integrated approaches that address the unique challenges of coastal ecosystems. This case study examines the implementation and interaction of these policies and tools to identify governance gaps and improve the management of coastal zones such as the Oslofjord.
Relevant governance frameworks
Main findings
Is there horizontal coherence between RBMPs (WFD), Integrated Ocean Management Plans, and municipal spatial plans? What does the Government’s Oslofjord plan add to this?
RBMPs
IOMPs
Municipalities’ plans
Government’s plan for the Oslofjord
To what extent does the combination of RBMPs, Integrated Ocean Management Plans, and municipal spatial plans contribute to EGD objectives?
- The RBMPs main objectives of achieving good chemical and good ecological status make them highly relevant for halting pollution and improving biodiversity. Their effectiveness in reaching these objectives are reduced by their limited coverage of the whole coastal ecosystems and all activities/pressures affecting it, the limited focus on upstream-downstream dynamics, as well as lack of power and positive stimuli to stimulate involved parties to take measures. Adaptation to changing climate is mentioned, but not much elaborated, neither for managing water and ecosystem qualities, nor for managing increased quantities of water.
- The Ocean Management Plans address biodiversity (ecosystems) and threats upon it from i.a. pollution. They have extensively reviewed occurring and projected climate change with the ambition of adapting ocean management to the changes. Weak legal status and unclear obligations makes it hard to evaluate their effects on sectoral management. As mentioned above, their relevance for the coastal zone, including the Oslofjord, is limited.
- The municipalities currently have not done enough to halt land-based pollution. Their planning and management of land and sea uses in the fjord, along the coastline and along watersheds, have many unused possibilities to address biodiversity loss more effectively. They are at uneven stages of developing plans and actions for climate adaptation, mainly focusing on land-based challenges such as how to tackle extreme events with excessive water and landslides.
- The governmental plan reinforces the work on pollution and biodiversity, but does not consider climate adaptation as a separate topic. However, the plan takes the general view that climate change reinforces the effects of other pressures on the marine ecosystems. Measures aiming at restoring them will increase their resilience towards future climate change and should therefore be considered adaptation measures.
How to enhance horizontal coherence to address the Oslofjord’s ecosystem deterioration problem?
Update IOMPs
The updated IOMPs emphasize the shortcomings of the Norwegian WFD in the coastal zone and call for updating the ecological indicators. This aligns with our findings from the interviews and should be prioritised to advance toward EBM on the coast.
Coordination
The governmental authorities dealing with ocean management should increasingly be drawn into the validation of RBMPs and be able to provide input on whether suggested instruments are sufficient to achieve good ecological status in the oceans. More formal coordination mechanisms could ensure this.
Coherent municipal planning
To achieve coherence across municipal planning and the RBMPs, municipalities could further anchor the Oslofjord plan into their municipal policy context (e.g. Hvaler and Asker municipality).
Impacts on Fjord
Impact assessments of municipal spatial plans should specifically consider the impact on the Fjord
Integrated data
Fragmented data and knowledge platforms should be aligned across plans. This would improve access to limited knowledge
Holistic management
Assess the possibility of a regional spatial plan for the Fjord, providing a more holistic overview across municipal boundaries.
What needs to be done to enhance the delivery of the high-level Norwegian objectives of zero pollution, biodiversity, and climate change adaptation?
Update IOMPs
The updated IOMPs emphasize the shortcomings of the Norwegian WFD in the coastal zone and call for updating the ecological indicators. This aligns with our findings from the interviews and should be prioritised to advance toward EBM on the coast.
Coordination
The governmental authorities dealing with ocean management should increasingly be drawn into the validation of RBMPs and be able to provide input on whether suggested instruments are sufficient to achieve good ecological status in the oceans. More formal coordination mechanisms could ensure this.
Coherent municipal planning
To achieve coherence across municipal planning and the RBMPs, municipalities could further anchor the Oslofjord plan into their municipal policy context (e.g. Hvaler and Asker municipality).
Impacts on Fjord
Impact assessments of municipal spatial plans should specifically consider the impact on the Fjord
Integrated data
Fragmented data and knowledge platforms should be aligned across plans. This would improve access to limited knowledge
Holistic management
Assess the possibility of a regional spatial plan for the Fjord, providing a more holistic overview across municipal boundaries.