Gro saved Mjøsa - Now Andreas must save the Oslo fjord
A young Minister of the Environment picked up the bill and saved Mjøsa in the 70s. Fifty years later, it is the Oslo Fjord that is struggling. Now Andreas Bjelland Eriksen must take proper action," says Kjetil Lein, NITO's president.
At the end of the 70s, the situation in Mjøsa was critical. The water was green with algae and unsuitable for bathing, it stinked, the fish died, and the drinking water tasted bad. There was no doubt about what had to be done: The municipalities around Mjøsa had to build new treatment plants, lay new sewage pipes and stop emissions from industry and agriculture. There was only one problem: None of them could afford it.
This is where Gro Harlem Brundtland came in. As Minister of the Environment from 1974 to 1979, she set in motion what became known as the Mjøsaksjonen. During the 70s and 80s, as much as NOK 1.4 billion was allocated. For the largest treatment measures, the state covered up to 90 per cent of the investment costs. Today we can swim in Mjøsa and we can drink the water. It is not a matter of course, but a result of political decisions made fifty years ago.
Now Andreas Bjelland Eriksen is in exactly the same situation. Only with a larger fjord.
The Oslo Fjord is in acute crisis. The bottom is dead in several places. The cod is almost gone. The algae are blooming, and the bathing areas have to be closed. The Norwegian Environment Agency's own figures point to the same culprits as in Mjøsa in the 70s: municipal sewage, runoff from agriculture and urban development.
On 19 June, the government presented its proposal for a new action plan for the Oslo Fjord, and this is now being circulated for consultation. The new plan has good qualities, but fails where it really matters, and where it costs money: in water and sewerage.
When it comes to water and sewerage, the message is brutal: "Responsibility: The municipalities. Deadline: Ongoing". This means that the entire bill is sent to the municipal councils around the fjord, without the state committing to contribute a single krone extra. And it is not a question of a small bill. Norsk Vann estimates the investment and operating need in the municipal water and wastewater sector at NOK 411–535 billion up to 2045.
It is the municipalities that will build new treatment plants with nitrogen removal. Which will replace drain pipes. Which will handle stormwater from extreme precipitation that is becoming more frequent every year. And at the same time, deliver schools, elderly care, health services and kindergartens to their citizens. More than half of Norwegian municipalities had a deficit last year.
This is where the self-cost principle comes in, and this is where it cracks. Today, municipal investments in water and sewerage must mainly be covered by the inhabitants through the water and sewerage fee. For many households, it becomes insurmountable. The result is predictable: Investments are postponed. The leaks continue. The fjord is dying.
Last week, the Hjort Commission submitted the NOU "Norway in rough weather", which points out that unclear responsibilities, weak incentives and lack of coordination are among the biggest obstacles to good climate adaptation in Norway. The Oslofjord plan is a textbook example: The responsibility is pushed downwards, while the state holds on to the purse.
NITO believes that the government must do three things:
- Firstly, the self-cost principle must be adjusted, and the state must establish a separate co-financing scheme for large investments in water and sewerage in the municipalities around the Oslo Fjord, just as under the Mjøsaksjonen.
- Second, the state must stimulate intermunicipal cooperation on water and sewerage. The recent report "Against harsh weather", made by Menon Economics on behalf of NITO, shows that intermunicipal cooperation is the single factor that most clearly predicts that a municipality will be able to meet the legal requirements in water and sewerage. Nevertheless, only 1 in 5 municipalities have such collaborations today.
- Thirdly, we need a national competence programme for municipal water and sewerage, and the Værhard report estimates that the municipal engineering need for climate protection, water and sewerage will be about 800 man-years per year up to 2045. But many municipalities are struggling to recruit and retain engineers.
The Mjøsa campaign cost money. But how much is it worth that Norway's largest lake today is full of trout and bathers? What is it worth that the Oslo Fjord once again becomes a functioning ecosystem with cod and eelgrass - and a fjord that is safe to swim in?
In the foreword to the new plan, Andreas Bjelland Eriksen writes that restoring the Oslo Fjord is "one of the government's highest priority tasks". It's words. Brundtland delivered action. She understood that environmental ambitions without government funding do not work.
Mjøsa was saved with political will. Now it's the turn of the Oslo Fjord.
