70
“Nullvekstmålet”—Zero Growth Objective. The leader of the Working
Group has been quoted as saying “We wanted to find a target that was easy
to measure, that would be ambitious and not least reachable” (quoted in
Strand 2016).
Since then, the Zero Growth Objective has been mentioned, integrated
and discussed in innumerable briefs, policy documents, talks and newspaper articles on transport policy in Norway. The way the target is formulated—with its simple quantification: “zero”—may account for some of its
carrying power. And as a climate-related target, it has attained enormous
success. It is an important element of the structural conditions for transport and mobility planning (Tennøy and Øksenholt 2018). We can quite
concretely follow the process through which this occurs, through budget
documents and funding agreements between the government and cities.
From 2014 onwards, the National Transport Plan adopted the Zero
Growth Objective as the key target for transport policy in cities. The government, in launching the Urban Environment Agreements, also it was
translated to a concrete agreement framework tied to a funding scheme
for cities. It then transpired that the Government would negotiate with
the largest cities in Norway and other regional authorities with responsibility for transport, to create “greater coherence in urban policy” by having these authorities collectively “commit to common goals written into
the Urban Environment Agreements.” Now, all relevant authorities are to
sign a binding agreement on how to meet the Zero Growth Objective,
and this agreement will be the basis for government funding for local
transport.
From this point onwards, the amount of funding cities received for
local transport infrastructure became tied to how well they worked towards
meeting the Zero Growth Objective. This includes specific indicators that
measure whether or not car traffic decreases. In 2016 and 2017, such
Agreements were signed with Oslo, Trondheim, Bergen and Stavanger
(Jæren); in short, the largest Norwegian cities.
Subsequently, the Zero Growth Objective has been mainstreamed and
absorbed into the planning and land use regulation of the cities themselves. It is a ubiquitous condition for decision-making within the wide
range of issues that affect the abilities of cities to reach the goal, such as
location of housing, retail, transport infrastructure, congestion charging
and much more. It introduces a simple calculus for decision-makers in cities: failure to meet the target will affect the amount of government money
available in the next round of negotiations. Even beyond this, the
H. HAARSTAD
“Nullvekstmålet”—Zero Growth Objective. The leader of the Working
Group has been quoted as saying “We wanted to find a target that was easy
to measure, that would be ambitious and not least reachable” (quoted in
Strand 2016).
Since then, the Zero Growth Objective has been mentioned, integrated
and discussed in innumerable briefs, policy documents, talks and newspaper articles on transport policy in Norway. The way the target is formulated—with its simple quantification: “zero”—may account for some of its
carrying power. And as a climate-related target, it has attained enormous
success. It is an important element of the structural conditions for transport and mobility planning (Tennøy and Øksenholt 2018). We can quite
concretely follow the process through which this occurs, through budget
documents and funding agreements between the government and cities.
From 2014 onwards, the National Transport Plan adopted the Zero
Growth Objective as the key target for transport policy in cities. The government, in launching the Urban Environment Agreements, also it was
translated to a concrete agreement framework tied to a funding scheme
for cities. It then transpired that the Government would negotiate with
the largest cities in Norway and other regional authorities with responsibility for transport, to create “greater coherence in urban policy” by having these authorities collectively “commit to common goals written into
the Urban Environment Agreements.” Now, all relevant authorities are to
sign a binding agreement on how to meet the Zero Growth Objective,
and this agreement will be the basis for government funding for local
transport.
From this point onwards, the amount of funding cities received for
local transport infrastructure became tied to how well they worked towards
meeting the Zero Growth Objective. This includes specific indicators that
measure whether or not car traffic decreases. In 2016 and 2017, such
Agreements were signed with Oslo, Trondheim, Bergen and Stavanger
(Jæren); in short, the largest Norwegian cities.
Subsequently, the Zero Growth Objective has been mainstreamed and
absorbed into the planning and land use regulation of the cities themselves. It is a ubiquitous condition for decision-making within the wide
range of issues that affect the abilities of cities to reach the goal, such as
location of housing, retail, transport infrastructure, congestion charging
and much more. It introduces a simple calculus for decision-makers in cities: failure to meet the target will affect the amount of government money
available in the next round of negotiations. Even beyond this, the
H. HAARSTAD