Changes in Norway’s societal safety and security measures following the 2011 Oslo terror attacks

Abstract

This paper characterizes changes in Norway's civil protection and emergency preparedness five years after the Oslo and Utøya terror attacks. Data from 48 interviews conducted in the period 2014 to 2016 with civil servants within different levels of the justice sector were qualitatively analyzed. The inductive analysis shows four main changes made related to Norway's civil protection and emergency preparedness within the Ministry of Justice and Public Security: 1) a change in risk perception regarding awareness of security-related risks; 2) the generation of several plans and measures; 3) structural changes at various levels within the justice sector; and 4) increased resources allocated to societal safety and security. The changes following the Oslo terror attacks were not solely in response to the terror attacks, but also the result of previous and subsequent events and reports. The current organization of public administration, however, still fosters siloed thinking and turf wars around the principle of responsibility and each sector's respective area of expertise. Most of the implemented changes can be characterized as structural; diagnoses made after the terror attacks pointed at cultural aspects. IntroductionIn the post-war era, Norway has been fortunate in facing only a handful of large-scale crises and terror-related events (Rykkja, Laegreid et al. 2011). As a result, a fairly untroubled society has been able to attend primarily to the welfare of its inhabitants (Kuhnle 2000, Wollebaek et al. 2012). On July 22, 2011, the nation was shocked when an armed right-wing extremist single-handedly bombed the Government Complex in Oslo and thereafter shot young political aspirants attending a youth camp on the island of Utøya. In total, 77 people were killed during these terror attacks.The aftermath of disasters and national crises represent an opportune time to examine governmental strategies for civil protection and emergency preparedness (Birkmann, Buckle et al. 2010). They provide a moment for self-reflection and a chance to learn from previous mistakes and weaknesses in the governmental system. Changes are usually implemented to demonstrate handling capacity or rectify specific gaps in the system (March and Olson 1983). Lessons learned are ideally applied to a broad context, where the knowledge gained is used to address not only the specific problem but also other issues that may arise from these inadequacies.Nevertheless, in these situations, society also often shows an inclination toward morality plays and blame games (Boin, Hart et al. 2006). A focusing event, such as a terror attack, often leads to excessive fixation on solving the specific problem brought to light by the event (Birkland 2006). Leaders feel pressured to take charge and prevent a similar crisis, and they risk overreacting by way of regulation or other actions and measures in response to the event (de Ridder and Reinders 2014, van Tol 2016). This spontaneous reaction is in part due to media coverage or "mediazation" (Helsloot, Boi...

Learning in municipalities after disasters

“…This study indicates that learning in relation to civil protection and emergency preparedness following the incidents of 22 July 2011 has been limited in the municipalities that are not geographically proximate to the Oslo area. After the incidents, several evaluation reports were drawn up and a number of measures implemented (Nilsen et al , 2018). Most of these evaluations and measures were aimed at the government and directorate levels (Damlie et al , 2015).…”

“…On 22 July 2011, Norway was hit by terror attacks at a youth camp on a small island outside Oslo and in the government district in Oslo, killing 77 people (hereafter “22 July incidents”). Following the 22 July incidents, a number of evaluation reports were written by various actors (see Nilsen et al (2018) for an overview). These reports examined what went wrong and why, and provided recommendations to improve societal safety.…”

“…In Norway, societal safety is defined as “the society's ability to maintain critical social functions, to protect the life and health of the citizens and to meet the citizens' basic requirements in a variety of stress situations” (Olsen et al , 2007, p. 69). The terror incidents of 22 July 2011 led to increased awareness of civil protection, particularly related to terrorism and other intentional acts of violence in Norway (Nilsen et al , 2018). Learning from the 22 July incidents resulted in the implementation of several measures (Ministry of Justice, 2016), mainly at the government and directorate levels and to a lesser degree at the local level of municipalities (Damlie et al , 2015).…”

A Contribution to Empirical Revitalization of the Samfunnssikkerhet Concept

“…Implementing these and similar actions aligns with the need identified in this paper to account for breadth and flexibility in methods, designs, and so forth in the work on samfunnssikkerhet. Specifically, implementing improved forms of cooperation and coordination could potentially counteract "the current organization of public administration [that] still fosters siloed thinking and turf wars around the principle of responsibility and each sector's respective area of expertise" ( [37], p. 1). Implementing the above actions could also help address the observation and critique from the Office of the Auditor General of Norway that only limited plans exist in Norway for the basic security of sensitive objects, and that overall critical infrastructures remain unprotected [38,39].…”

The Interface of Safety and Security; The Workplace

“…Moreover, the combined efforts at Critical Infrastructure Protection is a "test bed" to prove the interconnection between these new forms of security threats. These emerging risks have an impact on infrastructure as well as the occupational environment and the employee [3]. At the same time, safety-related issues have been highly affected by the still ongoing economic slowdown [4] and its byproducts (increased occupational psychosocial issues) [5].…”