By Greg Peters
STOCKHOLM — The Swedish government has landed in one of its biggest crises to date with plans to build a permanent road and rail link over the resund to Denmark. This engineering monsterpiece, intended as a symbol of new and prosperous ties with Europe, has been torpedoed by the nation's highest environmental body, and now threatens to bring down both the Swedish and the Danish governments.
Both governments are keen to build the bridge. The idea of the project has been around for decades, but only gained real momentum during the '80s as traffic and talk of joining the European Community increased. Though there was widespread unease about the likely increase in automotive pollution and damage to the Baltic's fragile ecosystem, the resund bridge was generally believed to be a legal and political fait accompli until last month.
On February 26 Sweden's highest environmental court, the Environmental Concessions Authority (ECA), unexpectedly ruled that the project conflicts with Swedish environmental law. "We cannot see how this bridge can fit in with the environmental goals Sweden is to live up to", said Ulf Bjlls, chairperson of the court.
Previously, the ECA has mostly been busy with the paperwork surrounding industrial effluent discharges, and was generally regarded as a rubber stamp. The government cannot easily ignore the ECA, although parliament has the power to override it.
One of the main objections to the bridge is the state of the Baltic. Scientific bodies point to a number of threatened species living under increasing environmental stress. Although pylons for the bridge would probably have a negligible impact on the critical flow of well-oxygenated water from the North Sea, the likely ecological damage due to disturbance to the sea floor is a serious consideration.
The Baltic has already suffered from intensive pollution by chemical industries, especially those in the former eastern bloc, and is overloaded with nitrogen compounds from agricultural fertilisers and automotive exhaust. Not only is the valuable fishing industry at risk, but the whole regional ecology is likely to suffer if the bridge is built.
The environment movement is unanimous in its negative assessment. "The bridge is a schoolboy's dream from the 1950s", according to Gunnar Landborn, the general secretary of the Naturskyddsfrening (which plays a role similar to that of the Australian Conservation Foundation). Even the German government has opposed the bridge.
Some economists have argued that the bridge is a bad investment on the grounds that car traffic with Europe is likely to decrease in the medium to long term as private automotive costs rise. So why not drop the idea in its current form? On March 23, 1991, the Swedish and Danish governments signed a detailed agreement to build a bridge between Copenhagen and Malm. It even included maps of the route the long bridge and causeway were to take. Unfortunately, the agreement has the strength of an international industrial contract, so if Sweden drops out, the Danes can sue for enormous compensation.
Sweden is currently governed by a coalition of four parties led by the Moderates. They stand for a freer market and the dismantling of much of the welfare system built up by Social Democrats over more than 50 years in government. Unemployment is at record levels and the Moderates are losing their popularity.
The coalition seems increasingly shaky under the strain of the current crisis. While the Moderates are hoping to make some minor technical alterations to the current plans, the Centrists are demanding a complete change of direction: a tunnel under the shorter but deeper stretch of water between Helsingborg and Helsingr. A significant group of Christian Democrats has broken ranks and demanded new negotiations with the Danes. These small coalition partners stand to completely lose their environmental credibility if the Moderates push the bridge through in spite of the ECA.
The final decision will not be made until October. Further assessments are to be carried out by an international panel of experts, the Water Tribunal and the ECA. It will then be up to Cabinet to decide. Whether the bridge is built or not, there is no doubt that the government is in enormous legal difficulty. Some current legislation will have to be broken. It is a question of what else will be destroyed.