CASE NUMBER: 371
CASE MNEMONIC: ORESUND
CASE NAME: Oresund Bridge Plan
A. IDENTIFICATION
I. The Issue:
The Danes and Swedes are building a crossing that
will join their two countries at the cities of Malmo in
Sweden and the Danish capital of Copenhagen. This link will
encompass a bridge, an island, and an underground tunnel.
Building this bridge will facilitate transportation and
therefore trade between the two countries as well as the
rest of Europe. This link is currently under construction
and is scheduled to be completed in the year 2000.
Throughout the European Union, but especially in Denmark and
Sweden, controversy has developed concerning this link as it will
most likely cause some environmental damage to the
Oresund Sound. Species that could be affected include wild birds,
fish, and other water species in the sound and the
Baltic Sea.
This map shows where the artificial island will be
built.
2. Description:
The Danes and Swedes believe a link between their
two nations will provide a foundation for stronger and more
extensive cooperation regarding economy, education,
research, and culture in the Oresund region. (1) This link will
improve transport and communication between the two
countries as well as the rest of Europe. Trade and other
relations will improve between the two countries and by
extension, the rest of Europe. This is important as both
Denmark and Sweden are members of the European Community.
In order to build this crossing, the two nations must
overcome opposition of environmental groups and restrictive
legislation in Denmark, Sweden, and the European Union.
In Denmark, the link between the two nations will
provide the Danes with better access to resources and
markets within Sweden. In the past, Danish companies have
had to find creative, costly ways to reach their northern
neighbors. (Generally, ships were used for transport.)
Although a toll will be paid to cross the link,
using the crossing will be much more cost efficient for
those companies. This link will also allow Danish workers
to easily compete for jobs in Sweden, giving them more
opportunities. As the crossing is being built, the Danish
area around the sound will experience a temporary boom.
Workers will be hired to work on the project from local
areas around the sound. This will provide spill over effects into
the surrounding areas. Tourism between the nations
may also increase, causing further economic gain.
For Sweden, this link is possibly an even better
investment. Before the Oresund Crossing came about, Sweden had no
prospects for a link to the European mainland. Not
only will the crossing link Sweden with Denmark, but also
with the rest of Europe. This is very important for Sweden as they
have joined the European Union. With this new
connection, Sweden will be able to take advantage of the
new privileges associated with membership. Along
with the same benefits Denmark receives, an important one of these
privileges for Sweden, is free movement of capital and goods.
This will be accomplished more easily with the
crossing in place.
There are negative aspects to this link as well.
There is a possibility that the link will affect cod and
other fish populations in the Oresund Sound and the Baltic
Sea. Cod fishing is a very important industry in the areas
surrounding the Baltic Sea. A decrease in the cod
population could hurt the economies of Sweden, Denmark, and other
nations which rely on the fishing industries.
International environmental groups and groups and
individuals throughout Europe have spoken out about the
possible detrimental effects of this link. One effect of
this link could be the reduction of the flow of salt and
oxygen rich water to the Oresund Sound. (2) The waters of
the Kattegat flow into the Oresund Sound. This water has a high
salinity which is essential to maintain the levels of
cod stocks in the sound. (3) With the first plans for the
link, water flows would have been reduced by 2.5%.
Extensive changes to the design have been made, and the
latest version will only reduce water flow by 0.5%. (4) In order
to reduce the change in water flows to 0%, the seabed will be
deepened by dredging. This dredging, however, could cause problems
as the dredged sediment will destroy mussel
banks and eelgrass on which the fish and birds feed. (5)
A depiction of the bridge.
This crossing may also cause the endangerment of the wild
birds on Saltholmen Island in the middle of the sound. (6) The
original plans for the crossing included a bridge
with a support section on this island. This would have
upset the natural habitat of the birds. In order not to
disturb the habitat of the birds on the island, planners of the
bridge have elected to create an artificial island.
This island will be placed directly behind Saltholmen Island in the
feeding area of the birds. (7) This could disturb
the feeding pattern of the birds. This continued threat to the
wild birds in the area, and the other possible dangers
stated above have captured the attention of environmentalist groups
in the region.
Environmentalist groups from both Denmark and Sweden have
opposed this project from the beginning. The Danish
Association for the Protection of Nature (Denmarks
Naturfredningsforening) filed two complaints with the
European Commission concerning this project. (8) It
cited two EC directives which this project possibly violates. The
first directive requires that nations evaluate the
consequences on the environment of any governmental
project. The second directive has to do with
the protection of wild birds. The European Commission did
not rule on allegations made by this organization. Instead, the
commission turned the issues back over to the Danish
government, stating that enough had been done to protect the
environment and wild birds. This action by the commission
greatly angered the association. (9) The head of the
association feels that Danish political pressure stopped the
investigation of these complaints in order for the project
to move ahead. (10) After the lack of action by the EU,
environmental groups in Denmark became discouraged. In
Sweden, however, the environmental groups continued their
fight against the project.
The Danish government gave its final approval to the
project in 1993. In Sweden, however, approval came more
than a year later. A powerful environmental agency in
Sweden, the Water Court, held up approval for the project
until revised plans for the project could meet the
specifications of the agency. (11) The developers had to
convince the Water Court that the water flows within the
Oresund Sound would not be disturbed. In order to ensure
the water flows would remain the same, companies and the
governments had to greatly increase their investments in
this project. (12) The cost for the bridge increased because the
seabed had to be dredged and the design of the bridge
had to be changed. As the costs increased, investments
had to as well.
After the Water Court gave its approval,the Swedish
Environmental Minister, Olof Johanssen, opposed this
project so strongly that he resigned his position. (13)
Even with the approval of the Water Court, Johanssen felt
that the delicate balance of the Baltic Sea would be upset. (14)
He was concerned about the possible effects of the
bridge on the wild birds inhabiting an island in the sound and the
effects of a decrease in water flow on the fish and other living
organisms in the sea. Environmental groups in Sweden felt the
same way. Most environmentalists and
biologists in Sweden are still opposed to building the
crossing. As recently as July and September of 1996,
these groups have staged protests against this project,
still feeling that water flows and species within the Oresund
Sound will be disturbed.
Other countries and groups have also spoken out
against this project. Germany has suggested that the two
countries should have more seriously considered a tunnel
instead of a bridge. (15) Germany points out that the
bridge and its effects on the Baltic could affect all
countries around the sea. (16) International groups such as
Birdlife International and Greenpeace & Transport &
Environment have also looked into the issue of the Oresund
link. The groups are concerned that this link will cause
irreversible damage to the special protection areas of wild birds
in the Oresund Sound. (17)
The environmental groups in Denmark and Sweden have valid
reasons to be concerned. This crossing will consist
of a bridge, an island, and an underground tunnel. All of
these components to the crossing will affect water flows in the
Oresund Sound. This, in turn, will affect water flows
to the Baltic Sea. The salinity of the water in the Baltic Sea
must be preserved in order to maintain sea life as these salt
water creatures need the salt and oxygenated water to survive.
Water with high salinity must flow into the sound and then the
Baltic while fresh water must flow back to the Kattegat. The
planners have recognized this need and altered the crossing design
to attempt to achieve 0% water reduction.
Deepening the seabed in the Oresund Sound will
allow water to continue to flow uninhibited. Deepening the seabed,
however, will dredge up sediment and pollutants.
This sediment could destroy mussel banks and eelgrass on
which fish and birds feed. Pollutants can affect all wild
life in the sound and the Baltic Sea. This crossing has the
potential to seriously disturb the Oresund Sound and the
Baltic Sea. Over time, these effects will manifest themselves.
Sediment could build up in the bottom of the sound.
Together with the components of the crossing, this would
cause water flow reduction. Without the salinity in the
water, marine species such as cod and other salt water fish would
begin to die off. The wild birds on Saltholmen Island may have no
where to feed and eventually die off. Air and water pollution
will increase due to the motorized vehicles going over the bridge
as well. No one has quantified the pollution resulting from all
these effects as of yet.
Currently the building of this link is still on
track and will be completed by the year 2000. Danish and
Swedish officials are content with the final plans for the
link. These plans propose no water flow change in the sound and
hopefully no significant ill effects to the fish and
water species. The environmental protests against the
project that concern the wild birds on Saltholmen island
continue. In the eyes of the environmentalists, the
environmental problems have not been resolved.
3. Related Cases:
Shetland Oil Spill Case
Exxon Valdez Disaster
Hong Kong Waste Fee Case
Sellfield Nuclear Plant Case
Minamata Disaster
Baltic Sea Pollution Case
Black Sea Pollution and Tourism
Mediterranean Pollution and Tourism
The Khain Sea Episode
Keyword Clusters:
1. Trade Product = FISH
2. Bio-geography = OCEAN
3. Environmental Problem = BIRD extinction
4. Draft Author:
Jennifer L. Dopp December 15, 1996
B. LEGAL Clusters
5. Discourse and Status: AGREEMENT AND INPROGRESS
The Danish Association for the Protection of Nature did file two
complaints with the European Commission
concerning the Oresund link project. The complaints were
based on two European Directives. The first concerns
the assessment of the environmental impact of projects. This was
enacted by the European Community in 1985. The second
concerns the protection of wild birds and has been in
existence in the European Community since 1979. (18) The
European Commission turned both of these complaints back to the
country. On the first directive, which requires
assessment of the environmental impact of a project, the
European Commission stated that Denmark could invoke the
"derogation provision which states that the directive does
not apply to projects which are adopted in detail by a
specific national piece of legislation." (19) The European
Commission also took into consideration the fact that the
Danish government provided much information and
documentation to the Commission. (20) As for the second
complaint, the European Commission felt that the Danish
authorities were taking adequate measures both nationally
and locally in order to protect the wild birds. (21) After the
complaints were dismissed, the Danish government gave
its final approval to the project.
In Sweden, the authorities had to wait for approval from
the Water Court in order to proceed with the project.
After this approval came in 1994, the Swedish government
decided to go ahead with the link. The environmental protests
continue, however, the project moves ahead.
6. Forum and Scope: REGIONAL and BILATERAL
(The European Community and Denmark and Sweden)
This project was created by the two governments in
order to facilitate trade and communication between the two
nations. The forums where this project was debated include the two
separate national forums of Sweden and Denmark and the European
Community. In both Sweden and Denmark, the
decision was made to go ahead with the project after the
appropriate approvals. The Danish Government quickly approved the
project after clearance from the European Community.
Sweden approved the project after a more in-depth review and a
positive decision by the Water Court.
When the two complaints against the project were filed
with the European Commission, the issue became regional.
The complaints were filed by an environmental group in Denmark.
These complaints were based on European Community
Directives which regulate all member nations. The European
Commission has jurisdiction over these directives. In the case of
these complaints, the commission decided not to rule on them. The
commission was satisfied with the information provided by the
Danish government. In this case, the commission let the
individual member nation decide whether or not they had abided by
the directive.
7. Decision Breadth:
Two nations (Sweden and Denmark)
8. Legal Standing: TREATY
The Oresund link project was created as an agreement
between Sweden and Denmark. This agreement is separate
from other treaties which exist between the two nations.
C. GEOGRAPHIC Clusters
9. Geographic Locations:
a. Geographic Domain: EUROPE
b. Geographic Site: Northern Europe [NEUR]
c. Geographic Impact: Denmark and Sweden
Another view of how the Oresund Sound connects Sweden
and Denmark.
10. Subnational Factors:YES
The Oresund link will affect local areas and groups
around the sound in various ways. The actual link will
bring a boost in the economy, especially in the cities of
Malmo, Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark which are the two
cities joined by the crossing. Workers can travel from
Sweden to Denmark or Denmark to Sweden in order to find
work. Transportation work will increase between the two
countries, allowing further sharing of resources between the
nations. Building of the actual link will provide a temporary
boost in the economy as the companies involved in its
construction must hire workers. Tourism between the nations may
also increase. Tourists from the European mainland will have
easier access to Sweden. Increased tourism will provide increased
revenue for both Denmark and Sweden. Economically, this link will
positively affect the local areas.
Tourists will most certainly be attracted to the area
to look at the bridge.
Negative economic impacts of the Oresund Crossing
may also affect the local areas. If the fishing industry
declines due to water flow or pollution problems, then those
involved in this industry will suffer. A population boom may also
occur, causing possible economic problems for the area in the
future.
Another result of the Oresund Crossing project is that the
general population and government in Denmark and Sweden are more
aware of environmental issues. Environmental groups in both
nations have made headlines by protesting against the crossing.
In some cases, this has been taken to the extreme. For example,
in Denmark, certain environmental groups have chained themselves
to machinery used to build the bridge. Because of public displays
such as these, the general public is most likely aware of the
possible damage to the Oresund Sound, the Baltic Sea and all of
its wildlife due to this
publicity.
11. Type of Habitat: OCEAN
D. TRADE Clusters:
12. Type of Measure: Regulatory Standards [REGSTD]
The Oresund link project had to pass regulatory
standards in both Sweden and Denmark in order to proceed.
In Denmark, final approval came after two complaints were
dismissed by the European Commission. The European
Commission made the decision not to proceed with the
complaints based on a number of factors. The first
complaint filed was based on Denmark's non-compliance of a
European Directive relating to the assessment of
environmental impact. The European Commission rejected this
complaint because it felt that Denmark could invoke a clause in the
directive which states that "projects which are
adopted in detail by a specific national piece of
legislation" are exempt from this directive. (22) The
second complaint had to do with Denmark's violation of a
directive that protects wild birds. The commission
dismissed this complaint as well. They took into account
the actions of the Danish government to compensate for
detrimental effects of construction on bird populations.
The governments at the national and local levels are taking steps
to preserve bird populations. (23)
In Sweden, the Water Court had to approve the
project. This approval did not come until plans for the
Oresund link had been revised in order to improve water flow
reduction to 0%. The regulatory standards in both the nations and
the European Community are in place in order to protect the
environment.
13. Direct vs. Indirect Impacts: INDirect
14. Relation of Measure to Environmental Impact:
a. Directly Related: NO
b. Indirectly Related: YES TRANSPORT
c. Not Related: NO
d. Process Related: YES SPECIES LOSS SEA
15. Trade Product Identification: FISH
Cod fishing is an important contributor to the
economies of both Sweden and Denmark.
16. Economic Data: YES
The Oresund link will economically affect areas
around the Oresund Sound and the Baltic Sea. Companies
located in Denmark which must interact with Sweden to import or
export will be able to use this link. Prior to the
construction of this link, these companies had to find more
creative and costly ways to import from or export to Sweden. Danish
workers will also now be able to compete for jobs in Sweden. The
link provides these workers a means to be able to get to work in
another country. The local area in and
around Copenhagen will experience a rise in prosperity due
to the building of the link. The directors of the project
will hire workers from the local area. This will provide
spill over effects to the area. Tourism between the two nations
may also increase.
The same benefits for Denmark outlined above will be
experienced by Sweden. Sweden will also have an added
economic benefit because now it will be linked to the
mainland of Europe. This will provide new economic
opportunities for companies located in Sweden which have not
already taken their products or services international.
Sweden could experience a significant increase in its
economy due to this link.
This link could have negative economic impacts as
well. The fishing industry in the Oresund Sound and Baltic Sea is
a major contributor to the economies of nations
surrounding the sea. The link could possibly damage the
fishing industry by reducing cod stocks in the sound and the Baltic
Sea. Cod stocks would be reduced because of reduced water flow
from the Kattegat to the Oresund Sound. This would reduce the
availability of water with high salinity which is necessary for the
existence of cod and other fish. Another possible problem is that
the building of the Oresund Crossing necessitates the dredging of
the seabed. Sediment and other pollutants will be moved from the
bottom of the sound. Both the sediment and the pollutants could
affect plants or fish in the area. Hopefully these negative
effects will not be significant. The governments in Denmark and
Sweden feel that the positive economic effects of the link will
out-weigh the negative.
17. Impact of Measure on Competitiveness: HIGH
The Oresund link will greatly increase trade between
Denmark and Sweden and as stated above, the rest of
Europe as well. The approval of the two governments to build this
link may eventually cause harm to the environment in the
Oresund Sound. The possible depletion of cod stocks may
also affect trade in the fish industry.
18. Industry Sector: TRANSPORT
19. Exporter and Importer: MANY and MANY
E. Environmental Clusters
20. Environmental Problem Type: Sea Species Loss (SPLS)
The species that will be affected by the Oresund
link include cod stocks, wild birds on Saltholmen Island,
plants, and other water species. In the Oresund Sound and the
Baltic Sea, the water species rely on water with high salinity.
The whole ecosystem within the sea could be damaged if salt water
access is diminished. Salt water is necessary for the growth of
organisms from plants to cod. Wild birds feed on these plants and
could be affected as well. The plants, cod and other fish need
the oxygen in this water to survive. The water with high salinity
comes from the Kattegat and flows into the Oresund Sound, then
into the Baltic Sea. The fresh water from the Oresund Sound then
flows back into the Kattegat.
Wild birds on Saltholmen Island, fish, and other water
species feed on algae and other organisms in the sound. If the bed
of the sound is dredged, then sediment and pollutants will be
churned up in the sound. This could affect the algae and other
organisms on which these species feed, as well as the fish
themselves. The Oresund link could possibly affect all living
organisms in and around the sound.
21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species
Name: COD, BIRDS, other water species
Type: MANY
Diversity: MANY
22. Resource Impact and Effect: SMALL and SCALE
The possible damage to the Oresund Sound and Baltic Sea has been
mitigated by the Danish and Swedish governments. Denmark has taken
steps to minimize the damage to the wild birds and water species.
In Sweden, the Water Court had to approve the project. This court
would not approve the project if water flow was reduced by any
amount. The original plans for the bridge reduced flow by 2.5%. In
order to reduce this percentage, the builders had to dredge the
seabed. This brought the water flow reduction percentage to 0%.
Currently, the problems that exist include the possibility that the
sediment will upset the balance of the sound and that the wild
birds on Saltholmen Island will be disturbed. The actual damage to
the balance of the waters may be caused by this dredging which
stirs up sediment and pollutants. This, in turn, could affect cod
stocks, wild birds, and other organisms. The possible danger of
this happening has been minimized by the governments in question,
but still may occur.
23. Urgency and Lifetime: HIGH and 100s of years
COD: MEDium and 100s of years
WILD BIRDS: HIGH and 50 years
24. Substitutes: LIKE and CONSV (better conservation efforts)
Many alternatives have been reviewed in order to
find the best possible type of link. Germany has suggested that an
underground tunnel would have been more beneficial to the
environment. Germany feels that the possible impact of the link on
the environment is too great to risk. Officials state that the
bridge could impede water flows at the mouth of the Baltic. (24)
They advocate using an underground tunnel instead. The
environmental effects of using a tunnel the entire length of the
crossing are not known. Another possiblity would be to increase
the shipping fleet of both nations. These ships could constantly
travel back and forth across the Oresund Sound providing transport
of people and goods. This option would most certainly be expensive
and could cause severe environmental damage. Currently, the
project is scheduled to have a tunnel, an artificial island, and a
bridge. At this time Sweden and Denmark have chosen this final
option and no alternatives are being investigated.
F. OTHER FACTORS:
25. Culture: NO
However, the cod stocks that may be affected in the Oresund
Sound contribute to the livelihood and diet of the people in the
Oresund Region.
26. Human Rights: NO
27. Trans-Boundary Issues: YES
The Oresund Link will specifically affect Denmark
and Sweden by linking the two nations. It will also affect other
nations which trade with these countries as it will be easier to
transport, travel, etc. between the two nations. The environmental
problems affect both the countries as the Oresund Sound separates
the two nations. The Oresund link will make a significant impact
on the people of Malmo and Copenhagen.
28. Relevant Literature:
Bjorken, Anne Berit. "Environmental Assessment of
Controversial Bridge over Oresund."
http://www.oslo.sintef_no/gemini/1994_02E/sog_side_42.html.
"EC: Commission Rejects Two Environmental Complaints."
Agence Europe. Reuter Textline. November 14, 1992.
"EC: Danish Ecologists Criticize Rejection of their
Complaints over Denmark- Sweden Fixed Connections." Agence
Europe. Reuter Textline. November 17, 1992.
"Ecologists Protest over Bridge to Link Sweden and Denmark."
Agence French Presse. July 9, 1996.
"Environment: All Clear for Fixed Link Between Denmark and
Sweden." Transport Europe. Europe Information
Service. November 27, 1992.
Foyen, Lars. "Germany Slams Plan for Sweden-Denmark
Bridge." The Reuter European Community Report. Reuters
Limited. February 1, 1994.
Laroi, Vibeke. "Swedish Minister Quits Over Bridge
Decision." The Reuter European Community Report. Reuters
Limited. June 16, 1994.
"More than 40 Arrested in Protest Against Denmark-Sweden
Link." Agence French Presse. September 8, 1996.
"Oresundbridge Information."
http://www.orestad.se/bron/broinfo.htm.
Riena, Peter. "For Historic Link, Team Focuses on Earlier
Experience." Engineering News Record. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
May 13, 1996.
"Sweden: Minister Resigns Following Positive Decision on Bridge
Link with Denmark." Agence Europe. Reuter Textline. June
17, 1994.
"Trans-European Transport Networks: Birdlife, Greenpeace,
and T&E Call for Impact Assessment." Transport Europe.
European Information Service. February 20, 1996.
"Water Flows Delay Oresund." ENR. Volume 232, Issue 7.
February 14, 1994.
References:
(1) "Oresundbridge Information",
http://www.orestad.se/bron/broinfo.htm.
(2) Bjorken, Anne Berit, "Environmental Assessment of
Controversial Bridge over Oresund."
http://www.oslo.sintef_no/gemini/1994_02E/sog_side_42.html.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
(8) "EC: Danish Ecologists Criticize Rejection of their
Complaints over Denmark-Sweden Fixed Connection," Agence
Europe, Reuter Textline, November 17, 1992.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Ibid.
(11) "Environment; All Clear for Fixed Link Between Denmark and
Sweden," Transport Europe, Europe Information Service, November
27, 1992.
(12) "Water Flows Delay Oresund," ENR, Volume 232, Issue 7,
February 14, 1994.
(13) Riena, Peter, "For Historic Link, Team Focuses on
Earlier Experience," Engineering News Record, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
May 13, 1996.
(14) "Sweden: Minister Resigns Following Positive Decision
on Bridge Link with Denmark," Agence Europe, Reuter
Textline, June 17, 1994.
(15) Laroi, Vibeke, "Swedish Minister Quits Over Bridge
Decision," The Reuter European Community Report, Reuters
Limited, June 16, 1994.
(16) Foyen, Lars, "Germany Slams Plan for Sweden-Denmark
Bridge," The Reuter European Community Report, Reuters
Limited, February 1, 1994.
(17) Ibid.
(18) "Trans-European Transport Networks: Birdlife,
Greenpeace, and T&E Call for Impact Assessment," Transport
Europe, European Information Service, February 20, 1996.
(19) "EC: Commission Rejects Two Environmental Complaints," Agence
Europe, Reuter Textline, November 14, 1992.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid.
(22) "EC: Commission Rejects Two Environmental
Complaints," Agence Europe, Reuter Textline, November 14, 1992.
(23) Ibid.
(24) Foyen, Lars, "Germany Slams Plan for Sweden-Denmark
Bridge," The Reuter European Community Report, Reuters
Limited, February 1, 1994.