CONCLUDING REMARKS: ACID REIGN - 95?

ANNA LINDH, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT

Department of Environment, Stockholm, Sweden

Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentleman,

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the honour to conclude this conference. I regret that I have not been able to attend the whole conference. But be certain that I have my representatives in the audience! I will receive full information about the conclusions.

This conference has a scientific perspective on an issue of outstanding importance for my country.

My perspective is that of a politician. Swedish governments have struggled with the issue for more than twenty five years. We will continue the struggle until acid rain has gone away

Acid rain is to a large part a Swedish invention. At least a Swedish discovery. In 1969, the Swedish government requested the Organisation f o r Economic Co-operation and Development to study the transboundary transport of sulphur emissions. Opposition was great, I can assure you. Even the simple thought "what goes up must come down" was contested.

But we have come a long way since then. Much of what was contested then is agreed upon now. What then were political and economic disputes is now science. This, the fifth conference on acidic depositions, is proof of that.

Another proof is that we can now see the beginning of the end of acid rain even if much remains to be done. Emissions have been reduced and commitments made for further reductions.

But other problems have appeared, where we find ourselves in the beginning of the fight. Nitrogen oxides and ground level ozone are two examples. In some cases we are not even at the beginning: the airborne spread of heavy metals or persistent organic pollutants over the northern hemisphere is a case in point.

Let me therefore draw some lessons from the twenty-five year struggle against acid rain.

First, local and national politics. Looking back, Willy Brandt stated in his 1961 election campaign that the sky above the Ruhr must yet become blue. He was ridiculed, of course, but now the sky is blue above the Ruhr. The Swedish government was not ridiculed, however, when the first legislation to reduce sulphur content in fuel oil used for domestic heating was introduced in 1967. Since then the air has become cleaner, much cleaner, in many West European cities District heating was important in some countries, replacing coal and oil by natural gas in others.

Second, science. It took us Swedes many years to convince our neighbours that acid rain indeed was a serious issue. We had trouble even convincing them of airborne transportation pollutants.

But gradually they gave in. Negotiations over a convention started in 1975, a convention was signed in 1979 - ten years after the OECD initiative. Then German

Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85: 293-295, 1995. �9 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

294 ACID REIGN '95?

resistance against a protocol broke, as scientific evidence of forest damage in Germany accumulated. The first protocol on sulphur reductions was signed in 1985 - sixteen years after the OECD initiative - and the second protocol was signed in 1994 - twenty-five years after the initiative.

The key scientific issues were the monitoring agreement and later the concept of critical loads, first strongly resisted, now generally accepted. It is a great achievement that the concept of critical loads has won such support.

Looking forward, we can see that a strong scientific base, an international scientific community now exists, that carries the work forward. This conference is a crucial step in this work. Further work is necessary to better understand the mechanisms of transportation pollutants and of atmospheric transformation of, for example, nitrogen oxides, persistent organic pollutants etc., but also on issues related to critical loads and damage to human health and ecosystems. But the agenda is clear and the work underway.

Third, international politics. Science is necessary, but it is not sufficient. High politics played crucial roles at certain moments. The East - West confrontation had its part in starting negotiations over the convention in 1975 and concluding them in 1979. The fight within the European Community between 1983 and 1988 over the large combustion plant directive was only resolved after the highest levels of the British government decided that compromise was better than confrontation.

For the East, Gorbatjov played by far the most important role in defeating acid rain. The fall of the Berlin Wall opened up the whole of Eastern Europe to democracy and economic restructuring. In the later 1980s, some 10 percent of the deposition in Sweden originated in the former German Democratic Republic. Reductions began right after unification, and will be decisively reduced towards the end of the decade.

The most important issue in Europe now is integrating the Central and Eastern European countries into the European Union and its environmental policy. This is why the inter-governmental conference of the European Union is so important. The sooner the integration, the quicker sulphur emissions will be drastically reduced.

Forth, economic policy. Economic growth can be effectively decoupled from sulphur emissions. This we know - now. And the first step is to remove subsidies for fossil fuels in general and coal in particular.

We also know - at least in Sweden - that economic instruments can play a key role. Since we introduced our sulphur tax, emissions were further reduced. Our nitrogen fee has helped to reduce nitrogen oxides from energy plants. The sulphur tax in combination with a carbon dioxide tax has stimulated fuel switching towards biomass in district heating plants and in industry.

Looking around in the world, the high rates of emissions of sulphur, particulates and of other pollutants are in many cases due to old technology and artificially low prices on energy. Doing away with these subsidies is the first step towards reduced emissions.

What is the situation in industry and the energy sector today? Coal mining lies at the heart of the sulphur debate. Getting away from coal and

heavy fuel oil lies at the heart of reducing emissions. The Swedish emissions of sulphur have been reduced by 90 percent since 1970.

The electric power industry and the oil refinery industry has all but accepted the view that sulphur emissions have to be reduced.

VOLUME 1 295

The transportation industry gives a more mixed picture. Introducing catalytic converters on cars marked the very beginning but most definitely not the end of reducing acidifying emissions from cars. The European Union (EU) has to take the lead. Present EU standards have to be tightened and, most importantly, durability has to be demonstrated. The directives of EU leave much to be desired

Standards also have to be tightened for trucks and working machinery. The shipping industry is even worse. Shipping could in principle be environmentally

friendly - in practice it is not. Shipping is by now a major source of sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions. The resistance of the shipping industry has to be broken.

Agriculture is almost as bad. Ammonia is a major source of acid deposition in certain regions, but resistance towards taking responsibility has been decidedly mixed, at best. We have taken action in Sweden this spring, but much remains to be done in our country as well as in other countries.

This brief overview demonstrates that progress is mixed but steady. The work within the Geneva Convention remains important. But I also think that the European Union has to take the responsibility for action, to also push the global work. The Commission has now committed itself to develop an acidification strategy. This is a major step forward.

However, we need to continue to push for further action with respect to other emissions that are important.

Take the case of nitrogen oxides. They not only contribute to acidification, but also to eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.

Take the case of ground level ozone - a growing problem. But this conference has highlighted that there are problems outside Europe as well,

and problems in our countries which cannot be solved by Europe alone. Take the airborne spread of persistent organic pollutants and of heavy metals. There

appears to exist a northern hemisphere transport. Some of what goes up in Asia comes down in Europe - and vice versa.

This is noticeable in the Arctic region. The coldness reduces the breakdown, and the biological activity magnifies the biological enrichment. Pollutant concentrations in Arctic biota are much too high. There is no good international framework for handling these issues.

I hope the lessons from Europe can be useful in other parts of the world. This conference has highlighted that sulphur emissions increase rapidly in the Far East. But there is no similar convention concerning airborne transported emissions. Our experiences could be of value there, as well as in other parts of the world. Also, joint efforts against the persistent organic pollutants need to be organised.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My time is up. I want to thank you for the opportunity of sharing with you some of my thoughts about the role of politics in coming to grips with a serious environmental issue as it is def'med by scientists. Without a strong scientific base, the issues could not be adequately addressed, and without politics the issues could not be resolved.

Thank you once again. Farewell and a safe journey home.