By Christina Jutterstrm
STOCKHOLM 197> The most shocking thing bout the damage to the forests is that it has occurred so quickly and extensively. It was less than 20 years ago that a new kind of damage was discovered in the coniferous forests of northern Skne. Ten years ago the same kind of damage was apparent over much of southern Sweden.
According to the most recent studies,the damage in Skne and Halland [in southern Sweden] has doubled over the last five years. The studies involve determination of needle losses and indicate the effect on forest growth. The rate of increase is alarming, but even worse is that researchers have become quite convinced that large areas of forest are close to their biological tolerances. The soil has used up its resources to neutralise the acid rain.
The forest has been exposed to a two-phase attack. First, the sulphur acidified the earth and robbed the trees of important sustenance. Then came the nitrogen attack, which began when the trees had absorbed as much nitrogen as is good for them.
The researchers are unanimous: sulphur and nitrogen deposition must be reduced massively and rapidly if we are to prevent an ecological collapse some time around 50 years from now. And this means more than just the forest in southern Sweden. There are regions of Dalarna [north-west of Stockholm] where the soil composition supplies no defence at all from sulphur attack, and needle losses and are almost as great as in Skne and Halland,though other forces could be contributing to this.
So what should we do? Sweden can boast having reduced sulphur emissions by 70% over the last decade. This is a handsome figure and proves that it is actually possible to do something. But the painful truth is that in the same period sulphur deposition has been reduced by only 20%.
The reason for this is that only an eighth of the deposits are "Swedish" sulphur. The sources of pollution are, in order of decreasing significance, Germany, Sweden, Poland, the UK, the Baltic states, Russia, Denmark and Czechoslovakia. 75% of the German sulphur comes from former East Germany.
We are simply in the wrong place, exposed to wind- and rain-borne pollution and with soil which is poorly equipped to defend itself against acidification. When it comes to nitrogen it is again primarily outside sources from which the pollution comes.
In southern Sweden, 75% of the nitrogen deposited comes from overseas. But even Sweden cannot reach the goal of reducing nitrogen emissions by 30% between 1980 and 1995. The problem is that automobile and sea traffic have increased their emissions somewhat. Catalytic converters are obviously necessary to reduce pollution.
Though the majority of the acid rain comes from overseas, this is no cause for national passivity. Yet the fact is that we can influence the situation only marginally by our own actions. Acidic emissions in Europe must be reduced by at least 70% to prevent any further deterioration.
No plans of this order of magnitude exist.The UK has refused to respond to any international demands at all. The majority of the old eastern bloc countries lack the power or money to take effective action. The only good news is that West Germany reduced its sulphur emissions by 70% during the '80s and that the new federal states have promised extensive changes by the year 2000.
Sweden must place extensive demands on the EC countries regarding acidified emissions. Inside the EC and with the EC as one of our tools, our ability to get results increases.There is no reason to accept the passivity that, above all, Great Britain has shown. But we must also, completely out of national self-interest, contribute to the rapid changes occurring on the other side of the Baltic. Just in themselves, the sulphur emissions from Estonia's two oil-fired power stations in Narva are twice as large as total Swedish emissions!
Carl-Erik Nyquist, the head of Vattenfall [Sweden's largest electricity company] has indicated opportunities for "joint implementation", which means that a Swedish energy company would pay for effective environmental actions in Estonia and Poland, for example, instead of making the corresponding investments in Sweden. This is one model; there are others.
One thing is certain: the matter is urgent. Growth losses in the forest have recently been calculated at between three and four billion crowns [A$600-800million] per year, and the figure is rising rapidly. This is a strong economic reason, but the ecological ones are even stronger. A large part of Sweden's forests can vanish in a generation.
[From the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter, translated for Green Left by Greg Peters.]