ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSIES

Across National Borders

The Hong Kong government has repeatedly cited Copenhagen’s Lynetteholm artificial island project in Denmark as a case for increasing land supply and addressing climate change in support of Lantau Tomorrow Vision and large-scale reclamation projects292. However, the Lynetteholm project is facing a variety of planning, environmental and financial controversies, the impacts of which have even crossed national borders to the detriment of all countries along the Baltic Sea.

The Lynetteholm project will reclaim 275 hectares of land offshore from Copenhagen in the Sound Strait between Denmark and Sweden, to be undertaken by the public corporation By & Havn. Reclamation works commenced in 2022, and the land foundation is expected to be completed in 2035. The whole project will not be finished until 2070. Due to the proximity of the Danish and Swedish territories along the Sound Strait, the project’s environmental impacts have raised controversies internationally. Its EIA process was also being questioned within the country.

The Copenhagen City Council claimed that Lynetteholm’s reclaimed land would provide 35,000 residential units, and 20% of which would be affordable housing to help relieve the housing shortage. The project’s contractor also said that the artificial island could cope with the rising sea level and prevent flooding in Copenhagen’s city centre293 .

Development process bypassed international opposition

According to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (commonly known as the Espoo Convention) which regulates the impacts of transboundary construction projects, unless it is certain that a project will not cause significant transboundary impacts, the party carrying out the project shall consult with all potentially impacted countries. Neighbouring countries of Denmark mainly concerned that the project would reduce water flow from North Sea to Baltic Sea by 0.5%294, which could potentially threaten the marine ecosystem due to reduced oxygen content of the sea water295.

However, Denmark consulted only one country, Sweden, which requested Denmark to complete negotiations in accordance with international law before passing the works bill, but Denmark ignored the request296. Other potentially affected countries, including Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Germany, have also requested Denmark to provide further information related to the project297. A member of the European Parliament pointed out that there was a consensus among the Baltic Sea coastal countries not to undertake large-scale projects that might affect the currents in the Baltic Sea298 After the project commenced, Denmark discharged wastewater in the nearby Køge Bay, leading to opposition by the Swedish government as well as several Danish municipalities299. The EIA that approved the discharge was subsequently revealed to be based on a study conducted 40 years ago, and the authors of the original study said they did not understand how the EIA could conclude from their study that there were no significant environmental impacts300.

In addition, Lynetteholm’s EIA did not consider the potential impacts of the construction of the underwater tunnel and bypass, which were essential project infrastructure and were included in the budget. A local engineering publication has questioned whether the EIA study for the infrastructure has ever begun, but the government wanted to proceed as soon as possible since the

Artificial Island Was A Prominent Project301

Controversies on the “self-financed” financing arrangement

The financing arrangements of the project were also controversial. While the Danish government had initially claimed that the project would be self-financed, it was reported that the municipal government of Copenhagen had set aside 53 million euros as a deficit guarantee. Less than a month after the project began, the contractor indicated that the first phase of the reclamation would go over budget by 26 million euros302. By June 2022, the mayor of Copenhagen even said Lynetteholm’s budget was unrealistic, forecasting that the project costs would be significantly overrun303

Under the self-financed arrangement, the main income of the project will come from land sales. However, one of the rationales for the project is to alleviate the housing shortage in Copenhagen. Some studies have questioned the goals as being contradictory304: if we have to rely on land sales to make the project pay for itself, property prices on the artificial island will be inevitably high. Copenhagen’s technology and environment commissioner warned that the reclaimed land could not be sold at market value, or else the artificial island would become just another “VIP project” that would turn the public away305. A Danish urban designer pointed out that there will be no affordable housing within the first 50 years of the project, before the proceeds from luxury housing developments could offset the cost of the island, showing that under the under the “self-financed” financing arrangement, it appears that it is not practicable to provide affordable housing in a reasonable time through building artificial islands.306