Response to interpellation 2025/26:178 on dumped ships with chemical warfare agents
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that the government does not prioritize chemical weapons over oil for climate reasons 1 2 3. L emphasizes that the authority itself should assess remediation based on resources and that detailed regulation would be ministerial rule 2 3. L highlights that the remediation costs are high and that the government works through the remediation grant 1 2 3. 4 V1 argues that the government is paralyzed and that money is not a problem as it is scattered on climate measures 4. V1 argues that chemical weapons are an environmental bomb that should be prioritized over oil 4 and argues that wind farms in the Skagerrak should be stopped as they hinder fishing 5. 6 AS considers that the government does not take the issue seriously as 40 million is not enough 6. AS argues that the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management should request money and that Sweden should follow Germany and Norway 6. AS considers that wind farms are not responsible as they knock out fishing 6. 7 L argues that they have driven environmental issues since the beginning of the 1900s 7 and that it is appropriate that the experts at the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management assess which wrecks should be prioritized 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me if I consider that Sweden should take measures to reduce the spread of dumped chemical agents into the surrounding sea area and what measures could in that case become relevant. Elsa Widding has also asked me how I, if the government does not consider that measures should be taken to reduce spread, view the fact that trawling is permitted in such areas. Finally, Elsa Widding has asked me if I consider that the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management takes responsibility for the problems and takes necessary measures and what the government's prioritization looks like between the work with climate measures and this type of environmental disaster in Sweden.
During the years 2018–2027, a special initiative is underway to better manage environmentally hazardous wrecks around Sweden's coast. For 2025, the government has allocated 40 million kronor to appropriation 1:4 S remediation and restoration of contaminated areas, the so-called remediation appropriation, within expenditure area 20 Climate, environment and nature for exactly this type of work.
Within the framework of this work, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management has analyzed the risks associated with the environmentally hazardous wrecks in Swedish waters that are filled with chemical warfare agents. Test fishing and sediment sampling show that the wrecks are a source of dispersal of chemical warfare agents to both sediment and fish and shellfish. The agency has therefore investigated whether it is technically possible to remediate wrecks filled with chemical warfare agents at such great depths. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management's calculations show that the costs to remediate all currently known wrecks from chemical warfare agents lie between 2 billion and 80 billion kronor, with great risks for people and the environment during such work.
It has therefore been judged that, in the current situation, it is better to use available resources to remediate the wrecks that contain large amounts of oil. The initiative to handle the most environmentally hazardous wrecks around in Swedish waters has so far resulted in eleven wrecks being remediated of 770 tons of oil, with good effects for nature and wildlife.
In the specific wreck site west of the island Måseskär that Elsa Widding highlights, and where leakage to sediment and marine organisms occurs, trawling is ongoing to some extent. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management is currently working to develop measures to reduce the spread of chemical warfare agents from the dumping sites. Among other things, measures to limit activities in the area are being considered.
The government prioritizes environmental work to counteract and limit the effects of pollution, for example to reduce the spread of PFAS in the environment within the framework of the remediation grant. The estimated costs for handling dumped munitions are in the billions and difficult to manage, which demonstrates the economic advantages of preventing environmental destruction and pollution rather than dealing with the consequences of them afterwards. This is also the background to the government's climate work and demonstrates the importance of limiting both climate change and environmental pollution.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
During World War II, a large amount of chemical warfare agents were manufactured, and after the war, approximately 300,000 tons were collected, primarily from Germany, and loaded onto decommissioned warships which were then sunk in various locations, including off Måseskär and in the Gotland Deep. The Russians simply dropped the bombs straight into the water.
The problem is that these mustard gas bombs, just like the ships, are now rusting away and that there is a current around the ships of approximately three knots which causes them to drift out. It is also not entirely uncommon for fishermen to pull up these bombs in their nets. Just as the minister says, the fish also become contaminated, so we do not want people to ingest them.
There is also a risk of a major environmental catastrophe if a bomb detonates and takes the rest with it, and just as the minister says, it is a difficult project to take care of this. But if it were to become the catastrophe we fear, it will have enormous consequences for the entire Skagerrak, Kattegat, and even the North Sea, so it is no small matter.
I therefore become a little worried when it is said that one should instead salvage the oil. It is obviously very important to reduce the spread of PFAS and to remediate oil, but that is a completely different issue. Here we are talking about a ticking environmental bomb.
I have some difficulty understanding the 40 million, because as early as 1992 it was known that there was mustard gas on the seabed in this area, and in 2015 the Swedish Maritime Administration issued a report on it. In 2016 and 2017, the chemical agents Clark 1 and Clark 2 were found in biota, and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management published a report in 2018. A new report came in 2019. In 2022, a large-scale test fishing was conducted which showed that the fish were affected, and in 2023 came the report the minister mentioned regarding a potential recovery. It was then concluded that it was technically possible and that there were a number of different ways to do it. Obviously, there is an explosion risk during recovery. But other countries have managed it, so why is the government so paralyzed?
The report points out, as the minister said, that it concerns 2–80 billion. But money cannot be a problem because the government completely sprinkles money on climate measures that have no significance at all for the climate or the global temperature. The climate measures rather contribute to an enormous environmental destruction, and that we shall talk about in a later interpellation debate.
Saving the planet is about reducing environmental destruction all over the world and helping people out of poverty. That is the absolute best we can spend the money on.
Now it is a matter of taking care of this legacy from the Second World War before it contributes to starting new wars. We must clean up after the Second World War to reduce the risk of future environmental catastrophes.
Primarily, organisms living in the vicinity of the wrecks are affected by taking up the substances that ultimately end up on our plates. Even if the leakages are not acute today, the question is how much time we have if nothing is done. Can we even know when the limit values are exceeded and at what rate it will occur? How can we know that a larger accident will not occur?
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is important to listen carefully to the answer. The government is responsible for certain parts of the work. It is the government that decides how much funding we allocate in the budget for, for example, remediation. The member knows very well that this is preceded by a discussion with all coalition partners, and then we have landed on a certain amount. That amount is then transferred to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, which, based on this amount, assesses which measures are most relevant to implement and what capacity is available based on the available funds.
It is not the case that the government decides that oil is more important to remediate than chemical warfare agents. That is not how it works, and I mean that the government should also not decide which wrecks are most sensitive and should be remediated. On the other hand, the government can of course speak with the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management about what additional tools are considered necessary in order to succeed in handling, for example, chemical warfare agents.
What has happened is not that the government, instead of cleaning up chemical weapons, has chosen to clean up oil because we think the climate is more important than the environment, but what has happened is, as said, that the authority has investigated whether it is technically possible to clean up the wrecks that are filled with chemical weapons and concluded that the cost of cleaning them lies between 2 billion and 80 billion kronor. Then it is assessed that it is better to use the resources available in the budget for the cleanup grant to clean up the wrecks that can be cleaned up.
I have accompanied a cleanup to see how the work is carried out. That time, it was the cleanup of a wreck with oil, and it is very tough working conditions and a tough environment. These are operations that involve great risks both for the people carrying out the operations and for the environment. When one cleans up, one also disturbs a contaminated site in different ways, and it is a complex task.
When looking at the billions that go towards handling such challenges, one should highlight that it is also important to ensure that this type of pollution, which still occurs and occurs all the time, is reduced. I do not mean specifically chemical warfare agents in Swedish waters, but rather other types of pollution that also require remediation so that we can fish our fish and eat our shellfish.
We will need to work in both ways, not only with remediation but also with preventing the spread in different ways. There is a challenge there, and we are discussing with different parties how to proceed with the investments.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that 80 billion, which the work with the remediation of chemical warfare agents would cost at most, is absolutely not the amount of money that the government is investing in the climate. My entire climate and environment budget for this year is, for example, 19.6 billion kronor. 80 billion may sound like a little, but it is very many different types of investments that are to be covered by the funds that are spent.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! I must say that 80 billion in relation to the risk that is eliminated is nothing if one compares it with the climate budget of 19 billion, which is just money down the drain.
Germany, for example, has recovery operations for loose ammunition. If we were to face the catastrophe – what would it then cost? I don't even think it's possible to measure in money.
The riot control agents were often tipped with arsenic, which can further contaminate the environment around the dumping sites; it might be good to have that said. The metal containers, as mentioned, will not last forever. In Norway, they have the same problem. There, they have a different monitoring, so I do not know exactly what measures have been taken there, but perhaps the government should look into it a bit. This is an ongoing process, so even if it is not leaking much today, we have no control over when we reach a critical point.
An interesting thing is how this issue is connected to other things that the government supports. I am thinking of the planned wind farms out in the Skagerrak. The wind turbines are to be 350 meters high and built on barges that are to be anchored with chains and anchors. Has the government considered what would happen if such a barge were to drift? There is absolutely no salvage vessel that could hold it back. What happens if it blows directly towards Måseskär? It would be a total catastrophe. Is the minister thinking about that? What would happen then? It would be a gigantic explosion.
It is probably up to the minister to consider whether she should approve the wind turbines or try to stop the expansion. If one has not intended to remediate, one must really do everything to avoid tearing up this area. A hot tip is to put the question of wind farms on the shelf as soon as possible.
It happens that fishermen are injured when they come into contact with the mustard gas, which in reality is a viscous mass, when the containers are pulled up in the fishing nets. This is a race against time. The containers are 80 years old today, and the casings are eroding and poisoning the marine environment.
I would like to say something about fishing, which is so incredibly important in this area. West coast fishing is shrinking all the time, and we do not want to eliminate fishing. That is the worst thing we could do, especially in these days when fishing is more important than ever. Fishing must increase.
Wind power should be completely unthinkable for several reasons, including because it hinders fishing. If one were to simply accept half of the wind power developments that are planned along the west coast, it would wipe out fishing. It would become zero and nothing, because it is not possible to trawl if there is only a distance of one minute between these large concrete foundations. In the situation we find ourselves in today, with a government that wants to drag us into war, fishing is truly needed more than ever.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! We can, of course, have a discussion about the fact that the member does not think we should approve offshore wind turbines, about whether wind power is dangerous for our marine environment, or about how it affects our fishing industry.
But let me return to the question of remediation and clarify the whole matter. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the member is somewhat insinuating that the government chooses to prioritize climate and oil over the remediation of chemical warfare agents and the environment. I really want to be clear that is not the case. The government does not prioritize the remediation of oil for climate reasons instead of focusing on chemical warfare agents.
It would be quite tricky for any minister to step in and regulate in detail how the authority should assess which wrecks should be remediated and which not. That is because we in Sweden have an arrangement where the ministers' responsibilities are designed in a different way than by stepping in and making substantive assessments. It is something that the authorities do themselves with their experts, who are hired for their competence in the field. It is not something that I, as a minister, should occupy myself with, for that would be ministerial rule.
However, one can of course engage in a dialogue with the authority and ask: Is it only money that prevents you from clearing the wrecks that contain chemical warfare agents? If so, it is a money issue, and then I can raise it in the next budget negotiation and discuss it with my colleagues in the government. Is this a danger that we want to address, or is it an assessment made for other reasons, for example, that the wrecks containing chemical warfare agents are at such a great depth that it is practically very difficult to succeed with it?
I can, as a minister, for example, take the initiative for cooperation with countries that have such work, as the member mentions. There are examples of countries that work with this and where it seems to work. In that case, it is naturally relevant for us to speak with them and see how they have worked with the issue.
I think this is an interesting discussion, and I would like to thank the member for drawing my attention to this issue. What the government does to counteract this is simply that we work through the remediation grant, where there are funds available for the authority for remediation. Then, from the authority's side, the assessment is made of which wrecks should be remediated based on the available resources.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! Well, Minister! I hear between the lines that the Minister could actually imagine doing something about this. Welcome to my new party Ambition Sverige, if the Minister takes the issue seriously!
It also sounds a bit as if the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management could request money for this purpose and do something about this.
I have read all the investigations that I have come across. In the latest investigation I read, it even shows how this could be done and presents four different alternatives. But I am still worried, because then it comes to a halt. And now we hear this about 40 million. It is not at all in proportion to what was needed, and it does not feel like the government is taking this seriously.
I know that the Germans are doing very much, and the Norwegians are also on their way. I hope that Sweden follows suit.
Again: Fishing is so important that we do not want a catastrophe. In the time we are living in now, we are completely dependent on fishing.
I do not think it is responsible to build the wind farms, because it will eliminate fishing completely. It is clear that we have our agriculture, but that takes time. Fishing can increase. Only the West Coast fishermen can provide 5 million people with food, and it can be increased very quickly to significantly larger quantities. During World War II, fish were actually the only thing that was not rationed.
I understand that this is an incredibly difficult issue, but I believe that we must take greater responsibility for the environmental issues and ticking environmental bombs that we have in Sweden. I will continue to debate them as long as I am given the opportunity.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! As Minister for the Environment, I want to highlight that there are many ways to engage for the Swedish environment and the Swedish nature, and in how we shall ensure that it stands strong and manages to withstand both pollution, global warming, and other environmental threats that our seas and waters face today.
One does not need to join the member's party to demonstrate such commitment. For example, my party, Liberalerna, has championed these issues since the beginning of the 1900s, taken responsibility for the Swedish environment, protected national rivers, and fought for us to build nuclear power plants instead of coal power plants so that we can take responsibility for our environment.
There are many ways to engage in environmental policy and environmental issues, which are incredibly important. I can be very clear that I personally think they fall into the shadows when the climate issue is so incredibly debated and discussed, not least in this chamber.
I always appreciate when the members read reports and take the initiative for interpellation debates on environmental policy and on how we should safeguard the fantastic environment that we have in Sweden.
We know that we have environmentally hazardous wrecks in our Swedish waters. There are approximately 17,000 wrecks, some of which are assessed to be particularly dangerous. 300 are assessed to be environmentally hazardous, of which about 30 constitute an acute environmental hazard. The Government will continue to work so that we remediate, and we take responsibility for them.
It is not the government that assesses which wrecks should be prioritized and remediated, but rather the experts at the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. I think this is an appropriate order and that is how it should proceed, but I will, of course, speak with the agency as I always do regarding many different issues, for example offshore wind and fishing, but also remediation.
As I said, I appreciate the member pointing out to me the issue regarding chemical warfare agents.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.