European Internship Kirstin Groote (Utrecht), Malmö, June 2011

Kirstin Groote from City Development , department Environment and Sustainability,  went on a four day internship to Malmö in June 2011.  Her research topic was  the  theory and practice of soil remediation in Sweden.

Her Internship left the following impression on her:
Mälmo is a blooming city where a meeting of minds between citizens and administrators is commonplace and where future development of the city is planned and executed in good conscience. Malmö looks at the bigger picture, subsequently resulting in unexpected fusion of ambitions. For instance the key to success for run-down district such as Rosengård is to integrate the district to the people and not the more common approach of integrating the people to the district. How they do it? With just the ingredients they have in abundance: space, culture and a little support from the local government. Rosengård is a district where most of its inhabitants are immigrants from Iraq and the Balkans. By growing crops on the green spaces around the flats and using the stairwells as meeting and trading places, flat-residents now make good use of the common areas, are more involved with the neighbourhood and contribute to a greener and more sustainable way of living.

The most striking difference between the way Utrecht and Malmö tackle soil pollution is the decision-making process. In the Netherlands we have a number of separate environmental protection codes including one on soil protection, whereas in Sweden there are significantly   less regulations on environmental protection. This means that Swedish counties and municipalities have more freedom in the interpretation and conformation of their basic environmental protection rules into (local) soil protection policy. This creates a deviation from soil protection regulations from place to place, and sometimes even from person to person.

On the one hand this prevents a nation-wide policy on soil protection rules which provides clarity and equality before the law. On the other hand, this method is less bureaucratic and provides the opportunity of a case by case approach where both authority and proponent of the remediation come to an agreement on the basis of equality rather than the authority imposing a decision on the proponent. However, the result of both the Dutch and Swedish processes is the same, they ultimately lead to a cleaner and healthier soil.

 Kirstin Groote