Compensation for restrictions on activities resulting from species protection

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill on compensation for restrictions on land use resulting from the species protection. The Social Democrats support the committee's report but have submitted a special statement.

I thought I would start by saying something important: We Social Democrats believe that the forest should be utilized, but utilized sustainably and responsibly. The forest is crucial for jobs, growth, climate transition, and the Swedish bioeconomy. In large parts of the country, the forest is also the very foundation for people's everyday lives, entrepreneurship, and faith in the future. At the same time, we have a responsibility to safeguard biodiversity and protect endangered species and valuable natural environments.

That is why Sweden has long had two equal forestry policy goals: production and environment. The problem is that today's regulatory framework has not succeeded in creating the balance that people can rightly expect.

For a long time, individual forest owners have been in a very difficult situation. People have been denied to harvest their forest, sometimes after having managed it responsibly for generations, but at the same time have not had a clear right to compensation. This has created frustration, uncertainty, and long legal processes.

Many experience that the rules are unclear, difficult to understand and unpredictable. It is not reasonable. Therefore, we Social Democrats have long demanded both clearer rules and better compensation opportunities for landowners. It was also the Social Democratic government that initiated the work to change the species protection and attempt to resolve these problems. We have also, throughout the entire mandate period, proposed more money for compensation for the protection and management of valuable forest.

Madam Speaker! It is therefore welcome that the government is now moving forward with clarifying the right to compensation. It is fundamentally reasonable that society takes financial responsibility when individual landowners are forced to bear the cost for common natural values. At the same time, one must be honest that the government's handling of the issue raises several questions.

Firstly, this is coming very late. The government has had almost an entire mandate period to act, and during that time, uncertainty has continued for many forest owners across the country. The appeals have increased like an avalanche, and people have waited for decisions, clarity, and long-term rules of the game.

Secondly, a unified holistic approach is still missing. Instead of gathering issues concerning species protection, compensation rights, consultation, usage, and environmental considerations into a larger coherent reform, the government has presented different parts individually through several different memoranda, investigations, and legislative proposals. This makes it difficult to see the whole and understand how the regulatory framework will actually function in practice.

To be honest, the forest and the forest owners deserve better than sporadic changes. For forest owners, this is about investments and decisions that span generations. That requires long-term perspective, predictability, and broad anchoring.

Madam Speaker! We also see problems with the so-called literal investigation and the process surrounding the species protection. Many referral bodies and actors have highlighted the lack of transparency and the difficulty of overseeing the consequences of the various proposals that are now being presented. It risks creating even greater uncertainty.

The government's own authorities have also warned that parts of the proposals could make the regulatory framework even more difficult to understand and apply. This is serious, because if the rules become more complicated, there is a risk that the responsibility will fall on the individual landowner. People should not have to be experts in law or conduct lengthy processes to understand what applies to their own property.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats naturally hope that this regulatory framework will function better than the current system. We hope that it will create greater clarity and better opportunities for compensation for the landowners who are affected. We also feel a concern that the proposals do not go far enough, that the government still has not succeeded in finding the long-term balance needed between usage and environmental considerations, and that the changes may create new boundary issues and legal conflicts.

There is also a more fundamental question that the government should have dared to discuss more. Today, the system is often characterized by a very binary view. Either one is allowed to clear completely or not at all. Reality is many times more complex than that.

We Social Democrats believe that the government should have investigated the possibility of using adapted cultivation methods and low-intensity forestry to a greater extent in areas with high nature values. It could have created a better balance between utilization and conservation. In some areas, it might be possible to conduct a more careful forestry with greater consideration instead of stopping the utilization entirely. It could have provided both greater flexibility and greater legitimacy.

Madam Speaker! These are issues that evoke strong emotions and much engagement. It is not strange. For many people, this is about both property rights, family traditions, entrepreneurship, and faith in the future. It is also about what responsibility we take for nature and future generations. Therefore, less volatility and more long-term solutions were needed.

Sweden needs a regulatory framework that people understand – a regulatory framework that is legally secure, that makes people dare to invest and manage their forests and that ensures that we take responsibility for biodiversity and endangered species.

We Social Democrats stand behind a policy where natural resources are used responsibly and where people who live and work in the forest land are given reasonable conditions and clear rules of the game. Ultimately, this is about responsibility and balance – balance between use and preservation, between ownership and collective responsibility, and between today's needs and future generations' opportunities.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill on compensation when forest owners' use is restricted as a result of the species protection. This is more than welcome, and many have been waiting for it.

At its core, it is about an important balance between protecting endangered species and valuable nature and simultaneously respecting individual property rights. For me and my party, this is a self-evident principle. If the state restricts a landowner's ability to use their land in a way that significantly affects the operation or the economy, the landowner shall also receive reasonable compensation. Therefore, as I said, we welcome that the government is now finally presenting a proposal that regulates the right to compensation when species protection leads to such restrictions.

Madam Speaker! This is something that many landowners have waited a long time for. The uncertainty has been great and the legal situation unclear for many years. But even though we welcome the bill, there are parts that need to be improved. I will bring up a couple of them.

The first concerns the rules on the repayment of compensation. The Government proposes that the state should be able to demand back compensation for up to ten years after payment if the conditions change, for example if the protected species disappears from the area. We do not question the principle itself. It is obviously reasonable that the state should be able to act if the basis for the compensation no longer exists. No one wants to create a system that leads to overcompensation, but a ten-year repayment period creates some problems.

Imagine that as a landowner you receive compensation and plan your finances and perhaps invest based on this compensation, but live with the uncertainty that the state can at any time during the ten-year period demand the money back. It is not reasonable. Such a system risks creating long-term economic insecurity for the individual. Rules regarding clawbacks must be clear, predictable, and reasonable. The state must not be able to place a disproportionately heavy burden on the landowners who have already had their disposal rights limited.

Madam Speaker! Our second objection concerns the government's management of the process. I think I must be honest and say that it is a bit strange that the government still cannot provide information on when the legislative changes will actually enter into force. The reason is that they now, very late in the process, want to let the EU Commission examine whether the proposal is compatible with the EU's state aid rules. For me, this raises a number of questions.

Legal certainty for landowners has been known for a long time. Furthermore, several referral bodies warned early on that the state aid issue could become relevant. Still, this has dragged on. It is difficult to understand why this has not been handled earlier. The consequence is that forest and land owners have to continue to wait and live in uncertainty.

When people are affected by government decisions that impact their economy, business, and future, politics must provide clear messages. Therefore, we believe that the government must urgently complete the dialogue with the EU Commission and return to the Riksdag with a concrete date for when the law shall enter into force. Sweden's landowners deserve better than continued uncertainty.

Madam Speaker! In the end, this issue is about trust between the state and the citizen. Nature conservation and species protection are important goals, but they must never be implemented in a way that undermines legal certainty or weakens respect for property rights. Strong species protection and strong property rights must be able to coexist. It requires clear rules, fair compensation, and politicians who act in a timely manner. It is that balance we demand.

Since I forgot to say which reservation I wanted to move for approval, I am doing so now. We naturally stand behind the proposition, but I still want to move for approval of our reservation 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The debate concerns compensation for restrictions on use resulting from the species protection. What does that mean? Well, when a forest owner, or in exceptional cases a farmer or aquaculture operator, uses their land, the presence of species worthy of protection can lead to the authorities restricting the use. The user receives a restriction in their disposal over the land. The user may, for example, not fell forest as they wish.

Since before, there have been comprehensive rules for the user to be compensated when land is set aside for national parks, nature reserves, or other set-asides. On the other hand, comprehensive rules for compensation have been lacking when use is hindered without the land being set aside for a reserve or similar. This can involve instances when the provisions of the Species Protection Ordinance are activated because there is a species of conservation value in the area that requires consideration.

In this way, the state has been able to take away the landowner's control over their land without them receiving any compensation. It is a situation that we consider to be very bad. Preventing ongoing use without compensation should not occur in a democracy. Now we strengthen the ownership right in such a way that the landowner receives compensation if the application of the Species Protection Ordinance leads to cultivation restrictions.

By clarifying the right to compensation in the law, conditions are also created for the state to be able to reach an agreement voluntarily with property owners who claim compensation due to the species protection.

In 2023, a ruling from the Supreme Court underscored the need to change the legislation on compensation. The ruling established that landowners normally do not receive compensation if the state stops logging by referring to the Species Protection Ordinance, unless the intervention is very intrusive and affects the individual unreasonably severely. The ruling led to the requirement that an assessment must be made in the individual case, and court rulings following the Supreme Court's normative judgment have turned out somewhat differently. The legal situation can therefore be considered somewhat unclear.

The compensation right that we are now introducing clarifies the conditions and ensures, not least, that the landowners receive compensation. Even though the problem with lack of compensation was exacerbated by the judgment in 2023, today's decision corrects a situation that has been deficient since at least 1974. It therefore matters which government is sitting in Rosenbad.

Madam Speaker! Now I want to lift my gaze a little bit.

The rules are governed on an overarching level in the protection of property in the Instrument of Government. An investigation is underway, which will soon submit its report, regarding whether there is a need to change the constitutional protection of property in order to protect ownership rights. It is therefore important to be able to change the constitution.

This is an example where the judges have ruled according to the legislation and the politicians consider that the result has become unreasonable. In that case, the natural consequence in a democracy is that the politicians change the legislation, and that is what we are doing today. But perhaps we will, as said, come to consider that even the constitution must be changed to secure the right of ownership against arbitrariness from the state's side. We shall see. It highlights the importance of it not becoming harder than it is today to change the constitution.

We Sweden Democrats are running for election to say no to the pending constitutional amendment that aims to make it harder to change the constitution in the future. We are at the same time positive towards strengthening the right of ownership in the constitution if it is needed. These two positions are connected.

For all conservative-minded voters, I want to emphasize that if the constitution is changed so that a two-thirds majority is required for future amendments to the constitution, it is very likely that a strengthening of the constitution's property protection and ownership rights will not occur. The Social Democrats will likely block it.

So make sure to vote in as many Sweden Democrats as possible in the election if you want to see a strengthened property right!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a great responsibility, both within the EU and internationally, to stop the loss of biodiversity and reverse the trend. Today we are debating the government's bill on compensation linked to species protection. For once, when it comes to forestry here in this chamber and in relation to the government, I think this is fundamentally a good step in the right direction.

Today, the compensation is based on nature values. Nature values consist of several different parameters, including the species that exist and live in the forest. When this matrix collectively reaches very high nature values, there is a possibility in today's system for landowners to receive compensation.

But then, Madam Speaker, there are also habitats that may not collectively end up so high in the matrix but where there are still species worthy of protection. It is precisely those forests, forest owners, and species that have ended up a bit between the chairs in today's system. That is why we in Miljöpartiet have several times tried to propose and work for reforms that are precisely about setting a financial compensation linked to the presence of species.

Madam Speaker! On the whole, we therefore think that this is a step in the right direction.

The previous speaker spoke somewhat about forest owners being affected by these species. I want to be clear that our co-inhabitants – animals, orchids, birds – are not something that affects us. It is about how we in politics ensure to create conditions to achieve a coexistence between our biodiversity and the forest owners.

Therefore, it is much better if one can earn from this – that one can receive a compensation that feels reasonable, that one can try to find middle grounds moving forward.

Madam Speaker! However, we have some criticism to direct at the proposal. To begin with, we argue that it is not sufficiently analyzed in relation to the EU's state aid rules and the EU's practice regarding what is expected to be an operating cost where species protection often comes into play, according to the judgments that exist. We consider this to be a bit of a careless error. We are fundamentally positive about this direction, but we absolutely do not want this, just because it has become a bit careless and rushed, to ultimately affect landowners.

Trust takes a very long time to build but can be destroyed quickly. Therefore, we have seen risks with the proposal that we believe are not sufficiently analyzed. It could end with landowners being liable for reimbursement in hindsight, something that we really want to avoid.

Madam Speaker! We are also concerned regarding the financing. In connection with the proposal, the government has announced budget items linked to the species protection.

In light of how quickly the government dismantled the nature conservation budget, by over 70 percent overnight, and thereby increased the queues for landowners who actually want to protect their forest, we see that these funds may not be sufficient. Again: Should that situation arise, it is the landowners who will be left facing the uncertainty.

I therefore wish to move for approval of the Miljöpartiet's reservation 4. I also want to point out to you who are listening that there are actually landowners who, for various reasons, want to protect their forest. I think that from a political standpoint, in a broader consensus, we should be able to agree on making it possible for different alternatives.

Between 2023 and 2024, 556 landowners contacted the Swedish Forest Agency and the County Administrative Board in various ways and requested to have their land protected voluntarily. But since there is no money to pay out compensation, they now have to remain with waiting agreements and in a long queue. The need corresponds to three years' budget, if we maintain the same level that the Tidö parties have in their budget item. The relationship between the interest from landowners to protect and what the Tidö parties have budgeted is thus 1:3. This gives an indication and can explain my concern and reservation regarding precisely financing.

Madam Speaker! I move, as I have said, for approval of reservation number 4. I think it is a laudable direction, but there are several parts that I am concerned about. I hope that I will be wrong.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to express my support for the committee's proposal.

The UN's human rights, the European Convention, and the Swedish Instrument of Government all contain, in one way or another, writings on the right of ownership. We have also seen that one can now receive a Nobel Prize regarding the right of ownership.

I think several of these parts show exactly how important property rights are. According to those of us who often talk about property rights, it is absolutely essential for a functioning democracy that we have strong property rights. It is the entire guarantee for someone who wants to invest their life and their money in cultivating land and forest and living with nature. That is precisely what one does as a farmer and forester; one lives with nature, not against nature as it can sometimes sound like.

I believe that one of the biggest differences between several of the political parties lies there. We in Moderaterna believe in the people who work the land and the forest and that they want to do good things. But we also know that the state sometimes needs to make a restriction on property rights. In that case, it must, of course, lead to compensation. For Moderaterna's part, we have a court ruling, which is a number of years old, that species protection restrictions shall lead to compensation.

Now there is actually a proposal on the table to say yes to here in the chamber. The proposal means that there will be a right to compensation for species protection restrictions, which has not existed previously. It has been tested many times, but there has not been such a clear part.

This is then to be sent to the European Commission to clarify that it does not conflict with the EU's state aid rules. I am completely convinced that it will not conflict with the EU's state aid rules. It is rather the opposite. That a user is restricted, is not allowed to use their own land, and sees that they will not be allowed to use their own land in the future is the exact opposite of state aid. I am not worried about that part.

I am very happy about and positive towards the fact that the proposal is in place. I hope that all parties in the chamber will vote yes to this.

Someone said that it is strengthening property rights when one pays out compensation. I would not say that it is. It is absolutely not. But it is a sign of sanity that the state pays out money when it restricts someone's right of use.

Madam Speaker! Therefore, I move again for the proposal to be approved.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have in many debates, both in this speaker's chair and in other places, said that landowners must be able to trust the state and that the state should trust the landowner. That trust is truly under severe strain when it comes to precisely the species protection and thus the ownership right.

There is an enormous amount of irritation among forest owners and the forest industry all over the country regarding what the species protection actually leads to today. This does not only affect the individual landowner. It also affects workplaces and Sweden's rural areas. Therefore, this is a very important part of moving forward and of rebuilding the trust between the state and the landowner again.

Black grouse, capercaillie, willow ptarmigan, and capercaillie – these are four species that are often discussed in the debate and which lead to enormous concerns for our landowners. When it comes to at least two of these species, it is quite interesting. In Sweden, we shoot between 17,000 and 20,000 black grouse per year in completely legal hunting. But the black grouse can halt ongoing land use.

The species that has become perhaps the primary signal species in this debate is, however, the wood-decay fungus (knärot). Activists have namely seen that if one finds wood-decay fungus, one can stop ongoing land use, i.e., forestry. In 2019, 2,000 finds of wood-decay fungus were made. In 2025, over 20,000 finds of the same species were made. This shows how common the species is. Still, it has been able to stop ongoing land use. Furthermore, a species like wood-decay fungus does not disappear if forestry occurs where it grows; instead, it returns. It is therefore a bit strange how we handle these species.

The forest is not a still image. The forest is a film. It lives. Things are happening there all the time, including the fact that most forest owners manage their forest. And they manage the forest in such a way that we get these high nature values. That is what makes us end up there. We must not forget that.

For many, the forest is a pension insurance. And for many, it is a part of being able to participate in paying for a generational shift. But if one is going to harvest and a stop to harvesting comes, due to whatever species it may be, the land becomes almost worthless.

There is a lot of talk about compensation. It is very good that we get this with compensation on site, Madam Speaker. But fundamentally, it is not compensation that is wanted. One wants to be able to continue cultivating one's land as one has done for generations. That is what is wanted.

In this chamber, we have two parties that have immensely more money than all other parties. They have no problem paying out as much money as they want in the budget in this matter. Money is, as said, important. But the most important thing is still the right of ownership and being able to use one's own forest.

In this species protection, a division has been made into two lists. There is a list of species that should not be able to stop ongoing land use. There is also another list with the rarest species. There, ongoing land use can be stopped, but then it is very clear that compensation must be paid.

The important thing here is the purpose. One list concerns species where ongoing land use cannot be stopped, because the purpose of land use is that one uses their forest and their land. Therefore, it is permitted to continue. But, Madam Speaker, it is forbidden to, for example, go out and collect bird eggs, shoot birds or other such things – simply destroying and committing actual environmental crime. That is the difference between the two lists. Ongoing land use is therefore legal. One may continue with it. The purpose is very important here.

A post was made earlier in the debate regarding, among other things, the time for entry into force. It should happen as soon as possible, once it has been handled. But it must be done in the right order, so that the assessment against the EU Commission can be made.

Of those I have spoken with, no one believes that the EU Commission will claim that this is state aid, rather, it is believed that it will work.

The second part concerns financing. This is rights-based legislation. It therefore does not matter how much money the government has allocated in the budget, because if a landowner is stopped, the money must be paid out. It is rights-based legislation, and that is how it works.

In addition to this, the work continues, not least at the EU level. It is about making a change in the Birds Directive. In some parts, they are down to the impact on an individual level, i.e., individual birds. At that level, we cannot have it. The Government is working to ensure that the protection points to the population level, that is to say the entire population of birds – not on an individual level. That is the norm. The Government is working to ensure that this is put in place within the EU legislation so that the species protection does not become more intrusive than it is – because it is now going far too far.

With these changes, I hope that we will nevertheless reach a point where the landowner can trust the state. I move for the proposal in the report to be approved.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ottosson for the speech.

We agree on a great deal of things in the report, and I truly welcome that the government is trying to solve the problems that have existed regarding species protection and the compensation issue – just as the member raised in their speech.

At the same time, several have urged the government to coordinate the proposals with both the forest investigation and the environmental goals preparation, as well as to ensure that they comply with EU law. Not only have I raised the need for a holistic view, but for example, Skogsindustrierna has also done so.

Does member Ottosson think that the government has truly taken a unified holistic approach to the forest's future regulatory framework, or does the member also see a risk that the issues have been handled individually and now, late in the mandate period, are leaving several remaining uncertainties?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the question.

Now, perhaps Malin Larsson is a bit early for a debate. Parts of what Malin Larsson highlighted in her question actually concern the next debate on the forest bill.

Regarding the coordination of these issues is a reason why the species protection was not included in the forest proposal, the hope that it would be developed earlier. It was the basis for why the issues were not adopted as a package. The same question that Malin Larsson put forward was also asked by us. The answer was that the species protection was developed so that it would be run in a parallel track in order to hopefully move forward faster.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ottosson for the answer.

The problem is that some parts concern the other committee report and some parts concern this committee report. The questions overlap, and that is why it is so incredibly important with the whole.

The members of the committee raised the issue of time. Now we know how that time went, and how urgent it was can be discussed. It took one and a half years before the investigation was even initiated. From my side, I see it as that they wanted to handle everything themselves behind closed doors, without insight and comments during the work's progress.

Another recurring point from both forest owners and the forestry industry is the need for clear rules of the game, which I spoke about in my speech. At the same time, discussions are still ongoing regarding definitions, regarding old-growth forest, natural forest, and primeval forest. There is an uncertainty about which areas may in the future come to be covered by different forms of protection. If we do not even know and agree on what should be counted as important old-growth forest with high nature values, how then can forest owners know which rules of the game apply in the future? Does the member believe that the government has given the required statements here, or does the member share my view that the government needs to give significantly clearer statements on what and how much that actually should be protected and thus compensated, in order to create the long-term perspective and predictability that the forest owners demand?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let us begin with the question of species protection. A species protection investigation was commissioned under the January agreement. It was an investigation that ended with alarm. It was truly nothing to build upon to obtain a regulatory framework on species protection where trust could be built between forest owners and the state. The investigation had an enormous bias toward what I claim is the wrong direction. If I am to be honest, I believe that even Malin Larsson thought that large parts of that investigation leaned in the wrong direction. It was nothing we could build upon, and instead, we had to get a new investigation started.

The idea was to run parallel tracks precisely so that it would go faster. If Malin Larsson asks the undersigned, I would absolutely wish that it had gone faster. There is no doubt about that.

I agree with the question regarding different types of nature. That was something that the Environmental Goals Commission took up. I was not part of the commission this time. It is the only environmental goals commission since 2018 that I have not been a part of. Because I was not part of the commission, I was also not part of the discussions, but I know that there were extensive discussions regarding the definitions of the nature types.

It is very important that we find definitions that become consistent. It is still about EU regulations, and then we must treat the forest in a similar way. We Swedes should not again be "Bror Duktig" and go significantly further than what the EU regulations require. Unfortunately, we see all too often that we Swedes want to be "duktiga" (diligent), and then we go further than what is required. Those we destroy for are ourselves. Therefore, it is very important that we stay at the same level and thus perform some form of minimum implementation and do not go too far. It is very important if we are to achieve legal certainty and long-term perspective in the forest issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the member's contribution.

The bill we are discussing concerns the framework for the right to compensation, while the species lists are adopted in the species protection ordinance. It is nothing that is on the table to take a position on and debate today. But since the member raised that part, I would like to take the opportunity to ask a few questions.

A question that I think deserves an answer is actually which red-list category should be protected. Something that this side of politics has talked a lot about is that one should conduct an effective environmental policy.

Madam Speaker! With my background as a conservation biologist, I know that measures need to be taken earlier than when a species is classified as critically endangered. If something falls into that category, it can be so bad that there is no habitat left. There is no connectivity in the landscape, and there is no genetic exchange, which is necessary for the species to recover in a natural way.

What the government intends to do now is to remove species from the protection, including orchids, so that they do not stand in the way of forestry. That, Madam Speaker, is a radical environmental policy. Something that most Swedes are aware of, namely that we are not to pick orchids, is now being changed to give free rein to the forestry industry.

Where is the limit? Does the member not see that there is a great risk that it is already too late with protective measures when species are already in such poor condition?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rebecka Le Moine for the questions.

We see the red list as a rather blunt instrument, and the use of the red list should be fundamentally changed.

Rebecka Le Moine says that we are giving the forest industry free rein. No, it is not the forest industry we are thinking of primarily, but Sweden's 330,000 individual landowners, for it is they who are truly affected.

There is, however, no doubt that the forestry industry is also affected. I have visited sawmills in the country that have stood still for many days because they do not have timber. The species protection has put a stop to planned logging, and thus they do not get in timber. This affects not only the local sawmill but also those who live and work in the region. People are left without work, and tax revenues are lower. It is, therefore, many who are affected.

In the debate, it sounds as if we are just coddling the forest industry. Of course, the forest industry is very important for Sweden, and there is no doubt that forestry has truly been part of building up Sweden AB. But ultimately, it is still about the ownership and usage rights of the individual landowner, because it is the landowner who truly ends up in a bind if the logging is stopped and he or she furthermore does not receive compensation.

The most important thing, however, is to ensure that landowners are allowed to use their own land.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I heard no answer to the question.

The committee members say that the red list is a blunt tool. It is also not used today for the legal protection of our species but is only a categorization of threatened species. The legal protection is based on the Birds and Habitats Directives, the nature sanctuary designation, and the Species Protection Ordinance, and there is no connection to the red list. So, we have cleared that up.

Most reports on the occurrence of knee rot come from the forestry companies themselves, and they report in because they have a knowledge requirement and need to know what species are in the forests and how they can take them into account. It is said that it is a tool for activists, but it is this legislation that we have to follow. The forestry companies are good at it and actually, in some cases, do everything they can to avoid logging in these places.

The committee members say that it is primarily in cases of sabotage that egg looting should be subject to species protection, not during ongoing land use. But ongoing land use does drive the threat against many species in Sweden. Land use together with overgrowth are the two greatest threats to biodiversity in Sweden. To turn a blind eye to the clear-cutting's enormously negative impact on species is therefore incredibly naive.

I wonder: Has the member seen a Swedish clear-cut?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Things change quickly in hockey! In the member's first contribution, the forest industry was worth nothing, but in the second contribution, the companies were skilled.

The reason I brought up the red list specifically was that Rebecka Le Moine herself brought it up in her reply.

Yes, I have seen clear-cuts. I live in Värmland and am a forest owner myself, so I know very well what clear-cuts look like.

When it comes to regrowth, who is it that ensures the land does not grow over? Well, it is the forest owner, who manages their land and who also does not want regrowth, because as a forest owner, one wants high-quality forest so that one gets fine sawlogs for good timber. And what one cannot make sawtimber from goes to pulpwood and other production.

Those who are actually doing a job for biodiversity are, therefore, Sweden's 330,000 forest owners, who manage their forests and, among other things, ensure that they do not grow over. Both forest owners and the forest industry should therefore receive a medal instead of constant complaints about how hard they impact rare species.

In the red list index that exists, one can be between 0 and 1, where 1 is absolutely best. Sweden's value is 0.99, thus almost at the top. And it is not in the forest that species in Sweden go extinct, but it happens in other places, including in sand dunes.

It is very important that we stick to what the research says, even the research we do not like to listen to.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! During the last decade or longer, we have seen a development within the field of environmental law, perhaps primarily within the forest policy area, which means that individual forest owners see their life's work being ruined. Due to species protection, they lose the right to manage their forest without having a right to compensation. This arrangement is completely unworthy of a constitutional state. That which has been managed for centuries, often by the same family, and which should have been passed on to the next generation is largely lost. One is simply punished for managing one's forest in a way that creates high nature values.

So we cannot have that. As a forest owner in the rule of law state of Sweden, one must be able to be secure that one receives compensation if one is deprived of the right to cultivate parts of or all of one's forest. One must also be able to be secure that if a restriction of ongoing land use occurs, it shall be both reasonable and proportionate.

Madam Speaker! The current species protection regulations are leading to completely unreasonable consequences. The protection of fairly common species is having far-reaching consequences, and when logging is stopped, forest-owning families are hit hard.

I have said it before, but it is worth repeating: Property rights are a liberal fundamental basis, and when they are restricted, it must be on legitimate grounds.

The tools that exist to protect biological diversity need to be reformed so that they become more purposeful – and that is exactly what we are doing now.

Madam Speaker! Species protection and forest policy are the issues I have devoted absolutely the most time and effort to during the parliamentary term. Therefore, it is very fine to be able to conclude the parliamentary meeting by actually achieving the change we are now debating. Landowners who are affected by restrictions on usage as a result of species protection will now be guaranteed 125 percent in compensation. Anything else would be unreasonable. It is no exaggeration to say that the current system is a blunder. Today's rules are neither expedient nor proportionate. But now, we are therefore ensuring a right to compensation.

At the same time, we are increasing the incentives for forest owners to manage their forests in a long-term and sustainable way that promotes biodiversity without them risking economic consequences. It is good for the forest, it is good for Sweden, and above all, it is good for Swedish forest owners.

If you ask me, this is the single most important issue in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture that the Riksdag has to make a decision on during the mandate period. It is also an important part of the cleanup of the system that eight years of Social Democracy left behind. But there is more to be done. This is only one step. More will come, and I look forward to that.

The parliamentary term is not over yet. Later this summer, as promised, the review of the national protection will be reported. When that is done and the legislation we are debating and will decide on here has entered into force, we have not only secured a right to compensation. We have also put a system in place that actually leads to fewer restrictions on ongoing land use. That is important. Restrictions must be well-motivated. Otherwise, they shall not occur.

I believe someone has mentioned it earlier this evening, but the fact that we are introducing a right to compensation is purely and simply a hygiene factor. We must also establish a system that leads to fewer restrictions and, in the long run, a strengthened protection for the right of ownership in the Instrument of Government. It lies far in the future, but these are important issues for us in this parliament to address.

Madam Speaker! As a Liberal, it is obvious to me to stand up for a strong protection of property. The individual's right to manage and use their property is a fundamental human right. The right of ownership must be guiding in the decisions we make here in the chamber.

As a liberal, I always put the individual before the collective. Someone has already said here tonight that a strong protection of property rights can go hand in hand with a strong species protection. There are no contradictions there. It is only in Sweden that a completely unreasonable system has been built, which we are now trying to rectify.

Finally, I want to say something about the financing. It is, therefore, a rights-based legislation we are introducing. But the question has arisen whether the budgeted funds will be sufficient, and the answer is yes. When the review of the national protection is also in place, fewer restrictions will occur. Thus, we strengthen the protection for the ongoing land use, the right of use, and the right of ownership. It is incredibly important, and I am happy and proud to be part of the government basis that ensures this becomes a reality.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Nilsson for the speech!

The government took office in the autumn of 2022, and the issue of species protection was described early on as the most acute of the issues for forest owners, which we also thought. Despite that, it took nearly a year and a half before the investigation was commissioned, and then it was delayed and postponed several times and was not finished at all according to the timetable that the government had set up.

Now we stand here – actually in the final seconds of the mandate period – and are dealing with proposals where both authorities and referral bodies are still pointing out uncertainties and risks for new court rulings. That is where we, above all else, do not want to end up.

My question to the member is whether the Liberals think the government has delivered the long-term perspective, clarity, and predictability that was promised to Sweden's forest owners, or if significant question marks are left for the next mandate period.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for the questions! I think we are delivering. We are doing it now. Would this have gladly arrived earlier? Absolutely! But one really cannot blame this government for a slow pace of reform. In other contexts, one hears rather that we are moving too fast in many issues, but that is not the case.

Have we taken a holistic approach to forest policy? The answer is yes. The forest inquiry was conducted, and the bill that followed it will be debated later. That is one part. We are also reviewing the species protection regarding both the right to compensation and the national protection. It is in progress.

We have acted very quickly when it comes to the storm-felled forest and problems connected to it. I would say that we have done everything we could during the mandate period – but more remains to be done. The issues that are not addressed in the forest bill are continued to be prepared in the Government Offices.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is somewhat worrying that the proposals are now being prepared even more at the last minute. The mandate period is almost over.

In his speech, the member described this as an important reform to strengthen property rights and to give forest owners the right to compensation when species protection limits use. We also welcome this. At the same time, the government has during the mandate period reduced the appropriations for both the protection and management of valuable nature.

As the member stated in their speech, 100 million kronor per year is allocated for compensations from and including 2027. The Liberals are a party that usually thinks that biological diversity is important and that it should be taken into account. But I am a bit wondering how the Liberals have come to the conclusion that 100 million will be enough. When it comes to forests, that is not much money. I believe it is 0.01 hectares that are calculated to be protected with that money. If the problems with species protection are simultaneously described as so extensive, how will that money suffice? Is it the Liberals' assessment that very few areas will be covered by protection going forward? Will we reach our international commitments with that amount?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for a full battery of questions from Member Larsson! I will try to answer as well as I can and remember. I have to see if my notes are legible.

To begin with, the policy we are putting forward regarding species protection is intended so that fewer restrictions occur and that the most threatened species – or however one categorizes them – shall be protected, but that other species shall not lead to restrictions.

It is in the responsible, long-term management of the forest, which among others 330,000 private forest owners carry out, that the high nature values are created. It is obvious that there are different views on how much trust and confidence one has in the one who manages the land. There are parties here in the Riksdag who are of the opinion that it is only through state management that we can protect these values – which have actually been created by forestry.

Forestry in Sweden is to a large extent very sustainable, and that is what we want to emphasize. Unfortunately, I do not have the opportunity to ask any question that the member can answer now, but the interesting thing is that the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party think it is a problem that not enough money is allocated. That view is based on the idea that it is possible to protect as much as one wants. We want to see a combination of protecting the most valuable parts and ensuring that as much of the land as possible can continue to be cultivated.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 June.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)