A living ocean - increased protection, reduced eutrophication and sustainable fishing

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Baltic Sea is something quite special. Our unique inland sea is home to one of the world's perhaps most distinctive ecosystems and a diversity of species, some of which exist nowhere else in the world. Furthermore, the Baltic Sea is an important resource for the millions of people who live along its coasts. For a long time, fish has been a staple food for our coastal communities, and the coast and the archipelago are today important for the tourism industry.

Coastal communities, the fishing industry, shipping and tourism - there is no doubt that the Baltic Sea is an incredibly important economic resource and a source of culture and outdoor life. The Baltic Sea is one of Europe's most valuable natural environments, and a healthy Baltic Sea can play an important role in climate work as a carbon sink.

I grew up in Norrtälje and have spent an indescribable amount of time in the northern Stockholm archipelago. There are few things that provide as much peace to the soul as rocky islets, a glittering sea and fluttering sails, or the archipelago in winter attire with beautiful ice formations along the shoreline and infinite silence. But much needs to be done to guarantee that even the next generation will be able to enjoy everything the Baltic Sea has to offer.

Many parts of what makes the Baltic Sea unique also make it vulnerable. During the last century, overfishing, plastic pollution, eutrophication, and climate change have put hard pressure on an already sensitive ecosystem.

Today we are debating a bill that takes a holistic approach to the issues surrounding the marine environment in the Baltic Sea. This bill charts the course for Sweden's marine environment work and takes the entire ecosystem into account in the measures proposed and the assessments made.

The sea is a cornerstone of our society, our economy and in many ways also for our identity. Through this bill, we set a course toward a future where we both protect and utilize the sea's resources in a sustainable way.

Mr. Speaker! The bill addresses a number of problems that are crucial to solve so that the Baltic Sea can once again become a healthy and living sea. We must combat eutrophication, protect biodiversity, and strengthen fish stocks. It is estimated that 20 percent of the Baltic Sea's seabed is oxygen-free. This corresponds to an area comparable to Denmark.

There is no doubt that decisive action is needed to stop eutrophication. The Government is now proposing new milestone targets regarding eutrophication and, in addition, annual follow-ups to ensure that the work is on the right track.

The recovery and efficiency in the use of plant nutrients shall increase, and the remedial work in drainage areas shall be developed to minimize the supply of phosphorus and nitrogen to the coast and sea. In the budget bill for 2025, the government also allocates additional funds for continued support for local water conservation projects. It is a very important state funding that enables physical measures and local remedial work in the aquatic environment to continue.

The Baltic Sea is, as has been said, home to a multitude of species - many of them completely unique. Biological diversity is a prerequisite for a living sea, and the government therefore proposes increased protection of marine areas to contribute to the goal of protecting 30 percent of the oceans by 2030.

Sweden needs to continue working to live up to its commitments regarding the protection of marine areas, and continued international work for the control and regulation of hazardous substances and marine litter is necessary.

A question that has sparked both concern and engagement is the fishing issue, not least that of the fishing quotas for herring and sprat. The stocks of cod seem, despite fishing bans, to have difficulty recovering. The herring and sprat stocks have been heavily overfished for far too long, which has not least been felt by the coastal fishers who have long made their living from fishing.

If the herring and sprat stocks collapse, it will have enormous consequences both for the ecosystem as a whole and for the fishing industry. It is therefore important that the management of fish and the marine environment go hand in hand. What the government is now proposing is crucial to be able to create and preserve a balance in the ecosystem.

It is also important that the impact of seals and gulls are weighed in as components in the whole. The populations of seals and gulls have increased during recent years and, in step with that, their impact on the fish stocks. That the government proposes increased hunting of both seals and gulls is very much anticipated, not least by coastal fishermen.

Another measure now being presented to protect the stocks is a relocation of the limit for pelagic trawling, which shall apply up to 12 nautical miles along the entire Baltic coast including Öland and Gotland, in order to, among other things, protect the fish near the coast where it spawns. In marine protected areas, a ban on bottom trawling shall also apply.

Even for the regulation of fishing, the international efforts are important. Sweden can decide on some of the fishing issues, while other parts need to be negotiated with other countries that have fishing rights in the Baltic Sea. Sweden pursued a tough line in the agricultural and fisheries council's negotiations on quotas. Even though they did not succeed in getting reduced quotas through, the Swedish delegation played an important role in ensuring that the result did not land in a larger increase, as all other Baltic Sea countries advocated for an increase of up to 170 percent instead of 108 percent, which became the result.

The quotas that the current government has been involved in negotiating were the lowest ever for 2024, and for 2025 they are lower than the majority of the quotas the previous Social Democratic government managed to achieve. Sweden has, however, continued to play an important role in getting other countries on board with a more cautious approach, but also in influencing that the scientific advice underlying the quota negotiations has an ecosystem-based approach and takes into account things such as the fish's age and size in its assessments.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I can state that there is a great commitment both in the government and among the parties in the Riksdag for the Baltic Sea, which is absolutely crucial for us to move forward in the issue but also for us to be able to work long-term. The bill A living sea is the first and largest of its kind in nearly 15 years and takes decisive action so that we will get on the right course for a healthy and living Baltic Sea. I would like to vote in favor of the proposals in the report with joy and hope.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joanna Lewerentz, for the speech!

I note that there is a broad, perhaps even total, agreement on how serious the situation is. Now comes a government bill that the member described, which means we will have goals and opportunities for follow-up. But it is quite meager in terms of concrete and binding proposals in the bill.

The Moderates like to talk about being a governing and responsible party with long-term solutions. But how responsible is it, really, to present a bill that does not contain concrete and binding decisions to protect the fish stocks? Is it truly long-term to let fishing continue as before and worsen the crisis in our seas and not dare to take the tough decisions? Or have the Moderates forgotten that responsibility is not just about economics but also about securing the survival of nature and future generations?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! It is, therefore, about a policy proposal, and in it, a distinction is made between the proposals that the Riksdag shall take a position on and the information that the government provides to the Riksdag regarding what the government intends to do in certain matters. Some issues we need to vote on here in the Riksdag, and some issues are government mandates or regulatory letters that are given to the authorities.

We have several issues already underway. For example, a government bill is coming regarding fishing in the sea to protect Natura 2000 areas, and we are to ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas. So, things are underway.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have seen a folder from the Moderaterna where they describe completed and started election promises, and there, among other things, the relocation of the trawling limit is included as one of the points. I am, however, a bit skeptical about the description and that they would like to appear action-oriented.

We have, for example, the question of the fishing quotas, where the entire government basis tries with some kind of sleight of hand: They are both satisfied and proud but also dissatisfied. One has to make up one's mind. Do you stand by the quotas you have agreed upon, with a doubling of the fishing, or is it a catastrophic decision? It cannot be both.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, I am not proud of what the quota negotiations landed on. It is a catastrophe, but we must also face reality. Before this government took office, it was the S-led government that was responsible for the quota negotiations, and since they began negotiating fishing quotas in this way, they have actually never landed on ICES's lowest interval for herring and sprat, with the exception of one year, regarding the Bothnian Bay.

In 2019, quotas were set that allowed an extraction that was 72,000 tons higher than what the current government has agreed to, and the year after that it was 38,000 tons higher. This means that the Social Democrats have voted yes to much higher extractions than the current government. As I recall, they have never voted no in these negotiations.

With the Social Democrats' rhetoric here, that the government allows increases and is proud of it, it can also be argued that the Social Democrats bear a great responsibility for where we are today regarding the fish stocks.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Joanna Lewerentz, for the speech!

Based on what I hear orally from the government, I believe that we are in very much agreement in the entire committee and in the entire Swedish Parliament. I personally led the work with the Environmental Goals Preparation, which in many ways forms the basis for the bill. I therefore have a strong personal interest in this – that is all.

I have waited a long time for the bill, and I was positively surprised during the press conference, where the Prime Minister, the Minister for Environment and Climate Action, and the Minister for Rural Affairs said that bottom trawling shall be prohibited in marine protected areas. They also said that the trawling limit shall be moved out all the way along the east coast.

It sounded exciting, but then when one actually got hold of the bill a few days later, one realized exactly what the member said, namely that it is a policy direction bill. There are no sharp points, but instead there is a lot of shall, should, possibly, and maybe. The only decision we are to make here in the chamber, Mr. Speaker, concerns the direction of the policy.

On at least two of the eight slides shown at the press conference, it stated that bottom trawling in protected areas shall be abolished. This should have been done a long time ago, the Prime Minister said, but it is not included in the bill at all. My question to the member is therefore: How should this be interpreted? Where did the words come from? They are not included, and this is even being reported to the KU.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! As I just mentioned in the previous exchange, it is a matter that will come as a separate proposition. There will be a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. I can therefore reassure the Member that things are in motion in that matter.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. In the bill, which both the press conference and today's debate are about, one can see, if one looks closely, that it states that the proposals in the report Ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas shall proceed, but that investigation only takes into account what lies within the trawling limit, 3-4 nautical miles out, i.e., not all the way, 12 nautical miles out. This means that many protected areas will not be included if one is to build on that investigation.

Will the government deliver on the ban on trawling within protected areas in all Swedish waters, and if so, when will we receive that notification?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! A government bill on the protection of Natura 2000 areas is coming, so this is included within that. I think the government's intention is very clear. They want to develop permanent regulations for pelagic trawling, and they want to further protect marine protected areas.

I agree with the member and truly hope that proposals will be submitted in this matter. I have received clear indications that they will be, and if one looks at the list of government bills for the coming years, one can also see that proposals are in the works.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joanna Lewerentz, for your speech! I am glad that you highlight the Baltic Sea's marine environment in the positive way that you do.

At the same time, the government's climate work and the fact that the EU's environmental goals are not being met have an effect on the marine environment through higher temperatures and more energy that result in more droughts and more floods. In some way, the policy does not align the member's ambition with the outcome here. We will get more floods that cause problems for our treatment plants. The green industry will also result in more emissions, as droughts lead to greater emissions from agriculture.

What does the member intend to do so that we can achieve a more long-term stable environment and reach the EU's environmental goals?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am still of the opinion that the marine environment bill has a very long-term approach. One wants to work long-term to protect the Baltic Sea and counteract it going even further than it already has. Proposals are presented regarding direction concerning eutrophication, and even in the budget bill, much is invested in issues that concern precisely eutrophication.

Regarding the Baltic Sea, I can therefore reassure the members that I will work to ensure that everything presented in the bill is also implemented. It is, in fact, incredibly important.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Another issue is the quotas that have been negotiated. Everyone in the committee was probably satisfied with the Swedish position, as I see it. It was a good position. On the other hand, we were not satisfied with the outcome of this, and in some way, one must handle the situation that has arisen and learn lessons from it for next year.

As I interpret how the negotiations proceed in the EU, it is the countries around the Baltic Sea that are putting quite a lot of effort into pushing through their policies. Therefore, one should take decisive action to reach agreements in the Baltic countries. Have you, together with the minister, considered a new strategy to handle the situation that has arisen?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can start by saying that I do not believe that everyone was completely satisfied with the government's position – that service I can provide to the Social Democrats!

The committee chair is, however, completely right that there is a systemic error here. The fisheries policy is not designed in such a way that fishing becomes sustainable, and here we must all actually take decisive action together to address the issue. I know that the minister has begun a process of inviting the ministers in the other countries to initiate a cooperation, but we here also need to do what we can to influence our sister parties and others in the neighboring countries. Something must be done to address this – I completely agree with you, Anders Karlsson.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are here to discuss the new marine environment bill.

I must say that I am ambivalent, or whatever one should call it – the Speaker surely has a better word. I am very happy that the bill is finally in place, but at the same time, I am a bit sad that one did not take the chance to move forward with more proposals, even though one had a solid basis to do so with unanimity in the Swedish Riksdag. Furthermore, it is a policy proposal, which means that one does not come with sharp goals and proposals.

As I said in the exchange earlier, this is a bit personal for me. The entire bill is based on the Environmental Goals Commission's report *The Sea and the Human* and on the results of the Övergödning Investigation, and I myself was chairman of the Environmental Goals Commission when this was produced.

What we observed then was that the sea has problems, to say the least. We have overfishing and fishing methods that are destructive. There are environmental toxins and plastic pollution. Climate change affects the sea much more than we think. We are getting warmer water up here, and we are getting changed currents and changed precipitation. We are also getting ocean acidification, which affects the pH value in the sea.

Eutrophication is increasing. I believe that the dead bottom areas in the Baltic Sea now correspond to Iceland in size. When I started studying marine biology over 25 years ago, they were approximately the same size as Denmark. Despite the fact that we have the knowledge and have taken measures, it continues to increase.

We know that shipping is increasing. It has often been sidelined; one has simply thought of it as infrastructure and not taken into account how it affects the marine environment. But shipping accounts for emissions from several different sources – it is not just the emissions from fuel but also other parts, such as greywater and blackwater. Shipping makes noise, takes up space, and requires infrastructure.

We also have a new physical planning of wind turbines and other things, and above all, we people would like to be by the sea, both for tourism and recreation as well as to have that sea view where we live. That is where we feel good. Unfortunately, those are also the environments that are important for the marine environment, and here conflicts arise, Mr. Speaker.

In the Miljömålsberedning's work, we did not shrink from anything, but rather we thought: How would we have achieved this if we had started from the beginning? Since people started talking about ocean policy and such, very much has happened: We have had an EU accession and several different legislations that have been patched and repaired in, and we have both a Swedish system and other parts.

We therefore said: We pour all the balls out on the table and put them into new compartments as we would like to do based on how things look today. That was what formed the basis for the over one hundred proposals that the preparatory body handed over to the government on 15 January 2021.

It is clear, however, that we are not achieving our environmental goals. We are not reaching them with the measures we have taken. Therefore, there were very large parts to address in order to achieve modernized legislation. And when we had all these proposals on the table, Mr. Speaker, we wondered how it could be held together so that it would not continue to be sector issues and popcorn—something that happens here and something that happens there—that do not hang together.

Then it was actually an employee at the office, who had not been there from the beginning, who said: Here we should have legislation that is overarching. We replied: No, we are not going to have any more climate law; we have one now. Then the question became: What else should we have? And yes, then we had to reconsider – and saw that there should be a marine environment law that actually ensures that the whole package is held together.

We saw that follow-up work was needed in the form of a government bill that every government, regardless of color, shall submit every year, which updates and modernizes the work. We also saw that an evaluation function was needed. Here we could not agree: It refers to a function in the preparatory proposal while I would rather call it a council. There were different opinions on that. However, it is about making this systematic so that there is a continuous movement in the marine environment work.

As Joanna Lewerentz said earlier, it is the first time since 2009 that the bill is being presented. There was too much to do, and therefore previous governments put out the assignment for evaluation. It was so that everyone would be involved and have a similar view so that we could move forward. Now I had hoped that we would get this regulatory framework in place, so that all the proposals became reality and so that we got the follow-up function into the law.

Mr. Speaker! That is not how it looks, however. Despite a very promising press conference where it was said to be relevant to have a ban on bottom trawling in protected areas - that one would move the trawling limit 12 nautical miles out into the Baltic Sea, from Skanör to Haparanda - it does not say so in the bill. This is a policy proposal where much is written about that things should be reviewed and that one probably should do certain things, but there are no sharp goals and no sharp proposals. I think that is very unfortunate.

This is why I submitted a follow-up motion with 69 motions, which I must say is a record. But it was based on the work that had been done. There were agreements between the parties on what we wanted to move forward with, and there were really no controversial matters. We also had to add an even more extensive party motion, which we will discuss in the chamber later.

As has been said, there are no sharp proposals here. The intention is good, and it is a step forward. But as we also heard in an exchange earlier: If one looks at the list of government bills and what is to come, it looks as if the government is a bit schizophrenic. Sure, something is coming regarding protected areas and trawling limits. But we also see two government bills that are about cutting back and, at least some speak of, removing the shore protection.

The Strandskyddslagen is, I would like to assert, the law that provides the greatest environmental benefit. Areas where water meets land are the most species-rich in the entire world, no matter where one is. These are areas used by species that live in water and species that live on land. There is often talk of a fine view, Mr. Speaker. But we must also consider the ecological significance of these coastal areas.

We also see that this government has cut back on environmental monitoring, which is what is supposed to ensure that we take the right measures, that they are followed up, and that we know that they work. This is counterproductive. If the government cares about the sea, as they say, they should throw these proposals in the trash and instead consider how one can strengthen the product that is currently on the table and address, for example, illegal piers and other things that pop up along our coasts. At the rate we are currently granting exemptions from the shore protection, in 80 years we will not have any unbroken shoreline - and then it won't even be illegal.

So, Mr. Speaker, we stand behind this product, but we would have liked to see the proposals be sharper. I therefore move to approve reservation number 2, which concerns the package of marine environment laws.

We had the chance to get a modernized marine environment policy, systematize the work, and give the marine environment policy the place it deserves and needs so that we can meet our climate and environmental goals. It became a small step along the way, a direction for the policy – certainly in the right direction. But I am sorry that we did not take the chance we had to take a giant step. I hope it does not take as long before we get the next product on the table and can take a giant leap next time.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! At the end of December 2020, the then Environmental Goals Commission submitted its report Sea and Human to the government. I was there as the Christian Democrats' representative in the Environmental Goals Commission, and for me as a landlubber from Värmland, it was incredibly educational to be part of that process. I learned an incredible amount, and we had very many exciting discussions.

On the cover of the two volumes we handed over, there was a fine picture photographed by the committee's then-chairperson, the present Emma Nohrén. Unfortunately, one is not allowed to bring props into the speaker's chair, so I cannot show the picture. But in the photo, we see, among other things, starfish, which according to the caption are munching on blue mussels, and anemones stretching out their tentacles in the hope that some small plankton will pass by. An incredibly beautiful picture! On the cover, we can also read, among other things, that we need a coherent policy to protect and preserve our unique sea but at the same time the possibility for local adaptations to get the best possible conditions to do so.

The government's bill, which we are debating today, is another step on the way toward this much-demanded policy. The bill, which takes the form of a policy direction bill, lays the foundation for and points the way toward an ambitious and forward-looking marine environment policy aimed at ensuring healthy and productive seas for future generations. The bill also contains many assessments – areas are identified where the government can act in some form without first needing to obtain a parliamentary decision. Here, one can therefore relatively quickly pick some low-hanging fruit.

In the proposition, we can read about the two overarching principles that shall guide our future marine environment work. Firstly, we shall strengthen the application of the ecosystem approach. This means that we shall integrate marine environment management with the management of other sectors more strongly and clearly in order to achieve a more holistic and effective management of our marine resources. Secondly, we shall focus on reducing eutrophication, which is one of the most acute threats to our seas. In Sweden, we have over the years taken large steps in the issue of eutrophication, not least thanks to all the knowledge that has been shared with us, which has made people more aware of the problem, but also through many different projects, recently among others both the LEVA and LOVA projects.

In the budget bill for 2025, the government is investing additional funds in continued state support for local water conservation projects, LOVA, which is the single most important state funding for physical measures and local action work in the aquatic environment. The government has also proposed additional investments to effectively combat and prevent the spread of invasive alien species in aquatic environments in Sweden. These investments within sea and water also contribute to the implementation of the marine environment bill.

When it comes to maritime policy, it is absolutely crucial to work internationally if one is to achieve significant success. Sweden will continue to work actively on the international arena, not least to regulate and control dangerous substances. Our goal is to reduce the supply of harmful substances to the marine environment.

Mr. Speaker! A central proposal in the bill is to expand and strengthen the protection of marine areas. We aim to contribute to the international goal of protecting 30 percent of marine areas by 2030. Of these, one third, corresponding to 10 percent, shall be strictly protected.

The proposition also highlights the important links between the ocean and climate change. We recognize that the ocean is both affected by climate change and can contribute to solutions for our climate challenges. By reducing eutrophication and protecting important marine ecosystems, we can strengthen the ocean's resilience to climate change.

We propose an improved holistic view in connection with both the planning and implementation of measures. By integrating the action programs for water management and the marine environment, we strive for more efficient work from source to sea.

A special focus is placed on integrating sustainable fisheries management into the work on the marine environment. This is crucial to achieve ecosystem-based fisheries management and reach our sea-related environmental quality objectives. The Government intends to clarify the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management's tasks in order to strengthen this work.

The Government wishes for our coastal fish species to recover and for more of the fishing catches to go to human consumption. In the bill, the Government makes the assessment that permanent regulations regarding trawling should be developed, which entails a permanent relocation of the trawling limit in the Baltic Sea from today's 4 nautical miles to 12 nautical miles for vessels over 24 meters. This shall apply along the entire Baltic coast, including Öland and Gotland, in order to protect the herring at the coast where it spawns.

As stated in the bill, consultations shall be held with the EU Commission, the relevant Member States, and the relevant advisory committee. In the area within 4 nautical miles, where Sweden can already today regulate fishing unilaterally, the government intends to implement a number of measures, such as closed exception areas for trawling, so-called entry areas, and a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas in order to protect and restore the stocks of herring and sprat as well as other coastal fish species.

I note the reservation that a united opposition stands behind regarding specifically the trawling ban. This, however, cannot be proposed in this bill, as work is ongoing within the EU to take everything in the right order since fisheries management falls within the EU's competence.

The Government considers that fishing and aquaculture activities shall be environmentally sustainable in the long term. They shall be managed in a way that provides economic and social benefit as well as contributes to employment. At the same time, they shall secure the food supply as part of a sustainable food system. Unfortunately, we see how the global situation makes this part of the food supply very relevant, regarding the degree of self-sufficiency.

Finally, the bill addresses the need to reduce shipping's impact on the marine environment. The Government presents strategies for how this shall be achieved without compromising shipping's important role for our economy and trade.

Even on this theme, there is a reservation that the opposition stands united on - it concerns scrubbers. However, the government has already in a memorandum signaled a proposal for the introduction of a ban on emissions from scrubbers into water within Swedish territorial waters. The consultation period for this expired on 31 October this year, and the proposals are now being prepared with regard to the consultation responses, which have been overall very positive. A ban on emissions from ship scrubbers used in open mode is proposed to enter into force on 1 July 2025. A ban on emissions from all types of scrubbers, including those used in closed mode, is proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2029. We will have to see when the bill is submitted.

The proposition presents a significant step forward in our work to protect and preserve our seas. By strengthening the ecosystem approach, reducing eutrophication, expanding marine protection, and integrating fisheries management into the work on the marine environment, we lay the foundation for a sustainable future for our seas. I want to emphasize that this work requires cooperation across sector boundaries, national borders, and political divides. Our seas are a shared resource and a shared responsibility. Let us therefore work together to ensure that future generations can enjoy healthy, productive, and living seas.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! This issue with quotas, we have discussed both last week and now, and it feels like the government representatives do not really want to be held accountable for their responsibility. One is gladly there and says: Yes, but what about you? It is a recurring line that I think shows that one is not quite prepared to bear the responsibility one has as a government.

When talking about investments in the climate and environmental fields, I think there is quite a bit to say about credibility. If you make draconian cuts in both climate and environmental policy when you take office as a government and then trickle back funds and call it investments, you might deceive one voter or another, but it is far from the truth.

The Christian Democrats often speak about the importance of safeguarding creation and leaving a sustainable world for our children and grandchildren. But how does that reasoning square with the fact that the government, where the responsible Minister for Rural Affairs is a Christian Democrat, presents a bill that lacks sharp and real measures to protect our fish stocks? If not even you, who claim to have a moral responsibility for the environment, are prepared to act to save our seas here and now, who will then do it? Is this another outstanding note that you leave behind as a government? We see, in the area of climate and environment, several proposals where measures might perhaps be put in place at some later point by someone else.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Joakim Järrebring for the questions.

In the media, I think this has been quite clear. After the quota negotiations were finished, the Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, went out and said that we would have gladly seen a different result. But this was the best result we could get. Had we not stayed at the table, the quotas would have increased significantly. Would it then have been better to leave the table, say no, and get higher quotas? Yes, perhaps in the media, because it would have looked good if Sweden had said no. But for the fish in the Baltic Sea, it would have mattered in such a way that more fish would have been caught. It therefore actually makes a difference if one sits at the table and participates, even if one does not get the result that one really wants.

When we had deliberations in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and when we made decisions in the EU Committee, there was absolutely no doubt at all about the mandate for where we wanted to go. I think it was very clear what the goal was. At the same time, we know that it is very difficult to reach this goal, because the other countries around the Baltic Sea have a completely different view on the issue and apparently a completely different view on how the Baltic Sea and its fish stocks are doing. Therefore, there is a huge job to do. Thanks to the fact that Peter Kullgren remained at the table, we still managed to reduce the quotas significantly compared to what we would have received if we had left the table.

What I want to assert, Mr. Speaker, is to take the responsibility and bear the responsibility. Even if one does not get the result one desires, one has succeeded in coming some way. It is better than increased quotas.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer, which however almost exclusively revolved around this matter of quotas. I had a number of other questions linked to achieving real improvements to truly save the Baltic Sea. Several contributions in today's debate point out that this is a policy proposal. We need sharp decisions.

In climate and environmental policy, we have a steering objective investigation that is to come with proposals that will not be able to be implemented until at the earliest before the next mandate period. Will we see the same when it comes to the Baltic Sea, or will this government take responsibility and deliver products to the Riksdag that actually mean something for real? The member may be welcome to elaborate.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Joakim Järrebring for the questions.

Just as Member of Parliament Joanna Lewerentz pointed out, this is a policy proposition that points the way. At the same time, there are a number of assessments in areas where the government can proceed without even needing to await the Riksdag's decision. This concerns, for example, how one acts with regulatory letters towards the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. Minister Kullgren has in regulatory letters to the agency been very clear that one may use all the tools in the toolbox. A clearer and better description of how an agency should be able to act cannot be given; then a KU report will arrive like a letter in the mail, because then it is suddenly ministerial rule. But when one says that all tools in the toolbox may be used, it is well clear what is intended.

Joakim Järrebring calls for sharp decisions and thinks that such are lacking. In his first speech, he used the expression "springnota" (spring note). In that case, Mr. Speaker, I must ask a question. We in the Environmental Goals Commission submitted our proposal at the end of December 2020. After that, Joakim Järrebring's government remained in power for almost two more years. If one considers the issue to be so important, why were there then no propositions with sharp decisions from Joakim Järrebring's government? They still had almost two years.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the speech. We both sat in the Environmental Goals Preparation Group and are deeply involved in this. It was interesting that he described the turnaround. We need to show what it looks like under the sea. We often talk about the Baltic Sea, but we actually have much more sea than that in Swedish waters. The west coast often disappears in the debate.

I want to ask Kjell-Arne Ottosson, who was a member of the commission and whose party now sits in government, why it was chosen not to proceed with the proposal for a marine environment law that existed to get the systematic work in place. We had many and long discussions about this, and we were many from all sides who were skeptical about whether it would work. We did, however, see the importance of the sea and the marine issues.

Sea and climate are two sides of the same coin. I believe we even write that in our investigation. The ecosystem approach and the climate were the two supporting parts that everything rested on. To put this together and achieve a policy that holds up for the future, we needed to have this bridge with follow-ups in the Marine Environment Act. It was to be stated that a marine environment policy proposition would be submitted every four years. There would be a kind of advisory function and evaluations to get this running.

I think it almost became a record in the number of referral bodies. On pages 78 and 79 of the bill, there are two densely written pages, and almost no one is against it. Everyone is for it. When it is so thoroughly investigated and when we have so incredibly many referral bodies, why did the government still choose not to proceed with this?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the question, as well as for the generous two years in the Environmental Goals Preparation. As I said in my main speech, it was for me as a landlubber from Värmland an incredibly educational time, not least through all the knowledge that Emma Nohrén could contribute as chair of the Environmental Goals Preparation.

We had, just as Emma Nohrén describes, very long discussions about a marine environment law or not. That was perhaps the question we chewed over the most. I had a plan to manage to look through the specific statements when I left home on Monday. Unfortunately, I did not manage that. I do not remember if there was full agreement. I want to remember that it was some party that did not stand behind a marine environment law in any reservation or a specific statement, but I do not bet on that fact.

Regardless, the government has conducted a review of the referral responses. I have not read all the referral responses myself – that is admitted directly. But the government's staff have done so. There it is stated that, based on the referral bodies, it is not perceived that there was the substantial solid support that Emma Nohrén points out in her reply. The support for introducing a new marine environment law was not to such an extent that it would be relevant. Therefore, the government instead sees greater value in using the existing tools we already have.

Then it is exactly as Emma Nohrén says in her reply. It has been prepared in such a way that we in the Environmental Goals Secretariat have prepared it. Then I do not know how much would eventually need to be prepared or changed for one to get a greater acceptance for a marine environment law. Perhaps that is where we will end up – I do not know. But as things stand now, the government chooses not to move forward with it.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for a good and sincere answer! I have not read what all the referral bodies have written either. What was pleasing was that many who were consulted and many who were not consulted still responded. They saw that it was important. In the responses from large referral bodies that I have read, I have not seen any opposition to this, but rather one saw that it would be a good bridge.

There was a specific statement - I believe it was from the Sverigedemokraterna - where it was said that they saw no point in this. But there was no reservation against the proposal. Otherwise, the parties were in agreement.

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, I did not sit in the government, but I led the Environmental Goals Preparation. I also sat on the regional committee, which is a sort of EU body. There, I had the opportunity to take the proposals further at a European level and submit a report where, among other things, the Marine Environment Act was included, and which achieved consensus among all, from Ireland to the eastern states.

I was also invited to the commission several times to discuss precisely a marine environment law. I see that there is a great interest from there. It is being discussed even now. It would be unfortunate if the Swedish idea of a marine environment law does not become a reality in Sweden first but ends up at the EU level first. I believe that is where we will end up. One can see that it will be there.

I had hoped that the proposal would have moved forward. I think it is unfortunate that it is not being done. Now that you have the policy proposal, how will you ensure that there will be a follow-up so that it does not just become a product? How will the work be followed up when you do not include it in the proposal?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question!

As I have understood it, it is exactly as previous speakers have mentioned from the rostrum. This is the direction. Then several bills will follow with sharp decisions where required.

One starts with the assessments because they are, after all, relatively low-hanging fruit. These are matters where the government can proceed on its own initiative and does not need to take them through the entire machinery of the Riksdag, as the government has the mandate there.

For example, progress has been made towards the EU regarding the trawling limit in order to address issues in the correct order. This is something that, not least Emma Nohrén, requests in a reservation. There, progress has now been made towards the EU to start in the right order, because the competence lies there. It is in the EU that we negotiate quotas and so on, in order to then be able to go down.

At the same time, it is pointed out that within the four-mile limit, Sweden has its own jurisdiction. There, we can act already now. We need no help from the EU. There, one can proceed directly. The Government nevertheless shows in the bill, even though it does not have sharp demands there, what it is doing to move forward. At the same time, it is also pointed out that, in addition to this, it will submit further proposals.

I am not as concerned as Member Emma Nohrén is regarding this. I look forward with confidence to the further work on how we are to achieve a cleaner ocean, a healthier ocean and a better ocean for us all.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are facing a serious crisis in our seas and particularly in the Baltic Sea, where several fish stocks are on the verge of collapsing. It is a reality that cannot be ignored. The cod has largely disappeared from the Baltic Sea, and now we see that even the herring and the sprat risk following the same path.

The Government has chosen to present a proposition on the marine environment. But what strikes me and many others - and we have already heard this in the exchanges of remarks here - is that the proposals lack the sharpness and the concrete measures required to meet the acute situation. Instead, the sharp decisions and proposals are to come later at some other time, some other day.

The situation of the fish stocks is serious. We are already seeing the consequences in the form of unbalanced ecosystems, eutrophication, and algal blooms, which affect not only nature but also people's quality of life. When beaches are forced to close due to health risks and when small-scale coastal fishing is threatened with being wiped out, it should obviously be time to act forcefully.

But what are we met with in the government's proposition? It is vague formulations such as that measures "should be considered" and that the protection "can be extended". I mean that it is not enough to consider and discuss. Action is required.

The government speaks of moving the trawling limit to protect the herring and sprat stocks, which is welcome and something researchers have long recommended. It is an issue that we Social Democrats have pushed for a long time. But we see no concrete decisions in this bill. The government uses, as I said, vague expressions and implies that things are in the works. Negotiations must be held with other countries.

It is obvious that strong leadership is needed to drive these important measures forward. Why is the government not acting with the same clarity it expressed during the press conference when it presented its proposals?

At the same time, we see that the government's cuts to important agencies such as the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency have led to staff having to be laid off. How can necessary monitoring and the measures required to improve the marine environment be carried out when the agencies responsible for this have their resources drastically reduced?

Here we clearly see a large gap between the government's rhetoric and its actions. If the government truly meant business with saving our seas, it would ensure that there is both funding and personnel to implement the decisions that are required.

Another important issue is eutrophication. It has been a major problem for a long time. We see that eutrophication not only affects the ocean's ecosystems negatively but also contributes to climate change. Despite this, the government's bill lacks concrete and time-bound milestone goals to combat eutrophication.

The researchers are clear. Measures are required now to reduce the nutrient input of phosphorus and nitrogen from land to sea. But instead of sharp measures, we get vague ambitions and no clear timeframes. How can we expect the goals to be achieved when the steering that is completely necessary is lacking?

Sweden has a long tradition of being a pioneer when it comes to environmental issues. How can we as a nation proudly call ourselves a pioneer in environmental issues if we allow our fish stocks to collapse without acting in time? What we see now is a government that lacks the courage to push through the measures that are needed.

A recovery break for large-scale industrial fishing in the Baltic Sea, clearer legislation on trawling, and sharp bans on bottom trawling in protected areas – all of these are proposals supported by research and that we Social Democrats are pushing forward.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces a significant task: to achieve our commitments within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. These commitments require not only commitment but also clear goals and concrete actions. It is about strengthening biodiversity in our marine environments – a task that not only benefits nature but also fisheries, our climate adaptation capacity, and resilience against invasive species.

We Social Democrats welcome the government's writings that Sweden shall expand and strengthen the protection of marine areas. It is positive that the government highlights the need to reach the international goal of 30 percent protected marine areas, of which one third strictly protected, by 2030.

But, Mr. Speaker, the formulations to "expand and strengthen the protection" in order to "contribute to" the objective are insufficient. They leave room for doubt regarding Sweden's own role and responsibility in this crucial work. We believe that Sweden should not only contribute but also continue to wear the leader's jersey.

It requires a national objective that is as ambitious as the international one. Therefore, we believe that Sweden should establish interim targets clearly stating that at least 30 percent of our territorial waters and our economic zone shall be protected by 2030, of which at least 10 percent shall be strictly protected.

We must also emphasize the importance of quality in marine protection. Today, activities that disturb ecosystems, such as extensive fishing, are permitted in several of our so-called protected areas. This is not sustainable. Protection must mean exactly that – protection. Therefore, at least 10 percent of our marine areas must be given strict protection, where human impact is completely avoided.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 36 regarding goals for marine area protection.

I also want to say something about the opportunities with technological development. Digitalization and new technology offer enormous potential to, for example, monitor fishing and strengthen sustainability in a cost-effective way. With the help of modern monitoring systems and AI technology, we can ensure that rules for sustainable fishing are complied with while simultaneously supporting the small-scale fishers who operate within the framework of sustainability.

But even here we lack clear initiatives from the government's side. Why not utilize the innovation and technology that is available to meet the challenges we face?

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to return to the question of financing. It is deeply concerning that the government's bill does not contain any concrete proposals on how to ensure the financing required to implement the measures that are needed.

We face great challenges, and it will require great resources to restore our seas and save our fish stocks. To cut the agencies' budgets in this situation is not only short-sighted; I also mean that it is dangerous.

We Social Democrats stand firm that concrete measures, clear goals, and stable funding are required to save our seas and protect our ecosystems. If the government continues to hesitate, we risk our seas being transformed into a still mirror of lost life and lost opportunities. Now we need leadership to protect both the ecosystems and the generations that are to come after us.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sofia Skönnbrink and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (both S) concurred.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! If one thinks that two years to drive these issues is long, well, the Social Democrats have done it for a long time then. The sitting government is now entering the second year of the mandate period and is presenting a comprehensive bill regarding marine environment work, something that Member Nohrén previously said has been long-awaited. Yes, since 2009 - since then, the Social Democrats have actually held power for several years.

Many of the measures in the bill are derived from the investigations *Havet och människan* and *Stärkt lokalt åtgärdsarbete - att nå målet Ingen övergödning*, which were completed during 2020.

The situation for the Baltic Sea is bad, and it is starting to become acute. The S-government had plenty of time to come forward with concrete proposals after the investigations were completed. Today, it is claimed that the government is not doing enough. But how is it that the Social Democrats themselves have not done anything to improve the situation in the Baltic Sea, despite having had two solid investigations behind them and plenty of time to do something about them?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Once again we stand here, and the discussion is not about the current government's responsibility for political issues. Once again we hear: Yes, but what about you? It is a constantly recurring mantra from the representatives of the governing parties.

I want to remind those listening to the debate that we have had 16 years of a right-wing majority in the Swedish Riksdag. Regardless of who has sat in government, proposals have passed through the chamber where there has been a right-wing majority.

To that, we shall add a pandemic, with incredible difficulties for both the Swedish people and Swedish companies to manage their own livelihoods and ensure that operations continue. As the member surely knows, in a government position, one ties up resources for different types of investigations and proposals that one intended to carry out. When one is faced with a situation that no one could have foreseen, a part of that work that one intended to carry out becomes paralyzed, and one needs instead to handle acute measures. I do not know how many extra budgets this chamber and the government had to handle during the pandemic.

It is clear that we are not satisfied, and we would have liked to do more. But that is not the question. The question here and now is why the government is submitting a bill without sharp measures. What is one waiting for?

(Applause)

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as Member Järrebring can claim that the government is now misleading voters regarding investments, one can say the same about the previous Social Democratic government's willingness to do something when they themselves had the chance.

We will use the means at our disposal to task the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management to carry out the measures required to protect marine areas and fish stocks. You could have done that as well, regardless of which budget applied.

A bill on the ban of bottom trawling is coming. Things are happening, and several of the measures that are on the table or are about to become concrete proposals, for example the one on the moved trawling limit and the one on the management of seals and cormorants, come from committee initiatives and motions from the previous opposition. That the then opposition, of which several parties now sit in the government, pressured your government into action has been crucial for getting things to happen.

That one now, in opposition, wants to do a lot of things may seem strange, especially when parts of what one now wants to do are things that other parties themselves have championed. And why did one not act significantly to protect the herring and sprat stocks in the quota negotiations when one had the chance?

The question remains: Why did the former Social Democratic government not do more for the Baltic Sea when they had the chance?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not without me seeing a picture before me of a government cooperation that is based on support from a party that can be described at best as climate-skeptical and which has very little focus on both environmental and climate issues. What comes out from that government is mostly about goals. They are not sharp proposals. There is simply no support in the current government cooperation for sharp proposals. They can come later.

I hope I am wrong. I really hope that several propositions with sharp proposals will arrive in the near future. The situation is, in fact, serious. But I am starting to get tired of, when we try to get clear answers from the government's representatives, constantly hearing: Yes, but what about you! It is a matter of throwing away the cards. It is the situation here and now that we need to discuss. It is measures here and now that we need to make decisions about.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Joakim Järrebring for the speech. I note that it began with just over four minutes of shouting. Then came a little about what S wants, but still diluted with a good deal of shouting against the government. It is perhaps somewhat of the opposition's privilege to stand and shout. One can fence quite wildly without having to take responsibility for it later. However, it is a rather high tone in sea and fishing matters.

Joakim Järrebring was in on the Social Democrats' ambition, and that is not doubted. In the direct question that Joanna Lewerentz asked about why no delivery was made regarding the Sea and the Human earlier, when Joakim Järrebring sat in the government, the pandemic, among other things, came up as an argument for this. I sat in MJU also during the previous mandate period, when we unfortunately were hit by the pandemic. Our work within MJU's stewardship continued as usual, except that we had meetings remotely. We processed reports and pushed on exactly as if nothing had happened, because the largest part of the pandemic's ravages did not affect us. Still, Joakim Järrebring says, as I perceive it at least, that the pandemic was a contributing cause to why one did not move forward. To me, it still sounds a bit strange, given how we work in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

It is interesting: One had two years to come up with something in an issue where one really wants well – I do not doubt that, as I said; it has emerged that one wants well. Still, there was no delivery from the government. What was it that made it so that one did not come further with the Sea and the Human during the previous parliamentary term?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I am scolding. These are serious issues, and there is a deep disappointment that we only receive beautiful words from the government. What is needed is action here and now. I have touched upon this in every exchange of remarks. It is not that we are very dissatisfied with the ambitions or have any decisive differences in the view of how serious the situation is. We are in full agreement on what needs to be done. The problem is that this government does not deliver. That is what makes me stand in the speaker's chair and be disappointed and upset. Do not take it as scolding! It is a clear proof of how important we Social Democrats think the issue is.

I would like to hear if Kjell-Arne Ottosson has any announcements to make. When will the concrete proposals arrive? Will they come during this parliamentary term, or will it be another footnote for the next government?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Joakim Järrebring!

Just as I have said, both in my speech from the rostrum and previously when I stood in the reply rostrum, parts are already being delivered because these are matters that the government can act on its own mandate. Then more propositions will come on this side of the election where one shall proceed in these issues that are important for our marine environment. There is no doubt about that.

Joakim Järrebring speaks very passionately on the fishing issue, both for his own part and for the Social Democrats' part, and calls for us to act here and now. But why did one not act in 2021? Why did one not act in 2022? Then one sat at the helm oneself and had all the opportunities to act. If the issue is as important for the Social Democrats as is pointed out, why did S not take the initiative when one sat in government?

There was a completed basis, two thick volumes from the Environmental Protection Preparation of 700-800 pages each - a substantial basis to be able to move forward with. Nevertheless, the government chose, for some reason that we have not yet received an answer about, not to move forward with the issues.

My question remains: Why did the government not proceed with the questions there and then? They were just as important there and then as they are here and now. That is why we deliver.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will be completely honest: During the previous parliamentary term, my first term as a member of the Committee on Civil Affairs, I was not in the government. I cannot answer how the government structured the work or why certain proposals were submitted and others were not.

I have, however, given a number of examples of things that I am convinced formed the basis for why we did not manage to get to all the politics we wanted during the last term. One such reason was the pandemic, which tied up large resources in the Government Offices. Even if the Committee on Environment and Agriculture did not feel affected during the last term, the government was heavily bound by handling the pandemic.

It is also a fact that we have had a right-wing majority in this chamber for 16 years. This has meant that many of the proposals that we Social Democrats have wanted to implement have not been possible to implement. It is a political reality.

I am still wondering how the government reasons in these matters. I have received promises, as I understand it, that sharp proposals will be presented during this mandate period. I look forward to them.

There is, however, another issue where I think the government and the government representatives very often duck, and that is the financing. Draconian cuts have been made to the climate and environment budgets, and you have put the entirety of Agency Sweden in these areas on a starvation diet. How is the government going to be able to drive its agencies in the right direction if these do not have the economic conditions and the economic and human resources to be able to carry out what the government wants? We will have to continue to discuss this in upcoming debates during the rest of this mandate period – I am convinced of that.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are acting to save the Baltic Sea. Now we are setting the direction for a new marine environment policy.

What we are debating here today is proposals for a unified marine environment policy that takes the entire ecosystem into account. Perhaps extra important to mention in this context are the proposals regarding the moved trawling limit, protection of marine areas, and coordinated measures against eutrophication. It is also close at hand to mention the work currently underway for expanded opportunities for hunting of seals and cormorants.

We are all painfully aware that the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea are in very poor condition. The cod stocks are already destroyed. Five years ago, a fishing ban on cod was introduced in the eastern Baltic Sea after the stock collapsed. The cod in the western Baltic Sea crashed several years earlier and shows no signs of recovery.

There are studies indicating that the stock collapse could have been avoided if the right measures had been taken in time. It is clear that we must act faster and more proactively to prevent the same catastrophe from affecting the stocks of sprat and herring. Therefore, we are now acting for a moved trawling limit, precisely to protect the sprat. It is an issue that has been discussed for a very long time.

For some fish stocks along our coasts, the situation is critical. It particularly affects small-scale fishers who fish sustainably and near the coast for human consumption.

Now we are taking action to move the trawling limit along the entire Baltic coast, including Öland and Gotland, to protect the herring at the coast where they spawn. This will take place in consultation with, among others, the commission and the affected member states. The purpose is, as stated, to protect aggregations of herring and sprat in connection with reproduction. Large-scale trawling aimed at those aggregations involves a risk of overexploitation, and it depletes the fish stocks.

The coastal fishing that uses nets is not covered by the ban. They will be able to continue, hopefully with greater success when large-scale fishing is kept away from the coasts.

Ultimately, what we are debating here today is about introducing a responsible policy to preserve the function of fishing in the Baltic Sea's ecosystem. We do it so that the Baltic Sea can continue to be viable and healthy even in the future and in that way provide us with more fish.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden will, of course, contribute to reaching the targets of 30 percent protection of the ocean. And of the 30 percent, 10 percent shall be strictly protected. We do this to live up to Sweden's international commitments. It is a very important tool to ensure biodiversity and the ocean's ability to deliver vital ecosystem services.

The Baltic Sea is in the condition it is in largely due to human activity. It is not only fishing but also pollution, shipping, and climate change. The marine environment is being subjected to major changes which, from an ecological perspective, are occurring far too quickly for the ecosystems to be able to adapt.

The biological diversity in the ocean is under threat. The ocean risks becoming a dead, wet desert. To counteract this, marine protected areas are important. There, nature is protected from disturbances. These areas, namely marine national parks, nature reserves and Natura 2000 areas, need to be expanded and strengthened. Precisely for that reason, a ban on bottom trawling in these areas is now proposed. It is in accordance with proposals in the report titled precisely Ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas.

Mr. Speaker! I will now focus on perhaps the greatest issue for the environment regarding the Baltic Sea: eutrophication.

Over 20 percent of the Baltic Sea's bottom is oxygen-free. The bottom death has spread. We have heard from the rostrum that the bottom death previously corresponded to an area the size of Denmark. Now Iceland is mentioned in this context. The situation is really not good. The bottom death means in practice that there is a desert under the water surface. A major contributing cause is the long-term eutrophication.

Old sins that are still ongoing, even if not on as large a scale as before, are a problem that we must manage and act upon to put an end to. Here, all countries around our beloved inland sea have a responsibility. We need to cooperate more to reduce the burden on the sea.

The supply of nitrogen and phosphorus to our waters, which leads to eutrophication, must be slowed down, among other things through recirculation. In order for us to manage to tackle this - we have no alternative; there is no other way forward - authorities and relevant actors along respective drainage areas in our country must cooperate better.

With this marine proposal, we are now taking a holistic approach with a long series of measures to address exactly the eutrophication. We point with the whole hand at the relevant authorities with the message that cooperation within this area must be improved. Not everything is about increased funding. Here, it is largely about better cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! In this chamber today, we are in agreement that we must be careful with our sea. The precautionary principle must prevail. The purpose of this bill is that the management of the sea shall, to a greater extent, take place from an ecosystem perspective. We must take responsibility for our sea as a whole to a greater degree.

Sweden has one of Europe's longest coasts, and we Swedes live to a large extent along the coasts. We have a strong tradition of shipping and boating. Many industries are linked to an attractive and lively coastal and marine environment. The sea is incredibly valuable for us who live here, both from a cultural and a human perspective but also economically.

The environmental problems in the oceans must be managed together with other issues through an integrated policy that takes the big picture into account. That is what today's debate is about. Our living ocean is a valuable ocean.

In this context, when we speak of an ecosystem-based marine management, I also want to mention the need for expanded opportunities for hunting of seals and cormorants. The management of predators such as seals and cormorants is an important part of the ecosystem-based marine management. We are pushing for expanded opportunities for hunting of cormorants, so that the damage caused by cormorants shall decrease.

It is really not difficult to see how the cormorant populations affect the marine environment and the coasts. That we are now taking measures regarding cormorants and seals is requested, long-awaited, and absolutely necessary for a healthy Baltic Sea. I look forward to seeing the results of the measures that are now being taken.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: The Government has, simultaneously with this marine environment bill, decided on new milestone targets aimed at the marine area. This is also important.

With this bill, we present a unified marine environment policy that takes the entire ecosystem into account. The Liberals have for a long time fought for a more sustainable management of the Baltic Sea. That the government is now putting forward the marine environment bill is a great liberal victory. But above all, it is a victory for the Baltic Sea.

With that, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the speech!

I want to ask a question about the trawling limit, which has been mentioned by several representatives of the government parties. It was one of the big headlines at the press conference. The Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari, who belongs to Elin Nilsson's party, said: Furthermore, the government has decided that the trawling limit shall be moved out 12 nautical miles from Skanör to Haparanda including Öland and Gotland, that is to say a trawling ban in the entire Swedish sea territory in the Baltic Sea, on a permanent basis. It was included in several pictures. It was also repeated by the Prime Minister.

Almost the last thing said at the entire press conference was that the government had decided to move the trawling limit out 12 nautical miles. That is very good. The problem is that it is not included in the bill. We have already pointed out several times that it is a policy proposal and that there are no sharp proposals, but there are assessments.

In the assessment, it states: "Permanent regulations regarding pelagic trawling should be established within the entire area up to 12 nautical miles. There is a need to remove or drastically reduce the so-called entry areas inside the trawling limit and a need to establish areas."

There is no sharp proposal, Mr. Speaker. It is an assessment. It is said that it "should" be drawn up, that one should look at restrictions and so on.

You are now coming out strongly on this issue, and everyone is cheering for this. But when one starts to examine the papers, it looks as if it might only become a pipe dream. Will this be realized, and in what way, if so?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the question. Yes, it will happen. We will move out the trawling limit.

We do not, however, have jurisdiction over the entire Baltic Sea, so in order to achieve a relocation of the trawling limit, consultations will take place with the commission and other relevant parties. But our absolute ambition, which we are working very hard for, is that the trawling limit shall be moved out, and I look forward to that happening.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Does this mean that the government has received promises that this can be done? I have read the environmental lawyer and professor David Langlet's latest work. He has investigated the issue and was also included as an expert in the investigation. He says that one does not need to do this. The government can already do much on its own without going to the EU.

I have not seen that any such work has been started. It is still a research project at HaV, where they are looking into this. When will the government put the spade in the ground? As you stated during the press conference, it sounds as if it happened yesterday. But if one looks at what the papers and the underlying documents indicate, it looks like it is far off in the horizon. When can we expect a moved trawling limit?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I cannot, of course, provide an exact date. There is a large number of matters being prepared in the Government Offices, but the work of moving the trawling limit is proceeding at full speed. Decisions will come when they come, but they will come.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Elin Nilsson for the speech. Historically, the Social Democrats and the Liberals have had great consensus on environmental issues, also in areas such as seas and fish stocks. Now, furthermore, the Liberals hold the ministerial post with responsibility for environmental issues. Despite that, we now see a toothless bill that lacks the concrete measures that are required.

My question to the member is: Is this a deliberate strategy? Is this what is politically possible given the government parties' cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna? Or are you in Liberalerna satisfied with the content of the bill? Is this what is politically desirable?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Järrebring for the question. Yes, I am satisfied with the content of the bill. I am proud of the direction for marine environmental policy that we are charting now with this. I am also proud of my liberal Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari, who has pushed hard to ensure that this comes to fruition.

This is a policy proposal and should be seen as a first step. It maps out the path for where we want to reach. It is not the end of what we want to do for the Baltic Sea, but it is the beginning. More will come.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Elin Nilsson for the answer. From an outside perspective, it feels as though the liberal victories in the climate and environmental fields, which liberal representatives are happy to say they have been able to achieve in a government position, yield very little results here and now. The results are to come later.

In a previous exchange, I used the word springboard. That is a bit how it feels. The Liberals' successes in this government cooperation, with the Sweden Democrats in the Riksdag, lead to fine words and fine promises but very little result.

In light of previous exchanges, I would also like to take the opportunity to point out that it is not the case that the Social Democrats did nothing in the area during previous terms in government. On the contrary, we gave HaV the mandate to move the trawling limit. We gave mandates regarding common eiders. We expanded the hunting of seals. We gave the Swedish Board of Agriculture the mandate to review how eutrophication can be reduced by moving the limit for how close agriculture may occur. We prioritized the work for a toxin-free environment. And not least, the LOVA funds have been very important for reducing eutrophication. I strongly oppose the claim that we would have done nothing in a government position.

Let me return to the liberal victories. Are the Liberals really satisfied with their victories?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It would be a rhetorical absurdity to say that one is not satisfied with a victory. A victory is, by definition, something one is satisfied with. We are, of course, satisfied with our liberal victories.

I want to say again that this marine environment bill is important. It is a great victory, above all for the Baltic Sea, but also for me and my party and many committed local politicians across the country. This applies in particular here in the Stockholm archipelago, where people have long fought for the Baltic Sea. They look forward with joy to the bill now being passed.

Regarding who has done what and when, I think it is actually quite uninteresting in the political discourse to engage in a blame game and claim that you didn't do this or that. It is, of course, the opposition's role.

When it comes to the Baltic Sea, we all bear a responsibility for where we find ourselves today, not least in terms of eutrophication. It is a historical legacy and responsibility. For a long time, we have had a system here that has caused the problems that exist today. That is what we have to deal with, and we are doing so now. We do it partly in the marine environment bill. We turn to the relevant authorities and point with the whole hand and say: Now you must start cooperating. It is no longer sufficient to sit in separate chambers and look through one's own little peephole. Cooperation must happen, because now we must get to work.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 12.

That we all safeguard a living ocean is something we can all agree on. We want to protect our ocean. We want to reduce eutrophication. We want sustainable fishing.

We Sweden Democrats welcome the government's proposition on the direction of the marine environment policy. The negative trend for the condition of our seas must be broken, and fundamental to that work is creating the conditions to reduce nutrient leakage. Unfortunately, much of the eutrophication that ends up in the Baltic Sea comes from, among other places, Poland, but we must work to reduce the nutrient leakage from Sweden. Agriculture is part of the solution in this work. Progress with reduced nutrient supply has been noted during the last decades, often with voluntary solutions.

But at the same time, it is important not to regulate agriculture further, as it is a pressured industry today, and it is of utmost importance that the policy we create and pursue in all ways creates the right conditions to increase Sweden's self-sufficiency. That this is the right way to go is also stated by LRF, Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, which agrees with the proposal in our motion. The regulatory burden on farmers shall not be increased; on the contrary, we shall facilitate things for our Swedish farmers. It is also something that is required if we are to be able to increase our food supply, which is crucial for our society to function.

Is it only we who think of the farmers, can we then wonder if no other party supported our motion.

Mr. Speaker! In order to proceed with the work of improving the marine environment, we agree with the government that it is of the utmost importance that Sweden continues to act internationally to regulate and limit the input of hazardous substances into the marine environment, as well as to expand and strengthen the protection of marine areas. We must ensure that biodiversity is preserved.

Something else that concerns us is, naturally, the fishing quotas in the Baltic Sea. It is regrettable that Sweden is completely isolated in the EU when it comes to wanting to reduce the fishing pressure. It is, however, still positive that Sweden succeeded in preventing the other Baltic countries from pushing through higher quotas than those in the Commission's proposal. It was 26 countries against Sweden – in that case, it is difficult to achieve reduced fishing quotas. But had we not participated in the vote, the others would have pushed through higher fishing quotas.

We must now continue to work on convincing other countries and ensuring better advice from Ices. We also have hopes that the ban on seal products will be lifted and that it will become legal to shoot more seals and also to shoot more common eiders.

Mr. Speaker! They are certainly cute to look at, the seals in the Baltic Sea. But a single seal eats an average of seven kilos of fish per day, and a cormorant eats as much as one kilo of fish per day. It is not only the 1,100 professional fishermen in Sweden who are to be held accountable for the depletion of fish, but also the increased seal population, which has a large part in this.

We also naturally need to facilitate things for the smaller commercial fishers, so that they are not pushed out by the larger vessels. But reduced opportunities for fishing also result in a lower self-sufficiency rate. Let us therefore continue to work for sustainable fishing in the Baltic Sea.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Victoria Tiblom, for the speech! What I reacted to most was the description that the Sverigedemokraternas starting point, as I perceived it, is that Swedish agriculture should not be part of the green transition. That was what I heard the member deliver from the rostrum.

Then I return to this regarding the protection of herring and sprat. SD has previously spoken about moving the trawling limit to protect herring and sprat. But if there was seriousness behind the words, why have you then not ensured that the bill contains sharp proposals in this area? Is it perhaps the case that the Sweden Democrats in environmental policy are all talk and no workshop?

It is also strange that the party that seems most concerned about defending the doubling of the fishing quotas is the Sweden Democrats. It appears quite strange, I think. The Sweden Democrats claim to protect small-scale fishing, but how do you intend for the coastal fishers to survive when the fish stocks risk collapsing?

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the questions! There were many questions, but I will begin with the arguments regarding a maritime strike. A maritime strike binds the policy for future governments. It makes it difficult to make trade-offs against other values, such as economy, defense, and the conditions for living in the countryside. Therefore, we believe that this direction proposal is better.

The Climate Act also demonstrated the difficulties of refusing the important values. It risked binding the government to a high reduction obligation despite that ambition, and it was about to make it impossible to live in rural areas.

It is about an ideological difference between idealistic and realistic politics. The absence of a navy does not prevent an offensive policy for the marine environment, but it enables a flexibility, and it is, like so many other things, very important.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Realism is perhaps to realize that we actually have incredibly tough challenges ahead of us regarding both climate and environmental policy.

I think this exchange clarifies what I have tried to point out in previous exchanges, namely that the proposal we are now debating is probably not what is politically desirable from the government's perspective, but what the Sverigedemokraterna have made politically possible. This is the liberal victory in the issues linked to the marine environment. Thank you for that! It was a clear and welcome message in an issue that I have carried with me for a long time and tried to get answers on in the chamber throughout the entire morning.

I return to my question regarding this matter of doubled quotas. The Sweden Democrats are very quick to defend the doubling of quotas. We have heard it in several statements both in this and in previous debates. This appears quite strange when one simultaneously says to want to protect small-scale fishing and also points to the threat that exists with fish stocks that risk collapsing. How is it that the Sweden Democrats seem to be so satisfied with a doubling of the quotas?

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that the member speaks several times about a "springnota" (a note of discrepancy) from the current government. If anyone has taken a "springnota," it is the previous government. Never before have the fishing quotas been in parity with ICES minimum levels. Historically, the levels that the previous government negotiated have often been more than twice as high as the minimum levels that ICES recommended. Therefore, the assumptions and claims that the member makes are surprising.

When it comes to investments in the environment, I can mention that the Sweden Democrats, together with the others in the Tidö cooperation, have made many investments in the environment, not least in ash and elm, which is something that the previous government actively voted against.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that the government is presenting a marine environment bill and that there is a broad consensus that much needs to be done to break the negative trend for the oceans as ecosystems. The major problem with the government's bill is that it contains so few concrete proposals – this despite the fact that such proposals can be found both in the Miljömålsberedning's report *Havet och människan* and in the Övergödningsutredning's report.

Functional ecosystems are the basis for our survival and future welfare. Sweden has the overarching goal that our marine areas shall achieve a good environmental status where resources are used sustainably. Several of the Swedish environmental quality objectives are important tools for reaching the overarching goal, but none of them were achieved by 2020, which was the ambition when they were adopted.

The state of the environment is still far from what is described in the goals. It is therefore clear that from a political standpoint, we need to do much more than we do today. Goals can easily appear abstract, but at its core, this is about things as everyday as being able to swim in clean water and eat fish caught in seas and lakes.

The Environmental Goals Preparatory Body proposed in 2020 that a marine environment law should be introduced to create conditions for broad and sustainable actions both nationally and globally. An ecosystem approach shall be the starting point for every government's marine environment work, which shall also be based on a scientific foundation. According to the proposal, the government shall during every mandate period produce a marine environment bill with a description of planned measures to achieve the environmental goal.

Vänsterpartiet supports the Environmental Goals Commission's proposal, which provides the conditions for a more powerful marine environment policy. The alternative proposal that the government presents in this bill to clarify the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management's tasks is completely insufficient. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1.

Mr. Speaker! The ocean absorbs a quarter of the carbon dioxide emissions and stores a large part of the heat that is the consequence of our emissions. The ocean thus has great importance for the climate. But the uptake of heat and carbon dioxide also implies a great burden for many marine species and for the ocean as an ecosystem. A healthy ecosystem can function as a carbon sink, while a damaged ecosystem can instead exacerbate the climate crisis. More measures are therefore needed to strengthen the marine ecosystems.

To protect species against the ongoing warming, survival sites, so-called climate refugia, are needed, which offer a suitable local climate and where species can remain despite the climate as a whole changing. Vänsterpartiet sees that measures are needed to promote the protection of climate refugia.

Mr. Speaker! Eutrophication is one of the most acute threats to the sea. One effect is algal blooms that affect both bathing water quality and people's health. But eutrophication also damages biodiversity by leading to oxygen depletion that wipes out bottom-dwelling species. The extent of oxygen-poor bottoms in the Baltic Sea is now approximately as large as Iceland.

The current action program is insufficient to reduce eutrophication. Physical measures that improve the situation are lacking. Unfortunately, the government's bill does not contain concrete proposals to improve the situation. We in Vänsterpartiet want to see a joint action program in accordance with the environmental goals for water and marine environment management and the Swedish strategic plan for the EU's common agricultural policy.

Both in the Eutrophication Investigation and the Environmental Goals Committee's report *The Sea and the Human*, the conclusion is drawn that more needs to be invested in local remedial work. Today, many landowners feel that they need support to be able to apply for the financial resources available to carry out measures, such as the construction or restoration of wetlands. The Eutrophication Investigation anticipates a need for approximately 80 local remedial coordinators for this purpose. A prerequisite for the local remedial work to be strengthened is that the government ensures that there is funding.

Agriculture is today the primary land-based cause of the nutrient leakage that leads to eutrophication. Phosphorus and nitrogen in manure that is not managed correctly is a significant source of eutrophication. Manure must, as far as possible, be returned to the cycle by being used to grow crops. Vänsterpartiet wants to increase support for farmers to use manure more effectively in crop cultivation and thereby reduce the need to import artificial fertilizer. We have proposed such an initiative in our budget.

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, the criticism against the large industrial trawlers has been sharp. About 95 percent of Sweden's total catches are taken by the 20 largest boats, whose catches go towards the production of animal feed. For a long-term sustainable management of the fish stocks, we must make the right priorities. Do we want large-scale fishing with a few boats, or do we want a viable local fishing that promotes living coastal communities? Do we want the fish resource we collectively dispose of to go to feed for fish, chicken, and mink, or do we want the fish to go to human consumption?

Small-scale fishers testify to difficulties in achieving sufficiently large catches. That trend exists along the entire Swedish coast. The catches today are significantly smaller than 30-40 years ago. In the Kattegat, the cod stock is judged to be so small that researchers' advice is not to fish for cod. In the Baltic Sea, the EU has had a decision on an emergency cod fishing ban for several years. The sprat is also threatened by collapse.

Sweden does not own the issue of fishing alone, but it is important that the government does not use EU cooperation as an excuse for inaction. We have the space to adopt national fishing rules ourselves. It is not reasonable that any individual vessels account for a large share of the fishing while the majority have to share a significantly smaller part of the stock. Viable stocks and a living small-scale fishery would also be beneficial for national food security in the event of a crisis. Smaller boats that can fish both near the coast and on the open sea mean that fishing can be more easily restructured.

An expansion of the trawling limit would strengthen the coastal areas and provide a broader protection zone. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet wants Sweden to move the trawling limit out to 12 nautical miles along the entire coast.

Mr. Speaker! Long-term protection of the oceans' ecosystems is needed. Protected areas are necessary to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. Commercial fishers themselves are raising their voices for more protected areas that can give the fish the opportunity to grow and reproduce. The protection of marine areas in Sweden is weak in many places and involves continued opportunities for fishing and trawling. Even in national parks, fishing occurs.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a national interim target for the protection of marine areas that includes at least 30 percent protected and at least 10 percent strictly protected area by 2030.

We also think that a general fishing ban needs to be introduced in marine protected areas and that fishing should only be permitted if it can be conducted without affecting conservation values. This would benefit fish stocks both in protected areas and in surrounding areas. In the long run, it also benefits the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker! A significant part of international shipping traffic passes near the Swedish coast and through sensitive sea areas. Many ships have scrubbers that clean exhaust gases. Ships with scrubbers with open systems discharge the washing water from the cleaning into the sea. This means that large amounts of contaminated water are released directly into the sea. This year, the Government has presented a memorandum on a ban on emissions from scrubbers into water within Swedish sea territory, and I hope that a concrete proposal for a ban will come to the Riksdag as soon as possible. But the Government must also work towards a ban at an international level.

The increasing traffic and exploitation in the sea also lead to more noise, which affects marine animals. The Government addresses this in the bill, but once again, concrete measures are lacking. Tools are needed to reduce the impact of underwater noise on ecosystems. Therefore, we believe that environmental quality standards should be developed.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The title of the report is: A living ocean - increased protection, reduced eutrophication and a sustainable fishery. It is a broad palette that we are addressing. It is very good that we have this whole, for that is how complex reality is.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 21 under point 13 regarding a common fisheries policy.

The EU's fisheries policy rests on three pillars - the environmental, the economic and the social. That may sound very good, but it can also be misleading regarding what we want. This applies in particular to the latter two - the economic and the social.

Both the opposition and the government, as well as the rest of Europe, use ICES recommendations today. But a recommendation from ICES in one direction can be overruled when one weighs in exactly the economic and the social. I thought that was seen very clearly in last year's quota setting. The recommendation from ICES was zero, i.e., a fishing ban. An overruling then took place where one, as I see it, used exactly those economic and social parts.

ICES' recommendations are also sometimes used a bit as it suits. There is a level and a minimum level here. One can look at this year's level. There were many who bounced over the increase of 100 percent. But one can read the recommendation a bit more carefully. A bit further down on the page, ICES recommends a safety margin of 30-50 percent, because we know that we have poor control over the fishing and there is uncertainty regarding the stocks.

As I said in a previous post, I believe that the Swedish position in this year's negotiations is good. It actually lies below the Ices recommendations, even with a safety margin.

If one does not do the preparatory work in a negotiation, one can nevertheless see the Swedish position a bit like a mist. In a context where we are sitting in a corner with lowered quotas and thus have difficulty achieving success, as the minister himself describes the problem, one must, so to speak, go in and work in a completely different way in the negotiations, something that I touched upon in an earlier post.

When it comes to the Baltic Sea specifically, one must enter a very early stage and meet both politicians and scientists around the Baltic Sea in order to be able to approach one another, otherwise we will never come anywhere near this Swedish position. My serious criticism of the minister therefore concerns how one has acted to get towards where the Swedish position lies.

The Baltic Sea's marine environment is very important. There is a lot of wisdom here, and in some way, the result of how we succeed with our marine environment can actually be measured in how much fish can be taken out of the Baltic Sea. Here we have large historical debts when it comes to dioxins, heavy metals, PFAS, and eutrophication. We have also created some new concerns, such as scrubber water from our ships, something that we agree we should reduce. Here the government has made good efforts, which is good, to put a stop to something that research has taught us is very harmful.

In today's debate, the impact of agriculture on the environment in the form of eutrophication has also been highlighted. At the same time, an incredible amount has been done over a long period. No one should think that we do not reuse every single kilo of manure for the plants - phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium are expensive ingredients in crop cultivation, and therefore one does not want to use a single kilo more than is needed. GPS technology for the autopilot of our tractors is generally used today in something that is beginning to resemble precision farming.

What I was touching on earlier is more serious, namely that we must manage the climate changes. Temperature rises with large floods and drought as a consequence contribute significantly to eutrophication. It becomes an enormous hump. In a drought that causes half a harvest and less, one has indeed applied fertilizer and nutrients for a significantly higher harvest, and that can then end up in the sea.

Perhaps even more serious are the increasingly common heavy rains. It is easy to understand that these cause eutrophication from agriculture, but it is also about our treatment plants all over the country. I see that there are exemptions for nitrogen removal at treatment plants, not least along the Norrland coast, and that is not entirely good, because we have problems with overflows during heavy rains. We are, therefore, not quite consistent when it comes to taking environmental concerns seriously.

Madam Speaker! Something that should be given even more emphasis when it comes to driving the environment in the right direction and reducing eutrophication is biogas. It concerns both agriculture and treatment plants. Based on the EU's regulatory framework, there are limited possibilities to support biogas more than we do today, but we must include in our context how important biogas is also for our seas. Biogas also has many other advantages. It is a domestic fuel that can be used in electricity production and contribute to a more stable Sweden in times of crisis, quite simply.

A living sea - increased protection, reduced eutrophication and sustainable fishing

We also have many other environmental problems with the sea, such as marine litter. We agree to move out the trawling limit, an important part of managing the fishing.

What we have not discussed is that we have an overcapacity, a fishing fleet that is too large for the fish to be harvested, something that, when we talk about the economic reasons in the EU's fisheries policy, can have a very negative impact. We must manage that overcapacity in one way or another.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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