Ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report MJU13.

We are all probably aware of the impact that we humans have on this planet and the challenges that we are constantly faced with in order for us to be able to coexist with animals and nature.

It is also the objective of this report to prohibit bottom trawling in marine protected areas. But the fishing areas that would be most affected by this general ban on bottom trawling are the local fisheries in Kosterfjorden, Väderöfjorden, and Gullmarsfjorden. It is there that the majority of the Swedish shrimp fishing takes place, and a general ban on bottom trawling here would lead to a large part of the Swedish demersal fishing ceasing.

Even though we sitting here in the chamber today are well aware of what demersal fishing means, it is worth explaining to our listeners. Demersal fishing means fishing for bottom-dwelling fish species, such as cod, haddock, saithe, plaice, crayfish and shrimp. These species live on or near the bottom.

Our self-sufficiency rate is the lowest in the Nordic countries, and we must safeguard our assets and what our country can offer regarding fishing, hunting, agriculture, and farming more.

The blue economy is often forgotten when one speaks of our assets. But the fact is that if it were to become necessary, today's fishers could scale up fishing within two days and supply almost half of Sweden's population with fish and shellfish. We invest great resources in our defense and weapons, but if we cannot feed our soldiers or our population, we are in a bad position.

Mr. Speaker! If we do not protect our fishers in peacetime, we will also have no fishers in times of unrest. Just as in agriculture and farming, a generational shift is occurring within the fishing industry. In order for the younger generation to dare to invest in the profession, these exceptions from the general ban need to be in place before June 1. Otherwise, we will soon have an entire coast affected. Not only fishers but entire coastal communities risk dying out, and fishing will disappear. Fishing is a large part of our cultural heritage and something we must protect. Furthermore, it is often said that every fisher creates seven jobs on land.

Demersal fishing differs from pelagic fishing, and now I turn to the audience again. Pelagic fishing is the fishing of species that live in the free water mass, that is, a good way up from the bottom. They can be divided into coastal and ocean-dwelling fish, depending on the water depth where they live.

The demersal fishing is in any case something that benefits small-scale fishing, as it is the smaller boats that are used in this fishing. It is not any large monster boats that vacuum the bottom. We can ask any fisherman if their trawl nets are dragged along the bottom, but they do not do that.

There are two reasons for that. Firstly, the nets would break immediately, and secondly, it would consume far too much fuel. It becomes heavy to pull a net that drags along the bottom. Fishermen who own their own boats fish in a sustainable way.

Mr. Speaker! What does the opposition say about this committee report? The Green Party states in its committee motion that the exceptions to the prohibition shall be strictly limited to individual cases based on scientific evidence and that any exceptions should be granted through decisions that can be reviewed and appealed, that is to say: The exceptions shall not be regulated in regulations.

But it is precisely such things that make our fishers worry, and with every right to do so. Which fisher can afford to let their boat lie in harbor for months while a potential exemption is reviewed and appealed, and reviewed and appealed? Fishers will leave the profession, and then we are left with a dying fishing industry and very little to lean on in times of potential concern with a border closed to the import of food.

A fishing boat does not pay for itself in ten or twenty years; it takes a long time to earn back such a purchase. The oldest boat on the west coast is from 1935 and is still in use. That, if anything, says a lot about how committed our fishers are and how they safeguard everything related to fishing, for had they not fished in a sustainable way, they would not have been able to continue for generations either.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It may not have sounded that way in the member's speech, but the underlying meaning in the committee proceedings and here in the chamber today is that the Sweden Democrats now support a ban on bottom trawling in protected marine areas. We consider this fundamentally positive, but previously the Sweden Democrats have repeatedly expressed doubt and claimed that the current regulation would suffice.

Today, it did not quite sound like that from the member. My question is therefore what has made SD realize that a clear ban was needed, if SD has realized it, and if SD is then also ready to prioritize environmental protection over short-term profits.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

Of course, we realize that regulations are needed regarding this fishing.

At the same time, there must be clear exceptions, as I said in my speech. Otherwise, we will soon be left without fishermen on the west coast and with a younger generation that does not dare to invest.

A clear exception must therefore be in place before the new law enters into force on 1 June.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Victoria Tiblom speaks warmly about the demersal fishery and clarifies that she believes clear exceptions are needed.

How do the Sweden Democrats view the boundary between the need for a protected marine environment and the possibility of exemptions from the prohibition, for example for demersal fishing?

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I recently visited the west coast and met several fishermen. They told me that they have fished for generations and that even today they do not fish in overly protected areas, for example along cliff edges, but instead try to fish in a sustainable way.

But also, in order to have everything in order, it is better that we have this ban in place and at the same time have some exceptions. In that way, we should be able to continue to have a sustainable fishery for many years to come.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to go back in time to 2009. At that time, a rather drastic decision was made: parts of the Kattegat were closed off for bottom trawling.

It was an agreement between Denmark and Sweden to save the last of the cod in the Kattegat. There were few cod left, if any, and the fishing was failing. It was concluded that if we protected the cod in this area by removing bottom trawling, perhaps there would be a possibility for the cod to have time to spawn and increase in number. There was a belief that if we protected the spawning grounds for the cod, we would get it back.

It was a big and brave decision. It was quite unique that Sweden and Denmark agreed to this. They agreed that one would be allowed to have fixed gear, i.e., crayfish pots. These are primarily crayfish bottoms, where the trawl actually goes on the bottom because the crayfish live on the bottom. One was allowed to have stationary pots but no trawl nets. Everyone had great hopes for this.

Unfortunately, it did not go as intended, Mr. Speaker. The cod did not return. Whether it was because the area was protected too late, that there was too little spawning biomass, that one was in the wrong place, or that a complementary measure needed to be taken elsewhere, is still not known.

On the other hand, it was seen that the bottom life had returned. For the big fish, there was no difference, but suddenly living bottoms were seen. Epifauna and meiofauna, i.e., those that live on the bottom and in the bottom, had returned much faster than had been thought.

Mr. Speaker! When the camera moved over the bottom, one saw meter-high pipe sponges and small sea pens. They are Swedish coral animals. It was seen that the brittle stars had returned. Cylinder roses, incredibly beautiful relatives of the anemones that have one foot buried in the mud and look like a living firework, stood there on the bottom – because they had not had a trawl in their heads for some years.

This created a headache both for the authorities and for us politicians. This was the 2014–2018 mandate period. The area was protected so that the cod would return, but the cod did not return. The fishermen wanted to go in and fish – they had agreed to the stop to get the cod back, but they still wanted to trawl for crayfish. The minimum size for crayfish had also been reduced during this time, which made it more advantageous to fish with a trawl than with a pot. One had regained a protected area with large meio- and epifauna, but that was not why it was protected in the first place.

Mr. Speaker! I will not go into all the details. It ended with the area being protected. It is classified as an Ospar habitat – Ospar is the convention we have for the North Atlantic – and there is still a trawling ban there. The cod has still not returned. On the other hand, the large epibenthic fauna remains, and an increase in flatfish and langoustine is seen.

With this little story, I want to illustrate what a trawling ban can do when it comes to bottom trawling. I am also incredibly happy about the decision we are to make regarding the ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas.

One can prohibit it already today if one wants to. The difference with this legislation is that one is allowed to do so even if it interferes such that the fishing is significantly hindered. Previously, one has only been allowed to introduce a ban if the fishing is not affected, and in that case, there is no point to it. Here, it is about actually removing this fishing.

Mr. Speaker! Few have probably missed my love for the sea. Many in this chamber may have been tired for many years of me nagging about this. But I am a marine biologist, and it was these issues that brought me into politics. That was why I took the step and moved from research and education to actually entering politics. And I do not know how many times I have said in various contexts, election campaigns, and different debates, that Miljöpartiet wants to ban bottom trawling starting in marine protected areas. I have said it at least since 2008, so it is many times.

Since then, I have tried to replace the word bottom trawling and say that we want to ban destructive fishing methods, because there are incredibly many different types of trawls. Sometimes bottom trawling might even be the best on that specific seabed. It depends entirely on how it is, but a destructive fishing gear is one that causes more destruction than it provides benefit. But neither the press people nor the media have wanted to use "destructive fishing methods", so now we are standing here with "bottom trawling". I believe that the vast majority understand what it means.

Today we are here to actually ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas, which I am incredibly happy about and have fought for for a long time. We were involved in getting it into the January agreement, and now it is finally passing in the Riksdag – or so I believe.

There are, Mr. Speaker, details that I see are not being met in this. There are loopholes.

For example, the possibilities for exceptions are very vaguely specified. The Government places this in the lap of the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and lets the war, I was about to say, continue regarding whether to have exceptions or not, instead of putting its foot down on what the exceptions could be. This is worrying. In the worst case, this legislation could become a shot in the air and that everyone who applies receives an exception. Then it becomes nothing.

We would like to see that there was a more specified possibility for exceptions and that there is actually a scientific basis for it not having an impact. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 3. I would have liked to see that it had been included.

We have one further reservation. I will not move for its approval, but we naturally want to see more measures for the marine environment even outside the protected areas. I also want to point out that the introduction of this – together with other parts that this government has moved forward with – will occur at the same time as drastic cuts are being made to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management.

I hope that the government comes to its senses and gives the authority the funds it needs so that this proposal can go through as smoothly and as quickly as possible, so that we actually get more live fireworks underwater in the form of cylinder roses and piprensare.

(Applause)

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the bill Prohibition of bottom trawling in marine protected areas. This is an issue that concerns both our environment and the long-term conditions for a responsible use of our seas.

Bottom trawling is a controversial fishing method that can pose a threat to the marine environment. Important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, nutrient cycles, and habitats for many species are at risk of being destroyed.

Our marine protected areas are unique and irreplaceable. These areas function as natural reserves, where ecosystems are given the opportunity to recover and develop undisturbed. Continued bottom trawling in these zones risks disturbing the delicate balance in these systems, which can have long-lasting consequences.

By introducing a ban in these areas, we are taking a clear stand to safeguard our natural values and ensure that future generations also get to experience a living and rich marine environment.

Mr. Speaker! In this chamber, we often discuss the conflicts of interest that environmental and climate policy creates and touches upon. This bill is no exception to this. Fishing is an important industry for many local communities. It is a source of food supply and, in some cases, a part of the local soul. One such example, which is also raised in the bill and by previous speakers, is the shrimp fishing in Koster-Väderöfjorden and Gullmarsfjorden. In Kosterhavet, which is also a national park, the fishing is managed in cooperation between local commercial fishers, researchers, the County Administrative Board, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, and politicians from the municipalities of Strömstad and Tanum.

This collaboration is a pioneering example where fishing takes great consideration of natural values, among other things by not fishing in waters shallower than 60 meters, protecting important and sensitive seabed areas, and using special, selective trawls that reduce bycatch.

The fishers, researchers, authority representatives and politicians who participate in the co-management are all in agreement regarding the successes of the project and the effect it has for a fishery that is both ecologically and economically sustainable.

The Government highlights in the bill the possibility of exceptions for certain fishing even within the marine protected areas. The Government considers that there may be cases where an exception is justified, as long as it does not affect the purpose of the area protection.

It is important that initiatives such as the co-management in Kosterhavet are protected and allowed to be the success stories they are and for others to follow – not least from a preparedness perspective. We must not risk that the small proportion of fishing whose catch today ends up on Swedish plates disappears.

The purpose of the exception is not to grant a general waiver but to create room for exceptions in situations where it is clear that the fishing activity does not jeopardize the marine environment or the biodiversity intended to be protected. Such an exception should be based on scientific grounds and proven experience. This can create a balance between environmental protection and the needs of the business sector while clearly marking that the protection of our most valuable natural areas shall come first.

It is important that the environmental measures we decide upon yield the desired effect: that our marine protected areas are preserved and that the long-term positive effects for both nature and society become clear. We need to be able to combine conservation with flexibility, and scientific evidence and practical experience shall constantly form the basis for our measures. It is therefore a reasonable starting point that exemptions can be granted if the fishing does not affect the purpose of the current area protection.

Mr. Speaker! By introducing a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas, we take a step to protect our marine natural values, preserve biodiversity, and ensure that our seas continue to be a living resource for future generations. At the same time, we leave room for carefully regulated exceptions, where we can cautiously allow certain fishing activities without compromising the protection of valuable nature.

I vote in favor of the proposals in the report.

(Applause)

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! As we heard Member Lewerentz say, the Moderaterna stand behind both the bill and the fact that a ban on bottom trawling is needed. For a long time, however, the Moderaterna were reluctant and wanted broad exemptions for local interests.

My question to the member is: Is there an end to the Moderaternas doubts, or do we need to be worried about open back doors that risk undermining the protection?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I still think that the government is quite clear both in and by means of the marine environment bill, which we adopted in the autumn, and with this bill and other proposals that have also been initiated or for which decisions have been made based on the marine environment bill. We think that these issues are important. At the same time, we also want to open up so that businesses do not have to go under.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Member Lewerentz for the clear answer. It is gratifying that we can agree on the harmful effects of bottom trawling and that the protection of the marine environment shall come first – as the Member explained in his speech.

The inevitable question, however, is: Why do the Moderaterna and the government parties then limit the ban to that part of the protected areas that lies inside the trawling limit?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is primarily about what we have the authority to do. That which lies outside the trawling limit, we are obliged to negotiate together with other EU countries. We have seen how difficult it is, and I know that the Social Democrats are also well aware of this. It is not entirely simple.

This sends a very clear signal about where Sweden stands on these issues. I hope that in the future we will also be able to get other EU countries on board with us.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is amazing how things can turn out. As the first substitute from Kalmar County, I have had the honor of serving the Riksdag several times now. Here today we are debating, by chance, the continuation of a matter I debated the last time I was here.

Then we debated the changes in the rules for the protection of marine areas within so-called Natura 2000 areas. Today, a ban on bottom trawling applies in marine protected areas. It is a promised and long-awaited next step.

In that debate, I accounted for how we in Sweden received criticism from the EU Commission for deficiencies in our preservation of the marine environment. I described how the then-social democrat-led government had initiated a process and appointed an inquiry, whose proposals formed the basis for that debate – and for today's debate.

Furthermore, I described our assessment that the current government has taken that work further and that we within the Social Democrats, despite the fact that discussions were then held about whether the protection could have been broadened, chose to stand behind the government's proposal.

Now comes the next step, namely a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. We Social Democrats find ourselves once again in a discussion about whether the government should have been able to broaden the protection.

Mr. Speaker! This time we feel compelled to point out that the protection could have been broadened further, and I therefore move for approval of reservation 4.

Bottom trawling damages important habitats on the seabed and can result in large bycatches that damage stocks of fish and shellfish. To ensure sustainable fishing, we see an urgent need to protect sensitive areas from bottom trawling and instead encourage the use of environmentally friendly fishing gear.

We therefore welcome the government's proposal, where good steps are taken. However, we consider it crucial for the protection of our fish stocks and other marine resources that the ban can be extended to also apply outside the so-called trawling limit, where a large part of our protected areas are located. Here, the government needs to immediately initiate negotiations with other affected countries within the EU. We believe that the government needs to return with proposals for a broader ban on bottom trawling that also includes sensitive areas outside the trawling limit.

Mr. Speaker! The Government proposes exceptions to the prohibition in certain cases. In this regard, we Social Democrats wish to emphasize that exceptions should be granted very sparingly, as extensive exceptions risk diluting the purpose of the prohibition. For the sake of time, however, I will stick to moving for approval of reservation 4 only.

I shall speak a little about trawling and fishing in a broader context. We Social Democrats see the conflict of objectives between protecting nature and developing the blue economy. We see the conflicts of objectives in the establishment of wind power and other societal interests. We also see an imminent risk of collapse of the herring stock. The Social Democrats are therefore pushing the issue of a moved trawling limit and a pause for large-scale fishing in the Baltic Sea to give the herring a chance to recover. We are pushing the issue nationally and within the EU.

With this, we want to benefit small-scale coastal fishing for human consumption. At the same time as we face serious threats from overfishing and eutrophication, we believe in a development of Sweden's fishing industry. In coastal fishing, there is potential to contribute to our food supply, not least from a preparedness perspective. This, however, requires efforts in both the short and long term.

Sweden has enormous potential with a hundred thousand lakes, tens of thousands of miles of flowing watercourses, and a coast that stretches over 200 miles. With a responsible management of these resources, there are fantastic opportunities for the fishing industry and aquaculture. It requires us to act for the preservation of our fish stocks. It requires us to work together with our neighboring countries to find common ground. It also requires that our different societal interests cooperate to find common solutions.

These are issues that our previous S-led governments have worked on in different ways. It is not always simple, as member Lewerentz rightly pointed out. We hope that the current government can take this in and continue this work as well.

(Applause)

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! That the previous S-led government has driven the issue is not entirely true. The M-led opposition pushed the S-led government ahead of itself during the last parliamentary term, for example regarding the relocation of the trawling limit that is now being carried out on a trial basis in the central Baltic Sea.

I would like to ask the member how it is that S is suddenly driving the issue of a moved trawling limit. Why has one not acted earlier?

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not share Member Lewerentz's view that the Moderaterna would have pushed the Socialdemokraterna ahead of them when it comes to a relocation of the trawling limit. However, I am grateful that we have found common ground on this and that the current government is continuing to work on the issue.

A relocation of the trawling limit and a trawling ban are in a congress decision from the Social Democrats' previous congress. As a representative for the Social Democrats, I have to adhere to and work with it. I admit that it is a somewhat jagged congress decision, which at the same time aims for us to promote coastal fishing, where not so few – not to say most – are also trawlers. There is thus a conflict of objectives for me to handle. But I follow the congress's decision and work for it, and so did my predecessors.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! As regards the trawling limit, it stemmed from committee initiatives and motions which subsequently resulted in announcements from the Riksdag, and in my world, that is pushing a government forward to get things to happen. This government has also been tougher in quota negotiations and so on and succeeded in getting lower quotas than the Social Democrats have ever managed to get.

It pleases me, however, that we still agree with each other as much as we do on the issues regarding fishing and what needs to be done. That means we will be able to go much further.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not share the member's view of who has pushed whom, but I am pleased that we agree on the issue and that we can work to improve the situation in our seas.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report and the rejection of all reservations.

It is not that any party has moved for a rejection of the bill itself, but rather it is more about having views on certain parts.

Just as we heard earlier, it was the previous government that in March 2022 decided to task a special investigator with conducting a review of the legislation aimed at regulating fishing to strengthen the protection of marine protected areas. In the bill we are debating today, the legislative proposal from the committee report is addressed, which means that the authorization in 20 § of the Fisheries Act is expanded to enable a general ban on bottom trawling.

Other legislative proposals from the committee's final report were handled in another proposition, which was discussed earlier during this parliamentary session. This proposition and the measures proposed therein concern fishing in marine national parks, nature reserves, biotope protection areas, or Natura 2000 areas, with the possibility of limited exceptions.

It can be emphasized that it is not individual decisions on exceptions that are foreseen in the proposal, but regulations from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, which I assume the government will handle both wisely and clearly. If bottom trawling in some form can be conducted without counteracting the purpose of the area protection in a certain area, exceptions should, according to the government, be able to be made.

It is important that the government ensures that sensitive areas are protected from the harmful effects of bottom trawling while the possibility of fishing is not restricted more than is necessary to achieve the purpose of the protected area. I cannot emphasize this clearly enough given the debate occurring on the issue, as well as the question marks surrounding how the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management will act when they develop regulations.

Regarding the question about other nations' boats, the government is carrying out active work to try to regulate bottom trawling in protected areas in the parts of the territorial sea where ships from other member states are also allowed to fish, as well as in Sweden's economic zone. The work is being carried out at the EU legislative level because this is judged to have the best effect. There, it is about working together.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! From the Left Party's side, we think that the proposal to ban bottom trawling in protected areas is a step in the right direction but not sufficient. Bottom trawling is a major threat to sensitive and often relatively unknown marine environments and ecosystems. Most species living in the deep sea grow and reproduce slowly, which means it takes a very long time before the amount of fish caught is replaced. Heavy equipment is used that stirs up harmful dust clouds and destroys life on the seabed. It affects not only the fish or shellfish that one wants to catch but also the seabed itself and other bottom-dwelling species. Bottom trawling also has other negative effects, not least the climate impact, by releasing carbon from sediment which causes carbon dioxide emissions.

Therefore, it is necessary to introduce regulations that stop bottom trawling in protected areas. We in Vänsterpartiet believe that such a regulation should cover the entire territorial sea.

Bottom trawling is not the only fishing method that harms the environment. We believe that a general fishing ban should be introduced in marine protected areas. Fishing in these areas should only be permitted if it can be conducted without affecting the areas' conservation values. This would benefit fish stocks both in protected areas and in surrounding areas, while also benefiting habitats and other species. In the long run, it would also benefit the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party's view is that harmful bottom trawling must be prevented even in those parts of the sea that are not protected. The largest part of the bottom-dwelling fish and shellfish caught by Swedish commercial fishing is caught with bottom trawls. Development of more gentle gear is underway. It is important that this development is backed by political decisions through requirements to use the most gentle gear. We believe that Sweden should work for a ban on non-gentle bottom trawling within the EU.

Even if milder tools are used, the areas that are trawled the most have difficulty recovering. Also in the areas that are trawled rarely, life on the seabed is strongly affected, because the recovery is slow. According to Artdatabankens red list, the deep seabed is the biotope that has the largest proportion of red-listed species of all Swedish biotopes, both on land and in the sea. Artdatabanken also points out the need to establish more contiguous protected areas against just bottom trawling.

Many who fish with bottom trawl do so over approximately the same stretch but can sometimes place the trawl in a different location. This means that even those bottoms that are only trawled every now and then become very affected by the trawling.

Given the great consequences that bottom trawling has for areas that are rarely trawled, and also for the ocean as a whole, we believe it is time to review the possibility of creating trawling areas and dedicated stretches where trawling is permitted. In other words, bottom trawling would then no longer be permitted in other places. Such areas could be preceded by a consequence assessment investigating which areas are best suited from an environmental perspective and a socio-economic perspective. This would enable the recovery of seabeds in the areas that are no longer trawled. This would be an important measure to live up to the international agreement that 30 percent of the ocean areas in the world should be protected by 2030. It could also have other positive environmental effects, for example, reduced eutrophication.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is unfortunate that the government is once again presenting a proposal that is quite limited in its scope, even if it is a small step in the right direction. To seriously address the threats to the marine environment, significantly more powerful measures are required. Why not take the opportunity and implement measures that truly make a difference?

I vote in favor of reservation 5.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has one of Europe's longest coasts, and we Swedes live to a large extent along the coast. We have a strong tradition of shipping and boating. Many industries are linked to an attractive and vibrant coastal and marine environment. The sea is incredibly valuable for us who live here, both from a cultural and human perspective as well as from an economic perspective. The seas are also important – not to say crucial – from an environmental and climate perspective.

We are all painfully aware that the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea are in very poor condition. The cod stocks are already destroyed. A number of 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 – it is truly clear – that we must act faster and more proactively to prevent the same catastrophe from hitting herring and sprat.

At the end of last year, an important step was taken for a more sustainable marine environment policy. When we adopted the marine environment bill here in the chamber, we charted a new direction where the entire ecosystem is taken into account. The marine environment bill is precisely a policy direction bill. It is a first step that charts the path toward where we want to reach.

When the question was debated here in the chamber, I was clear that this was to be seen precisely as a first step and that more was to come. The bill on the ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas that we are debating today is precisely such a step.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden will, of course, contribute to achieving the targets of 30 percent protection of the oceans. Of the 30 percent, 10 percent shall have strict protection. 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 viable ecosystem services.

The Baltic Sea is in the condition it is in largely due to human activity. It is not only fishing but also, for example, pollution, shipping, and climate change that are behind this. The marine environment is subjected to great pressures which, from an ecological perspective, occur far too quickly for the ecosystems to be able to adapt. The biodiversity in the seas is threatened. The Baltic Sea in particular risks becoming a dead, wet desert. To counteract this, the 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. For that very reason, we now propose a ban on bottom trawling in these areas.

Let me freely recount a part of the bill. Beam trawls, otter trawls and dredges – there are others who have a better grasp of what these different tools do and what effect they have on the seabed – are dragged along the seabed and affect the environment in several different ways. In addition to the effects that the activity has on the fauna community when fish and shellfish are caught, bottom trawling has partly direct effects on the seabed and bottom-dwelling organisms, and partly effects in the form of reduced visibility and increased sedimentation. This is very negative for the marine environment. Protecting the environment from the effects of bottom trawling is particularly urgent in the protected areas whose protection we are currently debating.

Mr. Speaker! It is very important that the starting point is that bottom trawling shall be prohibited in these areas. At the same time, several referral bodies have raised concerns that a general ban on bottom trawling conflicts with the principle of not taking more powerful measures than are required to achieve the purpose of the protected area. The arrangement will, however, be such that exceptions can be granted if they do not counteract the purpose of the area protection. Through the possibility of exceptions, it is ensured that the ban only applies when it is needed. This is reasonable and good, but it is important that exceptions are granted with great caution. The starting point shall be a ban on bottom trawling in these areas.

There are examples of co-management of certain types of fishing taking place in protected areas without harming the ecosystems. One such example is the fishing in Kosterhavet off the coast in northern Bohuslän. There, professional fishing has been secured by conducting fishing that is economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable in balance with the preservation of biodiversity. This will also be able to continue.

With caution, we can achieve a sustainable marine environment, a sustainable fishery, and a sustainable local fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker! Finally: We Liberals want that fishing methods which seriously damage marine life and marine biotopes should be prohibited at EU level. The EU is particularly important in fishing issues. We want that harmful trawling should be restricted and consider that a general ban for bottom trawling in protected areas is needed. This is an issue we Liberals have pushed for a long time, and now we finally stand in the chamber with a proposition that proposes just this. Today, my friends, is a good day.

(Applause)

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall begin where Member Elin Nilsson finished. The Liberals have consistently advocated for a ban on bottom trawling and have now finally had their line passed.

How confident are the Liberals that they can get their government colleagues to ensure that this ban is also complied with in practice? Are the Liberals prepared to demand additional resources and oversight, or will they settle for a legal text?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Petersson for the question.

All the policy we present in the chamber is negotiated, anchored, and well-established in the government cooperation, and we intend to ensure that the proposals we submit are complied with.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member's commitment cannot be underestimated, and she is clear about the need for a ban on bottom trawling.

Why then do the Liberals allow continued bottom trawling in areas outside the so-called trawling limit?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The question was also asked to the Moderate member, and my answer is the same. It is a complex issue where Sweden negotiates with other EU countries. We do what we can and are working on it. The Liberals are pushing forward in this issue in the government cooperation to get speed, momentum, and action there. The Liberals are also pushing forward with full force in the European Parliament. There we have a very engaged Member of the European Parliament, Karin Karlsbro, who willingly, engagedly, and drivenly speaks on exactly bottom trawling.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the report MJU13 Prohibition of bottom trawling in marine protected areas, and I move for approval of reservation 2 under point 2 regarding the design of regulations on the prohibition of bottom trawling and the possibility of exemptions.

As we have heard during the debate, this concerns marine national parks, nature reserves, biotope-protected areas and Natura 2000 areas. The consideration concerns a very small part, and sometimes I can think that it is difficult to manage the small parts as a whole, both in terms of management and nature conservation.

The debate concerns bottom trawling and its negative effects, and there is no question that bottom trawling has large negative effects, especially in the Baltic Sea where the bottoms are heavily contaminated by heavy metals and dioxins.

However, it looks very different in the West Sea and the Baltic Sea. Today, the West Sea is less environmentally burdened. Therefore, we must be careful not to create too many prohibitions that prevent us from using this as an important resource.

Mr. Speaker! Member Andrea Andersson Tay raised the issue of technological development. The negative effect of bottom trawling varies depending on the equipment, and therefore we must promote and support the development of new equipment. New equipment must be able to be developed so that there is less environmental impact. I believe, in fact, that it is quite ruled out to completely think away bottom trawling given the volume of fish we are to take from our seas.

Kosterhavet has long been a marine national park, and many actors were once involved in protecting and safeguarding this environment. It has functioned well here for a long time, and Kosterhavet is a large area and an important resource when it comes to the fish we consume. Therefore, it is quite foreign to me to introduce new prohibitions without having a new discussion with those who once established this national park. That we unilaterally make decisions on how fishing shall be conducted without discussing it with those who created the national park is problematic. It must not become like in northern Sweden with fishing wars and that we enter into ownership issues that we do not control, where we end up in the wrong. When it comes to Kosterhavet, we must have a dialogue with all actors because it has functioned well here for a long time.

The authority HaV is responsible for the supervision. The problem with this authority is that it does not have any promotion paragraph for fishing. We were all in agreement to move the trawl limit, but the fishermen who then cannot fish are not compensated. I mean that we must review the legislation and give the authority a clear promotion mandate. We are now placing this on HaV despite there being an error in the directives to the authority.

We are talking about the fact that cod is disappearing. Yes, but must one introduce trawling bans for something to disappear? There are other ways. We cannot both follow ICES's recommendations and have trawling bans. If we followed ICES's recommendations slightly better than what has been done so far, we would go much further and achieve better fisheries management than what we have today.

Mr. Speaker! I am satisfied with the development and believe that both fishermen and fish can live with it.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 2 April.)

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