(cont. from § 10) Relaxations of the shoreline protection - a first step (cont. MJU16)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
We advocate for a strong shore protection to preserve biodiversity and the right of public access 1 2. MP argues that the protection for small watercourses and lakes should be reformed rather than abolished so as not to risk international commitments 3 4. L argues that the reform is well-motivated to promote the countryside and that property rights should be weighted more heavily than public access on small areas 5 6 7. C considers that current legislation is a rigid rule that hinders development in the countryside 8. C wants small and modern water bodies to not be covered by the shore protection in order to benefit small business owners and the tourism industry 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! The Liberals claim to safeguard nature, biodiversity, and the right of public access. At a global level, the Minister for Climate and Environment has backed the international agreement for biodiversity, the Kunming–Montreal framework. But when it comes to putting it into practice, when the decisions that could actually improve the situation here in Sweden are to be made, those ideals do not seem to be so important anymore. When a conflict arises between, on one hand, the common interest of a preserved biodiversity and a nature that is accessible to everyone, and on the other hand, private interests of exploiting nature, it is always the private interests that take precedence with the Liberals.
During this mandate period, we have seen the government make decision after decision that destroys the nature conservation work that Sweden has built up over many years. The budget is cut, the environmental assessment of hydropower is postponed, and the nature restoration law is opposed.
Now the turn has come to the shore protection. With the proposals in this bill, the government begins the dismantling of the shore protection, which is a completely central part of the right of public access. Thanks to the shore protection, any one of us, regardless of the size of our wallet, can swim in small lakes and hike along rivers. For many, that possibility now risks disappearing.
I had hoped that the Minister for Climate and the Environment would be present here today to answer questions, but since she is not present, I will direct my question to Elin Nilsson instead: Why should a few private property owners have priority over the millions of people who love to spend time in the Swedish nature?
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Andrea Andersson Tay, for the question!
It is completely obvious that when we look out over Sweden and the vast forests and landscapes, we see diametrically different things. Let us talk a bit about that. It is not the case that by removing the shore protection for smaller lakes and narrow watercourses, one prevents people from continuing to spend time in nature – swimming and enjoying all the wonderful things that nature provides. We simply arrive at different conclusions regarding what this will mean for the public's opportunity to get out into nature.
This will not have any significant impact, because as Member of Parliament Andersson Tay – I believe that was the name – said in his speech, we have 100,000 lakes and millions of kilometers of watercourses in this country. This will not have the effects that Vänsterpartiet claims it will have. It is not the case that we have a maintained shoreline protection in one scale and total anarchy and a total exclusion of the public from forest and land in the other. This is a portrayal that is not anchored in reality.
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! I want to remind that the legislation that the government now wants to remove actually covers 10 percent of Sweden's area. We are therefore talking about very large areas, and this affects very many people.
I still do not think I have received any clear answer in this debate as to why it would not be sufficient to adjust the existing regulatory framework. If what is wanted to be achieved now is to facilitate certain construction in rural areas and the countryside, why is it not sufficient to make minor adjustments to the regulatory framework we have in order to continue to have a strong protection for the rest of the land?
People also speak in the debate about that there is still a possibility to protect the most highly protected areas, but this is not enough for the average person to still be able to move in nature. I do not believe that people who swim in a lake that is located nearby or who like to walk along rivers and streams care so much about whether that nature is very highly protected. The important thing is that it is located near where one lives and that it is easily accessible for everyone.
I believe, as I said, that it is very little comfort that there are still many other nature areas preserved in other places when the very lake where I myself, my family, or my children usually swim disappears and is built upon.
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! It is clear that it is sad when a place that one has visited for a long time and appreciates very much changes. But at the same time, someone does own the land. What we do with the reform that we are now implementing is that we weigh the ownership right, this liberal basic principle, more heavily than the public's interest in access to shores.
Public access to shores is fundamental and important and something that we safeguard. I believe the entire chamber agrees that we want to see this even in the future. But that does not include access to all shores. If someone owns a piece of land and wants to develop it and build a house there to live in or have as a vacation home, that is actually an interest that takes precedence. In that case, the right of public access disappears on that small area, but that does not mean that there are no other areas to visit.
Emma Nohrén (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the speech!
For me, it is quite incomprehensible that the Liberals standing here today are proud of what is now happening. We have often been on different sides in politics, but for 30 years we have almost always been on the same side when it comes to outdoor life, the right of public access (allemansrätten), and shore protection. We have stood up for the Swedish model that everyone should have the right to come down to the shores. It should be a mobile outdoor life.
These are interests where individual property rights must take a backseat for the common good. It is also incredibly important for animals and nature. But in recent years, this has changed. The Liberals are now very proud that the protection for small watercourses and for very small lakes and bodies of water will be removed. We talk a lot about it being about reforming, but here it is actually about abolishing the protection.
At the same time, Elin Nilsson says that animal welfare, coastal protection and so on are important. She says that coastal protection should remain where it is justified, but it should be with restraint.
If one now removes this in all of Sweden – as we have heard several times in the debate, 10 percent of the protected areas in Sweden will disappear through the reform – how will the Liberals then ensure that the shore protection will be there where it is justified? Will there be more money for the county administrative boards? Is it the municipalities that are to decide this, or is it up to individuals to say where they want shore protection and not?
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question and for the committed speech we heard here earlier today!
My view is that we still stand close to each other when it comes to outdoor life, the right of public access, and the importance of shore protection. The difference is that we see that there is room to reform the current shore protection to increase freedom and promote the expansion and development of the countryside.
The reform we are implementing now, where we, just as the member says, remove the coastal protection for smaller watercourses and smaller lakes, is well-motivated and proportionate when weighed against other values that are also important to protect.
Everyone shall continue to have the right to stay in nature. Nothing will be affected to any significant extent by the changes we are making now. That is, at least, the assessment I make. But it can, just as the member says, be the case that there are beaches that have such high nature values that they will even after the reform need to enjoy a protection. In those cases, the coastal protection can be reintroduced if it is well-motivated. Then it is up to the County Administrative Board to do so.
Emma Nohrén (MP)
Madam Speaker! We have different views on this. Here, the member says it is better to remove the protection, so we can add it later if needed. Will the county administrative boards receive more money for this? Will it become a mandate to find these places, so that one actually knows where they are before they are lost?
Another way would have been for one, instead of abolishing the legislation, to actually have reformed or adjusted the legislation.
There are several points where we agree across all parties – parts regarding the countryside with ditches, managed water, and such. We may not agree on the years, but in the broad sense. Wouldn't it have been better to adjust the legislation instead of abolishing it?
10 percent of the area is a lot. If we are also to reach 30 percent protected habitats, which is our commitment according to the Kunming–Montreal Agreement, we are moving backwards with this decision, and then we must add more somewhere else. How has one intended to solve that?
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question! The County Administrative Board already spends quite a lot of time today on the matters concerning shore protection that they receive on their desks according to the current regulatory framework. One can imagine that the consequence of the proposal we are now debating will be that the number of cases will decrease. This means that money should be freed up to handle those areas where it can be considered that there are grounds to reintroduce the shore protection. But it is something that one has to review and look into further.
Stina Larsson (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! It is not wise what freedoms and what liberal values will prevail in the countryside! Everyone is enthusiastic about this.
It is positive that the government today presents these relaxations in the coastal protection. I hear how all the government parties here have spoken well of this.
During the previous parliamentary term, or rather the last time we debated this, exactly three years ago, the Liberals claimed that they essentially supported the proposal that was on the table then. I would like to say that today's proposal is very similar to that one. I recognize the wording. The Liberals' justification for why they did not vote yes then – we had an agreement, but the Liberals chose to leave it – was that they wanted to go further or have additional proposals within three areas, and therefore could not approve the proposal at that time. But I do not see these three proposals in this bill.
How is it that the Liberals now support the government's proposal? Have the Liberals changed their minds?
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for the questions! I too am very satisfied and happy to stand here today and debate this bill that we have now presented.
I was not present when it last occurred. Exactly how the discussions went then, I will leave unsaid.
But what can be said about the situation we are in now is that we are satisfied with the proposals being put forward. They are necessary reforms. We look forward with confidence to them entering into force and actually improving the conditions for developing the Swedish countryside. These are issues where there are preparatory documents. That is why they come in the first step. In the government constellation with the coalition partner, we have also secured that there is a majority for the bill that we are now presenting.
It is much that makes us present this. Then further reforms will be investigated. It is in the works. It is being handled right now in the Government Offices. Exactly what will be included in the investigation directives has not yet been presented. But the next step is in the works. We also look forward to that, which I also believe the Centerpartiet does.
Stina Larsson (C)
Madam Speaker! I was not part of that debate either, but I have listened to it afterwards and heard how the members expressed themselves. It was your liberal colleague Jakob Olofsgård who debated then and who described which three proposals one absolutely had to include in order to be able to stand behind the proposal at all. Now suddenly it is not so important, but so it can be.
It is positive that an additional step is coming. That is something I and the Center Party look forward to.
I would like to conclude by asking the question that I have asked all parties from the government base today: Why did this not come to the table until now? Why have we had to wait since 2022? What was it that prevented the proposals from being presented immediately? There was already investigation material available. In the meantime, many companies in the countryside have been denied building permits. They have not been able to develop their operations as they intended. It was an anecdote in a previous speech about a farmer who could not develop his business as he had intended.
Since the Liberals hold the ministerial post, I think that Member Nilsson might have an answer.
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for the question! I suspected it would come. It has been raised earlier today.
My answer will be the same as the answer in previous exchanges – when Member Larsson asked the question to one of my colleagues.
We awaited the investigation on rural industries. It is important. It was presented and is part of the basis. Then, democracy takes time. Work is being done at a high pace with a long series of matters at the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise. Sometimes things take time. But now it will soon be in place. I think we will rejoice at that and that we look forward to it coming into force.
We are now actually doing what previous governments have not succeeded in. We are delivering a reform of the shore protection. It is a first step. And we will present an investigation that shall review the shore protection in a broader sense.
The fact remains. It is we who deliver. It is the Liberals together with the coalition partners who are delivering this. Then one can have views that it has taken time. But now it is delivery. Now it is workshop, not just talk.
Stina Larsson (C)
Madam Speaker! An individual property owner in Trelleborg, Sweden's southernmost municipality, has for four years tried to obtain permission to construct an attefallshus and a hot tub on their plot. The constructions would not be visible from the beach, and they were judged by several instances not to significantly affect the protected area.
Despite this, the matter has developed into a long and unpredictable process where the municipality, the county administrative board, as well as both the Land and Environment Court and the Land and Environment Court of Appeal have been involved. All instances have changed their assessment at least once during the course of the process. This has taken several years.
The protracted legal process has meant that the property owner has not been able to proceed with other planned measures on their property, including maintenance of the residential house. The result of all this is that no actual change has occurred, either in terms of how the public perceives the area or in terms of environmental impact, but significant municipal and state resources have been consumed. At the same time, a neighbor has been granted the right to build a much larger house much closer to the shore, despite the legislation being the same.
Madam Speaker! The case clearly illustrates the problems that are often raised in the debate surrounding the coastal protection legislation: legal uncertainty, arbitrary application, and inefficient use of resources. Particularly striking is the great variation in how different properties are assessed, despite similar conditions, as well as the lack of consistency between different decision levels. We cannot have it that way.
Madam Speaker! The shore protection is one of the most discussed and controversial pieces of legislation in Sweden. It was introduced in the 1950s to protect the public's access to beaches and to preserve biological values. But over the years, it has developed into a rigid rule that often hinders development in the countryside. For the Center Party, this is about freedom – a question of freedom regardless of where in the country you live.
Sweden is a country filled with watercourses and small lakes. It is part of our identity and our cultural heritage. But it is also a resource that we must be able to manage in a way that benefits the entire country. It must be possible to live, reside, and run businesses even in connection to water.
Today's order, where it is, for example, automatically coastal protection at excavated ditches and dams, is completely absurd. It is a rule detached from reality that does not take into account the local conditions. If one does not see that this is crazy, one is blind to the reality for us in the countryside.
Madam Speaker! With relaxations in the shore protection, new opportunities are created for the tourism industry and for small business owners. It will now be possible for, for example, someone who has a café to build an outdoor patio by the water. It has previously not been possible to build if there has been a ditch nearby. This is a concrete example of how changes in the shore protection can create new opportunities for entrepreneurship and employment in rural areas.
I also want to see new rules for small water bodies and water bodies established in modern times – that they should no longer be covered by the general shore protection. There are several examples around Sweden where, for instance, at irrigation ponds established in the 90s, people have suddenly been denied permission to build out outdoor rooms on the property.
It is positive that the government appoints a new inquiry for more reforms. But that it takes this long into the mandate period is a failure. It will be a rush to manage more before the end of the mandate period. This is an issue that should have been prioritized higher.
It is incorrect to claim that these proposals involve major restrictions of the right of public access (allemansrätten). On the contrary, it is about easing the strict rules around ditches and small lakes. Larger lakes and watercourses will still be protected. It is not about making enormous restrictions on wildlife and nature but about creating a purposeful shoreline protection that protects what it is intended to protect.
It is very welcome that the shore protection is being removed for the very smallest lakes and watercourses. It will provide relief for green industries and for small businesses, where operations can grow. This enables a freer development in the countryside. But that it has taken half the parliamentary term to pick the raisins out of old investigations is not as impressive, especially not when one ducks from larger proposals that could make a real difference.
Madam Speaker! The proposals that are now on the table are based on an investigation that the Center Party previously negotiated. One by one, they are very similar to the Center Party's proposals. They are similar formulations. It is surprising that the government has not moved forward with these proposals until now. This is something that could have been implemented on day one, that is, three years ago.
There were many critical voices three years ago, including from the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna, who are now government parties. They claimed that our proposals had no significance in practice and said that their own proposals would go much further. Therefore, nothing could be approved three years ago. In the meantime, the countryside has had to wait. It is the countryside that takes the hit. There are companies that could have expanded their operations, who could have hired more employees, and who could have increased the tourism industry.
Now the government is going to appoint yet another inquiry. Admittedly, more legislative proposals are needed for an even freer coastal protection. But why is the government dragging its feet after more than two years in power? If the Tidö parties had prioritized results for political points, we would have already taken a step towards a freer coastal protection in the summer of 2022. Now, it will most likely take another parliamentary term before the coastal protection is truly changed.
Centerpartiet also sees that it is important to reduce the differences in how the shore protection functions in different counties. We believe that it makes the rules clearer and more predictable. But we want to go even further already now. The bill lacks the major reform from the previous investigation on shore protection – to let municipalities designate so-called near-shore development areas. That would give municipalities the possibility to lift the shore protection completely within selected areas. Then, the power would be moved closer to those who actually live in the affected areas, and it would create the possibility for local development and more housing across the country. Without this change, the shore protection will, in the large whole, remain intact.
Madam Speaker! I and the Center Party want to move the power from Stockholm and the Riksdag building. We want to move it closer to those who actually live in the affected areas and thereby create opportunities for local development throughout the country. Already now, the government has the opportunity to present our finished proposals on so-called coastal development areas. This would give municipalities the opportunity to completely lift the coastal protection within certain areas.
Today, there are areas where more generous rules prevail than those now proposed. In Värmland, for example, watercourses up to ten meters are exempt from the shore protection. It is important that the now proposed changes do not abolish either these exceptions or areas completely exempt from shore protection. It should therefore be clarified that these shall continue to apply. The bill must not mean that the shore protection de facto becomes stricter.
Easing of the shore protection – a first step
The government has now promised to appoint an inquiry to further review the shore protection. We welcome this inquiry, which can deliver more steps in that direction, and such an inquiry should be appointed immediately. We in the Center Party can simultaneously state that it is belated that it is only now that a holistic approach is being taken in the issue, and that it will be difficult to accommodate further liberalizations during the current mandate period.
We do, however, have good proposals in our reservation, and therefore I move for approval of reservation 8.
In conclusion, it is high time that we modernize the shore protection legislation so that it reflects the reality for people who live and work outside of major cities. We need legislation that protects our most valuable natural areas but which at the same time enables development where it is reasonable and does not threaten the environment, natural values, or the public's access to beaches.
We in the Center Party stand up for a freedom reform for the entire country. We believe in local knowledge, in fair rules, and in that resources should be used wisely. They should not be wasted in years-long legal processes that leave both citizens and society in a standstill.
Let us now take the step towards a more purposeful shore protection – a protection that works in practice and not just in theory.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.