(cont. from § 5) Response to interpellation 2023/24:168 on the size of the moose population and the impact of forest policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the size of the moose population and the impact of forest policy. MP considers that the moose population has decreased significantly and wants to see a forest policy that favors increased carbon storage, biodiversity, and a growing moose population for better hunting conditions 1 2 3. MP argues that current policy does not provide an answer as to whether the government wants to see more moose 2 3. KD argues that moose management should be adaptive and focus on the balance between wildlife, fodder, and forest damage 4. KD emphasizes that fodder availability is central and that they want a high-quality moose population with manageable damage 5 4. KD argues that the parties themselves should find solutions 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! At home in Västerbotten, we do not hold any major meetings in September, because that is when the moose and deer hunting begins.
The moose is the king of the Swedish forest, and it is the hunters who first discover when the moose population is not doing well. I have noted that the Minister gladly shows up in hunting clothes, but I wonder to what extent he really takes the concern of Swedish hunters seriously.
The moose population has decreased by almost a third in Sweden over the last ten years. In Norrbotten and Västerbotten, the same figure is closer to 50 percent. At the same time, a clear decline in the number of calves is visible. This development has resulted in that many hunting groups around the country have completely cancelled this year's hunt. They take responsibility when neither the forestry companies nor the politics do.
During the autumn, I have worked to bring attention to the issue and written articles with party friends, who are also hunters, from both my home region and from other places in Sweden where the moose hunt plays an important role for the population. And the response has been incredibly large. People have called, because they are truly worried.
Madam Speaker! Researchers have established that the reduction of the moose population is primarily a result of a deliberate reduction of the population through hunting in an attempt to reduce damage to forest plantations. The national goal is that grazing damage shall not exceed 5 percent. But despite the fact that the moose population has decreased by almost one third over the last ten years, the proportion of damage to pine forest has not decreased at the same rate, according to ungulate damage researchers from SLU.
Despite this, the forest industry wants to push for a larger cull. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet has in a report questioned whether the goal of a maximum of 5 percent grazing damage is compatible with a viable moose population or a moose population at all.
The authors of the report write as follows: There is nothing to indicate that today's ceiling for damage can be reached solely by shooting more moose, unless the moose is completely eradicated, which is not an option because it is a natural part of the forest ecosystem.
Madam Speaker! It comes down to political priorities. For me and Miljöpartiet, the priority is clear, namely that the moose population shall increase. We want to see a forest policy that favors a more sustainable use of the forest with increased carbon storage, strengthened biodiversity, and climate adaptation so that we can secure a long-term supply of forest raw materials to society. With that, we also see an increased moose population and better conditions for moose hunting.
What does the Minister for Rural Affairs want? In the Minister's answer, a vital moose population of high quality was mentioned, but that is not the same as more moose. The Minister for Rural Affairs also mentioned balance between ungulate populations and feed availability, but that does not either result in more moose. The Minister for Rural Affairs also mentioned the agencies' proposals, but I want to know what the Minister for Rural Affairs' and the government's proposals are.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! In Sweden, since 2012, we have had a system with moose management areas where moose management shall be adaptive, that is to say, that moose management shall be locally anchored and adapted to new or changed conditions. This can be the presence of predators or damage to forests. The management shall steer towards the goals that have been set and continuously follow up and analyze the moose management that exists.
One cannot have a one-sided focus on reducing the moose population, but one also needs to look at measures that contribute to increased food availability. It could certainly mean an increased moose population, that is, more moose in the forest, a balance. But it is also all about the moose having something to eat. It is precisely that balance that needs to be pursued.
The question of moose management and the connection to forest damage is complex, and it is also polarized. Therefore, it is extremely important to have cooperation between forestry and hunting interests. The hunting rights belong to the property owners, and it is my wish that hunters and forest owners cooperate. It is important that there is respect for different interests and perspectives.
That is why I called a meeting with the actors who have an interest in the management of forest and ungulate game on June 20 this year. The focus of the meeting was the balance between game, feed, and grazing damage. During this month, I had a follow-up meeting in a smaller circle. It was a good meeting that resulted in the organizations trying to talk to each other and returning with concrete proposals from their horizon, those who are affected, those who are out in reality every day. It is about proposals on what the government can do, but above all what the organizations, the landowners, and the hunters themselves can do to find a functioning model where interest conflicts are also reduced.
It is my ambition that the parties should reach an agreement. I do not think very many want the alternative, namely that, just as the Miljöpartiet seems to be suggesting, politics needs to step in and decide over the heads of landowners and hunters.
It is important that we have a knowledge-based discussion on moose management. Even though the population has decreased over several years, it does not mean that the moose is threatened as a species. I also believe that the total wildlife pressure must be included in the calculation, and there must be room for a viable and strong moose population while the damages to forestry must be manageable.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is good that there is an adaptive management. The one mentioned here shall steer towards goals, and there is a goal of 5 percent grazing damage. But representatives for a large forestry industry have told me that there is no goal regarding how many moose there should be.
The concern that I raise in my interpellation comes from Swedish moose hunters. They claim that there will not be as many moose to hunt because the moose population is decreasing sharply, regardless of whether the moose is endangered or whether there is a desire to have a larger moose population and better conditions for moose hunting. And I would like to see a larger moose population.
Collaboration and dialogue are incredibly good, and it is very important that the Minister for Rural Affairs works with this. But I get no answer on whether the government wants to see an increased moose population. A balance can mean greater feed availability and more moose, but a balance can also mean fewer moose and less feed.
What is it that the government envisions? Does one want to achieve balance and prioritize the goal of maximum 5 percent grazing damage? Or is there an interest from the Minister for Rural Affairs to see more moose so that there are better conditions for moose hunting?
Madam Speaker! Most small and medium-sized landowners have a different attitude towards their forest than the absolute largest forestry companies. Landowners who are also hunters see several different values and benefits, everything from the mushroom forest to the hunting grounds and also the economic benefits in timber production.
The Swedish Hunters' Association considers that the harvest rate must decrease so that the moose can recover. The Association also calls for changed forestry where the moose find it easier to find food. In the Minister for Rural Affairs' response, I still hear no proposals from the government regarding whether they want to see more moose and what concrete measures the government is prepared to take.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! If the member had been here when I gave my first speech, she would have heard me talk quite a bit about, among other things, the Swedish Forest Agency's work "More pine", and so on.
It is clear that the availability of fodder is completely central to how large a game population it is possible to have. It is also important to point out again that it is not just about the moose. Other ungulates are also suffering greatly, and we must take this into account in a much better way.
Just as both the interpellor and I note, the moose population has decreased by almost 27 percent over time. Still, we do not see that the grazing damage decreases at the same rate. There are many different causal relationships, including that more spruce has been planted. This means that other vegetation that is positive fodder for, among other things, moose has decreased in extent.
I hope the member hears what I am trying to explain. I want to see a high-quality moose population, but at the same time, there must be manageable damages within forestry. There, the balance between forage and wildlife populations is completely crucial, and there are many ways and projects.
The current moose management system was introduced in 2012 and 2013. During that time, the population has decreased by 27 percent at the national level. But it is difficult not to point out that I have been Minister for Rural Affairs for twelve months. Miljöpartiet has supported the government base or sat in the government for ten versus eight years of this period. This is not a development that has occurred now. My counter-question is: What measures did Miljöpartiet take during the years in government or when supporting a government to reverse the development? What was done to continue having an active forestry sector where more pine is planted?
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! When Miljöpartiet sat in the government, we allocated historical resources for the protection of nature. They contribute to better protection, more biodiversity, and better conditions for finding other types of feed for the moose. We also worked on reforming forest policy, and we negotiated a completely new forest bill. This contributes to what I mentioned earlier, namely a forest policy that favors more sustainable use, strengthened biodiversity, increased carbon sequestration in the forest, and climate adaptation so that we secure forest raw materials in the long term. With that type of forest policy, we also get greater feed availability for the ungulates and thus better conditions for a growing moose population and better conditions for moose hunting in the future. That was what we pushed for in government.
What concerns me is that I have listened to the Minister for Rural Affairs' answer and also read it without getting an answer on how the development of the moose population is viewed moving forward. Does one think that the level it has decreased to is a good level? Does one see a need to reduce it further, similar to some large forestry companies that have requested further culling of the moose population? Or does one want to see an increased moose population and better conditions for moose hunting? The phrasing in the answer about a viable population, balance, and so on does not answer that question.
I would like to be able to give Swedish moose hunters a clear answer that the policy wants to see an increased moose population, but I do not get that answer from the Minister for Rural Affairs today.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I believe that Elin Söderberg understands exactly what I am saying. What the member wants is for me to give a simple answer to complicated questions.
I have tried to explain this. We can have a significantly larger moose population today—if the forest damage does not become too great. It is about what feed resources the wildlife has in the forest, which trees are planted, how many deciduous trees there are, and how much clear-cutting we have. How much forest edge is there before the denser pine or spruce forest begins? Skogsstyrelsen is actively working on all of this.
I have had meetings and conversations with the organizations – those who are in the middle of this, who have their representatives in the moose management areas and who sit in the meetings when decisions are made. I think it is completely obvious that it is them we should primarily listen to. Now they have the chance to get back to us. What measures can we take? What measures can they take from a landowner's perspective and from a hunter's perspective so that we can achieve this balance?
We have no goal in Sweden regarding the number of moose. Perhaps the Miljöpartiet does. But I do not believe that any other party has it, rather it is about the balance. If there is enough food and the forest damage becomes manageable, yes, then we can have a larger population. That is what adaptive management is about.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.