(cont. from § 9) Tightening of the regulatory framework for invasive alien species and nature conservation (cont. MJU13)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
C welcomes the government's proposal for stricter rules against invasive species 1 and wants better support for Tullverket as well as a focus on early detection 1. L proposes stricter penalties for the introduction of invasive species 2 and wants a liberal bourgeois environmental policy 2. MP argues that L's proposal implies a restriction of the right of public access 3. MP wants to scrap the Forestry Act so that the landowner can decide for themselves 4, prioritize small-scale owners 5 and stop the logging of natural and continuity forests 6. L emphasizes strong property protection 7 and wants the state not to restrict forestry 8. MP wants to replace landowners who protect forests 9 and rejects trophy hunting of lynx 10. KD argues that the lynx population is viable 11 and that license hunting is the best preventive work 12.
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 (15)
Stina Larsson (C)
Madam Speaker! ”Empty, wash, dry” – that is what people will be able to read on bridges and quays all around the coast of Öland this summer. It is the County Administrative Board that is now urging everyone involved in boating and the fishing industry, and others who have activities in our seas and waterways, to specifically empty, wash, and dry their equipment. It could be about SUPs or boats – on both the inside and outside – and it is about limiting the spread of foreign invasive species.
For it is exactly this that is happening: Plants and animals travel with our belongings when we move between different bodies of water, from one coast or lake to another. Usually, this is not a problem, because the animals die when they arrive in new waters. But with climate change and rising temperatures, our ecosystems are affected, and there is a risk that our normal flora and fauna will be outcompeted by plants and animals coming from somewhere else.
Usually, we talk about invasive alien plants. For a long time, lupines, hogweed, and Japanese knotweed have been on the list of plants to be removed. But in recent years, more and more species have been discovered in Sweden. Another such species is the flatworm. The flatworm arrives via seedlings and is found under pots and in the soil when we plan new things in our gardens. It is really troublesome, and we have a collective responsibility to truly ensure that it does not spread in nature. For once they are well-established, it is much harder to get rid of them. They outcompete all our common earthworms.
When foreign, invasive plants spread in larger natural areas, which may be managed by the County Administrative Board, one often knows about it, and there are established routines for how to handle it. There are management plans so that it should be possible to keep the spread down. It can be a bit more troublesome if, for example, Canadian goldenrod spreads between villa gardens. Not everyone may know what kind of plant it is, and they might not even want to remove it. It is, after all, a nice plant in the flowerbed. In that case, common rules and knowledge are needed.
Madam Speaker! That is why I and the Centre Party welcome the government's new proposal, which we will decide on tomorrow. It is good. Finally, I would like to say. We have nagged about this for a long time.
A clear list of which species are concerned and better opportunities for follow-up to remove them from nature is needed. This is also a requirement from the EU, so in this regard, I am glad that the EU legislation forces us and the government to become clearer. The Customs will also receive greater powers to restrict the import of plants and animals that do not belong here, which is good.
Mr. Speaker, this is not enough. As is known, for example, life in our seas does not come via the Öresund Bridge. A common dispersal route is instead through ballast water. When a ship lacks cargo, it fills its tanks with seawater to achieve stability. In this water, there are many small organisms, for example plankton, larvae, bacteria, and small animals. When the ship then arrives at another port, the water is often released again. Then the organisms can travel along and end up in a new sea area where they normally do not exist.
Another route of dispersal is through biofouling on the ships' hulls. Algae, mussels, and other organisms can attach themselves to the outside of the ship. When the ship sails between different ports, these species travel with it and can detach or reproduce in new environments.
If the species that spread in this way lack natural enemies in the new area, they can rapidly increase in number. They can then outcompete native species, change ecosystems and sometimes even cause economic problems for, for example, fishing or water facilities.
That is why there are today international rules for how ships shall handle ballast water and how hulls shall be cleaned, in order to reduce the risk that invasive species are spread between the oceans.
Mr. Speaker, the existing rules are not sufficient. Marine environments are vulnerable, and species spread via the sea can have major consequences for ecosystems along the coasts and in the Baltic Sea. When invasive species establish themselves in the sea, they can outcompete native species, change habitats, and affect entire food chains. Strong preventive work is needed to reduce the risk of such species being introduced into Swedish sea areas.
The fight against invasive species in marine environments is often difficult and costly once the species have established themselves. Therefore, the Center Party believes that the focus should lie to a greater extent on early detection and preventive measures. This could, for example, involve better monitoring of coastal and sea areas, clearer distribution of responsibility between authorities, and more cooperation between countries around the same seas.
As a member of the Centre Party, I also want to highlight the local actors, for example coastal municipalities, fishers and landowners. They are often directly affected when foreign invasive species spread in the sea or on land.
When new species establish themselves, they can change the entire ecosystem. This can, in turn, affect fish stocks, water quality, and other natural values for individual landowners. Therefore, I believe that the state needs to take greater responsibility and provide better support and resources to those who in practice work to detect and manage these species on land and along our coastal and marine areas.
In summary: I think the government's proposal on stricter rules is a step in the right direction, but I believe that the work against these species needs to be intensified and be more comprehensive.
I want to summarize the opportunities for improvement – it is primarily about three areas.
Firstly, it is about a clearer follow-up of the regulatory framework. Here I want to emphasize that the problem with these species is growing and difficult to manage. We therefore consider that a follow-up should be made on how the tightened regulatory framework works so that it can be assessed whether further measures are needed over time.
Secondly, we need to provide more support to Tullverket. In Tullverket's referral response, the need to analyze how other authorities can assist during inspections is clearly pointed out. We must initiate such work immediately so that the rules achieve the desired effect. There is also a need for broad collaborations here.
For the third, we need to protect the marine environment. I and the Center Party point out the spread via sea transport, for example through growth on ship hulls, as a particularly difficult-to-control area. I propose that it should be reviewed how the regulatory framework can be developed to provide a stronger and more preventive protection against the spread of invasive alien species in the marine environment. There is also a need to work on this through EU cooperation.
Based on these three reasons, I move for the approval of reservation 1. For me and Centerpartiet, it is about that we must together understand the seriousness of invasive alien species and how they affect our ecosystems, and that we must jointly prioritize early interventions before these species have time to cause major problems.
Madam Speaker! Back to the pier in Öland. Remember to empty, wash, and dry when the boating life finally kicks off in a couple of months!
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! It is a broad report we are debating today. I intended to make a few points.
I will begin with the bill addressed in the committee report. It concerns invasive alien species – a very important environmental issue.
We now propose amendments aimed at strengthening the regulatory framework regarding invasive alien species. According to the proposal, anyone who intentionally or through gross negligence introduces an invasive alien species into Sweden from another EU country, in violation of the national ban on importation, can be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for up to two years. We also propose that one shall be obliged to report the species to Tullverket. Tullverket is also given increased powers. That is good. We need to do more to prevent the spread of species that do not belong in the Swedish fauna.
During the mandate period, the government has intensified the work to prevent new unwanted species from establishing themselves here. We have strengthened the coordination of national efforts and guidelines, and we have increased the control measures decided regionally and carried out some communication efforts to increase the public's awareness of this. That is good, because it is out in reality that these species exist. That is where they can be detected, not here in the chamber.
We have made efforts to combat both land-dwelling and water-dwelling invasive alien species. It is – to conclude this part of my speech, Madam Speaker – so that we have shifted the focus from mapping to combating. It is actually that which makes a real difference.
Madam Speaker! The report shows that Miljöpartiet is very dissatisfied with the changes to the shore protection that we have implemented during the mandate period. We have removed the general shore protection for small lakes and watercourses. The concessions we made were not particularly large, but they were very important. More needs to be done. This is now being reviewed in the Shore Protection Inquiry, which is in full swing.
We need a more purposeful, differentiated, and locally adapted coastal protection. It is an important part of the freedom reform that this government is working on for the countryside. Current coastal protection legislation is actually nothing other than unreasonable. It is a grave restriction of ownership and usage rights, and it lays a wet blanket over the development of the Swedish countryside.
This does not mean that we do not think that what is most worthy of protection should be protected, because it should be. And the public's access to nature shall be secured. But the level that the shore protection is at now is actually completely unreasonable. We are actually slaughtering the right of ownership on the altar of shore protection.
We need more of a liberal bourgeois environmental policy that protects both the environment and property rights. It is not a utopia, because it is actually the case that one takes care of what one owns and manages.
I will move on to the next area. Nature restoration has been up here today. To be clear: Sweden shall live up to its international commitments. At the same time, we cannot, shall not, and will not continue with the completely unreasonable over-implementation hysteria that the left side advocates for. It is not reasonable. It is not desirable, and it is directly harmful to Swedish competitiveness. Most importantly: Unreasonable bureaucratic regulations with unreasonable consequences do not benefit the environment. What we must do instead is to continue with the freedom reform that this government is in the middle of.
An important piece of the puzzle in this was presented yesterday when parts of the forest investigation proceeded to the Council on Legislation. A government bill on compensation for species protection restrictions is underway. It will soon be presented. We are all looking forward to that; I am sure of it. As said: Unreasonable regulations with unreasonable consequences for those who manage the forest and the land benefit no one, least of all the environment.
Let me be clear: Green socialism belongs in the trash can.
We pursue a policy based on one of our most important legal principles, namely the right of ownership.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a liberal bourgeois government for many reasons, not least so that we can once and for all settle the score with the green socialist environmental policy.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the contribution!
Some of the speaking time was spent describing what Miljöpartiet thinks about the shore protection. It is absolutely true that Miljöpartiet safeguards and will continue to fight for a strong shore protection. It is one of the most important protections we have for the important Swedish nature. Just the zone between water and land is also an important place for very many species.
This is being spoken of as a freedom reform. But what it actually means is a restriction of the right of public access, which has very strong support among the Swedish people. There is also talk that one is absolutely willing to protect that which is most worthy of protection. But we have not been able to see any traces of that in any policy area, whether it concerns forest policy or whether it concerns coastal protection.
What is being done is that a completely unreasonable line is being drawn, which is based on two meters and one hectare. It is not a matter of going in with precision to see what exemptions exist to really ensure that – as is justified, at least – the countryside is benefited. There is absolutely a possibility to tinker and ensure that there is a purposeful protection that also enables the countryside to develop. But when one draws such a coarse line based on size and hectares – 1 hectare, 2 meters – one does not take into account the needs of the countryside. One also does not take into account what the people want – we have an allemansrätt in Sweden. One also does not take into account the very high nature values that many times overlap with these lakes and watercourses.
When it is spoken of a freedom reform, I wonder whose freedom the Liberals actually claim to defend – the Swedish people's or the freedom for a few who will speculate on housing?
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for many important questions that I believe clarify the difference in views on the issue! I shall see if I have time to answer within the limited time I have.
First, I want to say that there is no direct correlation between the right of public access (allemansrätten) and the coastal protection (strandskyddet). Changing the coastal protection does not actually affect the right of public access. People will continue to have the same right as they do now to go out into the forest and land and stay in nature. It will of course become easier to build near the coast if we change the coastal protection, but it is enough to look at a map to see that there are incredibly many watercourses and lakes in Sweden. It is not as if there will be any shortage of coastal areas to visit.
It is rather that the restrictions occurring due to the shore protection are completely disproportionate, unreasonable, such as those that cannot be justified. If I take a walk two kilometers straight out into the forest at home, I can stand between five lakes where it previously, before we changed the rules this summer, was shore protection. There are no houses there, nothing. It is completely unreasonable that there should be shore protection in such a place, because the need does not exist. There should be a need for protection, otherwise there should be no protection at all.
Increased opportunities to build a bridge or develop nature tourism also actually strengthens people's opportunities to get out into nature.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! Previously, it has been possible to apply for exemptions to develop the countryside and important ecotourism. Now, we will increasingly be met with signs of private property so that one feels unwelcome in Swedish nature. It will feel as if one is trespassing on someone's private plot.
This is nothing that we in Miljöpartiet welcome. It is nothing that strengthens the right of public access, but rather it is a reform that makes it possible for a few to buy up the most attractive areas.
When it comes to concepts such as "green socialism" which the member brings up, I wonder what it is in Sweden's forestry legislation that breathes green socialism. What is it that has been presented which one believes provides a remedy for this? Is it that one shortens the time between the logging notification and the logging from six weeks to three weeks?
Madam Speaker! I mean that the entire Forestry Act had needed to be rewritten. The entire forest policy in Sweden is a catastrophe. For my part, we could have gladly scrapped large parts of the Forestry Act because it regulates in detail and, with political clumsiness, forces forest owners to produce cubic meters in a certain way. I do not think we should interfere in that, Madam Speaker. I think it is up to the landowner to decide that themselves.
What we do, however, need are common, clear and simple rules regarding the environment. We have hardly any environmental requirements as it stands in today's forest policy, so I do not understand what kind of green socialism the member means that is being cut out now. All we can see at the press conference is that rules are being added to an already complicated regulatory framework.
Elin Nilsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to Rebecka Le Moine!
I continue to answer perhaps the most important question that the member posed in his first speech: What is it that the Swedish people want, and whose freedom is it that I am speaking about?
What the Swedish people want and what the Liberals and the government guarantee is that we stand up for a strong protection of property. The individual's right to manage and use their property is a fundamental human right, and the right of ownership must be guiding. If restrictions are made, they must be proportionate, and there is a great deal of work to be done there.
Whose freedom is it then that we are defending? We defend the individual's freedom, and as a liberal, I always place the individual before the collective.
Allemansrätten is, of course, a very important collective right. We also defend it, but not at any price and in any case. Allemansrätten is not restricted by revising the coastal protection regulations. We can actually have both a very important, appreciated, and strong allemansrätt while simultaneously having a strong property protection. There is nothing contradictory in that. But right now, there is a grave imbalance in Swedish politics and Swedish rules, and we are now doing what we can to get that imbalance in order.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! In previous contributions from the Liberals, we hear that the right of ownership is held in very high regard. One does not put the collective before the individual.
Therefore, I hope that the same principle applies to individuals and venture capital companies. I hope that the government, which now has the entirety of Vättern and Norra Kärr on its table, will stand up for the property rights of the thousands of affected people who have been worried for up to 17 years about whether they can invest in their farm – perhaps it is just as good to simply sell everything and move somewhere else? Should a Canadian company trump their future opportunity to conduct their business?
Madam Speaker! I believe we should stand up for the right of ownership and be proportionate in this. I believe we should safeguard the right of ownership and these people's future. Their right of ownership should be prioritized over foreign companies.
Madam Speaker! Two generations ago, Sweden looked different. Back then, there was life in our nature and a biodiversity that we do not see today. There was a freedom in being able to fish and eat one's own caught fish and to harvest exactly those seeds that humans, together with nature, have shaped over a long period. There was a direct contact with nature, and nature was seen as an extra pantry.
But the landscapes have changed. The memories are beginning to fade. Didn't the forest look different when I was little? Didn't it bite better when we fished? Weren't there more small farms?
Madam Speaker! For generations, we humans have cultivated the landscape and simultaneously been a part of it. But during the recent decades, the balance has been disturbed. Within a lifetime, Sweden's nature, which the Swedish national soul is so immensely proud of, has changed and degraded. The possibility of picking berries in the forest is something that many take for granted, but blueberries do not thrive in today's dense planted forests. Since 1950, the occurrence of blueberries has decreased by 50 percent. The eel, which one used to eat in abundance, is now acutely threatened with extinction. Meadow flowers are threatened by overgrowth. The beautiful blue-winged grasshopper is classified as nationally extinct in Sweden.
But, Madam Speaker, there is hope. Life wants to live. We need to gather strength to not only protect nature but also step by step repair it. It is about creating meadows, allowing grazing on lands, letting flowing watercourses flow, and letting out the wildness and the beauty in Sweden's nature.
Madam Speaker! We need to restore and repair nature. Fortunately, there is legislation stating that by 2030, 20 percent of land and sea areas shall be restored. Cities shall become greener. It is about both the countryside and biodiversity and making them flourish at the same time. Nine out of ten Swedes welcome this, but the government has stood in the way. First, they have watered down the proposal step by step, and then they have voted no to the whole thing. They have done so with reference to consequences for the forestry industry. But what provides the best economy and pride, really? Is it that a few large companies shall export pulp, or is it the opportunity for more people to build their own houses from Swedish forestry?
Madam Speaker! Instead of taking the opportunity, the government has let the forestry industry's wishes dictate the terms for the implementation. The government has ordered authorities to exploit all existing loopholes and settle for the EU's minimum level.
The question of cost is relevant. It is important that landowners receive support, compensation, and the conditions to contribute. It is a thank you for the work they do. From a socio-economic perspective, this is a very good investment. For every krona invested in nature and nature restoration, one receives between 8 and 38 kronor back in social benefit in the form of cleaner water, reduced flooding, pollination, climate adaptation, and better health. But the longer we postpone this, the more expensive the investment will become.
Madam Speaker! Beavers in Sweden were exterminated in the 1800s, but just over 100 years ago they made a comeback. Today we can also see tree frogs in the trees and white-tailed eagles in the sky thanks to the fact that action has been shown at the right time and that we have decided to protect the species that can be seen in Sweden today. These are concrete examples of what restoration specifically can lead to. With that, I move for approval of reservation 7.
I also want to say a few words about the forest. The state of biodiversity in Sweden is critical. It is not an opinion but a collective assessment from the Swedish Forest Agency, based on research. In total, at least 66 living species have disappeared completely from Swedish nature. Their habitats, the old forests, continue to disappear.
In 2022, 6,000 hectares of the most protected forests in Sweden were felled. Now we are up to 26,000 hectares. If this high logging pressure continues without change, all natural forest in Sweden outside the protected areas will be gone within 25 years. We are therefore not talking about several generations ahead, but about 25 years. We can continue on the path already taken – the government has indicated that they want to do so and thereby accelerate the development – or we can take this seriously.
Mr. Speaker! I also want to say a few words about the lynx, which is an important part of nature conservation in Sweden. It is with great sadness that I can state that we will lose 11 percent of the lynx population in Sweden. Lynx are protected. It is a red-listed species. It is classified as endangered and runs the risk of becoming extinct. Nevertheless, 153 lynx are to be shot in Sweden. This is not a hunt intended to mitigate conflicts with those who keep livestock. In those cases, there is protection hunting. I would say that is a non-issue. We all agree that protection hunting is needed.
An opinion poll from SLU shows that 80 percent of the Swedish people like that there are wolverines in Sweden. Sometimes the hunt is justified by the argument that it could reduce illegal hunting, but studies have shown that a legal hunt can, on the contrary, increase illegal hunting.
Mr. Speaker! The 153 wolverines that are to be shot are shot for their fur and their skull. They are shot because it is fun. It is a pure sport and trophy hunt.
Mr. Speaker! We have already touched upon several different laws: the Hunting Act, the Minerals Act, the Forestry Act, EU fishing quotas, and so on. It is high time to take a collective grip and pursue a unified policy to reverse these trends. We need a nature policy framework and clear national goals for the protection and restoration of nature in line with the Kunming–Montreal Agreement. We need scientifically based reference values and a follow-up that ensures that the policy actually yields results and is effective environmental policy.
Mr. Speaker! I also want to mention something about security. I know that many parties in the Swedish Riksdag easily ignore scientific articles and alarm reports from authorities. But security is something that affects us all, regardless of which policy area we work with.
Mr. Speaker! It is worth emphasizing that the British intelligence service has highlighted and pointed out the environment as central for security and preparedness. It is quite logical. It is about electricity supply, water, transport, food supply, and digital infrastructure. If a climate-related disruption occurs in one system, it can quickly spread to others. It can affect healthcare and payment systems. It is therefore important to take this issue seriously even for the sake of completely other policy areas.
Elin Nilsson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for an engaged speech! It was a speech that made me reflect a bit. I would therefore like to ask a few questions.
The leader speaks warmly about how the Swedish countryside looked two generations ago and how forestry looked fifty generations ago. My family has lived in the same place and farmed the same land for ten generations. Two generations ago, my father lived with his siblings and his parents in a small cottage in the countryside in Mullhyttan, where I live. Until he was actually quite old, they lived with cold water inside. They had no washing machine, no modernities, and dark barns with a couple of cows and some horses and chickens.
Is it to the forestry as it looked 50 years ago that the member wants to return? Back then, the state issued decrees on hormone-treating the forest. Is that what the Miljöpartiet wants to see in a modern forestry legislation? Is it the first years of modern forestry, when there were enormous clear-cuts, that the Miljöpartiet wants to return to? Is not today's forestry, with two opposing goals, to be preferred?
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! The simple answer is no, we do not want to go back to anything. Requests to spray with hormoslyr are complete madness, even though the forestry industry claimed that one could do it. One could even drink it on TV to show how harmless and perhaps even healthy it was – and later perhaps suffer from cancer.
In the Green Party, we look forward. We take in knowledge and alarm reports. We take in what landowners say who want something other than to sell their forest cheaply so that it can become paper. We want to take advantage of the pride and the entrepreneurship that exists in the countryside and not let the forestry industry dictate the terms.
There is, in fact, an entrepreneurship that is not being expressed today and which does not seem to be reflected by most parties here. One stands very unilaterally on the side of the forest industry. That is why we need to think long-term and restore what is damaged today. Regardless of which ecosystems it concerns, there is much to be gained from it. If we are talking about effective environmental policy, the most effective thing is not to cut down the last old-growth forests, nature and continuity forests that exist in Sweden.
Hormoslyr was something very stupid. Today's battle is at the clear-cuts. The question is whether the Liberals intend to change their view on that. Or do they intend to cling to the idea that clear-cuts are good for the environment? In the same way, one stubbornly propagated that hormoslyr was good for the environment and health.
Elin Nilsson (L)
Mr. Speaker! We have completely different views on where today's struggle in forest policy takes place or what it revolves around. I would say that the greatest struggle revolves around the right of ownership. The member poses the rhetorical questions: Why don't you do as the landowners want? Why don't you let the landowners do as they want?
It is exactly what we are working to achieve. One should be granted greater autonomy so that the state does not come and restrict forestry based on disproportionate assessments. One should not be subject to species protection restrictions without receiving compensation. Proposals will soon be presented that rectify this.
When it comes to the species protection, it is not only important to include the importance of compensation if one receives a restriction, but also that fewer cases lead to an actual restriction so that we protect that which is absolutely most worthy of protection. When one listens to Miljöpartiet, it often sounds as if one solves the problems with the species protection restrictions as long as the cash box has no bottom. That is not what the whole thing is about.
Primarily, it is about ensuring that there are fewer restrictions on use. It is only then that we restore a strong right of ownership and use.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I then interpret that as the Liberals will stand firm on the issue of Vättern and the establishment of a mine there. If one protects the right of ownership, it must mean that one takes the side of the thousands of landowners who do not want a mine establishment and who do not want an open-pit mine on their farms. That would be a very good announcement, because then one truly stands up for the right of ownership. Otherwise, it will just be empty words.
It also becomes very difficult to take the member seriously when she says that landowners shall receive compensation if one constantly and at every given opportunity reduces the compensation in the budget. It does not add up. The less money there is in the state budget to be used for compensating landowners, the greater the nonchalance shown towards all those landowners who have raised their hands and waited for several years to receive compensation for the forest they have chosen to have protected. This does not add up.
One cannot say that one protects the right of ownership and in the next breath say that one will lower the compensation to those people who want nothing else than to receive compensation for the forest that is to be protected.
It is to patronize a large part of the Swedish forest owners by saying: What you choose to do with your forest – to protect it – the Liberals do not approve of. You are to sell your forest at the lowest price possible to the hungry paper industry.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that is an approach that we from the political side should stay far away from. We must ensure that there is money available to compensate those landowners who want nothing else than to protect their forest and expect compensation for it. They need to be able to trust that the state and the government will not pull the rug out from under them.
Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! About 30 years ago, I was still living at home. The day before Christmas Eve, I heard something screaming out in the field. It had started to get dark. I went to look out the bathroom window to look out at the field. I saw that there was something there but could not see what it was. On Christmas Eve morning, I went out and looked. There lay a dead wild animal out in the field. It was clearly visible from the tracks in the snow who had killed the wild animal; it was a lynx.
It was exactly three weeks later. It was a Sunday morning. I was probably sleeping for far too long. I was still living at home, as I said. Mom came up and woke me and thought I should sneak down to the bathroom window to look. I did that. It was a brilliant winter day. Next to the deer sat a lynx and was eating. We have learned that lynxes do not eat carcasses, but at least this one did.
It was fantastic to see the lynx on this beautiful winter day. Finally, it went and sat a bit higher up in the field. It sat there in the sun and enjoyed it for a long time. After half an hour, I thought I couldn't stand there any longer. Now it could have as many lynxes as it wanted. I left.
It is a fantastic animal, Mr. Speaker. But regardless of that, we must still stick to the facts in the debate. That is why I requested the floor.
According to the latest inventory, we have 1,400 lynx in Sweden. We have a favorable conservation status at 870. This means that we have almost twice as many lynx as we must have to meet a favorable conservation status. Furthermore, there is MVP, the minimum viable population. Depending on how one counts, it lies between 200 and 700. In that, the Norwegian population is also included. We are therefore well above the limit.
The 153 wolverines that were intended to be shot had not endangered the population. Why do you present this lie before the Environment Party time and again when it is not true?
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I must correct the member. We have not said or claimed that the lynx population is under a favorable conservation status, as favorable conservation status is determined today with today's reference value.
There is nothing I have said in my speech that is not correct. The member is welcome to check all the facts provided.
Favorable conservation status is a concept. We also have the Swedish red list. There, the lynx is red-listed and classified as vulnerable. That was what I presented in my speech.
Mr. Speaker! Let us rise a little and look beyond favorable conservation status and red-list criteria. We in Miljöpartiet believe that trophy hunting, where animals are shot solely for amusement, is not morally or ethically justifiable. We believe that it is exactly as bad and loathsome to shoot lynx in Sweden as we believe it is to shoot lions or tigers somewhere else. The lynx is Europe's counterpart to Asia's tigers and Africa's lions.
As I said, it is not about protectionism, which is a completely different discussion. It is not about trying to drive away illegal hunting, because if so, it is a very bad strategy. It is not about creating acceptance, because 80 percent of the Swedish people like that we have lynxes in Sweden. It is also not about a hunt where one utilizes the meat. Without that, it is a hunt where all lynxes shot in Sweden are skinned so that one can take advantage of the beautiful fur. It is a trophy hunt. We do not accept trophy hunting on endangered animals, neither in Sweden nor anywhere else.
Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Late this morning I received a message from a Sami village in Västerbotten. It was a desperate reindeer owner. If there is anyone who in all instances really looks out for the Sami, it is the Green Party. The reindeer owner was desperate because of the massacre in the reindeer herd that the lynx are behind. They had applied for a protection hunt but had not received it due to long processing times and high evidentiary requirements.
The absolute best preventive work is to have a license hunt to have a lower but still sustainable stock.
That it is only about trophy hunting – tell that to the Sámi who time and again see lynxes enter the reindeer herds and take reindeer! Tell that to the sheep farmers who time and again have attacks in their pastures, where lynxes come and take the sheep! Ask them if it is about trophy hunting when one wants to keep the population down!
Rebecka Le Moine says, Mr. Speaker, that it is about trophy hunting. Of course, you take what you can take from the game. It is a hunting tradition. I do not even see that problem.
Something we must be very clear about, and which we see in other countries, which Rebecka Le Moine has touched upon, is that the opportunity to purchase legal hunting contributes to the funding so that one manages to keep the populations down and keep poachers away. It has been seen, in fact, that legal hunting provides much more money than poaching. It helps, therefore, instead of hindering – again, precisely the opposite of what Rebecka Le Moine stands here in the speaker's chair and says.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Regarding the cases that occur time and again, which the member mentions in his speech, there is the protection hunt as a tool. Many of the wolverines that are now to be shot – 11 percent of the wolverine population – have probably never even been near what the member describes. Very many wolverines that are to be shot during this trophy hunt are in southern Sweden, where it is very difficult, perhaps even for the member himself, to defend the wolverine hunt. One cannot escape; it is not about sheep owners.
In Östergötland – eight lynxes are to be shot. How many sheep have been torn by lynxes in the last year? Three. The hunt cannot be justified by saying that it is being carried out for the sake of the sheep owners.
It would also be appropriate if the member and his party could follow through. If one wants license hunting as a preventive measure, this is in direct conflict with the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives. In that case, one can make it a cabinet issue and pursue a Svexit. It would be more honest to do it openly than to try to find these loopholes, which are not even legal.
Culling may only be applied as an absolute last resort. It is very clear in the EU's guidance for precisely the Birds and Habitats Directives and culling. One therefore cannot use it as a preventive measure. Even if one holds it as a pipe dream, it stands in conflict with the laws of nature that we have to abide by.
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.