(cont.) Response to interpellation 2023/24:578 on new law for nature restoration
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns nature restoration and biodiversity. L argues that Sweden should have high ambitions for nature conservation but that EU legislation risks harming landowners' property rights and forestry 1. L emphasizes national initiatives on wetlands, aquatic environments, and support to preserve the agricultural landscape 1 2. S emphasizes the need for a holistic view where climate measures and biodiversity work together without creating unnecessary obstacles for the transition 3. S asks whether a national restoration plan should be developed even if the EU proposal does not come into force 4. L answers that the government is already working fully on national nature restoration measures regardless of the EU legislation 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for the questions!
It is of course important to discuss how we handle nature restoration and the protection of biodiversity regardless of what happens with the EU's nature restoration legislation.
Sweden wants and shall have a high ambition in the work with biodiversity, nature conservation and ecosystem services. But we know that here we have, so to speak, a way to go. We have a task that needs to be stepped up and needs to make progress in many areas on this front. This applies both nationally as well as within the EU.
On an international level, I was personally present when we adopted a very ambitious agreement. We have made great progress regarding how we are to restore biodiversity and reduce species extinction, not least through 30 by 30; I do not know the Swedish translation of that agreement off the top of my head. But the content of the Kunming-Montreal agreement is truly a step forward.
We have, however, noticed that within the EU, the implementation of legislation intended to safeguard these values has moved in a direction that makes it difficult for Sweden to be in favor of it. This primarily concerns our landowners' property rights, how we are to make our forestry function, and how other things are to align with the reality we have in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! I am very pleased that the Social Democrats also recognize this and have been able to contribute in a productive way to the discussions that have taken place.
To transition to what is happening nationally, we need to ensure that we improve the conditions for biodiversity in different ways.
For example, one can take care of destroyed habitats. One can ensure that species are not overexploited. One needs to take care of the impact of climate change on biodiversity. One needs to ensure that pollution does not further contribute to degraded biodiversity, and one needs to combat invasive alien species.
This can be done in many different ways. We want to take active measures to combat species extinction and preserve particularly sensitive species and particularly sensitive natural environments, not least through sustainable agriculture, fishing, and forestry. We ensure that our industries utilize our environment in a sound manner.
We carry out various measures, such as the work of maintaining or recreating valuable environments. Restoring wetlands is an example and something that the government particularly safeguards. It is also about being able to strengthen our fish stocks by recreating flowing water or establishing fish migration routes in previously drained watercourses.
There are many tools to use in this, and the government has made several different initiatives. This includes, among other things, a large initiative on the restoration of wetlands but also a specific initiative on the restoration of aquatic environments which in common parlance is called the Baltic Sea Package, where we have funds for the restoration of various aquatic environments. It is a typical such thing that makes us live up to or contribute to living up to our national and international commitments regarding biodiversity. But it also contributes to climate benefits.
It is truly the case that the three crises of pollution, environmental impact, and climate are often interconnected. We want to take advantage of this through the many nature-based solutions that can be applied.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for that answer!
As the minister is in, there are many synergies regarding both climate adaptation and climate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect biodiversity. But there are also conflicting interests, and sometimes it is difficult to know which path is the right path to take. A holistic picture, a bird's-eye view, was needed to land correctly on these issues.
Right now, we are struggling with managing both LULUCF and the requirement for biodiversity, and also with protecting primary and natural forests. If we also get a nature restoration directive in place, it is important that this does not become layers being piled on top of each other that complicate rather than help.
That is why I think it is an extremely important starting point to try to understand how the government reasons in these issues. That is the purpose of this interpellation.
Both I and the Minister have been involved in the fact that it is important that there is good knowledge support for landowners, but also that there is financial support and perhaps financial compensation in the event that ownership rights are restricted in an area because there are species or biotopes that need to be protected.
I am pleased with the answer I received regarding grazing lands. But I still think it is important that we try to see the question as we were discussing before the break and as I emphasized in my introduction – that regardless of whether there will be continued work at the EU level with nature restoration, it is a question that we need to work on and address ourselves.
I also sit on the Environmental Goals Preparation Group. We have a tough task and a very important task, and hopefully, we will come up with many wise proposals for the government. But we do not have the possibility to pause the work regarding nature restoration and include those perspectives now, because we do not know what those decisions will land on – if they land at all. They will probably not do so in sufficient time for us to include it in our work; that we have observed.
Then the government's responsibility becomes very great to ensure that we get a unified policy in this area that enables transition and that ensures we get down greenhouse gases, increase biodiversity and climate-proof in a smart way.
The wetland initiative is very good, but it is not a silver bullet that solves everything. Also, how one restores wetlands is extremely important. One can get negative effects, get increased emissions, if it is done in an incorrect way. And some areas are better suited from a climate perspective while other areas are better suited from a biological diversity perspective.
I believe this holistic view will be extremely important and decisive for whether we will succeed.
We see today that we are struggling quite a bit with the Environmental Code. It has become an obstacle, for example when it comes to permits, in order to achieve the green transition.
We must not end up in a situation where the legislation that we are now working to implement in Sweden creates unnecessary obstacles for the transition.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I largely share that view. We need, in different ways, to ensure that what we do in this area to restore, rebuild and strengthen biodiversity are the right measures that yield results and do not complicate matters or even happen to put a spoke in the wheels of the progress we want to see.
That is exactly what has formed the basis for the government's position in the nature restoration legislation. We saw that the proposal as it stands now will put spokes in the wheels for the Swedish part and that it will not work in a good way with the reality we have in Sweden. But then one must not hang around idly but set to work with national measures.
Some of the work that the Environmental Goals Commission takes into account, possibly through member Järrebring but hopefully also through other members, is all the initiatives we are making.
The work of restoring wetlands and the government's ongoing and permanent wetland initiative includes 1,365 million kronor for 2024-2026. There is, therefore, a huge amount of money for these initiatives in the coming years. But they take time, and they are technically difficult. One needs to conduct hydrological investigations and ensure that it is done correctly. If it goes wrong, it can even worsen.
It will therefore need to take some time, and it needs to be done in the right way. But it is still a very important tool given the manifold environmental and climate benefits. We know that this will have strong positive effects for biodiversity, if it is done correctly. We also see that it has an effect that the government strengthens the wetland initiatives.
In addition to this, I can mention, for example, that the government has recently decided on a regulation on state support to preserve, strengthen, develop, and restore biodiversity in the cultivated landscape. With these new provisions, those who own or lease meadow or grazing lands that have become overgrown can apply for state support for measures that enable the land to be grazed or mown again. This will also be a measure that can in a good way provide a little push in the back for those who have a will to create open landscapes. We know that there are many landowners and others in Sweden who want to do this, but the support is lacking. We are therefore very happy to have achieved this in order to be able to develop, restore, strengthen, and preserve biodiversity.
We also see that in the work to strengthen biodiversity in the agricultural landscape in the strategic plan for the EU's common agricultural policy, there is a space that previous governments have not entered but which this government is very keen to act within. We are therefore now introducing this support to begin this on a national level, but we will also take it into the EU work.
This is a typical example of the measures we are implementing. But just as the member mentions, these measures must not complicate things, and it is precisely this that makes the design of them particularly important. This is the difference if the nature restoration legislation is set against the efforts that we are making at the national level now. We have this ambition, and we restore nature. We want to do this to a greater extent but not via the European law as it looks now.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the detailed answer! We have a number of challenges ahead of us. We need to strengthen our preparedness and therefore also increase our domestic production of food and ensure that we can sustain ourselves in the event of a crisis or unrest. We need the forest in many different ways to manage the transition to a fossil-free society. There are many products that we can use the forest for to phase out what is today a fossil raw material. This is, therefore, an important puzzle for succeeding with the green transition. This is my main point.
The Minister says in his answer that if the proposed regulation enters into force, Sweden will develop a national restoration plan. Before the break, I asked a question: If the proposed regulation does not enter into force, should we still develop a national restoration plan? I think the Minister can only answer that question with a simple yes or no.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the members for a very good discussion and debate on this work. When it comes to the need for a national strategic plan, we are currently working full-scale on the nature restoration measures. We are in the process of implementing measures, and we are finding new measures and strengthening measures that we see a need to further develop. We are, therefore, in the process of doing that work, and there is no reason to slow down. This is the government's intention with the nature restoration work. It is proceeding at full speed, and it will continue to do so, regardless of what happens with the European nature restoration legislation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.