Management of land and water areas

Mats Hellhoff (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety.

According to Falstaff, fakir – the well-known comedian and author whom everyone knows – water is a dangerous poison surrounding the Visby diocese. That water surrounds the Visby diocese we can probably all agree on, but regarding the other, I must ask to register a deviating opinion.

This report provides a clear picture of how important, but also complex, the subject area is. Water is the basis for life on earth and our most important food source. Managing water therefore becomes an existential issue. It is not just about ensuring that we have water to drink, but also that we have water for the rest of society's activities.

Equally important, but not treated in as much detail, is having functioning sewage systems. The availability of water is a prerequisite for the sewage systems to function, and functioning sewage systems are a prerequisite for society with all its functions to function. I will return to this. We are therefore talking about systems that are interconnected and dependent on each other, Mr. Speaker.

The report covers a number of areas, but I intend to limit myself to the area of protection of water areas and drinking water sources.

It is important to have a strong protection of water areas and drinking water sources. The EU's drinking water directive has been implemented, with legislative changes that, among other things, involve stricter provisions for drinking water quality. The County Administrative Boards and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management have mandates that, among other things, aim to ensure the drinking water supply and water protection in the long term. The preliminary study on national physical planning is being prepared within the Government Offices, and the government has signaled a review of the existing regulatory framework in the area.

All this is very good. But how are we to protect our water facilities, waterworks, reservoirs, pumping stations and so on?

In Dagens Nyheter from February 21, one can read how a waterworks in a town in Mälardalen was subjected to sabotage by a 30-year-old who had previously been convicted of serious crime in a criminal network. He was able to walk straight in through unlocked doors and shut down the waterworks. The man opened the gate to the waterworks. It is supposed to be locked, but he opened it easily with just his hands. Then he entered a smaller building on the site. That door was not locked either.

Soon, the entire waterworks stopped – one of two plants that supply the 140,000 residents in the city. The building that the 30-year-old entered is, in fact, a critical site for the waterworks. It is a substation, meaning an electrical center that supplies the waterworks with power. The 30-year-old began pulling out fuses. He pressed the emergency stop, and the entire facility went dark. Then he left.

The prosecutor sees no signs that the 30-year-old acted on behalf of anyone, and nothing that has emerged in the investigation indicates any form of planning. It therefore did not even require any planning to accomplish this.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is making a major investment in civil defense. Here, waterworks in particular are a key, as a functioning water supply is absolutely central. Without water, we cannot defend our country, says a representative for the industry organization Svenskt Vatten. There are approximately 1,500 waterworks all over the country, and all must be protected from contamination, physical intrusions, cyberattacks, and sabotage. If they are stopped, the entire society is affected. This applies to hospitals, preschools, restaurants, and food production.

If someone shuts down the drinking water completely, the sewage system also stops functioning, and if the water disappears, sanitary problems arise quickly. What has caused cities in Ukraine to be evacuated has been that the water and sewage system does not function as a whole, i.e., that the sewers no longer function either. We can try to imagine what would happen if the sewage system to one of our hospitals suddenly were to stop functioning.

All actors with some responsibility for the water supply have a real challenge ahead of them.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice that we get to gather here on a Thursday evening!

When I was going to write my speech, I thought a lot about how I could have written exactly the same as last year. That feeling is sometimes quite boring, I can think, because I want things to happen here in the Riksdag so that we can talk about other things. It is also difficult to ignore that Swedish National Audit Office report which we have also debated here earlier. Therefore, this time I will actually talk about all our reservations.

I want to begin with a reservation that we have written very many times. It concerns the national interests. It is well known that this is a problematic area. We have not acted as we should have.

When the national interest system was introduced, the idea, of course, was that it should be simple and wise. Only a few, unique and truly significant areas were to be designated. The system was to be characterized by quality, not quantity. Unfortunately, that was not the case, and today we have a system that has grown completely out of control. The number of national interest areas has increased sharply, and their scope has truly swollen.

This is no longer a system that protects the most valuable, and almost all the relevant authorities consider that it needs to be redone. Boverket, Naturvårdsverket, Energimyndigheten, Tillväxtverket and so on have jointly conducted a review and concluded that it is not good as it looks today. All authorities consider that their national interest claims must be reviewed, and four out of five say straight out that their claims do not meet the criteria.

In short, we must look at this system. That is why the Social Democrats have reservation 1. It is time to modernize the national interest system so that we get fewer national interests, sharper criteria, greater clarity for municipalities and companies, and a real protection for that which is of national interest.

We simply want to modernize this system.

Mr. Speaker! We also need to talk about the aquatic environment. In our reservation 5, we Social Democrats say that it is under severe pressure. Eutrophication, environmental toxins, plastic waste and so on are present in Sweden's watercourses and lakes. This, in turn, affects the drinking water supply. Here, the National Audit Office has been crystal clear: the State is failing in its governance, and the distribution of responsibility is unclear.

That is why we in reservation 5 demand stronger protection. It is about reducing the emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus, strengthening the cycles, restoring the liming, restoring the defense against invasive species, and giving the Baltic Sea a chance to recover. Above all, the drinking water and the drinking water sources must receive stronger legal protection.

The climate crisis brings with it very large risks for contaminated drinking water. We need to live up to the EU's Water Framework Directive. We must address wastewater treatment; we see that the amount of pharmaceutical residues continues to increase sharply.

This is, as has been said, very serious. Therefore, we propose a rapid implementation of the EU's new wastewater directive.

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes one can get the feeling that this is about technicalities, but that is not the case. It is about public health, safety, and the future.

We also need to highlight the role of hydropower. To secure biodiversity, we must protect our lakes and seas from toxins, plastic, and acidification. We must also review small-scale hydropower – it is a prerequisite for us to develop.

It is precisely this balance we are talking about in reservation 9. It is clear that the environmental requirements should be strict and clear, but they must not become so rigid that small-scale actors are eliminated unnecessarily. Hydropower plays a decisive role for the stability of the energy system. It is central for the electrification of industry. It must also be legally secure, modern, and sustainable.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has 100,000 lakes and tens of thousands of kilometers of running water. This provides fantastic natural values, but it also entails responsibility. That is why we say in reservation 14: Create functional fish passages where needed and where it is feasible! It is nothing new or controversial – it is simply modern, pragmatic environmental policy.

Functional fish passages ensure that our ecosystems recover. Here, local actors are incredibly important, as they are the ones who hold the actual solutions. We need to work together with them.

Mr. Speaker! Now I come to a point where the National Audit Office has quite a lot of criticism. Even I, as a Social Democrat, take that criticism to heart.

Climate change is causing us to have increasingly extreme weather – heavy rainfall, fires, sea-level rises, and droughts. This is an important issue for us to be able to have a well-functioning society. Therefore, the Social Democrats state in reservation 16 that Sweden needs a national strategy for water infrastructure. Here we need to remove obstacles, strengthen investments and reinvestments, give small municipalities support and create equality throughout the country.

Nor the VA-system is not only about technology. It is about welfare. It is about preparedness. It is vital.

We need to continue to push forward regarding the ecodesign of water products at the EU level.

We also want to climate-proof the strategic infrastructure. A society cannot function without power grids, hospitals, or roads. It also cannot function without treatment plants, which must not be left without defense against extreme weather.

Finally, I hope that the government takes the insurance issue seriously. Hundreds of thousands of people risk having their home insurance cancelled, or made more expensive, simply because the climate policy is not keeping up. Other countries have done some things here that I believe we in Sweden also need to look at. We also need to do something to prevent people from being left without homes.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that we stand behind all our reservations, but in order to gain time – and it feels like we need to gain time – I move for approval of only reservation 16.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I naturally share Denis Begic's joy at being here on a Thursday evening to debate instead of watching Brynäs play at home against Rögle. It is fun to be in the service of democracy.

Step by step, we are improving Sweden in area after area. I am not just thinking about that a family with children receives 5,000 kronor more per month after tax today compared to 2022. I am not just thinking about that a liter of diesel might have cost 40 kronor today if we had had a red-green government. When I fueled up last week, the price was 16 kronor per liter. I am also not just thinking about the electricity prices, Mr. Speaker. They are a bit higher today compared to how they are in the summer, but compared to the autumn of 2022, it is a dramatic difference.

What does this have to do with today's debate? Well, today we are debating, among other things, small-scale hydropower, and unlike Denis Begic, I am very positive that the government has taken action even in this issue. The government has saved – and is trying to save – hydropower production. Then one might think: That is what the Moderate Lars Beckman says. Yes, he says it. But what do the energy companies say about the referral to the Council on Legislation that arrived on Friday?

The energy companies write as follows on their website: The government has now taken further steps towards a more functional national plan for the hydropower reviews. Johan Bladh, who is responsible for hydropower at Energiföretagen, says that it is now up to the authorities to adopt the government's steering signals so that we do not need to take further measures.

Furthermore, it states: ”The Government has now decided on a referral to the Council of Legislation with a proposal for exemptions from EU law requirements in the review of hydropower, which would mean that it would be possible to lower the level of requirements for activities that have a significant public interest. But such an exemption requires the Government's approval in each individual case and that compensatory measures are taken.”

The energy companies continue: "The government has also recently decided on an extended deadline for the important assignment to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, Svenska kraftnät and the Swedish Energy Agency to develop a guideline on how a national efficient access to hydropower shall be considered within the framework of water management work."

Mr. Speaker! This makes a real difference. Today, there are approximately 1,900 small-scale hydropower plants in Sweden which together produce barely 5 terawatt-hours and supply 1,000 megawatts in power. That is 3 percent of Sweden's total annual electricity production. Not everyone may know that electricity is priced with marginal pricing, so on a cold winter day in 2028, we would have lacked this hydropower if Miljöpartiet had been in power. Then the electricity price could have skyrocketed to something quite terrifying.

We Moderates are for property rights. It is in our political DNA.

We believe that the removal of dams and small-scale hydropower must be stopped. In a situation where we need every kilowatt of dispatchable power, it is unjustifiable to dismantle functioning fossil-free electricity production.

We need every kilowatt that can be produced, and I am therefore very pleased that the government submitted its referral to the Council of Legislation on Friday. It would be good if the House could then adopt the bill with political unity.

If one removes hydropower, it can have terrible consequences. One example is that the Säfsens ski resort in Dalarna would have been left without water if this had not been resolved. Villaägarnas Riksförbund has done a very good job and shown that members all over the country would be deeply upset if the children's swimming spot disappeared. Outside Gävle, there is an example of exactly this. And in a film on YouTube, one can see how a number of vacation homes that were located by a lake suddenly are located by a puddle after a small-scale hydropower plant was removed. So we cannot have that. That is why it is very good that the government has taken action even in this area.

Another issue that affects very many and which the previous speaker touched upon is water and sewage. Even here, the government has made and is making a big difference. Someone who is a member of Villaägarnas Riksförbund received a newsletter today with the headline Trendbreak in the water and sewage issue: Municipalities back down from mandatory connection. It is absolutely fantastic that democracy works. In 2023, we here in the Riksdag made a legislative change that opened up for greater flexibility, and now the municipalities are listening. It is very good.

There are, however, exceptions. In Sandviken municipality in my constituency, there is the firebrand Anders Broman in Norrbro. He has gathered hundreds of villa owners who are against being compulsorily connected. They have well-functioning private sewage systems, but they are still to be compulsorily connected. No wonder the villa owners in Sandviken become absolutely furious when they read in Arbetarbladet that the local treatment plant is pumping out millions of liters of sewage.

In Norrtälje, Värnamo and Arvika recently backed the municipality but, well, not in Sandviken. I regret that.

We need electricity production. The Moderates, the government, and the Tidö parties are delivering in this area. We have also delivered legislative changes in the water and waste area. Just as the previous speaker said, Ukraine has shown how important it is to have individual sewage systems from a preparedness perspective. I am therefore very pleased that our government is doing so much also in this area.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I share the joy of being part of democracy, and I felt that we were invited to the dance a bit, not least when it comes to the hydroelectric power plants. Lars Beckman describes this as a success. But what has happened is that the usually so EU-positive Moderaterna have said thank you, but no thanks to EU legislation. One of the government's first measures was to pause the EU legislation, which has annoyed not least the EU Commission. There is a case that will return, and then it could become very expensive for Sweden.

Something that Lars Beckman speaks warmly about is the right of ownership. What is meant by the right of ownership when it comes to all those who have lost their fishing rights and can no longer fish up their own fish to make an economic profit, recreate, or just feel proud? Without an adaptation, there is no fish, and then the right of ownership is worth nothing. Whose right of ownership is it that Lars Beckman protects? Is it only those upstream with hydroelectric power plants, or is it also all those downstream who would like to share in this treasure?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Miljöpartiet for this exchange of remarks because it points out what would happen if the worst happens and Sweden gets a government consisting of Miljöpartiet, Vänstern, Socialdemokraterna, and Centern.

When it comes to mandatory connections, I stated that the Tidö parties have changed the legislation, which means that people are not mandatorily connected to the same extent. I also said that we have saved small-scale hydropower.

But the Green Party pushed through the reassessment of all water rights, which has had catastrophic consequences all over Sweden. I took Dalarna as an example, where an entire ski resort would have been without water if the Green Party had been allowed to decide.

I believe that everyone who has followed Swedish politics knows that if Miljöpartiet decides on something, it is quite easy for another party, for example the Socialdemokraterna, to sell out on important issues. We saw it in the predator issue and also when it concerned precisely small-scale hydropower.

It is absolutely no secret that there is a fundamental difference between the Moderates' energy policy and the Green Party's environmental policy. It doesn't matter that the Social Democrats say it is completely risk-free to vote for them, because the Green Party's contribution here in the chamber shows that it is not.

My answer to the question is that the one who owns small-scale hydropower shall decide over their small-scale hydropower.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Lars Beckman for all the praise for the fact that we got so much of our policy through. We absolutely stand by that.

When it comes to energy policy, it is completely true that we have completely different views. Here, the Moderaterna have moved towards a more communist model, a planned economy, which will lock Sweden in if misfortune strikes. Now it probably won't happen because in the Western world it takes at least 20 years to build nuclear power and would cost up to 1,000 billion. It is therefore an extremely expensive prestige project.

I did get an answer, Mr. Speaker, and for that I am grateful. It is thus those who own the plants who have greater ownership rights. They perhaps mean more in the eyes of the Moderates. It might be an electoral strategy – what do I know?

Even if one makes the analysis that some people who own are more valuable, many of them have stood in line and wanted to have a review of their hydropower plants. Many have wanted to receive the compensation and the financial support that the Hydropower Environmental Fund has provided, perhaps to avoid worry about what happens if the accident were to occur and a dam were to burst. They perhaps also want to leave behind something that children and grandchildren enjoy – a living environment.

Property rights for those who want something other than Lars Beckman and the Moderaterna may be graded somewhat lower, but one must not deny that there are many who have looked with great hope at the environmental fund and the possibility of obtaining modern environmental permits and also getting the fish back.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Those who receive an electricity bill in Skåne should offer a thought to the Green Party and the Social Democrats. The electricity shortage that prevents bakeries from expanding should also be attributed to the Green Party. Those who paid 28.50 for a liter of diesel should thank the Green Party. And the nuclear phase-out that has damaged Sweden fundamentally, we shall thank the Green Party for that.

Mr. Speaker, now we are going to save small-scale hydropower. We will do everything in our power to save 1,900 small-scale hydropower plants, which account for 3 percent of Sweden's total electricity production.

But I agree with Miljöpartiet. You had a fundamental influence on Swedish politics when you sat in government. You introduced free immigration. You introduced the reduction obligation, which meant that people could not afford to refuel. You cut back on road maintenance. You have damaged Swedish energy policy for decades to come. That is what we are now working to rectify. It is good that we are doing so.

It is good that we have a government that cares about hard-working people. It is also a business issue, Mr. Speaker. We have been able to see what happened in Dalarna and Säfsen, where people went out and alerted: Säfsen Resort will be left without artificial snow if the dams are demolished – a catastrophe.

There are hundreds of important jobs in northern Dalarna, so it is also a business issue, apart from it being a wallet issue for households.

To whoever might be watching this debate – I don't know if anyone is, if I'm being completely honest – I want to say: Think about how you want Sweden to look in the next mandate period! If you want to have the means to fuel your car, if you want to have the means to pay your electricity bill, and if you want to have electricity in the winter, perhaps you should avoid voting for any of the four red parties.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has two reservations in the report, and I intended to account for them.

The first concerns the protection of agricultural land. The area of arable land continues to decrease in Sweden. At the same time, the exploitation of agricultural land is increasing, meaning that people build on the land or use it in a way that makes it impossible to cultivate there again.

The main reason why farmland area is disappearing is that the land is no longer being cultivated and is growing over. At the same time, Sweden must strengthen its self-sufficiency of food. The increasing climate changes further mean that the arable land is weakening globally, which entails an increased responsibility for us in Sweden to contribute to the global food supply.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency assesses that it is not possible to achieve the environmental quality goal A rich cultivated landscape with the management measures that have been decided or planned. The conditions for long-term preserving the agricultural land's production capacity are assessed to be insufficient. Furthermore, the status for many of the cultivated landscape's species and nature types is poor or unfavorable. It is important to strengthen the biological diversity in the agricultural landscape.

The high pace regarding the exploitation of fertile farmland, not least in southern Sweden, is very concerning and is not compatible with long-term thinking regarding sustainable food supply.

The investigation into a new food preparedness also states in its report Food Preparedness for a New Era that agricultural land should be better protected. New national steering measures are required to reduce the exploitation of agricultural land in the municipalities. We in Vänsterpartiet believe that the government needs to come forward with proposals for a national objective for the preservation of fertile farmland in order to counter the very exploitation of farmland.

Mr. Speaker! The second reservation concerns hydropower. Hydropower has an important role for our renewable energy supply, and there are great values in having a strong hydropower production. It needs, however, to be harmonized with regard to our biodiversity and our nationally set environmental goals.

We in Vänsterpartiet have therefore for a long time proposed that the power companies should take measures to strengthen biodiversity in the regulated watercourses. We have viewed it positively that water activities are assessed according to the Environmental Code.

The current government, however, chose during the beginning of the mandate period to pause the reassessments of hydropower. On July 1, 2025, the reassessments were resumed but with a lowered ambition in the environmental adaptation. Unfortunately, this weakens the possibilities to adapt hydropower to our ecosystems in accordance with the environmental goals adopted by the Riksdag and the EU's framework directive for water and biodiversity.

We therefore consider that the reviews of hydropower should be resumed with the original requirements to introduce modern environmental conditions for the old hydropower. The goal of the EU Water Framework Directive is that Sweden's water bodies shall have good status by 2027 at the latest.

Mr. Speaker! An important measure for the environment would be to introduce requirements for a certain constant water flow through the hydropower turbines so that the watercourses are not drained. Requirements for a so-called minimum flow through turbines could mean great gains for species that have running water as a habitat.

At Umeälven, researchers have estimated that such a measure would only result in a half percent loss per year of the hydropower production. We in Vänsterpartiet therefore consider that requirements for so-called minimum flow should be introduced at existing and new hydropower plants in order to prevent the drying up of watercourses.

Finally, I move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Responsible, long-term stewardship, protection of valuable agricultural land, good living conditions throughout the country and a reasonable balance between development and nature conservation is, for me, management of land and water areas.

Land and water are limited resources that must be utilized so that future generations are not limited by today's decisions. The ecosystem services that clean water, biodiversity, and farmland provide must be protected. Exploitation shall take place after clear and transparent trade-offs that are for the benefit of society as a whole.

We as Swedes should never have to think about drinking water or sewage in the same way as people are forced to do in other countries. It should simply work, and I believe that we all expect that. The municipal infrastructure for drinking water production, sewage treatment, and pipe networks was expanded primarily between 1950 and 1970. At that time, the state helped and financed the expansion through grants. We know that the pipes have a lifespan of 50–70 years. This means that we are now in a phase where these pipes need to be replaced.

When the responsibility for the water network was transferred to the municipalities, it entailed certain essential tasks. The most important of them was the maintenance of the water and sewage infrastructure.

Unfortunately, we now see that many municipalities have not fulfilled their duty to ensure that the water infrastructure continues to function. The income from the water and sewage tax does not seem to have been utilized for its intended purpose. That needs to be examined further, we believe.

Today, 20 billion kronor are invested per year in the municipal water and sewage networks, but the need is much greater. Investments of 31 billion kronor per year are required to maintain the infrastructure for drinking water production and sewage treatment. That we are 10 billion short of that need per year is alarming.

Those who will have to pay because the municipalities have not planned long-term for the maintenance of the water and sewage pipes are, unfortunately, the taxpayers. According to a study published by Svenskt Vatten, the user fees need to be raised by 100 percent compared to the 2019 rates over the next 20 years to cover the investment needs. But even if the water and sewage operations were to make minimal investments, the fee would need to increase by 60 percent over the next 20 years. This is primarily because the capital costs will increase regardless of whether the investments are kept at a minimum level, because such a large proportion of the investments in the past have been directly written off. This means that future generations will face the consequences of the lack of long-term planning: a Sweden that could become too expensive to live in.

We mean that the state must step in and take responsibility for part of the solution to the water and sewage problem in the same way as the water and sewage network was once built out with state funds. It is about critical infrastructure, and we cannot afford to wait.

We therefore propose that the state shall offer credit guarantees on loans up to 20 years for municipal water and sewage activities in order to cover the existing maintenance debt and that the state shall subsidize 0.5 percentage points of the interest on these loans to make the investments more economically sustainable for the municipalities. To ensure long-term and stable water and sewage planning, a legislative amendment to the Local Government Act is needed which extends the budget horizon for water and sewage investments from today's three years to at least eight years.

In a time of investments, it is important to ensure that fees are calculated in the correct way, otherwise they risk spiraling out of control. Furthermore, the differences between the municipalities are large even though it concerns the same basic service. Municipal fees have in many cases increased more than inflation and, we believe, have become a hidden tax on residents.

The Christian Democrats want to increase transparency, introduce efficiency requirements and provide better conditions for long-term investments so that fees can be lowered and become fairer, regardless of which zip code one has.

Is the right to one's own home, the right to a roof over one's head, a national interest just like cultural environments and outdoor life? Perhaps that is where we must go to fulfill the mission of building more homes and to ensure that people have a roof over their heads.

I assert that the areas of national interest, as they are currently used and in the extent that they currently exist, create problems when one tries to build new housing. Politics is, more often than not, all about weighing different interests against one another. According to my view, the interest in new housing has been hindered by other interests being given a special status that causes them to obstruct housing construction. In that case, we cannot weigh different interests against one another in a correct way.

A national interest is a geographical area that has been designated as worthy of protection because it contains nationally important values and qualities. National interests can be designated by many authorities. When an area has been designated as a national interest, it cannot be changed.

In my opinion, there has been an inflation in the number of national interest areas and their scope. When housing construction is simultaneously expensive and complicated, and far too few homes are being built, it becomes a problem. There are far too many national interest areas, and housing construction is far too small. Furthermore, the number of designated national interest areas has increased significantly in areas that could instead be used to build housing.

This system is not compatible with the situation we have today, I mean. I also believe that it should be possible to a greater extent to review and revoke previous national interest classifications. Such a review could, for example, take place when the municipality adopts a comprehensive plan. Furthermore, the protection for certain national interests, for example cultural environments and outdoor life, should be limited in favor of actually building housing.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! These evening debates are rarely of much significance. I shall try to stir the pot a little, so let's see if my colleagues wake up.

We are in the final term of the mandate period. Seven terms have passed. We are in the eighth. After almost four years, one should be able to show results – reforms, implemented changes, and clear improvements. But for the one reviewing the delivery, it is difficult to find more than ongoing work, commissioned inquiries, and postponed decisions. It is like following an education where seven terms have passed but the diploma still shines with its absence.

Sweden deserves more than administrative notes in the margin. Sweden deserves political leadership.

Mr. Speaker! The Government says that Sweden shall be robust. The Government says that we shall strengthen the preparedness. The Government says that we shall accelerate growth. But when it comes to perhaps the most fundamental question, how we use our land and our water, the Government delivers nothing other than empty words.

It is pleasing to hear Larry Söder in the speaker's chair. My colleague delivers good proposals. But the member's party colleague in the Government Offices, the Minister, delivers nothing. Every political proposal put forward by the opposition is met with the same answer: Work is underway.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden cannot be built on ongoing work. Sweden must be built on decisions made. This report is a receipt for a government that manages but does not reform.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden imports around half of the food we eat. Our self-sufficiency rate is therefore around 50 percent – this in an increasingly restless world. At the same time, productive agricultural land is being exploited step by step without a clear national prioritization. Land that has once been paved over will never come back. If the government is serious about preparedness, agricultural land must be given real weight in the planning.

Centerpartiet wants to tighten the protection of productive agricultural land, make food security a mandatory part of social planning, and ensure that exploitation only occurs when the public interest clearly outweighs. It is concrete policy. It is not references to future investigations.

Mr. Speaker! The investments in water and sewage systems are estimated to amount to several hundred billion kronor until 2040. I recoiled when I read that. Several hundred billion kronor – that is many tax kronor.

At the same time, water tax rates are being raised significantly all over the country. The colleague in the speaker's chair spoke of a doubling. I believe that is an underestimate. The protection of water bodies is uneven. The municipalities are left alone to solve the task. And the government waits, despite Larry Söder's good judgment.

Centerpartiet wants to strengthen the protection of strategic water sources and create long-term economic conditions for investments. That is how you take responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Now to that which truly requires a reform, namely the system of national interests – or rather, the system that has gone off the rails. The idea was simple: to protect nationally important values. Today, however, the system has grown into an administrative patchwork – and that is being kind.

Sweden today has over 300 areas of national interest. We have national interests for national interests. When almost everything is a national interest, nothing is prioritized anymore. What does this lead to? Well, it leads to overlapping and competing interests, unclear trade-offs, late government interventions in municipal processes, and delays of several years. Ultimately, it leads to a situation where municipalities plan and investors invest, and deep into the process, some interest emerges and stops the project. That is not how you create growth, Mr. Speaker. It is not legally secure, it is not predictable, and it hampers development across the entire country.

We have in practice created a system where the state designates enormous areas as national interests, but without a clear ranking, without a consequence analysis, and without responsibility for the effects. The Center Party wants to clarify what should actually constitute a national interest, clear away overlapping and obsolete areas, and introduce clearer proportionality assessments – that was a long word. National interests should be exceptions, not the norm. It perhaps requires political courage to say that. The government, however, chooses to duck, and there is certainly reason for that.

The role of the Sweden Democrats becomes very interesting here, Mr. Speaker. It is a party that often speaks about protecting property rights, but when landowners have their opportunities limited by vague national interests – then it is deathly silent. When the autonomy of municipalities is eroded through state reviews – then it is silent. When planning processes are delayed for years – shall we guess? Then it is silent.

It is easy to speak of sovereignty in grand words, but harder to defend it when it concerns concrete power over the land in Sweden. The Centre Party consistently stands up for property rights, local self-government, and predictability in regulations – not just in the speaker's chair but also in the legislative work.

Mr. Speaker! The difference is clear. The government manages a system that has become sluggish, unclear, and inefficient. The Centre Party wants to modernize it. We want to combine sustainability, growth, legal certainty, and local development power. It is possible to both protect natural values and create development, but it requires that one actually dares to work.

Mark and water are not details in the Environmental Code. They are the foundation for our food supply, our drinking water, our industry, our housing, and our preparedness. To reject all reform proposals by referring to the fact that work is ongoing is not decisiveness. It is to move backwards and hope for a Christian democratic hotline to higher powers. Sweden needs a government that leads, not a government that investigates.

We in Centerpartiet naturally stand behind all our motions in this report, but for the sake of time, we move for approval of reservation 20.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating issues concerning water. Water is perhaps what can give us a sense of how important it is that we treat nature in the long term and with respect. Clean water is not just an environmental issue. It is a preparedness issue, and it is a security issue. Without clean water, we will not be able to survive.

A report published by the UN states that the world consumes fresh water faster than it can be replenished. This is not a problem that only exists somewhere else, but we also see it in Sweden. With lower groundwater levels and drought, this will become, and should be treated as, a preparedness issue for our food production.

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would talk a little bit about hydropower. Most hydropower plants in Sweden were built during another time. Today we have approximately 2,100 hydropower plants in Sweden. Of these, 1,900 are small-scale and 210 are large-scale. It is therefore primarily from these 210 that we get the most electricity production. From the 1,700 smallest, we get 0.7 percent of the electricity production.

There is, however, a downside to this. With an expanded water system – which one could describe as an ecosystem's circulatory system – the ecosystems are fragmented by both dams and hydropower plants. Freely flowing water is a prerequisite for fish such as salmon, eel, and trout.

The greatest threat to fish stocks in Swedish watercourses is hydropower plants that have not been environmentally adapted. A third of these lack permits altogether, and only about a hundred have permits according to the current environmental legislation. They can therefore not live up to either the Environmental Code or the EU Water Framework Directive.

Mr. Speaker! In Jämtland County, salmon and eel are completely gone, and only one hydroelectric power plant in Jämtland has a passage that works for fish both upstream and downstream. A large part of the trout and grayling that are still caught and fished in the county comes from farmed and outplanted fish that are, therefore, raised on feed.

The question is: What does it do to our self-image and our pride when fishing is wiped out or is maintained in an artificial way? What does it do to people's pride when the same water that one perhaps fished in when one was small is now empty of fish? What do land and fishing rights actually become worth without content? How does it affect our ability to put food on the table, for example in times of crisis, if there is no fish in the wild?

Mr. Speaker! Hydroelectric power was, as said, built out in a different time and perhaps without the possibility of predicting the cumulative effect forward in time. Now we know, however, that only a few percent of the eel remains in the world. Salmon, trout, river pearl mussel and sea urchin are just a few examples of species that are completely dependent on just flowing water to live, reproduce and, in the long run, survive.

That was why we had a plan via the national plan – the NAP – and the hydropower environmental fund to help small-scale operations adapt to the environment. All those lacking permits could therefore apply for funds to either adapt to the environment or, if there was a willingness, demolish what was not economically profitable.

As has been stated here earlier in the debate, however, one of the first measures that this government chose to take was simply to pause the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. To pause a piece of legislation is truly to place very many people in uncertainty. It has made many people worried, as they have not been able to foresee what is going to happen. It has also annoyed and irritated the EU Commission.

This NAP had a holistic approach, weighed the electricity production values and the biological values together, and could, in the long run, weigh in possibilities for people to eat self-caught fish and create opportunities for electricity production.

Mr. Speaker! I know that it is possible to combine these values. I was recently at Hertingforsen and visited a very successful project – perhaps one of Sweden's most successful such projects. It has been possible to adapt the environment by removing one obstacle and changing another with a tool as simple as a fish ladder. They have successfully managed to tilt the ladder, which allows the fish to find their way and move both upstream and downstream past the obstacles belonging to the project. This shows that it is fully possible. Getting flowing water back over previously dry surfaces gives hope, both for the local population and for the biology and ecology. Now, salmon, sea trout, sea char, and eel can migrate both up and down the river.

The great obstacle today is the government's political reluctance. In a press release from last week, it became very clear when Sweden's Minister for the Environment said: "The possibilities for exceptions and lower requirements in EU law shall be fully utilized. The proposals contribute to ensuring that no more far-reaching requirements are set during the review of hydropower than what EU law requires."

Mr. Speaker! It is painfully clear that the government spends more time finding loopholes than actually addressing the major problems we have in Sweden. Property rights be all well and good, but they should also be protected for all those who wish to exercise their fishing rights and who have property rights downstream.

We in Miljöpartiet want to take a different path. We want to restore the possibility for the fish to survive. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 12 that environmental assessments of hydropower must be promptly resumed without weakened environmental requirements and that large-scale hydropower shall also be environmentally adapted with minimum flow as a good starting point.

Mr. Speaker! I also wanted to say a few words about Vättern. Vättern is one of our most important drinking water sources. More than 300,000 people receive their water from there today. More municipalities are waiting in line. In a few years, over 600,000 people could be dependent on the lake. However, there are plans to establish a mine near Norra Kärr. A Canadian company is being given the opportunity to establish a mine.

Mr. Speaker! With the legislation that exists now, foreign companies are prioritized higher than the residents in the area. The company's right to speculate weighs heavier than our food supply. Here, therefore, stand a foreign company's speculative interests against the environment, cultural environment, water, and agriculture and forestry.

Mr. Speaker! Norra Kärr is an unsuitable location for a mine. According to calculations, the content of rare earth metals is approximately 0.5 percent. This means that 99.5 percent of everything extracted there will become waste. In a global situation where access to water is becoming increasingly scarce, this is nothing less than strategic madness. It implies a long-term irreversible risk for Vättern if the process were to lead to it becoming a mine. That process has been ongoing for 16 years without anyone having been able to demonstrate either a functioning product, market, or process for extracting and producing the rare earth metals and separating them from one another.

These 16 years have meant uncertainty and laid a dead hand over a large landscape. People have had to live with worry over the farms, over the lands, and over the future. Is it even worthwhile to invest in one's farm and in one's production? Is there anything to leave behind for one's children? One might have intended to make a generational shift, but perhaps it is best to just sell and hope to escape seeing the consequences of such a mine.

The precautionary principle, the protection of drinking water, and the responsibility for future generations need to carry more weight than speculative mining. We in Miljöpartiet want to protect Vättern's water by making it a paramount national interest and ensuring that sufficient requirements are set. We want a remediation of the PFAS that was released in the area. We simply want to give more power to the local residents with the possibility of a municipal veto. Furthermore, we believe that the entire Mining Act would need to be modernized.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(The decision was to be taken on 4 March.)

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