Mineral policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S considers minerals to be crucial for the climate transition and that Sweden has a unique position for Europe's supply 1. S argues that the government has not taken sufficient steps to follow up on investigations and demands that the government take responsibility for putting pressure on the permit processes 1 2. S considers that society must take an overall responsibility and that the policy needs to make strategic decisions 2. SD considers that Sweden must be a modern industrial nation and that the uranium ban from 2018 should be repealed 3. SD argues that the ban is superfluous, counterproductive, and risks worsening the country's resilience 4 5 6. SD wants the industry and authorities to decide on the possibility of mining based on environmental requirements and profitability 5. SD safeguards the municipal veto and argues that the possibility to mine its own fuel should exist if Sweden is a nuclear power nation 4 6. SD considers that the fear of uranium mining is often unjustified 7.
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 (14)
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! We are to debate the Committee on Industry's report 13, Mineral Policy. It is a report built on motions from the general motion period.
I move for the approval of our reservation 3. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of only this one.
Humans have mined minerals for thousands of years - in Sweden for over 1,000 years. Iron, steel, zinc, copper, strategic and critical minerals, stone and lime are absolutely crucial for modern society, for the climate transition, and for the possibility of transitioning society to a climate-neutral one.
There is great geological potential for these minerals and metals in Sweden. The electrification in Sweden, our own and the EU's self-sufficiency with minerals and the work to meet the climate goals and reduce the dependence on other countries begins in the mine.
We must strengthen the industrial value chains in Europe and create real opportunities for electrification in the entire society. Sweden has a unique position here regarding both our own and Europe's supply. Iron ore is just as important now as it was 1,000 years ago. Many new strategic minerals can be added to it.
For this to be possible, we need to have efficient permit processes. Consultation is needed between those who apply and the authorities. Here, we feel it is important to get approval and have a declaration that the authorities must work more collaboratively, be more advisory, and provide support to a greater extent.
This is something that was included in the mandates that the previous Sledda government gave to responsible authorities and to the courts. We feel that it is a step in the right direction, but we do not see that the current government has taken the necessary steps to follow up on this. There is much left to do. So far, they have not shown what they want to do.
It must nevertheless be said that the permit issue is the big question. In the report, we see that the majority in the Committee on Industry has made announcements over several years. At the same time, the then S-led government commissioned several inquiries. Both the Environmental Assessment Inquiry and the Climate Justice Inquiry are referred and lie on the government's desk, ready to be turned into propositions.
In the Committee on Industry, we received a good overview of the Ds regarding the Natura 2000 assessment, which was also commissioned by the S-led government. It is ready to be put to work.
The investigation into access to strategic minerals was also appointed. That investigation is on the government's desk and has not been referred. That is perhaps what one could start with.
The big question is, therefore: What is the government actually waiting for? We see that they are stalling. There are several reasons to put pressure on the government in these matters. The business community is also reflecting and has provided wise input regarding both the Environmental Assessment Inquiry and the Climate Justice Inquiry. So get moving! What are you waiting for?
In the discussions, there is a lot of talk about complicated permit processes. But I would argue that the next big hurdle—if we are not already there—is conflicting interests, land conflicts. It is those that are already prolonging the permit reviews. And it is clear that in areas in northern Sweden, for example in my home municipality which lies in the Boliden field or up in the Malm fields, it is sometimes difficult to obtain new permits. But in other parts of the country, where one does not have the same experiences, it is probably near impossible to get a mine started.
Regardless of whether it concerns the reindeer husbandry, agriculture, or the freshwater, which other stakeholders see as important, it is clear that those interests will want to assert their rights and their opportunity to question the mine. Here we mean that society has an overarching responsibility. Just as the previous government handled Cementa, where the limestone quarrying that was completely crucial for the community could continue by granting a temporary permit, we believe that in certain strategic issues it is necessary that the government can actually make the decision. Otherwise, we risk getting stuck in extremely long conflicts between opposing interests, sometimes without end, area after area when it comes to the access to strategic minerals.
We see that there are now things to be done. We will continue to push on this. We will ask questions to the government. We expect the government to now take its responsibility and present what actually already exists. There are now four proposals - two are referred - that are ready to be turned into propositions to improve the permit management.
It is time now! The government must actually ensure that it is finalized.
Louise Eklund (L)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! I share the picture that the Member presents – that things need to happen in this area. We see that the innovation-critical minerals that we have very many of in Sweden can be of great use even globally.
But as the member points out, there are a number of goal conflicts. I do not think it was entirely clear where the member and the Social Democrats stand on this. It concerns precisely who has the right to the land. I perceived it as that in the strategic issues the member raises, it is simply a matter of "full steam ahead." I would need to hear a bit of what the member's and the Social Democrats' perception is regarding these goal conflicts, which concern, among other things, the same-byar. If I understand the member correctly, it is as said, just a matter of full steam ahead and starting to extract the minerals. I do not perceive it to be quite that simple. Can the member perhaps clarify what he means?
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! That is a good question. We see now, for example, regarding Fäboliden in Lycksele, that the Land and Environment Court says no to Dragon Mining's application to start a mine by referring to the fact that the total impact on reindeer husbandry, from traffic, forestry, and wind power, is too great.
We must also be aware that Trafikverket is not the world's smoothest agency in these matters. There are several examples, not least from Malmfälten, where a wildlife crossing could have significantly reduced conflicts and enabled continued mining.
I believe that the concerns are less prominent for me. The major concerns perhaps exist down with Louise Eklund, for example in Österlen. We see in area after area where new minerals that people want to mine are found, that there are large conflicts.
We mean that society must take greater responsibility and actually put its foot down on certain issues: These minerals or this limestone or stone are important for Sweden's and Europe's self-sufficiency, and if we are serious about the climate transition, we need to allow a certain amount of mining in Sweden. We cannot end up in this.
That is what we mean that politics needs to take responsibility for. That is what we are willing to do. But what does the government actually want to do?
We see now that there are a number of different proposals ready to shorten the permit processes, but so far we have not seen any workshop.
Louise Eklund (L)
Mr. Speaker! Now, we don't have that many reindeer down in Skåne. But from what I hear, I perceive that the Social Democrats will always choose the mining industry's interests over the Sami interests and the interests of the reindeer husbandry industries in Sweden. Is that how I should perceive the member?
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! We have fantastically many different interests up in northern Sweden. We have the Sámi. Louise Eklund has, among other things, counts, nuns, and others who engage in these issues in Skåne.
I believe we have greater experience with the Sami. The Land and Environment Court points out, when it comes to Fäbodliden, the cumulative impact. If then forestry, wind power, and roads have already affected the sameby (Sami village) to such an extent that the minerals, which cannot be moved, must give way, then the Minerals Act has not functioned. The Minerals Act says that a mineral that is extractable should be able to be extracted. Then one might have to provide compensation for encroachment to the sameby or other operations. That is how it has functioned previously. Now we have ended up in a situation that is not optimal for the climate transition.
Louise Eklund, we have work to do both in northern Sweden and in Skåne.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report 13, Mineral Policy. For my part, I usually spend the days before such a debate bouncing some thoughts back and forth in my head regarding what I should focus on and highlight in my speech. But before I get to that, I note that the Sweden Democrats have ten reservations in the report, if I have counted correctly. I naturally stand behind all of them, but I will content myself here with moving for approval of reservation 6 to save time during the voting. I also want to emphasize that we have a specific statement under point 4, which concerns the extraction of oil, coal, and natural gas as well as mining in alumschist.
With that said, Mr. Speaker, I think that we are now moving in the right direction in several respects. What do I mean by that? I recall debates here in the chamber a few years ago when I and committee colleagues from the other Tidö parties stubbornly insisted that something had to be done about the permit processes that have settled like a wet blanket over the industry. Then, after a turbulent autumn in 2021, we got a new Minister for Enterprise who claimed to love mines, and now we have an entire government that loves mines.
Several important matters are underway, both those that began being investigated during the last government's final period in power and those that we Tidö parties agree on. Other matters I wish were underway or that the government considered as highly prioritized as we do, hence all the reservations which do not in substance go in a diametrically different direction than the government's policy but rather are a bit sharper or clearer on certain points.
Some of them I think are particularly worthy of highlighting, for example the need for a new or revised Swedish mineral strategy. The old one is starting to show its age, has the wrong focus, and was written in a different spirit of the times when completely different geopolitical conditions prevailed. So it is, Mr. Speaker: This is an issue that should not only be considered from an industrial policy perspective but also with regard to its geopolitical dimension.
We need raw materials. Industry needs them to create jobs and products that both we Swedes and people in other parts of the world buy or benefit from. Looking out here in the chamber, I see members sitting with computers and phones that contain a long series of metals and minerals that we hardly reflect upon. Someone might have an artificial hip or knee joint. Most have a car. The majority have traveled here today by bus or subway. I myself fly between Stockholm and my home municipality Gällivare. So far, metals and minerals have been needed for all of this.
There are those who argue that, for example, wind turbines can rather be built of wood than of steel, but I allow myself to believe that it will be a while before I myself fly home in a paper airplane and before we replace the doctors' scalpels with wooden knives. Metals and minerals are needed and are actually what distinguishes us from our ancestors, the Stone Age people, who had not yet learned to handle and take advantage of precisely metals.
Today we use metals for all sorts of things - and impossible things. Even though we export some, we are also dependent on the import of even more, partly because our industrial production in several respects needs more raw material than we produce ourselves, and partly because certain metals and minerals either do not exist here or, for various reasons, are not mined here despite known deposits.
An example of this is the basic element uranium. It is an element that we need to utilize as fuel in our nuclear power plants, a type of energy that we have also decided to have more of in the future. But the mining of uranium was prohibited in 2018 by the then S-MP government, a decision made entirely on ideological grounds because no uranium mining had occurred in Sweden for decades, but the uranium was sought by the prospecting companies as it functions as a lead metal in the pursuit of the rare earth metals that the uranium opponents often claim should be part of the green transition they strive for.
I am completely convinced that this was a stupid, irrational, and actually completely unnecessary decision. Regardless of whether one, like me, believes in nuclear power and wants to invest in it, or dislikes nuclear power but still wants to see a well-functioning prospecting of input materials that can provide the conditions for a higher degree of electrification, one should be in favor of repealing the ban that was introduced in 2018. That the government, which now consists of single parties that opposed this legislation, has still not acted to reject the uranium ban is a mystery to me. This year we therefore have a reservation on the area, but the hope is, of course, that we, together with the government parties, will clear this issue from the political buffet table during the mandate period.
For me, mining and mineral policy is very much about whether we should be a modern industrial nation or not - whether we want to maintain and create new value chains that generate jobs and welfare, or whether we should be dependent on the import of raw materials from countries with many times a questionable view on both democracy and human value. For me, the answer is obvious: Swedish mines and our ability to mine and extract the raw materials and refine them into world-class products is something we should be proud of.
Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a new geopolitical situation. Not very far from here, a war is being waged. It is the first time since Hitler's era that we have a war so close to us. Putin's violation of international law in the war against Ukraine may have caused some to wake up and realize that we should not be dependent on imports of raw materials we need for our energy supply or manufacturing industry. The same question we should ask ourselves when it comes to China. China is a country from which we import almost all the metals we need for, for example, our battery production. China is also a country that is not capable of condemning Putin's actions in Ukraine. How do we justify that we have access to cobalt in Sweden without mining it while simultaneously importing cobalt from China?
We recently, at the end of the previous parliamentary term, prohibited the extraction of natural gas, coal, and oil and mining in alunschist. Now I must say frankly that I am really not a strong supporter of any of this, but we did it in a rare time of unrest and even though no such mining was relevant in Sweden. I mean that it is symbolic politics that has been allowed to take precedence over national security policy. My and the Sverigedemokraternas view is that it is foolish to prohibit things that do not constitute a problem if the decisions one makes also risk worsening the country's resilience in difficult situations. For this reason, there is a special statement from Sverigedemokraterna in today's report.
We have called for a review of the rules governing the industry to ensure that they are functional and benefit us even in crisis situations. Those of you who were present during the last parliamentary term surely remember how the Riksdag was quickly forced to act and change laws so that the prospecting industry would not collapse because the rules governing the operations were not designed in a way that was adapted for closed borders—which we did experience due to the pandemic, as you know.
Mr. Speaker! Much good and exciting is happening within the industry. The mining industry is a fantastic industry with faith in the future. Sweden holds the lead in several respects. And I think that overall we are moving in the right direction, now also politically. On the licensing side, a lot is happening. For example, we seem to be moving towards an arrangement where a Natura 2000 assessment will no longer be a prerequisite for a processing concession but will occur in parallel with the environmental permit process, and that is very good. We see that the interest in the industry has grown. Hopefully, acceptance will also increase as the mining industry provides some of the future solutions and takes a greater responsibility for our shared environment.
Mr. Speaker! I spoke earlier in my speech about clearing the table of questions from the political buffet. One such question concerns giving the authorities that handle permit processes linked to the industry a clear promotional mandate, something that we will, judging by everything, also announce here in the Riksdag when this report is voted upon.
My hope is that, as we approach the end of the mandate period, we can look out over a table where we have even set out the dessert, because from a political standpoint, with determination and faith in the future, we have done what we could to create the best possible conditions for a competitive industry that means a great deal for Sweden as an industrial nation and for the prosperity that the industry generates and which benefits us all.
In this speech, Anna-Lena Blomkvist, Josef Fransson and Daniel Lönn (all SD) concurred.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eric Palmqvist, for the speech! What I spoke about in my speech was conflicting interests. I have probably never met any local politician who has said: We should have a uranium mine.
How do the Sweden Democrats intend to convince the municipalities to have a mine? Or is it simply the case that a municipal veto when it comes to a uranium mine is not on the Sweden Democrats' table? How do the Sweden Democrats intend to handle the question of the municipalities' influence when it comes to uranium mining?
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Unlike the previous government, we have not wanted to abolish the municipal veto - as the previous government wanted with the wind power. We safeguard the municipal veto. And it is obviously not entirely simple to get municipalities to want to break out of it.
Until we introduced the ban, we had an order in Sweden with the Environmental Code, the Mining Act, the Nuclear Energy Act, and the municipal veto, which regulated whether one could open uranium mines or not. Therefore, we argue that the ban on uranium mining was completely superfluous and did not need to be introduced. We didn't have mining for a period of 40-60 years, so to speak.
We are in no way seeking to overturn any municipal veto. I want to emphasize that and hope that the member feels reassured by that answer.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! We have said this: If it is the case that the government has found that prospectors and extractors cannot extract strategic minerals due to the uranium ban, a proposition must be submitted, and then we shall take a position on this.
The starting point was that all municipal politicians who had some form of known uranium deposit within their municipality said a flat no to all mining activities, and it harms the mining industry as a whole.
The starting point is exactly the one that Eric Palmqvist describes. We had uranium mining in Falköping in the 1960s and 1970s. In total, about 250 tons were mined. Sweden's need is about 1,500 tons per year - enriched. We have purchased the enriched uranium primarily from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France, which in turn have purchased the uranium primarily from Australia and Canada.
I think that every country should do what it is best at. In this area, we considered that the fear of uranium mining harmed the mining industry more. It is exactly as Eric Palmqvist says: We have not mined any uranium for many, many years. We have imported it, because it is other democratic countries in the Western world, for example Australia, that have been better than Sweden has been in this area. We still think that the countries that are best at this, and which are democratic, should engage in this activity. We want to ensure that the municipalities feel secure. If a mine is started, it must be environmentally safe and climatically and long-term sustainable.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, I agree that it should be broken in democratic countries. There we are in complete agreement. There is fear of mining in general and of uranium mining in particular. Many times it is an unjustified fear, and it is built on a great deal of negative campaigning from the green movement and so on.
I wanted to take hold of another matter that Member Isak From raised in his speech. One pats oneself on the chest a bit because the situation with the limestone quarrying has been resolved. We faced a dilemma when it came to the limestone quarrying on Gotland. One was forced into a corner, so to speak, and had to create legislation to resolve that part.
Let us say that I nail up my own garage when it is 30 degrees cold at home in Gällivare and I cannot get the car in, and I then break off the planks on the garage door and manage to get the car in. I do not know if I would then pat myself on the chest for solving the situation. I might instead think that it was a lack of sense to nail up the garage in the first place. That is somewhat the situation that occurred in Gotland. It was a consequence of the previous government's actions. What are the member's thoughts on that?
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I also intended to dwell on Eric Palmqvist's statement regarding removing the ban on uranium mining in Sweden. I cannot interpret this as anything other than that the Sweden Democrats wish to open up for uranium mining on Swedish territory, which I view as extremely serious.
I also react to the fact that Eric Palmqvist says that the opposition to uranium mining in Sweden would be due to a campaign without basis. But the fact is that mining activity and in particular uranium mining has large environmentally negative effects and negative effects on people's health. We have therefore for a long time developed the mining policy in Sweden to ensure safety for the health of workers, the local population, and the local environment.
Globally, there are as many examples as one can count of when an irresponsible handling of these types of issues affects the local population and, for example, livestock can no longer even eat. They are grotesque stories about the impact on health.
To Eric Palmqvist, it sounds as if this is completely harmless. Can you explain what underlies that and what health and environmental aspects you see regarding uranium mining, also linked to alunschist, which it is often associated with when it comes to uranium resources in Sweden?
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Elin Söderberg for the question.
I am absolutely in favor of opening uranium mines if it can be done in an environmentally reassuring way. This applies to all industry and other business. I think a ban in principle is counterproductive, but it is highly legitimate to have high environmental requirements. If one can meet them and also have a business case, that is, make it both environmentally viable and profitable, I see no problem.
We have the Environmental Code, the Minerals Act, the Nuclear Energy Act, and the municipal veto to regulate this. I do not think a ban that lies like a wet blanket on top of that is necessary. I think that the industry, together with the expert authorities, should be able to determine whether it is appropriate or not.
It is not only mining that can be associated with environmental problems, as the member stated. Globally, the chemical industry and other heavy industries have had major environmental challenges and disasters, for example in Bhopal.
I think we should be proud of our tradition of an industry at the forefront and that we should have confidence that we can do this in a way that both benefits us as a nation and removes the environmental risks that may be linked to this.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden has, for good reason, not had any uranium mining for decades. I wonder why the Sweden Democrats want to expose the Swedish population, the Swedish local community, and the Swedish environment to the risks and consequences that an opening for uranium mining would entail. We have, as said, succeeded in staying away from this for decades.
For us in Miljöpartiet, it is absolutely central that the green transition becomes just green and environmentally and socially sustainable. For us, it is therefore self-evident that uranium should not start being mined in Sweden.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! We have had these legislations in place and have not had any uranium mining for around 40-50 years in Sweden, partly due to poor profitability, partly because there has been compact opposition to it. A law was therefore introduced that served no purpose whatsoever. The only thing the law has achieved is to make it more difficult for the prospecting companies that have used uranium as a lead metal to find the metals and minerals that the environmental movement is actually convinced are important for the green transition.
If we were to abolish this law and make it legal for companies to prospect for uranium and mine it for its fissile properties, we would not get some kind of uranium bonanza in Sweden. There would probably be just as little interest in it after as before, but we believe that the possibility should exist.
If we are a nuclear power nation and believe in this type of energy, we should also be able to produce our own fuel.
We also do not know from a preparedness perspective and the like what it will look like in Sweden in the future. For other reasons, we may need to come to the point and enrich uranium. In that case, there should not be a prohibition in the way; instead, what should stand in the way is whether we can do it in an acceptable way from an environmental perspective or not, and whether the industry can do it with profit or not.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.