Mineral policy

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

Mr. Speaker! Today we devote ourselves to something that lies in Sweden's soul. It does not only lie in Sweden's soul but in our Swedish, stable, solid bedrock. Mines and minerals have been part of our country as long as Sweden has existed - for obvious reasons if they are in the bedrock. But for over a thousand years, we Swedes have engaged in mining activities. Sweden's oldest mine in operation, the Garpenberg mine outside Hedemora, was mentioned in text already 800 years ago. It pleases a strongly conservative person like me that we still continue this tradition. I usually say that there is nothing more conservative than wanting to save the planet.

Mr. Speaker! Throughout all these centuries, the ore and minerals have been refined in our industry and created progress and prosperity for generations of Swedes.

The mining industry still forms the base of our industrial nation and constitutes the first step in a long processing chain, which ends in all the fantastic products that we live with today. Our thousand-year tradition of mining does not only contribute ore and refined steel. It has also created the world's most successful technology companies in ore mining. Swedish companies are estimated to constitute approximately 60 percent of the world market when it comes to underground technology.

I had the privilege, together with good committee colleagues from all parties, to take a trip to both the USA and Canada to see a part of the impeccable Swedish leadership when it comes to mining technology and thereby environmental technology. As I will return to, mines and the extraction of minerals are a prerequisite for the green transition. It is something that perhaps is not as obvious in the Swedish debate as it should be. But more on Miljöpartiet later.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's future as a mining nation is not just a national issue. In the EU, Swedish mines account for over 90 percent of the iron ore, a third of all zinc and all lead, nearly a fifth of all gold and silver, and a tenth of all copper. What is the problem then? Well, the problem is that it is too little. There are too few mines.

The EU and Sweden are in great need of minerals, iron, copper, rare earth elements, and uranium. The future requires minerals; they are absolutely crucial for a green transition to be possible at all - absolutely crucial. Furthermore, they are required for the products of the future. Today's products - whether it concerns medical technology, microchips, or vehicles - make the 90s equivalents look like antiques, and in 30 years, people will think the same about what we use today. For that technological development to be possible, and for tomorrow's society, minerals are required.

The biggest elephant in the room, however, is something else, namely the security aspect. For most metals, the EU is almost exclusively dependent on imports from, to put it diplomatically, less reliable countries. The global situation has clearly demonstrated the importance of being able to maintain self-sufficiency as much as possible. For Europe, this concerns not only the import of minerals and metals but also the knowledge and ability to refine them, which has disappeared and been caused by the fact that we do not have naturally mined these critical materials in our vicinity.

Many things and matters went wrong during the eight years when the Social Democrats ruled the country, and Sweden's position as an attractive mining nation was no exception. Previously, we were in the tight cluster year after year, but with constant demands from the former Social Democratic government for increased bureaucracy, it went rapidly downhill. In the international mining ranking, Sweden was in 8th place in the entire world under the Moderate-led Alliance government. After the Social Democrats took over government responsibility in 2014, Sweden plummeted from 8th place to 36th place. We plummeted to 36th place!

It has been a gloomy period - an unacceptable and unsustainable period - but we can now see a light at the end of the tunnel. With a forward-looking government built on the Tidö agreement, we will strengthen our position as one of the world's leading mining nations. Above all, we shall reclaim the leading position we once had.

The change has begun: A new mineral strategy is being drafted right now in the Government Offices. Investigations to shorten the permit processes have been initiated, and previously presented investigations are expected to land on the Riksdag's table within not a too distant future - or rather, within a quite immediate future. For example, the Geological Survey of Sweden, SGU, has received a much-needed addition to its budget with a focus on improving the mapping of Swedish ore deposits and discovering new finds. Additionally, the mineral and mining industry at large is to be promoted. It is not a day too early.

Furthermore, the government is looking into lifting the ban on uranium mining, which would be a very welcome change. It would open up the possibility of strengthening Swedish and European supply of uranium. However, it is not the uranium that is the important part. Today's ban limits the possibility of mining a number of rare earth metals as well as vanadium, as the deposits are often found together with uranium. It is also the case that it is the other metals that are primarily the ones to be mined, which means that the uranium will mainly be mined as a byproduct. This Social Democratic ban policy from 2018 has become a roadblock for the green transition and for a strengthened Swedish and European self-sufficiency.

The government has also initiated work on a real obstacle for Swedish mining, namely the lesser-known problem that Sweden has unnecessarily many water bodies on paper. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management has now been given a mandate to begin analyzing this and see if it is possible to reduce these paper products.

In steady steps, we are moving away from the previous government's bureaucratic policy and towards a business-promoting line that can build a prosperous Sweden for the future. I could stand here and completely exhaust my allotted speaking time by going through everything that is now being done and will be done to strengthen the Swedish mining industry.

It also pleases me that one can sense a broad consensus in the Riksdag for a more efficient mineral policy where companies are welcomed instead of being opposed. That the Social Democrats are pivoting from their previously pursued policy is something we are used to, and we now look forward with interest to which other party they intend to blame for their own previous line. Then, of course, remains the eternal question: Will the Social Democrats stand up for the mining industry when their primary partner, Miljöpartiet, demands new bureaucracy and new bans in the future? Can they manage to hold the line? Can they manage to put Sweden first?

With the combination of efficient permit processes, wise legislation, and sustainable environmental requirements, the Swedish mining industry shall flourish once again. More, and new, mines shall be given the opportunity to, like the Garpenberg mine, achieve the commendable age of 800 years. For the green transition, for technological development, and for future Swedish prosperity, we need more mines.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) and Eric Palmqvist (SD) concurred.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Mats Green! We who have followed Historien om Sverige on SVT have understood the mining industry's importance for Sweden's prosperity. Undoubtedly, that is the case.

I understand that for a strongly conservative member like Mats Green, it must be quite a struggle to get a grip on and tear apart the mineral strategy that was developed by the alliance government and which Annie Lööf presented. It is, after all, that mineral strategy that has formed the basis for the government's work.

We also naturally see that this mineral strategy needs to be updated and redone based on the conditions that exist today and based on the new needs that were not seen then. It is about the entire EU's need to supply us with necessary minerals. My question to Mats Green is, however, whether the new mineral strategy will also include housing, infrastructure, education, innovation, and recycling. How will those parts be incorporated?

If one cannot live in a mining town and one cannot transport the ore from a mining town and further process it in Boden or Skellefteå – or ship it somewhere from Narvik – then the mineral strategy will namely be completely worthless. It is these factors that are absolutely crucial for Sweden to be able to become the mining nation that Sweden once was. Sweden must function better. One must be able to live and invest in a life in Kiruna, Gällivare, Boden, Skellefteå and so on.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I feel very uncomfortable. It is not really my business to defend Annie Lööf – it is perhaps not quite what I have devoted the last four years to – but I actually have to do it now.

It is clear that it is not because of Annie Lööf as former Minister for Enterprise, or because of the mineral strategy that the Alliance government developed at the time when Sweden was at the top of the mining ranking that we have plummeted to place 36. That is not the reason why we have plummeted, but the reason why we have plummeted is the policy that the previous government - consisting of both the Social Democrats and the Green Party - pursued. It actually hindered everything that mining is about and bureaucratized almost everything to pieces.

So, as to the question of whether the mineral strategy should contain all other things that politics and society should occupy themselves with. No, then it perhaps is not a mineral strategy. The mineral strategy should, of course, primarily be about mines and minerals and related issues.

Then it is obvious that we must make it easier to live in the whole country. We address the shore protection, for example, and I hope that the Social Democrats are on board with that. We address a number of other issues regarding infrastructure. We have a Norrland strategy on the way. But all of this is, of course, not pushed into a mineral strategy, because then it would be a purely general strategy. This is, naturally, about mines and minerals.

I would still like to call for some form of self-criticism. Member of Parliament Isak From knows mining; he comes from Västerbotten. When he looks critically at the past eight years with Social Democratic governments, what would Isak From have wanted to do differently? Is there anything there that he regrets given the drop from 8th place to 36th place in the international mining ranking? I would gladly hear something about that from the member.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Mats Green's answer here indicates how it is going to be.

One can open a mine. To open the mine, one needs competent labor, who need to be able to live at the mine. It is a completely self-evident prerequisite to gain local acceptance.

The Moderates voted no several times regarding the change of the shore protection, but so far I have not seen a single residence built anywhere in Sweden because the shore protection has in any way put obstacles in the way when it comes to connections to a mineral strategy.

Mats Green said in his speech that a mandate has been given to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management to review water bodies. Water bodies exist throughout the entire country, Mr. Speaker. If nothing else, we have – hopefully – groundwater, which needs to have a relevant protection. That is why we have quite strong legislation to ensure that it is protected, and that is usually the case.

I still do not see any result of what Mats Green is talking about, but we will, of course, follow this work.

I can state that the mineral strategy from the alliance government arrived at the end of the mandate period, so that we then fell can be attributed to that.

If I am to be self-critical, I can say that we did not see the enormously high pace that the green industrial transition would entail. We did not quite see that the policy did not keep up when the business sector accelerated and started enormous investments in the class of 1,000 billion kronor. It is clear that there we can feel self-critical. Infrastructure, housing construction, and skills supply are areas where we see that we did too little. There we naturally need to do better.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, above all, the industry was bureaucratized to pieces. We should not blame Miljöpartiet for everything because the Socialdemokraterna are just as responsible for that.

Again: A drop from 8th place to 36th place in the international mining ranking is a catastrophe for Sweden, which is also one of the world's oldest and best mining nations, especially when representing the parts of the country where we have the most mines.

So, regarding the question about housing. I have a past as a housing policy spokesperson. I can only state that despite the worst housing crisis in several decades, no government in modern times, or at least not in 50 years, has done so little to increase housing construction as the previous government.

Now this government is taking a holistic approach to all of this. One is taking a holistic approach to the shore protection. It is not everything so far, but it matters. One is taking a holistic approach to the planning issues and the rules there. One also ensures to invest in owner-occupied housing.

Then you cannot cram all of this into a single strategy. Then it becomes, so to speak, one and the same strategy for all of Sweden, regardless of the area of society, and then it is not a mining and minerals strategy.

I can also state that this government has already taken more measures to strengthen the mining industry in one year than the previous government managed to do in eight years. So it is proven, and we have only just begun. When we stand here next year and the year after that, we will have been able to do even more to invest in a strong Swedish mining industry.

Then we have also lifted the ban on enriching uranium, this completely illogical ban which also strikes against the green transition.

I hope that we have the Social Democrats on board now. I hope that there is some self-criticism and that we can move forward together to strengthen the basic industry that is quite close to the hearts of both myself and Isak From.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I perceived scattered bursts of criticism against the Social Democrats and the Green Party, so I thought I would say a few words and perhaps ask a few questions.

When we talk about uranium mining, I just want to clarify that Miljöpartiet still does not think we should mine uranium in Sweden, for several different reasons.

I would like to ask Mats Green if he can see any reasons not to mine uranium in Sweden and perhaps also if he can see any alternatives to mining uranium and alunite in Sweden.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, there is no reason whatsoever to have a general ban on the mining of uranium.

Then, of course, one must have strong environmental legislation. If it is directly unsuitable to mine uranium or any other metal at a certain specific location, it naturally should not be done. But this kind of "thought ban" and general prohibition serves no purpose. Furthermore, it often complicates the mining of rare earth metals, which are completely necessary and crucial for the green transition.

It is there that I think the Green Party is getting a bit lost. One says that one wants to lead the way for the green transition, but many of the rare earth metals are a prerequisite for the green transition - for example, dysprosium, which has an extremely high level of magnetism and which is needed in wind turbines. One is for mines in theory, but in practice, one says no to all mines. One stands in the Riksdag and says that one has nothing against the mining industry, but one does not have a single proposal to facilitate for the mining industry.

I would like to ask the Green Party where in the world the metals necessary for the green transition should be mined if they cannot be mined in Sweden, where they are located and where they can be mined with great respect for both working conditions and environmental requirements. Where does the Green Party want to mine all of this? Should it be in Chinese mines? Should it be in mines in Congo? Please explain to me where these rare earth metals should be mined. I have not received any answer so far. I hope that I can get it from Member of Parliament Katarina Luhr.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will return to what we in Miljöpartiet would like to see in our mineral strategy in my speech.

When it comes to where the metals should come from, we actually need to use more strategies than just digging up all the minerals that exist. We also need to recycle. We need to reuse. We need to take minerals from the slag heaps that exist. We also need to design smarter products that contain less metal or other substances. But I will speak more about that later.

Mats Green said in his speech that we should review the water resources in Sweden. Mining can affect water quite significantly, and there is a great deal of concern in many local communities that water resources will be destroyed due to mining.

We also see that we stand in a society that has increasing climate changes. In some cases, we have completely unpredictable amounts of water when water reservoirs fill up and dry out.

I therefore wonder if Mats Green does not see that as we move forward, we need to be even more afraid for our water in the future. Does Mats Green see any benefits in protecting our water and actually ensuring that the water we have is healthy and clean?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Scrap heaps cannot solve the green transition for us. We will need them too, but it is not realistic to believe that they ensure we get the necessary minerals to manage the green transition. We naturally need to start new mines and extract more from the existing ones. We need everything. We cannot exclude anything. The exclusions and the prohibitions on thinking are the Miljöpartiets area of business, and we do not share their view.

Regarding guarding the water, I live myself by one of Sweden's and Northern Europe's largest bodies of water, namely Vättern. It is of course that we guard the water, but we cannot have a mass of general prohibitions against everything in Sweden. That is not to say that one should be allowed to break [the rules] everywhere. It is clear that it must be weighed against local environmental issues and environmental requirements – but general prohibitions, regardless of what they are about, we must move away from. We cannot manage the green transition in that way, nor can we manage Sweden's prosperity or the survival of democracy, if one is to be a bit blunt.

We need to get rid of the dependence on countries like China, Russia and others that have very little to offer for democracy and absolutely nothing for the green transition. We need to become more self-sufficient. We must be able to mine all the rare earth metals that exist in Sweden. Away with the general bans! That is what we Moderates stand for.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have six reservations in the mineral report, but for the sake of time, we only demand reservation 15 under point 11, which concerns a new or revised mineral strategy.

Mr. Speaker! This week has been characterized by a lot of mineral, metal, and agricultural policy. We have had a seminar in the Riksdag on alunschist, groundwater, and the conditions for mining, among other things, vanadium and uranium. Iva had a large seminar yesterday and a report release with a geopolitical analysis of the conditions and the need, particularly for the EU and Sweden, to increase their supply degree of metals and minerals. Furthermore, we naturally have the debate here. In the morning, we also had a steel seminar here in the Riksdag on the conditions for Sweden to become completely world-leading and that our actors LKAB, SSAB, and H2 Green Steel can carry out their large investments so that they become successful.

It is one step in the value-added chain that increases the value of our already mined metals. It is clear that this is how you achieve economy in it and create competitiveness against countries that can dig up the metal with an excavator under environmental conditions that we do not accept.

We find ourselves in a geopolitical situation that creates new risks. The supply chains for metals and minerals have been built on a trade policy where we have been able to trade with the entire world. But with Russia's war of invasion in Ukraine, very strong and clear obstacles were created for trading with Russia. China's total dominance in the area also puts the spotlight on how the EU can ensure its self-sufficiency of critical metals. Even for the semiconductor components, which are a completely central part of the climate transition, industries in both Sweden and the EU actually need to ensure that they build supply chains and create demand here.

It is clear that as long as one can trade with Taiwan and South Korea, it might work, but how long can Taiwan and South Korea trade with China? That must be taken into account. Therefore, this is also a central issue. It is a self-sufficiency issue and a security issue, and it creates the insight that we perhaps knew this earlier. But then the world situation and the geopolitical situation were not as they are now.

It is also clear that Sweden can be a strongly contributing actor in this work, as these metals and minerals have to some extent been mined previously. But they were mined because one mined a base metal such as iron, copper, zinc or gold. There are today slag heaps and other large deposits that have not been extracted.

We also see the need for research and innovation in this area so that new technology can be used to safely manage metals and minerals that are present in smaller quantities when the important base metals are mined.

The permit issue is central. In light of the EU's raw materials strategy, stricter, tougher requirements are being placed on the member states. A permit should take 24-30 months to obtain. Given the situation we have today in the mining area, that is not the case. We need to take steps forward. Here, it is primarily about opposing interests. It is therefore other interests that believe certain activities should not be allowed.

It could be the water that people are afraid for, such as at Norra kärr, in Skåne or in Jämtland. The important water must be secured. It is of course not an unimportant issue; for the people who are affected, it is a particularly important issue that the environmental assessment works and proceeds correctly.

It can also be about the conditions for the industry or the neighbors. Most often, it is someone else who thinks that an activity should take place somewhere else.

The County Administrative Boards point out that senior companies and perhaps exploration companies – which often come from Australia, Canada, or somewhere else – frequently hire consultancy firms and that their applications are not complete but lack something. In that case, the authority must be transparent and have its own competence to manage the issue.

We also cannot say no simply because the application does not meet all the criteria and the authority says that it needs to be supplemented. In the future, with the EU's raw materials strategy, there will of course be a no at an earlier stage for those who do not meet the criteria, but here, the industry therefore has a job to do in ensuring that the documentation they actually submit is as complete as possible.

Then there also needs to be transparency in those cases, so that in the dialogue one can reach an agreement on, for example, where the dams, the roads, and so on shall be.

Often there can also be so-called cumulative effects, for example when residents feel that the road is too much of a disturbance or that another business is too affected. In that situation, for example, Trafikverket also needs to become more responsive.

Many of these questions, and several other questions, need to be included in a new mineral strategy. The mineral strategy that we live with now does not take into account Sweden's and the EU's needs for strategic metals and minerals. We need to increase recycling, but to be able to do that we also need new mining.

The operations at Rönnskärsverken in Skellefteå have increased manifold, largely due to recycled material. But there, one can at most recycle up to ten or thirteen different metals and minerals, and there is significantly more to do. There is a need for research and innovation here. Therefore, we will press that the research and innovation strategy that the government presents must also take this issue into account.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When I listen to Member From's speech on mineral strategy, I see a painting with a lot of amounts on the wall here. Behind 1,000 kronor mineral strategy, the question is hidden: Should we have a new mineral strategy? And I say as the host of Jeopardy: Welcome to the match!

When Sweden sank like a stone in Fraser Institute's ranking of countries where it was worth investing in the mining industry, we motioned in 2019, 2020, and 2021 to develop a new mineral strategy, but the party that was in government at the time thought it was a very bad idea. They thought that Annie Lööf's mineral strategy from 2013 was good, even though the industry said something completely different.

I would very much like the member From to explain why it is more correct now with a new mineral strategy than it was previously. What is it that has caused the coin at the Socialdemokraterna to fall into the piggy bank now, which was not entirely obvious a few years ago?

I also have a question about what the member thinks regarding the waste heaps. Breaking rock in a mine costs over 100,000 kronor for five meters. One does not break it just for fun. What lies up on the hill, however, is almost free to load. You need a loader, a few trucks, and a crusher. It is almost free.

If there had been a business case in this, the industry would have already done it. One should not have an over-reliance on something that the industry would otherwise have done on its own.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eric Palmqvist, for the questions! The questions are important and justified.

I would say that it essentially concerns two events. But first, I must say that I cannot recall us having applauded the mineral strategy in any great way. It was, after all, practically new at the time, and it naturally needed to take effect.

But then, two things occurred. There was a significantly worsened geopolitical situation with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The other thing that has changed the permit review is the Supreme Court's judgment regarding Norra Kärr. The evidence submitted to the court was considered too small and not sufficiently comprehensive. The court has judged that significantly greater weight should be attached to neighbors, other industries, and other activities.

This was handled by the previous government by sending this back to the mining master and SGU. It is clear that a new mineral strategy also needs to take that issue into account. It is not unimportant.

Just as I touched upon in my speech, it will not require particularly many people in a location that feels concern that the water will be degraded in order to say no. This important issue must be able to be handled with trust in the mining industry.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to have a slightly clearer answer as to what it is that has caused the penny to drop. One cannot simply point to an ongoing war and the individual incident with Norra kärr. The industry has, for a number of years, called for a new strategy, and we saw already earlier, long before the war in Ukraine broke out, that we sank in the Fraser Institute's ranking. Then a penny must drop somewhere regarding the insight that we have an outdated strategy.

We did not start talking about the transition at the same moment that Russia invaded Ukraine. I want to remind everyone that the discussion about the green transition and new rare earth metals was something that was on the agenda long before that.

Again: I would like to know why it has become relevant at this specific moment from the Social Democrats' side to acknowledge the need for a new mineral strategy.

I still want to ask the member: If it had been a business case to load old waste ores and slag heaps, wouldn't the industry have already done this? It is very costly to run a mine. It is costly with every blast that goes. There are so many moments in a blasting cycle that can be avoided by taking such things that are already piled up on the ground. Wouldn't the industry have already done this if it were profitable, does the member believe?

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! The questions are important. It is clear that it is primarily about old transgressions. Many of the slag heaps we are talking about are lying in ponds. They were mined much earlier, in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, when the technology was not advanced and the need for the metals and minerals that we need today was not so great.

Then it was the base metals they wanted, and the leaching process was not perfected. Today, just as Eric Palmqvist says, one fills back as much as possible of the byproduct directly into an underground mine. But for an old deposit, which may contain large amounts of lead and cadmium, you need an environmental permit if you want to backfill with material from an old landfill. And the environmental impact can be even greater if you are going to tear it up, because especially lead and cadmium can be present in very large quantities. Then we are talking about environmental toxins in quite large quantities. That must also be taken into account.

I have myself been involved in Björkdalsgruvan, for example. There, they stopped at the end of the 80s, and when the mine was restarted in the late 90s, they began by processing the old gray rock. The technology had, in fact, advanced so much.

Naturally, there are also economic factors in this. A new mine should also have the conditions to take advantage of the entire value chain, and therefore we want a research and innovation strategy that also includes this.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

The business sector is large and multifaceted, just as it should be. However, some industries come before others in the value chain, and to these belongs the mining industry. It is a prerequisite for so much else that we want to achieve. Without a vital mining industry - no good social construction. So one could summarize the whole thing somewhat drastically.

As an overarching goal, we agree across party lines here in the chamber that we shall have a climate transition. In that, the mining industry is not only important but a fundamental prerequisite.

What is the status today for the mining industry? I think two headlines from Dagens industri can summarize the situation a bit.

On 26 January 2022, one could read: "Record few mining companies want to prospect in Sweden". It was not a very good headline if one wants to achieve the climate transition. But I believe it measured the temperature correctly at that time.

On 2 January 2024, one could read in the same newspaper: "Increased interest in Swedish mines: 'Violently optimistic'".

What a difference in tone! What is it that has happened? Yes, it has been a choice between these two headlines. A new government was formed, a government that, with Minister for Enterprise and Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch at the helm, has made the mining industry feel the wind in its sails as the business sector's green transition is to be implemented.

Sweden has an almost fantastic position to start from. We have an almost fossil-free electricity system as a foundation. It needs to be scaled up, and there is much that needs to be addressed. But we have something good to take off from. We are not starting from square one.

Mr. Speaker! We also have very good resources of minerals and metals. Several of them are rare and necessary for the green transition. Our country, like other countries in the EU, is today to a very large extent dependent on countries that we perhaps do not want to be so dependent on.

We have a very high level of competence among employees within the industry. Sweden has, compared to many other countries, a relatively high wage level. This, together with high requirements for environmental consideration and safety, has sharpened our mining industry and inspired innovation and new thinking. Sweden's attractiveness is not built on us being cheap, but on us being good. It is a path we shall continue to walk.

But if we go back to that headline in Dagens industri in January 2022, we are reminded that Sweden had fallen slightly behind when it comes to the mining industry.

Mr. Speaker! No completely new mines had been started for a long time. A full 95 percent of the ore mined in the country comes from mines older than 50 years, and prospecting took place only in existing mines. The permit processes have been long, costly and, perhaps worst of all, unpredictable.

Against that background, it is not so strange that Sweden has fallen like a stone in both Fraser Institute's and Mining Journal's annual ranking. Between 2010 and 2014, Sweden was at the top. Since then, we have sunk in attractiveness, and the latest figure I saw from Fraser's list was position 36, which has also been pointed out in previous speeches.

This is not bad luck or inevitable. Sweden has wasted time and opportunities. But now the journey upwards has begun, and we will return to the top, where we belong.

To boil down what the Swedish mining industry means for our country, it has the potential to contribute to climate responsibility, prosperity, and security. It is a triad that is sufficient. With the current government, this potential will be able to be unleashed and serve our country well.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I would like to thank you for the floor and once again express my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There are in the history of humanity a number of discoveries that with great clarity constitute paradigm shifts in development and which have come to define a before and an after. Man's ability to tame fire is one such discovery, and when our ancestors invented the wheel, it must be seen as another.

I myself, as a dog owner, claim that the domestication of dogs is among the best things our ancestors have done, but it is not the consequences of this that today's debate will be about, but something else entirely.

A few thousand years ago, our ancestors discovered ways to utilize metals and manufacture objects from them. Until then, we were Stone Age people who relied on tools of stone, clay, wood, and animal bones. But as we were able to begin shaping tools from first bronze, then iron, and thereafter further metals, completely new possibilities opened up. And now, a few thousand years later, we stand here in the Swedish Riksdag and debate the Committee on Industry's report 8 Mineralpolitik.

That we do so, Mr. Speaker, can naturally be linked to other historical phenomena such as the ancient Greeks' philosophy of people's rule, i.e., democracy, and other things. But let us, for the sake of the matter and form, stay with metals and minerals, as today's committee debate concerns that.

When I traveled here today, I did so by bus and subway which consisted of masses of metals. I entered through doors and barriers made of metal, rode an elevator of metal, lit lamps containing metals and turned on my computer, which also contains a long row of metals. After that, I have been at a seminar on steel production, and I have also made several calls with my mobile phone and facebooked a bit.

I note that without metals and minerals, we would be nothing of what we are today. We would be Stone Age people. No buses, no airplanes, no hip joints, no bicycles, no smartphones, no water taps - I can go on for as long as I want.

And so it actually is. As development progresses, we discover more areas of application for our metals and minerals. At the same time, we discover that more of the metals and minerals that one previously did not see the use in extracting can actually serve humanity very well now in our endeavor to move society and our industry forward. It is an endeavor that has been a success story for us historically, and nothing indicates actually that this would not also apply to the future that we can foresee.

It was actually the outstanding industry that our relatives developed in Sweden during the last century that became the very key to building a modern welfare state. We developed into an export nation of rank, and with the help of the revenues, we built prosperity. This became possible because we had a well-educated workforce, plenty of first-class raw materials, and a stable supply of clean and cheap electricity.

Unfortunately, the access to clean and cheap electricity that we took for granted for so long has turned into a major cloud of concern for the industry. Irrational decisions have been made within the energy policy area, something that the current government, with the support of us Sverigedemokrater, is trying to rectify with determination. This is, however, a completely different debate that we are not going to conduct here today, which is why I think we should perhaps focus on the raw materials.

Sweden has an exceptionally good access to first-class raw materials.

The mineralizations are many, but for them to become ore, it must be both possible and profitable to extract them. Hip replacements and brake discs do not just grow on trees. No, it is required that one finds the metals, gets permission to extract them, and subsequently processes them in several steps. This gives rise to so-called value chains, which are very valuable for us as a nation.

There are, however, clouds of concern. Previous governments have over-implemented EU rules and restricted which metals and minerals one may, and may not, extract, and in which bedrock it should be done. The industry has on repeated occasions warned that the regulatory frameworks have been contradictory and unclear and that the application has been unpredictable. In recent years, we have all been able to follow permit processes that have been allowed to continue for unacceptably long periods or have been forced to be redone due to trivialities in the application documents. This is something that, when our proposals become reality, will be discovered at a much earlier stage of the permit processes.

The situation became so bad that Sweden began to fall like a stone in the Fraser Institute's annual ranking of mining nations where companies want to make investments, and this has been mentioned earlier in the rostrum.

Towards the end of the previous parliamentary term, when the Social Democrats had gotten rid of the millstone MP in the Government Offices, investigations were commissioned to address the criticism regarding the sluggish permit processes. It was naturally good, even if it took a very long time for the then-government to realize that this was necessary. The current government has complemented these investigations, and now much is actually underway.

I amused myself by looking at the Sverigedemokraternas mineralpolitiska kommittémotion from 2021/22, i.e., the last motion before the election and the Tidösamarbetet. I note now that of that motion's 19 requests, at least 13 are in the process of being implemented by the current government. Much concerns permit processes and simplifications or clarifications of the same, but let me also mention things such as a new mineral strategy, measures to strengthen the willingness to prospect, and a review of the landowners' rights - not least regarding their right to compensation.

Mr. Speaker! A new era brings new challenges and requires new solutions and thus also a new policy. New knowledge and insights, together with a new and uncertain geopolitical situation, highlight our own ability for self-sufficiency both within the nation and together with our closest trading partners within the European Union. The pandemic showed that formulations in the legislation regulating prospecting were not at all adapted for a crisis, and the ban on prospecting for coal, gas, and oil that the previous government introduced bears witness to the lack of awareness that prevailed before Russia's violation of international law in its invasion of Ukraine. From a preparedness point of view, it is at least my and the Sverigedemokraternas conviction that it was a foolish decision that should be swiftly rolled back, even though we today do not see it as justified to extract coal, oil, and gas in Sweden - it should be added.

They also introduced restrictions on extracting metals and minerals from alumschist, and I wonder why. Not because I don't understand that it is complex and complicated to extract raw materials from alumschist in a way that does not involve an environmental risk, but that is why we have the Environmental Code.

For this is the situation, Mr. Speaker: I have practically never heard a company in the industry criticize the Environmental Code in itself. Most consider it to be good, even if it is also expressed that it can be modernized or clarified. But in substance, the entire industry agrees that strict environmental rules should prevail. It is even perceived as a competitive advantage for the Swedish mining industry. Can we then not agree that from the political side, we draw up the rules for which environmental impact is acceptable and which is not, and that the companies then have to comply with them?

Can one then show that they can develop techniques and methods for mining in challenging bedrock, well, that is something good that we should applaud - not forbid. That is how one stimulates innovation. There has been a first time for precisely everything that we have not been able to do previously.

Another unfortunate decision that cannot be overlooked in this debate is the so-called uranium ban that was introduced in 2018 by the then S-MP government. We were against it then, and we are against it now. If the old arguments that Sweden is a nuclear power nation that could be self-sufficient in uranium are not enough, there are new arguments. We have, for example, seen that the prospecting companies now have more difficulty finding the rare earth metals needed for the so-called green transition. Uranium is, in this context, an important lead metal, which, put simply, often occurs where what one is actually looking for also exists, but in lower concentrations.

More then? Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Russia has, in fact, been a major exporter of uranium and nuclear fuel, and in a new geopolitical situation, there is definitely an opportunity for Sweden to assert itself in the international competition.

The fact that we have seen the highest electricity prices in Sweden ever since the premature decommissioning of Swedish nuclear reactors has led the Tidö government to conclude that new nuclear power is needed. Why then not open up to supplying these reactors with domestic fuel? The fact that Sweden is a modern mining nation with strict environmental legislation paves the way for us to be able to do this in the best possible way.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker: Current legislation means de facto that if a company finds a deposit where the primary intention is to mine another mineral, but uranium constitutes a large secondary mineral, it must, after the primary mineral has been extracted, be put back into the ground instead of being refined and used. It is so stupid that the clocks stop!

That is why it is welcome that all parties except Centerpartiet stand completely behind what is stated in the majority text of the committee report regarding uranium: "If nuclear power is to be expanded in Europe in the long term, it may, in the committee's opinion, be justified for Sweden to consider reviewing the current limitations in the legislation regarding the extraction of uranium in the country."

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for exceeding my pre-announced speaking time before I conclude by pointing out that I naturally stand behind all the Sweden Democrats' reservations in the committee report, but I will content myself with moving for approval of reservation 4 in accordance with the agreement to move for approval of only one reservation per party.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Eric Palmqvist, and we continue the dialogue on these important issues.

I have read the Sweden Democrats' reservation. It is known that in cases where the Sweden Democrats have agreements with the government, a reservation is not submitted. But now, a reservation has been submitted regarding the design of the Minerals Act. The explanatory memorandum refers to the corona outbreak, which makes me wonder what connection they have. The Sweden Democrats believe that, due to the outbreak, it may be necessary to review the Minerals Act.

The Minerals Act is fundamentally good. Sometimes the Minerals Act is confused with the Environmental Code. The Minerals Act ensures that the person who has found a metal or a mineral and has shown that it is extractable is granted a concession. The Minerals Act shall ensure a protection for the operator and the mineral resource. One sees that the metal or mineral can be extractable.

Does the Sweden Democrats' desire to review the Minerals Act collide with that of the other right-wing parties anywhere?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Isak From for the question.

I regret that Isak From has probably misread. He may have read the report and drawn his own conclusions, but he has definitely not read our motion. There is a paragraph in our committee motion that deals with robust legislation. It says nothing about the Minerals Act, but it concerns robust legislation. Our reservation also deals with that.

We want a review of all the laws that affect mining, such as the prospecting law. During the pandemic, a number of decisions were made regarding it so that valid exploration permits would not expire due to the rules that existed then. Then we saw that there may be reasons to review all legislation concerning mining and mineral policy so that it is robust even in the event of a crisis. It does not have to be about war, but it can concern different types of crises and unforeseen events.

I want to assert with determination that this is not directed at the Mining Act. I thank Isak From for the question nonetheless. It is pleasant that this dialogue, or debate, is maintained – that is how one clears up question marks and gets the opportunity to present one's own policy. I have taken the opportunity to do so during this speech. We shall see if Isak From has any follow-up questions.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! The point is, in any case, the design of the Minerals Act, and the Sweden Democrats have a reservation there.

During the pandemic, and with the circumstances that prevailed then, both the government and the Riksdag had every opportunity to change something if it was seen that it had unreasonable consequences, and it was also done in very many cases.

The Minerals Act is fundamentally good. If it is the case that one does not utilize their concession, it is not reasonable that one sits on that right for any length of time. There may be another company that wants to take over it and actually do something with it. I mean that the Minerals Act, as it is designed, is fairly well-balanced in this section. It constitutes a security that the one who has found minerals, or metal, and shown that it is worth extracting gets a concession and can begin a process towards an environmental assessment if they now wish to extract, which we hope – otherwise, these metals and minerals will not come up.

I think the Sweden Democrats have a lot to show. There is a lot of talk about reviewing the exploration strategy and that a new mineral strategy is to be produced. We will take part of this when it arrives, react to it and see what is potentially missing. Eric Palmqvist can use his final contribution to tell what the Sweden Democrats have particularly highlighted that should be included in the mineral strategy.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We do not want any change whatsoever in the Mining Act, but we want to have all legislation related to the mining industry reviewed. It should not take a pandemic for one to discover that the legislation is not robust enough to handle potential crises. It is better to preempt than to be preempted; that is my firm opinion.

I absolutely share the member's view that we should not have it so that companies have investigation permits but do not conduct any investigation. We are absolutely not looking for anything of that sort - I share the member's view in that case.

As I said in my speech, I know that 13 of the 19 motions we had in our committee motion during the time the Social Democrats governed the country together with the Green Party are now in motion. Several of those things will be presented in the near future. Several of those things we also pushed for during the previous parliamentary term. In municipal politics, there are sometimes proposals that the majority thinks are so good that they make them their own. We had a number of proposals that the majority at that time could have made their own, but the majority at that time chose not to do so.

For me, it is completely incomprehensible that one stands and says today that one wants a new mineral strategy. The proposals existed during the last parliamentary term, but then they were not suitable. Today, one sits in opposition and thinks it is very festive. I find that a bit difficult to accept.

At least 13 of our 19 demands in the previous committee motion are on their way to becoming a reality. I think we can pat ourselves on the back for that.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! In this chamber, we often mention the green transition. Therefore, it is only right that I point out that it is not possible at all to produce the climate technologies needed for the green societal transition without metals and minerals. Wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars, and batteries require metals to a much higher degree than the technologies that have been used until now.

If we look outside Sweden and compare, we see that the Swedish mining and minerals industry already today has very low climate emissions thanks to the almost fossil-free electricity system that Sweden has long relied on, and is now in the process of building up again, and thanks to investments in new climate-efficient technology. Sweden thus has the opportunity to take a greater global responsibility for the climate transition by taking advantage of the Swedish mining industry's opportunities. With the right conditions from us in politics, the industry can develop and continue to contribute not only to the Swedish but also to the global climate work.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has the potential to extract many of the energy and innovation-critical metals and minerals that are needed, not least for the climate transition. Half of the metals and minerals on the EU's list of raw materials deemed critical for our society and our welfare have been found in the Swedish bedrock. The markets for these metals are global, and the demand that is not met by Swedish production can be met through imports from other actors all around the world.

It has been said here earlier by my colleagues, but it should be repeated: These metals will be used - the question is whether we in Sweden shall be involved and contribute to getting them or whether we shall lean on countries such as China and Congo.

In order for the Swedish mining industry to be able to continue its production while simultaneously holding the lead in the green transition and green production, we need to address the problems that exist in Sweden in politics. I would like to point out three areas that I believe we need to address politically.

Firstly, we have too little energy production.

Secondly, the business sector has great difficulties in obtaining qualified labor; this applies in particular within the technology industries. We need many more engineers in Sweden, and we need many more who seek out the so-called STEM education.

Thirdly, we need to review the permit processes and significantly shorten lead times, not least in order to get the infrastructure required for this type of industry – and also for many other industries – in place.

Mr. Speaker! As has been mentioned here, we will need to break new ground, but we will also need to increase metal and mineral production from secondary sources - from recycling - and achieve a more efficient use of metals and minerals. Even here, we will need to increase the pace. This, however, will not cover the entire future metal demand that the climate transition entails, and an increased production is needed. Here, Sweden has great geological potential. Consequently, there is also great potential for a new and emerging industry, not least in the north.

I believe it would be good if Sweden received a mineral strategy that secures domestic metal production. It is important, not least against the background of the changed geopolitical context. We need to strengthen the conditions for a competitive and long-term sustainable Swedish industry and increase growth generally. The government is working on this and aims to develop the Swedish mineral industry and the entire mining cluster, and it is a major change in the culture we have seen towards this industry from previous governments.

Mr. Speaker! The industrial policy that the government is pursuing is good for the climate, ambitious, efficient, and results-oriented. The ambition in this work is also that Sweden shall become a world leader in an efficient mining industry that takes great consideration of the environment.

I vote in favor of the Committee on Industry's proposal.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! We have discussed this issue before, so I choose to raise the matter for our reservation so that I do not prolong the debate. I tried with the same strategy earlier, but then Member Isak From became confused and thought I had ended up in the wrong debate and spoke about mineral policy. But now!

We have a great need for minerals in Sweden, and we need to take more responsibility in our consumption and our needs. This may mean that we need to exploit more locally but also ensure that the minerals are exploited in a way that takes full account of human rights, the environment, and the climate, particularly in mineral-rich poor countries. There are several directives and regulations where human rights, the environment, and the climate are addressed in connection with this. Unfortunately, it is not always sufficient. We continuously receive reports of human rights violations in connection with exploitation and reports that environmental regulations have simply been disregarded in order to secure economic interests.

In many countries that are mineral producers, the population continues to live in poverty, and these countries do not have the same laws and control mechanisms to take into account the environment and climate, which has major consequences for people, animals, and biodiversity - something that is unfortunately exploited to keep prices down.

Our trade agreements and investment agreements cement rather than develop the relations between countries. For example, Chile's association agreement will soon be on the table. It looks good, but in the fine print it is ensured that Chile as a country does not build further on its further processing but continues to be a raw material exporter. The agreement on sustainable investments that the EU and Angola entered into the other day is misleading in name. There is neither a provision on sustainable investments nor a definition of sustainable investments here, and it is not prescribed that labor or environmental authorities shall participate in the governance. Even though the text contains explanatory commitments on sustainable development, binding provisions on non-compliance are missing. It is therefore a document to secure the mineral supply and continue the exploitation in the same way as we have done historically. It is a pity.

The transition will require a significant amount of battery metals such as lithium and cobalt. With today's raw material production, these metals will not be sufficient moving forward, even if recycling increases. Sweden, with its mining industry, has good opportunities to lead in this development, not least when it comes to new technology for energy storage.

Here, the Geological Survey of Sweden, SGU, can play an important role. Therefore, I believe that SGU should be given a special mandate to investigate which critical metals are present in Sweden. Additionally, SGU's mandate should be expanded to include Sweden's entire mineral supply, that is, reuse, recycling, and exploitation. This could lead to increased local production with better conditions to respect human rights, the environment, and the climate.

I move for approval of reservation 12.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! We stand today at a crossroads between global challenges and national opportunities where Sweden's mining industry can not only be a catalyst for sustainable growth but also an anchor for our national security in turbulent times.

Today's debate is about how a dynamic and forward-looking Swedish mining industry can be the foundation for our pursuit of a net-zero emissions society, and that in a time when geopolitical threats are shaking our world. The mining industry is one of many Swedish sectors where the benefit for our companies and national policy overlap. Every investment decision, every new mining project, and every political step taken has major consequences for our economy, our environment, and our security.

To reach our goal of a net-zero emission society, we must increase our self-sufficiency of the minerals that form the basis of all new technology in the transition to carbon-free energy. It is lithium for batteries, rare earth metals for electronics and wind turbines, as well as copper and nickel, which are fundamental to almost all sustainable infrastructure. Sweden's unique geological conditions place us in the advantageous position to be not only self-sufficient but also a responsible exporter in the global green transition.

In the same way, our mineral industry is a strategic asset in light of the geopolitical threats. We live in a time when countries use raw materials as tactical tools in a much larger power game. By ensuring a strong and independent mineral industry, we protect our economy against external disruptions, reinforce our technological development, and strengthen our position on the international arena.

Furthermore, our ability to streamline and modernize our mining industry is crucial to maintaining and improving our position on the global market. We must invest in new technology that can reduce our environmental impact, increase our productivity, and ensure that we can meet the growing global demand for these valuable resources.

But we must also ensure that we have the workforce required to support this growing industry. This means that we must invest in education, research, development, and other skills so that our workforce can meet the needs of the future.

We must optimize every aspect of our mineral industry, from prospecting to production and export. This means a regular review of our regulatory environment to ensure that it stimulates innovation and attracts investment while maintaining the highest possible environmental and social standards.

Here, the Centre Party has proposed three parallel processes that can quickly take us past long lead times for environmental assessments without compromising the quality of the assessment.

The first is a revision of the Environmental Code so that it takes greater account of climate benefit. Since it takes time, we have – that is the second – proposed that the government simultaneously appoints a permit preparation body which, similar to the Defense Preparation Board, works to resolve as many issues as possible in the short term that do not need to be part of the longer Environmental Code change. The third is that large projects with great climate benefit must not only have a pilot but an entire team of the right people from authorities who pave the way for the projects.

We can never, and shall not, compete with large production subsidies, but we shall ensure that companies that want to develop their operations in Sweden do not need to be tossed around like a ball in a pinball machine and flung from one corner to another only to miss something and fall between the flippers in the pinball game and have to start over again.

It is disappointing that the government has not listened to that, because we are convinced that in every way we need to continue building bridges between government, the business sector, and research institutions to create an ecosystem that favors sustainable development within this area.

Our academic institutions are at the forefront of research and innovation when it comes to sustainable mining and mineral extraction, and this expertise must increase and benefit the entire society. But more must be done so that both basic research and applied research become part of the state research budget.

Mr. Speaker! We must approach all aspects of mineral deposits and mining with humility and a strong sense of responsibility to ensure that we can meet today's needs without jeopardizing future generations' ability to meet their needs.

In this, we as politicians at the national, regional and local level, together with the industry, must have an active and close dialogue with those who live in areas where new mines are to be opened in order to understand fears and clarify all questions at as early a stage as possible.

A strong and sustainable Swedish mining industry is crucial for our country's future. It is about setting a course that is not only environmentally responsible but also economically wise and strategically secure.

Centerpartiet wants to move forward with a policy that recognizes the mineral industry's vital role in our national agenda and that proactively addresses the challenges and opportunities we face. Let us ensure that when we strive for a greener future, we build it on solid Swedish ground, where the local economies also receive a share of the values created.

I therefore move for the approval of reservation 8 under point 6, which concerns an immediate investigation into how the mineral royalty can be increased and how the portion accruing to the state can accrue to the local community.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been a mining nation for hundreds of years, and the mineral extraction that is taking place today in Sweden's mines is important not only for Sweden but for all of Europe. Sweden accounts, for example, for more than 90 percent of all iron ore produced in Europe, and we have, among other things, important deposits of copper, gold, and silver.

The mining industry will, however, inevitably always have a significant environmental impact that also needs to be managed. Today, the mining industry is the largest waste producer in our country, and the mining companies are today some of Sweden's largest emitters of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, mining often affects both water and the immediate environments for the local population.

Today, the discussion often concerns the need for both more electricity and more minerals for the green transition. The green transition will likely mean that some new mines will need to be opened, while all coal mines, brown coal open-cast mines, shale oil fields, and oil platforms are to be phased out and closed.

Every new mine, however, involves an environmental impact. The mining and minerals industry has itself developed climate goals in its roadmap within the framework of Fossil-free Sweden. The industries will need to work actively to reach these goals. It is also important that politics supports the transition that must take place.

Mr. Speaker! For Miljöpartiet, it is absolutely central that the entire green transition becomes truly green, that is to say, that it becomes both environmentally and socially sustainable. This requires that we take the issue seriously and that we create a plan for how a transition can take place in a way that is good for most of us, and that we jointly plan a transition that is carried out in a responsible manner.

If Sweden's mining industry is to seriously become a part of the green transition, the transition must also encompass the mining operations themselves. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet believe that Sweden needs to develop a new strategy for a sustainable mineral and metal supply. We believe that it should contain four different focus areas.

Focus area one is about resource efficiency and increased circularity. We need to use the materials we have in a much better way, share more, manufacture smarter products with less metal, and recycle the metal that has already been collected. Metals can be recycled from existing scrap heaps and from recycled products. But there is also, as we have heard today, an opportunity to extract valuable resources from old mine waste. This can involve minerals that were seen as uninteresting or difficult to access in a completely different era.

We need to make it possible, both economically and technically, to use all these different resources from different parts of our environment. Focus area two therefore concerns that we need to ensure research and development of alternative materials. We need to develop the products that are needed for the green transition in order to be able to use more types of materials where it is possible. One example is car batteries that do not contain lithium.

It has also become clear here that Sweden can become much better at supporting research, development and skills supply regarding all parts of the mineral and metal area.

Focus area three is about our view that Sweden should have the world's most sustainable mining industry when we conduct mining activities. When mining and mineral processing take place, it must occur as sustainably as possible, from both a social and ecological sustainability perspective. We cannot conduct important and strategic activities without a strong sustainability aspect.

Focus area four is about the fact that we need to ensure sustainable value chains globally. It is not only the Swedish mining industry that must be socially and ecologically sustainable. When we trade with minerals, we need to cooperate, have common guidelines, and set requirements both within and outside the EU to avoid everything from child labor to environmental disasters in other parts of the world.

We consider that all these four of our focus areas need to be included in a new national strategy for a sustainable mineral and metal supply.

Mr. Speaker! Many major goal conflicts arise if new mines are to be put into operation. These can involve land conflicts and negative consequences for the environment, impacts on the Sami's lives and their rights, reindeer husbandry, and effects for the local population.

When we now see increased pressure on Sweden to deliver minerals for Europe's common transition work, the Swedish state needs to be tasked with securing the Swedish environment, the Swedish population, Sweden's local environments, our waters, our lands and the local population's rights. What are we to do with minerals if we destroy our water, our food and our land? The conflicts of interest here should not be particularly difficult.

Miljöpartiet believes that reinforced work is needed moving forward so that we can meet the green transition in a sustainable way and to ensure that we can carry out the transition and halt the climate crisis without running into the ditch in other areas in that work and thereby impoverishing, for example, biodiversity, people's living environment or people's health.

Mr. Speaker! In order to strengthen and ensure a sustainable and responsible mining system, we believe that a broader holistic approach also needs to be taken when planning new mines, where planning from prospecting to the closure of a mine needs to be included. For example, one would already from the beginning need to plan and finance a future restoration of the areas that have been affected by mining.

Since the local community is often most affected while the profits from more metal are primarily national or international, we believe that a portion of the profits should go back to the local community. This could be supported by a mineral fund partially funded by an increased mineral fee, a fee that is currently significantly lower in Sweden than in other European countries.

In today's situation, where in many areas we see accumulated negative effects for, for example, the local population or the reindeer husbandry, we have several large-scale societal investments - it could be wind power, transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure, or mineral mining - where the sum of the different effects must be taken into account in the decision-making processes. Therefore, we need to plan both long-term and wisely together.

We must halt the climate crisis, but we must simultaneously ensure that we achieve a socially sustainable society and that we secure biodiversity, our waters, and our living environments. The green transition must become truly green.

With this said, I would like to move for approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation 16 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the clarification that the Green Party is fundamentally a party that is, in any case, positively disposed towards the mining industry! It is pleasing to hear.

During the previous parliamentary term, however, nothing happened as long as Miljöpartiet was in a governing position. When industry after industry noted that there were problems and had clear demands on policy, nothing happened. We raged in ranking, and people talked about the circular. The fact is that the circular is only a small part of the solution.

We have a population in the world that is increasing, and furthermore, a prosperity that is increasing. In very many countries, people are emerging from poverty, for which we should be grateful. They want the same standard as we do, which means that the need for virgin material de facto increases, even though we are good at recycling.

We cannot, for example, recycle the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower. There is a lot of metal and minerals that are used today in applications and constructions that we cannot manage. How does Miljöpartiet envision a future where the circular [economy] is so clearly underlined as part of the solution?

It is clear that we should use what we have previously used once again, or as many times as possible – we have a moral responsibility to do this. But isn't it a bit of a delusion to claim that it is the solution? The industry itself says that it is not the solution. It is almost free for them to recycle what already exists above ground, so it is not that the industry opposes recycling. But it is not the entire solution. How does Miljöpartiet view this?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. When it comes to recycling, we have actually come a fairly short way. There are very many things that are not recycled today, and furthermore, there is very little statistics on where the metals that are thrown away go and what happens to the metals that are recycled.

I was myself a bit naive when I started digging and delving into the issues of circulating metals. I thought that metals are the absolute easiest to recycle from products since they often consist of elements, have different melting points, and are quite easy to separate, but it is actually the case that one does not recycle at all what one would need due to old structures and that it often costs more to recycle than to extract new.

I want, just as I stated in my speech, to be clear that when we are to supply society with metals and new materials, we need to have all the different legs. It will not be enough to, for example, only recycle electronics, but it is a good step on the way to start working with that.

We were in the same debate yesterday and discussed skills development, and I believe that a fairly large skills development is also required when it comes to recycling of materials and new design of products. For example, there are new directives from the EU about designing products so that they can be more easily taken apart. There is, therefore, a lot to do even in that area. I think we should take advantage of this, because it is a super important part to recycle what we have already picked up.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the answer to the question!

Once again, I assert that the industry does not oppose recycling. The industry does not oppose using what is already extracted from the ground. It is very cheap compared to driving a tunnel in a mine. It has been several years since I worked in the mine, but back then, people talked about it costing 100,000 kronor for every 5 meters one drove underground – then one drives very many meters before one is inside the ore body. It is therefore a no-brainer to use what exists above ground. But one cannot blow smoke in people's eyes and say that this is the great solution, because it is not.

I also heard old sites mentioned, that is, former mining sites where there are old residues and deposits that remain. To clarify the regulatory framework regarding this was something that the Sverigedemokraterna motioned about during practically the entire last parliamentary term.

Today, it means a huge risk for companies to take on an old area that the state is responsible for. The risk for the companies is that they take on the entire risk for all the waste that is buried there, and no one is willing to take on that risk from the state.

We had a proposal to review the regulatory framework and make it easier for companies to take on old decommissioned mine sites. It relieves the municipality, it becomes safer for the public as old shafts and the like might be fenced off, and it is a win for SGU and for the mining companies, who know that there are at least some types of deposits. But with current legislation, no one dares.

Is Miljöpartiet prepared to support any proposals aimed at removing this problem?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Eric Palmqvist again, who I believe puts his finger on a very important issue. He says that it is a no-brainer to recycle because it costs less money. The problem is that it is not so today, and this means that it is sometimes actually easier for companies to extract new metal than to recycle old.

The debate we have had is actually only about the fact that we need to expand the mining industry significantly and open new mines, but we are missing much of the large area concerning how we can reduce waste mountains and also extract new metals from both mine tailings, products that we already have, and old scrap heaps.

Mineral policy

There are many fruits that one considers to be low-hanging, but just as Eric Palmqvist says, a completely new regulatory framework is needed here. This is what we must focus on. If we are to have a new mineral strategy, we also need to place great emphasis on how we are to proceed to extract the metals that we have already identified and avoid having to open new mines and place a high burden somewhere else.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 28 February.)

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