Nämdöskärgårdens national park and nature conservation

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Nature conservation is a broad concept and an even greater responsibility. For me, who comes from Värmland with its biodiversity and the rich landscape, the cultural landscape we have there, this issue is extra important. Nature conservation is about how we manage forests, water, species, and landscapes, and how we protect what is unique.

Today is also about the sea and the archipelago. It is an important step. To stand here today and speak about the Nämdöskärgård National Park feels both historic and hopeful. It is the first marine national park in the Baltic Sea. It is great, and it is right.

It is an area with magnificent nature, but it is also a place where people live, reside, and operate. For us Moderates, it has been crucial that landowners, users, and residents have been involved in this issue. It is through anchoring and respect that we create protection that lasts, both for nature and for humanity.

Nämdöskärgårdens national park and nature conservation

Madam Speaker! The Government's position on this issue is clear. We shall protect what needs to be protected, but we shall also take responsibility for the consequences. Of course, compensation shall be given to those who are affected, for the right purpose.

Local conditions must be respected, but we must also look at the whole. When an area receives national park status, the pressure naturally increases. Then the infrastructure must keep up. This applies to waste collection, mobile coverage, transport, and also the protection of the surrounding environments. We need a long-term sustainable visitor management. Otherwise, the protection is eroded from within. We have been clear on this, and we will continue to put in a lot of work when it comes to that.

I also want to say something about hunting. Functional nature conservation requires active wildlife management. The possibility of hunting both mammals and birds plays a decisive role for the balance in the ecosystems. It is important that those possibilities are not unnecessarily restricted. On the contrary, it is often necessary to achieve the nature conservation goals.

Madam Speaker! There is a certain concern among the residents in the area. We must take that seriously, and we have listened. But the government has been clear: We are strengthening the management of protected nature, and we focus on the resources where they do the most good. This also applies in Nämdöskärgården.

In the consideration, we also address several other nature conservation proposals regarding species protection, invasive species, and contaminated land. Saying no to certain motions does not have to mean that the issues are unimportant, but rather on the contrary that the government is already acting, that the work is ongoing.

We have tasked the authorities to review how the regulatory burden can be reduced without compromising environmental requirements. We are investing in the fight against invasive species. And we are strengthening the protection of the Baltic Sea and its ecosystems. That is how we steer towards real effect, not towards double work.

I also want to raise an issue that is close to my heart: chemical policy. It is absolutely crucial for nature conservation but often receives too little attention. It is about remediating correctly, reusing safely, and stopping dangerous substances before they reach nature. We need a regulatory framework that works in reality and that does not get stuck in bureaucracy. Nämdöskärgårdens national park is a brilliant example of exactly this. It combines biodiversity, local anchoring, and future responsibility.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about nature conservation, we must also talk about the wolf. In my home county of Värmland and in other parts of the country, the number of wolves is increasing significantly. It has done so for many years. With that, the concern also increases. Farmers hesitate to let their animals out. Dog owners avoid forest walks. People feel unsafe in their everyday lives.

The Riksdag has been clear for many years that the wolf population should be between 170 and 270 individuals. But today we are far above that.

The government has therefore begun a purposeful work. We are strengthening the protection hunt. We are giving the county administrative boards better tools, and we have influenced the EU to give Sweden greater room for maneuver. Now things will happen in this area. We want a wolf policy that works in practice – for nature, for the animals and for the people.

Madam Speaker! That is how we take responsibility for the balance and for security. We see the challenges, listen to the facts, adapt our strategies and work together for a more sustainable future.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Speaker and the officials a pleasant summer and thank them for the good work being put in to make everything function as well as it does.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

Those were fine words about nature conservation, I must admit. The Moderates often like to speak warmly about protecting nature. But when it comes to the budget, something else is always prioritized. The maintenance of protected nature, endangered species, and habitats always have to take a backseat.

We Social Democrats showed in our shadow budget that it is possible to lower taxes for ordinary wage earners and at the same time strengthen resources for nature conservation. But the Moderates chose instead to give more to those who earn the most. It is a choice – an ideological one.

I would therefore like to start by asking Marléne Lund Kopparklint why the Moderaterna think it is more important to lower the tax for those with the absolutely highest incomes. Why is it more important than preserving our most valuable nature?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite know how to interpret this, but now we are talking about nature conservation and priorities there. That is the question we are to discuss – not tax cuts, as the member is referring to.

Choices and priorities are something that the member and the red-green constellation that previously sat in government have also done. The member is very well aware that we do not have an inexhaustible treasury that allows us to prioritize all issues in the entire world that we want to prioritize. We must make some choices – as we also have done – without things being left behind. We have a good policy, and we have prioritized when it comes to safeguarding nature and the nature conservation areas we have.

We have given clear assignments to the authorities on how to work. The Government is on the ball and prioritizes this issue very well.

We see it as our responsibility to use the taxpayers' money in an efficient way. The government has directed resources to where the needs are greatest. For example, visitor management in mountain areas, maintenance of protected areas, and the control of invasive species. It is not about doing less, but rather more about doing right. Perhaps the member may be able to learn something from that.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

I believe the member is very well aware of the criticism that has been directed at the government regarding the draconian cuts in the environmental and climate area specifically. It is also the case that the money to, for example, combat invasive species was cut. Then the government has subsequently put back some – one-fifth – of the funds and calls it an investment.

The problem with that type of politics is that much of the work is lost – especially when it comes to the fight against invasive species. I do, however, agree that it is an ideological choice. I do not think I have anything to learn from this government's policy in this area.

Another issue that the member raised in her speech and which she also highlighted as something she holds dear is the chemical issues. Regarding these, there is a current committee initiative concerning methylene chloride. I hope that the member will vote for this tomorrow when we are to take a position on whether we should initiate the preparation of this matter. Will you do that, Marléne Lund Kopparklint?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! As members, we are discussing nature conservation here. Of course, chemical policy is part of that. Now we are talking about a specific matter that has come up in the committee. However, I want to talk about nature conservation, the investments we are making there, and the priorities we need to make.

The member of the opposition mentions that we have ongoing work and that we have withdrawn money and put money back. But it is like this, member of the opposition: If one is to do a good job, one must conduct an investigation and see if this has worked previously or if we have invested money in the wrong areas. One investigates what has scientifically proven effect. In that regard, the government has done a solid job.

We invest money where it is needed most and ensure that this is done in the right way. This also applies to invasive species and the work against them. There, we have an ongoing good work, and the government and also the authorities are doing an incredible amount in this area. I feel secure regarding the priorities we have made within this.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a report that contains both important successes and several serious shortcomings.

I want to begin by saying something about the upcoming decision to establish Nämdöskärgårdens national park. This is both long-awaited and welcome. It is pleasing that the government has taken this initiative and that we will now see Sweden's first marine national park in the Baltic Sea. It is actually an important milestone for Swedish nature conservation work.

Protecting unique areas such as Nämdöskärgården is crucial for preserving biodiversity, securing fish stocks, protecting sensitive species, and giving people the opportunity for outdoor life and recreation in an untouched environment. This is good, and the government parties deserve recognition for it. But at the same time, it must be said clearly that this must not be a decision that becomes an alibi for an otherwise far too passive nature conservation policy.

What worries me deeply, and what we Social Democrats are critical of, is that the government does not show the political leadership required to take a holistic approach to nature conservation. We see this when the government consistently chooses to say no to important proposals, such as those concerning strengthening environmental monitoring.

We also see it when one says no to introducing clear and sharp goals for biodiversity and when one chooses not to provide sufficient resources to the authorities so that they can fulfill their missions. We have reservations concerning exactly this. Let me mention a few examples.

We Social Democrats want to strengthen environmental monitoring. We believe that Sweden needs long-term and stable funding for environmental monitoring so that we can follow up on how our nature is doing and how the policy is functioning. Without data – no knowledge. Without knowledge – no sensible decisions. The government, however, says no and refers to the fact that work is ongoing.

Madam Speaker! This is not sufficient. The shortcomings are well known, and it is now that we need to act.

We also have a reservation concerning the need to protect and restore wetlands. Wetlands are nature's own treatment plants. They store carbon and reduce the risk of flooding, and they are also habitats for a number of endangered species. To not do enough to restore wetlands is to turn a blind eye to nature's cry for help.

We also see a need to increase consideration for the environment and climate in any potential exploitation of wetlands. It is crucial in order to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve the ecosystem services that wetlands provide. Continued exploitation of wetlands risks undermining the progress that is currently being made with the rewetting of wetlands. The government is not doing enough here. Therefore, I also want to move for approval of our reservation 29 regarding the rewetting of drained wetlands and other restoration measures.

Madam Speaker! It is probably here that the fundamental conflict regarding nature conservation stands. The government's line seems to be to do just exactly as much as is required according to the regulations but nothing more. For us Social Democrats, it is clear that politics is also about taking the responsibility required to let nature's needs be guiding.

Nature does not adapt to bureaucratic boundaries. It is not the Baltic Sea, the forests or the wetlands that say: Good, you have done enough according to this or that paragraph! Nature demands more. It demands that we take our responsibility as stewards of the planet and of our nature and that we do this seriously.

Madam Speaker! Biodiversity and ecosystems are perhaps words that feel abstract to many. But it is about something very concrete. It is about the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the climate we live in. It is about bees having to pollinate our crops, forests having to absorb carbon dioxide, fish stocks being able to recover and lands being able to retain water during heavy rainfall. Without functioning ecosystems, there is no functioning society.

Madam Speaker! We stand in the midst of a crisis for biological diversity. Every day we lose species, habitats, and values that cannot be recreated. It is said that we are the first generation to seriously see the consequences of nature's degradation and also the last that has a real opportunity to reverse the development. That obliges us. Then we must say that we are doing what is actually required for nature to be able to recover.

Nämdöskärgårdens national park is therefore a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We need more. We need to strengthen environmental monitoring. We need to protect and restore wetlands. We need to stop invasive alien species. We need to save the Baltic Sea's ecosystem. We need long-term resources for our authorities. This is what is required if we are serious about protecting nature and securing robust ecosystems.

Madam Speaker! I would like to hear from the government parties here in the chamber why they say no to proposals that would give Sweden a stronger environmental monitoring. Why do you say no to sharper goals for biodiversity? Why do you say no to more resources for the authorities that are to protect and manage nature? Is it because you believe it is not needed? Is it because you think nature is doing well right now? Or is it because you are afraid of clashing with interests that do not want to see stronger nature protection?

The pressures on nature do not wait. The situation in nature requires action here and now. But the government parties seem, as so often, to hope that someone else will take responsibility further ahead, some other time. But nature does not wait. The ecosystems cannot be paused until the next budget, the next investigation, or the next mandate period.

Every day without action is a day when we lose a little more of what makes life possible: clean water without dangerous chemicals, fresh air, food on the table and nature to live in.

We Social Democrats are clear: We are ready to take responsibility and do what is required. But I ask myself, Madam Speaker: Who is it that the governing parties believe should take the responsibility, since they themselves do not seem to feel ready for the task?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the speech – a speech that I can agree with in many parts. However, I do not agree with everything, for obvious reasons. That is why we stand here.

Joakim Järrebring mentioned in his speech that the government wants someone else to take responsibility because they are not doing it themselves. He also said something along the lines that the government is afraid of clashing with various interests.

In Joakim Järrebring's speech, I did not hear the word "property rights" mentioned even once. I did not hear at any point that Joakim Järrebring touched upon those who actually own nature, whom the Social Democrats apparently want to take it from.

Nature does not just come into existence simply because Joakim Järrebring is standing there. It is actually someone who owns the land and therefore also someone who manages the land.

To give our landowners long-term rules of the game so that they truly dare to manage the land without risking that the state will come and take the land from them is perhaps the absolute best incentive we can give. But I note, as said, how Joakim Järrebring did not mention those who own the land with a single word, but it was only talk about protecting more and more.

Do the Social Democrats and Joakim Järrebring not see that we, in this work, with the protection we are to provide, still clash with the constitutionally protected ownership right? Or does the ownership right not weigh heavily anywhere – does nature always weigh heavier than the constitutionally protected ownership right for the Social Democrats?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the question! That I do not choose to raise the right of ownership as a criticism of the government is perhaps quite obvious. I think that the government's representatives and also those members of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture who raise those issues do so with all the merit required.

If I am to criticize something regarding this matter of property rights, it is that we obviously do not do enough to protect the nature that we all depend on. I am not sure if it is linked to the property right that I believe Kjell-Arne Ottosson primarily refers to, i.e., that which applies to agriculture and forestry. There, I believe, just like Kjell-Arne Ottosson, that it needs to be built on a large measure of trust and faith that those who own and manage forests and agriculture do so in a good way.

But we see that our environment, not least when it comes to chemicals, is becoming unhealthy for people. We are not doing enough to protect people's health and the environment that we all depend on. We should be able to agree on that. That is also where my criticism lies.

The government is not doing enough. The government prioritizes other things, not least tax cuts for the richest, over protecting people's health and our nature.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the answer! It was indeed pleasing to hear how Joakim Järrebring nevertheless highlights the right of ownership, even though it was not part of the statement. It is incredibly pleasing to hear that he thinks the government is doing enough in that area. That Joakim Järrebring points out the trust for our landowners, for those who own and manage the forest, is also very good. Let that shine through even more.

We had a constitutional committee where some parties wanted to strengthen the right of ownership even further because it stands so clearly in the constitution but is nevertheless repeatedly sacrificed on the altar of the environment. Only the environment is taken into account, not those who own the forest or the land.

Now we had the chance to take a real grip on the issue, especially since the Social Democrats are not in government with the Green Party. The chance was great to get a cross-bloc decision in these important issues, but unfortunately, the Social Democrats did not take this chance, which I think is extremely serious.

What is it that makes the Social Democrats choose not to take this chance if they now, as Joakim Järrebring says, want to emphasize how important the right of ownership is? When the chance exists to truly highlight this in the constitutional work, the Social Democrats choose to abstain. Why do they do that when they finally have the chance and are not sitting in the lap of the Green Party?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the opportunity to reflect on this.

I believe that the political discussion and debate regarding the boundary between the protection of nature and property rights is worth nuancing. It is very easy to go off track in these issues.

The Social Democrats do not want to see any general strengthening of the right of ownership. But we believe there is reason to resolve the issues that are linked to the forest. There is currently a legal uncertainty where forest owners do not receive compensation or do not receive compensation in time when restrictions are made on their right of ownership. We cannot continue to have such a situation in Sweden.

The government also deserves criticism here. They have almost had an entire mandate period to solve this issue. So far, we have seen three or four different inquiries, but none have delivered a solution to the problem. Even here, the government has homework to do.

(Applause)

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

We do not say no. That the member says they have a concern that we are not prioritizing people's health is laughable and shameful. We do, in fact, prioritize nature conservation highly and give clear directives to the authorities on which issues are important to prioritize. We have conducted investigations that show what has an effect and what should be invested in. We prioritize both people's health and a functioning transition for forest owners and other companies operating in this area. We are clear that protection must go hand in hand with innovation capacity and a good capacity so that one can manage this work. We safeguard nature conservation and people's health by taking a holistic approach to these issues. The Government also works within the EU to push on these issues and highlight the Swedish model.

Madam Speaker! The member's rhetoric is, as said, shameful. We have been clear about our policy and about the fact that we prioritize these issues highly.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I think the member's contribution puts its finger on exactly what was my criticism in my reply to the member's speech. People like to talk about protecting our nature and standing up for people's health, but fine words do not hide that during this parliamentary term, you have made cuts of over 7 billion on this budget area to then dabble a little at the end and call it investments.

The criticism that I and the Social Democrats have against the government, we are not ashamed of in the slightest, regardless of whether the member says that it is shameful. It is more than just the Social Democrats who point out that the resources are insufficient, not "just" environmental organizations but also authorities.

If this discussion is to lead to anything fruitful, the government representatives must realize and stand by the budget priorities the government has made. Resources for climate and environment have been cut and used to lower taxes for those with the highest incomes.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that I once again have to tell the member how to prioritize in a budget, even though the member's party has sat in government for more than one parliamentary term and prioritized in budgets. We do not have an inexhaustible treasury that we can pour money out of, but we must prioritize and carefully investigate in which areas the work has a good effect. The previous government poured out money without looking at what had a good effect. We work in a different way, and it is important to emphasize that.

The Moderates take responsibility in the budget. We prioritize the areas that are important. We prioritize property rights, forestry, and other things that I did not hear a single word about in the member's speech.

Does the member not agree that these issues are important? Why have the Social Democrats not included them in their budget and prioritized them even further? If the Social Democrats now have so much money that it can be poured out over all these areas, why have they not done so? Everything is connected when it comes to nature conservation and how to work with it in an effective and future-oriented way. It must hold for the future, and it must hold for companies, forestry, and people's health, which the member emphasized. I would like to hear more about this.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Marléne Lund Kopparklint is welcome to speak with me about how one prioritizes in a budget. That is not what my criticism is about. My criticism is about the Moderaternas priorities in their budget. They make large cuts to nature conservation and large investments in lowering taxes for those with the absolutely highest incomes. That is the priority the Moderaterna have chosen to make. We prioritize differently. It is from this perspective that I criticize the government's pursued policy.

But it is only good to note that this is how it is. While we prioritize nature, climate, and tax cuts for people with ordinary incomes, the Moderaterna prioritize tax cuts for the absolutely richest.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

As we have heard in previous entries, this is a two-part report, where one part concerns a proposition on Nämdöskärgården and the other concerns nature conservation and biodiversity.

Regarding the question of Nämdöskärgården, a unanimous committee stands behind the establishment of a national park, as mentioned earlier. Sweden is the country in Europe that has the absolute most islands, and that means we have a fantastic archipelago. Therefore, it is pleasing that this step can be taken. At the same time, signals have come from the population in nearby areas that they are concerned about spillover effects and what they may lead to in the areas where they live and where they usually work, for example as farmers.

Even though we are now taking this step and protecting Nämdöskärgården and making it a national park, it is important that we do not forget the human being in the system. It must work for those who live and operate out there. They have a daily life that must hold together, and therefore, great responsibility must be taken so that the concerns that have clearly been addressed to us in the committee are not realized.

I will move on to some of the reservations or matters contained in the report. The first concerns the nature restoration law. It is a strange story where there was fundamentally no majority for decisions to be made in the council, but then an Austrian environment minister went against his own government. Thus, that decision went through, even though it should not have. There are many of us who are extremely critical of this, on several grounds.

When it must be implemented now, Madam Speaker, it is important that it is implemented at a minimum level. This is also clear in the mandate that Naturvårdsverket, along with several other agencies, received in February this year. It states: "A proposal for a national restoration plan designed at a minimum level and according to the EU Commission's format."

It is extremely important, Madam Speaker, that we really end up there so that we do not again do what Sweden often does when it comes to implementing EU directives, namely take two extra steps to really be sure that we have done enough. Who is it that we punish then? Yes, ourselves. In August next year, the investigation shall be complete, so that it can be implemented. We look forward to an implementation that, hopefully, occurs precisely at a minimum level.

Another area with many reservations in the report is area protection, which we have touched upon earlier here in the chamber. We have two parties in the Riksdag that have immensely more money than all other parties and who can then scatter money, as if it were borrowed. Once again, one completely forgets the right of ownership. One only looks at one side and forgets the other: those who own and manage the forest. Again: Why does the forest or the land look the way it does? Yes, because people have managed it.

Yesterday morning, Madam Speaker, I was out walking in a nature reserve in my home region of Värmland where, among other things, two conservation burns have been carried out. It is clear that the parts of the nature reserve where the forest has previously been managed are very nice to walk in. It is beautiful old pine forest and nice paths. Then there are areas where nature has been left to its own devices, but nobody walks there. It is not possible to get through there because it is totally overgrown. Furthermore, it is life-threatening to walk there because there are trees that can collapse. People often take these issues lightly, but it is not that easy.

The water issues have also been raised earlier in the debate. The government is investing over 400 million kronor in rewetting, but again: We must not forget that someone owns the land. It must therefore take place on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, earlier during the parliamentary session, we adopted a marine environment bill that concerns several of the reservations in the report. It is therefore already addressed.

Regarding chemical policy, we have a broad consensus here in the Riksdag that we should do the work at the EU level to the greatest extent possible. That is where we do the major part because chemicals do not recognize any borders either. Therefore, it is extremely important that we manage, in every way, to make the EU's chemical legislation even clearer and stronger.

There are also reservations regarding the right of public access, Madam Speaker. Here it is again important to think about achieving a balance between the landowner's interests and the right of public access. There is no doubt that the right of public access fulfills an important function. The right of public access is completely central and something that is truly typically Swedish, but we see today that many use it for commercial purposes, which I truly regret. We must manage to move away from that. I note that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has additional information campaigns on the issue to clarify that the right of public access also sets limits. Unfortunately, it has not broken through yet, but we must hope that we will get there.

One issue that takes up a large space in the report and which I, as a resident of Värmland, of course cannot escape, is the wolf. There, we have a number of announcements from 2018 to 2022, i.e., from the previous parliamentary term, which we now, as we have a different government, are addressing seriously.

I looked at the government's website and saw that the first press release came on 25 October 2023; that is when the first steps were taken. Since then, these issues have been handled until the present day, for the most part. On 6 December last year, the EU's proposal to change the wolf's protection status by moving it from Annex 2 to Annex 3 in the Bern Convention was adopted, i.e., from strictly protected to protected. On 21 May this year, the change was made in the Habitats Directive, and the wolf was moved from Annex 4 to Annex 5.

Now, Madam Speaker, we can have real hunting and truly manage the wolf population. Furthermore, the government writes that it is important to cooperate with Norway and Finland in these matters, and I can only agree with that. The wolf population is not Swedish, not Finnish and not Norwegian, and the wolf does not recognize any borders either. Therefore, it is important that we manage the wolf population as a common population, which it also states in the Bern Convention that we should do.

Madam Speaker! There are many important issues, but we must not forget that we cannot take the human being out of the equation. It is clear that some parties wish for it, but the human being also has the right to exist on the globe. We must not forget that.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Kjell-Arne Ottsson's excellent reply on behalf of the Socialdemokraterna earlier, from my delayed train. Trains are, moreover, an issue and a source of sorrow that can very well also be discussed here in the chamber, but perhaps not in this debate.

Kjell-Arne Ottosson spoke about the right of ownership, and that is much appreciated. On that theme, I have two very simple questions. Are Kjell-Arne Ottosson and Kristdemokraterna prepared to support increased compensation to landowners in cases of expropriation, as Centerpartiet has proposed? That was the first question.

The second question is: If KD guards property rights so much, why was the Center Party alone in the Constitutional Committee in focusing heavily on a strengthened property right, while the other Tidö parties mostly wanted to talk about stricter rules for citizenship?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the questions!

I can only regret the delayed train. That is why I now only fly, because it is no longer possible to rely on the train.

Regarding the first question, I would prefer to see that we do not expropriate. The fundamental issue is that the state does it anyway. We should actually get to a point where it would not be necessary. High natural values should be the default, and we can get there if we ensure that we have a rule of law worthy of the name. Fundamentally, I want us not to have to expropriate. Then there are certain areas that are so worthy of protection that the state sees it as a necessity, and in those cases, it is a given that it should be compensated. Therefore, there is no doubt.

Regarding the Committee on the Constitution, I was not in it, but it was our member Anders Andersson. The picture he gives differs diametrically from what Rickard Nordin tries to project in the reply. It was very clear that there were some parties that really wanted to tackle the constitutional issue. The Center Party, according to the information I have received, was not one of them.

After the Grundlagskommittén's work, there have also been some writings and debate articles where it has emerged that there are diametrically different views on what the Centerpartiet stood for in the Grundlagskommittén and what it did not. According to our member, it was clear that the Centerpartiet did not stand up for the right of ownership in the way that Rickard Nordin now does in his reply. But I was not in the Grundlagskommittén myself, so I did not hear how the discussion went there.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Kjell-Arne Ottosson completely agrees that one should preferably not expropriate if it is not necessary. But the question was whether one is prepared to increase the compensation, as the Centerpartiet has proposed, if it nevertheless occurs. Kjell-Arne Ottosson did not answer this.

In the Constitutional Committee, the Tidö parties have a majority, and together with the Tidö parties, the Christian Democrats also have a majority in the Riksdag. It is perfectly possible to submit proposals on strengthened ownership rights, if one so wishes. In the Constitutional Committee, it was chosen not to do so, even though, among others, the Center Party pushed for it.

Of course we can discuss who has pushed for what in the committee, but there we probably have slightly different views. The conclusion is, however, very simple. Nothing has come to the Riksdag regarding strengthened property rights from the proposals that could have been submitted. This is the government's responsibility, and that includes the Christian Democrats and Kjell-Arne Ottsson's comrades.

Will we receive proposals from the government on strengthened property rights before the mandate period is over? That is my question to Kjell-Arne Ottosson.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the questions!

From a Christian Democratic perspective, there is no doubt. One only needs to go back to previous committee motions, where we submitted our own budget proposals, to see that. Compensation for infringement is extremely important. We do not see the 125 percent as a norm that should continue, but rather the limit needs to be raised. Then there is the question of whether other ways should be found to provide compensation.

I know that we are in agreement with C – if C has not changed its mind – on, for example, being able to lease its land to the state during the time that there is a high nature value. Nature is not static but changes. There can therefore be nature values that can disappear when the forest changes.

Regarding the Constitutional Committee, the whole thing is very simple. We had a majority, but no proposals for changes were written if there was not a two-thirds majority within the committee. That was something we were very clear about. The proposals must then pass the Riksdag, and in light of upcoming changes in the law, a two-thirds majority is required for a constitutional amendment to be made. Therefore, no proposals were put forward, even though there were proposals to strengthen precisely the ownership right.

I can absolutely guarantee Rickard Nordin that if there is anything we as a party are working for in the government, it is to point out in every way the legal uncertainty that exists regarding the forest. There are even rock piles that receive protection. It is completely absurd how the legislation is interpreted today. In that case, the Kristdemokraterna are doing their part so that we can get different legislation so that the individual landowner can truly trust the state.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Much is being said about the right of ownership now. Just as the Christian Democrat member himself pointed out, the right of ownership is constitutionally protected. It is said that there is a desire to protect the individual landowner and that it is a priority.

I have repeatedly heard the Kristdemokraterna member present the word property rights. But I have not heard him present what it meant for the individual landowner when a government came that drastically cut the appropriations that were to go to those forest owners who want to protect their forest. One can ask, Madam Speaker, whether these landowners are not just as important to Kristdemokraterna and whether their property rights do not play just as large a role.

What happens when a government, over a very short period, drastically reduces the compensation to landowners is that those land and forest owners who have voluntarily taken the initiative to have their forest protected and are simply waiting for a payment from the state will have to wait this year. This is a major problem for trust in the system and for the fact that we have a functioning system that safeguards entered agreements.

I have received several calls from shocked landowners and forest owners. They have entered into an agreement and expected a payment, but it has not arrived.

Are those landowners who, voluntarily and on their own initiative, want to have their forest protected counted?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the question!

It is pleasing that Rebecka Le Moine highlights that the right of ownership is constitutionally protected. We do not hear that often from the member, and it is also not particularly often advocated by the member's party.

It is once again a matter of priorities. For our part, we have been very clear that the state must begin to care for what it has already taken from private individuals and landowners before it continues and takes new land. It is a priority. Therefore, it has been pointed out how the money should be used.

At the end of the last parliamentary term, decisions were also made regarding voluntariness as a basis for forest protection. Voluntariness is extremely important. If you as a landowner completely voluntarily want to protect parts of your land, that is fine. Do it! That is great. But if you as a landowner do not want it, the state should step in and pay. If the state does not pay, it is by definition not worthy of protection. This should be a basic position in all of this.

If we talk about trust, there are two parties that a large majority of Sweden's forest owners really do not have trust in. One of them is Miljöpartiet, which, not least in this report, clearly points out how they want to increase area protection and take more forest out of production. They do not point out how the transition should be managed instead. They also do not show how the person who owns the forest should be compensated.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for a clarifying answer!

It was clarified what applies if a government pushes down the nature conservation budget and landowners at the same time raise their hands and say that they would like to enter into agreements to protect conservation-worthy forest, which may have existed for generations and which they want to save for future generations. If there is no money, the forest is, according to the member, not conservation-worthy enough. It is, in my opinion, Madam Speaker, an overstatement that does not belong in a sane and reasonable forest debate.

One must ensure that those who want to protect their forest are allowed to protect it. By reducing the budget, it becomes a much narrower criterion and selection. It is a mockery of all forest owners who are proud of their land and of the natural values they have. They may have inherited the forest and want to manage it, bring out the forest's fine natural values, use it as a destination for outings, and show it off with pride.

Madam Speaker! It is regrettable that there is an unnecessary amount of polarization in the issue. It is not controversial for a forest owner to want to have forestry in one part of the forest and at the same time want to protect another part. It should not be difficult to find a successful way for that.

But from the government side and from the member, we often hear a polarizing tone. The protection and the species protection are being diminished. Not a trace of a solution-oriented approach to find replacement models that, for example, could ensure that conflict species become bonus species, is visible. The person who works with nature and has nature values on their land would thereby receive an extra income and extra profitability. That would be, Madam Speaker, to increase the dialogue and the consensus in forest policy.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! As I have pointed out in previous exchanges with the Green Party, the Green Party has infinitely more money than all other parties in this chamber.

One borrows enormous sums. What would it mean for the individual Swede? It is not just about forest owners, but all Swedes will in some way be affected by the enormous debts that Miljöpartiet wants to borrow. Miljöpartiet has as much money as they want to be able to scatter around on anything, as long as it is something that lies within Miljöpartiet's area of interest.

If we, God forbid, were to get a red-green government where Miljöpartiet is included, I still find it hard to believe that such a government could agree to borrow these enormous sums and thus have this much money to be able to distribute.

Even the Green Party must wake up and see reality as it is. One is not there today, Madam Speaker, but today the Green Party is on a completely different planet on many issues.

Rebecka Le Moine mentions that this is seen as a mockery of forest owners. If there is anything that is a mockery of forest owners, it is when the state steps in and points with the whole finger. You have your property which you have managed. You have done as well as you could, which has led to you having high nature values. Then the state steps in and points with the whole finger. That, if anything, Madam Speaker, is a mockery of the forest owners who have done a great job and are then punished.

It is not that all forest owners, out of kindness, want to remove as much forest as possible. It is about the pension insurance and about investments that have been made. It can also be a huge leisure interest. It weighs incredibly heavily.

Again: Reality catches up.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the speech!

I thought that we should talk a little bit about wetlands. We are both aware that a restoration of wetlands has positive effects for both nature and climate, sometimes simultaneously. One of the issues I raised in my speech concerns the criticism that we Social Democrats have against the government for not doing enough when it comes to putting a stop to the exploitation of wetlands.

Kjell-Arne Ottosson did not sit in the previous Environmental Goals Commission, which I did. One of the proposals that the Environmental Goals Commission agreed upon was to have a greater precautionary principle linked specifically to the exploitation of wetlands. Special consideration should be taken when wetlands are nevertheless exploited.

My question to Kjell-Arne Ottosson is: Does he know if this is something that the government intends to take further from the Environmental Goals Preparation's report?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the question!

There is no doubt that, just as Joakim Järrebring mentions in the speech, wetlands have great value. There are many positive effects. But we must also not forget, Madam Speaker, that it is very important that it is done in exactly the right way when we are to rewet, at least if one wants to rewet with a fundamentally reduced CO2 leakage. If one makes a mistake there, it becomes counterproductive, and more CO2 is released.

It is therefore extremely important that it is done in the correct way, and therefore it is also important that those who do this really have the knowledge. The government has allocated funds. As I said in my speech, it is over 400 million in the current budget just for investment in wetlands.

Regarding the exploitation of wetlands, there is no doubt that it is a controversial issue. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of people who behave horribly when they try to act against this. Such behavior and the way they try to drive their action does not belong anywhere.

A question arises. We are in Sweden, not least in the area of climate, dependent on new forest. If there is anyone who is dependent on cultivation peat, it is our seedlings. As for vegetable growers, they are also dependent on cultivation peat. If we are to completely stop extracting and harvesting cultivation peat, it is instead a matter of importing coconut fiber from Sri Lanka and India. I do not know if the climate will thank us for that. Here, it is really about finding a balance in the issue.

Just as Joakim Järrebring said, I was not part of the Environmental Goals Commission last time, but I am now. I have not seen anything regarding how the government intends to handle these issues, Madam Speaker, so I do not dare to answer that.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for the answer!

I do not know if the member deliberately misunderstood my question or if I expressed myself unclearly. But when it comes to the exploitation of wetlands, the problem that the authorities have highlighted is that we are building on wetlands. It is often about road projects but also about industrial and residential development.

The problem right now is that even though the government is investing a lot in measures to rewet wetlands, we are losing more hectares of wetland in the form of the exploitation that I am pointing out than we achieve through improvements of previously drained wetlands. As long as we have that situation, it is a losing battle we are fighting where we get rid of more wetland through exploitation than we recreate.

The question is therefore extremely important. I am very pleased with and positive towards the fact that the Environmental Goals Commission, in this matter, unlike in the matter of peat, was completely unanimous in proceeding with the proposal for a greater precautionary principle when exploiting just wetlands.

It does not have to mean a total stop. There are also ways, for example, to build roads through wetland areas that take into account that it is a wetland and that allow one to preserve large parts of the wetland. But that is not how exploitation occurs today.

Since the member does not know how the government intends to proceed, it may still be interesting to know how the member thinks. Does the member think, just as I and the Socialdemokrater do, that we need to do both? We need both to restore damaged wetlands and, above all, to put a stop to the indiscriminate exploitation of wetlands.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the clarification! Yes, I misunderstood the question. I misinterpreted the member's statement.

There is no doubt that we must manage to find a balance in these parts. We need to have the opportunity to build new roads and new housing while at the same time we need to take care of and restore wetlands. So yes, it is a balance.

It is clear in the ongoing discussion about drained wetlands and how this should be handled. We can see that if we were to restore virtually all drained wetlands, as some organizations strive for, we would put incredibly large parts of Sweden under water. We complain that our self-sufficiency rate today is at 50 percent. It would in that case drop dramatically because large parts of the areas where we currently have food production are former wetlands that are drained. That is precisely why they are good lands to grow food on.

This is a difficult balancing act. But there is no doubt that we must manage to have two thoughts in our heads at the same time, just as Joakim Järrebring is pointing out.

As I said, I did not sit on the Environmental Goals Commission during the previous period, so I do not have the same basis as Joakim Järrebring regarding the question of how much is being exploited. I do not know that, so I cannot judge exactly this. But the balance is important in the question, regardless of how much wetlands are built upon when we build roads or how much we restore.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a report consisting of a proposition on a new national park in Nämdöskärgården. The report also deals with motions on nature conservation from the general motion period. In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to move for approval of reservation 22.

Madam Speaker! I thought I would begin by talking about Nämdöskärgården. The Sweden Democrats have no other proposal than the one in the bill that is to be decided upon in the Riksdag shortly. We have nothing against nature conservation in this part of the archipelago. Fundamentally, we also have nothing against a national park, which is why we have not also submitted a follow-up motion. But, Madam Speaker, at the same time, I believe it needs to be discussed what one wants to achieve when forming a national park.

The area that is now to become a park already has three different forms of protection. It is not a matter of it being exploited. No large-scale fishing is conducted. The hunting that is conducted today is limited and occurs with a clear added value for biodiversity. Fundamentally, the hunting that occurs today should be able to continue even when it is a national park. There will not be any particularly large changes; that is also what has been communicated to the residents.

Madam Speaker! When speaking with people who live in the area, one is still met with a criticism of the process, which I believe one must take seriously. The promised preliminary study was never carried out. The residents have also not perceived it as their concerns being taken seriously. It may be about the fact that restrictions will be made in the future that have not been presented now.

The issue also concerns the pressure from visitors. No major change will occur regarding the protection, which will be maintained. However, the pressure from visitors can increase significantly. This can have consequences for biodiversity. Therefore, we from the Sverigedemokratisk side believe it is important that the authorities closely monitor the spillover effect that the establishment of the national park may bring about. The fear is that the establishment, for example, leads to more people adding boats in the surrounding area, especially just outside the national park, where birdlife can be disturbed during sensitive periods. This is already happening today.

I have personally walked around these islands and seen that one can find litter. One can also hear stories about tourists who simply do not know the rules that apply or do not read the signs that are posted. They, for example, let dogs loose even though they are not allowed to, and in this way cause damage to grazing sheep.

Our hope is that these fears will not materialize and that the establishment of the park strengthens – does not weaken – the protection of biodiversity. But if things do not go as planned, it is important to be open to taking measures while ensuring that it does not make things difficult for the few people who still live out on the islands in the archipelago and provide them with life year-round.

Madam Speaker! I also intended to say a few words about the EU's Water Framework Directive. There are problems both with the directive itself and with the Swedish application.

The EU Water Framework Directive entered into force in 2000 and aims to protect and improve aquatic ecosystems as well as promote sustainable water use. This is highly justified because access to clean water is a fundamental prerequisite for life. At the same time, the directive creates obstacles to effectively removing nutrients and pharmaceutical residues, and court cases have shown that it limits the expansion of treatment plants required for optimal purification. The directive also complicates investments in advanced technology to purify pharmaceutical residues and tends to favor less efficient facilities.

We have also been able to see how environmental protection in the area has, for example, led to the closure of mines. We were previously self-sufficient in Sweden on lime for industry and environmental and water care. Today we must import lime. The Gåsgrubban mine was recently closed because it was considered to have too high limit values of uranium, while the levels are permitted in drinking water. It appears to be absurd and counterproductive.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we hope that the government within the EU will continue to actively work to reform the Water Framework Directive so that environmentally friendly activities such as wastewater treatment plants and other socially beneficial measures can always be permitted. Pressure should be exerted to ensure that the directive is characterized by cost-effective solutions and creates a balance between a good water environment, a competitive agriculture and forestry sector, and the preservation of cultural heritage.

Furthermore, work should be undertaken on a general review of how measures according to the directive are decided. We want to emphasize the importance of introducing reasonable exceptions. Without such, the directive risks counteracting the goals in the EU's regulation on critical raw materials. The closure of Gåsgruvan is one example, but more mines may follow.

Finally, we want to emphasize that the conditions for access to clean water vary within the EU, why national self-determination must be given more room. We believe that work should be done towards an arrangement where the member states' regulatory authorities, after careful examination and weighing of different interests, can approve activities of great social value even if environmental quality standards are partially exceeded, provided that this does not involve risks to humans or animals.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Martin Kinnunen for the speech! The member addressed the special statement that the Sverigedemokraterna submitted along with the report. I think that the special statement reminds me a bit of Bishop Brask's note; one signs, but includes a "brasklapp" to avoid taking full responsibility. But is it really a stance that is sufficient for the largest party in the government base?

I believe that the voters and we in this chamber deserve clarity and not tactical sidesteps when it comes to something as important as the Baltic Sea and the Baltic Sea's future. I therefore have a simple question for the member: Does the member really think this is a responsible action from a party that claims to lead Sweden after the next election?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! To Joakim Järrebring, I can say that if the Social Democrats wish to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats to improve the Baltic Sea, we can book a meeting and talk together about how we should proceed, whether we should design the proposals together or how we should do it.

The problem now, as we handle the matter in the committee, is that a situation could arise where a minority in the Riksdag motions for approval of a report. Our report would then not win the vote. For example, a Social Democratic report could then win the vote – but it would still not be with the majority's support.

We do not want to contribute to a proposal that we are not sure brings improvements for Sweden winning. It is against that background that the special statement from Sverigedemokraterna should be seen.

If the Social Democrats want to discuss cooperation with the Sweden Democrats to improve the situation in, for example, the Baltic Sea, it is welcome. It is enough to send an email. Then we will decide on a time and place to discuss it further here.

As the situation is now in the committee, the Sweden Democrats cannot contribute to social democratic reservations winning votes without us being able to influence the outcome. We naturally want to be able to influence how the policy for the Baltic Sea is designed. Therefore, we have submitted a separate statement.

I note that there are also specific statements from the Social Democrats in this report on the national park, even though they did not have any proposals of their own.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for a clarifying answer!

I got stuck on another part of the member's speech, which concerned the specific conditions for those who live in an archipelago environment and are permanent residents.

We Social Democrats have at our congress – which is often mentioned by many of the parties in the government base – decided that we need a specific rural policy in Sweden. Just as there are specific conditions in the countryside compared to in the city, those living in rural areas also need a special and specifically targeted policy so that one can live and reside in all of Sweden.

I am interested in hearing how Member Kinnunen reasons regarding this. Does the Member share the assessment that a special island policy is needed in Sweden, given that we are the country in the world with the most islands?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the questions!

I did not follow the Social Democratic congress closely enough to know what island policy the Social Democrats decided on or if it was merely the case that it was concluded that some kind of island policy should be introduced. That is how it is usually done in politics when one lacks own proposals about something – one puts up a label and says that this policy is very important.

Recently, I met residents who live just outside the proposed national park. The first topic I heard about that was important was a reformed coastal protection. This is precisely what we have decided on. Here in the Riksdag, we have decided on a reformed coastal protection, which affects certain types of activities. Recently, an inquiry was also appointed that is to fundamentally change the coastal protection.

This is exactly what is needed in a local policy. It is a significantly freer system where the municipalities get greater influence and where decision-making ends up closer to the people. It is not a rigid system that in all situations hinders people who want to build a bridge or prevents one from having a handball cup in the summer. A little more freedom is needed in this area in Sweden. It is also a fantastically good local policy, even we did not call the press conference non-local.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! This is becoming something of two debates in one. We have to deal with both the government's proposal to establish a new marine national park, and nature conservation in general.

To comment somewhat on the first, I can state clearly that during the current parliamentary term, we have taken important steps for a healthier ocean. At the end of last year, the marine environment bill was passed, where we charted a new direction for marine environment policy. With this direction, we take the entire ecosystem into account. I have said it before and say it again: This was the first step, and more have been taken since then.

We now have, for example, a ban on bottom trawling in protected marine areas. We are working intensively to implement the marine environment policy. An important part of this work is to ensure that more important sea areas are protected. During the past year, the government has therefore designated no fewer than three new marine Natura 2000 areas.

We are now considering the proposal to establish Nämdöskärgårdens national park, which will become Sweden's first marine national park in the Baltic Sea. This is important. It is a unique area in the Stockholm archipelago with very high nature values. Furthermore, it is an area that is easy to visit. It is important for biodiversity and for all of us who love to be out in nature.

Madam Speaker! Nämdöskärgårdens nationalpark will, as I just said, become Sweden's first marine national park in the Baltic Sea. It covers an area of just over 25,000 hectares. The purpose is to preserve a representative and varied marine and archipelago landscape for the Baltic Sea. I am both happy and proud to stand here in the chamber today, because now we are protecting an important marine environment. Now we are protecting a unique landscape and contributing to the goal of protecting 30 percent of the Baltic Sea. This ensures a sustainable future for our marine ecosystems, which in parts are in very poor condition. It is therefore extremely urgent. This is an important decision for a living archipelago.

Now we are creating better conditions for biological diversity. As someone wise said to me just before I headed to the chamber: The archipelago must once again become more than spigg, seal, cormorant and wild boar. The Baltic Sea must once again become a living sea. With this, which I believe we will vote green for tomorrow, we take another important step in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! I move on to nature conservation.

During last year's debate, I chose to focus on two issues: the coastal protection and the wolf. The coastal protection came up in the exchange of remarks before my speech. When I stood here a year ago, I noted that the coastal protection had for a long time been something of a sore point in Swedish politics, but things are really happening in this area now. In a couple of weeks, the proposals in the bill Relief in coastal protection – a first step – will enter into force. At that point, the general coastal protection for small lakes, narrow watercourses, and waters created after June 30, 1975, will disappear. Then we will get a more reasonable balance between the right of ownership – this liberal fundamental principle – and environmental protection.

Furthermore, as late as last week, the government appointed an inquiry that shall review the shore protection more broadly. We are therefore taking the next step with this work and will propose extensive changes. Now we are making Sweden a little freer.

Madam Speaker! I move on to the second question I chose to raise in the debate last year, namely the one regarding the wolf. Even here, things are moving. Things are happening at the Government Offices at a high pace. The latest in the series of decisions is that the date for decisions on license hunting of wolves is being removed. The hope is that this will make the hunting decisions more adaptable.

I live in one of Sweden's wolf-densest areas, Madam Speaker. For me, it is obvious that the wolf population, just like all other wildlife, must be managed. We must find a better balance in this matter.

It is as important to preserve a viable wolf population as it is to provide those who actually live in the countryside – people like myself and my neighbors, who are affected by the damage that the wolf causes to those who work their land, raise their livestock, and hunt in their forest – better conditions to live in the countryside. It is important for a living countryside.

It is at the same time important to say that the wolf is a part of the Swedish fauna. We shall have a viable wolf population, and we shall manage it wisely, long-term and sustainably. We need a better balance in this issue. This means that it is justified to have license hunting in wolf-dense areas and that the protection hunt needs to be more effective.

The government is now taking important steps in the right direction even in this issue. We are creating better conditions to manage the wolf population in a more predictable and proactive way. This gives us the conditions to pursue a predator policy that is both ecologically and socially sustainable – i.e., a more balanced policy. This is good.

We shall have wolves in Sweden, but the number of wolves must be reduced. Management must be both ecologically and socially sustainable while simultaneously providing room for protection hunting, especially now when we see that the wolf is spreading southward. It is a policy that creates acceptance and a long-term sustainable management – in other words, balance.

Madam Speaker! I have said it before: This is not a simple issue. There are few questions I am stopped from speaking about as often as just this one when I go in and buy a liter of milk at Ica or a cola at the gas station. It is engaging because it affects people in their everyday lives.

There are people who want to reduce the population to 170 individuals or even fewer. Many do not want to see any wolves at all. Preferably, it should go as quickly as possible; it should have been done already yesterday. Others, instead, want to see more wolves than we have today. Reflection is required here.

If we pursue a policy that results in more wolves, we will see more examples of killed domestic animals and a greater impact on the ungulate wildlife, and that is something we do not want. We do not want to create imbalance. If we instead allow the population to be shot down too heavily and too quickly, we might have problems with not having the room to make decisions regarding protection hunting and thus no longer be able to remove the problem wolves. That neither creates acceptance, and that is a situation we do not want to end up in.

The Social Democrats' and the Liberals' position on this issue is, as I have said, that the wolf is a part of the Swedish fauna. We shall have a viable wolf population that is managed wisely, sustainably, and in the long term. Therefore, it is justified to have both license hunting and an effective protection hunt on wolves. Here we are taking important steps.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the contribution from the Liberals. Elin Nilsson began the speech by stating that the Liberals are proud that it has now been clarified that it shall be prohibited to bottom trawl in marine protected areas. This is unfortunately not entirely correct, Madam Speaker. What is being done is to give authorities the opportunity to indicate if the prohibition can enter into force. But there is a lack of conditions and principles for when the authorities shall be able to introduce such a prohibition. Therefore, I wonder why it is stated so confidently that it is now not possible to bottom trawl in marine protected areas. That is my first question.

My second question, for which I am also very curious to hear the answer to, is what will happen with the Nämdöskärgård national park. Will there be a ban on bottom trawling there or not, as the Liberals foresee the process? A strict protection would have been very welcome, that is to say, that it is not permitted to conduct fishing that damages the ecosystems, such as bottom trawling does.

The wolf seems to come up in all the speeches. It is an issue that engages. I am a bit confounded. On one hand, one is very proud of the policy being pursued. On the other hand, one touches upon one of the sticking points: With a reduced wolf population, the margin for, for example, protection hunting decreases. There, I think there is an aspect of justice that is important to take with you. How is it possible, for example, to guarantee that the livestock owners who live near wolves and feel anxiety are given the opportunity to conduct protection hunting on the wolves that repeatedly take livestock when we are to press the population down to 170 individuals?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for important questions.

When it comes to bottom trawling in protected marine areas, the main rule is that there should be a ban. Then there is the possibility of certain exceptions, which is good. There are few rules that are harmed by having certain valves where they are needed. There are exceptions on the west coast. In the process towards the ban we have now decided on, it was very important that that valve remained.

When it comes to the wolf, I am very pleased with the policy we are pursuing. The consequences of there having been such a large number of wolves in such a limited area in Sweden have been significant, which has made the need to manage the population increasingly clear. We are taking important steps towards a policy that makes the consequences more reasonable.

The committee members raise the very important aspect of justice and the issue of culling. Just as I pointed out in my speech, it is important that we do not reduce the wolf population so drastically that there is no room for culling. It is an issue that I monitor closely and repeatedly raise with the responsible minister.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is argued here that Sweden has had a very high wolf density. I want to mention that in Spain, they have succeeded in the protection of wolves and have more than 2,000 individuals. In Italy, they have more than 3,000 individuals. France, Poland, Germany and Romania – all these countries have larger wolf populations than Sweden. I have experience of working with tigers in India and am familiar with the politics surrounding large predators. When I speak with my international colleagues about how the wolf debate sounds in Sweden, I am often met with great astonishment over how one can have such a large conflict over so few individuals.

We must know that Sweden's wolf population originates from three individuals and that they were all related. That means that the wolves we have in Sweden are incredibly inbred. Here, an exchange would be needed. It is also one of the conditions for the small population of wolves that we have and which the government proposes to reduce even further. I am astonished at how a government that in its rhetoric usually says it wants to hold onto the money now wants to move towards a more or less individual-based management which will become more expensive. One is also interested in starting a completely new agency. There is quite a bit more to talk about.

I would also like to briefly raise the issue of the shoreline protection. Here we have a liberal party that argues that this is a freedom reform. When I talk to people, I hear that the right of public access and the possibility of walking along these beautiful places are valued very highly. According to surveys, 62 percent think it is a bad idea to make this deterioration of the shoreline protection.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the wolf issue. If the number of individuals had been distributed over the entire area of Sweden, it would not have been particularly dense. But now, for a long time, the majority have been located in Örebro län and in Värmland. Then it becomes very many individuals on a very small area. There have been too many wolves on too small an area. We are now seeing to it that we act against this.

When it comes to the shore protection, it is truly a liberal freedom reform being made. The shore protection issue is probably the issue that has followed me the longest in politics. It was relevant long before I became politically engaged. It is an issue that engages, especially in the countryside, and it is truly a rural reform that we are now implementing.

Hand on your heart: How can one say that a repealed coastal protection for ditches, narrow watercourses, and smaller lakes affects the right of public access and the public's access to the shores? It is not as if a construction boom without precedent will be rolled out because we repeal rules on coastal protection and make it more reasonable. The current order creates an incredible amount of red tape and costs an incredible amount of authority resources. It has not been balanced in a reasonable way against the right of ownership.

Now we are strengthening property rights, which is a liberal fundamental principle. What we are doing now is something I am incredibly proud of and pleased that we are implementing under the liberal flag. It is a liberal minister in the government who has championed this, but we have done it in great consensus. I would say that all of us coalition parties are very satisfied with what we are now achieving. It is very important for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The state of biodiversity in Sweden and in the rest of the world is critical. Researchers have stated that the loss of species and ecosystems is a threat as great as the climate crisis. Of the Earth's approximately 8 million plant and animal species, nearly 1 million are at risk of extinction. We are in the sixth mass extinction. Previous mass extinctions have been caused by meteorite impacts and geological processes, but this time it is human activity that is the cause of the extinction.

Even here in Sweden, the development is heading in the wrong direction. The proportion of red-listed species is increasing. The greatest threats to animals and plants in Sweden are logging and the reforestation of the open landscape's pastures and meadows.

The forest constitutes the habitat for a large part of the biological diversity in Sweden and is home to many endangered species. Today's intensive forestry affects many species negatively. Instead of living forests with trees of all ages, dead wood, and a mixture of tree species, our forests today consist largely of plantations of even-aged spruce or pines that are harvested long before they reach their maximum lifespan. Our forests are managed to provide as high an economic return as possible, and we have a forestry practice that unilaterally prioritizes production – at the expense of biological diversity.

Madam Speaker! In December 2022, the world's countries agreed on a global framework to stop species extinction. According to the framework, 30 percent of the earth's marine and land areas shall be protected by 2030. It is pleasing that ambitious goals are in place, but they will not be reached without effort.

Sweden failed to live up to any of the goals set for 2020 within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nor are any of the national environmental goals with a direct connection to biodiversity being met. It is a clear failing grade for a wealthy welfare country like Sweden. It is unfortunately also a testament to the fact that environmental considerations continue to be subordinated to short-term profit interests.

To break the trend, new management measures and an improved regulatory framework are required so that agriculture and forestry, fishing, and other activities can be conducted sustainably within nature's limits. It is also required that we protect areas with high nature values from exploitation.

How does the government respond to this serious situation? Unfortunately, it responds with brutal cuts to nature conservation. Resources for the protection and management of valuable nature have been seized since the government took office. Money for environmental monitoring and measures for pollinators has been withdrawn. At the EU level, Swedish ministers are even lobbying against other countries to stop important legislation on nature restoration.

For a period of two years, I served on the Environmental Goals Preparation Group, which, among other things, was tasked with submitting proposals on how Sweden should achieve both international commitments on biodiversity and the Swedish environmental goals. The result was a total failure.

The Environmental Goals Commission had the opportunity to present historically important proposals on protecting the last remaining old-growth forests and on protecting 30 percent of Swedish nature, which would have been completely in line with the international agreements that Sweden is bound by and which this government itself has backed. But there was a flat "no" from the right-wing parties.

This is, in fact, a government characterized by total indifference toward the threats to nature. If one listens to the debates on biodiversity in this chamber over recent years, one realizes that the right-wing parties' contributions, to a remarkably large extent, are about how they want to kill more wild animals rather than how we can solve the crisis for biodiversity.

It is madness, because this is a crisis that affects us ourselves to the highest degree. The more the diversity in nature decreases, the more the vulnerability of agriculture and forestry to droughts, floods, and storms increases. The more species that go extinct, the more the possibility of finding remedies for diseases and technical solutions to the challenges of the future in nature decreases.

For my part, however, I think that animals and nature of course have the right to exist for their own sake. I have the privilege of living next to a nature reserve, and I become just as happy every time I am there. It is nice to think that this is nature that should be preserved for all time. But perhaps I cannot even feel certain about that anymore, because I know that there are plenty of politicians on the right side who want to make it easier to revoke nature reserves. Yes, we who love nature truly live in a difficult and sad time.

Madam Speaker! The climate and the state of the ecosystems are interconnected. Large amounts of carbon are bound, for example, in the oceans, which also produce a large part of the oxygen that exists on Earth. In order for these ecosystem services to continue to function, it is required that the oceans' ecosystems are preserved and that biodiversity is protected.

Research on coastal ecosystems has shown that there is a risk that these environments, which normally bind a lot of carbon, could instead become emission sources in the future if the environmental condition deteriorates. The climate crisis and ocean acidification amplify the effects of other marine environmental problems such as eutrophication and oxygen-free bottoms, which affects the oceans' resilience.

Despite extensive and long-term remedial work for a better marine environment, there is still much that shows that the environmental status in the Western Sea and the Baltic Sea is not good. The biggest problems are linked to eutrophication, hazardous substances, physical exploitation, and fishing. The difficult problems with oxygen deficiency and dead bottoms in the Baltic Sea persist.

It is however important to remember that it can yield results when one finally takes sharp environmental measures. In several places along the coasts, one sees positive effects of the fact that emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen have been addressed through better treatment. The sea eagles were almost extinct in the 1970s, but today they have returned. Bans on environmental toxins have been a very important factor for this success, which shows that political decisions make a difference.

Madam Speaker! To reverse the negative trend for nature and biodiversity, measures are obviously needed in a long range of areas beyond those I have raised here today. We need an agriculture that to a much greater extent promotes species richness, where wetlands are preserved and where animals are allowed to roam outdoors. We must also limit the use of environmental toxins in agriculture. Physical planning must take greater environmental considerations.

In conclusion, I would like to return to what I said in the introduction. We are in the sixth mass extinction. The extinction of species, together with global warming and the pollution that humanity releases, interact in a planetary triple crisis. No one will be left untouched by its consequences.

Since it is we humans who have put ourselves in this serious situation, it is only we who can and must solve it. Therefore, political leadership was needed. We shall continue to cultivate land, forest, and sea, but we must do so in a sustainable way. Ultimately, it is nature's carrying capacity that must set the limits for what we can do.

I move for approval of reservation 10.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I enjoy hunting. I enjoy hunting game in the forest and I enjoy eating climate-smart, locally produced, delicious meat. Yes, I love nature. I hike, hunt, pick berries and manage my forest and my fields precisely because I love nature. As usual, Vänsterpartiet forgets – or one perhaps wants to forget it, at least – that someone owns the forest, even though it contradicts socialist ideas.

There were very many parts in Andrea Andersson Tay's speech that I would like to address. I will not have time to address them all. But as regards this matter of the sixth mass extinction, it is something we often hear from some parties in the chamber. I must ask Andrea Andersson Tay: What does the sixth mass extinction in Sweden consist of?

Here, the Left Party is once again trying to paint a picture that makes their ideology align with reality, but reality strikes back again. We will not get any answer to the question of where in Sweden we have a mass extinction, because we have no mass extinction in Sweden. Then, there is no doubt that we have certain species that are struggling, but some mass extinction is not a matter of discussion.

It is most taxing on the cultivated landscape and in certain sandy areas. That is where it is most taxing. And as regards the cultivated landscape, Vänsterpartiet does what it can to make things difficult for our farmers instead of facilitating more nature grazing lands – more animals that go and graze. That would have helped the biological diversity.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Once a year, we have a debate here in the chamber about biodiversity. I think it is sad that the debate is about so many other things than biodiversity.

Those who love nature should, I think at least, engage a bit more to preserve and restore it. I do not see that commitment at all from the right-wing parties. I can also remind that Vänsterpartiet has no proposals whatsoever to change property rights, so this constant repetition of alleged threats against property rights is beginning to most resemble delusions.

I move to the question of the biodiversity crisis and the sixth mass extinction. It is a global crisis, which means it affects all countries and also requires action from all countries. We in Sweden can in no way remain unaffected by this.

I also want to remind that the government itself has actually stood behind the global agreement on biodiversity which says that one should protect 30 percent of nature and also work to restore nature. When I sat in the Environmental Goals Commission, however, there was a flat-out refusal from the right-wing parties – from the parties that sit in the government today – against introducing such goals in Sweden.

I think it is very strange that one can stand behind this on a global level but then not want to implement it at home.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I still think that I am quite well engaged in nature conservation because I manage my own forest and the fields I own as well as I can to ensure good growth so that we get a larger carbon sink as long as the forest grows. On my fields, I conduct a strong fight against lupines and other invasive species to ensure that the orchids that previously existed there return, and I see success. I therefore think to the highest degree that I manage myself and engage to get greater growth in the forest and to get more species – to get diversity.

Regarding this matter with the Environmental Goals Commission and the 30 percent protected and 10 percent strictly protected forest, Madam Speaker, do the Left parties want to calculate in their own way so that we trip ourselves up? If we in Sweden calculate as the majority of the other countries do, so that we do not mix apples and pears but handle apples separately and pears separately, we are actually on the right track regarding these 30 and 10 percent respectively. But that is not what the Left Party wants; instead, they want us to sabotage ourselves in order to strike even harder against Swedish competitiveness.

Thus, we cannot take advantage of our great competitive advantage in the transition, namely products from the forest. The forest is only to stand as a carbon sink, and then we will not get any transition, Madam Speaker. The left-wing parties strive for transition, but then the question is: What should one use? Apparently, we are not to use the forest.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! With all respect for what Kjell-Arne Ottosson engages in in his spare time, I do not perhaps think that it is the most interesting thing to discuss in this debate. As a government, one has by far a much greater opportunity to make a large impact regarding what happens in the whole country compared to what a private individual can do on their own land. I think perhaps it is this that should be in focus for the debate, and I think there has been a remarkable lack of proposals on what we can do to protect and safeguard biodiversity.

Vänsterpartiet absolutely does not want to calculate in its own way when it comes to biodiversity. On the contrary, we want to follow the recommendations of the research. I am not ashamed to say that I think Sweden should be at the forefront when it comes to the protection of nature. We are one of the world's richest countries, and we can afford it. I believe that is also what the Swedish people expect from our governing politicians.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! In connection with the recently concluded ocean conference in Nice, environmental organizations sounded the alarm about serious deficiencies in the global work to protect our oceans. A new report shows that 14 billion dollars are missing to reach the so-called 30x30 goal, which means protecting 30 percent of the world's oceans by 2030. Despite solemn promises, less than 9 percent of the oceans are protected. It is about the climate system, about species on the brink of extinction, and about the livelihoods of millions of people.

But for this agreement to become a reality, it is required that at least 60 countries ratify it. This has not been achieved. And here comes the strange thing, Madam Speaker: Sweden, which is one of the countries that has been most driving in the negotiations and was among the first to sign the agreement and which once was involved in taking the initiative for the UN's first ocean conference, has not ratified it. It is remarkable.

For me and the Center Party, it is a clear priority to follow international rules and commitments. They must, of course, also take into account the conditions of regions and countries because traditions regarding nature conservation and management of natural resources differ significantly. A national strategy and an action plan are needed that apply to both land and sea, and therefore I move for approval of reservation 1.

Sweden's marine environment, especially the Baltic Sea, is in a serious condition. Eutrophication, plastic waste, chemicals, overfishing, and climate change have for a long time put pressure on our marine ecosystems. In this situation, we need to take decisive action. One of the most important tools we have is to protect more sea and coast from large-scale activities.

It is therefore pleasing that the work to establish Nämdöskärgården national park has now led to the proposal reaching the Riksdag and that the national park is planned to be inaugurated during 2025. It will be the second of its kind in Sweden after Kosterhavet national park, which is located here in my home on the west coast.

Centerpartiet has long been driving the increase in the amount of marine and coastal areas that are protected. Protected areas strengthen the oceans' biological diversity, provide living space for endangered species, and are also an important part of our climate work. The marine environments, not least the seagrass meadows in shallow sea bays, function as effective carbon sinks – blue carbon sinks that contribute to slowing down climate change and create living space for many species.

Eutrophication, chemicals, litter, rising ocean temperatures, and overfishing have for a long time pushed the oceans' ecosystems to the limit. Today we see signs of ecological collapse in parts of our marine environments, especially along the coasts. But the oceans are not just habitats. They are also our allies in the climate work. Protected areas function as large, blue carbon sinks. They bind carbon dioxide and slow down climate change, and they give our ecosystems the chance to recover.

Madam Speaker! It is not only the oceans that are valuable for our biodiversity. Sweden is one of the most densely forested countries in Europe. Our nature is characterized by forests, mountains, mires, lakes, and coastal landscapes, and much of what we do to protect nature takes place precisely in the forest. Centerpartiet stands behind strong protection for our most valuable forests, especially old-growth forests and ancient forests, where the natural values are high and the cultivation is already limited.

But this protection must be applied with respect for property rights. The individual forest owner should not be affected financially by having taken responsibility for their land. On the contrary, landowners who preserve high natural values should be able to feel pride. Therefore, we in Centerpartiet propose that on those occasions when infringement compensation is needed, it should be raised significantly, from today's 125 to 150 percent. But the protection should, of course, be based on voluntariness as far as possible. It is also the state that should take the primary responsibility, both financially and through its land ownership.

I would also like to take the opportunity to tip off Kjell-Arne Ottosson, who during previous exchanges has spoken about the stone heaps that are gladly given biological biotope protection. There are motions in this report that propose that such protection should be abolished. Despite this, neither Kjell-Arne Ottosson, Kristdemokraterna, nor the government have put forward such proposals. This is one of Sweden's worst laws, which should be abolished immediately.

The protection of our nature is not just about maps, reserve boundaries, or piles of stones, for that matter. It is also about management. Unfortunately, the management of many protected areas is neglected. Natural values risk being lost because we do not take care of the protected areas and do not manage them in the right way. We want to increase the pace of the restoration and recovery of protected nature, and we want to ensure long-term management. Before new protected areas are introduced, we shall take proper care of those that already exist.

For the Centre Party, the landowners are an important part of the solution. They know their land best. We trust their commitment and willingness to contribute to biodiversity. Therefore, we want voluntary measures to be encouraged and that private forest owners should be able to receive compensation for preserving endangered species on their lands as long as the species remain. Then, the presence of endangered species becomes an asset while the land can continue to be cultivated.

Protecting our nature is not just about human impact. The impact from invasive species is also becoming ever greater, and the fight against these must be scaled up. Invasive and alien species are a growing threat to our biodiversity and something that actually gives every reason to shoot more animals. It is about species that do not belong in our biological ecosystem but which, as the climate changes, find it easier to establish themselves in Swedish nature. They outcompete native species, have no natural enemies, change habitats, and risk wiping out entire ecosystems.

As a co-submission to a government that does not seem to care much about the environment, I also want to emphasize that this risks becoming terribly expensive. The killer snail, the stone marten, and the Canada goose are just a few examples of animals that cause major problems or have the potential to do so. Still, the government is dragging its feet. Low ambitions, cuts to Naturvårdsverket, and rigid regulations, for example regarding nematodes, cause more invasive species to spread. We see the same thing when it comes to plants such as giant hogweed and Japanese knotweed.

For the Centre Party, this is a priority issue. We have long proposed that the fight against these pests and invasive plants should be scaled up both on land and in the sea.

The state's own reviews show that today's efforts are not sufficient. There is a lack of a basic inventory of which invasive alien species we have, how widespread they are, and how species should be combated in the best way. We therefore call for better mapping, improved environmental monitoring, and a national strategy.

However, more strategies are not enough – there needs to be more workshop. Here we can also think anew. As someone who appreciates digitalization and esports, I am inspired by the mobile game Crowdsorsa, which is now being tested in several Swedish municipalities such as Hagfors, Sunne and Falun. With the help of the game, the public is engaged in combating species such as lupin, giant hogweed and Canadian goldenrod. The efforts are filmed, and then they are reviewed and compensated financially via an app. This is an example of how we can collectively do more by uniting technology, knowledge and citizen engagement and making an important environmental effort.

Centerpartiet proposes a holistic approach with better cooperation between county administrative boards, municipalities, civil society, and individual landowners. Everyone is needed in this work. We also see a great need to utilize local knowledge. Landowners often know best which species are spreading on their lands and which measures can work. We want these efforts to be encouraged and for civil society to also be included in the long-term work.

Madam Speaker! Invasive species are a threat that is increasing rapidly and which requires powerful, coordinated, and innovative resistance. It is time for Sweden to act with both determination and innovation. We face great challenges but also opportunities. By combining strong protection for valuable nature, respect for property rights, local engagement, and smart climate measures, Sweden can be an example of how sustainable land use and nature conservation can go hand in hand.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we have debated Nämdöskärgårdens national park but also other nature conservation policy proposals.

I thought I would start at a global level, because the crisis we see for biodiversity is a global crisis, a crisis where we are losing the diversity of life forms.

Biodiversity can sometimes seem technical, far away, and something that perhaps does not affect oneself personally. But this is an issue that truly permeates everyone's lives and all activities, both locally and globally. We are currently losing species at a frantic pace. It is being compared to the time when the dinosaurs went extinct – a mass extinction. This time, it is human activity that lies behind it, which means that we have an enormous responsibility. It also means that we, if we want to, could reverse this trend.

And it is precisely there, Madam Speaker, that I believe the hope lies: On a global level, we have succeeded in reaching an agreement, a framework for how we are to succeed in stopping the loss of species and reversing the trend. We have seen an agreement at a global level called the Kunming-Montreal Agreement, which the government has signed. As part of the implementation phase, the EU has also developed a strategy for biodiversity. To get even closer to the real problem, however, legislation is needed, and therefore I was very pleased when the EU presented its restoration regulation and directive.

Then it started to hit a snag. It turned out to be much easier for the Swedish government to stand at large conferences and promise to stop the loss of species and reverse the trend. When it came to the implementation phase, which is the absolutely most important and completely necessary, they did not want to be involved anymore. At that point, Sweden made itself known within the EU cooperation for putting all its political weight into stopping the restoration law. This was also done during Sweden's time as the chair of the EU cooperation. It was not particularly popular. But the directive has survived, and it is now time for the implementation.

What the Swedish government then chooses to do, Madam Speaker, is to settle for the absolute lowest level, something that has been put forward here previously. What I am, to some extent, still grateful for is the honesty shown by the representatives of the right-wing parties regarding wanting to settle for the absolute minimum level. They do not want to have to change anything in the way we conduct and design environmental policy. They want to continue to give the forestry industries free rein. They want to continue to welcome bottom trawlers even in what are called protected areas. They want to continue to fawn over the industry and prioritize short-term profits over long-term life.

That is why the government has instructed the various authorities and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to exercise restraint in reporting regarding nature conservation to the EU. Regarding grasslands in the restoration law, one should tell the Commission and the EU's institutions that we do not know what the situation is for our grasslands. In other words, the authorities are being urged to lie to the EU's institutions straight to their faces in order to not have to do anything.

I am, as I have said, still grateful that one is so honest. One does not pretend to care about restoration or biodiversity, but instead says straight out that one prioritizes the short-term profit for the industry at the expense of practically all other values.

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned, this is a global crisis that also affects the EU and Sweden. We have a very great political responsibility. I would like to take this opportunity to move for approval of reservation 4, which concerns the implementation of the nature restoration law.

80 percent of nature in the EU is in poor condition, and I think that should be a signal that makes even the most uninterested of nature conservation react. It is because it concerns the possibilities for agriculture and the availability of clean, drinkable water – everything that is a foundation and a basis for functioning and long-term economies.

Madam Speaker! In this debate, which is to be about nature conservation, I want to convey to those representing the government's parties that NATO also describes both the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis as very great threats and urges everyone with power to tackle the problems before they escalate so much that it will also put pressure on other capabilities. It is still a bit interesting.

Madam Speaker! We agree on welcoming Nämdöskärgården as a national park, which is part of the protection that Sweden has. This is a very welcome protection, but we still have a long way to go.

We have, therefore, committed ourselves to protecting 30 percent. Regarding specifically the marine protection, it is a major problem that in the Baltic Sea, where 17 percent is protected, only 1 percent is strictly protected, which means that destructive fishing is not permitted. Despite the Liberals, via their Minister for the Environment, having stated that they have prohibited bottom trawling in protected marine areas, it is not prohibited today. It is only a possibility for authorities to prohibit, but there are no defined and clear conditions and principles for when the authorities are allowed to protect areas. It is, therefore, still fully legal to bottom trawl in our marine protected areas. There must be a change here. That is what this protection aims for, that is to say, to actually have an effect and not just become some kind of percentage target for how much we protect. There must be a proper effect for ecosystems, for example, fishing.

It is therefore completely central that Sweden and the EU instead choose to lead the way and change course for how environmental policy has been conducted until now. There is a short time left in the mandate period, fortunately, but it is still interesting to remember that the government went to the election on a platform of conducting an effective environmental policy. To conduct an effective environmental policy, it must be built on knowledge, stated clear goals, governance, laws, and funding. All these parts have been demolished at a frantic pace since the government took power.

Let me begin with the knowledge. Cuts have been made in environmental monitoring. Specifically regarding the item for monitoring in marine systems and aquatic ecosystems, it has been reduced by 40 percent. Everyone surely knows that one of the first measures taken by the environmentally efficient government was to abolish the Ministry of the Environment.

Then we have the question of the financing. Cuts of more than 7 billion have been made within the budget area. We spend more money on subsidizing climate- and environment-damaging activities than we spend on actually protecting nature.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to mention something about the forest. The question often comes up. The only answer that the right-wing parties have is property rights, and that puts an end to the debate. They are not willing to present any proposals, and they say that they will provide compensation. But we can look at the results. What does the nature conservation budget look like? Overnight, the appropriation to pay out to the landowners—those who have applied and want to have their land protected but also be paid for it—was reduced by 70 percent. They have extended the queues for those waiting for compensation, created immense frustration, and destroyed trust.

We would need to do a lot for forest policy. Today we have a forest management act that has existed since 1993. That is, before Sweden joined the EU and before we had a living and vital debate about both the climate and biodiversity.

Madam Speaker! I can absolutely and truly understand and sympathize with the forest owner who wants to do the right thing but finds it difficult. Here we have a forestry law that is outdated and obsolete. We have a membership in the EU, which comes with a Birds and Habitats Directive and with LULUCF. We have an Environmental Code in Sweden. How should one behave, and how can it be made easier for the landowner to conduct a profitable and sustainable forestry? These are questions that I wish the government had taken seriously.

Sweden is a forest country where 70 percent of the area is forested in some form. This is an issue that engages and deserves that we sit down and really consider how we can provide good conditions for those who want to do something different than clear-cutting in Sweden. They exist.

It is also worth considering that in the latest Skogsbarometern, only 12 percent of the forest owners answered that it was the return that was most important. A large majority of them are interested in other things. The feeling of owning forest and recreation ranks high. Therefore, it becomes so skewed when the politics constantly respond with business as usual and put the industry ahead of the individual's wishes in forest policy.

Madam Speaker! I return again to the wolf. This is something that several of the previous speakers have mentioned. I wish that we had access to a scientific basis when we design policy. It is also what has guided within the EU until recently regarding the wolf, when the design instead became emotion-based.

It has been mentioned here that there are many who do not want wolves in Sweden. I really wonder if the person making such claims has merit and facts in the matter. Where are these opinion polls that show that many in Sweden want to eradicate wolves?

There is a large majority, which perhaps not many are aware of, who are much more positive about the fact that there are wolves in Sweden than what the chamber and the debate suggest. In a previous exchange of remarks with the Liberals, it was mentioned that there is an overly concentrated wolf population in central Sweden. This will not be changed by the policy that the government pursues. By pressing down the number of individuals, the wolf population will likely maintain the same distribution. Therefore, I stand by the fact that this is an unfair wolf policy and that it will become an expensive and ineffective wolf policy when practically every individual wolf is to be managed individually.

The government must follow up on this with the help of an agency. Perhaps not so many believe that a right-wing government will spend tax money on creating more agencies. The fundamental problem is that this does not solve any problems.

Madam Speaker! With great probability, the problems and frustration will rather increase, and they will remain regardless of whether there are 200 or 170 wolves in the country. Those who are worried about their sheep will not receive any solutions, but they will only receive a figure to contend with – with great probability with the same concentration as today.

On the other hand, this will reduce the possibility for protection hunting. Protection hunting is the hunting that even we in Miljöpartiet can support. The wolves that cause repeated killings need to be decided upon for removal quickly. But by pressing the number down to 170 wolves, it will become more difficult to get through the hunting that may be needed.

Madam Speaker! In line with the global agreements, the Kunming-Montreal agreement, which says that we shall halt loss and reverse the trend, more constructive politics regarding coexistence have emerged. How can we actually increase coexistence? There are conflicts in the wolf issue – absolutely. Let us consider how we can increase understanding and how we can work preventatively. It is about politics that can review compensation models to help those sheep owners who truly need help, in order to develop a management that works for all people who today feel anxiety. That would be welcome.

Madam Speaker! I shall begin to conclude because I see that I have gone over my time. The international politics that exist in environmental issues is only worth something when it reaches the municipal level. Here, one needs a policy that truly keeps up all the way.

That is why it was so important, both for me and for the government's representatives, that there are quantified and clear goals in the Kunming-Montreal agreement.

The new thing this time was that a mandate was chosen for all countries that have signed on to carry out an implementation of the global Kunming-Montreal agreement, an NBSAP as they are called.

The government has still not come back with that. They missed their deadline before the meeting in Colombia and already showed there that they began to break their promises. They have indicated in the budget for 2025 that an NBSAP shall be delivered. But, Madam Speaker, there is still not a trace of this implementation.

Madam Speaker! We need to protect more. We need to learn to use nature sustainably and to live in harmony and coexistence. We also need to phase out subsidies that are harmful to the environment, climate, and nature and invest in nature.

Madam Speaker! We need to restore nature. I absolutely cannot understand that a government that claims to be conservative says politically no to a plan for how one can benefit all farmers and producers and all those who work voluntarily to produce perhaps the most Swedish thing we have in the landscapes and safeguard what previous generations have worked to produce. It is about meadowlands and grazing lands – a nature teeming with life. I do not understand that one, as a so-called conservative, does not want to be involved in conducting politics that actually conserves that biodiversity.

Madam Speaker! I believe, unfortunately, that it is more about prestige than about an actual substantive issue. I think Sweden deserved more than that.

With that, I wish everyone a pleasant Midsummer.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 June.)

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