Nature conservation

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report 12 Nature Conservation. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

Nature conservation - taste that concept! It is large, and it encompasses most things when we talk about issues from an environmental and agricultural perspective. In this report, we talk about the nature conservation policy work, primarily with reference to ongoing investigation and legislative work but also regarding measures that have already been taken. It is about species and area protection and about the work with invasive alien species. Here, Mr. Speaker, we see the breadth of these issues.

I would like to start by talking about Sweden's forests, which are an invaluable asset for all of us, not only economically but also for their role in preserving the environment and promoting biodiversity. Our sustainable forestry is an important part and today combines economic utilization with the protection of natural values.

Mr. Speaker! To continue on this path, we need to strengthen the cooperation between different stakeholders, which we are also actively working on today, at the government and parliamentary level. It concerns forest owners, the business community, parliament and government - an important chain. Through dialogue and consensus, we can develop effective strategies to preserve and protect the forest's natural values.

Sweden has a strong forest policy that emphasizes the forest owners' freedom under responsibility, but unfortunately, we have deviated from this policy increasingly in recent years. The threat to biological diversity is an important issue that we must address by preserving old-growth forests and promoting research within the forest sector.

Therefore, it is pleasing that our government has decided to allocate additional resources for the management of valuable natural environments and species in our cultural landscape. This is crucial to improve the conditions for biodiversity and ensure that we reach our environmental quality objectives.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that we strive for a balance between property rights and the promotion of biodiversity and species protection. We do not want to make things difficult for landowners, but it is at the same time necessary to protect and care for our natural values. Through this initiative, we can preserve our valuable natural environments and hand over a world in ecological balance to our future generations.

Mr. Speaker! In my world, the wolf issue cannot be ignored in a debate on nature conservation. I live in Värmland and therefore consider it important to raise this issue. The wolf is significant for people living in rural areas. Under previous governments, the wolf population was allowed to grow unacceptably much, which has had serious consequences for individual farmers and livestock owners. These people live with fear and anxiety for their own and their relatives' safety due to the presence of the wolf. In many counties, the wolves have become increasingly bold and want to attack farmers' animals daily. One lives with a fear. This leads to large economic losses for those farmers who have operations with, for example, sheep.

It is not sustainable to have over 80 wolf territories in Sweden when the Riksdag has determined that the number of individuals should be between 170 and 270. We therefore need an intensified cooperation with Norway regarding wolf management and a changed classification of the wolf from strictly protected to manageable in the Habitats Directive. Furthermore, rules and laws from the EU must be interpreted in a way that takes our Swedish situation into account. Protective hunting should be able to take place immediately after a wolf attack.

The Moderates have long worked to solve the problems that the wolf causes, and we work together with the government to uphold the Riksdag's decision. We advocate for a responsible administration, where people's safety and freedom are placed in the foreground - not in the wardrobe, as we have seen happen in recent years.

We must be aware of our common responsibility to protect and care for nature while acting responsibly. We shall protect and ensure people's safety and freedom. Our government is taking clear steps to achieve this, by reducing the wolf population to the lower limit of 170 wolves and taking other measures to secure the safety of people in the countryside.

It is also important that the Swedish people understand the reasons why the situation looks the way it does with the large wolf population. It is due to the policy that the previous government has pursued. It is these decisions that form the basis for the challenges we face today.

Enough about the wolf - even if we can debate that question as much as we want here in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! When we talk about nature conservation, I would like to raise the issue of dams and small-scale hydropower. In my county alone, there are 900 dams. In Sweden, there are approximately 11,000 dams; most are classified as small. There are approximately 3,000 dams that belong to hydropower plants. To provide a deeper insight into why this issue is so important when we talk about nature conservation, I would like to give a brief account so that one understands the complexity.

The decided national plan for the reassessment of hydropower and dams has been established to satisfy, among other things, the EU Water Framework Directive. It has been stated that the plan, together with a rigorous assessment process, shall result in as small a production loss as possible.

Removal of dams requires a permit according to the Environmental Code, and decisions on the removal are made by the Land and Environment Court and are preceded by a thorough investigation of the effects. A permit for removal can be combined with conditions aimed at minimizing any negative effects of a removal that affect the landscape, cultural environment, flora and fauna, and infrastructure.

One understands that this is complex, and that was also why the government chose to pause. We need to ensure that the law and the interpretation of the water directive are modernized and adapted to our time in order to safeguard the cultural heritage we have and at the same time ensure the whole. The reasons for the removal of dams can be that the structures are not functional, economics, that they are regulating dams that are no longer needed, and so on.

Right now, the government is conducting a consequence analysis of the reassessments of small-scale hydropower. We welcome this. It is of utmost importance that a regulatory framework is designed where the electricity supply is prioritized highly. It is also crucial that we carefully consider how the measures proposed by the county administrative boards affect the power plant owners and that we avoid the costs of the reassessments becoming disproportionately large, especially for individual owners.

An important issue that I want to raise is the classification of watercourses where excessive activism from the authorities must not be an obstacle. Laws must be interpreted correctly. We do not get extra points for being the best in class when we interpret laws and regulations. There are also concerns regarding unreasonable costs, and we welcome that it should be good for our dam owners in Sweden.

In conclusion, the decisions we make today will obviously have an impact on tomorrow. There are many challenges where we can cooperate across party lines, and in those areas, our government is taking new steps all the time. We see the challenges, we listen to the facts, we adapt our strategies, and we work together for a more sustainable future.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Lund Kopparklint, for the speech!

The SD government's budget for 2023 involved significant cuts to measures for valuable nature. In the budget for 2024, the government puts back a small portion of the money from previous cuts, including for the restoration of wetlands and the control of invasive species.

Since the increase in the appropriation level is less than the investments, there will however be fewer funds remaining to distribute to the range of measures that the appropriation for Other shall finance. Overall, the appropriation has fallen by an additional approximately 30 percent in 2024 for activities alongside the investments in wetlands and invasive species.

The government is also reducing the appropriations for predator management, despite the fact that we see an increased need for resources in this area. It will require tougher prioritizations and reduced opportunities to develop the work with inventory and the work with large predators.

Also, the predator inventories fall within this area of responsibility for the agency. Lack of predator inventories will affect the entire predator management, and the results from the predator inventories guide license hunting and protection hunting and also form the basis for the assessment of whether a species is endangered or not.

In view of this, I would like to ask the member: Why is the SD-led government making this cut despite the fact that predator management has an increased need for resources and despite the fact that the five large predators are also increasing within the reindeer husbandry area?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to cuts, I would rather prefer to use the expression that we are conducting a consequence analysis when we allocate funds to manage the areas that we are dealing with.

We have a good basis when it comes to, for example, the predator policy. It is not quite the stance of the government or of those of us who work under, or over, the government in the Riksdag to keep investigating things at all times, while, for example, the wolf population grows. We must act here and now, and we have enough basis to know how we should act when it comes to the predator policy.

That is exactly what we are doing now. We are tackling issues, and we act based on the facts and all the investigations that form the basis for the work we are doing today.

Cuts do not necessarily have to be about us not prioritizing the issues, because we absolutely do. But we must look at the evidence that exists, and if we have enough evidence to be able to act and prioritize the issues as the Riksdag and the government are doing now, then that is good. We can instead allocate the money to those areas that do not have enough evidence and where we need to produce evidence.

I know that the previous government wanted to investigate issues. Then, all of a sudden, it ends up in the drawer, and then it doesn't become much more than that.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Lund Kopparklint, for the answer!

The chairman himself raised the issue of the wolf and its management in his speech. It is clear that the entire predator management will be affected if inventories are not carried out. In that case, fewer predators and juveniles will be found, and consequently, fewer will be available to be shot under the SD government's previous policy.

There is a responsibility for investigation, and one must have a basis before decisions are made. That the wolf population must be reduced, we agree on. If Member of Parliament Lund Kopparklint and the government now consider that we have sufficient basis, we can consider why the wolf population is not being reduced here and now. That has not been done during the time the government has been in power, but it is the investigations that we commissioned earlier that are coming now. It becomes easier with protective hunting, but the work is far from finished.

It feels a bit like giving with one hand and taking with the other. At the same time as one has a high level of tail-wagging on the wolf issue, one is now reducing the predator inventory. It is this policy that is being pursued, and it is this policy that one must then also take responsibility for.

When there are no resources for inventories, the number of predators risks increasing even further. Our reindeer-owning Sámi receive compensation based on how many predators are found, so they also risk receiving significantly lower compensations. Is this what the government wants – that the number of predators should increase?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes somewhat humorous when one listens to Member of Parliament Larsson's reasoning about how the wolf population has grown. It is actually the green-socialist former government that has caused us to have the large wolf population that we have in Sweden. It is this that forms the basis for the decisions and the corrections that the government now needs to make.

Of course there is a basis. It is the inventories that have actually been carried out and where we see how large the wolf population is. We have a basis for how large it should be. We are talking about MVP and about GYBS, which are the two important investigations and bases that we have.

No one has said that we should stop conducting inventories, as they are what form the basis for how we should act in this matter. But it is pleasing that the Social Democrats have turned in this issue. You did that at the end of the mandate period, Member Larsson, when you noticed how scared people in the countryside are and how badly it has gone for the farmers with the large wolf population.

You turned on the issue at the last minute. This is not an issue that you have worked on together with Miljöpartiet at all during the time you held government power, but it was only at the end that you began to act on the issue. We, on the other hand, advocated for this policy the entire time we sat in opposition, and now we are taking action on it when we are in a government position.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have environmental quality objectives, the purpose of which is that we should reduce emissions and solve the environmental problems and not hand all of this over to the next generation. We summarize everything in the generation objective.

Some time ago, an evaluation of these goals was presented. Continuous monitoring takes place in our counties. Unfortunately, it is a rather gloomy reading. It is not the teeming life in our wetlands that we desire. There are still dead bottoms in the Baltic Sea. There are not as many small birds now as before. It is only 4 of the 16 environmental quality goals that we will achieve or are well on our way to achieving in the near future.

Something that is also noteworthy is that for most of the goals, there is a lack of basis to measure how we achieve them and whether we will reach them or not. Part of the committee's criticism of the government concerns the fact that data and information regarding most of the environmental quality goals are missing in the reporting of results. I believe the member has taken note of this and is aware of it.

The content of this is that we actually do not know how things stand. We lack the basis and figures to know if it is going in the right direction and whether we are doing the right things or not in our environmental work. One way to find out this is to increase environmental monitoring, something that I and Centerpartiet propose in several motions. In this report, a motion from us regarding the monitoring of pollinators is addressed.

My question to the member is: Why do you say no to more environmental monitoring, for example monitoring of pollinators, which we have proposed?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! These are issues that are important and which the government also considers to be important. That the committee under the government points out which things we need to develop is nothing strange. It is our role as the Riksdag to look at which parts need to be supplemented.

Of course, investigations may be needed to look into these questions. Impact assessments need to be carried out. The environmental and climate work is not finished but continues into the future so that we can hand over a legacy to our future generations. We safeguard the different parts that we develop and the different goals that we set.

The consequence analyses that we develop and carry out moving forward and now are something that the government constantly works on. Even the Member of Parliament should know what it is like to work in a government with these issues. A parliamentary term is four years long. During the parliamentary term, we constantly work to develop these issues and reach the goals that the Member of Parliament speaks about. But after the current parliamentary term, there will be another parliamentary term, and that is how it looks all the time. We work with these issues to reach the goals.

When it comes to the pollinators, I share the Member of Parliament's opinion that it is an extremely important issue. We have seen documentaries on TV about how poorly off they are and how important they are in our system. It is also something that the government considers important.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of what role one has in the Riksdag, the consequence analysis is that there is a lack of basis to determine whether things are heading in the right direction or not when it comes to the environmental goals. For a majority of the environmental quality goals, we do not know what applies and whether we are doing the right things or not.

Regarding pollinators, Naturvårdsverket had a project on wild bees and bumblebees from 2020-2022 to determine how we should count these in the best way. I can compare how many times I had to stop at gas stations and wash the windshield with my first car versus the one I have today. Admittedly, the windshield wipers are somewhat better these days, but it is a significant reduction, at least I experience it that way.

What is missing are such efforts for monitoring and counting of pollinators that allow us to get a definitive answer. But more intensive work against invasive alien species was also needed; there I know that the government has allocated far too little money compared to how much was included in the previous budget.

What the member stated in their opening remarks is not quite correct - there is significantly less money for nature conservation than there was three years ago. I can only state that the Tidö government's economic budget has no prioritization of environment and nature conservation.

My final question is: What does the member intend to prioritize moving forward to at least reverse the development, so that we get answers on how things stand with the environmental quality objectives and increase nature conservation in our country?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit strange that the Member of Parliament is talking about windshield wipers. Speed is probably what is most significant when it comes to insects hitting the windshield when driving a car. But that is not quite the measuring tool we should have when we measure pollinators in our natural system.

Work is constantly ongoing out in the municipalities, where they prioritize the issues that the Member of Parliament is involved in. As I said earlier, pollinators are an issue that the government sees as important. We have conducted a consequence analysis. We have made prioritizations that we consider important to achieve the goals we have set regarding the environment. I am not at all worried that we would prioritize away things that are essential to achieve them.

However, I want to be clear that we always need to do more in this area. These are incredibly important issues for the Riksdag and the government to deliver on. It is about how we are to hand over this work in a good way to future generations and achieve the environmental goals.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are going to talk about nature conservation. Just as the previous speaker touched upon, it is an area that spans a great deal: how we take care of and nurture the nature for which we have a shared responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! I want to read out an example of how things are done in the current situation. It will be an example from the evaluation of the environmental goals in the forest. The Swedish Forest Agency writes in the latest evaluation that "the loss of natural values that cannot be recreated within a foreseeable time has been identified as a problem of particularly urgent character." They write further: "Ensuring that remaining forests with very high natural values are preserved is crucial and needs to be handled with particular urgency. Sweden's opportunities to preserve biodiversity in the forest landscape require powerful measures. For species tied to long continuity and species that need habitats that are rare today, the situation is serious. Increased knowledge and awareness are needed that many natural values cannot be recreated within a foreseeable time."

Mr. Speaker! This was an example from the evaluation of the environmental goals. If one reads about other environmental goals, one sees that the situation is similar. Just as the member from the Center Party previously said, we only achieve 4 of the 16 environmental goals.

I will touch upon the five concepts we have for what nature conservation should undertake. For the first, we need environmental monitoring, so that we know what is there. For the second, we shall protect that which needs protection. For the third, we need to restore and recreate that which is to be taken back. For the fourth, we need to ensure that other things do not come there, such as invasive species. For the fifth, we need to have threshold values and norms that ensure we measure the right things.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation number 2. I say it already now. But I naturally stand behind all our reservations, even those that are treated simplified.

Mr. Speaker! A couple of weeks ago, quite a few were probably surprised when this year's most powerful person in Sustainability Sweden was announced. It is usually some environment minister or some such semi-famous person. This time, it was someone who was quite unknown to many: Herman Afzelius, chairman of the PFAS Association.

For ten years, residents of Kallinge have tried to alert us politicians and others that they have dangerous PFAS in their drinking water and that someone must be held accountable for it. Thanks to their work, PFAS is now more well-known, and after a conviction, the residents of Kallinge have been granted the right to compensation. Quite recently, another PFAS judgment was issued where the Swedish Armed Forces were held liable for damages towards Uppsala municipality.

I amused myself by googling PFAS and news. I got many hits, most of them only a couple of weeks old. It says here that there is PFAS where housing is to be built, which is stopping construction, and that higher levels of PFAS are coming out of a treatment plant than in. It also says that there is PFAS in organic eggs but that the drinking water in some places contains much higher levels, so it is no danger to eat the eggs - if one were to weigh one against the other. We see that there is PFAS in Finjasjön and in Ramsås and that wetland plants contain PFAS and so on. We have also seen that it enters rodents and others who eat plants.

When we have a problem like this, we must find out where it is and how it works. This is one of the biggest scandals in modern times. We have PFAS everywhere, and we know that it harms us. Therefore, environmental monitoring of Sweden's drinking water and drinking water sources is needed, and that is what reservation 2 is about.

Despite this situation, the government says that for the 2024 budget year, a maximum of 5 million kronor of the grant for environmental monitoring may be used for knowledge on PFAS in food and the environment. In addition, a maximum of 8 million of the grant shall go to remediation and restoration of contaminated areas. It is far too little, and we must obtain more knowledge. PFAS enters our bodies via drinking water and so on, so environmental monitoring when it comes to PFAS and other things is very important. We must also protect the environments we want to be protected, and then environmental monitoring is needed to know what is where.

Mr. Speaker! We also have a lot of knowledge. Eelgrass grows in mats below the sea surface in our coastal areas, from zero to three or four meters down. If we go back 100-150 years in time, eelgrass existed down to 22-23 meters in Kattegat. Due to changed conditions, we now have much less. Since the 80s, it has decreased by 60 percent, and in a historical perspective, we perhaps only have 15-20 percent of the original amount left.

Seagrass binds carbon, is a play and growing area for fish, shellfish and others, and is an incredibly important environment for us to have production further out in the sea. Together with the coastal protection legislation, this is one of the most important things we have for binding carbon and producing oxygen and producing food, plants and animals in the coastal zone. Here we need to have a larger and stronger protection, and this affects some of Miljöpartiets other reservations.

We have destroyed some eelgrass by constructing bridges, dredging, and other activities. But we can also restore and recreate. There are currently attempts to plant eelgrass as a compensatory measure when expanding the Port of Gothenburg, and the results are decent. Restoration must also be carried out in many other places, both on land and at sea.

We have talked a lot about the restoration legislation here in the chamber. There was an agreement in the European Parliament and the Council that the member states should undertake restoration measures 2030-2050, to begin with on at least 20 percent of the land and marine areas that are in need of restoration. By 2050, however, all ecosystems that are in need of restoration should be covered by the measures. This was what was agreed upon, but the Tidö government with SD at the helm voted no to this. We could also read that they have done everything they can to get other countries on board. The Minister for Rural Affairs wrote letters to his colleagues and got, among other things, Hungary to turn at the last moment, so now the proposal is on ice. I hope that some country changes its mind, because this is needed. How else are we supposed to do it? That is what I would like an answer to. The agreement was on the table.

It is strange that the government allocates very little money to invasive species, 50 million kronor, and furthermore reduces the funding when it comes to the stonechat. We know that invasive species are one of the major threats.

We are in the process of getting new limit values for hazardous substances in the marine environment and for underwater noise, but it is taking far too long.

Mr. Speaker! All of this is connected, so we need to work with the whole. If we are to achieve proper nature conservation, we need environmental monitoring, protection, restoration, and good standards.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all reservations.

Today's report covers quite many areas. I will go into some of them.

Invasive alien species are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity - according to many researchers, the absolute greatest. Therefore, this must be taken seriously.

The Swedish National Audit Office has conducted a review and provided many good observations. An audit can, of course, be scary to face, but it is there so that politics can become better and do the right things. In the review, the Swedish National Audit Office states, among other things, that there is a lack of a national list of which invasive alien species we should combat.

A list has now been submitted and is in progress, but even though it has not been politically processed yet, there is already a struggle over which animals should be included on the list. Previously, we heard about the stone marten, and many are likely in agreement with MP Emma Nohrén that the stone marten should be included on such a list based on the knowledge we have. But it is not included in the expert agency Naturvårdsverket's proposed list.

The investigation will reveal that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management have, for several years, not prioritized the work of producing the underlying data required to assess which species are most urgent to include in the national list.

According to the Swedish National Audit Office, it is urgent that a national list be established, as the delay has postponed the fight against problematic invasive alien species that are not EU-listed. It is clear that an established national list is needed to ensure that resources are used to combat the species where it is most urgent.

The Government is now working to review what responsibility state agencies should have for mapping and reporting the occurrence and spread of invasive alien species as well as measures taken. It is also intended to review how the follow-up of the agencies' work with invasive alien species can be further developed so that the results of the collective efforts can then be assessed. The list of proposals is, as stated, submitted and is being prepared at the Government Offices.

For the 2024 budget year, the government has allocated 50 million to prevent and combat invasive alien species so that they are not introduced or spread. The government intends to invest similar sums also during 2025 and 2026. The multi-year investment aims to strengthen the state's ability to specifically manage invasive alien species and the threat they pose to human and animal health, agricultural yields, infrastructure, and protected species.

The work to combat invasive alien species will, among other things, consist of strengthening the coordination of national efforts and guidance, increasing the control measures decided regionally, and developing communication efforts that involve increased awareness among the general public regarding new and established invasive, alien species.

Another part that I want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, is the shore protection.

In the referral, there are motions where it is desired that the government proceed with the previous government's proposition. And there were parts in that investigation which formed the basis for the proposition that are good and which are being taken into account in the work currently underway at the Government Offices to produce new coastal protection legislation. But more flexibility was needed. We need more flexible legislation where we also place more trust in our municipalities.

With the previous bill, our county administrative boards would have received greater power. But what we need is the local knowledge and a local influence. We must rely more on the municipalities. They have the local knowledge and must be able to do the job, so that the county administrative board does not always become the scapegoat.

Furthermore, another assignment is ongoing, namely regarding appropriate exceptions from the shore protection for the agricultural industries. It is currently out for consultation, and the consultation period expires in the middle of May. It will be interesting to see what comes out of that.

Mr. Speaker! Both the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Climate and Environment speak warmly in favor of amended legislation, and it is indeed much simpler when the parties in the government base are in agreement.

The next question, Mr. Speaker, is the wolf. It is pleasing that there is such a large majority in the chamber for the wolf population to decrease.

We have had assignments regarding the protection hunt and the size of the stem. We see that there are changes at the EU level regarding the protection status and that it is a work that is now finally starting to yield results.

We are driving a realignment of the wolf policy at national and European levels in a more purposeful way than previous governments have done. This adjustment would not have occurred in a red-green government. Now it is happening in a government where we Christian Democrats are included.

In the government's announcement, which was decided upon in May 2022, the government decided to task the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to analyze, based on the best available knowledge and scientific expertise, whether, and if so under what conditions, the wolf's reference value in terms of population size for a favorable conservation status according to the Habitats Directive could be within the range of 170-270 individuals. But when we took over, we changed the directive from "if" to "how" we should do it. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a fundamental difference.

The mission regarding changed guidelines for protection hunting was reported in March this year. From the new updated guidelines, it now appears that protection hunting is granted significantly earlier than with the previous rules of thumb. This is due, in part, to which animals it is, and in part to what has been done to be able to prevent attacks, among other things. For protection hunting to be granted, it is no longer required that four attacks have occurred, but two attacks are required. For some animals, one attack is sufficient for protection hunting to be granted.

Mr. Speaker! For as long as I have sat in the Riksdag, I have argued that we must achieve a cooperation with Norway, because we have a common wolf population. The wolf in my home region has no idea whether it is on the Swedish or Norwegian side. According to the Bern Convention, we shall manage the wolf population as a common population, even across national borders, because it is a common population.

We see now, Mr. Speaker, how changed assessments are made in the EU. Work is being done there which can hopefully help us, so that we get an administration worthy of the name.

In a report produced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, we see that the wolf population's distribution area in Europe has increased by over 25 percent during the last ten years. The report states that there were likely 19,000 wolves in the EU in 2022, which can be compared with 14,300 in 2016, thus an increase of one third in six years. Don't come and say that the wolf population is not viable!

Mr. Speaker! I see that I have exceeded my speaking time. But I hope that the work which this government is driving to have the question of the wolf moved from Annex IV to Annex V in the Habitats Directive, so that it becomes manageable, truly bears fruit. This would give the member states greater discretion over hunting and management, which should already be a matter of course.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, I conclude, even though I had more on paper.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

I came home yesterday from a fantastic mountain trip. During "the fifth season," our winter spring, I spent a weekend in the wonderful Borgafjäll. I went cross-country skiing along the Storviksleden and enjoyed the magic of the mountains. I saw ptarmigan, black grouse, and even tracks of three-toed woodpecker in an untouched nature where our species can and should expand.

At the same time, when I traveled on the trail, I saw windbreaks that storms had knocked over and signs that had been hidden under the snow and which had been run over and broken. With MP Ottosson's SD-led government, there is no money to equip and maintain our much-appreciated trails and nature reserves.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency warned that there will be less room to increase people's accessibility to protected areas and maintenance of facilities, such as signage, hiking trails, viewpoints, barbecue areas, etc. The question is what the long-term consequences will be when the already strained appropriation is to suffice to protect even more nature without sufficient maintenance.

Therefore, my question to Member Ottosson is: What analysis have you parties in the government support conducted of the consequences now that you have reduced the funds for measures for valuable nature? And what did you intend should be deprioritized or removed by the various activities that are financed through the appropriation?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson in particular for the vivid introduction. I admit immediately that I became envious. I would have gladly been in the same place.

I would like to begin, Mr. Speaker, by once again correcting the member Malin Larsson. The Sweden Democrats are not in this government. The Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats are, and it is the Moderates who hold the Prime Minister's post in the form of Ulf Kristersson.

Malin Larsson knows very well that I am an outdoor person and gladly spend time in the forest, mountains, sea and lakes and think it is fantastic. It is extremely important, not least for both mental and physical well-being.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are in a period with very high inflation. We are in a period where we have had enormously long healthcare queues. I do not have the current figure ready for me right now, so I do not dare to go into it, but we have seen how over 100,000 have waited illegally long to receive healthcare. We see how security is truly being strained with shootings and explosions on our streets and squares. We see how innocent people are shot dead on our streets. We see, unfortunately, again how we must spend more money on defense, because we have a world around us that is becoming increasingly insecure.

Here, Mr. Speaker, it is about thinking about what it is that we actually must prioritize. For my part, I would gladly allocate more money to the things that Malin Larsson mentions. At the same time, we must allocate more money to healthcare, security and police, and to defense. When we are to make a prioritization, it must be of that which is actually vital, Mr. Speaker.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Ottosson for the answer, but I and many with me are very concerned about what is now happening with our nature. It is also about the deterioration of access to nature that the cuts entail.

The Speaker mentioned prioritization. In this government, the Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the government base. Without the Sweden Democrats' votes in this chamber, the government cannot get anything through. We know that there is a Tidö Agreement at the foundation of the cooperation; that cannot be denied.

The government prioritizes tax cuts for the very richest in our country. This is what the government prioritizes. It does not prioritize the maintenance of our precious nature, and it does not prioritize healthcare, as the member himself pointed out. We have submitted proposals on bank tax and so on, but the government does not buy it. Instead, it continues to prioritize tax cuts for those who have the most and for those who have it the best.

That is why it is very sad that the government is now cutting back on nature conservation. It does not only threaten the important nature values, but it also threatens the jobs. This concerns above all the jobs in the countryside, the green jobs. Is this what it means to prioritize the so-called heartland for the member's party Kristdemokraterna?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the government base, Member Malin Larsson was correct. As a teacher, I know that one should give positive feedback when someone does something right, and herewith Member Larsson now receives positive feedback.

Access to untouched nature - yes, of course! We note, however, otherwise, that when people want to go into the forest and the land, it is not the untouched nature they want to go into, because you cannot make your way through there, at least not in the forest. Instead, it is in the managed forest that people frequent that it is nice to walk, because there are paths and stumps to sit on. It is something completely different. There, it becomes a bit of a clash, Mr. Speaker.

Malin Larsson mentions tax cuts. We have received criticism for not lowering taxes more than we do. We would have lowered them much more, but we must take responsibility, not least in light of what I mentioned in my previous post regarding the inflation we have had but which we are now beginning to manage just because we have pursued a responsible economic policy. The absolute most important thing is that inflation goes down, and that is part of this.

We added, for example, an extra 6 billion to healthcare in the year-end budget. Then we were up to the 12 billion that, if I don't remember incorrectly, the Social Democrats had in their budget. It was therefore an equally large budget.

Malin Larsson mentions the bank tax. I wonder who it is that pays that bank tax. I believe it is, for example, me, who has loans on a house. I believe it is the ordinary customer at the bank who has to pay; it is not those that Malin Larsson actually wants to get at.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: The green jobs in agriculture and forestry are incredibly important. We have a huge job to do there, but now I see that my speaking time is up.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for an interesting presentation! There was a lot of talk about the wolf. I had intended to let the button to request a reply rest today, but I could not help myself.

Several of us from the committee were at the predator conference up in Järvsö a couple of weeks ago. It was a very good conference that highlighted all the different parts, and we got a lot of facts on the table. The conference's very purpose was coexistence and how to achieve it.

I grew up in Värmland, just like the member. I remember what it was like in the 80s, when I went to school. Back then, it was the wolf Ylva who lurked around, and we followed her in school. In the early 90s, we then got our first wolf up in Dalarna. My grandfather and I were out tracking and actually managed to find tracks where the wolf had passed over. It was very exciting!

Now we have somewhere around 450 wolves in Sweden. It is a success story that we have brought back the predators, but we see that the stock itself is not in such good condition. There is a lack of genetic variation. We know from population counts by ecologists and biologists, who can calculate this, that a certain critical mass is needed for it to become a population that is sustainable in the long term. We also see the pattern with the climate changes.

If the population is now to be reduced as much as the member said here – which I do not agree with – we will get an even smaller genetic variation. The population will become even more vulnerable to potential diseases and other things that happen.

I therefore have a question for the member. If one is to have such a small tribe - which I believe is impossible - one must have a genetic exchange. Where is it to come from, and is it part of your wolf policy?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have had a visit from SVA. I believe it was the last year of the previous term and not the first year of this one, but I might be wrong. SVA was, in any case, involved in this with inbreeding depression, for example, and how little of this was seen despite the fact that this is a population where many of the wolves are related to each other. Still, no inbreeding depression of the magnitude that many speak of as we have was seen.

As I mentioned in my speech, we changed the question that was sent to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. We changed the "if" that the Social Democrats had into a "how". It is therefore about what is required for us to be able to go down in numbers and reduce the wolf population, and we are waiting for the answer to this.

Already in 2012 or 2013, Skandulv released its large report, which shows how large the wolf population needs to be for us to be sure of having a long-term survival. It was then about what it would become after various catastrophe scenarios had been added, and it landed on 100 individuals in Scandinavia.

Then this was quite quickly changed - by whoever it was - to 100 individuals in Sweden. And after that, the figure has unfortunately skyrocketed. It has been calculated that this requires at least one new immigrant individual in reproduction every five years. It is needed in order to be able to maintain a good genetic status.

Mr. Speaker! This is something we are over today without, for example, needing to be involved in moving wolves. For the time being, nature handles it itself, and that is absolutely the best if nature can do it.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! That may have been the case, but that was not what we saw in the figures that came out now. The potential immigrant wolves who were supposed to bring new genetic material into the stock have not contributed in the way one had thought.

What we see so far is not any inbreeding depression. But the wolves are very genetically similar, which makes them very vulnerable to any disturbances. One defect that has been seen is simply that the testicles do not descend - right now I have lost the scientific name. It is extremely serious, because it means that there will be no reproduction. One gets sterile wolves, and that must be the ultimate blow to a population if it cannot reproduce.

It was put forward by several – but no one dared to suggest it – that if one is to achieve and maintain a low number, it is possibly a relocation of a wolf that is needed, as we do with other species.

My question therefore is: If you want to maintain this very low wolf population—can you then imagine introducing genetic material with human assistance? Otherwise, I believe that it will go to ruin with so few wolves.

When it comes to the issue of coexistence, we see that new technologies make a very big difference. This involves, for example, drones, AI, and cameras. I have personally been involved with the predator center, and I have been a financier for several of the projects. There are very good results from this both when it concerns collisions on the railway and when it concerns predator attacks. Are you also prepared to increase the funding for preventive measures, perhaps rather than reducing the number?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to listen to what Emma Nohrén heard at the predator symposium in Järvsö. At the committee's meeting with SVA during the previous parliamentary period, they mentioned that there are a number of wolves that are cryptorchids. There are also humans who are. Regardless of species, this is something that exists naturally. If only one testicle has descended – often it is one and not both that do not – it does not have to mean that the wolf becomes sterile. According to SVA, it does not have to be a problem at all.

Now it sounds, if I interpret Emma Nohrén correctly, as if one had a completely different opinion at this symposium. The question is whether it is an opinion or whether it is a fact. Regardless, it was at least what SVA said when they were here.

When it comes to the relocation of wolves, it is now my personal and the party's thoughts and not the government's. We have said this from the Christian Democrats: If you move in a new individual with healthy genes, you might be able to shoot away a territory as payment. Then I think many can agree to the exchange. You receive a new one, while at the same time you know that fewer wolves will remain. The new one has much higher genetic value, and thus such an exchange can be valuable.

It can be a way to proceed if a relocation is to be achieved. We must also know that there is an enormous opposition here, and then one must pay something back. I believe that this is a way to pay back so that the local population agrees to it.

The chairman also mentioned the word coexistence several times. Criticism of the wolf will occur regardless of whether we have 100, 300 or 500 animals.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report MJU12 on nature conservation. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 6.

Naturvårdens task is to protect and manage valuable areas and species as well as to meet human needs to utilize nature and everything that nature provides. From this perspective, the report is broad and concerns environmental monitoring, area protection, species protection, invasive alien species, certain specific measures to protect and restore habitats, as well as management of pollutants.

We Social Democrats are very concerned about the consequences that the government's decisions regarding cuts in the environmental budget will have for nature conservation and our Swedish outdoor life. It is not only the biological diversity that is threatened by the government's decisions, but also our rich and well-developed outdoor life risks being significantly deteriorated. Abandoned litter in forests and fields, closed barbecue sites, and overgrown hiking trails will become increasingly common scenes for our citizens if the government's cuts continue.

Two of our leading organizations in the field, Friluftsfrämjandet and Svenska Turistföreningen, have highlighted in a submission how drastically the government has cut the appropriations that directly affect outdoor life and the green jobs. Among these cuts, a drastic reduction in the appropriation to our county administrative boards, whose main tasks include the management of nature reserves and national parks, is notable. These appropriations have decreased by as much as two-thirds this year compared to the previous year. The cut directly affects the maintenance of trails and toilets as well as cleaning in our most valuable nature areas.

Mr. Speaker! Nature, with all its plants and animals, is the basis for our existence. This wealth of species gives us food, clean water and clean air. But when species disappear, our nature becomes more fragile. Therefore, we believe that contiguous protected areas are of utmost importance to preserve this biological diversity. During our government's term, we therefore also significantly increased the appropriations for nature conservation.

Invasive alien species are considered one of the absolute greatest threats to biodiversity. They can also cause significant negative effects on agriculture and forestry as well as human and animal health. We welcome that the government realized its mistake when it significantly reduced the funding so that our county administrative boards could not continue to combat invasive species, but we also believe that the reintroduction of 50 million kronor is insufficient given the extensive societal costs and damages that these species can cause, both economically and ecologically. The government's investment also does not compensate for the large cuts in measures for valuable nature that the SD-led government made in the previous budget.

Invasive alien species pose a major global threat to nature, biodiversity, economies, food security, and public health and are one of the biggest causes of species extinctions in the world. In such a situation for our Swedish nature, it is extremely worrying that the current government and Sverigedemokraterna continue to cut resources for nature conservation.

Mr. Speaker! Even though the wolf is debated extensively in the committee report on hunting and wildlife management, the wolf also belongs to this report, as it is here that we address the issue of species protection.

Today there are approximately 450 wolves in Sweden, according to the results from the inventory period 2022/23. This winter's wolf inventory was completed on March 31, and much indicates that the wolf population has decreased slightly in the country. The wolf is a much-debated animal in this chamber, as said, and an animal that evokes many emotions because it can cause problems for domestic animal owners and reindeer husbandry. Every year, a number of hunting dogs are also killed and injured by wolves.

At the same time as we are to have a favorable conservation status, people's concerns must also be taken seriously. We shall have a predator management that people have confidence in and where effective and rapid protection hunting decisions can be made when required.

Strong forces want to use the issue of predators to tear Sweden apart. We do not accept that, but instead, we want to find solutions that lead to people being able to live and work in the countryside while we preserve biodiversity. Both protection hunting and license hunting are important tools in that management.

Mr. Speaker! The previous Social Democratic-led government decided in July 2019 to task a special investigator with reviewing the shore protection. The idea was that the shore protection should be fundamentally restructured through increased differentiation that takes into account that access to lakes and shores varies in the country, as well as population density and exploitation pressure.

The proposal submitted involved both relaxations and tightenings. It would become easier to build near the shore in rural areas, while at the same time, the shore protection was tightened where there is high demand for land and the shore protection was clarified in order to preserve flora and fauna on land and in water.

Unfortunately, the opposition parties at the time chose to vote down the bill where consideration was taken of the fact that conditions vary between different parts of the country. The proposal that was submitted provided predictability and long-term perspective and protected our fantastic environments, but would also promote development where appropriate.

The shore protection exists to secure the right of public access along shores and to preserve good living conditions for flora and fauna in water and on land. But the regulatory framework needs to be reformed to become more adapted, flexible and purposeful so that the possibility for development increases even in rural areas.

Mr. Speaker! The web of plant and animal species that build the ecosystems on our earth is the prerequisite for our existence, because they produce all our food, all our purified water, and all the oxygen we breathe. When species disappear, the resilience of the ecosystems decreases.

Interconnected protected natural areas are a prerequisite for biodiversity. The purification of our wastewater must improve, and the emissions that lead to eutrophication in the oceans and acidification in the lakes must decrease. Our clean drinking water must be protected.

Sweden has always been an environmental leader, and we must continue to be. In a strong society, we can achieve the Swedish environmental goals through investments and new regulations that provide reduced greenhouse gas emissions, protect biodiversity, and create a toxin-free environment and a better marine environment.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Sofia Skönnbrink (both S) agreed.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! In my speech, I intend to focus on two areas: the shore protection and the wolf.

Beach protection is truly a sore point in today's politics. It is an issue that engages people, regardless of where in our country one is located. Talking about beach protection with people all around the country is a bit like Nils Holgersson's journey in Nils Holgersson's Wonderful Journey Through Sweden, this classic by Selma Lagerlöf.

Mr. Speaker! Those listening may wonder what on earth Selma Lagerlöf has to do with the shoreline protection. But let me explain!

Selma was during her lifetime leading in the liberal struggle for women's suffrage, women's rights, and women's position in society. I have her and her sisters-in-arms to thank very much for the fact that I stand here today in the rostrum of the Swedish Riksdag. That women and men have equal suffrage, inheritance rights, and right to ownership is a result of the Swedish struggle for equality.

Mr. Speaker! The debate we are having today regarding the shore protection is, in many ways, about property rights, this liberal fundamental principle. Shore protection is a restriction of property rights. There is no doubt about that. It is our responsibility as decision-makers to weigh different interests against one another. We must ensure that the restrictions made are proportionate, predictable, and have broad support in the population.

Here we have to weigh the right to enjoy and use one's property against other important interests. It is about promoting biodiversity, protecting endangered types of nature, safeguarding the public's access to shores and nature, and ensuring that even those who do not own land themselves can share in what nature has to offer.

Mr. Speaker! If Nils Holgersson had flown over Sweden today and started in Norrbotten, more specifically in Arjeplog, he would have seen a municipality with, in rough terms, 30 kilometers of coastline per inhabitant. It is a municipality with almost 9,000 lakes and 2,600 inhabitants.

If the journey had then continued to the regions where we find ourselves today, namely Stockholm, he would instead have seen an archipelago that is in parts heavily exploited. There, one needs to be more careful regarding further construction.

At the same time, there are these islands with permanent residents where, under the current regulatory framework, nothing can be built at all. Business owners out in the archipelago want to but cannot transition generations, because those who are to take over cannot get a residence unless the parents move from the island. Here, the shore protection instead represents a dead hand over necessary community development in parts. Reforms are needed if one wants to see a living countryside and an archipelago that lives even in the winter.

Mr. Speaker! I return to Nils Holgersson. On his flight along the coasts, he would probably also see the important seagrass beds. They sequester large amounts of carbon and function as nurseries for a long line of fish and as a protection against coastal erosion. The protection of these is obviously another important aspect to consider when revising the coastal protection.

If he had then steered the vessel further towards Närke and passed me on Saturday when I was sitting by a lake deep in the forest at home in Lekeberg, he would have seen a vast forest landscape with a mosaic of smaller lakes and watercourses. These are lakes with, in my opinion, disproportionately strong shore protection. Reducing the shore protection for these does not, if I may say so, reduce the public's opportunity to move in forest and land. There will continue to be the opportunity to stay at the shores. There is enough shoreline, and some left over, in our country.

Mr. Speaker! When Selma lived, coastal protection was not what people talked about most at the kitchen table. But it is now, at least in my areas. It is not uncommon that we politicians today are asked what we are doing in politics. When is that review of the coastal protection actually coming? When will you move from words to action?

The turns have been many. Several speakers have been raised in the rostrum before me today. Now there is, thanks to the Tidö agreement, an opportunity to reform the shore protection. We will do that, not least in order to build a stronger Swedish countryside and rural areas.

Mr. Speaker! I return to my walk in the woods on Saturday. When I sat there at the water's edge, I was in one of Sweden's wolf-densest areas. Over the last two years, a fairly extensive license hunt has been conducted in my county, Örebro.

The Liberals' position on the issue is that the wolf is part of the Swedish fauna and that we should have a viable wolf population that is managed wisely, sustainably, and in the long term. This means that licensed hunting of wolves is justified and that the protection hunting must be effective.

My perception is that the most important issue right now regarding sustainable wolf management is to focus on achieving a functioning protection hunt. Here, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's new guidelines are a welcome news. With these updated guidelines for protection hunt on wolf, it will become easier to carry out protection hunt. It is very important.

Mr. Speaker! Now we see that the wolf is spreading and establishing itself to the south. This will lead to some problems. A larger amount of livestock than now will be killed. And it will take time to get predator-deterrent fences in place.

One of the prerequisites for it to continue to be profitable and feasible to keep livestock is an effective predator hunt. In addition to the fact that it will take time to set up predator-deterring fences, we must also take into account the large costs associated with setting up these – it is actually not highlighted very often in the debate. The state's coffers are not bottomless, and we are in economically bitter times.

Ensuring that the protection hunt is effective is taking responsibility for Sweden, in several ways. And that is what we are doing now.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Nilsson! It is interesting that the member from the Liberals is raising the issue of the shore protection. It was not long ago that representatives from the Liberals thought exactly the opposite.

I welcome this. The coastal protection must truly be reformed. It is a pity that it is taking so much time. I feel that it is being dragged out. Just two years ago, there was a majority in favor of these proposals, which were on the Riksdag's table. The opposition was united on these, but unfortunately, other parties voted them down. Since then, investigation after investigation, SOU reports and other things have caused it to drag on. But I truly welcome that the member of Parliament brings this up. I hope that as much as possible of it becomes a reality.

I want to ask a question about nature conservation. I am concerned and share the worry that many citizens in our country feel regarding reduced resources for the management of valuable nature. The member and her party do not want to see more resources for environmental monitoring, for example when it concerns pollinators. This is included in our committee motion.

Over the last two years, while the Tidö Government has been in power, the resources for the maintenance of valuable nature have decreased significantly. Several county administrative boards and organizations within outdoor life testify that recreational areas cannot be maintained as before and that it is now not possible to follow the maintenance plans and plans that were established previously. This is a development that worries me deeply.

I need to understand why such a decision has been made. My question is therefore: What motives lie behind the decision to reduce resources for nature conservation and the management of valuable nature?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Larsson, for the question! The Member highlighted environmental monitoring, protection of valuable nature, and a bit more. These are important issues. We prioritize them, but we prioritize them in light of a difficult economic situation for Sweden where we see enormous challenges for the school, a crime that is spreading, and people being literally executed in cold blood on the street. We also have a global situation that makes us need to prioritize defense, among other things. In light of that, the priorities we in the government cooperation have made are completely relevant.

I would, of course, gladly see increased appropriations for both environmental monitoring and the protection of valuable nature, but in the current situation where the focus has been on pushing back inflation to build a strong Sweden, those are the priorities that have been landed upon.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is certainly economically tough in many areas, but there are other budget proposals that make better prioritizations in similar cases. In, for example, the Center Party's budget, we have more money for the schools and for general state grants to the municipalities so that they can invest in education. We also have proposals for higher compensation to the defense and lowered employer contributions for young people. There are, therefore, possibilities to put together a good budget nonetheless. To set them against each other, I think, is unfortunate, because our nature and biological diversity are crucial for our survival and our well-being.

Nature gives us food, clean air and clean water and constitutes the basis for our health and economy. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to safeguard and invest in the protection of our natural areas and the work surrounding nature conservation. If we are truly to do something about climate change, we need to work with this and ensure that individual landowners who want to establish wetlands, plant deciduous forests or protect specific key biotopes are economically benefited. They shall receive relevant compensation.

I pose my question as follows instead: How does the member assess the long-term effects of reducing investments in nature conservation, given the increased pressure on our ecosystems and on biodiversity?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! Yes, the long-term effects are difficult to predict here in the chamber, but it is clear that more appropriations would have been desirable in the best of worlds. But now we stand where we stand. We take responsibility for Sweden. We build Sweden strong. We also do very much to manage the climate challenges. We ensure that we get a stable, expanded, fossil-free energy production. It is crucial to meet the climate challenge. It is an important part of the policy the government stands for.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the member for the vivid description of the pollinators. It is an issue that I think needs to be highlighted more, but the answer to everything is not always more money. There is more to be done.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating nature conservation. I think the nature conservation discussion has unfortunately been a bit too polarized lately - yes, for quite some time, I would like to say.

In broad terms, there have been two rather large groups. One has not been particularly interested in nature conservation and the environment, and the other has not been interested in much else but that. It is not a good breeding ground for reaching agreements and finding solutions in the interface between the different views. In that respect, I think the current government has done a very good job of marrying high ambitions on the nature conservation and environmental side with the demands of reality. It is only when one meets the demands of reality that measures regarding nature conservation and the environment can function. If they do not function in reality, they are just castles in the air.

I think the discussion should revolve more around how we can address the environmental problems that exist instead of having an often one-sided focus on how much money we spend on the area. This is important not least because inflation has been high and today we have social problems that entail very large costs. It will likely be so in the foreseeable future given the challenges we have with crime and the resources we must invest in defense. So it will be for many years.

We must focus on being economical. We must think in terms of what is what solves the problem. What is the problem we have? We must narrow down on the problem and take measures that solve it, as closely as possible and as cheaply as possible. We must really strive to find solutions that are cheap and provide a lot of environmental benefit per krona. I think that the Sweden Democrats and the new government have also started better here than the previous government.

To just mention two examples, we introduce a farmland inventory and monitoring of the intensively cultivated agricultural land. It is an environment where the changes resulting from changed cultivation methods, new crops, new pesticides or new pathogens will be noticed first of all. It is an environmentally efficient proposal that has now become a reality.

Another proposal is also on its way to becoming a reality. The Government has launched an investigation on how Sweden can preserve the forest trees elm and ash. They are, as is known, affected by Dutch elm disease and ash dieback disease respectively and are threatened to their existence - at least the elm. The ash is not in as bad a state. This will lead to proposals which hopefully involve measures that save these two species. Many species are tied to them. These trees constitute a habitat for many species. A hundred species are completely dependent on these two tree species, and there is an additional large number of species for which they are very important. Many of them are red-listed, and that is because the distribution of elm and ash is decreasing.

I would like to take this opportunity to move for approval of reservation number 25, which concerns post-treatment responsibility for contaminated areas. There is something that can be done that costs nothing, and that is to clarify the regulatory framework. Today, environmental legislation can provide unclear messages regarding the distribution of responsibility, for example, when contamination on industrial sites or gas stations has been caused by companies that have been closed for a long time. We want this to be remedied by clarifying the current regulatory framework. When I mention this, I also want to take the opportunity to say that we from the Sverigedemokraterna side believe that the state should provide a large part of the funds for remediations. That is how we have acted in our budgets.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Eklöf for the speech! The Member usually speaks a lot about invasive species and the importance of combating them. I did not hear him mention it in the speech today, but we see that invasive species are increasing in nature. The SD-led government completely choked off the funding for measures on land in 2023 but realized its mistake and put back almost all the money for the control of invasive species. It is good that it was corrected, but at the same time worrying that they did not have more control when they first removed them.

This year, 2024, the cuts to nature conservation have continued. It will affect the work to eradicate the stone marten, which is a potentially very harmful invasive species. The stone marten has entered southern Sweden and is increasing in number there. It is notorious for its persistence - in getting into cars and gnawing on cables as well as settling in attics - and is widespread in southern Europe, where it causes billions in damage annually.

Naturvårdsverket allocated approximately 2.4 million in 2023 to a project aimed at eradicating the stone marten, which was sufficient to employ two full-time hunters. In addition, there are 200 camera traps to monitor the animal. But now the money is exhausted, and the reality is such that the government has imposed large savings on Naturvårdsverket. This project is affected by the SD-led government's budget and is being terminated.

The member raised in his speech that we must meet the demands of reality. Does member Staffan Eklöf think that the SD government's budget meets the demands of reality when it comes to the stonechat?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Invasive species are on the agenda. Priorities must always be made, and it is sometimes difficult to make priorities.

I note, in any case, with great pleasure that there is now an interest in the issue of invasive species. The lack of interest was, in fact, monumental just a few years ago. I remember that both we Sverigedemokrater and others, including those who work professionally with invasive species, were called racists not so long ago when we raised the subject of invasive species. It did not happen just once, but many times.

We added 50 million kronor to the work against invasive species in the budget, which is a major investment. It is naturally not enough, and if the opportunity exists, it is desirable to increase those sums. Now, the cost situation is very difficult given the societal changes that have occurred during the last decades and which draw very many resources, but we are still planning for more resources for the work against invasive species in next year's budget.

It is about the ash disease, which is caused by an invasive, foreign species of fungus, which causes the disease. It also concerns the ash seedling disease, which is also caused by an invasive foreign species of fungus. The Sweden Democrats have allocated significant amounts to solve that issue. These are species that we can easily say have greater negative environmental effects than the stone marten. We must also address the stone marten - that is the case - but one must always prioritize with the resources one has.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Eklöf for the answer.

The Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the government base. What actually happened with the important work of combating invasive species and the interest in it now that they are forced to take some responsibility as the largest party in the government base?

The appropriation for the maintenance of nature, which includes the work against invasive species, was reduced by a total of 931 million kronor last year, and now the cuts continue. They choked off the grant for the work against invasive species to 0 kronor, and now they are correcting that – but then the support for combating the stone marten disappears. Now we can also hear the member say that they plan to invest in the work against invasive species again.

It will result in a very "pull-and-push" policy, I think that's what it sounds like, when one year you withdraw and the next year you are supposed to contribute. How are the authorities supposed to know what they should do? And in the meantime, the number of invasive species just keeps increasing. The stone marten will gain a foothold here in our country while waiting for the SD-led government to plan for any potential future funds. This is the SD-led government's policy, and one must take responsibility for it. Furthermore, one gets liberals, moderates, and Christian Democrats on board – and at the same time, the number of endangered species just keeps increasing.

I have also heard from Sweden Democrat members that the environmental budget is to be halved. It is a fixed direction, their economic-policy spokesperson has said. What does the member think about this? Is it not time to reconsider that decision and increase the environmental budget so that we can also work with invasive species?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we need to work a bit on the description of reality here.

The reduced funds for invasive species were the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's choice following cuts to the agency's budget for appropriation area 1:3. They chose to continue the work against invasive species when it concerns animals, but they left the plants as they were. If they are now to work less against invasive species, it was a sensible choice, as the animals – for example, the raccoon dog and other animals – are more important to act against, but it was the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's choice.

When it comes to the cut, one can ask how much is a lot of money and how little is a little money. If one looks at a time series for area 1:3, protection of valuable nature, we have less now than in 2022. That has to do with inflation and very large costs for defense and crime. If one looks a bit further back, however, one sees that it is the same level as the one we had in 2020, 2019, and 2018, when it was a red-green government in power. It is, therefore, a bit too high a tone here.

There are only two years when the appropriations have been larger. That was partly due to temporary investments; that was one of the years. The other year, it can be remembered that the budget actually was M-KD-SD's. There is therefore only a single year when the red-greens have had a larger budget in this area, and yet the tone is so high. I think a bit of humility was needed - also considering that it is actually the red-green government, and previous governments, that have caused the costs associated with crime and other non-functioning things in society.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. 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 now in the sixth mass extinction. Previous mass extinctions have been caused by meteorite impacts and geological processes. 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 a living environment for a large part of the biological diversity and is home to many endangered species. Today's intensive forestry affects many species negatively. Instead of living forests with trees of all ages, a mixture of tree species and dead wood, 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 biodiversity. On top of the threats from production and exploitation, we have the ongoing climate crisis, which further exacerbates and accelerates the depletion of biodiversity.

In December 2022, the world's countries finally agreed on a new global framework to stop the extinction of species. According to the framework, 30 percent of the earth's marine and land areas shall be protected by 2030. It is gratifying 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 were any of the national environmental goals that have a direct connection to biological diversity achieved. It is a clear failing grade for a wealthy welfare country like Sweden.

It is unfortunately also a receipt that environmental considerations continue to be subordinated to short-term profit interests. To break the trend, new management tools 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, with brutal cuts to nature conservation. Resources for the protection and management of valuable nature have been seized since this government took office. Money for environmental monitoring and measures for pollinators has been withdrawn. The planned environmental assessments of hydropower, which are important for aquatic species, have been put on hold. At the EU level, Swedish ministers are even lobbying against other countries to stop important legislation on nature restoration.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, there are approximately 86,000 areas suspected of being contaminated. Most of the contamination was caused by industries and activities before environmental legislation was developed, but there are also many areas that have been contaminated by, for example, PFAS in recent years. The work of determining which areas need to be remediated is ongoing, and so far, nearly 10,000 areas have been assessed to pose a large or very large risk to health and the environment.

Remediating these areas is often a protracted process, partly because a liability investigation must determine who shall pay for the remediation before the work can begin. That the polluter shall pay is an important principle. However, if the work of remediating contaminated areas is delayed because it is difficult to determine who is responsible, it can lead to toxins spreading and risk harming people and the environment. Therefore, it is important to enable remediation to begin before the liability investigation is complete when this is deemed necessary.

Mr. Speaker! Five of the Swedish environmental goals concern sea and water. They were supposed to have been reached by 2020, but the state of the environment is still far from what the goals describe. They also do not look to be reached by 2030.

The climate and the state of the ecosystems are interconnected. Large amounts of carbon are bound in the oceans, which also account for a large part of the oxygen produced on Earth. In order for these ecosystem services to continue to function, it is required that the oceans' ecosystems are preserved and that biological diversity is protected. Research on coastal ecosystems has shown that there is a risk that these environments, which normally bind a lot of carbon, will instead become sources of emissions in the future if the environmental status deteriorates.

The climate crisis and ocean acidification amplify the effects of other marine environmental problems, such as eutrophication and anoxic seafloors, which affect the oceans' resilience. Despite extensive and long-term remedial work for a better marine environment, there are still many signs that the environmental status in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea is not good. The biggest problems are linked to eutrophication, hazardous substances, physical exploitation, and fishing. The difficult problem of oxygen deficiency and dead seafloors in the Baltic Sea persists. Microplastics affect all of the earth's marine environments and have negative effects even in Sweden's sea areas.

It is important to note that environmental measures yield results. In numerous places around our coasts, one can see positive effects from the fact that emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen have been addressed through better purification. The sea eagles were almost extinct in the 1970s, but today there are nearly 1,000 adult sea eagle pairs. Bans on environmental toxins have been a very important factor for this success. This shows that political decisions make a difference.

Mr. Speaker! Environmentally harmful substances such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and microplastics still reach our watercourses today through emissions from wastewater treatment plants. Today's treatment plants are not built to purify the water from these substances. The result is that the substances accumulate in aquatic animals such as fish and shellfish, which can thereby become unsuitable to eat. Some substances can also affect the fertility of fish and amphibians, which threatens their survival in the long run.

Emissions of antibiotics contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In many places, the substances also risk ending up in the drinking water.

Vänsterpartiet considers that there are grounds to set a national goal that wastewater shall be purified from harmful substances such as pharmaceuticals, microplastics and harmful chemicals. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 31.

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

In conclusion, I want to return to what I said in the introduction. We are in the sixth mass extinction. The extinction of species, global warming, and the pollution that humanity emits 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.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish nature and the wilderness contain extraordinary mixtures of animals and plants, both on land and along the coasts. Everything is also interconnected in an impressive way. Caring for our nature and, in many cases, restoring biodiversity is, together with the climate issue, one of the greatest challenges of our time. For us to succeed, measures are required that are based on local conditions and involve more actors.

It is no exaggeration to say that our planet and our well-being depend on us taking care of and preserving the rich diversity of life that exists around us. Sweden's and the world's various natural environments are a prerequisite for life and for sustainable development. The loss of species and ecosystems is one of the most acute environmental problems in the world today.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has today over 5,000 nature reserves and 30 national parks, and the vast majority of Swedes have, on average, only a few kilometers to protected nature. This is positive and unique, but unfortunately, the Tidö government's cuts in the environmental area have brought consequences. The maintenance of many protected areas is now neglected, and they do not exhibit the nature values that they are intended to exhibit.

I and the Centre Party therefore want to increase the pace of the work to restore and rehabilitate protected nature so that future generations also benefit from resilient ecosystems. Furthermore, we want to ensure that the biodiversity in the areas that are already protected is maintained. Therefore, in this year's budget, we have allocated more money for the management of valuable nature.

Unfortunately, the government does not have the same ambition. In this year's and last year's budget, the appropriations to existing nature areas were reduced, which has had consequences. We have received alarm signals from national parks and nature reserves that can now not adhere to their management plans. This means fewer fences and clearings in the reserves and that planned measures for, for example, outdoor recreation will likely need to be postponed until the future. It also means a reduction in the important work against invasive alien species.

Alien invasive species within both flora and fauna are a relatively new but rapidly growing threat to biodiversity in Sweden. As our planet gets warmer, it becomes easier for species that do not occur naturally in Swedish and Nordic ecosystems to establish themselves. They displace other native species, and in the worst cases, they can negatively affect the entire ecosystem and its services by reproducing or spreading. Combating their continued establishment and spread needs to be highly prioritized within environmental policy. Centerpartiet has long proposed that control efforts should be scaled up and strengthened, both on land and at sea.

Mr. Speaker! In order for us to know what is happening in nature and to be able to follow up on the Swedish environmental quality objectives, monitoring and data collection are needed. It provides a description of the current situation and is based on systematically conducting investigations in order to be able to detect changes and trend breaks. The requirements for environmental monitoring are common across the EU and involve several different authorities, for example, Naturvårdsverket and Havs- och vattenmyndigheten. Unfortunately, there are some deficiencies, and resources and coordination are lacking.

Mr. Speaker! Bumblebees and bees are important, among other things, for biodiversity and for food security. The most important groups of pollinators in Sweden are wild bees, bumblebees, butterflies, and hoverflies. One-third of Sweden's wild bee species are on the national red list, as are one-fifth of the butterflies and one-tenth of the hoverflies.

Knowledge about hoverflies is limited. Threatened butterflies and bees are primarily linked to open and flower-rich lands, which have decreased drastically in our country during the last century. The causes of the decline are many interacting factors, including changed cultivation of the land. We have replanted open grasslands and intensified agriculture with larger fields and less diversity in the cultivated landscape. We have also affected the water through drainage and exploitation.

It is known that bumblebees and bees are becoming fewer, but there is no knowledge of which species have decreased the most, nor how fast they are decreasing in number. There are plans to start a program for pollinator monitoring in the EU by 2027. In order for such a program to function well even from Swedish conditions, it is important that there is good knowledge of which methods suit best here in the Nordic region.

There has been a pilot study with state funding during 2020-2022 to investigate which methods are suitable specifically in Sweden. Conditions differ within the EU, and good knowledge of the situation in Sweden was needed so that we can effectively influence how the monitoring in the EU should proceed so that it also becomes purposeful for Swedish conditions. Unfortunately, the Tidö Government has also scrapped the national initiative for pollinator monitoring.

Centerpartiet considers that if we are to be able to achieve our environmental quality goals, we need to intensify the work against invasive alien species and with a really good pollinator monitoring. I stand behind Centerpartiet's all reservations in the area, but I move for approval of reservation 3.

Mr. Speaker! It is not only on land that we need to care for our nature. The conditions for life in the sea must also be prioritized. The Center Party wants to increase the pace of the work to restore and protect the seas. In the Baltic Sea, there is an area larger than all of Denmark that is now dead bottom, and an entire ecosystem could collapse. The situation is bad with the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea and the Western Sea in their respective areas, and urgent measures are required.

Centerpartiet wants more marine reserves. We want to step up the work and protect a total of 30 percent of our seas by 2030. To do this, we want to see that more marine protected areas are established along the Swedish coasts and within our territorial waters.

A particularly prioritized area for us is the establishment and restoration of eelgrass meadows in shallow sea bays and coastal areas. These meadows are important and productive habitats for many species of animals and plants and serve as nursery areas for fish. In addition, they constitute an important blue carbon sink.

Unfortunately, their ecological status has deteriorated over many years as a result of pollution, heavy fishing, and heavy exploitation of protected areas. At the same time, a number of promising pilot projects have been undertaken in recent years which show good results regarding the restoration of eelgrass beds and the local marine biodiversity. We want to see more of that.

Mr. Speaker! For us, the individual landowner is a central part of preserving and increasing biodiversity. The landowner has the local knowledge that is necessary and knows their own land best, which we believe is more effective than state compulsion.

That is why we believe that voluntary measures should truly be encouraged. A landowner who wants to create a wetland or a pond should, for example, be able to easily apply and be granted support for it. Someone who cultivates algae, mussels, or oysters in the sea should more easily receive environmental compensation for it.

When forest land is taken out of use for protection, reasonable compensation shall be paid. We want the policy for nature conservation and the preservation of biodiversity to be built to a greater extent on methods and instruments that are based on voluntariness and which are built on the individual landowner's will and knowledge. We want a national program with local action coordinators that is built on long-term perspective and a close cooperation with the landowner.

The loss of species and biodiversity affects humans fundamentally. Right now, greater efforts are required for us to achieve the Swedish environmental goals and reverse the trend. It is not yet too late. There are opportunities for protection measures and increased nature conservation, with, for example, systematic work regarding eutrophication, limited fishing, and regulated hunting.

There are good examples of nature conservation measures, including how work has been done on Öland. There, they have taken care of the fine oaks in Halltorps hage, and they have restored meadow and pasture lands. That work is now nominated for one of the EU's best projects in the category of nature conservation on land, and the winners will be announced on May 29. If I am correctly informed, I also believe that one can go in and vote for the grant that one thinks is best.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Climate change and a declining biodiversity are not two separate problems but are closely linked. The warmer the planet becomes, the more species risk becoming extinct. The more habitats and species that are wiped out, the more vulnerable our societies become, while we simultaneously lose important carbon sinks.

If we are to have a thriving life and high nature values also in the future, we need to increase knowledge through, for example, more monitoring and control of invasive alien species. We must collectively care for, restore and recreate nature in order to maintain biodiversity.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Stina Larsson!

We heard about the importance of priorities and that it is a matter of prioritizing different things. That was clear from the speech. Then we also heard that the current government has made cuts in budget item 1:3 for the protection of valuable nature.

One thinks of an area that actually has as much need as any. We could use three times the budget, or perhaps four times, for different needs. Then I wonder: What is much, and what is little? Where does the Center Party see the limit for investments in this area? Or is no limit seen? In that answer, I would very much like to hear how much more the Center Party invests in budget item 1:3 than the government.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Eklöf!

Naturally, it is about priorities. We in Centerpartiet prioritize high natural values and the management of valuable nature in our budget proposal. I do not dare to say exactly what figure it is, because I do not remember. But it is in our documents, which are easy to find on the Riksdag's website.

Our prioritization and our reasoning regarding this concerns the areas that we have protected and ensured that one shall not cultivate, cut down forest, farm, or whatever one deems should be on that land. We must take care of what we already have as well as possible. Not investing money in managing the lands we have claimed is to lose them. Somewhere we must preserve and take care of it before we put even more land into protected areas.

For us, it is obvious that it should remain. Not doing so would be to reject the efforts that have been made previously. We see that it is valuable for our survival, for food production and for biodiversity, and so that we can live and benefit from our ecosystems even in the future.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It was a pity that I did not receive any figure from the Center Party for what would be sufficient to save nature.

I took the trouble to prepare a time series showing how much has been invested in previous years. All speakers here have spoken about the Tidregering's appalling cuts.

If you look back a little, the level we have now is 1,212 million. It is larger than for 2020 and on par with that for 2019 and 2018. One can also note that in 2019, when it was 8 percent higher than today, it was the outcome forecast for two-thirds of the appropriation. The appropriation was therefore not used.

I want to return to what I said in my speech. Given the difficult situation we have with very cost-driving societal changes in recent decades, we really must economize on money in all areas. This is one of the areas where we must economize. Then one must clearly know what one is spending the money on and that one is spending the money on something that really does good for a low cost.

It has to be an estimate, now that we don't have a figure to base it on. But I doubt that Centerpartiet has added more than 100 million extra. Perhaps that is what was done. But in that case, it is only ripples on the surface compared to the sum that was in 2022 and 2021. At that time, those were, in any case, temporary investments.

We must have focus on what is big and what is small. What is important to invest in? How shall we be able to prioritize and use the money effectively?

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly it. We must have focus and make the right priorities. That is exactly what we have done in our budget. I believe, if I remember correctly, that it is over 100 million extra. But I must ask to be allowed to come back with the exact figure.

We are not achieving our environmental quality goals as they are today. We see that data cannot be collected. One does not see what trend it has. If we are to have any viable ecosystems in the future and be able to produce our food, we must prioritize the environment and climate.

This government is prioritizing incorrectly within the environmental area. Had I and the Centerpartiet been the ones to decide, the priorities within environment and climate would have looked completely different.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 24 April.)

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