Nature conservation and biodiversity

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report on nature conservation and biodiversity. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

During my speech, I will also, as a devoted motorsport enthusiast, address an area that most likely has not been raised in these contexts.

Madam Speaker! The forest is a unique and valuable asset for all of us. It is not only a source of timber products and economic growth but also a vital actor in preserving our environment and promoting biodiversity. We have reason to be proud that Sweden has one of the world's best-managed and sustainable forest industries, where we combine economic utilization with the protection of natural values.

To achieve this, we must work to strengthen the cooperation between different stakeholders such as forest owners, the business community, and other important organizations. By creating dialogue and consensus, we can develop effective strategies and tools to preserve and protect the forest's natural values. It is through cooperation and partnership that we can achieve real results and sustainable solutions.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a strong forest policy based on the 1993 forest decision. It emphasizes freedom under responsibility for forest owners, which allows them to manage their forests in a way that has been practiced for generations. At the same time, forest owners are encouraged to preserve the high biological nature values on their land through voluntary set-asides, formal protection, and general consideration. These measures aim to create suitable habitats for species and promote well-being and diversity.

Unfortunately, we have deviated more and more from this forest policy since 1993. There has been a lack of clarity in the management of our authorities, something that can be observed during the last two parliamentary terms with the green-red government's influence over Swedish forest policy, which has not been to our advantage.

The Moderates believe that forest owners should never have to prove anything to the state when the state intends to restrict their constitutionally protected ownership and use. It should be the state's responsibility to show that it has good reasons to restrict the forest owners' rights, not the other way around.

Madam Speaker! An important issue that we all must address is the threat to biodiversity. Many species are threatened, and their survival is strongly linked to the health of the forest. We protect by preserving old-growth forests and creating protected areas in a wise and responsible manner. Here, the Moderaterna also want to promote innovation and research within the forestry sector through wise investments.

Madam Speaker! Now I come to what I wanted to speak about and which may stand out a bit. It is about motorways. Motorways have a unique structure that promotes the creation of rich and varied environments. Their topographical variation provides opportunities for slopes facing different directions, which favors a diversity of species and increases their resilience to climate change. Furthermore, the motorways are often located on well-drained land, which in itself creates favorable conditions for flora and fauna.

The continuous wear on many gravel tracks is an important source of minerals and nutrients for plants through dust dispersal. To ensure safety and provide the audience with good visibility, large areas around the tracks must be kept open, which promotes species that are dependent on sunlight that warms the ground. Additionally, the proximity to water ponds at many tracks favors species that live in aquatic environments, including certain birds and reptiles.

Environmental science emphasizes that biodiversity is just as important as the climate. We must be aware that living organisms, for example through the purification of air and water, perform important ecosystem services. Active motorways function as free nature conservation areas and provide additional social benefits. Without active motorway clubs, tax funds would need to be used to maintain these open and species-rich areas. Motorways can function as biorefuges for biodiversity and contribute to preserving a rich flora and fauna, as Saxtorp, for example, has shown.

The motor clubs are therefore not only important as social resources but also as central resources for maintaining the biological diversity that we have committed to protecting. This is a subject that perhaps has not been seen very much, but which I hereby wish to highlight.

Now, Madam Speaker, I want to address Sweden's wolf population, which has grown significantly in recent decades. It is the former green-socialist government that has laid the foundation for this by allowing the wolf population to grow unacceptably much.

The wolf is responsible today for four out of five fatal attacks against livestock in Sweden, which affects individual farmers and livestock owners who lose a family member or their livelihood. In counties with a high density of wolves, many people feel great fear and anxiety for their own and their relatives' safety. Therefore, the wolf threatens both the industry and people's freedom when people's safety is not put first.

In several counties, the wolf territories are being filled with farmers' animals, and the wolf has become increasingly bold toward humans. Daily we hear about sheep farmers whose animals have been attacked. We hear about ewes that abort their fetuses and do not become pregnant and about the hunting corps - which regulates the wildlife population - having their hunting dogs killed. We also hear about preschools that keep the children inside out of fear that wolves are prowling outside.

There is a long list of such stories that we politicians receive.

It does not work for people who live and work in the countryside to have 83 wolf territories in Sweden, where the majority are in Svealand. My county has 22 wolf territories, of which 16 have a rejuvenation. It is not acceptable. Dalarna, Örebro and Gävleborg also have a number of wolf territories with rejuvenation.

Therefore, we welcome that the Minister for Rural Affairs called a meeting with representatives from the county administrative boards to discuss the issues that exist. To tackle the problem, an intensified cooperation with Norway regarding wolf management is needed. Our countries should not let the national border constitute a strict management border because it does not reflect the wolf's transboundary movement patterns. Management of the shared wildlife populations should be carried out jointly.

We also hope that our government, unlike the previous one, pursues a line of self-determination in the EU. Predator policy shall not be governed from Brussels. The wolf's classification should change from strictly protected to manageable in the Habitats Directive.

Finally, the guidelines should be changed so that protection hunting can take place immediately after a wolf attack, instead of requiring repeated attacks on dogs before protection hunting can occur.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates have long pushed to solve many of the problems that the wolf causes. Our government will, of course, uphold the Riksdag's decision that the wolf population shall be in the lower range of 170-270 individuals. We welcome that this is being realized.

Madam Speaker! Let us be aware that we have a common responsibility to protect and care for nature and safeguard biodiversity. At the same time, we must make wise decisions and act responsibly to ensure people's safety and freedom in harmony with the fact that future generations shall also be able to enjoy nature and biodiversity.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! In 1993, Sweden received its Forestry Act. It is quite a long time ago. One could think that since then we have been able to take part in new knowledge and new research. Since then, Sweden has also become a part of the EU. There are actually all the reasons to reassess such old legislation and not turn a blind eye to the fact that reality and research have moved away from the view that dominated at that time.

Forestry in Sweden is far from sustainable. It threatens the water and causes the water to become brown. It causes major driving damage. It threatens all the cultural remains that exist in the forest and which disappear when large clear-cuts are made. There are also more than 3,000 red-listed species that are threatened due to large clear-cuts. Every year, the clear-cuts release 126 million tons of carbon dioxide.

If we are to somehow maintain credibility when we talk about sustainability and forestry, we simply must transition and not oppose the proposals that come from, for example, the EU regarding transitioning forestry, protecting more nature, and safeguarding all the values that exist within the forest.

When the member, Madam Speaker, speaks about motorways in her speech, it is a bit like picking nits and blowing trumpets. One chooses to clear-cut old-growth forests and accelerate the entire species extinction that is already occurring and that Sweden is largely a part of when one opposes all initiatives to transition.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! The credibility that the Member of Parliament speaks of has been destroyed in the party that the Member of Parliament represents, given that the election went the way it did and we now sit in a government position.

Why should we re-evaluate something that has actually worked well and where we see that the basic values are the same as those we stand for today and that has functioned? We do not believe that forest owners should have to prove anything towards the state when the state intends to limit their constitutionally protected ownership and use, as long as they take care of what they own in the right way. It should be the state's responsibility to show that it has good reasons to limit the forest owners' rights, not the other way around.

I did not quite understand the connection, Madam Speaker, between clear-cuts and motorways. They are two completely separate things. The Member of Parliament may elaborate on this a bit further if she wishes.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Let us look at what the research and Artdatabanken say regarding the listing of the greatest threats to our biological diversity. It is striking that it concerns logging, the unsustainable clear-cutting that dominates in Sweden, and reforestation. If we are to tackle the crisis that Sweden is losing species, it is those two things we must focus our political efforts on to transition.

I hear the reluctance. I am fully aware of it. I will not convince anyone in this room, in this debate. What I raised in my speech was the burnt water, the enormous impact on the climate, and all the red-listed species. In response, I receive a question about why we should reassess something that works.

I interpret from this speech that it is a question of a deliberate strategy to destroy the environment by continuing to create a fast track for the industry. One chooses the industry over the individual. One chooses profits in the billions over profitability for the individual, in the same way that one has chosen environmental destruction. I want the member to be aware of this. The forest policy being conducted in Sweden does not work.

The pulp mills are not a profitable model for the individual forest owner. It is a very good model for a pulp industry that wants raw materials at a low price in large volumes, but for those who live, work, and live off their forest, it is inefficient and unprofitable.

Madam Speaker! The profitability for the Swedish forestry producer is among the lowest in the entire EU. This, together with all environmental aspects, is to a very high degree a reason to reassess a piece of legislation from 1993.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Member of Parliament does not explain the connection between clear-cutting and motorways at all.

I told the Member of Parliament that I wondered why the valuations for something founded in 1993 should be changed and go in the opposite direction if the valuations are good. I also do not understand the argument that industry should be placed ahead of the individual. Throughout my speech, I maintained that the individual should be placed in the foreground. Whether one is a forest owner or talking about the predator policy, I have been careful to emphasize this.

I have not received answers to the questions I asked, but I thank you for the debate.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Marléne Lund Kopparklint for the speech.

The member has been active in the debate on wolves previously, and she has criticized ministers and the government for doing too little. We agree that the wolf population is too large. Something the member also raised in opposition is the introduction of a new wildlife management authority, and she has questioned why it has not been established according to the announcement.

Regarding the wildlife management authority, even the Hunters' Association does not believe there is a need to allocate resources to such an authority. Now, it is the member's own Tidö government that rules, and therefore I wonder when the wolf population will decrease to 170 individuals? When will the new wildlife management authority be inaugurated?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! This is interesting. It was not so long ago that we had the debates that the Member of Parliament is talking about. I can think that it does not help to patch and repair at the last moment during an election campaign, when one has previously pursued a policy that has been about protecting the wolf and contributing to the wolf population looking the way it does today.

We are taking steps and delivering what we have promised, namely that the wolf population shall be more than halved so that we reach the lower range of 170 wolves. We are also talking about taking other measures to put people's safety first, in contrast to what the Social Democratic government in cooperation with Miljöpartiet did.

We have constantly had to listen to how the Social Democrats have spoken about how we have betrayed election promises and questions when we are to deliver. I think it is strange. The Social Democrats as a party should know that a parliamentary term is four years. During those four years, we will deliver more than the party that the Member of Parliament represents has done, namely to secure safety for people and ensure that hunters and others affected by a wildlife authority have their needs met.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now in opposition, and now it is your turn to take responsibility. To stand here in the chamber and both in the presentation and now blame the Social Democrats is not taking responsibility. Nor is it to show decisiveness in the issues.

It is possible to do a lot in a short time. Just take what our former Minister for Rural Affairs, Sätherberg, did – she is sitting here in the chamber. During her time as Minister for Rural Affairs, approximately the same amount of time as you have been in power, more was done to reduce the wolf population than what has happened during these months. We tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to look at how we can reach the Riksdag's decided goal of an interval of 170-270 wolves, while simultaneously maintaining a favorable conservation status. We also gave a mandate to review the important protection hunt. We also changed the management areas to achieve a better license hunt. And we raised the issue in the EU to move the wolf from Annex 4 to Annex 5.

The current minister has said that he will work for this. The issue was raised immediately here, I want to be clear in saying.

We took important steps to reduce the altogether too large wolf population. During the alliance government's time, the number of wolves also increased.

One can have a very high level of finger-pointing in the wolf issue when one is in opposition, but now it is actually a matter of taking responsibility. Now it is up to proof - it is not enough to continue shifting the blame.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I actually think it is the right of the Swedish people to know why the situation is as it is in Sweden with the large wolf population that exists. It is due to the policy that the Socialdemokraterna together with Miljöpartiet have pursued. We have such a large wolf population because the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet did not make the right decisions - decisions that would have made a real difference.

It is this that is the basis for why people are worried today. They have their livestock injured because there are so many wolves and because there are so many wolf territories all around the country. It is not we who have laid that foundation. It is you in the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet who have laid the foundation for this, and you can never get away from that.

The Member of Parliament spoke about that important steps have been taken. However, one must not forget that we in the opposition had several motions that were crucial for reducing the wolf population.

Once again, I want to highlight that you took the steps you took during the election year, and that doesn't really count.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin my speech by talking about the announcement, which the government parties also stand behind, concerning the crossbill.

There has been a mandate since the previous parliamentary term concerning the joint [area] and management plans, which was again taken up in the flow of motions during the general motion period in the autumn. There is almost full consensus in the committee, and thus also in the Riksdag, on this issue. Even though the work is largely underway, we choose to stand behind these motions to truly show that the support is great - not least, Madam Speaker, towards the EU. It was said in a previous debate, but even when it comes to this, Brussels should be addressed.

The EU Commission sent signals some years ago showing that the Commission interprets the Birds Directive more generously and provides room for hunting on a larger scale, even though the cormorant is not listed as a huntable species. Despite this, we must of course fight to move the cormorant to the list of huntable species, so that we ourselves in Sweden can fully own the issue. Wildlife management should be a national competence.

The reason why the cormorant is included in this report is precisely that it has previously been more rare and has thus become part of the struggle for biodiversity. Now it is rather the opposite – the nitrogen and phosphorus in the bird droppings are killing both trees and ground plants in the cormorant colonies, which in turn leads to other animals and plants also disappearing from the area. It really is not biodiversity.

Tomorrow, Madam Speaker, we in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture will have two new debates here in the chamber. One of them concerns fisheries policy, and it would surprise me very much if the cormorant is not also raised there. It is a nuisance for many, not least within coastal and small-scale fishing.

Another species mentioned in this report and which will most likely come up in tomorrow's debate is the seal. We see how several of our seal species are increasing in number, and thus we see that the seal population in some parts of our seas is becoming too large. It does not only affect the fishing but also the seals themselves, with among other things disease as a consequence.

We must therefore continue to work to facilitate the management of sales, not least regarding the rigid regulatory framework surrounding the protection hunt. It also concerns having a generous license hunt where the populations so require.

Earlier in my speech, I mentioned the EU and how they to a large extent micro-manage matters that should be Swedish competence. We must generally dare to be tougher towards the EU in these issues and dare to challenge them regarding the right of decision, regardless of whether it concerns, for example, wildlife populations or different types of forest.

Madam Speaker! It is quite interesting to read in the report about the motions regarding the forest. I note that it is very easy to have opinions about the forest – especially about forest that someone else owns. It is extra easy to have views on, because then one does not need to take any responsibility oneself – nor any financial responsibility.

Some progress has been made in forest policy. During the last parliamentary term, a forest investigation was conducted, and some parts of what emerged from it were good. We want to proceed with the work regarding the forest in a forest investigation that, among other things, addresses nationally protected species, which unfortunately put a spoke in the wheel of sustainable Swedish forestry.

Often it is so, Madam Speaker, that we blame the EU. It is very easy to hide behind the EU. In many cases, however, it is actually not the EU that has made a mistake, but it is about Swedish over-implementation. In Sweden, we often want to be "Bror Duktig", and we are happy to take three more steps than we actually need to take when we are going to implement directives.

Such a question concerns the reporting of the status of species and habitat types according to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. The Government has now tasked the responsible authorities with preparing proposals for revised reference areas. We in Sweden have pre-industrial time as the reference time, while most EU countries have set the time of EU accession as the reference time. Naturally, it will be such that we trip ourselves up when we are to go back to how the forest looked during pre-industrial time, while most other EU countries go back to the time of EU accession. I look forward to receiving the result of this evaluation and investigation in order to then be able to proceed with this.

Allemansrätten is another issue that is taken up in the report. Even there, it varies between the motions. One thing that is interesting and that we see how one should be able to handle is the commercial use – or exploitation – of allemansrätten. Allemansrätten has a function. We see, however, unfortunately how some exploit it for commercial purposes, which was not the intention. We should ensure that this does not happen and that it is required that agreements be entered into if it is the case that allemansrätten is to be used for commercial purposes.

I too must, of course, mention the wolf, Madam Speaker. As a person from Värmland, it is impossible to have a debate on nature conservation and biodiversity, where the wolf is included, without mentioning this.

Last winter we had the largest wolf hunt in modern times. There was a license to shoot 75 wolves, but only 57 wolves were shot. Therefore, the Minister for Rural Affairs has now summoned the county governors to find out what caused the number in the license to not be met. I have not heard how these conversations have proceeded. What I know is that if we change the Swedish regulations so that decisions can be made somewhat later, we could obtain a license that we can actually achieve. With fairly simple means, we can change the regulations so that we get a more effective license hunt.

Just as my colleague Marléne Lund Kopparklint mentioned, Sweden must achieve a co-management with Norway. Both countries have signed the Bern Convention, where the countries state that they shall have a joint management because it is a common stock. I myself live 100 meters from the Norwegian border. At my home, it is quite dense with wolves, and I can guarantee that the wolves have no idea which side of the border they are on or when they cross the border.

We must have a joint management because the stock is common. This is also something that we are working to achieve, and we therefore have contact with our Norwegian friends. Of course, the wolf should have a favorable conservation status, but there is no doubt that we must continue the work that has been started to reduce the wolf's numbers.

The same, Madam Speaker, applies to the bear population. Even there, we must address the problems we see, not least now when the bear comes out of hibernation. It is quite generous with protection hunting, which is very good, but we should perhaps reduce the numbers so that we do not get such large problems as we have now.

I actually intended to continue with a few more points, but I note that my time is approaching its end. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for the proposal in the report to be approved and for all reservations to be rejected.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

Both I and Member Ottosson enjoy being out in nature to go kayaking, hiking, hunting, and so on. Many others do as well, which became particularly clear during the corona pandemic when people headed out and discovered what the Swedish nature has to offer.

Now the government is cutting back significantly in this area, and the county administrative boards across the country have warned about the consequences of that. Maintenance and service will cease, toilets will disappear, and bridges and footbridges will not be maintained or built. And who will empty the trash cans? There will also be no resources for predator inventories.

The Social Democratic government's initiative on nature-oriented jobs could also have been used so that animal owners would receive help in setting up predator fences against, among other things, wolves. Will the animal owners have to pay for everything themselves now?

And with these cuts, 1,000 state-funded annual job opportunities will disappear from Sweden's sparsely populated and rural areas.

The questions are many. Does Member Ottosson consider the development described by the county administrative boards as a result of the government's budget to be desirable?

The member did not say much about biodiversity in his speech, even though it is the main subject of the committee report. The member is welcome to elaborate on what he wants regarding biodiversity.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Malin Larsson! I will try to answer them.

One reason why I mentioned, for example, seal, great skua, and wolf in my speech is that these are animals that truly hinder biodiversity. That is how nature looks. We must have balance between our animal species to achieve biodiversity, and this applies particularly to the predators.

I had intended to speak much more about forests in my speech, but unfortunately, time did not suffice. As for whether there are any who truly ensure that we have biodiversity in the forest, it is our 330,000 individual landowners in Sweden who manage their forest.

The challenge is rather that the state must act in such a way here that our forest owners can trust the state. Unfortunately, we are not there today. Many landowners manage their forests perfectly, and then there are high nature values in the forest. But when they report logging, it is stopped because they have managed their forest so well that it has resulted in high nature values.

It should rather be a default mode, meaning that everyone manages their forests so that they provide high nature values when it is time for logging. But the problem today is that they do not dare to manage their forests that way, because they know that when they report logging, the state will stop it. Therefore, they do not dare to manage the forest the way they would if they could trust the state.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Even when it comes to the forest, the government has cut back so that those who voluntarily want to protect their forest do not receive any compensation. It is a major problem.

Member of the Board Ottosson has also commented on the cuts to the work against invasive, alien species and regretted that it turned out as it did. The Christian Democrats, the Sweden Democrats and other parties in the government base do, however, support this policy, and they did not correct it in the autumn budget, which they should have done if they also, like I, consider this work to be important.

Neither the Sweden Democrats nor the Christian Democrats seem to want to cut back in this important area. Is it the Moderates and the Liberals who have pushed the budget cuts so hard that the work against invasive species will largely cease?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me first correct Member Malin Larsson. In the spring budget, we allocated extra money specifically to those forest owners who want to protect their forest. Those who voluntarily protect their forest shall receive compensation faster. We allocated extra money in the spring budget precisely so that they would not be affected.

When we took power in the autumn, it was fast-paced from the beginning of October until the budget was to be presented, and I will willingly admit that in some parts it perhaps went too fast. Therefore, in this year's budget, we shall rectify that which did not turn out as it was intended.

Voluntarism in the protection of forests is a fundamental part, as it reduces the level of conflict. Here I believe that the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats are in complete agreement.

Yes, there was less money for the work against invasive species than I had hoped. But when I checked it, I saw that we followed the red-green government's long-term budget. Since we have followed it and not added any money, those out in the country cannot do the job they intended to do fully. We therefore followed Malin Larsson's own party's budget proposal, and to blame us for that is a bit excessive.

I can guarantee Malin Larsson and others in the chamber that if there is anything we have recorded for the upcoming budget, it is that more money shall go to the fight against invasive, alien species. I can promise everyone that.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! We heard in the presentation that it is strange when politicians interfere and regulate something that someone else owns. What would we be able to regulate in that case? Would the rules only stay within the house? It becomes meaningless with an elected parliament if we politicians and legislators do not dare to make decisions that benefit society as a whole.

The Speaker spoke warmly for the 330,000 forest owners and about creating trust, confidence, and long-term perspective. But that is not done through the volatility that the government has created via its budget, a budget for which the government has full responsibility. You have cut 70 percent of the protection of valuable nature. You have also cut back on the management of valuable nature. It concerns the money that goes to landowners who want something else with their forest than to have a clear-cut. This trust has been destroyed with a budget where you do not invest in the countryside. You are also removing more than a thousand green jobs in the countryside.

It is not possible to deny this when one sits in power. This is a betrayal of all those who need to stand in line for years to have their land protected on a voluntary basis.

Madam Speaker! The Member mentions that this has been adjusted in the year-end budget. It was enough for approximately two contracts, and then the money was exhausted. When we talk about forest, we are talking about large sums. Not millions but billions are needed to achieve long-term perspective and credibility.

Many initiatives come from the EU, which the government opposes. Is the member and the Christian Democrats prepared to do a Svexit because this is seen as national competence?

Often when I hear the level of the debate, I wonder if we have sufficient national competence to make such large and important decisions for biodiversity.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rebecka Le Moine for the question.

It becomes a bit comical when a member of Miljöpartiet and one of those who - what shall I say - expresses themselves quite clearly and distinctly in many of these issues, stands and talks about trust regarding the forest. I travel quite a lot around the country and visit many forest owners. It is clear that the party that has the absolute lowest trust in forest issues is not Kristdemokraterna. It is Miljöpartiet. It is very clear regardless of whom one visits. To then stand and talk about that we do not inspire trust in forest issues becomes very strange.

What we are sending out with the changes we make in policy is a belief in the future for our forest owners, that they will once again be able to trust the state and that they will dare to develop their forest in such a way that we get high nature values without them, for that reason, risking that the state will come and take it.

I do not know how MP Le Moine lives, but I usually take the example of a house: Let us say that you own a house, and then the state comes and tells you that you are not allowed to use the other floors in your house. You receive no compensation, but you are not allowed to go there. How would the ordinary Swede react then? I believe there would be quite substantial reactions. In exactly the same way does the state treat the Swedish forest owners. In some parts they can receive compensation, but in many parts not at all. That the MP then stands here and talks about trust in forest issues, I do not understand, Madam Speaker.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that the member has been to many dinner parties with high-ranking CEOs of the largest companies. I have spoken with very many who own the land, and it is plus minus zero in profitability. In Sweden, the profitability for forest owners is among the absolute lowest in the EU. What we are doing is pressing the prices for landowners and forest owners in order to be able to benefit the industries. At precisely those kinds of dinner parties that the member has been to, one hears: Don't touch anything, because we have it exactly as good as we want it!

There are large billion-dollar payouts in the industry while the landowners and forest owners are on their knees. I receive many calls from worried forest owners who say that there is no profitability for them and that they feel no faith in the future. It is especially so when these people have waited for compensation from the state for a protected area or for managing an area, and then we suddenly change governments and there are no funds, so they have to start over and stand in line for several years.

Let us take hold of the example that the member mentions. This is also a question that has come up when I have visited many in the countryside. They tell that they bought their house for the fantastic forest, the fantastic environment. Now, that environment where their children have grown up is logged, and they have a clear-cut as a neighbor. It lowers the house value, and it lowers the quality of life for these people in the countryside. But think, Rebecka, they say, if I had lived in the city! Then I would have had influence over what colors the houses were given; I would have had influence over the smallest toilet. But no such influence is left to the people in the countryside. There is, therefore, a great injustice built into the policy being pursued. I truly appeal to the government and the member to listen to all the voices that exist out there and not just to the pleas of the industry leaders.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know where to begin.

It is possible that Rebecka Le Moine is at many dinner invitations from the large forestry companies. I can willingly admit that I have been at a dinner with a network whose chairman is sitting here in the chamber. We have a forestry industry network here in the Riksdag, and I have been there and eaten food with them. Rebecka Le Moine has that same opportunity. All members of Parliament can visit the forestry industry network. I have been there, and I have no problem admitting that. It is completely open and transparent. I have not been at any other dinner invitations for large forestry companies or the forestry industry. Perhaps Rebecka Le Moine attends these and thus judges others by her own actions. That is up to her.

The member speaks about profitability. One reason why the profitability is not as great as it could be is that it is surrounded by so many laws and regulations. Of course, it is such that if we can change these in some parts, it could increase the profitability even more. At the same time, the member speaks very often about continuous cover forestry. If there is anything that would really put forest owners into bankruptcy, it is to practice continuous cover forestry. Then you harvest some trees now and some trees then, and forest machines have to run over and over. It costs a lot of money, and they cannot extract more than what it costs to manage the forest right there and then. If there is anything that really drains the profitability, it is continuous cover forestry.

Finally, it becomes very clear what I mentioned earlier about having opinions when someone else owns the forest, Madam Speaker, when the Member of Parliament stands here and claims that one as a resident in the countryside should be able to come and influence how others should act with their own owned forest. It says everything.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating nature conservation and biodiversity, as well as the state's efforts against invasive species. I would like to begin by moving to approve the Social Democrats' reservation 44.

The network of plant and animal species that build the ecosystems on our planet 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.

The Social Democratic-led government significantly strengthened the means for the protection of our nature. Protecting biodiversity is both a local and a global challenge, and the coming decade will be decisive as to whether it will be possible to reverse the negative trend.

In December last year, I had the privilege of being present in Canada for the party meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, COP 15. On site were politicians, youth, environmental organizations, indigenous peoples, and companies. The meeting was about nature getting its own Paris Agreement so that we can slow down and reverse the trend of species extinction. After four years of preparations and two weeks of hard negotiations, the world's countries finally agreed on a new global framework for biological diversity – a rescue plan for nature.

Now remains the next challenge, the implementation, when all countries are to introduce the rescue plan into their own policies at home. Biodiversity is local, and therefore all countries must take action. Damage to ecosystems is difficult to rectify, and species that go extinct we cannot bring back. Biodiversity is also an important resilience in the face of climate change. The five main causes behind the losses of biodiversity are changed land and sea use, overexploitation, climate change, and invasive alien species.

Madam Speaker! Throughout history, we have derived great benefit from non-native species from all corners of the world, in gardens, in agriculture and forestry, and in hunting. But it can also cause major problems when non-native species take over in their new environment, outcompete other species, become invasive, and damage ecosystems. Invasive non-native species are one of the greatest global threats to biodiversity. Therefore, the Social Democratic-led government also invested in strengthening the work on combating them. With our investments, one could locally across the entire country take the fight against the lupines, the raccoon dog, the park slider, the giant hogweed, the black-mouthed butterbur, and all the other species.

Just as the National Audit Office's report shows, we must do more in the work against invasive species, and the measures taken must be effective and purposeful. Unfortunately, the government instead cuts the budget and pulls the rug out from under all the work that has been done across the country. They give walkover and let these species spread freely as the Sweden Democrats and the government do not even seem to want to take on the fight against them.

The government's reduced funding levels for measures for the protection and management of valuable nature also have major consequences for people's access to protected areas and the maintenance of facilities, such as signage, hiking trails, viewpoints, barbecue areas, etc. And many landowners who voluntarily want to protect valuable environments, including those who own mountain forests, are now forced to wait for compensation.

In addition to positive effects for biodiversity and outdoor life, the investments created employment across the country among contractors, consultants, and authorities. The cuts mean that approximately 1,000 years of employment will disappear during 2023, many of which are among contractors in rural areas.

Madam Speaker! Our Swedish right of public access is fantastic and unique for Sweden. Thanks to the right of public access, Sweden's nature is open to everyone, and it is summarized by the guiding principles do not disturb, do not destroy. This means that there are plenty of opportunities for outdoor life for everyone in Sweden.

Interest in outdoor life has increased exponentially since the beginning of the pandemic, and many are making their way out to small and large nature reserves, wind shelters, and cabins. In many ways, it is also a pleasing development for the Swedish tourism industry, but unfortunately, the government is conducting a policy that actively counteracts that development by cutting funds for this.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I also intended in the debate to take the wolf first and then the cormorant.

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

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.

We now see how the wolf population is increasing. It is crowded in the wolf territories, and we see an increased number of wolves both south and north in the country. Today's population is far too large and needs to be significantly reduced. Therefore, we tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to look at how we can reach the Riksdag's decided goal of an interval of 170-270 wolves and also to review the protection hunting. We Social Democrats want to make it easier to manage the wolf and also pushed the issue in the EU that the wolf should be moved from Annex IV to Annex V in the Habitats Directive.

In addition to the wolf, cormorant and seal are two animal species that have had strong growth in recent years and which have affected, among other things, fishing negatively by attacking catches and damaging equipment. We want to see a significant reduction in the number of cormorants, and therefore it is pleasing that our motion received a majority in the committee and that the committee now proposes that a notice be directed to the government.

According to the committee, a revised management plan for the gray seal and equivalent management throughout the country are required to achieve a reduction in the gray seal populations. The harbor seal population has also experienced very strong growth in recent years and is now assessed to have a favorable conservation status.

The previous Social Democratic government has already tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management with revising the national management plan for both cormorants and hunting of different seal species. The entire marine ecosystem must function, and the management of seals and cormorants shall be part of an ecosystem-based marine management.

Now we look forward to good proposals from the given assignments and that they will be put into practice.

(Applause)

In this speech, Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S) concurred.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! As a member of the Green Party and also as a former government colleague of the member, it is no secret that we have different opinions on wolf management, but it becomes provocingly clear when the member more or less boasts about how they have worked to lower the status of the wolf and worked with the Birds and Habitats Directive to worsen the status for the endangered species wolf.

People also want to reduce the number of wolves in Sweden, and I stand here and wonder why. What is it that drives all politicians to reduce the number of wolves? I wonder if it could be because many dogs are killed by wolves. I can really understand that one feels a lot for one's four-legged friend. There is statistics from Agria showing how many dogs die. It is from 2022, but the pattern looks the same. There were 129 that were killed in traffic and 198 that were killed by wild boar. Okay, let's then put in measures to make traffic safer and perhaps also reduce the wild boar population. There was 1 dog that was killed by wolf, so that is probably not where the shoe pinches.

Is it because we have a popular opinion? One hears many strong voices from the Jägareförbundet, but it is only 3 percent of the Swedish people who are hunters. Not all of those 3 percent are also opponents of wolves, and 70 percent of the Swedish people are positive towards having wolves in Sweden. I do not find the answer there either.

My question to the member simply has to be: Why are you so eager to reduce the wolf population and do everything you can to lower the legal status for an animal that we have committed ourselves to preserving?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Le Moine, for the questions! It is true that we disagree on this issue - that is how it is.

The wolf evokes very many emotions. It has always done so. As someone who lives in the countryside, I recently visited two sheep farmers in Ånge municipality, where wolves are wandering up. It is crowded in the wolf territories now in northern Hälsingland, and the wolves are being pushed upwards. I also spoke with a reindeer owner who felt great concern as he has his reindeer down there in the winter grazing land.

It is three wolves that have moved in the area, and large resources have been spent on DNA-securing them. They moved inside the central locations, they ate from bird feeders and they even stepped up onto the porch eaves of houses. It is not a natural behavior for a wolf. A wolf should be afraid of humans and stay in the forest. At such times, it is incredibly important to take people's anxiety - animal owners' anxiety - seriously and initiate protection hunting. Therefore, I think it is important that the protection hunting decisions for wolves become both more effective and faster.

The chairman mentioned the number of dogs that die. If it was one that died from a wolf, it must have been near my home in Naggen, because a dog was killed by a wolf there during the elk hunt this year. But I would believe that it is more. One can calculate the proportional number of wolves versus the number of cars and wild boar, so the figure might become a bit more significant. But we disagree - that's how it is.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. We do our best with the time we have here in the chamber. What I get out of this is that it is based on emotions.

I am a conservation biologist, and I like facts, figures, scientific references, and so on. The fact is that no human has been killed by a wolf in the wild in Sweden for more than 200 years. But then we have this issue of concern, and that must absolutely be taken seriously. How are we to act so that people who live and work within wolf territories do not have to feel worried? That is where we come to the political area that deals with coexistence. It is really this that I am calling for, even from the government parties that are here and listening. Why can we not talk more about coexistence? Then we would need to work with compensation and raise the compensation levels, work supportively as well as provide advice and education. We might also need to support all incentives for predator-deterring fences and review the legislation for fences—when one is entitled to compensation and how much. If one has livestock that are taken, the costs for that can be reviewed and the compensation increased.

Now we are on a completely different part of the agenda that is not about actively phasing out a species that we have committed to protecting in Sweden, but rather about starting to solve problems. And I believe we are elected for that. We are elected in a country where we have also agreed on various environmental goals. We have a government that, despite detesting wolves, has signed a global nature agreement where one has committed to ensuring that all species within the nation's borders shall be preserved. So let us be problem-solvers and not just settle for phasing out one of our endangered species from the nation.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I also like facts and want to stick to them. And if there is anything that there is a lot of facts about, it is the wolf. A lot of DNA has been collected, and the wolves have been tracked with GPS collars and so on for a long time. Facts exist, therefore.

Now we have such a large number of wolves in Sweden that we have a favorable conservation status. In the work of actually gaining acceptance, it is also about both protection hunting and license hunting. These are incredibly important tools to be able to keep the wolf population at a good level.

The Speaker also mentions predator-deterrent fences, and it is important that there are grants for those. There are many landowners who have the land near their farm and near their home. But many also lease land and have grazing outside the parish, and there they cannot put up fences because they do not own the land there. They also do not have these resources. Even if they receive grants, fences cost a very large amount of money. It is difficult to solve this all the way, but it is still an important tool in management. We are not saying that we are going to eradicate the wolf. We shall keep the wolf, but at an appropriate level.

In summary: Yes, we disagree. The wolf should remain, but at a lower level, we Social Democrats believe.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! The sinner wakes late. I cannot help but say it, Madam Speaker, because this is somewhat humorous. I have stood here in the rostrum several times and debated about the wolf just with the Social Democrats. I even believe that Malin Larsson and I have discussed this issue before. But then we stood on opposite sides. Then I was in opposition and the Member of Parliament was in the majority. But not even once did they agree with what we put forward regarding the wolf population - that it had gone out of control and that one had to take people's insecurity seriously. Then came an election year. Then suddenly it was important to give the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency a mandate on how to get down to an interval of 170-270 wolves. This is not credible in my world or in many others' worlds.

Therefore, I want to ask Member of Parliament Larsson: What are your thoughts regarding this issue? Do you want an interval of 170-270? It is exactly the same policy that you put forward when you were in government. So what is reasonable? Should we have 269, or should we have 170, or what level should we settle on? And how will you further contribute to the policy that you are now pursuing in opposition, on the other side where we stood earlier, in order to increase people's safety? We did not hear a word about that when you were in government. And once again, I want to clarify that it is the policy that you pursued that has contributed to the large wolf pack that we have today.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, the wolf evokes emotions. And as I said in our previous exchange, the member here on the other side was in opposition and had a very high tail-wagging in these issues and demanded answers on when the levels would go down and so on. Therefore, I ask the same question to the member today because it is you who have the responsibility today. It is up to you to ensure that this is implemented. We have actually done very good preparatory work here to highlight these issues.

What the government's minister is saying today, for example, is that he will work to move the relevant EU rules from Article 4 to Article 5. We did not do anything of the sort when we held government power. We did not work for anything; instead, we put the issues on the table and demanded answers.

The Social Democrats as a party have an old congress decision that the level of the number of wolves should be around 200 individuals. This is therefore not a new issue for us. We have stood here and pushed these issues, and above all that we shall have a good protection hunt where decisions can be made quickly and efficiently and that we shall have a license hunt that works across the entire country.

But we have quite a lot to contend with when it comes to these issues. And when I ask the question to the Minister for Rural Affairs today, I get the same answer from him, namely that we have the Birds and Habitats Directive to contend with, that one should do everything in one's power and so on. But nothing more concrete is said.

I can therefore pose the question back now that the ball is with the government parties: When will we see a reduction of the wolf population?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I received a question back, and Member of Parliament Larsson claims that the previous government has done good preparatory work to reduce the wolf population we have today. The only preparatory work that the previous Green Party and socialist government did was to increase the wolf population so that people's insecurity became a topic of discussion. We politicians were contacted by people because they experienced such great danger and insecurity. They saw farm animals being torn to pieces and hunting dogs being killed. This preparatory work you have done is by increasing the wolf population while you sat in government for two parliamentary terms and pursued a policy that was irresponsible.

We, however, now that we are in a governing position, have said that we will take steps in this issue. We will look at an intensified cooperation with Norway when it comes to wolf management. We will push the line of self-determination in the EU as much as we possibly can. We have a Minister for Rural Affairs who has gone out and spoken about where we stand on the issue, and we will take these steps forward during this mandate period. But the ground to stand on is not easy because the Social Democrats have not pursued a responsible policy previously. I actually want to emphasize that to Member of Parliament Larsson when she stands there and says that they have done good preparatory work.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is up to the sitting government now. To stand and say that one is going to do something is one thing. But to then actually do something is something else. That is what we want to see now.

We actually gave a mandate to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to look at how the goals decided by the Riksdag can be reached, even when it concerns the protection of the hunt.

A partial answer came now in March about giving a mandate further that is not time-limited. That is what this government is doing. Otherwise, I actually do not know what the government has done or what decisions it has made to reduce the wolf population. I have not seen any such decisions. I have seen writings and answers to my questions about that one should work towards this. But some actual decisions are not on the table.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Now we find ourselves here in the chamber again for yet another debate in the long row of debates linked to the work in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. We handle very many very important issues during a year in the Riksdag. But there are probably few issues that are more important than the one we are debating today, namely the one regarding biodiversity. Why is that? Why is this specifically so important? Yes, because healthy ecosystems with rich biodiversity are a prerequisite for all life on earth.

Madam Speaker! To speak plainly: in a world without bees, we get no food. We must protect and care for the pollinators. Biodiversity is crucial for us to have food to put on the plate, for there to be fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink, and for the society we live in to be able to withstand the disasters and consequences that climate change brings with it.

We see recurring reports that biodiversity has decreased and that this is happening at an alarmingly high speed. Far too many species are threatened. The imbalance in nature is far too great in far too many places. It is our collective responsibility to do something about this. We must protect animals and plants and work for ecosystems in balance. If we lose biodiversity, we lose vital and irreplaceable ecosystems, services that both we as individuals and society as a whole depend on to function. We must hand over healthy ecosystems and a world in ecological balance to future generations. We can only guess what the future will need from nature. Therefore, this issue is so important.

Madam Speaker! If we want to curb climate change, biodiversity is required. Here we need to take responsibility. What do we do concretely? An important initiative is that on the rewetting of wetlands. Wetlands store greenhouse gases. The drainage that has occurred throughout history has served its purpose, but it has also brought consequences. Now we see that the drainage leads to large emissions. Over 2 million hectares of wetlands have been drained since the mid-1800s. It is obviously concerning. Through the initiative that is being made on rewetting, we do good. The initiative is good for balancing water flows, improving water management, increasing the supply of groundwater, reducing climate impact and eutrophication, and improving the soil's ability to bind carbon. Particularly important to highlight just today is that it is good for biodiversity.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals are, as is well known, Sweden's most pro-European party. To stand here in the chamber as a Liberal on Europe Day itself in a debate concerning the environment without mentioning anything about the EU, the world's leading environmental organization, would arguably be bordering on dereliction of duty. The national work for biodiversity is largely dependent on international conventions and agreements and common EU regulations. Just as has been said from this rostrum earlier this evening, nature, as is well known, knows no national borders. Global challenges require strong cross-border cooperation, both so that common goals can be set and so that the countries that take responsibility do not end up in worse competitive situations. Here, EU cooperation plays a decisive role. In the trade agreements that the EU concludes with the rest of the world, mutual climate measures carry ever greater weight. That is good. It is only together with others that we can solve the truly big issues.

Madam Speaker! Together is the way forward.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Elin Nilsson for the speech. I am very pleased that the member highlights the seriousness of the extinction of species and what is happening to our biological diversity, both in Sweden and out in the world. Previously, the Moderate member raised the importance of motorways linked to biological diversity, which we are debating here today, but it was good to hear that there is a party in the government that sees the seriousness in this.

The allocation for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency for the protection of valuable nature is, however, being cut significantly in your budget, as is the allocation for the management of nature. This is what the government does at the same time as the number of endangered species increases and agreements are signed that the proportion of protected nature in Sweden shall increase by 30 percent both on land and at sea. The direction remains to more than halve the environmental budget. It is a direction that is fixed, according to Oscar Sjöstedt, the Sweden Democrats' economic-policy spokesperson; so said the Liberals' coalition partner when the spring budget was presented. I find this regrettable. I wonder how you make this work. Where is the Liberals' limit, actually, for how much one can concede?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! We have presented a tight budget that takes into account high inflation, recession, and high electricity prices. Despite this, in the autumn we included the second highest climate and environment budget ever.

The member's statement that we are not investing in the maintenance of nature and environmental protection is not quite correct. Within the autumn budget that has just been presented, we are actually investing an extra 40 million kronor in this. It is an appropriation that is to be used, among other things, for expenses for precisely the protection and preservation of valuable nature.

When one finds that an area is worth protecting, it is also, just as the member points out, important that there is then money for maintenance. This is important to preserve the values that exist there and for the acceptance and understanding that nature is being protected. Now we also see such an investment in the year-end budget.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Elin Nilsson for the answer. As we heard earlier in an exchange of remarks, unfortunately, the 40 million kronor are not enough for anything at all in the large sense. For example, there is a common land area up in Västerbotten that is waiting for compensation. It concerns a couple of thousand hectares of forest, I believe. These funds are not even enough for just their area. And it was for the protection of forest that these funds were to go, I have been told by the Minister for Environment and Climate.

I must also ask the members about the cuts to the work against invasive species. We have heard that KD regrets this. SD has also regretted it. One then wonders which party it was that pushed through the reduction. Was it you Liberals who pushed it through? It cannot be that all four parties in the government base have completely missed this and, furthermore, missed what consequences it has?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question. Combating invasive and alien species is a priority for the government. It is assessed that improvements in the measures are needed to make them more effective. The investment that was in place when we took office and assumed government power has expired. I cannot answer why it was not continued, but just as we have heard here earlier, it was fast-paced.

We are also facing a strained budget situation and did it in that situation. But combating invasive and alien species is a priority issue. Both the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and other authorities are working on that issue.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the member for a very fine and objective content in the speech itself. I appreciate it, as earlier in this debate we have heard representatives from the government parties mostly talk about how we can kill more of the threatened species in Sweden, how we can catch them and reduce the populations and reduce their legal protection and so on. It was uplifting to hear this as a contrast, so I really want to thank for that.

The Liberals seem to be passionate about wetlands. It seems to be close to your hearts to restore wetlands. I think there is every reason to do so, both for the climate benefits that have been mentioned and because 19 percent of all of Sweden's red-listed species would benefit from it as they are tied to wetlands. Investing in the wetlands can truly become a win-win-win policy, I believe.

So to my question. The member also mentioned the EU, and the EU has come up with many fine proposals. The world's largest environmental organization has, as was mentioned, submitted a proposal for something called the nature restoration law. Just as with the wetlands in the initiative that the Liberals have pushed for, the aim is to restore damaged ecosystems. My question is quite simply how it adds up that within the government you actually oppose and, as the only country in the EU, vote no to the nature restoration law, while at home you really want to restore this type of nature. The Liberals' position is that the EU is something good and that it is good to coordinate environmental issues at a high level, so my question to the Liberal member is quite simply how this adds up. Is one actually positive towards the EU's initiative on restoration?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the Liberals are truly Sweden's most pro-EU party. We truly see the power in joint cooperation, in working out measures at a common level that have a broad effect on the environment.

Then there are always trade-offs to be made. The regulatory framework needs to be adapted to the national level. In our cooperation within the government base, we have discussions about this all the time, and the Liberals' starting point is that we need to work for strong environmental protection.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! That was a brief but not so clear answer.

I understand that there are different perspectives, but do you welcome the EU's initiative to restore nature?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member! Yes, of course, we welcome that work is being done to strengthen the work of restoring nature. How it is implemented at the national level is a matter we need to discuss here so that it is adapted to Swedish conditions. But we view the work being done at the EU level positively.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! The state of biological diversity 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 biodiversity 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 with even-aged spruces or pines that are harvested long before they reach their maximum lifespan. Our forests are managed largely 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 pleasing that ambitious goals are in place, but they will not be reached without effort.

Sweden failed to live up to any of the goals set for 2020 within the framework of the convention on biological diversity. Nor did any of the national environmental goals with a direct connection to biological diversity are reached. It is a clear failing grade for a wealthy welfare country like Sweden. It is unfortunately also a testament to that environmental considerations continue to be subordinated to short-term profit interests.

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

How does the government respond to this serious situation? Unfortunately, with brutal cuts to nature conservation. Resources for the protection and management of valuable nature are being slaughtered. Money for environmental monitoring, efforts for pollinators, and the control of invasive species are being withdrawn. The planned environmental assessments of hydropower, which are so important for aquatic species, have been put on hold. At the EU level, they seem to be working to weaken important legislation on nature restoration.

Mr. Speaker! Today, approximately 9 percent of Sweden's forest land is formally protected. This includes both the mountain-adjacent forest and unproductive land. The voluntary set-asides amount to just under 6 percent. Sweden has failed to protect enough forest in accordance with either the international or the national goals.

Vänsterpartiet considers that Sweden should adopt a national goal that a total of 30 percent of the forest land shall be protected in the long term. This shall be achieved by ensuring that at least 20 percent of the productive forest land is protected. The protected forest land shall consist of representative and ecologically coherent networks of nature types. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 8.

Vänsterpartiet also believes that Sweden should increase the pace of establishing national parks. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency currently has a plan for how more national parks can be formed and how existing ones can be expanded. This is good, but more resources must be allocated to this work so that more national parks, such as Kebnekaise, can be formed more quickly.

Mr. Speaker! Measures are obviously needed in many more areas to reverse the negative trend for biodiversity. We need an agriculture that promotes biodiversity to a much greater extent, where wetlands are preserved and where animals are allowed to roam outside. We must also limit the use of environmental toxins in agriculture. Physical planning must take greater environmental considerations.

Of course, the protection of biodiversity in the sea must also be strengthened. We must stop harmful fishing methods such as bottom trawling. The marine reserves shall be included in larger connected networks so that they can strengthen each other together.

Mr. Speaker! 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 is needed. We can continue to cultivate land and forest, 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.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rebecka Le Moine (MP) agreed.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Biodiversity is of fundamental importance for human life on Earth and for the well-being of our societies. 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. It requires increased international cooperation but also that more is done locally and regionally by more people here in Sweden.

The Swedish nature and wilderness contain extraordinary mixtures of animals, plants, and magnificent landscapes, both on land and along the coasts. Everything also hangs together in an impressive way. To preserve and, in many cases, restore biodiversity, globally and here in Sweden, belongs together with the climate issue to our time's greatest challenges. To succeed, measures are required that stem from local conditions and that involve more actors.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has 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. Unfortunately, the management of many protected areas is neglected, and they do not exhibit the nature values they are intended to exhibit. I and the Center Party therefore want to increase the pace of the restoration and recovery of protected nature so that future generations also benefit from resilient ecosystems. Furthermore, we want to ensure that the biodiversity in the areas we already protect is maintained.

Unfortunately, we see that the government does not have the same ambition. This year's budget with reduced appropriations to existing nature areas has had consequences, and 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 life will likely need to be postponed until the future.

It also means a reduction in the important work against invasive species. In Gotland, for example, common buckthorn and sea buckthorn will get a greater opportunity to spread again. In Skåne, it will not be possible to follow the plans for the planting of noble broadleaf forest and for the clearing of valuable lands where there are orchids and other valuable species.

Outdoor life is also negatively affected as maintenance of barbecue areas and benches cannot be completed, and they may instead be removed.

But we in the Center Party want more. In our budget, we have allocated significantly more, and that can yield a different result.

We need to shift into a higher gear to combat just invasive alien species. They are one of the major threats to biodiversity in Sweden. Better governance and coordination between different parts of authorities and municipalities is needed.

Many may perhaps first think of giant hogweed or Japanese knotweed, but invasive species also exist in the animal kingdom. Earlier today we heard about, for example, my home area, Saxtorp. There is not only a motocross track there, but we also have swimming lakes. They have now been invaded by one of the world's most invasive species, namely the zebra mussel, which can be devastating for a number of other species.

In Saxtorp there is also a very beautiful nature reserve and a large outdoor recreation area, which is very valuable for our part of Skåne.

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

We therefore want to encourage voluntary measures. A landowner who wants to create a wetland or a pond should, for example, be able to easily apply for and be granted support for it. Someone who cultivates algae, mussels, or oysters in the sea should be able to more easily receive environmental compensation. When forest land is taken out of use to be protected, reasonable compensation shall be paid.

We want the policy for preserving biodiversity to a greater extent to be based on methods and instruments that stem from voluntariness and are based on the individual landowner's will and knowledge. Therefore, we want a national program with local action coordinators, which is based on long-term perspective and close cooperation with the landowner.

Centerpartiet also wants to see specific initiatives to strengthen biodiversity in the agricultural landscape. In several places in the country, there is competition for land and water resources, and it is required that we are more cautious with exploitation if we are to achieve good economic management. Especially in Skåne, where I come from, there is high-quality agricultural land that is needed for food production, while at the same time we need more housing and recreational areas.

We also want the link between the business sector and biodiversity to be strengthened and become natural, just as it has become regarding the climate. We would like to see companies report on biodiversity in their sustainability reporting and that more industries develop action plans to strengthen species richness. A smart and effective tool is ecological compensation, which ensures that biodiversity is preserved and preferably increased when new land is taken into use to allow our cities to grow or during the construction of major infrastructure. A national credit system for measures that strengthen species richness is a way forward.

Mr. Speaker! The conditions for life in the sea must also be prioritized. The Centre Party wants to increase the pace when it comes to upgrading and protecting the seas. In the Baltic Sea, there is an area larger than all of Denmark that now has a dead bottom, and an entire ecosystem is on the verge of collapsing. The situation is bad with the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea and the Western Sea, and urgent measures are needed.

Centerpartiet therefore wants more marine reserves. We want to step up the work and protect a total of 30 percent of our seas by 2030. In order for this to be achieved, 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 concerns 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, intensive fishing, and heavy exploitation of protected areas. At the same time, a number of promising pilot projects have been initiated in recent years which show good results regarding precisely eelgrass meadows and local marine biodiversity. We want to see more of this.

In conclusion, the loss of species and biodiversity fundamentally affects humanity. Right now, greater efforts are required for us to achieve the Swedish environmental goals and reverse the trend. A report describes how researchers have followed 50 endangered species in Europe for a long time and concludes that the species have recovered through conservation measures and regulated hunting; this applies to both mammal and bird species.

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. And 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 bustling life and great biological diversity also in the future, we need to increase knowledge. Pollution must decrease, and we must jointly manage, restore, and recreate nature on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind all of the Center Party's reservations but move for approval only to reservation 16.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating incredibly important issues, nature conservation and biodiversity - the foundation for our entire existence. A functioning and good ecology is also, fundamentally, the prerequisite for a sustainable economy.

In this situation and in this debate, we may not know exactly everything we must do to be able to reverse the trends. But there is a great deal of research and knowledge about what we must stop doing, and that list aligns very well with what the government has done during its first period in power. I intend to start with what we must stop with, and then in a more positive spirit transition to what we must do instead.

The entire debate has been characterized by how we can lower the levels for populations of endangered species, such as the wolf. The wolf evokes many emotions, but purely biologically, all top predators are incredibly important for the ecosystems. So instead of doing what one can to phase out these species, one would need to give them increased protection so that they can recover. We have nothing resembling a favorable conservation status for the wolf, especially not if we are to reduce the population to 170 individuals. Enormous inbreeding already characterizes the species today.

We would also need to invest money and not reduce the appropriations by 70 percent, as has been done in the government's budget.

For the sake of the salmon, measures would need to be taken regarding both the fishing and the hydropower - that is, contrary to the policy that the government has pursued until now.

One would need different institutions to strengthen environmental work at all levels - contrary to one of the government's first measures, namely to abolish the Ministry of the Environment.

What we would need to do instead is what the government's representatives have paradoxically signed on to in the Kunming-Montreal Agreement, which concerns, among other things, increasing protection to 30 percent. We are talking about both sea and land. It is also about coming to the realization that it is not enough to only protect what is biologically most valuable; we must also begin to restore our broken ecosystems. This restoration, which has already been signed on to, also aligns very well with the EU's initiative to restore nature. There, Sweden voted no as the only country.

What we also need is to truly transform our usage and not consume nature's resources but use them, so that they can be used both today and tomorrow by future generations. I do not see glimpses of sustainable agriculture or forestry to the extent that nature's limits require.

To reach there, it is good to have goals, but we also need to adjust our laws and regulations so that they become clear, so that it is possible to implement them for landowners and for those who have the opportunity to become key players in the transition. Then we as legislators cannot continue to uphold a logic where it becomes more profitable to make the environmentally harmful choices.

We need to get laws and regulations and also economic incentives in place that ensure those who want to do the right thing are also benefited by it. It is contrary to the government's current policy but completely in line with what the countries have signed at the UN level.

I naturally stand behind all our motions, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 17, which concerns precisely the restoration of nature.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the speech!

The government has a commitment to biodiversity. But that is also why there is something that grates when I think about what Miljöpartiet does and says.

I intended to ask a question where I am purely curious about the answer. The new government has now commissioned an inquiry aimed at saving the forest species that are on the way to becoming extinct. Primarily it is the elm, but the ash is also in a bad way. There may also be other tree species that are not doing very well. There are about a hundred species that are obligately linked to them. If the elm and the ash disappear, a hundred species also disappear.

Why has the Green Party opposed this proposal? You have voted against it and spoken out against it. That is my sincerely curious question.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I sincerely appreciate inquisitive questions. Therefore, I am sorry because I actually do not quite understand the question. Protecting the alder and the ash is incredibly important if we are to preserve all the species that are linked to these trees.

In that regard, it is also important with old spruces, old pines and old oaks. The older a tree becomes, the more species manage to establish themselves in its bark, in its trunk and on its branches. Old trees are a key to biodiversity both in the broken landscape and in the forests. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we also preserve the old-growth forests that remain. There are a few left - not such a huge proportion - but there we really need to invest money in long-term protection.

In the former forest landscape, we need to transition to a clear-cut-free forestry where one can also preserve such trees of eternity, which are simply allowed to be old and be key players when it comes to preserving biodiversity.

I did not quite catch the question. Staffan Eklöf is welcome to take it in the next contribution.

The Chairman mentions a forest investigation that has been released and announced today. I can think that it is a waste of the taxpayers' money. A large and extensive forest investigation was already conducted during the previous parliamentary term. There are many proposals there that we politicians can pick and turn into legislation and ensure that they also take effect in reality. There is already an incredible amount investigated regarding the forest. Now it feels like one is wasting the taxpayers' money and putting this on the back burner instead. I think that is a pity.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first take up this matter regarding old trees. They are important for biodiversity. I agree with that. But it is not tied to whether one has continuous cover forestry or clear-cut forestry. It has to do with whether one saves trees or not. There are very many forest owners who save "eternity trees" in clear-cut forestry.

One risk with continuous cover forestry is that one picks the large dimensions. That is the whole idea with selective logging. There is a great risk that one does not save the old trees.

My question, therefore, concerned a parliamentary decision from 2021, where an announcement was made to the then government to appoint an inquiry to create improvement projects that would save the aspen and not just postpone its extinction. The Green Party (MP) voted against this. They wanted to continue the strategy they had at the time, to only saw down sick trees and await the death sentence for the aspen. It is this decision that it is incomprehensible that the Green Party did not vote for. The then Minister for the Environment from the Green Party (MP) opposed it in a debate. I find that very strange.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the question of continuous-cover forestry or not. Should one cut down an entire forest at once, which is the forestry that is traditionally practiced in Sweden, can one save individual trees. It is done.

But if you come back a bit later, it is a very common sight that precisely those saved trees are knocked over, because the wind has taken them. That happens when other trees cannot catch the wind. The trees that remain standing fall over. So much for the nature conservation benefit – it is much better to have a clear-cut-free forestry, also for the reason that other species need to reach these trees to colonize them. They cannot make it across a clear-cut that is 100 hectares or even 50 hectares. We should not overestimate the dispersal ability of snails, slugs, mosses, and lichens. These dear species need a continuous tree cover with shade and different microclimates and everything else that exists in a forest where one picks out individual trees and does not clear-cut large areas.

Now I believe I have understood the question. It is therefore about why we were not part of an announcement when we had an environment minister from our own party in the government. When one enters into a government cooperation, one works from that position. At that level of detail, I cannot answer in any other way than by referring to what the cooperation looked like at that time. I also believe, moreover, that I was on parental leave during that period. This is a rather detailed question. But the alder and the ash need help, and there we can make efforts for biodiversity. We are completely in agreement on that.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I welcome the announcement that the committee proposes, partly based on a motion from the Sverigedemokraterna, regarding a revision of the management plan concerning the common raven, with the aim of reducing the raven populations. Nature conservation reasons should be incorporated into the purpose. Then, as said, it remains to work in the EU so that general hunting of the common raven shall be permitted.

I move for approval of reservation 1 on international conventions and agreements.

We state the following in our position:

Sweden's ambition must be that the species existing in the country shall continue to exist here. Managing areas so that species that are critically endangered can survive in our country must be highly prioritized in our forest policy. On the other hand, we shall not hand over the decisions on how we achieve this to the EU or other international bodies. Against this background, we believe that Sweden internationally shall not enter into agreements that can lead to more forest than today needing to be exempted from forestry or protected formally.

We do this because it is most efficient.

Mats Nordberg, our former colleague, conducted an analysis a few years ago of the species that have become extinct in Swedish forests based on the data from Artdatabanken and asked whether it is Swedish industrial forestry that is to be blamed. But only four species can be said to have lived in the boreal forest belt and disappeared after the introduction of clear-cutting. It is here that the majority of industrial forestry takes place, and it is the forestry that is subjected to the most criticism. Furthermore, three of these four species were comprised of a small complex of lichens that lived on the same trees in a locality in Värmland.

This is what we discuss when we discuss confirmed extinctions as a result of modern forestry with clear-cutting in the boreal forest belt. Nevertheless, forestry methods are blamed unilaterally.

There are some important points to take away regarding species conservation:

Modern forestry is not perfect. One can see a decline of certain species even though extinction is at a very low level. At the same time, it can be remembered that certain species benefit from clear-cutting. We Sverigedemokrater advocate for minor adjustments of the cultivation methods that do not affect the cultivation and the economy too much, a bit more consideration for everyday life, a bit more space for voluntary nature conservation, method development for reduced driving damage, and so on.

Details are very important in species conservation - that is something one must remember.

The situation looks much worse in the spruce forest and in the agricultural landscape.

We are now hearing demands for simple solutions, such as set-asides for nature reserves and mandatory continuous-cover forestry. But simple or harmonized solutions do not hit the mark precisely and can even be counterproductive for certain species and environments.

International agreements must be constructed in a different way, based on conservation instead of the setting aside of gigantic areas. This allows for the use of different methods in different countries. It is expedient because the conditions differ greatly. In rainforest with very long continuity, it may be most effective to set aside as reserves, while increased everyday consideration may be most effective in the boreal forest belt.

Measures with low precision also risk affecting other values more negatively. It could be about economy, competitiveness, social situation, opportunities to live in the countryside, and actually biological diversity in other ways.

Details, accuracy and efficiency should therefore always be at the center when species conservation is discussed.

With this said, I am very pleased that the Sweden Democrats' proposal on measures for forest tree breeding to save elm and ash received the Riksdag's approval in 2021 and is now beginning to be implemented. It concerns a hundred species that risk becoming extinct and that can be saved with the measures.

I remember that the left side voted against, spoke against and worked against this. The Centre Party, on the other hand, should receive praise for understanding the importance of the proposal and supporting it.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There are conspiracy theories that cover almost all areas. It is perhaps not news that the Sweden Democrats engage in their own calculations and paint their own pictures of reality. But I am a conservation biologist, and in Sweden we have an incredible amount of data on the endangered species that exist. The Species Database has provided figures showing that 394 species in Sweden are threatened due to forestry. I stand by that figure. You do not need to conduct your own investigations. It must be very laborious and also difficult if one is so far off. 9 of these species are nationally extinct due to forestry.

Then we do not need to wonder and guess any more about the situation for biodiversity in the forest. Here we have it in black and white. This is Artdatabanken, and they are Sweden's absolute foremost nature conservation biologists. We should really use that resource, especially ahead of such debates and ahead of various decisions on nature conservation and forest policy. I really recommend it.

Since then, it is frightening but perhaps hardly surprising to hear how the Sweden Democrats talk about not protecting more nature and forest. It is without doubt the absolutely most effective approach if we want to preserve biodiversity. We therefore cannot set a ceiling at today's level and say: This is fine.

We have an acute situation for forest species. We absolutely need to protect more, transition, and restore broken ecosystems. It is beyond any doubt.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There are nine extinct species in the forest, says the Green Party. That is wrong. There are many more than that. But if one takes the limitation from 1950, when clear-cutting was introduced, and looks at the boreal forest belt, one sees that it is down to four. Four have died out. Those are the three lichens, which can hardly be counted because they were at the edge of their distribution area. They are common in other places. But they hardly existed in Sweden when they disappeared, for they were only in one location. That leaves only one species that is actually very much to care about.

Then there are those that died out earlier. The black stork perhaps died out in the 30s, something like that. It died out in the then-current continuous-cover forestry. Then we can consider why it did so. It is supposed to have large trees as nesting trees. These probably did not exist in the continuous-cover forestry, not in all places at least. It must not be overgrown around the large tree, because then it cannot fly to the tree. And it is supposed to have watercourses.

The only thing that the modern [period] would be responsible for is the draining of watercourses. That would have disadvantaged the black stork. Admittedly, clear-cutting can also remove these biotopes, but it died out before it was done in this manner.

If we talk about honesty with data, we must talk about all aspects.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is an exciting debate. Now this is becoming clear, at least for me, for the first time clearly and distinctly. The Sweden Democrats usually use the following argument when it comes to the climate: No, we shall not take any action here in Sweden. It is important that other countries do something. If they do not do anything and if not everyone stops at the same time, it is not worth taking a single measure.

Now we hear exactly the same type of argumentation when it comes to biological diversity. It becomes much more concrete, I think, because it is about these species almost not belonging here. They were at the edge of their distribution area. Already there, we are violating the convention on biological diversity. It is very clear. It says that all species, regardless of whether they are in the middle or at the edge of their distribution area, shall be preserved within the nation's borders.

It is very easy to say that we think tigers and pandas are important, because they are somewhere else. But we have a responsibility here and now. I don't know if I heard a bit of speciesism. Perhaps these lichens are despised. I don't know if there is any contempt for the different species groups.

I personally think it is fantastic. Even though we cannot experience them in the same way as mammals, they have passed exactly the same evolutionary tests as all other living things. I have great respect for mosses, lichens, fungi, pandas, tigers, lynxes and wolves. There is also no hierarchy when it comes to groups of organisms in our environmental goals and in our various global agreements that we have signed.

Shall we talk about the black stork and honesty, I want to ask the member: Do you believe, honestly, that a black stork could make a comeback in Sweden on a single tree that stands alone and is surrounded by a 100-hectare clear-cut? I don't believe it, that is.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the usual manner, the Green Party throws accusations around: the Sweden Democrats are therefore taking no action. But at the same time, we have just spoken about a Sweden Democrat proposal that will save a hundred species - a proposal that the Green Party was against.

Miljöpartiet says that Sverigedemokraterna should not do anything for the climate. At the same time, we have Sweden's most effective climate policy if one looks at it globally. Miljöpartiet only sees it nationally and believes that other countries should follow suit, even poor countries and dictatorships. It is a dream. It will not happen.

Our climate policy directly affects the emitting countries, but it is more convenient to call someone a climate denier. That's how it is.

I believe the truth is that the Green Party is not so interested in the results. While we are interested in the results, the Green Party is interested in making large-scale investments. We want results as large as possible as cheaply as possible. The political dividing line between the parties today is the one between deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In the so-called Palace Agreement that the Tidö group worked out together and stands behind, neither biodiversity, nature conservation nor invasive species are mentioned even once. The appropriation for the management of valuable nature, where the work against invasive species is included, was reduced by 931 million kronor in the Sweden Democrats' and the government's budget.

Our county administrative boards across the country are concerned and have alerted that there are now no state funds at all for action against invasive species during 2023, and this will have consequences. Many measures that have been taken previously also risk having been made unnecessarily, and the work against the unwanted species will most likely become more expensive in the long run.

In a previous exchange, Member Ottosson stated that this was due to the Social Democrats' long-term budget. I think it is a bit too bold to blame us. We haven't cut a single penny in this area. We think this work is so important and that it should continue. If the governing parties also think so, one could wonder why you don't vote for our budget instead, where these investments and funds were actually included.

I would like to ask Member Eklöf what lies to the basis for the Sweden Democrats and the government reaching an agreement on the removed funding for the work against invasive, alien species.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I remember – it is not many years ago – when we Sverigedemokrater were called racists because we raised the issues with the invasive species. It is funny that the Socialdemokraterna have now developed a newly awakened interest in the issue!

I must remind the member that we have inflation. All items must be reviewed. Item 1.3 for nature management has indeed been reduced. The appropriation now stands at 2020 levels. This provides some perspective on the totals. The Social Democrats have therefore submitted a single paltry budget that had a higher appropriation than the one that is now in place. Furthermore, 50 million have been moved to HaV. The appropriation is given to agencies and is subject to prioritizations.

In last year's budget, there was an item specified for invasive species that was temporary for two years. It expired. The Social Democrats had constructed it that way. The exact same budget item was not extended in the current budget. On the other hand, a new budget item, 1:11, was established for the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management for just invasive species. The temporary investment was thus extended, but at HaV instead, because the problems are greater for aquatic organisms.

It is also very clear from the budget that Naturvårdsverket is allowed to use money under 1:3 for invasive species, and I think Naturvårdsverket should have prioritized invasive species a bit higher. All the reduced funds at the county administrative boards are therefore attributed to the fact that Naturvårdsverket left fewer funds from 1:3 to the county administrative boards for the control of invasive plants. The large work with trails, viewpoints, and barbecue areas could have been reduced more in my opinion. One should have been able to completely skip a year with soaring inflation to arrange barbecue areas.

The government should consider governing the agencies' distribution in more detail in order to achieve these important goals in the future.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Combating invasive species does not drive any inflation. The Sweden Democrats are now the largest party in the government support, and now we see what happened with the important work of combating invasive species. When one is forced to take a little responsibility as the largest party in the government support, one scraps everything. The appropriation is reduced.

We have also been able to read in the media that the Sweden Democrats regret that the work against invasive species is affected by the autumn budget's large cuts. But then it is not addressed in the spring budget. The question is therefore what one actually regrets - the empty promises and the empty words?

If Member Eklöf and his party think that the work against invasive species is so important, something that the Member also advocates for, why are the funds for this being removed? Why were funds not added in the spring budget?

It is probably better to say it as it is, namely that, just as your economic-policy spokesperson said, your direction is fixed, and it is still a halved environmental budget. That is the direction that the Sweden Democrats have, and then the money is not sufficient. It is that simple.

Furthermore, it is this government, where Sverigedemokraterna is the largest party in the government base, that for the first time in 20 years is increasing emissions. It is a truth, and Sverigedemokraterna and Member of Parliament Eklöf will not escape it.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now we have heard from the Social Democrats that we are scrapping everything, all investments in invasive species. It is a lie, a blatant lie!

There are large investments in aquatic species, and the money that Naturvårdsverket received, they have actually used it to combat invasive animals. That is positive. However, the shortage we are talking about concerns the plants, and there is an agency decision from Naturvårdsverket not to prioritize the plants. But if we add up the total sums, there is not much that differs from one year to the next.

Regarding the criticism of the environmental budget, I would like to remind Member Larsson that the budget we have laid now is the second largest environmental budget that has been laid.

Finally, regarding the reduction obligation, it was interesting that we received a clear message now, because Magdalena Andersson began to waver on Sunday. The Social Democrats are therefore sticking to the position that the reduction obligation shall follow the path that results in us getting outrageously large amounts of biofuels and incredibly high fuel prices. It is good for the citizens to know that so that they do not vote for the Social Democrats again!

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

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Mr. Speaker! I became a bit puzzled by the rules of debate. When one has an exchange of remarks, one does not conclude their final remark by referring to something that the member has not said? Member Larsson did not mention the duty of reduction at any point in her speech. It is therefore a bit funny that at the end of her exchange of remarks, she puts words in Member Larsson's mouth that she has not said. I find that to be very inappropriate.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(The decision was to be taken on May 10.)

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