The National Audit Office's report on the management of protected nature

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

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

We stand here today to debate an issue that concerns us all, namely the management of our protected nature. It is not just about ecosystems and biodiversity but also about our history, our future, and our collective responsibility.

When I was a child, my grandmother and I used to be out in the forest quite a lot and pick blueberries. We saw moose at the edge of the forest and heard the birds at dawn. The forest felt endless with crystal-clear lakes. Nature's richness was something we took for granted. But we can no longer take it for granted.

Many of us have at some point walked through a nature reserve, paddled in an archipelago, or visited one of our 30 national parks. In my own role, I have visited protected nature areas from south to north and met officials who every day work to preserve and care for our nature. It strikes me every time how incredibly much we have to be proud of in Sweden – from the lush beech forests in the south to the mountain plateaus in the north, from bustling coral reefs to rolling sand dunes. Sweden is fantastic! Therefore, the government's decision to strengthen the protection of our nature is an important and welcome initiative that will provide a stronger management of our nature.

The Swedish National Audit Office's review of the management of protected nature gives us a clear picture of both progress and shortcomings. It is a valuable scrutiny of how we manage our nature reserves and national parks, and we take it most seriously. It is also a reminder that our work must never stop. We must continue to improve and develop the management of our protected areas.

That is why the government has proposed a significant increase in the appropriations for the management of just this. For 2025, the appropriation is increased to 1.35 billion kronor. This is more than just figures in a budget – it is an investment in our natural heritage and in future generations. For the Moderaterna, it is a matter of course that the protected areas shall be managed and preserved in the right way.

We do not stop here but will invest further resources in conservation efforts and maintenance. We want to see a long-term and effective management where we ensure that our efforts actually have an impact.

One of the major challenges we face is, of course, the threat from invasive species. These species push out native flora and fauna. The consequences can become serious both for ecosystems and for industries such as agriculture and fishing. Therefore, we are investing in combating invasive species and protecting biodiversity. This is an investment that will make a big difference. It is also something that conservationists have witnessed when I have been out and visited different areas.

We see that more and more people are seeking out Sweden's national parks and nature reserves, and that is fantastic. Nature must, of course, be accessible to everyone. But we must also take responsibility to ensure that the pressure from visitors does not damage the environments we want to preserve and ensure that our nature wardens have the powers and tools they need.

That is why it is important that we now make an investment in renovating and climate-adapting hiking trails, especially in the mountain areas, where the increased pressure is clearly noticeable. This is both about protecting nature and about giving people the opportunity to experience it in a sustainable way.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that we have challenges ahead of us, but I am convinced that we are on the right track. By listening to the National Audit Office and taking their recommendations to heart, as well as by continuing to prioritize Sweden's natural resources, we can ensure that Sweden also in the future is a country where nature and people live in harmony.

I would like to conclude by returning to the forests of my childhood. It was a place of silence, beauty, and life. I want, of course, like most people in here, that our children and grandchildren shall have the same opportunity as I had when I was small. I want them to be able to hike through forests where the birds sing, where the blueberries grow in abundance, and where the lakes are still clear. It is our responsibility to ensure that this becomes a reality.

With this said, I want to express my full support for the government's proposal and the measures the government is now taking to strengthen the management of our protected nature.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Marléne Lund Kopparklint, for the speech!

I don't quite know how to interpret what I just heard. Is it the case that the Moderaterna have come to the realization that they have made mistakes so far during the mandate period? You have implemented cuts to the environmental budget of over 7 billion. You have made reductions in the environmental budget and laid them out in a multi-year plan to then put back some of the money and call it an investment.

I heard something else, however, than that one is pulling the wool over the people's eyes. It sounded, at least in the post, as if the Moderaterna realize that one cannot manage environmental policy in Sweden this way and as if there will be major investments to ensure that we actually take care of the nature we protect in the future.

The Moderates like to talk about efficiency and results, but so far we have seen the opposite. It is not efficient and yields no positive results.

As the member said, the Swedish National Audit Office points out that the government's lack of governance and its budget cuts have led to a risk of losing important natural values. The County Administrative Board has received significantly reduced funds and lacks the resources necessary for the maintenance measures that are needed.

How can the member defend a policy that on the one hand says it wants to protect nature but on the other hand provides neither the tools nor the resources required to manage it?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to say to Member of Parliament Joakim Järrebring that this policy is quite easy to defend. As the Member knows, the state does not have an inexhaustible chest of money that can be used, but it is a matter of priorities. This is the most uncertain time since the Second World War, which has meant that for some years now we have been forced to make certain reprioritizations.

Now we want to invest in this. There is still great uncertainty surrounding Sweden, and we need to prioritize. The Member of Parliament knows how it works. I think it is a bit strange that one even reasons in this way when one has sat in the same position oneself and made roughly the same decisions.

Our policy is clear in this area. We strengthen the protection of valuable natural areas and increase resources for concrete measures regarding threatened biodiversity. We also want to see clearer requirements for follow-up and results, so that every invested krona creates a real effect for the ecosystems and not just fine headlines, which the green-socialist opposition would like to chase.

We give the authorities both resources and a clear mandate to combat invasive species, as I spoke about earlier, because early interventions are cost-effective and prevent serious damage to our ecosystem. We see the shortcomings that need to be addressed in this now, and we are addressing them. The Government is making extra investments in this.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Marléne Lund Kopparklint for the answer.

It is clear to me that the member is well-informed. That is why it hurts so much to realize the consequences of the policy pursued. It requires persistence and long-term thinking when one fights invasive alien species. We have seen in report after report what happens now when resources are lacking: the invasive species take over. One loses both years and resources that have been invested in fighting invasive species when one lets them grow freely.

It is incredibly stupid policy to prioritize tax cuts for the richest instead of ensuring that we retain the natural values that we have spent time and economic resources on maintaining. The Member of Parliament cannot think that this is right. Is it not the case that the Moderaterna have realized that they made a mistake when they cut the environmental budget?

(Applause)

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament spoke of "stupid politics." I consider that to be quite a low level. We can surely maintain a good tone in this chamber.

I think the member should know how to set up a budget, how to invest, and how to prioritize. The Social Democrats were in government previously. I do not think it is appropriate for the Member of Parliament to stand here and beat their chest over the policy that the Social Democrats pursued, regarding long-term perspective. We have long-term perspective in the decisions we have made and in the investments we are now making when it comes to protecting the natural areas that exist.

Are we wrong or not? We have looked at the National Audit Office's report and agree regarding the areas that can be invested in. We have done that previously as well, but as I said earlier, one must prioritize.

I do not know if the Member of Parliament is aware of the situation we find ourselves in right now, with the unrest around the world. We must prioritize what we are going to spend the money on. We have done that since a few years back, and we will need to do it in the future as well. That is not to say that we are not going to invest in this area. We are also showing that we do.

I believe that we have invested long-term. We are making good investments and have good priorities that will safeguard the natural values we have.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It was a pleasing opening from Marléne Lund Kopparklint. The member speaks warmly of the Swedish nature, where she has stayed since childhood. She protects our reserves and our national parks. But the National Audit Office's report directs great criticism toward how the government has handled our valuable areas. It shows that it is underfunded, that there is a lack of governance, and that simply poor priorities have been made. How does the member view this criticism? Why can the government and the Moderaterna not prioritize this pot in the budget in a better way, when one nevertheless admires this area so much?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! As I touched upon in my main speech, we take the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism seriously. We therefore link funding increases to concrete goals and measurable results, which is incredibly important. Through more detailed follow-up and requirements for efficient management, we ensure that these resources truly strengthen nature conservation where it is needed most.

As I said in a previous reply, it is a matter of priorities. We do not have an inexhaustible treasury in the state that allows us to simply pour money into all areas. But now we are going to invest in this area and prioritize it in the long term. Our policy protects the whole country and focuses on the measures that benefit local businesses, nature tourism, and a sustainable management of forest and land. Thus, protected areas become an asset both for people who live and work in rural areas and for future generations. We value the local anchoring, and it must have reach within all the areas we are talking about.

Management of nature reserves and national parks shall be carried out in consultation with municipalities, landowners, and local communities. Taking advantage of local expertise is crucial for both the quality of nature conservation and the development of the tourism industry. There is a long-term perspective that everyone should have ownership of.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! What the member is saying sounds very beautiful. She describes everything that is to be achieved through the government's policy and how one should prioritize and take advantage of all the local forces that exist in our elongated country. But it does not match reality. I experience that this is talk but no action. It does not match how the government has prioritized in its budget. It does not match what the county administrative boards experience. They cannot follow their maintenance plans.

The foreign invasive species are increasing. We have climate changes that are affecting them. Parkslide is growing even more, as is the giant hogweed. Even within the wildlife, we have foreign invasive species that have increased in recent years. We have a debt in this. We need to pump in more resources to catch up. The last two or three years, we have really seen a dip.

Several parks cannot live up to the demands of outdoor life. The hiking trails are deteriorating. Signs and notices show: Unfortunately, visitors – today we cannot live up to our commitment here in the national park, and the reason is a budget that is too small.

The Leader of the Opposition speaks well about this, but what she says does not rhyme with the finances and the discussions being held in other contexts. These things contradict each other. What is being said is not the truth.

The Government describes it as an investment. In what concrete way does it become an investment? Is there anything in our government bill that we are not aware of? Otherwise, it is very clear that the Moderates are deprioritizing the environment and climate.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! It feels like I am repeating myself, because I have actually already spoken about which investments we are to make. Then it is up to the Member of Parliament whether she wants to listen to it, believe what we say, have patience and see what effect it has. In view of the fact that I have been around in several national parks and nature reserves, which the Member of Parliament surely has also, I have seen what exists today and how it can become better.

That we have a National Audit Office looking into these areas should be seen positively, and just like previous governments, this government receives criticism in the areas that need development. We are investing in this now. We are investing billions from 2025 to 2027. I do not quite understand how the Member of Parliament can stand there and wave this away and say that it is just empty words. It is real money we are investing in it, and it is on paper. We are going to do this. We have calculated what we are going to do. Either the Member of Parliament listens to what I say and takes it to heart, or she chooses not to do so.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the member for a very fine contribution regarding the love for nature and the forest. I am convinced that we both share the love for the forest and nature.

I must also welcome the commitment that I see from other members and parties. I will remember it well for the next time cooperation may be needed and money needs to be spent on an increased nature conservation budget.

As we have touched upon, we have unfortunately seen very large cuts from this government, in great contrast to what is now being presented. Regarding the invasive species, one could call it a lost year for nature conservation.

We have also, time and again, seen investigations and statements that do not point in the same direction as what the member Kopparklint here describes. I regret this, but I will also have confidence in the future, especially now when one hears that there is some kind of consensus on these issues.

What I would like to ask the member is how she views using other pieces of the puzzle to achieve the protection of the forest and the valuable nature that we here in the Riksdag have jointly decided to undertake to protect. How does the member, for example, view the state ensuring that knowledge is obtained regarding where the most valuable forests are located? How does the member view having alternative forms of compensation in order to quickly be able to guarantee compensation to those landowners who want to protect their valuable forest? How does the member view the state being able to be helpful in protecting forest? It becomes much more efficient both economically and in terms of time if the state can be involved and contribute.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Member of Parliament for the questions. I have touched upon the initiatives we have made. We are both interested in precisely these questions and safeguard the natural areas that exist. In Sweden, we have just over 5,000 nature reserves and 30 national parks, which means that we have a very large amount of protected forest. It is precisely this that we are talking about: How shall we protect the forest that exists and the natural areas that we have? I have touched upon that. It is largely about increasing knowledge – that we Members of Parliament take on a responsibility and visit the areas that exist around the country, gather information, listen, and take measures. It is precisely what this government has done. We have listened. We have taken to heart the criticism we have received, and we are taking measures in the long term.

It is incredibly important with the maintenance of nature reserves and national parks. But as I said in a previous post, it must take place in consultation with municipalities, landowners, and local communities. It is a shared responsibility to take care of the natural wealth that Sweden has. Then we get a real long-term perspective and increased knowledge.

We believe that clear and predictable regulations are the core of a long-term policy for the countryside. That is the important thing in these issues, and it is what we must safeguard. We must also stimulate green innovations, strengthen the infrastructure, and protect local businesses. That is part of our modern countryside policy, and it is integrated into these issues. It is in the interplay between sustainability and growth that we can do this.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Fortunately, members can have the opportunity to continue discussions outside of the debates. I look forward to that.

I want to mention in the debate that the government's Minister for Environment Romina Pourmokhtari has signed a framework within the UN to protect 30 percent of nature, and today we have 15 percent protected nature. That would mean a doubling.

It is very ambitious. I am very glad if the entire government stands behind this. It also means better and more efficient governance and, of course, much more money.

In addition to that, Member Lund Kopparklint says very good things here that I can sign off on. I have also been in much contact with landowners who have testified to how harmful it is with unpredictability in the budget.

It can mean that an agreement has been entered into with the state and the County Administrative Board regarding the protection of nature. But all of a sudden, the money is not there. One has to wait an unreasonably long time.

All that pressure and the economic uncertainty is placed on the individual in a way that is very unfortunate and which damages trust. Here, I wish that we, across party lines, can listen to those people and try to find solutions that ensure one can trust that the protection can be implemented and that one actually receives the money.

Then we must really ensure that the investments do not become erratic for the future and that the money is paid out within a reasonable time.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that the Member of Parliament highlights these questions. That is exactly what the government wants with the budget. We will invest long-term, have real measures, and conduct a follow-up. It will have an effect on the work. Otherwise, we would not have presented a budget that extends all the way to 2027.

We must also realize that when we begin to set requirements for municipalities and begin to cooperate on these issues with people in the countryside, the landowners and the county administrative boards, and when we follow up in a good and structured way, it will have a long-term effect.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Protected nature is the backbone of our work to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. Our national parks and nature reserves are a source of pride and an asset for us all – for nature, for outdoor life, for tourism, and for our future generations.

But the National Audit Office's review shows that the management of those areas is not functioning as it should. The deficiencies are serious, and the risk of undermining both our environmental goals and people's access to nature is clear.

The National Audit Office's report makes it clear that the protection of our nature is not just about drawing reserves on a map. It requires active management, and it requires sufficient resources.

Today we see how the county administrative boards' funds for the maintenance of protected nature have decreased significantly with the government's policy. One wonders which government representatives listened to at the beginning of the mandate period who said that we need less money to maintain the protected nature, and who they have since spoken with who have said that we need more money. It is good if the government now makes large investments in this area. It was really needed.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has warned that resources are insufficient and that important measures are not being implemented. National parks and nature reserves have paths and trails that are deteriorating, meadows and grazing lands are overgrowing, and threatened species do not receive the follow-up and support required to combat alien and invasive species.

We also see how management plans for our protected areas are not being updated at the required pace. A third of our nature reserves currently lack up-to-date management plans. This makes management inefficient and means that important nature values risk being lost.

But this is not just about nature. It is also about people and employment. Lack of maintenance of protected nature affects outdoor life, tourism, and local economies. Trails and rest areas that are not maintained make it harder for people to get out into nature. Nature centers and visitor centers are forced to cut back on their activities. This makes it harder for children and young people to learn about our nature.

Tourism companies and business owners who depend on a well-managed nature will also face poorer conditions to conduct their operations. Protected nature is therefore not just a matter of the environment. It is a matter of equal access to recreation, of public health, of rural development and of local green jobs.

We know that nature tourism generates around 191 billion kronor and creates employment for 167,000 people, primarily in rural and countryside areas. When protected areas are neglected, those jobs and the opportunities for our rural and countryside areas are also threatened.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, we see that the government's policy, at least so far during the mandate period, has moved in the exact opposite direction of what is required. The cuts in the environmental budget have led to the management of protected nature being hit hard. The opportunities for outdoor life are deteriorating, jobs are threatened, and Sweden's environmental goals are drifting further away from us.

The National Audit Office notes that the government has not done enough to follow up on how the management of protected nature is functioning and that it lacks a coherent strategy to ensure that our protected areas actually preserve the values they are intended to protect.

Madam Speaker! It is time for the government parties to take responsibility. We cannot let protected nature deteriorate. We cannot let people's opportunities to enjoy nature be limited by a lack of resources and political passivity. Protected nature is an investment in the future, for the environment, for people, and for our economy.

Therefore, we must have a policy that takes this seriously, which ensures that protected areas are managed and that people can continue to have access to the nature that for many is an important part of our common Swedish identity.

(Applause)

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

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The term protected nature evokes emotions, many emotions for some and guaranteed different forms of emotions. Regardless of how one feels about the words protected nature, the subject is both urgent and highly topical.

The management of protected nature is a central part of Sweden's work to preserve our biological diversity, protect our ecosystems, and ensure that future generations have the opportunity to experience and enjoy our unique natural and cultural heritage.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the government welcomes the National Audit Office's review. It constitutes a valuable and important contribution to the development of the work with protected nature. Reviews such as this give us the opportunity to evaluate efforts, identify areas for improvement, and ensure that we work as effectively as possible to achieve our goals.

The Government takes the Swedish National Audit Office's observations very seriously and has carefully analyzed the recommendations presented in the report. I would like to emphasize here three areas where the Government has already taken or plans to take measures in response to the identified challenges.

Firstly, the government agrees with the Swedish National Audit Office's assessment that there is a need for improved monitoring of protected nature. It is crucial that we have access to reliable data on the status of the conservation values that we have committed to protecting. Clear and systematic monitoring makes it possible for us to identify changes in a timely manner and take action where needed.

The Government has already taken initiatives to strengthen this follow-up. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for the coordination of work regarding protected nature, has been tasked with developing methods and tools for a more systematic and uniform follow-up. This work will not only contribute to better control over how our protected areas are doing, but it will also give us better opportunities to prioritize resources where they do the most good.

Secondly, the government shares the National Audit Office's conclusion on the importance of more efficient administration. We are aware that the resources for this work are limited and must be used in the best possible way. Therefore, we are investing in developing guidance and coordination between different actors, such as the county administrative boards, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and other relevant authorities.

At the same time, in serious times where we must prioritize, and prioritize hard, it is obviously from a Christian Democratic perspective that the pursuit of the largest possible number of protected hectares must be slowed down and that we transition from quantity to quality. But above all, we shall take care of and nurture what the state has already protected.

We also see a need for increased dialogue with landowners, municipalities, and other stakeholders who are affected by or involved in the work with protected nature. Through better cooperation, we can create a more inclusive process that strengthens both the legitimacy and the effectiveness of our work.

As a Christian Democrat, I cannot emphasize this part highly enough. A rule of law worthy of the name for Sweden's landowners is absolutely crucial in this matter. I mentioned in my introduction that the issue of nature protection evokes emotions, and it is certainly not strange given how the state and its authorities have acted against many of Sweden's landowners regarding ownership and usage rights, or rather the restriction of these. It is yet another reason to move from chasing hectares to caring for and protecting the areas that are truly worthy of protection and that the state has already protected.

The national environmental quality objectives and the outdoor life objectives are important, even if we have different views on the objectives themselves. But at the same time, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot just to fulfill requirements that will still not be able to be reached because they, as I mentioned in the previous debate, have been set at a utopian level. This applies, for example, to the environmental quality objective regarding living forests. The objectives should be revised to become actual goals and not utopias.

We all know how important functioning ecosystems are, not only for nature itself but also for us humans. Ecosystem services such as pollination, water purification, and climate regulation are indispensable for our society. By strengthening the work with protected nature, we also contribute to the long-term sustainability of these services.

Madam Speaker! It is important to emphasize that the work with protected nature is not static but is constantly under development. The Government has already taken several measures to meet the challenges that the Swedish National Audit Office points out, but we also see the need for further efforts ahead.

An example of this is the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's recently referred proposal for a new program for the development of the management of protected nature. The program aims to create a more long-term and sustainable strategy for how we should take care of our protected areas. This involves, among other things, better prioritization of resources, clearer distribution of responsibility between different actors, and increased dissemination of knowledge.

At the same time, I want to highlight the important role that research plays in this context. Through cooperation with universities and research institutes, we can obtain new knowledge about how our ecosystems function and how we can best protect them in a time when climate change and other threats are becoming more tangible.

I also want to take the opportunity to emphasize Sweden's role as a pioneer when it comes to nature conservation. Our country has a long tradition of ambitious environmental goals and a strong commitment to biodiversity, which in many respects makes us an example internationally. Through our work with protected nature, we contribute not only to our own national goals but also to other, global goals. But we must also, as I mentioned earlier, be able to balance it all and have a helicopter perspective.

Madam Speaker! The management of our protected nature is fundamentally about what heritage we want to leave behind for future generations. It is about our duty to take care of the wealth that our nature offers, not only for our own sake but also for the planet's future. At the same time, we must truly see how the state can act in the best way to respect ownership and usage rights and the landowners who actually own land that is desired to be protected for the future. We must see both sides of the coin.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

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

I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 5 in the report, which I forgot in my speech.

A number of questions popped into my head as I listened to Kjell-Arne Ottosson. I thought I would start by asking the question whether the Christian Democrats, based on what I heard the member say from the rostrum, stand behind the Kunming-Montreal framework for biodiversity, which this government has signed.

In my own speech, I highlighted the issue of managing the protected nature we have. On one hand, it is about the environment, on the other, it is about people's access to outdoor life. But it is also about employment in sparsely populated areas and in the countryside. The Christian Democrats often speak about protecting the countryside and local jobs. But when the government's cuts hit the maintenance of national parks and nature reserves directly, it is precisely the countryside that is hit hardest. Tourism companies and local businesses see how visitor numbers decrease, nature reserves deteriorate, and paths fall into decay.

How can the Christian Democrats defend worsening the conditions for the rural economy and jobs when making the priorities you have made regarding the management of protected nature?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

Last year, I believe it was, I had a debate with one of Joakim Järrebring's colleagues about outdoor life and the importance of this. There is no doubt that as an outdoor person, I am passionate about us having good opportunities for outdoor life. It is very important, for many reasons.

At the same time, protected nature is a part of where we engage in outdoor life. But thanks to the right of public access (allemansrätten), we engage in outdoor life on large parts of Sweden's surface, and these areas would not have invited outdoor life at all if the landowners had not managed them. Then we would have had areas that had grown over so enormously that it would not even have been possible to get through there. It is thanks to the landowners who are involved and manage their forest that we get the beautiful nature that we want to walk in. We must not forget that.

I mentioned the helicopter perspective in my speech. We must be able to have several thoughts in our heads at the same time. Outdoor life is very important, for so many reasons. But on the other hand: If we continue to practice a sustainable forestry, which I assert we have in Sweden, we are still contributing to enormous revenues and an enormous number of jobs precisely because we have our forestry.

It is also about whether we want a transition in Sweden. If we do want it, the forest is a very important part of this. If we do not transition from CO2-intensive material to products from the forest, we have no transition. What shall we use instead, if we do not use products from the forest? How do the Social Democrats view that?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for your answer!

It is still the case that the government has made this prioritization so far during the mandate period. You have cut the environmental budget by over 7 billion kronor. It is a prioritization that you have made.

We see the consequences of this: The environment that we have set aside to protect we have not been able to manage. Values are being lost. Invasive alien species that for many years we have spent both time and resources to combat have been allowed to spread. The money we have invested previously is essentially money that we have thrown into the lake because of this government's priorities.

If one listened to the member from Moderaterna, it seemed as if the government has nevertheless come to a realization after having looked at what effects its own policy has had. The government seems to understand that one cannot continue this way, and there seem to be major investments in the area.

We know what the effects will be. My question to the member is then: How can one, as a Christian Democrat, stand behind a policy that so clearly has a negative effect on rural areas and the countryside?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! If there is anything that has a negative effect on rural areas and the countryside, it is when we undermine ownership and usufructuary rights, when we undermine our forest owners, and when we undermine the forest industry and everything that it entails.

The forest industry accounts for 12 percent of the Swedish industry's turnover. In 2023, the forest industry had an export value of 184 billion kronor. It is, not least in my own home constituency, an enormous number of jobs. It is also an enormous amount of tax money that the forest industry helps to bring in.

I was in Jämtland just over a year ago and visited a sawmill that had stood still for large parts of the month of October, precisely because they did not get enough timber – due to protected nature, because the species protection puts a stop to logging. It hits the countryside very hard, against those who live and work there and against the countryside's opportunity to bring in money.

Then it is a matter of prioritization, which Joakim Järrebring pointed out. Today we have explosions and shootings in our society. Fortunately, it seems to have calmed down again now, and that is thanks to an enormous amount of work from this government where the previous government stood paralyzed. We have a war in our immediate vicinity that requires enormous rearmament. We also took over enormous healthcare queues from the Socialdemokraterna.

All of this is very important parts that we also believe must be prioritized. It is exactly this it is about. It is a prioritization: Where do we need to invest the money? Then we have said: We must invest more money so that people are not shot and housing is not blown up around Sweden.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Member Ottosson says that we should move away from chasing hectares and focus more on quality. That raises questions as to whether the Christian Democrats are even behind the goal of protecting 30 percent. It is, after all, that which Romina Pourmokhtari has signed for the government's bill. That would mean more hectares.

This can be put into relation to how much is harvested. We harvest 10–20 times more than we protect. The rate of harvesting is therefore enormous.

The Leader of the Opposition says that the environmental goals are at a utopian level. I do not agree with that. I would say that the logging today is at a utopian level. We are over-logging forest in Sweden. We have a logging of an average of 243,000 hectares per year. In recent years, Madam Speaker, the area that has been clear-cut has broken record after record. This is not sustainable.

There is also a great deal of talk about the forestry industry's contribution to Sweden's economy. Perhaps that is the main reason why one wants to maintain this. I would like to say that there is a big difference in whose economy we want to protect from a political standpoint. Is it the industry and the large companies' billion-kronor profits we want to protect, or is it the forest owners' profitability? These are two completely different aspects of this. I also believe we received the answer in the member's speech.

From the perspective of the Green Party, we safeguard the forest owners' profitability but also their opportunity to manage the forest in different ways. That is my question to the member: How does the member view alternative management methods within forestry?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

When it comes to alternative cultivation methods, it is entirely optional. Sweden is a free country. Forest owners may not be able to do whatever they want with their forests, but it is, in any case, freedom under responsibility. If they want to try alternative cultivation methods, each one stands free to do so. Let them do it!

At the same time, we can listen to those who have been involved longer than both Rebecka Le Moine and the undersigned. They are quite clear: We have tried this before, and we saw what it led to. They will not advocate for any form of clear-cutting, thinning, or the like. They saw what it led to.

If forest owners still want that form of forestry, each is free to do so. But the state shall not point with the whole fist and say that is how it must be done.

When it comes to logging, it is also actually the case that we do not even log the annual growth of the forest. Rebecka Le Moine makes it sound as if we log so incredibly much, but we do not even log the growth we have during a year.

The National Forest Inventory is something we often rely on. It is the best data source we have regarding Swedish forest, what Swedish forestry looks like, and how the Swedish forest is doing. In 1920, we had 1.5 billion cubic meters of forest in Sweden. In 2020, we had 3 billion cubic meters of forest in Sweden. We thus had twice as much forest in 2020 as in 1920. During these 100 years, we harvested 6 billion cubic meters of forest. Still, we had twice as much forest in 2020 as in 1920. The picture that we are harvesting so incredibly much forest and that there is no forest left is not consistent with the truth.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the contribution.

When one talks about forest, it is easy for people to talk past each other. All the statistics, even the national forest inventory, can testify to is that we today have very many tree trunks but very few forest ecosystems. They are threatened.

The national forest inventory shows that 61 percent of all forest is younger than 60 years. This is something that the forest industry itself confirms in several places: There is a challenge in finding harvest-mature forest. That is why they try to harvest both very young forest and very old forest. This becomes a threat to our last primeval and natural forests, which are harvested in different ways – several times out of ignorance but some times actually deliberately, which we have seen from large companies, also those that are certified.

All this combined shows that we need a rethink in forest policy.

I would also like to dwell a little on the economy. The forestry industry's share of Sweden's GDP has fallen from 1980, when it was 4.6 percent, to 3.5 percent in 1990 and 2.2 percent in 2021. The number of employed persons has also decreased by 60 percent between 1990 and 2020.

With this said, I mean that we rather need to see the potential in ecotourism, which can exist side by side with a continuous-cover managed forest, and also how many jobs we can create if we invest more in continuous-cover methods and locally produced raw materials.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is not so strange that a very large amount of Sweden's forest is younger than 60 years, as Rebecka Le Moine mentions in her speech. In the 60s and 70s, we really saw a major transition in the forest to new cultivation methods. When machines were introduced, it became significantly easier to perform harvests, and then, in many parts, one went too far. Enormous clear-cuts were made. I am the first to admit it. That is what has caused us to have a very large amount of forest that is 60 years or younger. In that sense, it has a natural explanation.

It is also an explanation for why employment in the forest has decreased. There has been a technological development, and we should be happy about that. When I was going to study further after upper secondary school, I had a very strong desire to study at the forestry school Södra Viken in Värmland. My father did not often speak up when it came to my life choices, but there he said no. He had worked in the forest in the 50s and 60s and lived on in that image. Dad did not want me, his son, to experience the toil in the forest. People really wore themselves out.

That is not done today thanks to technological development, and we should really embrace it. It is very good. The development also means that the forestry machines leave fewer damages behind. It becomes more high-tech. We thus become more efficient and do a better job, and that leads to fewer people working in the forest because the machines do the work for us.

Finally, it was the question of ecotourism. Yes! No problem. But when we get less timber out of the forest, I must ask Miljöpartiet what should be used instead in the transition if products from the forest are not to be used.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the management of protected nature, and I begin by moving for the approval of reservation 2.

How much valuable nature is there in Sweden? Does it correspond to 30 percent of Sweden's area? Or is 27 percent enough? Or should it be some other percentage? It is an impossible question to answer.

I mean that the question is wrongly posed. In some way, all nature is worth preserving from a strictly moral point of view. A friend of order objects and says that we will then starve to death. Yes, that is correct: Then we starve to death.

In that situation, there is a spinal cord reflex regarding the fact that there are conflicting goals. Protecting nature costs in other values such as economy, food production, timber production, fiber production, quality of life, prosperity, conditions for the countryside, and so on. On our side, we believe that these trade-offs are important. I will return to the trade-offs later.

If the moral perspective does not work, we must adopt a practical perspective.

7–8 million hectares of forest are already exempt from logging. Just the nature reserves in Sweden correspond to approximately Denmark's area. At least, that is what one finds if one searches on the internet. I think this is worth pointing out when it sounds like all forest is cultivated and that there is no uncultivated forest left.

I am convinced that a one-sided focus on area leads astray. A single protected hectare in the right place is much more biologically valuable than 100 hectares in the wrong place.

Three times I had the opportunity in the Nordic Council to meet the Nordic environment ministers before the COP meetings that led to the Kunming–Montreal framework for biodiversity. It is a global agreement that we are now expected to follow. We are to protect 30 percent of our area, both land and water. All three times I pleaded with the environment ministers not to set a percentage goal for how much area we should protect. It had to do with the negative effects such a goal produces.

I posted the text about how a target for protection is actually a choice of method and that different types of nature may need different protection methods. In the tropical rainforests, there can be a continuity over millions of years. This has driven a very large site-specific specialization of species. Consequently, there are many species there that exist only there and do not move. In this context, it is a good idea to create reserves.

For the species in the taiga, which have often moved in step with the changing conditions for the taiga, other methods may be more important, at least when there is already a lot of protected land. For example, everyday considerations in forestry and measures against invasive alien species and alien pests can increase in scope. Consider that 15,000 years ago, there was no nature at all here in Sweden. There was only ice. All species that exist here have immigrated since then.

In northern Sweden, forest fires were a common occurrence in the past. It is believed that forest fires, on average, swept over most places in northern Sweden approximately every hundred years. This would, of course, mean that places with multi-hundred-year continuity were rare even then.

I tried to get the environment ministers to jointly find some objective that would save the earth's species more effectively and with fewer negative side effects than more or less placing a dead hand over 30 percent of the area. It would gain greater acceptance because it is difficult for other countries to live up to the goal – even for Sweden. Furthermore, it is not enough for Sweden, which is often at the top of the class, to follow the agreement without other countries also doing so.

A goal that is as close as possible to what one wants to achieve provides greater flexibility, not least in the choice of methods, has a greater probability of success, and has fewer negative effects for all the other values that may conflict with the values one wants to preserve.

What we all want to achieve is to save the Earth's species. As an example, I suggested that the goal could be as close as possible to, for example, no more species should go extinct by 2030, or more realistically, at most 1 percent. Then each country can choose the mix of methods that the country judges is needed to achieve the goal.

But that is not how it turned out. It is common knowledge.

If I am correct in my reasoning so far, it means that the percentage of protected area is less important. But sure! I imagine that Sweden would need to protect a bit more forest, especially in southern Sweden – a few tens of hectares here and there. But we should not make the very large allocations because those are the ones that have the large negative effects for the countryside.

Now I come to another impossible question. Is the maintenance need for nature 1.4 billion, 1.6 billion, or 3.6 billion? What is the correct answer? I mean that there is a danger even in focusing too much on the levels and in the debate placing the emphasis only there. Of course, money is relevant, but I am convinced that a one-sided focus on the number of millions leads astray. I claim that 200 million for a plant breeding program that saves the alder is much more worth it biologically than 2,000 million to buy out reserve land. Without that measure, the biological value of the reserves where the alder creates the ecosystems disappears. The plant breeding that our government begins this year to save the alder is also a way to maintain and manage nature, but strangely enough, it is not counted in the public debate.

The 30 million more that the government has allocated this year for farmers' restoration of hay and pasture land is probably worth more than the same money for state management. For those, in addition to environmental benefits, there is also increased food production and a living countryside. It is also self-reinforcing and provides future environmental benefits. This is also a way to manage and maintain nature.

Promoting biologically rich edges between forest and field is inexpensive but very biologically valuable. That is what we work for, and this is also about managing and maintaining nature.

The Sweden Democrats are also working for a center for plant breeding and breeding in the service of the environment, where environmental problems become the starting point for the breeding work. Usually, yield or other economically determined breeding goals are in focus and environmental benefit is a side effect. An existing example of plant breeding in the service of the environment is exactly what I mentioned, namely to save elm and ash through plant breeding to create resistance against the foreign diseases that threaten the trees.

Future examples could be to save other naturally occurring plants from other diseases, to save the crayfish, to make an invasive species less competitive, to make it impossible for a species to be a vector for a pathogen, to create co-cultivated crops that level out the availability of plant nutrients over time and thereby reduce the leaching of nutrients into watercourses and increase nutrient use efficiency. That was a difficult word! This is also about managing and administering nature.

There are new technologies that provide new possibilities. Today, one can imitate small natural mutations in detail. Previously, it was also very difficult to spread genes in a stable population. The rule of thumb was that a clear survival advantage was required to be able to introduce a gene into an existing population. New molecular concepts for so-called gene drives that enable the spread of neutral genes and even genes that provide a disadvantage in populations can save many natural species if we want them to. This presupposes, of course, risk assessment and secure concepts with functions that allow one to back out. Much work remains, but it is within reach today. In any case, if we decide to do so.

It is terrible if nature conservation is limited to a hunt for numbers of millions and if the last percentages of land protection provide little benefit for our species, especially as we enter a time when Sweden will face greater challenges and thus a greater need for cost-effective nature conservation. Let us not end up there! In order for us not to end up there, we must stop locking environmental policy into numerical or fixed utopian goals, and we must embrace a curious and technology-optimistic problem-solving.

All the time, my reasoning returns to the fact that efficiency, choice of method, technological optimism, and trade-offs are completely central to our Sverigedemokratiska environmental policy, while one-sided and utopian goals are not a part of it. Even this is arguably nothing less than a paradigm shift.

Until now, the Swedish political environmental debate has not been receptive to questioning, and it breathes skepticism toward new ideas. Emotion and oversupply have characterized it. I mean that it is inefficient. The discussion in the scientific community is more promising.

Do not misunderstand me; I also have strong feelings for nature. Feelings can be a good initial driving force, but they can also cause us to fail in our tasks. Problem-solving is what it is about now, and we must solve these problems to be able to succeed. In that case, one must leave the feelings behind.

If we acknowledge goal conflicts and embrace a holistic view, synergy effects, efficiency thinking, and curious, technology-optimistic problem-solving, we will succeed in preserving the Swedish nature and its species. We want to succeed.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was a long and at times somewhat fiery contribution we heard. I would like to dwell on a few things.

There was a lot of talk about choice of method. For me, who has a background as a nature conservation biologist and who has worked with different ways to manage and protect nature, this is very familiar. But there is a big difference between a hay meadow and a primeval forest. A hay meadow or pasture land needs continuous some type of disturbance in the form of a scythe, a mower, or grazing cattle. But in a primeval forest, we humans actually don't have much to contribute. One might think that is a positive piece of news. There we can save a lot of public funds. We do not need to come in and clear away, control, and create nature values. There, time is the important factor.

The chairman acknowledged that this with permanently protecting forest could work in the rainforest, because it is a very old ecosystem. That is true. But then I interpreted it as that an objection was that the silence has moved and that this permanent protection perhaps cannot be the best solution for our old-growth forests.

It makes me quite confounded. I want to ask the member how it is anticipated that the cod will move. We have a rather limited area. Where is the cod going to go? There is an Arctic Ocean further north. I do not see it as realistic that it is a fast ecosystem that hastens its migration.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

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

I tried to illustrate that there are large differences between different ecosystems and that the tundra is a new ecosystem, especially if one compares it with the tropical rainforests.

What practical effect does it have? Well, the rainforests have been in the same place for millions of years with the same conditions and have achieved a much higher degree of specialization. There are vast numbers of species and subspecies in those places. Our ecosystem is more species-poor and has more mobile species. The fact that fires have been common in our time has also led to only the mobile species surviving, if the immobile species existed at all from the beginning.

It is naturally a generalization, for the sake of clarity. But there are great differences between the ecosystems. The point was that different methods can be suitable for different areas. In the tropical areas, for example, we must have the formation of reserves in order to be able to save the species.

In Sweden, we also must have a certain amount of reserves – and we have a very large amount of reserves – but here it is perhaps more important to work with other methods, for example, to not let in invasive species and foreign pests, such as bacteria and fungi. Other methods were needed, in combination with the large surface protection that we already have.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! The member also mentioned that one might not be able to answer how much protection we actually have in Sweden. I believe it took me seven seconds to search on Google and get onto the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's website and get an answer, which, thankfully, also corresponds to what is stated in the committee report and in the National Audit Office's report. It is, therefore, 15 percent of our land area.

I cannot really agree with the picture being painted by the taiga. Even the taiga is a very old ecosystem. It is 10,000 years we are talking about now. The rainforest that is referred to is in many ways actually a much faster ecosystem with, in some cases, faster species.

In the forests, we have very sensitive species with very limited dispersal capabilities. It can be incredibly sensitive lichens, snails and the like that do not even have the possibility to move to the other side of the forest but are very locally tied. A clear-cutting means a local extinction of those species. And with many local clear-cuttings and thus extinctions of these species, we eventually have a regional extinction and then a national extinction. Several species in Sweden have already suffered as a result of clear-cutting.

Finally, I want to say that even though fire has been naturally occurring, it is in no way comparable to clear-cutting. They are two completely different disturbances. Clear-cutting can never replace or be compared with fire. Clear-cutting has only negative effects for these sensitive species.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! One question was how many percent we have protected. That depends entirely on how one counts. If one counts as the Germans do, we have significantly more protected today. One definition of the figure I mentioned was land exempted from forestry. In that case, we have, according to some calculations, 27 percent of the forest area already today. But then one counts with impediments, where one is not allowed to conduct forestry. I believe the definition is areas that produce less than one cubic meter of timber per hectare.

If one bans logging, it will have extremely difficult effects for the countryside and the economy in Sweden. Forestry in Sweden is food on the table. That must be realized. The Green Party's policy is what it is. But it can be so because it is never the Green Party that pays. It is someone else who pays every single time.

We must be able to have a policy that weighs different values. There, environment, species protection, and nature conservation are absolutely a value. But it is also a value to be able to live in the countryside, to be able to have a timber harvest, and for the sake of the climate to be able to replace fossil products with products from the forest that are renewable.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for the speech!

I cannot help but note that we have seen a rather large difference in how the government parties have approached this debate so far.

We began with a speech from the Moderaterna regarding some form of sobriety. It is argued that the priorities previously made in this area have been harmful to the environment and that they will perform better moving forward.

Then came a speech and exchanges of remarks with the Christian Democrats, who want a greater focus on whether we should protect nature at all and do not want to talk so much about the nature that is already protected and how it should be managed.

Thus, the Sweden Democrat member had a very large focus on the discussion regarding whether we should protect and, if so, how we should protect, when the debate actually concerns the criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office that the government is not doing enough regarding the management of the nature that is already protected.

The Sweden Democrats, however, highlight in their reservation the need for better maintenance of hiking trails in the mountains. It is an important issue – I agree with that. But at the same time, the Sweden Democrats support a government that has cut resources for all protected nature: national parks, nature reserves, and outdoor recreation areas across the entire country. The County Administrative Boards warn that they can no longer afford to manage the protected areas. Trails and paths are deteriorating, and important nature conservation efforts are being omitted, especially when it comes to alien, invasive species.

How can you, in one moment call for more state responsibility for the mountain hiking and in the next moment stand behind a government that underfunds the management of nature throughout Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Joakim Järrebring for the question!

We have common values in our Tidö circle. I think it emerged quite clearly that a common value is that we want a policy where one can weigh different values against each other. One cannot have a one-sided focus, but one must see what measures in one area have for effects in another area. This is a unifying hallmark for our cooperation.

Joakim Järrebring raised the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism. I note that the Swedish National Audit Office's main criticism is that the follow-up is poor. It concerns the follow-up system that we inherited from you – it might be a bit nice to admit that. Now we are correcting it, so that it becomes good.

It is said that we are investing less, but that depends on what one compares it with. This year's budget for nature management is the third largest ever. It is larger than all investments up to 2020, when it was mainly the Social Democrats who held government power. The largest was the item in 2022, but that was in a budget from M, KD and SD, in which S governed.

But of course, we have made a certain cut. It is about priorities. One must make priorities to afford 14 billion for welfare and defense and to combat crime. Everyone understands that money is needed for these things.

Nature conservation is so much more than appropriation 1:3. I tried to make a point of this in my speech – I hope others heard it.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Staffan Eklöf for the answers!

I can understand that the government parties want focus on something other than what the report actually concerns – that the greatest focus is placed on discussing if and, in that case, how we should protect nature, even though the question is actually whether there is sufficient governance, sufficient tools, and sufficient funds to manage the nature that is already protected.

I do not think one should play away the criticism by referring to creative accounting. You make large savings in the environmental area in a multi-year plan, and then you inject a portion of this reduction and call it one of the largest investments in the environmental area. It is false mathematics, Staffan Eklöf.

One refers to the 2022 budget and says that it was an M-KD-SD budget that the government at that time governed by. Yes, it is admittedly true that adjustments were made in that budget, but not in the environmental area. It is dishonest to try to portray it as if M, SD and KD were responsible for that budget in the environmental area.

I would like to hear more about how the Sweden Democrats reason regarding the effectiveness of a policy that requires long-term thinking when it comes to the management of the valuable nature we have and the negative consequences that the cuts have had, not least when it comes to the alien, invasive species. How can the Sweden Democrats stand behind such a short-sighted prioritization while simultaneously choosing to lower taxes for those with the highest incomes?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Joakim Järrebring wanted to hear, and now he shall have it.

We hear here the Social Democrats' version of the economic policy. In the previous exchange, you heard that what the Social Democrats say might not quite be correct. I can note that appropriation 1:3 was higher during two years of the Social Democrats' government tenure. As I said earlier, it is much more than 1:3 that provides good nature.

Is this a good level? Is it sufficient or insufficient? One can read what Naturvårdsverket wrote in 2010: "Today, there are good opportunities to protect and manage areas of this type. It is a consequence of the new environmental policy that the Riksdag decided in 2001 and which has entailed increased appropriations for the protection and care of nature."

When it comes to invasive species, there was one year when it became crazy. Today, the appropriations are at the same level as before, i.e., at the highest level, for land-dwelling species. There was one year we made a cut and thought that Naturvårdsverket would make a different prioritization. Naturvårdsverket actually has an obligation to work with these issues; it is clear in several different regulatory frameworks. When they received reduced appropriations, they reduced the funds for invasive species – we did not believe that would happen. Therefore, we made a more detailed steering the following year. This is, therefore, fixed.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Our nature is fantastic – both that which has a formal protection and that which does not. I would say that nature is probably what is best about our country. It is a part of the Swedish folk soul and of our common cultural heritage, and this we must care for and manage.

The largest part of nature needs no formal protection. It is valuable anyway in the form it is used and utilized. But there are areas that need to be protected, and it must happen in a predictable and legally secure manner. Furthermore, once a protection is in place, the area in question must be managed in such a way that the values present there are well managed. That is not always the case. Here we need to become better, not least in order to create legitimacy for the system for protection of nature.

That is why the review that we are debating here today is important. It constitutes an important basis for developing the work with the management of protected nature. Just as is pointed out in the review, the follow-up of the management needs to be developed so that it is easier to follow up on the conservation values that have been protected and see how they develop. Continued work also needs to be done so that the national environmental quality objectives and the outdoor life objectives are reached, so that the Swedish natural and cultural heritage is preserved for future generations and made accessible to everyone.

Maintenance of protected natural areas is important so that the areas' natural and cultural values can be ensured and developed. Therefore, the investment being made in this year's budget is so important and welcome. It is a liberal budget victory. This is something we have fought for, because we see that for a time we have not done enough. This is shown by the report that we are discussing here today, and we need to do better.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the speech!

I had intended to ask what happened to the liberal environmental policy. But as we heard from the member from Moderaterna, it sounds as if at least two parties in the government have sobered up and realized that the priorities made in this area in previous budgets have not been good. Better insight has been gained. That is good.

In the latest exchange with the member from the Sverigedemokraterna, a statement was made that it became crazy when it came to the financing for handling foreign and invasive species. I am interested in hearing if it is also the Liberals' view that it was not a conscious prioritization but that it simply became crazy.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the questions!

We have, on several occasions previously, stood here and discussed exactly budget priorities and why the government during the recent years has prioritized as it has done. My answer always becomes: It has been difficult times, and we have had to prioritize hard. We have prioritized the school, the defense, security, healthcare and so on. Then one has landed on the budgets we have had.

If the Liberals had been allowed to govern this country alone, with their own majority, larger investments would have been made in protected nature and the management of the same. Now we have fought long and hard and see in this year's budget that we are making further investments. It is also a result of the economic policy that has been pursued in recent years and which means that we are now in a position where we can actually do this. These are difficult priorities, but they are important and welcome.

Regarding the member's question about alien and invasive species, I actually have no detailed answer as to why it landed where it did. I do not have that insight into the budget negotiations. But even so, it is clearly a welcome investment, because it is cheaper to stop invasive and alien species before they manage to spread too much. It just becomes more and more expensive the longer one waits. The investments in combating the stone marten are one such example. It is something that is important and that we are working to find a solution for.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the answer!

Just as the member mentions, it is important to have a long-term effort when it comes to alien and invasive species. That is what has been so harmful about the prioritization that the government has made. The work has been underfunded, which has also nullified much of the previous years' work regarding the fight against alien and invasive species. When one cannot complete a long-term effort to combat these species, they grow and spread. That means that the money that has been invested during previous years, so to speak, has been thrown into the lake.

It was still refreshing, I thought, to hear from the member of the Sweden Democrats that that became stupid and that it was wrong. But we must be content with the fact that the government has now come to the realization that sufficient resources are actually required for this important work to also yield results in the long term.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for your speech!

I heard no actual question, so I think I will stay here and let the next speaker in.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office has, in its report, audited the management of protected nature. Protected areas need nature-conserving management and measures that make them accessible to the public. In its audit, the Swedish National Audit Office finds that the management of protected nature is not effective and that too little money is allocated to management for the goals to be achievable.

The appropriation for the administration decreased by approximately 45 percent when the current right-wing government took office. The National Audit Office recommends that the government develop the follow-up of the management of protected areas and review whether the financial governance enables the authorities to manage protected areas with the high level of ambition that the Riksdag has decided upon.

In its communication in response to the National Audit Office's report, the government reaffirms the policy that has been pursued since the beginning of the mandate period, with low ambitions and reduced resources for environmental and climate work. In the communication, the government states that healthy and resilient ecosystems are important for the human living environment. That may sound good, but in reality, something completely fundamental is missed, namely that resilient ecosystems and rich biodiversity are absolutely necessary for people's lives and well-being.

The parties in the government base handle biodiversity as if it were something we can only afford to protect when there is some money left over, as a luxury we can treat ourselves to in good times. But without viable ecosystems, we pull the rug out from under human society. Biodiversity is the foundation for our food production and for the air we breathe.

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office assesses that there is a discrepancy between what the county administrative boards can achieve within the framework of the allocated funds and the Riksdag's goal that the administration should have a high level of ambition. The county administrative boards do not have sufficient resources to manage protected areas so that the natural values are maintained or increased and so that the areas are made accessible to visitors.

Vänsterpartiet completely shares the Swedish National Audit Office's view that there are insufficient resources to manage natural values and make protected areas accessible to the public. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has also, in a number of budget documents, signaled to the government that the area is underfunded and that sufficient basic funding is needed to be able to manage protected areas so that natural values are maintained and areas can be made accessible to the public.

Now, the Environmental Goals Commission has also proposed that the grant for the management of protected nature should increase by 1.6 billion SEK per year. No party objected to this in the commission. It was quite simply the case that the right-wing parties' representatives in our discussions argued that they do not want to protect more nature, but instead want to invest in taking better care of what is already protected. I and my party believe that we must do both—both protect more and take better care of what is already protected. But the government, in practice, does neither.

The Government does not account in its submission for any measures or ambitions to ensure that sufficient funding can be achieved. The Government's increase of 100 million kronor annually is a drop in the ocean.

Mr. Speaker! The government's and the Sweden Democrats' low funding levels in recent years for the management of protected nature have major effects. It hinders Sweden's opportunities to live up to international commitments for biodiversity and worsens the possibilities of reaching 7 of the 16 Swedish environmental goals. It also worsens the possibilities for the public to participate in and experience nature. The government's direction also leads us further away from the goal of the outdoor recreation policy, to support people's opportunities to stay in nature and engage in outdoor life. The result of the underfunding is that state trails and other hiking trails are not maintained.

Measures for valuable nature provide positive social and economic effects because they create employment. The appropriation also strengthens the possibility of operating in rural areas. We in Vänsterpartiet have, in our budget proposal for 2025, proposed an increase of the appropriation for Measures for valuable nature by over 2 billion kronor compared to the government.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is high time that the parties in the government base declare their colors now. It is not enough to just talk about how important it is to manage the nature that is protected or to back proposals for increased funds in investigations that are then not realized. If one is serious about wanting to take care of our most valuable nature – our common natural heritage – one must also be prepared to pay what it costs.

I move for approval of reservation 6.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Last year, I had visitors at my home in Skåne. We planned to hike in one of Skåne's national parks, Söderåsen, in Skäralid. It is a well-known destination, where I have been both in spring and autumn since I was a child – with my family, my school class, and as an adult. Now it was finally time to show my visiting friends what Skåne has to offer.

On the sign at the entrance, we were met by a notice. It was a board informing that the maintenance in the national park had decreased due to a sharp reduction in the budget. It said: Our supervision and maintenance of both hiking trails and rest areas now occurs less frequently, which may affect both the accessibility along the trails and the service at the rest areas. We regret this. With greetings from the County Administrative Board in Skåne.

It is not the only place in Sweden where we see such notices. All around the country, there are similar examples where the county administrative boards have no longer had the possibility to carry out their planned maintenance. Instead, they have been forced to cut back on the service, which affects both the quality and the availability of our important nature experiences.

So we cannot have that. It is a situation that we must take seriously, as these cuts have consequences for both people and the environment.

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office's report shows that it is difficult to follow up on the planned maintenance plans and nature conservation measures. A concrete effect of this is the work to counteract invasive alien species. It is particularly regrettable in a time when we see a warmer climate and when these species – both plants and animals – are increasing in number.

The balance between protecting new areas and taking care of what we already have is extremely important. We must ensure that we manage what we have and allocate resources to it before we create new area protections. If new reserves are formed without additional resources, the amount of resources for each respective reserve will dwindle.

Mr. Speaker! The Environmental Goals Commission's partial report was presented exactly one month ago. There was much we disagreed on, but one thing we were completely in agreement on. It was precisely this: that a substantial increase in funds for the maintenance and management of protected nature is required. All parties said it. We even landed on a figure: 1.6 billion extra per year during the coming five years. The reason is that the maintenance and resources are lagging behind. A substantial increase was needed over a few years – then one can return to a lower level – in order to be able to make up for what has been lost over the recent years.

So, here are three instances that state the same thing.

The National Audit Office says that there is a discrepancy between a high level of ambition and what the county administrative boards can achieve. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says that a long-term basic funding of measures is needed as today's grant funds are insufficient to maintain existing nature values in formally protected areas. The Swedish Forest Agency describes that there is an acute need for management in biotope protection areas and areas that have been protected through nature conservation agreements.

The picture is therefore consistent. We must do something here.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: I agree. The management of our 5,000 nature reserves and 30 national parks must be maintained. Long-term thinking and continuity are required to maintain high nature values and biodiversity.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 3. We also share the Riksrevisionen's criticism.

How was our hike in the Skåne national park then? Well, it was as wonderful as it can be in the beech forest in spring. Radiant sunshine shone through the thin leaves. I really want to take the opportunity to recommend a visit to the national park, in Skäralid in Skåne, in spring.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When one is last in a debate, very much has already been said. Now it concerns the Riksrevisionen's report, where they have audited how the government ensures that it protects and manages its valuable nature.

I would say that most people across Sweden see that this government has prioritized completely other things than the valuable nature, which is so appreciated and loved. I believe that most also see, when they travel through Sweden, that clear-cuts and destroyed, degraded, and broken nature are becoming an increasingly common sight. I believe that most who have listened to this debate also understand that the mentioned priorities are about political will. They have cut 7 billion kronor in this area.

Mr. Speaker! I still cannot help but be optimistic, for the simple reason that life wants to live. It is something that returns every spring. I believe that we need spring more than ever in these turbulent times and in this darkness. In the spring, the birds will return and choose just Sweden, and perhaps just your garden, to sit and sing in the trees.

That is the positive thing about life. One wants to continue to carry life forward. One has actually been able to see that if we simply decide to let life live, it will return. That is why we only need to prioritize and let life come back.

I still have an optimism that we, as part of the EU, have a restoration law, which says that we need to restore and repair the broken and worn-out ecosystems. But it will, Mr. Speaker, cost money. It is about a prioritization and a political will. It will cost many billions, and here one needs to consider the contradictions and conflicting goals.

I have mentioned this before. It is about the speed when we talk about forest. The most destructive thing we can do to a forest is to clear-cut it – take all the trees at once – and after that, furthermore, plow it for land preparation.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is the country in the world that uses land preparation the most, not in percentage but in terms of surface area. At the same time as we have a relatively large consensus here in the Swedish Riksdag, we need to ensure that we do something about the destructive forces that tear apart our ecosystems.

Mr. Speaker! I continue on the positive track. Sweden has actually signed the Kunming–Montreal Agreement. There are ambitions there to protect 30 percent and restore 30 percent. It is also, not least, about utilizing nature's resources in a sustainable way. That is where we are not today.

It is about, among other things, how we fish. We must phase out bottom trawling. We must get rid of clear-cutting and use other, more gentle and nature-oriented management methods and cultivation methods. It could be that one manages the forest with clear-cut-free and nature-oriented cultivation methods, where the forest is allowed to remain but trees can be harvested.

It actually has many advantages. There are many win-win advantages here. One can look at this economically and see it from a rural perspective: It is much more desirable that the forest remains and that one can share areas, benefits, and joy with other areas. We have talked about outdoor life. We have talked about culture and recreation. All of those can be accommodated in a forest where, as a landowner, one chooses to pick individual trees without cutting down everything.

From an economic perspective, it is otherwise very risky. One can compare it to a financial advisor who says: Put all your savings into one and the same stock, and withdraw that stock in 70 years. That is the advice that applies to forestry, where one has one and the same tree species, of the same age, and will receive the income in 70 years.

Instead, one could ensure to pick the forest's most profitable trees for the moment, those individual trees that are currently advantageous to pick and that suit one's wishes and priorities as a landowner. One would then receive a continuous income and avoid having to choose between income or the other benefits that I have spoken about. When it comes to this, we in Sweden need to take large steps.

I would also like to express gratitude towards the EU and the EU's forest strategy. It has pointed out exactly this direction. When it comes to this, Sweden's government has been one of the most resistant forces within the entire EU cooperation. I can only regret that.

I still want to highlight what a big difference there is between what some members from the government parties say in this debate and what is actually chosen to be done. Our ministers are going to Brussels to counter proposal after proposal concerning the preservation, protection, and restoration of nature throughout the EU.

Mr. Speaker! We have also talked a great deal about the nature that so many of us love to be in. We enjoy that it is allowed to exist. However, it will require a major investment and a great political consensus when it comes to this.

There are also many entry points in this. When it comes to outdoor life, one can easily calculate and imagine for oneself which path one would choose to take: the one that goes through a clear-cut or the one that goes through an existing forest?

Earlier in the debate, points have also been made regarding culture. I think that cultural values are sometimes underestimated. They are also so integrated with our natural values. Many of our ancient remains, cultural remains, and old burial sites are in the forests that we do not protect at all with legislation in the way they would need and as they deserve. With this very violent and intensive forestry, we turn upside down these sites that have meant – and actually mean – so much both for our culture and for our history.

It is simply clear that we need to work with the maintenance of that which needs to be maintained and that we need to take major efforts to protect not just some nature reserves and some national park, but 30 percent.

I believe there is a major challenge that we all need to consider in finding alternatives to replace the landowners who are involved. When it comes to whose land should be used, we need to give some thought to how the state, municipalities, different companies, corporations, and landowners can contribute more. I believe a lot in what has come from the President of the European Commission regarding using bio-credits and carbon credits and ensuring that there is profitability for those who want to contribute to achieving these environmental ambitions.

I shall not forget to move for approval of reservation 4. I thank you for the debate.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the presentation! It was positive in many respects.

I nevertheless have a question. Rebecka Le Moine mentioned that she would like to see continuous-cover forestry. She described what I consider to be selective logging, i.e., that one only takes out a few trees and lets the rest remain so that one continues to have a forest cover of the area. With the method of continuous-cover selective logging, however, there are natural limitations.

One of the limitations is economics. It is difficult to get the economics to work in such a forestry. From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we, just as the Kristdemokraterna said, are very positive about this. If someone wants to do this, they can do it, and it contributes positively to the whole. One gets a bit more non-clear-cut in our nature. I think that is positive. We do not, however, believe that one can force people to do this, and we do not believe that it would be good for the Swedish economy if everyone did it. There are also other limitations.

I believe that the area under continuous cover forestry today is about 3 percent. I might be slightly mistaken there. What area does Rebecka Le Moine intend for us to manage with continuous cover and selective logging?

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There must be natural limitations in all natural systems. There are absolutely natural limitations in the norm – that is to say, clear-cutting. There are many examples where regeneration has not occurred, and many landowners testify that clear-cutting is an economic dead end.

There are many who own their forest and who have managed their forest with cut-free nature-oriented methods and who have a very good profitability in this. I do not think it is a matter of there being no profitability, but I think it is a matter of what the norm itself is, what is taught and what the advice provides regarding. Clear-cuts have been a norm, and this norm needs to be challenged. Good examples need to be shown.

To try to answer the question: I believe it would be very appropriate if the state took the lead in this. We have a very large holding, not least within Sveaskog, to be able to demonstrate on large areas and in large-scale forestry that it is actually possible to manage the forest without consuming it. There are several such examples already today. I can, for example, recommend all Members of Parliament who have an interest in this issue to travel to Tiveden and speak with those who practice this forestry.

I think it would be completely reasonable if one were to start by ensuring that, for example, the state's forests are used for the public good.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

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

Rebecka Le Moine sinned against someone who has achieved profitability. I actually believe that profitability has increased recently with the help of digital methods and AI in calculating which trees to take. It becomes very sensitive for the profitability which trees one takes.

But this applies if one already has a fully stratified forest. That is the prerequisite for being able to carry out selective logging. A fully stratified forest has trees in all age classes with an even distribution of the age classes. Otherwise, one can only harvest once, and then one gets no regrowth. One must have regrowth from below.

Sveaskog has actually tried for a long time to achieve profitability in selective logging, but as far as I know, they have not succeeded yet. They have tried for a very long time. But we might be moving forward, and if so, that is positive.

There are also other limitations that mean we should not have selective logging and continuous cover forestry on all areas – perhaps not even on the majority of the area or perhaps not on more than 10 percent. It is about environmental effects. A fully layered forest, which is needed, can only emerge with three species. It is spruce, beech and probably elm, but the elm is dying out. It would have died out if it had not been for the Sweden Democrats' rescue program.

One will therefore get a very uniform species composition in these forests. Furthermore, it will become more or less monocultures – it will just be spruce, spruce and spruce. That means that as a whole, one gets a poorer nature even if it is richer locally. None of these species of natural disasters, as they are called, get any space. This also applies to all other species that live on trees other than spruce and beech. They do not get space either. Biological diversity is variation, and I see this as a threat to biological diversity.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am a bit taken aback by this motion, because the method I am opposing here is the clear-cutting method. In that, one plants a single tree species. One gets a monoculture, one harvests a monoculture, and so it goes around. If one is afraid that clear-cut-free forestry would result in some type of monoculture, one should therefore know that this is a guaranteed monoculture, to be set against a potentially diverse forest with much higher benefit for both climate, people, recreation, and biodiversity – not to mention the water and all the other values I have touched upon.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report on the management of protected nature

I believe the member is a bit too skeptical. I would like to remind him of the post he made earlier. He more or less called the taiga a very young ecosystem, with only 10,000 years on its back. At the same time, he thinks we do not have the prerequisites to achieve a full-layered forest. It is about time perspectives. We might be talking about a few decades, but it is entirely possible. We have to start somewhere. It would be gloomy and almost dystopian to think that we are now stuck in a system with only monocultures and that there is no way to break out of it.

There is a great deal of research on exactly thousand-year-old taiga forests with the precise same conditions as we have. They contain many more tree species than those the member mentioned. There is, therefore, already evidence, proof, and science that contradicts the member's dystopian picture.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 March.)

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