The National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts for climate adaptation of the built environment
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts for climate adaptation of the built environment. SD considers that the report indicates a need for clearer governance, better coordination, and accountability 1 and supports proposals for follow-up systems and guidelines 1. S welcomes the review but argues that the government does not take the criticism seriously as the budget shows a lack of long-term perspective and reduced support for skills development 2, and emphasizes that more will is required than mandatory budget lines 3 4. M argues that the report shows deficiencies after eight years of S's rule 5, that the new government takes the issues very seriously 6 7 and that funds should be used effectively 8. MP argues that the government should not remove money for the county administrative boards' work as it leads to a loss of important expertise 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
Roger Hedlund (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report regarding the state's efforts for climate adaptation of the built environment.
The Swedish National Audit Office has made a number of observations on how the conditions for working with this issue can continue to be improved. Despite many years of work regarding the management from the state's side, we see that there are many measures where the Swedish National Audit Office points out that one could have worked better.
We can observe that clear governance and good coordination in the area are needed. Accountability from a number of different parties is needed, and we also need to learn from what has happened around Sweden and how these issues have been handled at both the state and municipal levels and the levels in between.
Something that is also in focus is to create the conditions for good competence in the area in order to be able to work with the measures that are needed to achieve efficiency and long-term perspective in the work. Good planning is needed throughout the country to handle the problems that we sometimes see as a result of different weather changes.
I come from Gävle municipality myself, where, for example, in 2021 we had a heavy rainstorm that caused a lot of misfortune for both the municipality and its citizens and which also had such effects that it affected both private finances and the municipality as a whole. In connection with this, in 2021 I submitted a question to the then government on how one could work better towards households and how households can protect themselves against, for example, rainstorms in order to counteract the effects we see when such occur across the country.
We can observe that the National Audit Office is presenting a number of measures that the government can work further with. We also stand behind many of the proposals put forward. They are completely in line with the policy that the Sverigedemokraterna has pursued in the area. Introducing a follow-up system to be able to assess the interventions that the state and the municipality are working with is a matter of course in this context so that we can draw lessons and improve in the area. Developing guidelines for what requirements the County Administrative Board can set for the municipalities in the planning process is also an important point.
There, one can once again connect it to what happened in Gävle: A planning was needed that involves anticipating what can happen and not acting after it has happened. That is how one plans in many municipalities, and then it becomes a natural consequence if such heavy rains as we saw in Gävle occur.
With the findings from the Swedish National Audit Office, together with the transition that the Sweden Democrats are making together with the government in the area and new perspectives in the work on the strategy for climate adaptation, I see good conditions for us to actually be able to make a significant difference in relation to the previous work that has been put into the area.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the reservation in the committee report.
We welcome the Swedish National Audit Office's review and consider both the government's communication and the Swedish National Audit Office's audit report to be valuable material for the continued work on climate adaptation of the built environment. We also agree with the assessment that the state's funding of climate adaptation has been long-term. Funds have been distributed at a relatively even level and have also increased.
However, we take a different position than the committee. As we write in our reservation, we do not perceive that the government takes the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism seriously, as it calls for more long-term funding for climate adaptation in the built environment.
In the budget, there are several examples that demonstrate this lack of long-term perspective. In expenditure area 20 Climate Adaptation, the support is reduced, and support for competence development for the climate transition is removed. In expenditure area 18, the support for sustainable community building is phased out both within the appropriation for housing policy development and within the appropriation to Boverket.
We do not see the clarity and long-term perspective requested by the Swedish National Audit Office in the very important work with climate adaptations. Before I read the budget proposal for the coming years, I hoped that the government would put more effort into this work, but the wording in the area is limited and feels very perfunctory. The commitment is conspicuously absent.
Just as the previous speaker said, there have been a lot of natural disasters in our country, not least in Gävle. Many in our country are seriously concerned about climate change and what consequences these will have, not only for themselves but also for society as a whole and for future generations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move again for approval of the reservation in the committee report.
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! It was not humility itself that stood in the speaker's chair just now. One wonders if the Social Democrats have read the National Audit Office's report. Rarely, Mr. Speaker, have I seen such a critical National Audit Office report over eight lost years with the Social Democrats. Point by point, the National Audit Office shows deficiencies after eight years of work. It is a bit surprising, not least because the Green Party has partially been part of the government.
I do not know how active Leif Nysmed is on Twitter or X, but I will read out the tweet that the Minister for Civil Defence, Carl-Oskar Bohlin, wrote on October 5. "Both S and V have the same appropriations as the government in their respective budget motions when it comes to funds that municipalities can apply for to undertake climate adaptation measures. A bit surprising when it sounded like the heavens were falling just over this issue a couple of weeks ago. They allocate marginally more to the agencies' work, but for physical interventions in reality, their proposed appropriations are the same."
Carl-Oskar Bohlin then poses a relevant question: "Can one ask for a more intellectually honest debate going forward?"
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Lars Beckman! It is naturally also relevant. But it is not just about the money. We are on the same budget there. But the question to the government is what one thinks and what one wants moving forward. It is also about what one aims for. In your budget, there are some mandatory lines about this; I believe it is a paragraph in expenditure area 6 where this is highlighted. But other areas are highlighted very carefully.
We can also be critical and say that more money needs to be allocated to it. But we still highlight the concern.
When it comes to the report itself that we are debating today, even your government, which has responded to the report, has answered clearly that a considerable number of measures have been taken. And in the committee, we agree that more money has been allocated and distributed evenly, that the ambition has increased and that a considerable number of measures have been taken. In the report it states: "The committee further notes that during 2022 the government took measures to clarify the management of the state grant for natural disasters" and so on. When it comes to the criticism being so extensive, we therefore have a common answer.
The question is what we want moving forward and how we should view the matter, not just when it concerns crowns and öre but also when it concerns the will.
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! It is well that we can be a bit intellectually honest moving forward. I still perceive it as a positive answer to that.
Let me just point out that the government has a Minister for Civil Defence. This government has a Minister for Civil Defence because we take these issues very seriously.
In my speech later, I will tell about the consequences of not following this and of the government not having governed its agencies sufficiently well, which the Riksrevisionen's report points out. The collapse on the E6 is currently costing society 30 million kronor a week just in Stenungsund. In Gävle, taxpayers risk having to pay 1.2 billion in damages to the insurance companies because this work has not been managed sufficiently well. These are, therefore, no small matters.
It is welcome that the Swedish National Audit Office is so clear in its criticism of eight lost years. It is rarely that the Swedish National Audit Office is so clear in its reports. What is pointed out is that the government has not governed its agencies sufficiently well.
Why does the former Social Democratic government have the responsibility? Well, because our authorities have a tendency to work in silos, each authority for itself. Therefore, a firm hand and firm guidance from the government is now required.
Mr. Speaker! Pleasantly enough, the new government takes this very seriously. Pleasantly enough, we now have a Minister for Civil Defence who shows the way forward. It is directly necessary given the climate changes that are occurring.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! I do not share the member's image of eight lost years. Management and sharpening of these parts have occurred. All parties in the committee actually write jointly in the committee report on how it has looked. I have just read out one of the sentences in the committee report. The government also highlights the improvements that have occurred. It is also written that it is a work that is constantly under development.
I want to emphasize that it requires a bit more will than just a few individual, somewhat dutiful lines in the budget when it comes to these issues. It also requires a will. I truly hope that we can meet in that work. I believe that it means a lot for our entire long country.
Regarding Stenungsund, I do not know what the authorities would have done. It turned out that a company had slightly violated the rules and loaded a bit too much earth on the site. It simply becomes tricky. We have to look at who caused that specific landslide.
I look forward to more cooperation in the future, as I have said. But then I want people to show a bit more will and "jäklar anamma" - excuse my expression! But I really mean it.
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts for climate adaptation of the built environment. It may, at least for those who are not familiar with the subject, sound like a rather boring report from the National Audit Office. But it is of very great significance for the Swedish people and for entrepreneurship in Sweden.
In previous exchanges and in other debates, we have talked about the consequences when our state authorities and municipalities are not sufficiently on their toes in these matters.
One example is my home municipality, Social Democrat-led Gävle. There, they removed preventive maintenance of the water and sewage network to save money. They had a flushing truck that regularly cleaned the water and sewage networks and ensured that there would be no blockages in the sewers. To save some measly million, they removed the preventive work and did not clear the road chambers. The County Administrative Board pointed out in several reports over several years for Gävle municipality that it can have very negative consequences if one does not ensure that road chambers are kept clear.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? When the heavy rainfall hit, there were literally dams in the areas where the municipality had not worked sufficiently well with preventive maintenance. It now risks costing the people of Gävle 1.2 billion in regress, according to the insurance companies.
The National Audit Office points out in its report, which Roger Hedlund presented so exemplary that I do not need to repeat it, the deficiencies that have existed in both the government's guidance of the state agencies and the cooperation between the state's various actors and the municipalities. In the Gävle case, for example, the County Administrative Board had flagged to the Social Democratic-led Gävle that there were deficiencies and serious risks. But the County Administrative Board does not have tools to force Gävle Municipality to do things. They can only point them out. There are, therefore, things to be done here.
The landslide on the E6, which costs society 30 million kronor a week, is also an example of that mistakes may have been made. We do not know that, but if one reads up on it, one can see that all of Western Sweden is built on clay. The clay is a ten thousand years old remnant from the ice age which causes landslides to occur sooner or later, primarily in southern Sweden. One of Sweden's leading experts says that Sweden is doomed to have a certain frequency of landslides. According to Johan Kleman, the landslide in Stenungsund would probably have occurred sooner or later, but it could just as easily have waited another 200 years. Large amounts of rain increase the risk.
One also points out how important it is that state agencies, such as SGI and others, ensure that they guide the municipalities on how and where to build. That is what the Riksrevisionen report points out. Here, for example, Boverket should have been better and faster when it comes to producing guidelines. Now, a number of municipalities and county administrative boards have tried to reinvent the wheel themselves. This naturally has negative consequences.
The way forward is for the new government to take the issue seriously. The person who goes onto the Swedish National Audit Office's side and reads sees that it says "the government". It is therefore the social democratic government that the criticism refers to. The Moderate-led government and the Tidö parties take these issues seriously and will guide the authorities better, so that we can live, reside and work in all of Sweden.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Lars Beckman and I, together with the Committee on Civil Affairs, visited the County Administrative Board in Gävleborg County last spring and listened to how they are working to reduce the risks of new floods after the catastrophic floods in Gävle in 2021. I perceived then that we were in agreement on the importance of the work the County Administrative Board performs to reduce the risks for people, infrastructure, and property. When one listens to Lars Beckman today, it feels as if he is underlining the importance of that work. Therefore, I wonder if Lars Beckman can justify the government's phasing out of appropriation 1:10 in expenditure area 20 in the budget for 2024.
Funding for the County Administrative Board is being phased out, and there, it may now be necessary to dismiss all climate adaptation coordinators. Their task today is to procure heavy rainfall mapping for urban areas, and especially in small municipalities, they have an extremely important role in gathering and coordinating the work that must be done. I wonder why this support is now being phased out. Do Lars Beckman and the government think the County Administrative Boards are finished with their work?
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question! It is a bold question, because Miljöpartiet is part of the government in Gävle. Miljöpartiet in Gävle, together with the Socialdemokraterna, is therefore the reason for the floods in Gävle. Miljöpartiet in Gävle removed the preventive maintenance of the sewage network from its budget. It is Miljöpartiet that in its budget has not prioritized cleaning the street drains. It is Miljöpartiet in Gävle that has chosen to build a cultural center whose cost is estimated by many to be 1 billion of the municipality's tax money. The cost is 1 billion, just in Gävle municipality's budget.
Miljöpartiet has actively prioritized the construction of a cultural center instead of working on climate adaptations. It doesn't matter how much money the government gives to the County Administrative Board in Gävleborg as long as there are local politicians who prioritize as crazily as Miljöpartiet in Gävle has. It is something that risks costing the taxpayers 1,200 million. It could cost the people of Gävle 1.2 billion that Miljöpartiet, together with Socialdemokraterna, chose to build a cultural center called Agnes instead of working on climate adaptations.
Just as I said in my speech, and just as the county administrative board official said at the meeting we attended, the county administrative board has warned Gävle municipality about the risks that existed in the municipality. But Gävle chose not to listen. One can, therefore, employ 8,000 strategists at the county administrative board in Gävle who tell Gävle municipality what it should do, but as long as Gävle municipality does not listen, it doesn't matter.
I have understood that Miljöpartiet wants to form a government with the Socialdemokraterna. As far as I understand, the Moderaterna - Tidöpartierna - and Socialdemokraterna have the same budget allocations. What does Katarina Luhr say to the people of Gävle who were affected by floods due to Miljöpartiet's rule?
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I have a good overview of Miljöpartiet in Gävle and also know how much they have worked with climate adaptation. I am therefore not worried about it.
My question was about the county administrative boards no longer having money to be able to carry out this work. When we visited the county administrative board and discussed it with them, we saw clearly that they have well-developed plans and strategies and that they possess a great deal of knowledge. This does not only apply to Gävle but to the whole country.
Therefore, I ask again why the county administrative boards should not continue to work with this very important task, where they have an important role to play in the climate strategy.
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! The County Administrative Board and other state authorities will work on these issues. Everyone watching this debate can be completely calm about that. The Government prioritizes these issues. We have a Minister for Civil Defence in the Government who is actively working on these issues. But I think Katarina Luhrs' question is relevant.
Is it good that the state has a guidance for the municipalities? Yes, the National Audit Office's report points out that instead of every municipality - 290 municipalities - inventing its own wheel, they should work according to Boverket's guidance. There, of course, Katarina Luhr has a very large personal responsibility for that the previous government did not guide the authorities and did not chase them with blue lights.
The County Administrative Board in Gävleborg gave recommendations to Gävle Municipality on at least three occasions, but Miljöpartiet in Gävle ignored the recommendations. We can therefore hire 500 more people at the County Administrative Board in Gävleborg who give recommendations to Miljöpartiet-led Gävle, but they are not followed. That is the problem. Had the recommendations given by the experts at the County Administrative Board in Gävle been followed, perhaps the damages would not have become so great.
The problem was that local politicians in Gävle, Green Party members and Social Democrats, among others, prioritized building a cultural center - Agnes - at a cost of 1,000 million, 1 billion, instead of prioritizing municipal core activities: ensuring that the water network works, that no dams are formed, and that the pumps in the viaduct work. One pump had been broken for 30 years, I thought they said at the County Administrative Board when we were there. The expertise existed, so, but they didn't care. That is the Green Party's problem.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Summer 2023 became the warmest ever recorded, according to the EU's own climate service Copernicus. Studies indicate that the summer may have been the warmest in 120,000 years, but for that long, of course, we have not had measurement series. It might have been an anomaly. But one cannot talk about climate adaptation without highlighting that it has long been time to tackle climate change. To reduce the risk of temperatures skyrocketing, priority one must always be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions quickly. All carbon dioxide that is emitted is stored and contributes to further warming, regardless of where the emissions occur. Every ton emitted counts, and every decimal of warming that can be prevented matters.
The work with climate adaptation measures needs to be carried out by the municipalities, but the municipalities have very different circumstances. In Sweden, we saw a year where the drought during the spring destroyed the harvests for many farmers. Floods with landslides and rockslides have destroyed everything from harvests to roads, infrastructure, and property as a result of the weather. We have read about and seen floods, landslides, and rockslides in Åre, Västerås, Hudiksvall, and Stenungsund, but other municipalities have also been affected by unexpected floods, sinkholes, and landslides.
It is clear that we are facing a changed situation and that with increasing temperatures it will not get better but worse ahead. And it is not that surprising either. We have long known that the climate changes will affect us.
With the first national climate adaptation strategy presented in 2018, Sweden's climate adaptation work was given an initial structure. This year, the strategy is to be updated for the first time, and I was therefore very pleased that the Swedish National Audit Office has investigated how Sweden's climate adaptation work functions and how the work can be improved. It gives us a good opportunity to turn up the pace of a work where much more needs to be done.
The National Audit Office gives us several recommendations. There are many that I think are important to take into account – everything from clearer guidelines from Boverket to better follow-up systems to ensure that climate-related risks actually also decrease from the measures taken. Most of the recommendations are given to the government, which has the ultimate responsibility for strengthening and coordinating climate adaptation work, not least when partial responsibility lies with a large number of agencies.
In the chapter dealing with the government's governance, the importance of increased clarity and the need for better follow-up is emphasized. I hope that these parts will have been reviewed in the new, updated climate strategy. It is also highlighted that the government's governance of the municipalities' work is weak, and here I do not believe it is enough for the government to place all responsibility on the municipalities; instead, a strengthened cooperation between state and municipality is required here.
The work with climate adaptation measures needs to be carried out by the municipalities, as I just said, but the municipalities have very different conditions to do what is needed. Municipalities have, for example, different geological conditions. Municipalities can have a coast, be low-lying or high-lying, and be densely populated municipalities or rural municipalities, which means that the climate adaptation measures can vary greatly. The municipalities can at the same time have completely different access to competence to investigate climate adaptation measures and completely different economic conditions to carry out measures.
Our reservation today is primarily about the economic conditions for good climate adaptation work. The Swedish National Audit Office is clear that long-term work and long-term financing is a key for municipalities to be able to and dare to plan and carry out measures. For a municipality, it can take years to investigate and plan measures and to procure a contractor. If money is missing in the end or disappears during the time, it can for many become a low priority to even start the work. Many municipalities also have a great need for expert competence to know exactly what it is that one needs to do.
The National Audit Office highlights in the report the problems with short-term funding which can hinder long-term climate adaptation work. Several agencies highlight the problems with working long-term and strategically with the short-term grants they sometimes receive and that it can become impossible to recruit experts if there is no money for salary for more than a year.
The reservation I intend to stand behind shortly concerns this and the fact that the government, in its response to the National Audit Office, does not consider the national supports to be erratic and short-term. What irony this is, when the government in this year's budget removes the support for climate adaptation to MSB and the county administrative boards, and several county administrative boards themselves have highlighted the issues with erratic funding and the problems with recruitment during short-term support.
In the budget proposal for 2024, the government is phasing out funds to MSB for mapping, impact assessments, and risk management plans regarding climate-related floods, landslides, avalanches, heatwaves, and forest fires. Funds are also being phased out for the county administrative boards' task to coordinate local and regional work on adaptation to a changing climate. These funds could also have gone to municipalities for knowledge-raising initiatives in areas where the municipality has identified a particular need for climate adaptation.
These are funds that, among other things, go towards the salaries of the employees at these agencies who have the competence and work with these issues today. That funds are being phased out means that the agencies do not have money to pay these officials' salaries. We are facing a situation where we risk losing incredibly important and central personnel at both the county administrative boards and MSB who have until now worked systematically with climate adaptation.
We do not know what the consequences of this will be. We have also not seen any consequence analysis, only that this came as a surprise to many. It is exactly this that we see as unpredictable and erratic funding.
The work of climate-adapting Sweden has only just begun, and in that case, we need to build up a strong and clear structure in the long term where all actors have their roles. We must not dismantle this work. If we remove the experts who hold a large part of the knowledge, they need to be replaced with the same expertise somewhere else, and it takes time to build expertise.
This summer we have seen examples of what researchers have warned about for a long time. Therefore, we need to act and strengthen a long-term and predictable climate adaptation work throughout the country. We need to work to protect our inhabitants and our environment. We need to protect important infrastructure such as railways, roads, drinking water, hospitals, schools and elderly care homes. The work needs to take place in all of Sweden. It needs to be prioritized, long-term and clear.
I look forward to seeing the new, updated climate adaptation strategy in December. Until then, I move for approval of our reservation in the report.
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that I think it is good with audit reports. The National Audit Office submits audit reports to us in the Riksdag quite regularly, and we think it is a good way to delve deeper into various issues and see where the government intends to take action.
We are probably quite in agreement that weather changes cause problems. I come from Hallands län. There, we have specific problems regarding water levels at certain times of the year, and the measures that the Riksrevisionen has audited have also concerned many municipalities in Halland.
State funds should be used as effectively as possible and go towards the measures they are intended for. Anything else would actually be reprehensible from a citizen's perspective. It is our common funds that are being used, and there is a responsibility for everyone to follow up and evaluate that we use them in the right way.
We can, however, observe that the Swedish National Audit Office in its report is not so impressed by how the money has been used. There is a risk that they have not gone to the right measures, i.e., not to the most pressing ones. Money may have gone to measures already implemented. Furthermore, no follow-up has been conducted on the grant, so one actually does not know if it has had the intended effect. It is quite stinging criticism that we can all probably take to heart, I want to assert.
The National Audit Office highlights that there are deficiencies in the government's governance. A unified national follow-up is lacking. The government has not been clear in the governance of the state grant for natural disasters, and as has been said, there is a risk that funds have gone to things for which they are not intended.
What we are to take a position on here today is the government's response to this report. In it, it is stated that the work on climate adaptation is in a development stage and that the measures taken will need to be evaluated. It is said that they will evaluate. It is also said that they will increase the steering towards the municipalities regarding how the grant should be used. They will present proposals for a developed use of the appropriation.
I want to assert that however one reads the National Audit Office's report, one can conclude that the government has fulfilled its obligations and has tried to handle this in the best possible way.
I do not believe that any of the eight parties in the Riksdag have any other opinion than that these funds should be used in the best way. I also believe that we have a consensus on what the way forward should be. What I have heard from the rostrum suggests a fairly large consensus. I believe that from the rostrum, an attempt is being made to create a division in politics that actually does not exist.
I believe that we can look towards the future with confidence and that these funds will in the future be used in the best way. The government that is currently in power will do it in the best way, just as the next government will do it. There is no government that does not want to use the money in the best way.
That is why I think the National Audit Office's report is good. It scrutinizes how it actually works, and we can see what the government is doing to improve the use of the money.
Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.