Tightening of the regulatory framework for invasive alien species and nature conservation

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

This debate is two-fold. We are debating partly changed rules for invasive alien species, that is, species that have not naturally existed in Sweden and which create major problems for biodiversity, and partly nature conservation in a broader sense. Those who are only interested in the latter will have to be patient for a moment, because I will begin with the invasive species.

We Sweden Democrats support the stricter regulations proposed in the government's bill and in the committee report. It is proposed that it shall be punishable to introduce an invasive alien species into Sweden. This is important given the great damage that invasive species can cause to the environment, agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, and individual citizens. The penalty scale is proposed to be from fines to two years of imprisonment. We consider it to be well-balanced because it is at the same level as the penalties for similar already punishable offenses.

Furthermore, a reporting obligation is proposed if one imports an invasive alien species from another EU country to Sweden. It is also proposed that Tullverket shall be granted the authority to inspect the import of alien species at internal borders and, if necessary, seize such species. This is also appropriate for making the regulatory framework functional.

Madam Speaker! Let me move on to the second part of my speech, which concerns nature conservation in a broader sense.

We all work with environmental policy because we think it is important. Unfortunately, the political game is driving a polarization, which means that we most often hunker down in our respective trenches. What we need most at the moment is a curious and well-informed discussion from our different perspectives.

We Sweden Democrats have a new view on environmental policy, where environmental efficiency is completely central. What do we mean by environmental efficiency?

Firstly: We aim for the most environmental benefit per krona. We look for cheap solutions, and if the same environmental result can be achieved with two measures, we choose the cheaper of them. It is important to manage the people's money responsibly. Sweden may face worse economic conditions in the future, and then environmental protection measures that cost a lot of money will not be able to be maintained.

Secondly: Environmental efficiency means for us that measures should not cause major restrictions on industries or the conditions for people to operate in different parts of the country, so-called goal conflicts. For every measure one considers, one must try to analyze what negative effects it has directly and indirectly and choose measures with as small negative effects on industries and people as possible.

If it is possible to enable the simultaneous use of species protection, it is much to be gained. One example of that is everyday considerations in forestry. Another is to abolish the reforestation requirement closest to agricultural land to enable soft forest edges that can benefit biodiversity in an effective way with a very small restriction of the usage. This can be done voluntarily and still yield a positive effect for the environment.

Thirdly: Environment, business, and people's lives are intertwined. That is why there are goal conflicts in the first place. But there are also opportunities for positive synergies because of that. We are therefore looking for positive synergies between environmental benefit, business, and people. If the environmental measure simultaneously benefits business, it can generate resources.

One example is our supplements for the restoration of grazing and hay meadows. If correctly designed, it is good for the agriculture's economy while simultaneously benefiting biodiversity. If the environmental measure also benefits people, the same krona can fulfill several purposes at the same time.

For the fourth: Measures must have an effect. If they do not, it is symbol politics, and symbol politics has no place in an effective environmental policy. Think the thought through fully: If a measure does not have a direct effect but is dependent on an indirect effect, one needs to analyze whether the measure actually leads further to the indirect effect or not. When Sweden, for example, takes the lead and reduces emissions, one must ask whether it actually leads to others reducing their emissions or not.

For the fifth: One must create alternatives. An increased scope for action is always good. The development of technology and methods is a natural part of that endeavor, but one must also enable the use of the newly developed technology and the new methods. One must not be overly cautious. Inactivity can be more destructive than activity.

Genetic modification could, for example, come to solve problems in nature conservation that are seemingly insoluble today. Sverigedemokraterna want to create a center for plant breeding for environmental purposes, that is, breeding and breeding work with the goal of solving environmental problems.

For the sixth: It is often effective to develop concrete, targeted measures to solve key problems. Let me return to that a bit later.

Madam Speaker! Let us take a moment and reflect on what happens if Swedish parties continue to ignore environmental efficiency. I believe there will be greater effects on people's lives. Growth decreases, less is achieved with the measures, and environmental commitment erodes. We will face an environmental collapse at the next deep economic crisis.

We are all familiar with the Draghi report. Growth in the EU must increase. If we do not have good growth, we cannot maintain our position as a nation at the forefront, nor can we create products that are competitive. We also do not have the margins required to withstand external threats, whether they are military or geopolitical. Then we must bow to other countries' demands. This can lead to even greater problems for our economic growth through tariffs, lost market shares, and entire industrial sectors going bankrupt. We are thus drilling ourselves deeper into the negative spiral.

Almost everyone is therefore in agreement that the EU's growth must increase. Low economic growth is the greatest threat to the environment. Most environmental measures cost money, and if we have not done our homework to streamline environmental policy, the measures will additionally cost even more money and hinder growth. It is a nightmare scenario for both the economist and the biologist. At the same time, there is also the positive correlation. The better growth we create, the more environmental measures we can afford.

Madam Speaker! One might ask if we can reduce the growth in the activities we have today and trust that future growth is tied to the environmental technologies that we develop. There is a prevailing dogma in this context: Strict emission requirements lead to both reduced emissions and a competitive economy. Perhaps that is so. Perhaps it is not so. Perhaps it is so for some companies and not for others, which will change the corporate structure.

As always, it is important not to assert what one only suspects. Emission restrictions can drive forward new technology and increased competitiveness, but that is not certain. Investments can create a functioning circular economy that generates resources, but that is not certain. Kill the dogmas, I say. Be curious, questioning, and humble! Be prepared to change direction! Do not put all your eggs in one basket! Let our existing operations continue to function, and do not put obstacles in their way!

Madam Speaker! When it comes to measures for the environment, there is an over-reliance on the big solutions. It is tempting to believe that big problems require big solutions, but my experience is that there is much efficiency to be gained by placing the solutions as close to the problem as possible, especially in situations where it is almost impossible to influence the big problem. One must understand the problem in detail and rectify what is wrong. There is always more than one way to solve a problem if one examines the details of the problem.

There are many success stories of that. The Hunters' Association has more or less saved the mountain goose by thinking creatively. Problems arose with the mountain goose's migration routes. Then, mountain goose eggs were placed in the nests of other geese that had a different migration route. In this way, the mountain goose was made to change its migration route and could thus be saved.

In the latest issue of WWF's magazine, there are several success stories. It concerns, for example, the green toad and not least the Arctic fox, which has now tenfold its populations and will therefore probably be saved, thanks to supplementary feeding and the control of red foxes. It is a good example of how one can carry out important nature conservation with a gun.

The focus group for the Jägareförbundet and research on the marten is another such perfect example, where a major problem has been solved using new methods.

Naturally, the elm disease is also a prime example. An invasive, foreign species – a pest in the form of a fungus – from far away causes our native elm species to be threatened with extinction. But thanks to the Sverigedemokraterna, work on a solution has begun. It is about providing resistance to the elm disease and thereby saving the grove elm, the forest elm, and about fifty species linked to them.

In this context, it is interesting that the researchers behind the Living Planet Index, an index linked to the convention on biological diversity, say that their new data analysis changes the view on how threatened the world's animal populations are and leads to the need to change the action strategies. They advocate for priorities and targeted efforts to increase the efficiency of conservation work. They sound like the Sweden Democrats, I might think. The background is that the broad trend regarding declining animal populations that they previously published looks different in a second study, where they increased the resolution. They concluded that only 3 percent of animal populations are declining, and there is great regional variation.

One must, therefore, reform environmental policy in order to succeed and to create as little conflict of interest pain as possible. It is only if one believes that it costs nothing for other people that one can allow oneself to choose broad, inefficient solutions.

We all have a responsibility. The entrepreneur's responsibility looks one way and the citizen's looks another way. The responsibility we politicians have is to manage the people's money well and to choose effective methods that lead to results and to the minimum possible negative effects, economically, socially and culturally. Environmental policy must therefore be renewed. That can happen if we crawl out of our trenches.

Environmental efficiency is central to the Sweden Democrats' environmental policy. It is about looking for cheap solutions and solutions that have as few negative consequences as possible for industries and people. It is also about weighing values against each other and daring to realize that it sometimes means that one does not reach all the way, if the alternative is large effects on industries and people. It is also about learning to understand environmental problems and looking for concrete, targeted measures that solve a key problem.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Eklöf for the speech!

For nearly an entire parliamentary term, the Sweden Democrats and the government have allocated too few resources for the maintenance of our Swedish nature. The traces of this dismantling are clearly visible in our beautiful country. Windbreaks that have been blown over by storms lie there without being repaired. Signs that have been hidden under the snow and that have been run over and broken are not repaired. There is no more firewood at rest areas, and trash cans are overflowing. At the same time, the appropriations for the work against invasive alien species are also decreasing, despite the fact that the spread constitutes a growing threat to our ecosystems.

This is not just about nature conservation in a narrow sense. It is also about our common cultural heritage and about people's opportunities for outdoor life throughout the country. Nevertheless, the Sweden Democrats and the government choose to deprioritize these issues. Not even this year, when the government itself speaks of a reform space of around 80 billion, is one prepared to allocate sufficient resources to strengthen nature conservation.

How do the Sweden Democrats defend this deprioritization of Swedish nature? And how does Member Eklöf intend for this to align with the Sweden Democrats' own rhetoric about safeguarding Swedish nature and the Swedish cultural heritage?

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for the questions!

The appropriation for nature management, 1:3, stands at 1.8 billion. That is a lot of money. It is 62 percent more than the Social Democrats and the red-greens submitted as recently as 2020. Even though there is certainly an oversupply from the red-green side today, compared to these 1.8 billion, it is still a huge amount of money. To this are added special investments in hiking trails, both this year and last year.

Regarding the second question, concerning invasive species, it does not look the way the Social Democrats describe it either. In this year's budget, we have investments in both land-dwelling species – admittedly only 5 million, but next year it will be 30 million – and in water-dwelling species, where we are adding 20 extra million this year; it will eventually become 30 million. We have also had, since earlier, a spring amendment budget with a small investment in the control of stone marten.

Then we have the major initiative against invasive species in the forest, which the Social Democrats do not take up. It is about combating elm disease, which is spreading and causing perhaps the greatest problems of all invasive species in our country. There we have a program underway and are in the process of solving the problem. The Social Democrats voted no to that proposal, and I wonder why. I believe that Malin Larsson might be able to answer that. I believe, in fact, that it was Malin Larsson who emphatically opposed the proposal to invest in the fight against elm disease during the last parliamentary term. Why are the Social Democrats against fighting elm disease by increasing the resistance of the elms?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that the member is not answering my questions. I ask questions to the member, and he asks back. Before that, there is a lot of number-juggling instead of standing up for the policy one actually advocates for. You have reduced the appropriations throughout this entire mandate period. You zeroed out – removed the money for the work against invasive species completely. Zero kronor were allocated in 2023. That you then bring back money and call it investments, I do not think is a serious policy.

With this SD-led government, there is no money to equip and maintain our much-appreciated trails and nature reserves or for the work required regarding invasive species. The consequences of the policy that the Sweden Democrats pursue together with the government are noticed all around the country – we receive reports about it all the time. Hiking trails have fallen into disrepair. Windbreaks are blown down and remain lying there. Important local nature conservation projects have had reduced resources.

Is this what the Sweden Democrats and Member of Parliament Staffan Eklöf call environmental efficiency, which the Member of Parliament highlighted throughout his entire speech?

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit strange with these overarching orders. The Social Democrats are just putting a little more money on invasive species and management of nature – very little. It is about single percentage points.

Furthermore, it is play money. The Social Democrats say they want to keep an aid of 1 percent but do not put more than that it might reach 0.75 percent – something in that style anyway – in their budget. If we had not won the election and the Social Democrats had been allowed to continue governing, it would have been at 1 percent. Then these funds would not have existed at all in the Social Democrats' budget. One pretends one thing, and then has a budget for something else. It is truly a game for the galleries.

Despite this, one fails to finance their proposals in this budget. When it comes to removing the quarantine days, one wants to put that entire sum into the business sector; it can be up to 40 billion per year. Despite doing this in such a dishonest manner, one does not have more than a few pennies left to put additionally on this area. It is actually astonishing.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Staffan Eklöf for the speech! It is interesting to hear how Eklöf describes and speaks warmly about the environmental issue and, above all, about the elms and also mentions invasive alien species.

I would like to say that the Sweden Democrats actually do not have any significant environmental policy. It is rarely your voice that is heard in the environmental debate in discussions about biodiversity, our ecosystems, or nature conservation. In your previous budgets, initiatives on the environmental issue and the environmental area are missing.

I had some fun searching on your website. I started with "invasive alien species" but got no hits. I searched a bit more broadly for "biological diversity." Zero hits. I thought "environment" was broad. Two hits. One hit was, of course, about hunting and weapons, and the other hit was the criticism of the Center Party's environmental policy.

My question to the member is therefore: Do the Sweden Democrats and Eklöf actually care about invasive alien species and our ecosystems at all?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! The answer is yes. But I shall elaborate a little: Yes, we care about biodiversity and all species.

But if one is to hear anything, one must listen. I believe that is what is lacking at the Center Party. You have not listened properly to us Sverigedemokrater, not even to the speech I just gave.

The point was that one can very well have lower budgets but achieve more results if one does not make broad strokes, invest enormous amounts of money and make large reserve allocations that cost enormous amounts of money – for example, the nature restoration regulation's allocations, which are estimated to cost 175 billion kronor. If one does not do such crazy things, one has money left over to do effective, targeted things.

We are result-oriented, and we have by far the best environmental policy of all the parties.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I listened, shall I tell the member. I listened to your view on environmental efficiency and cheap solutions, and I heard that you want to avoid conflicts of interest with the industries.

I would like to say that the reasoning is, to some extent, hair-raising. The industries I am thinking of are within forestry and agriculture, and there I would like to say that climate change is creeping in on the skin. The forest owner sees that the spruce bark beetles are taking over the spruce plantations. The farmer sees that the number of pollinators is decreasing, for example in the rapeseed fields, and that the yields and harvests are decreasing.

I would like to say that one must keep two thoughts in mind here, because a green growth where climate and environmental measures are a part is important for Sweden's competitiveness. One must be able to think doubly here. One must invest in the environment to have a Swedish food production and so that we can have hunting and fishing at all, otherwise we will not keep our ecosystems.

The member of the board speaks about how we should kill the dogmas. I would actually say that the member of the board says that we should kill our ecosystems, because I want to maintain that the Sweden Democrats do not prioritize the environmental issue at all.

We all have a responsibility, says the member. Yes, we do. We all have a responsibility for the future and for our children, and we must understand the environmental problems.

I repeat my question more specifically: Is your reasoning regarding environmental efficiency any investment in the environment at all?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Then I ask: C's initiatives on the climate, how great an impact do they have on the global climate? None, 0.0.

Are we making investments? Do we care? Yes, of course. Just by including the project I have here, we have saved around 50 species. That is not a small amount compared to how many species have gone extinct since 1800: 200. Had we not done this, it would have been 250. Those are results. That is caring. It is also caring about forestry, because we have saved two, no, three tree species for the future with this project. It is both the Lundalmen and the Skogsalmen, but also the ash, because the ash is also included in this rescue package.

In my speech, I raised several examples of effective environmental policy. One of them I can mention again here: the restoration of grazing lands and hay meadows. When it is done in such a way that the farmer profits from it and can increase their grazing and their livestock production, you kill two birds with one stone. That is also something we have done.

We are pushing for it to become voluntary for the forest owner to replant forest near agricultural land, which would result in a soft edge that is very effective for producing biodiversity. It would also produce wildlife forage and perhaps reduce wildlife grazing damage in the forest, plus the biotope will completely naturally have an extent in the space that offers a very good dispersal route for biodiversity in the landscape – with several advantages that I do not have time for now.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind that it is not permitted to refer to props in the chamber. Only the spoken word applies, so one must describe with words instead.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Member for the speech, where it was emphasized how important it is with an effective environmental policy! As a member of the Green Party, I agree with this.

What I cannot agree with is the result, because I see how costly the "hatting" has become when it comes to the fight against invasive species. One of the first measures that this government took was to zero out the budget for this. Previously, there was funding of 50 million kronor per year during 2022, 2023, and 2024.

This is a question that I cannot quite understand why we are even engaged in and discussing. We are surely in agreement that we must help? Society needs help, support, funding, and resources to repel the species that both threaten ecosystems and risk becoming a huge cost that hits society, that hits producers, and that can also hit homeowners and villa owners.

When one hesitates and pulls back on such initiatives, a lot of time is lost because these plants and these species get such a large head start. The most environmentally effective and economically effective thing we can do is to try to work preventatively and not zero out these budgets.

My question is how the member views the volatility in this. Is he in favor of having a permanent solution instead of placing budgets where this funding becomes very volatile?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rebecka Le Moine for the questions, which I perceived as honestly intended.

First, I actually have to agree – why are we discussing this with invasive species and this zeroing out? It happened several years ago. But sure, we can discuss it, because it was a problem. And it is a problem when it becomes shaky; I completely agree with that.

That it did not result in any money for just land-living invasive species that year, a long time ago, had to do with the fact that Naturvårdsverket itself had to prioritize the money. They received a cut and had to prioritize, and then they cut back the work on invasive species. It was a misprioritization, I believe. Miljöpartiet usually thinks that Naturvårdsverket is right. Perhaps one does not think so in this case; that would actually be quite good.

This issue of invasive species is a very important area, but it has been handled sluggishly by all parties.

I remember the 2014–2018 parliamentary term, when I was active at the municipal level. At that time, we raised the issue of invasive species. The first time, we were called racists for raising that matter and that subject, which was completely absurd and foolish.

Before the second time we were to take this up, I had prepared myself and was going to debate with Miljöpartiet at a local level. I had done the same exercise that Stina Larsson had previously said she had done before this debate. I had looked in Miljöpartiet's program and searched for the words invasive species. It was not included in 2014 – even Miljöpartiet was therefore very late to the ball.

Now it is a matter of us, instead of bickering with one another, cooperating and ensuring that there are proper resources to combat invasive species.

It is astonishing that Miljöpartiet voted no regarding the alms disease.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I may not think that this was long ago. It was indeed the first measure that was taken, and we know from politics that it absolutely has to do with how one prioritizes in the budget. But if one thinks that it was long ago, it is a bit far-fetched to refer back to 2014 in the same type of argumentation.

We can look back just a little bit. The government went out and said that there would be a major investment, and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management expected perhaps 50 million and had requested it, but they then received 10 million. This happened recently. Thus, in this investment, they have de facto cut by 80 percent.

This concerns an area where we really should be able to be united and provide long-term rules of the game so that our authorities can do an effective job and so that there is an effective environmental policy.

On that track, I have a question for the member. He pursues a nationalist policy but at the same time ensures that we will soon have no old-growth or natural forest left in Sweden – something that is perhaps the national symbol of Swedish nature. The Swedish Forest Agency has warned in its report and said that if we do nothing, we will not have any natural forests left outside the protected areas within 25 years. If we do cut down these natural forests, it will be impossible to get them back.

It does not take much to understand that it is more efficient to protect what already exists than to spend money trying to recreate it. One gets much more nature conservation for the money by protecting the last primeval and natural forests that remain in Sweden than by subsequently working with artificial respiration and trying to keep a very devastated and shattered ecosystem alive.

What does the member think about the Swedish Forest Agency's alarm report, based on the member's position that we should pursue an effective environmental policy?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to say something about invasive species. After we let the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency prioritize themselves, we earmarked the resources. We learned that from what happened. The Sweden Democrats want more funds for the control of invasive species.

When it comes to the question of old-growth forest, there is extremely little of it, according to the concept's original meaning, and most of it is protected. There may possibly be some old-growth forest remaining in the mountain environment, i.e., mountain-adjacent forest. On the other hand, old-growth forest is the most protected type of nature, and the species that live in these forests have the greatest protection in Swedish nature. It is rather the case that southern Sweden needs more protected area than just that mountain-adjacent area.

It is a matter of using the resources in a prudent and wise manner, because we have limited resources. It costs a lot, and it restricts the resources and other people's opportunities to act and live in different parts of Sweden.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report MJU13, which concerns tightening the regulatory framework for invasive alien species and nature conservation. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 9.

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

We Social Democrats are very concerned about the consequences that the government's decisions regarding cuts in the environmental budget have had for nature conservation and our Swedish outdoor life. It is not only the biological diversity that is threatened by the government's decisions, but also our rich and well-developed outdoor life and cultural heritage have deteriorated significantly.

Madam Speaker! Biodiversity is decreasing at an ever-increasing rate, and it is a development that should worry us all. Biodiversity is not just about nature itself. It is also a prerequisite for functioning ecosystems, clean water, food production, and our ability to meet the challenges of climate change.

One of the growing threats to biodiversity is the spread of invasive alien species. Invasive species can cause very large damages to ecosystems, agriculture, forestry, and infrastructure. They can also affect human health. Once an invasive species has established itself, it also becomes significantly more difficult and expensive to combat. It is therefore absolutely crucial that the work is carried out early, consistently, and in the long term.

Against that background, it is fundamentally positive that the government is now presenting legislation aimed at limiting the spread of invasive alien species. The regulatory framework was needed, but legislation is not enough if it is not followed by sufficient resources and sustained work in practice. There is a major problem here.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have simultaneously carried out extensive cuts in the appropriations for combating invasive alien species. In 2023, the appropriation for combating invasive alien species on land was removed. The budget went from 55 million kronor in 2022 to zero kronor the following year. Research indicates that this has contributed to the increased spread we are now seeing.

We Social Democrats want to see, instead, a further crackdown in the work against invasive alien species both on land and in water. In our committee motion, we propose that the work should be strengthened and that authorities should be given better opportunities to quickly identify and manage new invasive species at an early stage. It is considerably cheaper and more effective to stop the spread early than to try to combat species when they have already achieved wide distribution.

We are also hesitant regarding the government's proposal to limit criminal liability for the unauthorized import of invasive alien species to cases where intent or gross negligence is present. Even today, it is rare that prosecution occurs, and several referral bodies have therefore pointed out that even negligence of the normal degree should be included. We believe that both the duty of care and the sentencing scale should be reviewed to ensure that the legislation effectively contributes to preventing the introduction and spread of invasive alien species.

Madam Speaker! This also illustrates a larger problem in the government's environmental policy, namely the extensive cuts. Even though the government presents legislative proposals, they simultaneously remove the resources required for them to function in practice.

During this parliamentary term, the environmental budget has decreased significantly. The management of valuable nature has deteriorated, and nature reserves, hiking trails, and local nature conservation projects have received fewer resources. The National Audit Office warned during 2024 that the management of our most valuable natural areas is neglected, and it is very serious.

Nature conservation is not just about protecting species and environments. It is also about outdoor life, regional development, and jobs across the entire country. Therefore, we Social Democrats propose that the appropriation for the maintenance of valuable nature be increased by 100 million SEK compared to the government's levels.

We also want to strengthen the protection of valuable forest. During the mandate period, the government has significantly reduced the compensation to forest owners for the formal protection of forest by almost 70 percent. This risks slowing down the work of preserving important forest environments. Therefore, we want to increase the appropriation by 300 million kronor more than the government.

Madam Speaker! The cuts have concrete consequences in different parts of the country. A clear example is the liming of acidified lakes and watercourses. Now, decades of successful nature conservation work risk being lost as a result of the government's cuts.

Here in Västernorrland, over a hundred lakes and many watercourses are limed every year to counteract acidification. Particularly protected watercourses such as Anundsjöån are completely dependent on liming. It is a task that has been ongoing since the 1980s and which protects some of the country's most important populations of river pearl mussel. If the liming decreases, these species risk being wiped out.

Madam Speaker! We see the same pattern in several areas: municipalities and county administrative boards are warning about reduced resources for climate adaptation, and the work with nature conservation, invasive species, and liming is being pushed back. At the same time, the government has had the means for extensive tax cuts for those with the highest incomes. Politics is about priorities, and this policy of cuts is both inefficient and short-sighted. When the government and Sverigedemokraterna do not invest in nature conservation today, the problems will become both more expensive and harder to manage tomorrow.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to see a policy that takes the threats to biological diversity seriously. The fight against invasive alien species must be strengthened, nature conservation must receive the resources required, and our most valuable natural areas must be managed in a long-term and responsible manner. It is about responsibility, about justice, and about what kind of society we want to leave behind.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the speech.

I want to talk a bit about the nature restoration regulation, which in various ways is central to nature conservation work. It did not get a majority in the Council. Therefore, the Presidency and the EU Commission lobbied Austria's Environment Minister to get her to change her mind, which she finally did, and thus went against her own government. The nature restoration regulation then passed in the Council. This means that the nature restoration regulation may be the regulation with the least democratic legitimacy in the EU's history.

The Social Democrats voted for the regulation in both the European Parliament and the Riksdag, and the Tidö parties voted against. In Sweden, the government wants the regulation to be implemented at the minimum possible level. The government wants the reference area of habitat types to be set to what applied at the time of EU accession, in the same way as in other EU countries. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has now, for the third time, delivered a much more ambitious plan for restoration.

We Sweden Democrats want to scrap the ordinance. If that is not possible, a minimum implementation shall be made, with the minimum possible negative effect on industries and people. I wonder: Do the Social Democrats want the 1995 reference areas and minimum implementation, or do they want to, just as the Left Party explicitly wishes in the basis for this debate, go with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposal? Which side do the Social Democrats stand on? It is important to know that.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Now I do not know if the nature restoration regulation is part of today's debate, but I can say that the Social Democrats stand on the Social Democrats' side, as they always do in politics. We stand on our own side and for our own policy.

When it comes to nature restoration, it is obvious that we should take care of our nature. It is about it being sustainable in the long term and, just as I said at the end of my speech, about what we want to leave behind for our descendants. It is a matter of us managing and taking care of our nature. Where it then lands and what it concerns depends on what is best for Sweden and based on our Swedish conditions. That is what is important for us Social Democrats.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I heard Malin Larsson talk about how we must take care of nature, but I heard nothing about the negative consequences for industries and people. That is the reason why we and the other Tidö parties want a minimum implementation and 1995 as the reference year.

The Swedish Forest Agency estimates that the far-reaching implementation of the regulation will result in 1.6 million hectares of productive forest land being excluded from use. According to the forest investigation, this corresponds to a loss of 8 million cubic meters of timber per year. Such a loss of raw materials in the already pressured Swedish forest industry would threaten 11,000 jobs in the Swedish forestry sector – not to mention the billion-dollar losses for companies, the state, regions, and people.

If the worst happens and a red-green government is formed, the Left Party – it is said – will work to ensure that we base it on a pre-industrial level when it comes to the nature restoration regulation. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposed plan is also in that direction. If the Social Democrats do not actively decide that 1995 shall be the reference year, we will therefore see these effects.

It is 11,000 jobs that will disappear, and a pulp mill will surely also be shut down. Will it be Obbola in Umeå? Will it be Ortviken in Sundsvall? Will it be Domsjö or Husum in Örnsköldsvik? Will it be Ställdalen or Hallstavik? One of these areas will be hit by the closure of its pulp industry, and in total, 11,000 people will lose their jobs. The Social Democrats must answer how they want to act in that matter.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the follow-up questions. There were quite a few parts, and I will take that one regarding the forest. It is, in fact, an issue that is close to my heart and the Social Democrats' – above all, the jobs linked to the forest.

Member of the Board Staffan Eklöf paints a scenario where jobs are to disappear in forestry and the forest industry. Unfortunately, this is something we are already seeing today, because the SD government has been very slow in handling the species protection issue. Now, almost four years of this mandate period have passed, and now the proposals are starting to appear on the table – but the jobs have already started to disappear. We see many warnings and many who are losing their jobs. We do not get enough timber for our industries.

Instead of talking about the Social Democrats and what we will do in the future, one could instead look at what you have done now and how it affects the jobs in the forest, Staffan Eklöf.

(Applause)

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Ecosystems are sensitive and are built on long evolutionary interactions. An alien, i.e., invasive, species can pose a threat to both ecosystems and biological diversity. An invasive species can take over habitats and push out native species. It can spread diseases, fundamentally change ecosystems, and cause large economic costs.

That is why both Sweden and the EU attach great importance to early detection, monitoring, and preventive work. The bill we are discussing today concerns amendments to the Environmental Code and the so-called Internal Market Act. The government proposes that anyone who introduces an invasive alien species to Sweden from another EU country should be able to be held liable for it. We Moderates think that is good, and we therefore support the government's proposal.

Madam Speaker! Today's report also concerns a large number of motions from the general motion period related to nature conservation. I wish to dwell on a few subject areas that are addressed in some of the motions.

We Moderates want more people to be able to live near water. We also want the ownership and the right of disposal for the individual property owner to increase. The Moderate-led government therefore took the initiative for a first step with relaxations in the shore protection, which began to apply on July 1 last year. The relaxations mean that the general shore protection has been abolished for lakes smaller than one hectare as well as for watercourses narrower than two meters. Likewise, the shore protection for waters established after June 30, 1975, has been abolished.

We Moderates, however, want to proceed with further relaxations. As it is today, for example, the person who owns a piece of land by a lake is not even allowed to mow the grass at the shoreline and set up a bench to be able to sit there and enjoy the view, as that would be a violation of the shore protection regulations. This is a completely unreasonable order, and therefore it is good that the government has appointed an inquiry into further relaxations in the shore protection. The inquiry shall be completed by the upcoming half-year mark.

We Moderates want the individual property owner and the municipalities to have a greater influence over the shore protection. The municipalities have the local anchoring and can best determine where it may eventually be justified with shore protection. It is not a matter for the county administrative board or the court to decide. It must become easier to build near the shore, especially in rural areas.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the protection of nature, we Moderates want to focus on what is most worthy of protection. Today, there are 65,000 square kilometers of formally protected land in Sweden. This corresponds to approximately 15 percent of the land area. The protections are of different characters, ranging from nature reserves to voluntary set-asides that the country's foresters have made to preserve high nature or cultural values.

Most of today's nature conservation consists of protecting forest land from human impact by prohibiting the activities taking place there. At the same time, biodiversity is most threatened in environments that have been cultivated but where the cultivation has ceased, for example, on grazing lands that have grown over after livestock farming has stopped.

Allowing former agricultural land to grow over again is a major threat to a rich animal and plant life. We Moderates therefore believe that the focus needs to shift from the protection of forests to safeguarding the diversity in the cultivated landscape. We also believe that it is a good arrangement that one should be able to reconsider a formal protection of land.

One must remember that nature is not static. Nature develops and changes constantly, with or without human influence. If the values that formed the basis for a decision on protection no longer exist, the protection of the land can be revoked, and the land can then be allowed to return to being, for example, production forest.

Madam Speaker! 50 years ago, the Forest Management Act in Sweden had a single purpose: to maximize timber production. Environmental goals were subordinate to production goals. In the then applicable Forest Management Act, there was a provision to fell low-producing forest. The provision was in Chapter 5, Section 3, and the low-producing forests are therefore popularly called 5:3 forests. This could, for example, involve sparse deciduous stands or forest on wet lands.

The forest owners were required by the authorities to fell, preferably drain, and preferably plant with spruce. At that time, there were even state subsidies for drainage. Furthermore, it is the same ditches that today one can receive subsidies to fill in.

Often, the forests that were logged had what we today would describe as very high natural values. Here and there in the country, however, there were forest owners with their own views, who defied the authorities and saw other values in their forests. The 5:3 forests that survived the authorities' ravages are in many cases the forests that today have the highest natural values – often so high that the authorities now deprive the landowners of the right of command over the forests with the justification that management of forests with such high natural values cannot be entrusted to any individual but is a matter for the state.

If it was a mistake to force forest owners to clear 5:3 forests 50 years ago, I believe it is a mistake in the same way when one now, to a large extent, deprives landowners of the right of command over their forests by referring to great natural values. My experience tells me that the state does not always know best. The current rules on forest protection are, in fact, counterproductive.

It often happens that a forest owner who has stands where very high nature values are being created hurries to harvest out of fear that the authorities will otherwise deprive him or her of the right of control over the forest, additionally without financial compensation. It is therefore sad to note that among the motions being treated in today's report, there are several where it is proposed to increase authority control and restrict the ownership rights for forest owners who have forests with high nature values.

We Moderates, instead, want to see legislation that guarantees that the person who lets their forest become extra old still gets to cut it down at a later stage, or that the person who creates high nature values on their land gets full freedom to decide over them.

If we give the forest owners greater freedom to manage their forest, we will see greater diversity. All forest owners have their own way of managing their forest. Often, criticism is heard from the environmental movement that our forests are spruce plantations. What is often forgotten is that these forests are a result of a conscious policy, decided in this chamber.

Politicians often think they know best. Personally, I believe that the individual forest owner knows what is best for his or her forest.

With those words, Madam Speaker, I move to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lars Johnsson for the speech. He and I agree in many parts regarding the Swedish forest, which is fantastic.

From the speaker's chair, we heard fine words about the importance of biodiversity and functioning ecosystems, including in the Swedish farming landscape. When one looks at the government's budget priorities, however, one sees a completely different picture. A clear example is the work against invasive alien species. The spread of these species risks having very serious consequences for our ecosystems, for agriculture and forestry, and for biodiversity. Despite this, the government chose to completely remove the funding for the control of invasive alien species on land during 2023. Research indicates that precisely that lost year has contributed to the increased spread that we see now.

So it is not just about a cut in the budget, but also about lost time, which makes the problems more difficult and more expensive to handle further ahead.

My question to the member is therefore quite simple: What concrete results does the member mean have improved as a result of these cuts?

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Larsson for the question.

It is completely correct that the appropriation was cut in 2023. This was actually a consequence of the fact that the appropriations for 2021 and 2022 were time-limited; there were, in other words, no so-called long-term funds in the previous budget. It returned to the normal level after the 2022 election.

After the criticism that came, a new initiative of 50 million kronor was made ahead of 2024. In order for the work to be more accurate, the government produced a national list of 40 prioritized species before making this initiative. This was to be a piece of work with a focus on what one should work towards. Without a clear direction for what is prioritized, there is no point in an increased grant. That is how the government has reasoned.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Johnsson, for the answer!

The allocation went from 55 million to 0 kronor and then to 50 million. We see the result now, just as I mentioned, and it is not a pleasing result. Research indicates that it has contributed to increased spread because time has been lost in this important work.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask a very topical question to the member. New research from SLU and Stockholm University shows that the trout in Ljungan are suffering significantly. Ljungan flows past my house at home in Medelpad and out into the Bottenviken. The fish cannot migrate as they should because the hydropower stops them, and then entire stocks risk disappearing. It is not just about the trout but about many species. It is about our living rivers, living aquatic ecosystems, nature, and that which many people live near and care very much about.

At the same time, the government now wants to change the Environmental Code in order to be able to set the environmental requirements at the lowest possible level according to EU law, so that the requirements on the environment can be lower. In Ljungan, no fish passages are planned, even though research shows that such are needed. I know that the member's Moderate colleagues themselves have visited Ljungan.

My question is therefore: Why are the Moderaterna and other parties in the government lowering the requirements instead of doing what is actually needed to save our fish and rivers and get back living river ecosystems?

(Applause)

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the supplementary question.

When it comes to the grayling in Ljungan, I will willingly admit that I have no closer knowledge of how it is with the stock. On the other hand, I can state that any problems with the migration routes are not something that this government can be blamed for. Those problems likely arose earlier.

Let me go back to the invasive species. The government has focused on the preventive work. Initiatives have been taken to tighten the penal provisions, including that which we are discussing here today. One has also given Tullverket increased powers. Economically, it is more efficient to prevent invasive species from entering and establishing themselves than to fight them once they have already established themselves. Therefore, the focus in the work has been changed slightly.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

Broadly speaking, there are two major threats to Sweden's biological diversity. One is overgrowth, and the other is logging.

To tackle the overgrowth, a variety of diversity is needed in our landscapes. We need to bring back grazing and mowing, i.e., a disturbance that enables many endangered species in Sweden to exist even in the future. There is legislation at the EU level, the restoration law, which the government has opposed and exerted much political force to prevent. This is consistent neither with what is being argued nor with the government's ideological home.

That nature should regain the splendor and beauty that prevailed in our parents' and grandparents' time is something I believe many Swedes dream of. Our biodiversity can be saved, but that requires active measures. It will require blood, sweat, and tears, but I believe many are willing to put in the effort to save the species that many believe define Swedish nature.

What is the member's position on restoring nature and counteracting the reforestation of our open landscapes?

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I view countering reforestation positively, but I am not sure that the EU's Nature Restoration Law is the best way. The best way is to have more grazing mules, which the government has addressed in its food strategy. A special compensation of 1,000 SEK per cow has also been introduced for farmers so that they shall keep dairy cows, and they are also looking at the possibility of doing the same for beef cows. More grazing animals are what is needed for it to look as it did before.

I live alone in the countryside. When I grew up, there was a dairy and 50 dairy farmers in the parish, but today there are neither any dairies nor milk producers. The development has occurred over time, and it is sad to see pasture lands grow over again.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I believe we share the sorrow over the overgrown landscapes.

A larger political move is needed to prevent a development where small producers and small farms need to be shut down because it is not economically profitable or sustainable to operate them due to the competition they are exposed to.

The second major threat to biodiversity in Sweden is the logging of our last old-growth forests. This is a completely different ecosystem. Old-growth forests are not something that humans can create; only time and nature can do that.

In some ecosystems, humans are needed to maintain tradition, but when it comes to old-growth forests, natural forests, and continuity forests, of which we have very few, time needs to be the great and important ingredient for life and biodiversity to be able to develop. Over 60 percent of the Swedish forest is younger than 60 years, that is to say planted and man-made. What we need to do, which is also the most economically efficient, is to ensure that the last old-growth forests, natural forests, and continuity forests are protected. It is much more effective than later trying to recreate something. We are actually talking about thousand-year-old ecosystems.

How does the member view this? Is the government prepared to take measures and reassess its forest policy and actually protect areas?

It sounds like it is only about banning people from logging. But, Madam Speaker, many landowners are standing in line and want to protect their forest, but there is too little money in the budget.

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the supplementary question.

When it comes to the budget, it is correct that we have cut the appropriations to protect forest. We do not think that there should be so much more protected forest without it being the landowner's matter to decide. It is quite logical and a result of our policy that we have gone that way.

I do not quite share the member's negative view on the development of the forest in Sweden. Compared to the 1990s, we today have three times as much dead wood in the forest, four times as many large deciduous trees, almost twice as much old-growth forest and 50 percent more deciduous trees. I think the development is heading in the right direction and do not share the member's perception.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

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

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

In 2022, the world's countries agreed on a global framework to stop the extinction of species. According to the framework, the loss of biodiversity shall be halted and reversed by 2030, and 30 percent of the earth's surface shall be protected by the same year. We shall also restore 30 percent of the damaged ecosystems. It is pleasing that ambitious goals are in place, but they will not be reached without effort.

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

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

How does the government respond to this serious situation? During the mandate period, brutal cuts have been made to nature conservation. Resources for the protection and management of valuable nature have been seized since the government took office. Money for environmental monitoring has been withdrawn, and coastal protection has been dismantled. At the EU level, Swedish ministers lobby even against other countries to stop important legislation on nature restoration, and in Sweden, there is still no goal to protect 30 percent of nature.

The so-called strategy and action plan for biodiversity that the government has presented is completely insufficient to reach both the Swedish environmental goals and the global goals. If one listens to the debates on biodiversity in this chamber over recent years, the right-wing parties' contributions deal to a remarkably large extent with how they want to kill more wild animals rather than how we should solve the crisis for biodiversity. It is madness, because this is a crisis that, to the highest degree, affects us ourselves.

The British intelligence service has sounded the alarm that several important ecosystems risk collapsing as early as the 2030s, which is in just a few years. Since we are dependent on these ecosystems for our access to food and water, this is an acute security threat. The more the diversity in nature decreases, the more the vulnerability within agriculture and forestry increases for droughts, floods, and storms. The more species that go extinct, the more the possibility of finding remedies for diseases in nature and technical solutions to the challenges of the future decreases.

The countries that, according to the British alarm report, will fare best are those that invest in the protection and restoration of ecosystems. Everything, therefore, speaks for making powerful efforts here and now to avoid catastrophic consequences. But the Swedish government has instead done its best to avoid taking measures and is trying to wiggle out of the requirements.

Madam Speaker! To meet the biodiversity crisis and live up to our commitments, a transformation of the entire society is required. For the same reason that Sweden has a climate policy framework to meet the climate crisis, the Left Party believes that a nature policy framework is needed to meet the nature crisis.

The framework should, in the same way as the climate policy framework, include legislation, objectives, and a nature policy council. At the beginning of a new mandate period, each government shall develop a nature policy action plan outlining which measures are to be taken to achieve the goals. In the same way as the Climate Policy Council, the nature policy council shall evaluate the government's work.

We in Vänsterpartiet also want a new interim target to be introduced in the environmental goals system that 30 percent of nature shall be protected, that all protected areas shall be managed so that they do not lose the nature values they aim to preserve, and that more nature shall be restored.

Many subsidies in, for example, agriculture, forestry, and fishing today contribute to increased exploitation of resources that damage habitats for many species. Sweden has promised in international agreements to act against this. Vänsterpartiet wants to see an action plan for how subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity shall be phased out and how sustainable alternatives can be supported instead.

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

The Environmental Goals Secretariat has estimated that there are approximately 1.5 million hectares of old-growth forest and natural forest that are not protected in Sweden. These are the most valuable forests in all of Europe. A new report from the Swedish Forest Agency shows that the logging of these forests is four times higher today than when the government took office. If we do nothing, all unprotected old-growth forests and natural forests could be gone in 25 years, and they can never be replaced. This unique, common natural heritage is therefore at risk of becoming paper because the government does not want to protect even the most valuable forests.

Today, there is a lack of knowledge regarding where the forests with the highest nature values are located in Sweden. Consequently, they risk being logged. Therefore, we believe that a national inventory of forests with high nature values must be carried out to map remaining primeval and nature forests and other forests with high nature values for the purpose of protecting, restoring, or managing them to benefit biodiversity.

Madam Speaker! It is important to remember that when one takes sharp environmental measures, it yields results. In several places along the coasts, one sees positive effects of phosphorus and nitrogen emissions being addressed through better treatment. The sea eagle was almost extinct in the 1970s, but today it has returned. Bans on environmental toxins have been a very important factor for this success. It shows that political decisions make a difference.

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

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

Since it is we humans who have put ourselves in this serious situation, it is only we who can and must solve it. Therefore, political leadership was needed. We shall continue to cultivate land, forest, and sea, but we must do so in a sustainable way. Ultimately, it is nature's carrying capacity that must set the limits for what we can do. I move for approval of reservation 5.

(Applause)

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

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Andrea Andersson Tay for a fiery speech in defense of nature and biodiversity!

I have no reason to doubt the honest intentions to preserve biodiversity. It is good, and we also have such an intention. But unlike the Left Party, it is important in our ideology to weigh things. It is a matter of weighing values against each other and seeing what negative consequences the action that follows one value has for other values.

Regarding what we are discussing today, we see truly negative consequences in other areas. During the previous exchange with the representative for the Socialdemokrater here, I pointed out that if, regarding the nature restoration regulation, one chooses the pre-industrial period reference instead of the year 1995, it likely means that 11,000 jobs will be lost. The Vänsterpartiet explicitly wants to do that. We can read that from the documents.

But it doesn't stop there. According to the documents, Vänsterpartiet also wants to set aside 30 percent of nature for protection. That means even less timber can be taken from the forests. Then they think that one should have no-cut, and then there will be even less timber. There will be much fewer jobs in the forest.

I grew up in areas that would be affected. I know that many of those who would be affected and lose their jobs sympathize with Vänsterpartiet. Does Vänsterpartiet not care at all that many of their voters along the Norrland coast will lose their jobs?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Staffan Eklöf spoke about weighing different values against one another. I agree that it is important. I would like to emphasize what negative consequences there would be if we do not succeed in stopping the nature crisis.

I mentioned in my speech the report from the British intelligence service. It indicates a risk that large and important ecosystems on a global level risk beginning to collapse as early as the 2030s, and what an enormous threat that is to the world's supply of food and water.

It concerns consequences that are not at all foreseeable and that are difficult to put a financial value on. We cannot live without these things. This really worries me, because it is something that simply must not happen. Then we must act to stop the nature crisis and the extinction of species.

I am listening to what researchers say is required for us to reverse the development. We have landed on the proposals that Staffan Eklöf refers to. What we want to do is to base it on what science says is required to protect, preserve, and restore biodiversity – nothing else. This is what we agree on with researchers in the field and Swedish authorities.

I also want to remind that when it comes to the goal of protecting 30 percent of nature, it is something that Sweden has committed to on a global level. The Swedish Minister for Climate and Environment was involved, and she herself wants to emphasize that she was part of negotiating the agreement. In that case, I think it is very strange that we should not follow up on it in Sweden and act in the same way at home.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Andrea Andersson Tay for the answer!

Now we have been told that researchers are being listened to and that science is being followed. But it has never been the case that all researchers have been in agreement. It has never been the case that one can point and say: That is science.

It is in the nature of research and science that one has different opinions, different theories, and different theses that clash with one another. Disagreements arise all the time.

One can listen to the researchers who created the Living Planet Index. In a previous speech, I pointed out that their analysis was one of the analyses that formed the basis for the theories about the great extinction of species.

When they did a renewed analysis with higher resolution, with more data points, they saw that the problem was much smaller than they had thought. It was very large for some species groups and some regions. Sweden was not one of those regions. It was among others Southeast Asia, I remember. There were more regions, but it is the only region that I remember. But Sweden was not a problematic country. In Sweden, it is much better ordered.

The problem lies with other countries. How do you manage to get other countries to change their policies if you want to stop the extinction of species, as it is called?

I note that I did not hear anything about all the workers along the Norrland coast who are losing their jobs. I therefore conclude that it is a loss that Vänsterpartiet is prepared to take that up to 50,000 workers in Norrland lose their jobs. Is that so, Vänsterpartiet?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! There are a huge number of new jobs that could be created if we invested more in nature restoration and in cultivating forest and land in a different way, so I do not have much regard for the threat scenarios that Staffan Eklöf paints up.

We in Vänsterpartiet listen to the broad science, while the Sverigedemokraterna instead pick out individual studies or researchers that suit their own argumentation.

If it were the case that the problems were smaller than we think, no one would be happier than I. But unfortunately, that is not how reality looks, and then we must listen to the science and do what is required to protect, preserve, and restore biodiversity. That is what our policy aims for.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate concerns both a government bill and a motion report, and I will begin by speaking about the bill that will be adopted a little later at the vote today – perhaps!

The proposition aims to strengthen Sweden's work against invasive alien species, i.e., species that spread outside their natural distribution area and cause damage to biodiversity, the economy, or human health.

The background is that the current regulatory framework is judged to have deficiencies in efficiency, clarity, and compliance. The main reason, however, is that invasive alien species today are one of the greatest threats to biological diversity. In certain locations, they are the greatest threat.

The main proposals in the bill concern stricter prohibitions and clearer responsibilities. The prohibition against importing, selling, cultivating, transporting, and releasing invasive species is clarified. The responsibilities of various actors are further clarified.

It is about expanded opportunities for interventions. Authorities are given stronger powers to decide on measures, for example, the control or removal of species, and the possibility to act faster in the early stages of dispersal.

More species can also be covered nationally. Sweden will have a greater opportunity to list and regulate species nationally, not just those that are on the EU list.

We note that the sanctions system is being tightened. There will be higher sanction fees and clearer penal provisions in the event of violations. The purpose is, of course, to increase compliance. More must follow the laws.

It is also about an increased obligation to take action. Landowners and others can to a greater extent be required to combat or manage invasive alien species on their land.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it is about clarified supervision. Roles between authorities are clarified so that it will result in more effective supervision.

The proposition therefore means, in practice, a more offensive and action-oriented regulatory framework, where the state receives better tools to stop the spread of invasive species while the requirements on individual actors are tightened.

I move for the approval of the bill and can at the same time move for the rejection of the reservations, even though I have not finished my speech.

I entered the chamber a little late, Madam Speaker. I am going on a trip for the Riksdag to the UN and have been attending a briefing ahead of this. I therefore did not catch the beginning of the debate, but based on what I have heard since I entered the chamber, I can note that we live in different worlds. There is no doubt about it based on how we handle the issues and furthermore based on how we view them.

I would like to address some of the reservations, including one that concerns the restoration of nature. Just as we heard earlier, there is considerable disagreement not only in this chamber but also at the EU level. This was actually a regulation that would not have passed if all countries had followed the mandates they brought with them from their governments. But Austria's Minister for the Environment chose not to follow their mandate, and the proposal thus passed.

For Sweden's part, if we are to proceed with the proposed implementation, this means a cost of 20 billion per year until 2032. Who is going to foot that bill? And what are we going to restore to? Do we want Swedish-produced food?

In the current situation, where we talk a lot about preparedness and increasing Swedish preparedness and becoming more self-sufficient in Sweden, we really do not need to take fully functioning farmland out of production. Instead, we should be producing more food. This proposal goes directly against this. It risks taking land out of production, reducing competitiveness, and increasing uncertainty, and thereby worsening Sweden's food supply and forestry industry. A reduced production in Sweden, Madam Speaker, risks increasing the climate impact globally – not decreasing it. This will be straight counterproductive.

When I read the reservation on the restoration of nature, I notice once again that we live in different worlds, as I said.

Allemansrätten is another part that is being raised. It is a fantastic right that we have in Sweden and a right that we must be careful with and cherish. But, Madam Speaker, then we must ensure, just as it stands in the reservation, that we continue to gain knowledge.

We also note how the right of public access is being exploited. The right of public access should not be exploited; it should be enjoyed and used. But unfortunately, we see how it is being exploited, and that is a significantly greater threat to the right of public access than anything else.

I noted that you were discussing the species protection just as I entered the chamber. I am glad that we have taken large steps forward in this. We can now get a species protection that works, and not least, we can get out compensation to those who in different ways must handle this when there are species that are so worthy of protection that forests must be protected. We must get a species protection that works in practice, and we must get a species protection where one as a landowner still has some form of right. I am glad that we are now getting there and obtaining a legal certainty worthy of the name.

We debated predators last week. There is a reservation here as well regarding this. One should listen to the research, it has been said. First and foremost: research is not science. Research is different researchers coming to different things. Then one has to see where the broadest contexts are and who it is that is probably right, because we have research that points in different directions.

If we are to listen to what a majority of the researchers say, it becomes very clear that the figures one moves with in the Left Party's reservation regarding wolves do not match what the researchers say.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it is about the shore protection. I note that it is one thing, then another, when it comes to this. If we are to get all of Sweden to function, the countryside must function. Without the countryside, the rest of Sweden stops, because it is the countryside that ensures the rest of Sweden gets food and also timber and everything else that we need from the forest.

Madam Speaker! Then we must also have people who live out in the countryside. Here, the shore protection and its reform are an important part for us to get more people to want to settle in the countryside. That is what we need for the countryside to survive in the long term.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Ottosson for the speech!

A question I want to raise is the liming. Many around the country are deeply concerned about the cuts in the liming of acidified lakes and watercourses. This applies in particular in Värmland, the member's own constituency. There, many local representatives, including Christian Democrats, have been clear about their concern over the consequences this will have.

When the member received a question about this from my colleague in a previous debate, the answer was that this is not something that is prioritized in the Government Offices and that the member therefore could not answer how the cuts have come to be.

But the Christian Democrats are in the government. Furthermore, the party is responsible for the department where many of these issues are handled. Despite that, the member and his party do not seem to want to take any responsibility. At the same time, municipalities, county administrative boards, and local representatives see every day how the consequences of the cuts are becoming increasingly concrete in their daily lives.

Is the member's and the government's message that the municipalities simply have to handle the consequences of the cuts themselves? Or are the Christian Democrats prepared to take responsibility for strengthening the resources for the important work with the calcification?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Just as Malin Larsson pointed out, I had an exchange of remarks on this not so long ago. However, I do not quite agree with the member's view on what I said in that exchange. I find it very difficult to believe that I would have expressed myself in such a way that this would not be prioritized. In that case, Malin Larsson may produce the transcription of that speech and show it to me.

What I do know that I raised in the exchange of remarks was that we have an additional challenge in Värmland concerning Gåsgruvan, one of the largest mines in Sweden, where we extract limestone to be used for liming. There, environmental regulations have put a stop to us being able to continue mining. It concerns the wastewater that is discharged, which has a uranium content that means we currently cannot continue to mine.

The strange thing about the crow's song, Madam Speaker, is that one can go to any kiosk or shop, buy a bottle of sparkling water and drink it. That water has a higher uranium content than the leachate flowing out from Gåsgruvan. It is perfectly okay to drink, but to continue mining limestone there is not okay. That is what I find strange.

Yes, Malin Larsson, I am absolutely concerned about the consequences – no doubt about that! We see how incredibly important this is. It is a task that has been long-term, and I hope that it continues. I and we are very clear about what applies: We must continue the long-term work so that we do not drop the ball.

I push as much as I can. Then it is, as Malin Larsson knows, on the other side of the water that the decisions are ultimately made. But I do, in any case, what I can so that the Government Offices make the right decision in the matter.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I also want to raise another important issue. It concerns species protection, which the member also touched upon in his speech.

The government recently sent – I believe it was last week – a press release regarding the change concerning the translation. We know that the species protection has for a long time caused problems for our forest owners. Finally, after nearly four years, things are starting to happen here, and it is long-awaited.

The amendment is made due to a correction in the Swedish language version of the EU Birds Directive. The purpose is that the Swedish regulatory framework should not be more extensive than what EU law requires, it is written.

The press release states that the amendment is intended to be an adaptation to the corrected wording of the Birds Directive. However, a more detailed explanation is missing regarding how the amendment is intended to affect practical application, and also how supervisory authorities and courts are expected to interpret the provisions going forward. The amendment thus risks contributing to continued uncertainty where landowners, authorities, and others are once again referred to judicial review to obtain clarity on the legal situation.

Therefore, I want to ask the member how he views the risk that the lack of a statement of reasons for the regulation, as it is called, for the amendment to the Species Protection Ordinance leads to continued legal uncertainty and a need for judicial review instead of creating the clarity and predictability that we actually need.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will answer briefly: It is good that Malin Larsson sees the good things the government is doing in the area to improve species protection, or rather improve for forest owners so that they get a species protection that works and we get a legal certainty worthy of the name.

There were two priorities. The first was to make the change quickly. The second was to provide a statement of motives. One does not exclude the other. The change is made – that was step one. Step two is coming, and it concerns the statement of motives – exactly what Malin Larsson is calling for. That, too, is therefore on the way.

(cont. § 13)

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