Forest policy

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Now we are to speak about forest policy in the chamber once again. We do that often, and it is always interesting, always rewarding and always important.

First, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report, Madam Speaker.

The politicians, the EU, the authorities, the environmental movement and so on – all of them want, in one way or another, a share of the Swedish forest. It has also become clearer over the recent years that more and more people feel that they have a share in the Swedish forest. What all too few remember in that discussion, Madam Speaker, is that the forest is owned by someone. There is a forest owner behind the forest. Perhaps the owner has taken care of the forest over generations, in their own and their family's way, in order to live off and cultivate the forest.

Forest policy

We have had a very well-adapted forest policy in Sweden since 1993. It implies freedom under responsibility and that production and environment shall weigh equally. It is a policy that Swedish forest owners have lived up to very well and a policy that we Moderates can continue to stand behind. But unfortunately, one has drifted further and further away from that policy, Madam Speaker. In different ways, one has moved away from the deregulated – that which gave the forest owners the power over their own forest. It is a development that is very worrying.

In the newspaper Land Skogsbruk, we were able some time ago to read about the forest owner Lars Carlsson in Dalarna. He wanted to fell a spruce forest that was infested by both bark beetle and other nuisances, so it was time to start over.

An association took the opportunity to go out and conduct an inventory and found knärot in the logging area, and it resulted in a logging stop. The forest owner Lars Carlsson did, however, reach an agreement with the authority on how he should work with this, and he was prepared to exempt a part - I believe it concerns 10 percent - in that specific logging area in order to promote and preserve the knärot but still be able to continue to cultivate and live off his forest.

Now he is waiting for the outcome in the Land and Environment Court of Appeal. It has been almost two years since the logging notification was submitted. This is a forest owner who wants to take considerations in various ways but who wants to live off what he actually owns. It is about forest that is important - that is the engine - for the countryside, especially in areas like Hedemora in Dalarna where the forest can be the most important part of business in the countryside.

This is an example of how the Species Protection Ordinance works. We have debated it in the chamber, and at the initiative of the Moderates and the Centre Party, a number of motions were directed regarding this during the previous parliamentary term. Some of them have been implemented, and some of them need to be handled – urgently.

We still see the problem that forest owners, thanks to the Species Protection Ordinance, are themselves to investigate whether the state may restrict the individual's right to use the forest to which they have constitutionally protected ownership rights. It is a completely inverted order, and we must change that.

We consider that the voluntariness regarding the exemption of forests is also not working. It concerns the voluntariness that the forest bill during the previous parliamentary period was intended to lead towards. We see time and again how forest owners' usage is restricted, and that does not constitute voluntariness. Despite that we were so clearly in agreement in this chamber about that was where we wanted to go, it has not clearly reached our authorities how they should work towards the forest owners.

I have an example. A couple of months ago, I spoke with a manager who had submitted a felling notification for a deciduous stand. The stand consisted mostly of aspen but also approximately 10 percent noble broadleaf. The authority responded that the case had to be handled with consultation since it concerned a noble broadleaf stand. The manager and the forest owner could clearly show that it was not a noble broadleaf stand and contested the authority's response – whereupon a few weeks passed, and then a letter arrived from the authority stating that the area is being given formal protection.

Where is the voluntariness? Where is the communication with the forest owner? It does not exist. We see these problems time and again, Madam Speaker. We have drifted away from the forest policy decided by this chamber, which implies freedom under responsibility, because there are so many who do not trust the forest owners.

These are forest owners who over time have managed the forests, built up large timber stocks and, over the last 30 years, increased production by 1 million cubic meters per year. Over the last 30 years, they have increased a number of the biological values linked to dead wood in the forest, to old trees, to the number of deciduous trees and to the number of birds in the forest. These are curves pointing upwards, and it happens with the help of the forest owner's freedom under responsibility. Nevertheless, it is desired in various ways to restrict the constitutionally protected ownership and management.

This is a problem that this government views very seriously and will address with various inquiries during the term of office. But it is also the case that this government will need to work forcefully towards the EU, which the government has already done.

A number of proposals have come from the Commission during this period – I believe it is on the order of eight different proposals from the EU concerning the forest. We can probably be broadly in agreement that Swedish self-determination over the forest no longer really exists, but now it is more about trying to work with these EU proposals in a good way so that they land in a way that is good for Sweden. For example, the proposal on restoration law is underway; it is in the pipeline.

A couple of weeks ago, I was able to receive a report that the consultancy firm Macklean had prepared specifically to pinpoint what happens when we stop using the forest. What happens if we remove 10 percent of the use of the forest? It concerns approximately 80,000 small houses, approximately 200 million people's toilet paper, and all small houses in Östergötland and Sörmland, which could be heated by residual products from these 10 percent. All of this would occur if we took 10 percent more forest out of production in Sweden.

Then we can shift the percentage and follow the figures to truly understand what it means. It means 3 billion less in tax revenues to the state. It means reduced export revenues of approximately 15 billion. One must understand these things when one wants to restrict or reduce the use of the Swedish forest.

Madam Speaker! If we could see that the Swedish forest owners are doing this in a bad way - that they are not taking care of the forest and nature in a good way - I could understand the war being waged against individual forest owners, but we are not there. Swedish forest owners are doing this in an exemplary way, which means they can deliver timber to the Swedish forest industry.

We can deliver environmental benefits. We deliver great climate benefits when we manage our forests and keep them in growth.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Widegren for the speech. We share the commitment to the forest.

I read an article the other day about how it can already be seen that the number of bark beetles is increasing in the traps that Skogsstyrelsen has set out. It has been very warm and fine weather, and then the beetles emerge and swarm. This naturally raises a great concern ahead of the summer, especially if the summer becomes dry and warm. As the weather forecasts look right now, that is exactly what it is going to be.

We know that the bark beetles cause enormous damage to our spruce forests. It is large economic values that are being destroyed. One can compare it with large forest fires - in the summer of 2018, 32 million cubic meters of spruce were killed by the beetles, while approximately 2 million cubic meters of forest disappeared in the fires. The bark beetles cause enormous damage.

The funding for nature management, which the government parties have cut, could be used, among other things, to prevent spruce bark beetle attacks. Given the great risk that already exists ahead of the coming summer, I wonder if Member Widegren can answer what level of preparedness the government parties have regarding this.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question and the commitment.

It is really not any farming weather outside; we can agree on that. Warm and sunny early in May is not weather that we want, either for agriculture or for the forest in this situation. We would need to have a cool and rainy spring. Farmers usually say that all rain before midsummer is of benefit, as everyone knows.

The spruce bark beetle is a very big problem. The trend has been positive over the last two years, but there are great fears that it will turn upwards again if we now get a significant dry summer. The most important work one can do is to be out in one's forest and be quick to pick and fell as soon as one suspects the slightest attack. This is not something that funds need to be allocated to, because it is a measure that pays for itself if it is undertaken at the right time.

We have actually had discussions about preparedness because it will be a very dry summer, perhaps especially when it comes to fire protection for the forest. It is important that one is not caught off guard and that there is preparedness. That discussion exists both among the Tidö parties and at the Government Offices. There is a plan to handle this if a crisis arises.

I hope and believe that the individual forest owners themselves have the best control over the spruce bark beetle attacks. I also hope and believe that the public forest – the state forest and protected areas – is managed in a normal way so that we can avoid severe spruce bark beetle attacks.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Widegren for the answer.

If there is a plan, it would be exciting to hear a bit more about it. What I heard in the answer was that it depends on the individual forest owner. In connection with previous spruce bark beetle attacks, we have highlighted that it is important with information campaigns and so on to get out the knowledge of how to act and manage it. There are also state-owned lands where this must be managed, and in that case, it is good that there is money in the budget so that it can be managed.

Member Widegren raised several different examples of things that do not work in his speech. Now, however, it is still Member Widegren's party, together with the other government parties, that is in power. What is being done about all the problems and concerns that the Member raised in his speech? It has now been eight months since the government took office.

The Chairman also pointed out in his speech that this must be handled urgently, but I have still not seen any proposals. What is happening, and when is it happening in that case?

Member of the Board Widegren also mentioned the authorities. They have actually reacted and acted. They have sent a petition to the government, among other things, regarding the protection of forests with high natural values. Due to the contradictory political signals, they are having difficulty performing their work.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! It is because we from the Moderates' side, and several of our coalition partners, do not want to continue taking more land out of production. We have seen this as a major problem. What has happened, especially over the last eight years, is that more and more land has been taken out of production, which is very unfortunate when the forest is supposed to do so much else.

This is one of the clearest signals. The reason we are removing money to protect more nature is that we believe the limit for how much land should be taken out of production is beginning to approach.

What has the government done then, and what does the government intend to do? The government has done quite a lot, especially when it comes to EU issues. While the previous government showed a rather small interest in even being represented at important meetings, this government has in several ways taken up the baton when it comes to the forest and forestry issues and in that way been able to counteract, for example, how RED would go through in the matter of how we can use our residual products. This government has truly shown its mettle when it comes to the EU and the forest.

Just as one could read in leaked documents in the Altinget about two weeks ago, the government is in the process of preparing directives for a new forest investigation that is to address a number of the problems we have seen during the past parliamentary terms, also in connection with the mandates that exist regarding the forest.

I would say that the government, during the short time it has been in power, has to a large extent addressed forest issues. I look forward, for example, with confidence to what the new forest inquiry will lead to, precisely because we want to strengthen the individual forest owner's possibilities and not let him be restricted too much by the authorities.

We have also looked into the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's reporting of protected nature and that Sweden shall report in the Birds and Habitats Directives, as other countries do. So, quite a lot is happening from the government linked to the forest.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The forest is a subject that truly engages. It is perhaps also the subject that we debate most in this chamber. We now also have quite large dividing lines when it comes to the forest, at least in the environmental area.

Madam Speaker! That Sweden is a forest country characterized by forestry and our forests is clearly evident in everything from our folklore and various stories to the knowledge we possess. The forest recurs in much, and Swedes seek out the forest.

I can go to my own family: My grandfather worked in the forest in the winters and rafted in the summers. My maternal grandfather worked at the sawmill his whole life, so he was stone deaf after standing by the saw. My father, now retired, educated himself in cellulose technology. He was a chemist and then sold pulp bricks all over the world with Swedish technology from Swedish forests. My sister-in-law has defended a thesis on cellulose bacteria. The forest is, therefore, something that more or less exists in our DNA. We grew up with this, and many of our values come from the forest.

The forest has a long rotation period. That which my grandfather planted is perhaps what I will harvest now, during my lifetime. And that which I plant is perhaps what my niblings and their grandchildren will get to enjoy.

This also implies a very great responsibility. These are great values that are to be managed over a long period. We are constantly receiving new knowledge, and we must implement it. Is it something that research shows today, it is that today's forestry is not sustainable. We are not reaching our established goals - goals that we have agreed upon in this chamber. This applies to both the environmental quality goal Living forests and the environmental quality goal A rich flora and fauna.

When the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency released its in-depth evaluation of the Swedish environmental goals in January, they emphasized two things: climate and biodiversity. They had a specific section on the forest and a large number of concrete proposals to the government on how biodiversity can be increased and how forest owners can contribute. It is also about how one can help alleviate the effects of climate change and ensure that climate emissions are reduced.

Climate change is not just one of the environmental goals we are not achieving; it also affects the other environmental goals and society as a whole. With increased climate impact, we also get other changed values in the forest and in other parts. It is also about our own health.

Madam Speaker! We see that biodiversity is being depleted both globally and in Sweden. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, together with its sister agencies, has conducted a socio-economic analysis of biodiversity in the forest landscape. It shows that there are good opportunities to increase social benefit through improved governance and incentives for sustainable use.

Madam Speaker! Today, over 1,000 species are counted as forest-related on the red list. The intensive and large-scale clear-cutting and clear-cut forestry are pointed out as devastating for both biodiversity, water quality, and the climate. We see an altered hydromorphology, that is, the water's path in the forest. We see that it is other species that arrive, and we get a reduced fertility.

The standardized forestry we have today is based on a few tree species. We see extensive clear-cutting and unsustainable soil preparation; it is still the dominant forestry model today. As I said, it is this that is pointed out as the reason why we do not achieve our environmental goals when it comes to Living forests.

Madam Speaker! An ecosystem is interconnected. A single tree can house an ecosystem, but it is also part of a larger one. When we fragment our forests and do not see the whole, we can cause great damage.

I want to say already now that I will vote in favor of reservation 9. It is precisely about ensuring an ecologically functioning landscape, where species can spread and where enough of the species' habitats are preserved. One must have a landscape perspective in the management. One can also call it an ecosystem approach, and it shall be the central starting point.

We believe that the authorities' work with landscape planning in cooperation with landowners needs to be deepened and that the state's responsibility for ecological functionality should be able to influence the identification of areas with valuable nature and ensure that it is protected from negative impacts.

We also consider it necessary that a systematic national forest inventory be carried out. It will become a knowledge base for our forest owners and an important tool for precisely this landscape planning. When one manages something, it is important to know what exists and what needs to be protected. That which is to be cultivated should be cultivated in a responsible and sustainable manner.

We have almost 50 percent, more precisely 47 percent, individual forest owners in Sweden. I believe that all of these want to do the right thing, but it is a great responsibility to ensure that everyone has the same knowledge about what they should do and what opportunities exist as a result of the new knowledge. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet believe that it is important that we increase knowledge through education and knowledge bases for forest owners.

We want Sweden to be a green pioneer country in sustainable and nature-oriented forestry. Continuous-cover and nature-oriented cultivation methods have great advantages for biodiversity, and we must achieve a forest continuity - also for the carbon storage in the forest.

We heard in a previous exchange of remarks about voluntary removals. It is incredibly important. But in order to be able to carry them out in the right way and in a way that ensures we contribute to the whole, more knowledge is needed. Therefore, Miljöpartiet has a reservation about increasing the dialogue with forest owners and ensuring that this knowledge is made possible.

When one looks at area protection, it is seen that what exists today is not sufficient to meet our national and international environmental goals. We need a transition to a sustainable use, but we also need to have more areas protected.

Madam Speaker! I have one final point, and I shall return to the climate. We must increase the work on climate adaptation. When it comes to forestry and agriculture, there will be major climate-related risks. We need climate adaptation of our forestry partly so that we do not lose values, and partly so that we achieve increased profitability.

The arteries and processing materials that we deploy today may not withstand a future climate. We therefore need more knowledge and research on how we are to reach the goals. We must also ensure that we have enough forest left so that we have a resilience in the system that helps us buffer against climate changes.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the speech!

In the presentation, it was mentioned that we need increased governance. A reservation from Miljöpartiet concerns continuous cover forestry, and it states that continuous cover methods shall be applied to at least 30 percent of the area constituting production forest by 2030. In the reservation that Emma Nohrén moved for approval, it states that we must have a developed landscape planning.

As I interpret it, both of these reservations, together with this regarding increased governance, point towards a desire to largely strip the individual forest owner of their right of disposal. It is someone else who shall decide so that we may reach the goal that Miljöpartiet wants.

Is it the case that Miljöpartiet does not stand behind freedom under responsibility in forest policy? Is it the case that Miljöpartiet wants significantly clearer state governance of the individual forest owner and their use of their forest?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for highlighting two of our excellent reservations, which I naturally stand behind. In one of them, we also write that we want an additional interim target in the environmental goals system concerning increasing the proportion of uncut forests to 30 percent. It is exactly the same as what we do in several other areas. We must take in new knowledge, and we see that this is part of being able to maintain and regain biodiversity and also achieve greater resilience against climate change.

I do not see it as that we want to take anything away from our forest owners. Rather, we want to provide tools so that the goal of living forests, which our forest owners shall also be part of and contribute to, can be achieved. Without knowledge, without the possibility to see what exists and to know how my forest is connected with other forests, it is difficult for me to make the right choices. This is precisely about the knowledge that I spoke of in my speech.

Then we must have certain rules. We cannot let everyone do whatever they want, because then we do not see the whole picture - just as Kjell-Arne Ottosson, if he has a factory, cannot do whatever he wants. There are certain laws, rules, and frameworks to adhere to.

However, it is usually the one who works on the site, who owns their forest and who has managed it, who knows what needs to be done. But that person may not have the knowledge, or the opportunity to acquire it, regarding how it affects the big picture. We want to contribute to that knowledge through this landscape education.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the answer!

Even though Emma Nohrén thinks they are excellent reservations, I do not share that view. It is rather that the reservations worry me a little bit.

Emma Nohrén says that we should give our forest owners tools to reach the goals. But it doesn't feel like a voluntary toolbox, it is a toolbox that is placed in front of them. One says "This is what you shall use" and points with the whole fist.

It is also more and more, which I had intended to come to in my own speech, that points out that the goal of living forests is a goal that we would not reach even if all human activity on the earth's surface were gone for a hundred years. We thus have goals that are set at such a level that they cannot be reached. The question then is whether we should instead revise the goals so that we have goals that are actually achievable. It becomes very strange if we are to strive towards a goal that turns out to be impossible to achieve. Those we then punish are our own forest owners, the Swedish forest industry, and everyone who in some way enjoys the Swedish forest and everything it provides. In that case, one ends up in a completely different competitive position compared to many other countries.

Then perhaps I also do not have the same trust in the state as the Green Party seems to have. We do not need to go back that far to find a time when the state was very clear that the broadleaf forest should be removed. They aerial sprayed forests with hormoslyr so that the broadleaf forest would be removed. It was the state that spoke of it. It didn't turn out very well, as we see today. The landowners who followed their own heads have today perhaps the most valuable forests, because they thought for themselves and did not do as the state said.

Despite this toolbox, Emma Nohrén believes that if we are to get the forest owners on board, it must be with a form of voluntariness and that we do not point with the whole fist? Or does Miljöpartiet see pointing with the whole fist as the only means for us to reach our other set goals?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a pity that this is the final word, because now I cannot ask the member if his party no longer stands behind our environmental goals and does not want to keep Living Forests as one of our environmental goals. I will have to take the floor from the member later and ask that question.

I absolutely believe that our forest owners are capable of doing things and want to do things. It shouldn't be the whole hand. On the other hand, we must have a certain framework to stick to. We must be able to provide opportunities for a toolbox of what can be done.

Just as the member says, there is knowledge we believed in before that is not relevant today. We have learned much more. We have gained new knowledge about the forestry we are engaged in today. Despite the fact that we have practiced freedom with responsibility for so long, we also see that we are reducing biodiversity in the forest today. Therefore, we perhaps need to have a new way of looking at certain parts, and we need to preserve our valuable forests.

With increased technology and better forestry machinery, we can access forests that we could not access before. This means we also have to think about taking better consideration. We are harvesting more of our older forests, forests that have not previously been harvested. They are what we consider we need to preserve.

The forest proposal was mentioned earlier, and there we all agreed that it would be a give and take. It feels like the member and the government are now engaging in a bit of cherry-picking and only taking the voluntary part but not the other parts that were also there. What we agreed on was that valuable forests should not be logged.

There was also money, 2 billion kronor, in the budget bill that the S-MP government submitted in 2021 to carry out these things. But as is known, it fell, and 2 billion kronor disappeared. After the new government took office, another half billion disappeared. Then it is difficult to carry out what we have agreed upon here.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! When looking through the report we are debating today, it feels, even though our motions are of course distributed across different reports, as if the debate will largely be a reprise of the two debates we had two weeks ago on biological diversity and overall environmental issues, because the questions overlap so significantly.

In the report - I further move for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety - there are 49 reservations. Despite this, I believe that we in this chamber, as things stand now, have a fairly large consensus on forest issues. I believe, based on what I read in the report and hear in the debate in general, that we have six of the eight parties in this chamber who largely stand behind a forest policy where we truly have freedom under responsibility and where we see that the forest is enormously important for the individual landowner, for jobs, for tax revenues and for Aktiebolaget Sverige.

I hope that we can now move forward in forest issues with great consensus. Not least now that the Social Democrats have released the Green Party's hand, I believe the chance of getting further is significantly better.

The forest plays a very important role in limiting our climate impact. It is extremely important for absorbing greenhouse gases and also absorbs significantly more greenhouse gases than it emits, so that we in Sweden are almost climate neutral with our territorial emissions. It contributes to renewable raw materials and replaces both fossil fuels and materials. Nearly two-thirds of Sweden's area also consists of forest. It is our great competitive advantage in the transition. We must not forget that.

In 2021, the export value of the Swedish forest was 164 billion kronor, and a total of 120,000 people were employed in everything the forest provides, from work in the forest to processing. It provided 3 billion in tax revenues. Then we have that which cannot be measured in kronor and öre, namely the quality of life and everything we can use the forest for to improve our quality of life.

It has already been pointed out here that the protection shall be based on voluntariness. We must go even further there. We unfortunately note that some authorities still do not act in accordance with the intention of the decision on changes that was voted through with a fairly large majority in this chamber about a year ago.

Private forest owners have voluntarily and without receiving compensation from the state set aside 560,000 hectares of forest. The Swedish Forest Agency's figures also point to increased voluntary set-asides. The will is therefore there. But the forest owner must, as I have said earlier in this rostrum, be able to trust the state, while at the same time the state must trust the individual forest owner.

It sounds like we have enormous logging in Sweden. But it is 1 percent of the forest that is logged annually. It is important to keep that in mind in the debate.

The EU has also been mentioned. The EU is a source of concern regarding the forest. The EU treaty does not mention forest with a single word. That means that the forest is not EU policy. It is national competence, and it should be national competence. In proposal after proposal from the EU Commission, it is clear that they do not have an understanding of how the forest works. We have different types of forests in Europe. We cannot have a common view on how our forests should be managed.

Madam Speaker! It will be a challenge. We have a kind of two-front war. We must struggle with the many proposals coming from the EU while organizations and parties in Sweden do everything they can to hinder the use of forests here. A two-front war is never good. Then you always have your back against someone. It is truly a daunting task to manage all of this.

We heard earlier about restoration law. According to it, Sweden would need to take measures on almost 16 million hectares. These are gigantic areas that we are to take measures on, whatever one puts into that concept. I note, however, that restoration law in the handling in the EU receives criticism in committee after committee. Several committees have already voted down the legislative proposal. And several of the large party groups are now criticizing it very clearly and showing that it will not hold.

Madam Speaker! The tiresome thing is that it is largely based on ignorance. In February, we were behind a conference on bioeconomy where we received a digital visit from, among others, the Directorate-General for Environment in Brussels. High-ranking representatives then stand and say that we cannot continue to burn decent timber. But in Sweden, we do not burn decent timber. There is no forest owner who does that.

Furthermore, during the previous parliamentary term, we heard a representative say from this rostrum that we cannot continue to make toilet paper out of the best timber. The landowner who sends his timber to a pulp industry and only receives a third of the price compared to if he sends it to a sawmill no longer exists either.

So, they are trying to project an image that is not true in order to make their own policy fit. We must get out of that. It must be able to be based on facts. Therefore, it is very good that we move forward with, among other things, Article 17 of the Birds and Habitats Directives regarding the reporting of forests, so that we land correctly in that reference area. We shall - again - not penalize ourselves just so that we are always "Bror Duktig" while other EU countries do a bit more of what they want.

I must also remind that we often hear in the debate that we have large plantations of forests, that the forests are not diversified. But according to the latest national forest inventory, the areas where there is only one dominant tree species constitute only 4 percent of the forest area. The area where we have four to six tree species constitutes 33 percent of the area, thus many times more. But we do not hear that, instead, there is a great focus on the 4 percent. One does not want to speak about the rest – again, so that one's picture will hold up.

I have already addressed the environmental quality objective Living Forests in the exchange of remarks with Emma Nohrén. Therefore, I will leave it.

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing that we have a new government that points out a new path and a new view on forest policy. We truly show that we trust the individual landowner and the forest owner, and we see what the forest can give and must give if we are serious about making a transition.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

I have a question that I have also touched upon in a previous exchange. Perhaps Member Ottosson can answer it. The Member belongs to the governing party Kristdemokraterna, which also holds the position of Minister for Rural Affairs.

I wonder how the thinking is when it comes to forests with high nature values. How should the forests with high nature values be managed by our authorities and by the landowners? In the speech, the member himself raised the issue of voluntariness. Here we have landowners who voluntarily want to protect their forests with high nature values. But there is no money.

Not many truly understand the government's forest policy. Even the Director General of the Swedish Forest Agency has, via a petition to the government, requested a clarification on how forests with high natural values should be managed. Perhaps the member can answer that.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

We should actually always strive for all forests to have high nature values when they are mature for harvesting and a harvesting notification is submitted. That is where we should strive. That is always where we should be. If we are there, the danger is significantly less that the state will step in and point with the whole fist and say stop.

We will not get this today, however, because many landowners are deliberately cleaning up. They are terrified of not being able to extract what might be their pension insurance, the forest they have managed for so many years.

But - again - if the landowner can trust the state and the state trusts the landowner, we could go significantly further. We have, and continue to, set aside more on a voluntary basis. I absolutely believe that is the way to go.

As for the money, it was a clear signal that we must stop the pursuit of quantity, the pursuit of number of hectares, and switch to quality instead. We must, at the very least, manage that which the state has already taken from private landowners. That was not managed in a good way either. There are quite a few examples of that. We must first manage what we have already taken.

When the state intervenes and takes forest, there is no doubt; the landowner must be fully compensated. But the state should not always have to intervene and point with a heavy hand. The absolute best thing is to achieve voluntariness.

I will have to return to the last question in my next reply.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member for the attempt at an answer! But how are forests with high nature values to be managed by authorities and landowners? We heard the previous member Ottosson and the member Widegren, who together sit in the government position, talk about that one should not take more land out of production. But when owners voluntarily want to protect land - the voluntariness is incredibly important and fundamental - that apparently does not apply. And how and when are they to be paid? They are waiting now!

The government's own agency sent a petition because they did not understand what the policy wants. So contradictory it is! They asked for a clarification on how to handle this. The workload is enormous at the agencies. When forests are to be protected and there is no money, a logging notification is sent in instead, which must be handled. It takes enormous resources.

The question remains, then. How is this to be handled? What is the government representatives' answer? They must clarify and, actually, as a government, speak about how this is to be handled.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I truly look forward to the forest inquiry, which will take several of these parts into consideration. The inquiry will hopefully ensure that we move forward in these issues. I believe that the Social Democrats will also be on board now that they have let go of the arm's length with the Green Party.

What are "high nature values"? It does not seem to be an objective question. There are quite a few people traveling around the country, looking for certain indicator species and reporting them in Artportalen. This applies, for example, to the previously mentioned Siberian weasel and the pine tit. If one is to follow the reports to Artportalen – they should mean a stop to logging – then it is a stop for logging on half of Sweden's area.

When it says there is a knärot somewhere - does it mean that there are high natural values? It is a fairly common herb that has become a signal species. We must be able to see what is truly worth protecting, and if the landowner does not enter on a voluntary basis, the state might have to do so in these cases. But it really should not be the default setting.

I see the Swedish Forest Agency's request as something positive. It is very good that the government gets the opportunity to be even clearer towards the authorities by us having abandoned the line that the SM Government pursued. Now we have a line where we trust the individual forest owner. That is what matters. I look forward to it taking effect.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I said that I would return once the member has finished their speech to ask about the environmental goal Living Forests. It sounded as if the Christian Democrats do not think we should keep that goal because it is impossible to achieve – instead of taking measures so that we can actually achieve it. Is that correctly understood, and if so, are there other environmental goals that the Christian Democrats also want to scrap because they are simply too difficult to achieve?

The Chairman took up in his speech that approximately 1 percent of the forest is harvested every year. That is quite reasonable considering that the forest has a rotation period of about a hundred years. That is what one has as a return. It might even be a bit high, if we want to increase the forest. Furthermore, the timber stock will decrease slightly in the future.

My questions therefore concern partly the environmental goals and whether the member does not think we should try to achieve them, and partly this matter of freedom under responsibility. The member spoke very nicely about the forest owners' responsibility and about the right of ownership. I agree with much of that, but we must also have a framework that one can adhere to. My questions to the member simply concern the responsibility part. What does freedom under responsibility mean, and is it always up to the individual to say what is right and wrong?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question! I knew it would come.

It is not about that the environmental goal Living Forests is too difficult to achieve. That is not what I criticize, but I and many with me - not least several researchers - criticize that the goal cannot be reached.

Previously, when I was more active in local politics, we worked a lot with target management and vision. The vision was something fluffy up there that no one actually knew what it meant or how we were going to get there, if I'm being honest. But it sounded nice. The goals, on the other hand, were to be measurable and achievable.

If one starts from the research, the environmental quality objective Living Forests is rather a vision, because even if all human activity on the earth's surface were to cease for a hundred years, the goal would still not be achieved. Is it then a goal, or should we reformulate it so that it can be reached and perhaps instead have a ladder or that type of measures? Regardless, it is important that we reach our goals. If we have goals that we always strive towards but which are not reachable, I believe we are doing ourselves a disservice.

The chairman mentioned that the timber stock is decreasing. Yes, temporarily it is said that it is decreasing slightly – only to increase again. What should be kept in mind is that in the national forest inventory of 1920, we had 1.5 billion cubic meters of timber in Sweden. Now, a hundred years later, we have 3 billion cubic meters of timber in Sweden. That is double the volume today compared to a hundred years ago. During that time, we have harvested four times the growth. The forest volume is therefore increasing drastically.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is fortunate that the forest volume is increasing, considering that about a hundred years ago we had an all-time low when it came to how much forest we had in Sweden. It was at that time that industrialization had made the demand for forest and timber so great that we cut down very much of the forests. In Bohuslän, where I live, one practically deforested the entire coast to get fuel to make train oil from herring. It is incredibly important that we learned something from history and began to replant. That shift came about a hundred years ago, and since then it has increased.

Further back in time - two hundred years ago - there was much more forest than today. It all depends on which baseline one uses, Madam Speaker. I hope that we will use the knowledge we have today about what we need for forests in order to be able to preserve biodiversity and have a sustainable use.

Madam Speaker! I shall refer to the question that Malin Larsson from the Socialdemokraterna previously asked, which concerned how we are to protect the valuable forests that have been built up and which in some cases have stood there all the time. In the forestry bill, it states that valuable forests shall not be felled. Everyone has agreed on that. Every word was weighed in gold, and there was money set aside to achieve all parts of the forestry bill. But we now see in the petition from the Swedish Forest Agency that it cannot be done.

Compared to the budget that was proposed two years ago, 2 billion disappeared when the Christian Democrats' and Moderates' budget passed instead. Then another half billion disappeared in the budget that is currently in place. 2.5 billion were needed to carry this out. Have you intended to only do certain parts, and is it only about the logging parts when it comes to the new forest investigation?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Just as I said in the exchange with Malin Larsson, we must move away from a hunt for quantity and hectares and move towards quality. We shall save and protect that which truly has higher natural values. The goal must not be to have a certain number of hectares and a figure-handling - 10 or 30 percent strictly protected forest. It is that which is worth protecting that we shall move forward with. This is incredibly important.

Therefore, the question must go back to Miljöpartiet. We can read in the report what Miljöpartiet wants. But what is the situation otherwise with all the forests that Miljöpartiet intends to set aside? In what way are funds to be obtained for the individual landowner? In what way can that be paid? There was also a huge package where the mountain-adjacent forest was included. I do not believe there is a finance minister in the world who is prepared to pull out all the billions that this would cost.

How would one manage that financially? It is one thing to have the will to carry this out, but it is another thing to manage to do it in practical politics, unless one leans on the Environmental Code and does it without compensation. The question, therefore, is how Miljöpartiet would manage to solve that part if one wants to go all-in on what they themselves have said regarding the protection of forests.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I am very happy that the Green Party no longer sits at the government benches, but that it is other parties that do so and who have a different view on the forest, on a sustainable use of the Swedish forest, and not least on the individual Swedish forest owner.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Social Democrats' reservation 4.

This day is truly in the sign of the forest. I began the morning with a visit from the Skogsstyrelsen management group for the North region here in the Riksdag. Right now, while we are debating, a lunch seminar is ongoing with the Riksdag's forest industry network regarding packaging from the forest. And now we stand here and debate the report on forest policy.

There is no doubt that the forest is important to us. The forest, which covers 70 percent of the country's area, has been important throughout our entire history: from forest grazing for the animals, charcoal and tar to the era of timber rafting and the emergence of the sawmills and the paper mills.

The forest has always been of great importance for Sweden and for jobs. Furthermore, development is moving forward, and the forest is an incredible resource that, through research and innovation, constantly demonstrates new possibilities and areas of application.

Madam Speaker! The basis of the Social Democratic forest policy is that the Swedish forest is our green gold which creates jobs and sustainable growth throughout the country. But the Swedish forest also has a unique natural value and must therefore be managed in a balance between nature conservation and forestry. This is seen in the policy we have driven in recent years and continue to drive. We have invested in green jobs within the forest industry and nature-related jobs across the country, strengthened the work to protect valuable forests, developed the first national forest program in Sweden, and initiated a cooperation program for innovations in the bioeconomy.

We have proposed a major investment for the protection of valuable nature. We have also invested in preventing, monitoring, and combating forest damage and proposed changes to the species protection regulations so that forest owners are not affected by detailed regulations that hinder their operations.

At the same time as we have prioritized measures for a growing sustainable forestry industry, we have also taken responsibility for preserving, restoring, and developing biodiversity.

Madam Speaker! In the forest, we have renewable raw materials that can strengthen Sweden and reduce the entire EU's unhealthy dependence on fossil energy and critical input materials. We have a unique resource in the forest for the climate transition, for jobs, and for sustainable growth.

We Social Democrats want to see a growing Swedish bioeconomy, and Sweden has an untapped potential in by-products from agriculture and forestry that can be used for the production of renewable fuels. We want to see fuel manufactured from Swedish forests in our tanks instead of oil from Putin.

We want to see an increased domestic production of liquid biofuels, an increased wood house construction, and reinforced innovations surrounding the forest. With the forest's resources, we have the opportunity to increase the pace of the climate transition, create renewable products and more jobs across the entire country, and strengthen our supply capacity.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish forest – how it should be managed and what it should be used for – has been up for discussion at many tables in recent years. The EU Commission has presented a number of proposals that have also caused concern among many within the Swedish forestry industry. LULUCF, RED III, the taxonomy, Fit for 55, the EU's forest policy, the forest inquiry, and the species protection ordinance have all affected our forest, and these have been discussed both in Brussels and here in Sweden.

Even here in Sweden, the debate about the forest has been heated. Should the forest be harvested or remain standing to do the most good and mitigate climate change? How should the forest be managed? How should biodiversity be protected in our Swedish forests? The questions have been many and the opinions likewise.

We Social Democrats view the escalating and harsh debate climate on issues concerning the forest with concern. We need to have a clear, long-term, and predictable forest policy based on the two equal goals of nature conservation and forestry. We need active use of our growing forests to be able to transition society, replace fossil-based products, and create jobs. At the same time, we need to preserve conservation-worthy forest to ensure important environmental values. We shall also safeguard the independence of Swedish forest policy.

Ownership of the forest is the basis for being able to take advantage of the forest's potential for economy, climate, and environment to an increased extent. Voluntariness shall be the basis for the protection of forest with new and developed forms of protection and compensation, and it is of great importance that the government ensures compensation to those forest owners who are entitled to it.

That is not quite how it looks right now. The government and the Sweden Democrats made significant cuts in the budget for both the protection of nature and the management of nature. At the same time, the message from the government is that forests with high nature values should not be felled, that protection of forest should occur voluntarily, and that property rights should be strengthened. This is to happen at the same time as the authorities have low appropriations for formal protection and the legal development in the courts is not moving in the same direction as the political steering signals. All parties are disadvantaged by the situation that has arisen, both landowners and authorities, and the government must take responsibility for this.

Madam Speaker! We have had fantastic weather lately, but with the heat, the bark beetles also emerge from their winter dormancy and begin to swarm. The Swedish Forest Agency has seen the number of beetles increase in the traps, and the authority is already warning that there could be damages to the forest worth billions if the summer becomes warm and dry, which the weather forecasts are already pointing towards.

The Swedish forest will likely grow faster with a warmer climate, but at the same time, the risks of damage are increasing. The forest is affected by climate change in several ways but can also play an important role in reducing climate change.

Madam Speaker! During the plenary week last winter, I traveled north to Umeå with a focus on the forest and visited Skogsstyrelsen, SLU, Skogforsk, Sveaskog, Norra Skog, the County Administrative Board, and Region Västerbotten. I was given the opportunity to learn about their work and all the knowledge that exists.

We in Sweden have an incredible amount of knowledge and experience within the forestry sector. During my visits, I was able to learn how, at Skogforsk, through cone baths, centrifugation, and bathing of the seeds, they obtain the very best specimens which are then to germinate and become our future forest.

I met Norra Skog in Sävar, which has the world's most modern sawline. I spoke with representatives from SLU, which is world-leading in forestry research.

Sweden is a world leader in forestry research, and we shall continue to be. The forest is enormously important for Sweden as a unique resource for climate transition, jobs, and sustainable growth.

(Applause)

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

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the speech. As I said in my main speech, I believe we would manage to find a great consensus on very much of this as things stand now. When we have exchanges of remarks, we often try to lure the opponent onto thin ice with some tricky questions or in some way corner the person. That is not my intention now.

The Social Democrats have only a single reservation to the consideration. It is a sign that there is agreement on the work being done. The reservation reads as follows: "An active forestry that is climate-smart and environmentally sustainable, while simultaneously creating jobs and sustainable growth throughout Sweden, builds our new growing bioeconomy. Increased sustainable growth in the forest provides the conditions for a growing bioeconomy. We therefore consider that the forest's contribution to a growing bioeconomy should be protected and strengthened."

It is a reservation that I actually believe everyone in this chamber could stand behind. But what does it mean in practice? Could Malin Larsson clarify that? What does it mean that "the forest's contribution to a growing bioeconomy should be protected and strengthened"? What direction do the Social Democrats want to take, now that they stand free? What is it that is desired in forest policy?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Ottosson for the questions. What do we want? I touched upon that in my main speech. The forest is a fantastic resource that we must utilize more of. This applies primarily to the residual products from the forest and the residual flows. I come from Västernorrland, a very forest-rich county. Here, for example, we recover very little waste. It remains in the forest. There are enormous opportunities here.

Within the bioeconomy, a lot is encompassed. Above all, it is necessary to develop renewable products, for example, fuel. As I said, we want residues from Swedish forests in our tanks instead of oil from Putin. It is a very important part. I do not know exactly if Member Ottosson agrees with that. But we have in Sweden a business sector that has made large investments and wants to continue doing so in the future to be able to deliver fuel to our tanks that is produced in Sweden from Swedish forest. There is much that is encompassed within this. I also mentioned timber house construction as an example.

That we must take care of the forest and the forest products in a completely different way in the future, I am entirely convinced of. Then, research and innovation are also important to include in our forestry issues. In that area, we are incredibly far ahead. We are the best in the world, and we must continue to be. Therefore, it is also important that Sweden leads the way and shows what is possible within the forestry sector.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the answer. I cannot imagine that this is something that anyone here in the chamber does not stand behind. Just as Malin Larsson says, in many parts we are the best in the world when it comes to forestry. We perhaps have the world's most sustainable forestry. We absolutely have parts that we can use, not least in the transition, which Malin Larsson also touched upon.

I am pleased that we see a different line from the Social Democrats now than what we saw during the previous eight years. It is very clear that it was another party that obstructed forest policy then and that we had a government that was absent in large parts of this policy. Therefore, I think this is positive. I look forward to upcoming broad agreements in this chamber on a forest policy that holds up for the future.

As I said quite a few times in my main speech, it is very important that landowners can trust the state and that the state trusts the landowner. In that way, we create a real long-term perspective that allows us to manage the forest in the growing bioeconomy that Malin Larsson mentions in her speech and which is stated in the reservation. If we are to have a growing bioeconomy, we must be able to manage our forest.

But regarding, among other things, the Restoration Law, which is being handled in Brussels now, we note that the Social Democrats are not entirely in agreement with the view that we have. I note that there is wavering in the stance on the Restoration Law, which is extremely crucial for how our Swedish forestry will look in the future. Have the Social Democrats pointed out the direction, so that the members in Brussels really know which path they should take? How long are we to live in uncertainty about which path you take regarding the Restoration Law?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Ottosson again for the questions.

There are many issues in this, and we probably have a very broad consensus on the importance of the forest. It is incredibly important. As I mentioned in my speech, 70 percent of the country's area is covered by forest. The forest has built our prosperity and will continue to do so. It will be immensely important in the green transition. We see new industries emerging. At the same time, it is also important for biodiversity. Just as I said in my main speech, it is precisely the balance between nature conservation and forestry that we Social Democrats safeguard. It is immensely important to have this balance, which I hope Member Ottosson agrees with. The forest is important from very many different aspects. Even forest owners usually want to safeguard both nature and the forest.

In everything that occurs at the EU level, it is incredibly important that we are active, and we Social Democrats have always been. We safeguard the national competence and the right of decision-making regarding the forest. It is also a national issue that shall be decided here in Sweden. That we are sure of. Our parliamentarians follow the forest policy that our party has.

We have no replies left in this exchange, but I must mention that I did not receive an answer to my questions regarding voluntariness in a previous exchange. Member Ottosson touched upon the question of the authorities' handling when landowners voluntarily want to protect high natural values. We will have to return to that in a later debate.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The forest is the earth's lungs and nature's pantry. It is perhaps the greatest asset of living in the countryside and Sweden's most important resource. It is a place for recreation, hunting, nature experiences, fantastic ecosystems, biodiversity, work, entrepreneurship, and the management of previous generations' toil.

Many of us feel a strong bond to the forest. Which values each of us values most certainly varies. For some, the forest is a place one visits when leaving the city's noise to seek recovery, for others it is the place where one hikes on paths trodden by previous generations. Regardless, the forest and forest policy are something that touches and engages.

Mr. Speaker! We all know that the forest is important for both the Swedish economy, biodiversity, and the climate. The forest is a national asset and a renewable resource that must be managed so that it sustainably yields a good return while biodiversity is maintained. That is what it says in the introductory paragraph of the Forestry Act. Forest policy rests on two equal goals, the production goal and the environmental goal. They must be exactly equal and not be pitted against each other.

Mr. Speaker! The forest and all the wealth it provides have been of great importance for the development of the country we live in today. The forest has made Sweden wealthy. The forest continues to create prosperity. It is an important part of Swedish exports. Therefore, it is important that we continue to work for sustainable forestry.

Swedish forestry is well-regarded internationally. That it is considered sustainable and is sustainable is critical for the world's willingness to trade with Sweden. Thus, it is important for the Swedish economy. Bluntly, one could say that a forestry sector that takes great environmental consideration and has a great focus on sustainability strengthens the Swedish forestry industry.

Mr. Speaker! The industries linked to the forest are not only of great importance for Swedish exports. They are also incredibly important for the Swedish countryside. A vital, sustainable forestry is crucial for a living countryside. Many of the companies operating outside the cities have in one way or another a connection to the forest.

As is well known, it is precisely entrepreneurs and business owners who create the jobs. These are jobs that many times are crucial for people living in the countryside to be able to live and work right there.

The forest is also an important part of many Swedes' private finances. Many forestry operations are conducted on a small scale and over the long term. Many times, one receives a share of what has been managed for a long time, and often one manages the forest with the same long-term approach as previous generations.

Mr. Speaker! We have in several previous debates here in the chamber during the spring spoken about the importance of biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. We need to do so also in this debate, as many have emphasized before me. For the earth's ecosystems to thrive, biodiversity is precisely what is required.

The forest needs to be managed so that all species in the Swedish forest landscape can remain. Many forest owners take a great responsibility. If one looks at it from a broader perspective, the products that come from the forest are crucial for the green transition. Those products and all raw materials are taken from the forest. It needs to be done in a way that simultaneously takes into account natural values and biodiversity.

Forest policy, which we are debating here today, is important and central in the work to halt the loss of biodiversity and vital ecosystems. A great responsibility rests on both the state, the forestry industry, and the forest owners. There is a responsibility to preserve biodiversity and to stand guard over nature conservation and environmental consideration. We need to ensure that valuable forests can be protected. Forestry shall be efficient and gentle.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Without all that the forest provides, all that I have listed, Sweden stands still. Nevertheless, the same applies to the environment and biodiversity. Without healthy, well-functioning ecosystems, what kind of Sweden do we have then?

That is why we need to constantly focus on finding a balance between the production goal and the environmental goal. Both are equally important.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Elin Nilsson for the speech!

Our authorities flag that the new establishment of area protection is at very low levels. They are record-low levels. We have previously debated, and I have pointed out, that the appropriations for the maintenance of valuable nature and the protection of valuable nature have decreased in the government's budget. The Member's party Liberalerna is part of the government.

The authorities have also warned that the cuts will hit the work with forest protection extra hard. When one takes part of the forest policy of MP Nilsson's party Liberalerna, it says the following: "National parks, nature reserves and biotope protection areas are, together with a continued high general consideration, the backbone of Liberalerna's nature conservation policy. The remaining old-growth forests, the primeval forests, must be protected. The area of protected forest must increase."

Then my question to the member is: How does member Nilsson think this harmonizes with the policy that the party now stands behind and pursues in a government position?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

It is important to protect forests that have high nature values. It is an opinion that we stand by. Areas that have high nature values may need to be protected.

In the situation in which we presented the budget in the autumn, we took responsibility for a difficult economic situation. There was no room to allocate more money. But for us in Liberalerna, it remains important that there are funds allocated to protect forests.

If the state finds that a forest cannot continue to be cultivated and a ban on commercial activity is essentially imposed on it, it is obvious that the landowner should have the right to compensation for it. It is about legal certainty, protecting property rights, the reliability of forest policy, and such things.

We would, of course, like to see that we continue to allocate funds to protect forests. What it will look like in the future is a matter for discussion.

Another question is that we see the complexity in forest policy. That is also why a new forest inquiry is underway. That is also why the Environmental Goals Commission has the assignment it has. In the long run, answers to your questions will come.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

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

I want to ask another question. In the speech, the member highlighted something that I myself highlighted. That is that the forest is important for the jobs in the countryside.

We see that the forestry jobs are increasingly disappearing from the countryside. Every year, instead, thousands of forest workers come to Sweden from Europe but also from countries outside of Europe. They work primarily as planters and clearers. But we see already now that local contractors are being replaced with quickly trained forestry machine operators from, for example, Romania.

I see a great danger here. It concerns the fact that we are losing a lot of very important knowledge that we have traditionally always had here in Sweden about the forest, and above all how we use the forest. As a forestry machine operator, for example, it is incredibly important with the consideration you take when you move the enormously large and heavy machines, which trees you save, where you should cut down, and so on.

I see a great concern here. A wage dumping is occurring, and job opportunities are disappearing for our Swedish citizens and, above all, Swedish youth. When I was young, planting seedlings was one of the best summer jobs one could have. You earned really well from it, in fact.

My question to the member is: How does the member view this?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks for the question, Member Larsson!

Generally, I view labor immigration positively. I have no problem with people coming from other countries and working in Sweden if there are jobs for them to take.

Then, of course, a great responsibility always rests on the one who has employees, regardless of whether they come from Sweden or from other countries, to ensure that they perform the work they are assigned to do in accordance with the rules and laws that exist and the environmental considerations that must be taken. A great responsibility, therefore, rests on the one who is responsible for the workforce.

I share the view that forest planting is one of the best summer jobs one can have if you live in the countryside. This is an experience that I believe we share. It is exhausting, but it is also an incredibly important experience to carry with you in life. It also creates a great understanding of the forest and forestry. If a young person gets the chance to plant forest, I think they should take it.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We stand behind all our reservations, but this time we move for approval only to reservation number 10.

Swedish forest is something to be proud of. Sweden has the world's most sustainable forestry. We are quite in agreement on this in the chamber. There are slightly different views when it comes to how much should be protected and not protected and how much money should be spent on these matters. But the starting point, that one views forestry positively, we nevertheless have a broad agreement on here in the Riksdag, which one cannot believe if one follows the coverage in Dagens Nyheter or public service, where I want to assert that one gives some kind of campaign against forestry from the environmental movement disproportionately much space.

Mr. Speaker! Here in Sweden, we have cultivated our forests for hundreds of years. Today, one can say that in principle all forest in our country has been cultivated at some point. That we constantly discover unusual species in our forests is a sign that the forestry is sustainable. Despite that we have cultivated forest in Sweden for so long, we have constant growth.

When it comes to species, we can see that no species have become extinct in the last 30 years. Over the last 50 years, it concerns an extremely small number of forest-dwelling species that have become extinct, fewer than ten. The typical species that have become extinct lived in the southernmost part of Sweden in various intermediate forms between deciduous forest and agriculture. There are no signs that the number of species disappearing in Sweden is increasing, rather the opposite.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish forestry contributes today to a varied landscape because we get forest of different age classes. This means that we get a rich wildlife in the form of, for example, moose in newly harvested forest but can pick mushrooms and berries in older forest. Swedish forestry is an asset for biological diversity.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish forestry is also part of a fantastic forest industry - an industry that is fundamental for the green transition and for jobs and growth, especially in rural areas. It is about raw materials to produce small houses, high-rise buildings, newspapers and diapers, but also about raw materials for textile production, aviation fuels and biodegradable plastics.

Forest that is not cultivated, however, will not be able to contribute significantly to reduced emissions because we cannot take part of the raw materials. In a newly published Finnish research report, it is also stated that the potential to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by not cultivating forest is very low. The best we can do is therefore to continue cultivating the forest.

Mr. Speaker! Sustainability is built on three pillars: economic, ecological, and social sustainability. I have just given examples of how Sweden's forestry is sustainable from these three aspects. I therefore want to point out once again that Sweden's forestry, probably together with Finland's, is the world's best.

Mr. Speaker! Protected areas are in many ways at the center of the forest debate, as we have heard here in the chamber during the exchanges. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we advocate for the protection of valuable nature, but this does not mean that the areas must increase year after year. We believe that protection should not primarily be aimed at a given proportion of the total area but should be adapted according to the total area of the nature type and with regard to the occurrence of critically endangered species. When it comes to rare nature types, a larger proportion of the area needs to be subject to nature conservation measures in order for a sufficient area to be reached. Total protection, which is often applied in boreal forest areas, is often an unsuitable path in these environments. It is rather well-balanced management that is needed to preserve and develop them.

Furthermore, we believe that protection should not be based on such a broad definition as it is today, but in normal cases should be based on the confirmed presence of truly rare, critically endangered species. With this change, it is ensured that the protection system becomes more objective and that nature conservation efforts are made where they do the most good in relation to the costs for the owners and society.

Mr. Speaker! The reporting regarding the environmental goal Living Forests has primarily been handled by Artdatabanken and SLU, without insight from others who may have an interest in providing comments on the nature conservation work being conducted in the forest and its significance for endangered species and habitats. Additionally, Naturvårdsverket and Skogsstyrelsen have commented on whether the goal has been achieved.

As we see it, there are ambiguities in the accounting, reporting, and conclusions, which shows that the evaluation of the environmental goal Living Forests needs to be changed. Some of the goals are, as we see it and as many experts have judged it, downright utopian because they cannot be reached. For example, not all species can achieve a favorable conservation status within Sweden's borders. It is not possible. A very large number of species living in Sweden do not have, have never had, and will never have a sufficient number to reach such a status. Such utopian goals need to be worked out of the environmental goals as soon as possible. The goals should also be formulated so that they are realistically achievable. The reporting of the environmental goal Living Forests should in the future include a well-thought-out referral process to ensure an objective assessment of how far we have reached.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to be able to continue to increase timber production and improve biodiversity, the authorities must have as a clear main task to support forest owners and not oppose them. They shall work for better forest management and nature conservation through advice and by being able to offer paid management agreements where required.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report on forest policy. Vänsterpartiet stands behind all the motions in our proposal, but I choose to move for approval only to reservation 18, which concerns the protection of forests with high natural values.

In Sweden, 70 percent of the land area consists of forest land, and the forest provides us with a number of valuable ecosystem services such as water and air purification and also provides us with important timber resources.

The Swedish forest faces great challenges today, as there is high pressure on the forest. In order to mitigate the climate crisis and improve developments regarding biodiversity, the forest needs to contribute more. The forest must also deliver raw materials for a number of products that can replace fossil fuels, plastic, and heavy building materials. This is part of the green transition we are currently in, and it is important for both jobs and the Swedish economy. But here there is a conflict regarding continued high logging or more protected forest. Much is at stake, and different interests are pitted against each other.

Will the forest be able to handle all of this, increase biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and at the same time deliver more timber resources? Well, I don't think that is possible.

Mr. Speaker! Biodiversity is a fundamental prerequisite for everything in the forest. Vänsterpartiet does not consider that Swedish forestry as a whole is to be regarded as sufficiently sustainable for us to be able to reach our climate ambitions and preserve a high biodiversity. Our position is that production goals need to be subordinate to environmental and climate considerations.

To achieve sustainable forestry, the supply of raw materials cannot be the governing factor for how our forests are managed. Nature's limits, with preserved ecosystems and biodiversity, must be the framework for how the forests are utilized, and within these frameworks, sustainable management should provide us with raw materials and energy that can, among other things, replace fossil energy and other raw materials with a large climate impact.

That we utilize our forest resources in a sustainable way is absolutely crucial for us to be able to meet both the climate crisis and the depletion of biodiversity, and these crises must be solved together.

Today, logging of forests with high existing nature values, so-called core areas, is occurring, despite the fact that there is a great shortage of these natural environments for a number of endangered plant and animal species. These forests often have high variation and are often characteristic of natural forests.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency considers that great efforts should be made by both the state and the forestry sector to ensure that forests of conservation value are not logged. Despite the previous government having the ambition that no forests with high nature values should be logged, they failed to take measures to prevent it. Consequently, the possibility of preserving the remaining habitats for disadvantaged species in forestry is continuously hindered. The government should urgently produce proposals for legislation aimed at stopping the logging of forests with high nature values.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish mountain-adjacent forest is a unique area with large old-growth forests and high natural values. The old-growth forests in the mountain area are some of the few intact forest landscapes that still remain in Europe. Vänsterpartiet considers it to be of the highest priority that these forests are protected.

The Land and Environment Court issued landmark judgments in 2020 stating that forest owners who are not allowed to log in forests near mountains due to high natural values are entitled to compensation from the state. We believe that the government must now ensure that natural and cultural values are preserved in the long term and that state funds are available to compensate the landowners who are entitled to compensation.

We believe that a strategy is needed to ensure that the forests near the mountains receive long-term formal protection. Both the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency have clarified the need for increased funds for the protection of forests near the mountains. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has also stated that special measures are needed to preserve large old-growth forests that are currently managed by the state forest managers. The Government should ensure that a strategy is presented with the necessary funding and replacement land from Sveaskog to ensure that the nature and cultural values of the forests near the mountains can be preserved in the long term.

The government should also ensure that a review of forest policy is carried out in order to strengthen the fulfillment of our environmental quality goals and to achieve a sustainable use of natural resources. Smaller forest areas with high nature values are not suitable as nature reserves, but it is important that the state can provide compensation to landowners to formally protect these areas in the long term. The Swedish Forest Agency can, in these cases, conclude nature conservation agreements or establish biotope protection areas. It is particularly important that there are resources available to forest owners with smaller forest holdings with a high proportion of nature values.

Mr. Speaker! The completely dominant forestry method in Sweden is clear-cutting, also called clear-cut forestry. Over 95 percent of the managed forests in Sweden are managed through clear-cutting, and that method has a major impact on, among other things, biodiversity.

The climate crisis requires urgent measures to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, and Vänsterpartiet wants to strengthen carbon sequestration and biodiversity by protecting forests to a greater extent and increasing the area of continuous-cover forestry instead of clear-cutting. Increasing the proportion of continuous-cover forestry, where specifically selected trees or smaller groups of trees are harvested, can thus provide gains for both biodiversity and the climate, as well as strengthen the social values of the forest.

But economic incentives are also needed for private forest owners to let the forest get older before it is harvested and to adapt thinnings for increased carbon storage. This would benefit both the countryside and climate benefits as well as biodiversity. For the countryside, it can also contribute to an improved living environment and strengthened conditions. To stimulate that an increased area can be managed with clear-cut-free forestry methods, we want to introduce a transition support for landowners, as the transition can be associated with increased costs during the transition.

In conclusion: We need a healthy and prosperous forest that can both provide us with timber in a sustainable way and live up to the goals for biodiversity and to our climate goals.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! These are pressing issues both in the short and long term. I have particularly focused on one of the concluding points in Kajsa Fredholm's speech. It concerns the perception that clear-cutting should be phased out in the long run. That is the Left Party's position. I have also seen that you have a goal formulation that 30 percent shall be changed by 2030, linked to the clear-cutting. That is a fairly high ambition.

Vänsterpartiet proposes in its reservation - and this is also raised in the presentation - that financial support from the state should be given to those affected. I would like to know what Vänsterpartiet's holistic perspective is here, i.e., what economic consequences it would have for the state's budget funds until 2030 if Vänsterpartiet's first stage goal were to be reached.

It was mentioned that the transition support would be during a transition period. What does the construction of the transition support look like then, given that it has such large economic consequences for those who are unable to carry out their active forestry in accordance with their planning and utilize the logging opportunities?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! There were very many questions here. But it is good that Daniel Bäckström has read our motions very carefully, and perhaps even our motion.

We consider that today, far too large a part of the forest is managed through clear-cutting. We are facing a climate crisis. We need healthy ecosystems to be able to mitigate that climate crisis, and for that, we need to manage a larger part of the forest in the way we consider to be sustainable. We also see that funds from society will be needed to help. As the Miljöpartiet also pointed out, knowledge and education were needed to learn methods, but funds will also be needed for a transition to sustainable forestry.

In our budget, we are investing 4.5 billion more than the government on various measures for the forest, including so that a transition can be encouraged and implemented.

Then my question to the Center Party is: What do you have in your budget to, for example, compensate forest owners? I am thinking of all those forest owners who now want to protect their forest and that there are no funds for it.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have had the budgetary discussions earlier. What I want to dwell on is precisely the Left Party's very clear long-term ambition to completely phase out clear-cut logging. This has enormous consequences for Swedish forest production. I am also thinking of the interim goal for 2030 – almost one-third of clear-cut logging would then be changed. That is a very important signal from the Left Party's side to the Swedish forestry industry and to the forest owners. How does one intend for this to be solved practically? I cannot imagine that the 4.5 billion mentioned would approximately be enough to phase out clear-cut logging.

When it comes to carbon dioxide and the growing forest's important significance for binding carbon dioxide, it is a cycle. When it is fully grown, it is a net-zero emissions summary. It is the growing forest that binds, and then it also needs to be cultivated from that perspective.

But the question concerns the entire fundamental perspective. If the Left Party were to govern forest policy, clear-cutting would be phased out, and it would be done fairly quickly.

Then the question is: What is this about in terms of money? But above all, I wonder from a perspective concerning private forest ownership. How long will I, as a forest owner, be able to participate in this transition support? What is it about in terms of money to cover the large loss of income that it would entail if active forestry is not allowed to be carried out? What would it mean if Vänsterpartiet carries out these very drastic measures?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! It states in our motion that clear-cutting forestry needs to be phased out in the long run. There is a reason why it says "in the long run." Relatively quickly, as the member says, I do not think it will happen. The member is quite right in that. We have not specified any time there, but it is a task that needs to be started. One starts on a small scale, and then one must scale up. We have also allocated a number of billions more in means than the government.

I do not think, therefore, that the member needs to be so worried about this. Then, we actually need to transition many industries, and the forest is an industry that is undergoing transition in the green transition in order to meet the climate goals. Clear-cutting is a problem today, because we need to reduce emissions very quickly. It takes 20 years before a clear-cut has grown enough to again absorb carbon well.

This is the answer I have.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the speech from Vänsterpartiet. I react in a somewhat similar way to how Daniel Bäckström from Centerpartiet reacted to certain matters. I would like to have clarifications regarding a number of questions.

Vänsterpartiet emphasizes here very much that there is doubt regarding the Swedish forestry practices today, whether they are sustainable or not. They emphasize that they want to protect much more nature, both generally in the forest and perhaps especially in the mountain-adjacent forest. From what I understand, the proposal is similar to that which the Forestry Commission had linked to mountain-adjacent forest, where they spoke about a wider belt.

What we must remember then, Mr. Speaker, is that over 50 percent of the forest near the mountains is already protected and taken out of production. What would it mean if we continue to take land out of production in the forest near the mountains? It would mean that we kill the countryside in these areas by it no longer being the case that there are incentives for entrepreneurs to be here. There are then no incentives for people around the forest industry to be in these areas, where the forest is the main industry.

This would also remove the possibility for individual forest owners to borrow money and develop their rural businesses, because the forest is the guarantee that allows these people to borrow money and can conduct their business activities.

It would have been interesting to hear what Vänsterpartiet has as a solution to this, now that they want to lay a dead hand over these areas in the forest near the mountains.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, John Widegren, for your question! The forest near the mountains is, as I said in my speech, one of the largest areas with untouched forest and natural forest. This belt runs from Dalarna and northward. We are completely convinced that this needs to be protected.

I do not agree at all that this would be like laying a dead hand over those who live there and who usually do. There are many opportunities to use the forest in ways that can be commercially profitable and also for other purposes.

As I said before, we are adding 4.5 billion more to the budget for forest protection, and this is precisely one of the reasons. I would then like to ask the question to John Widegren: Why is the government cutting the appropriations for forest protection? It would be nice to get an explanation for that when very many forest owners are actually waiting for compensation and when there are long queues.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answers. We are probably not quite in agreement when it comes to the forest near the mountains - so we can say that.

I hear what is being said. Vänsterpartiet argues that they want to allocate 4.5 billion more to the protection of nature and so on. I can think that in a time when the most important task is to press down inflation, it is a bit stomach-turning that, as Vänsterpartiet, they borrow 100 billion in their state budget. It is not a responsible economic policy. And it is clear that one gets a lot of funds to sprinkle around when one borrows money for one's budget proposal.

A discussion was held here regarding continuous cover forestry versus clear-cutting. At one point in time, we practically prohibited continuous cover forestry in Sweden precisely because it did not deliver forest, timber, and raw materials in a satisfactory manner. I absolutely believe that the forest owners today can themselves determine whether the forest is suitable for clear-cutting or continuous cover forestry. I am a forest owner myself, and I utilize both forms of management where it is appropriate.

According to the EU's forest strategy, one should make much greater use of exactly continuous-cover forestry. The Balance Commission prepared an economic report, which was presented last summer, on what this would mean for Sweden in terms of cost. Here we are talking about hundreds of billions. That would be the effect for Sweden.

One cannot, from the Left Party's side, mean that one should borrow those funds in the state budget? It is hundreds of billions. It is billions to the forest owners but also billions to the Swedish forest industry.

One must actually, in a more credible way, prioritize what these changes in the Swedish forest policy would mean for the country Sweden and for the country Sweden's economy.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now it became very extensive, with the EU level and all sorts of things. When it comes to this year's budget, we have not borrowed 100 billion. We will present an investment package of 700 billion with climate investments, and there will of course be measures for the green transition that also need to be made in the forest.

It is not that we want all forest not to be used, but we want a larger part to be used with continuous cultivation. This is also something we need to do. I mean, in both the UN and the EU, we have climate promises that we must keep, and we also have our own climate goals. Therefore, I think it becomes very excessive and almost irresponsible to claim that we would not protect the forest industry, when the forest industry can transition and manage the forest in a sustainable way.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! As the last registered speaker in today's concluded and ongoing debates, it is interesting to summarize these extremely important issues, not least in a time when it is very uncertain what is happening in the world and how it will affect the conditions for our country in both the short and long term.

Centerpartiet has been and is active in forestry issues. We have been involved and taken responsibility in recent years regarding the propositions we have decided on, but also those that are subject to continued work. For us, it is extremely important to emphasize that the Swedish forest should continue to be cared for and managed according to the principle from 30 years ago of freedom under responsibility. We believe that it is possible to reconcile a competitive Swedish forestry industry with a development that preserves biodiversity and also takes responsibility for the climate challenge.

To ensure such development, the legal certainty for both landowners and companies must be strengthened. This must constantly be a responsibility for us elected representatives and also for representatives of the state authority structure or for those who govern and monitor it. Having a focus on legal certainty issues is extremely important so that landowners receive economic compensation for restrictions in ownership and usage rights to the extent they are entitled to.

Mr. Speaker! The forest is a key to jobs, growth, biodiversity, and climate transition. It is an important and significant activity for our kingdom. About 10 percent of Sweden's total export of goods is linked to the forestry industry's activities, and it creates jobs and growth not least in rural areas. In the forest counties, a quite large proportion of the employed are within the forestry industry.

We want Sweden to have a growing forestry industry but also increased sustainable forest growth with good and secured access to biomass from the Swedish forest. It is absolutely fundamental that we promote sustainable forest growth and replace fossil raw materials. We shall promote carbon sequestration in biomass and work to ensure that leakage of greenhouse gases from soil and other sources is reduced.

As we have heard on several occasions earlier in today's debate on forest issues, trees that have grown and stood for at least 80 years are being felled today. The seedlings or seeds that enter the ground and take root are taken care of by coming generations. These issues involve work that is both short-term and long-term, and incredibly important. It is also important to emphasize that the timber stock has actually increased from 1 to 3 billion cubic meters during the latter half of the last century and the first two decades of this century, and that this provides an enormous potential for continued forestry.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to highlight the significance of individual and private forest ownership. For many, the forest as an income and security is absolutely crucial for the possibility of living and working all around our country. It contributes not only to a strong net export and revenue for the country but also to a positive development in many regions. This we must promote, and in that regard, it is extremely important that there is sustainable management and that management is given the conditions to develop.

For the Center Party, it continues to be about taking measures that strengthen property rights, that there are flexible forms of protection, and that incentives are increased for nature conservation in the forest with voluntariness as the basis. I and the Center Party have expectations that the government takes further steps in this direction that strengthen the work with voluntariness as the basis from a property rights and usufructuary rights perspective.

We have followed how the uncertainty for many forest owners has been great due to the actions of state representatives in recent years, especially when it comes to compensation issues linked to nature conservation efforts and the protection of nature. It concerns the authorities' actions regarding the goal of living forests, species protection, the inventory of key biotopes, but also the forest near the mountains. The restrictions have been difficult for many individual forest owners, with costly investigations and legal disputes as a result. For us in the Center Party, it is clear that the authorities' work should be conducted in a good spirit of cooperation with landowners, but also that one starts from the local perspectives in what promotes sustainable use over time.

When restrictions are introduced, the state must cover the costs for the individual forest owner in a clear short-term way but also in the long term. The starting point must be to compensate for all already decided removals and encroachments before new protected areas are established. This is important both considering the discussion in today's debate and the ongoing work, and also the opportunities that lie ahead.

For the Centre Party, it is important with simplified legal reviews for landowners when it comes to restrictions and limitations in land use, but also that the voluntary formal protection shall be the primary method of work for the formal protection.

Centerpartiet naturally stands behind the fact that it is important to protect forests with high nature values from logging by developing the voluntary certifications of forestry and product chains that already exist in order to strengthen the credibility of Swedish bio-based products. A large part of environmental protection today is based on voluntary measures and set-asides. The State must take this into account when goals are set and requirements are established in the upcoming work.

We see, as said, a great potential and great opportunities to be able to combine nature conservation with utilization. There is also a great potential to achieve forms of protection where forest owners retain ownership of their forest but with a full or limited utilization that provides an annual lease corresponding to the return on the nutrient limitation. This is politics from a utilization perspective and a property rights perspective. This too must be reviewed and adapted over time, because nature values change over time and generations.

For us, it is unthinkable to proceed based on what the state has a right to or what someone claims to have a right to that conflicts with the individual's use and ownership rights. This is also the basis for strengthening the work with sustainable development and meeting the transition issues.

The growing forest is a resource and an important part of managing the climate goals that we have committed to achieving as a nation, and the Swedish forest has an important role for the Swedish economy and for phasing out the fossil. Furthermore, the Swedish forest net-binds more than 40 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents every year, and when the forest stops growing, a carbon balance is reached, which means that the forest emits as much as it binds. For Centerpartiet, it is important that the forest shall stand, grow, take up carbon dioxide and be managed responsibly.

I have the opportunity to move for approval of nine center reservations which are based on quite a few motions that we have submitted for this year's motion processing, but today I choose to move for approval only of reservation 13.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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