Steps on the way towards a more efficient environmental review

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report Steps on the way towards a more efficient environmental assessment. A more efficient environmental assessment – more efficient and more predictable permit processes – has been high on the agenda during the ten years I have worked here in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. The problem situation has been the same for several decades.

Mr. Speaker! The background to the bill we are discussing in this committee report is that the previous Social Democratic government, after much hesitation, appointed an inquiry to review the environmental assessments. It was, of course, far too late, but it was still good that it was done. The inquiry was, however, not only far too late, it was also far too narrow and insufficient. The criticism of this inquiry was not long in coming.

The business community criticized the inquiry's proposals, which it perceived as a disappointment. It did not demand that one should start patching and repairing a dysfunctional system. What was demanded was that the Environmental Code and its review system should be fundamentally overhauled. A good deal of the proposals that came from the inquiry were perceived as directly counterproductive and would contribute to less predictability. In context, it can be added that there was also a climate justice inquiry that was condemned with even harsher wording.

The problem here was probably not the investigator, but the problem was the then S-MP government. A dysfunctional government of two parties pulling in completely different directions can, of course, not fix a dysfunctional environmental assessment system.

Mr. Speaker! What we have here today is truly a step forward, a small step forward towards a more efficient environmental review. Here we have taken care of certain parts of the investigation.

Mr. Speaker! This time the story did not end with the Social Democratic government delivering yet another insufficient investigation, because in the 2022 election, the voters said no. They wanted a new government and voted out the Social Democratic government. A new government and a new cooperation in Swedish politics was launched and formed with the Tidö Agreement. In the Tidö Agreement, permit issues are one of the highest priority issues.

From the Tidö Agreement, it appears that the environmental permit processes shall be simplified and shortened. The Tidö Agreement announced a broad investigation to fundamentally redesign the environmental assessment system. And the Tidö Agreement is no Left Party napkin that no one is allowed to see or any January agreement with masses of points that will never be implemented. What stands in the Tidö Agreement shall also be implemented.

Mr. Speaker! On June 8, the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, presented the investigation directive for the investigation that was named the Environmental Permit Investigation. It is a comprehensive investigation that is necessary. It has four focus areas:

Sweden shall not set unjustifiably high requirements in relation to EU law.

The permit process shall be streamlined.

Authorities shall participate in the process in a way that contributes to a fast process.

The total processing time shall be reduced.

Mr. Speaker! I know that complaints will be expressed today because we are dealing with very small steps towards a better environmental review today. But when we now have a comprehensive investigation that will be thousands of pages long, of which a very large proportion is legal text, it is important that we do not now decide on changes that we will have to change again in the near future.

I can therefore think that there are good motions from the motion period in the committee report. But it is not responsible to propose more extensive changes here in the chamber in this situation than what is proposed in the bill. This will be a small step on the way. Had we had the Tidö agreement in place earlier, we would have had a new environmental assessment system in place already now.

This should naturally have been fixed by the Löfven 1, Löfven 2 and Andersson governments a long time ago. Now we have a new cooperation in Swedish politics. It will sort itself out. We will see the first delivery from the investigation later this year.

On behalf of the Sweden Democrats, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! What is this? I have stood in the chamber countless times and debated with Martin Kinnunen, Helena Storckenfeldt, Kjell-Arne Ottosson and Elin Nilsson. We have been consistently in agreement on the need for a more efficient permit process.

We have collectively spoken about the importance of simplifying and accelerating the examinations to create the right conditions for Sweden's green transition. But now that the government is presenting a proposal, we see that in practice it does not mean that change permits become the main rule.

This is a shot in the air, Martin Kinnunen. The government claims that it wants to make change permits the main rule. But with the exception that remains, the authorities will have the opportunity to deny this. The result will be that businesses that today are ready to make important investments and changes get stuck in long bureaucratic processes.

I must ask: Is this really how the Sverigedemokraterna want to streamline the permit processes, Martin Kinnunen? Is this your idea of real change?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

No, that is not it. That is the very short and quick answer. The thorough streamlining of the permit processes will occur once we have received all those thousands of pages from the new environmental permit investigation.

It is for that very reason that one should be a bit cautious today when we decide to start patching and repairing the existing system. It is then important that we do not propose changes that we will be forced to tear up in a short while once we have received the basis from the investigation. It is the most extensive investigation that has been commissioned in the area. It will deliver extensive proposals for new legislation.

No, this is not real change. It is a small step with improvements. As I said in my speech, I can think that the Social Democrats' motion is good. It is what we need. We need improved permit processes. But exactly how the system should look is too early to say. We must await the investigation.

I can think that it is well-intentioned. It is positive that the Social Democrats in recent years have moved the permit issues higher up on the agenda. When one is not in government, one also submits sharp proposals nowadays. I welcome this. It is a positive development in Swedish politics. It is positive if we can agree on these issues. But we should await the investigation. We will receive the first delivery later this year.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I hear what Martin Kinnunen says. But the reality is that the government is still not delivering what is needed for amendment permits to truly become the rule in practice.

We have heard the SD government speak greatly about strengthening the business sector and creating a more efficient permit process. It is good that there is an investigation that will come forward with sharp proposals. But if one really means business, why do we then see a proposal that does not go all the way?

If you are serious about standing up for jobs and transition, why do you then not demand that modification permits always be the main rule? We know that all of Sweden's climate goals require fast and efficient examinations. But if the SD government cannot ensure that even a simple modification permit goes through efficiently, how can we then trust you when you say that you want to lead the climate transition and make the processes more efficient?

Is your commitment to efficient environmental permits at the same low level as your commitment to the climate transition, Martin Kinnunen? Is that the reason we see this big fight in the air?

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring!

Effective, predictable permit processes are a prerequisite for the transition.

We return to the question. If we later during next year, which I would guess it will be, present a new environmental assessment system that does not aim for shortened permit processes and more predictable processes, I think Joakim Järrebring can return and inform about where the deficiencies are.

I believe we are in complete agreement that we want more efficient and faster permit processes. We are also prepared to review the entire environmental assessment system. Hopefully, major changes will also be made to the Environmental Code. We may see new agencies that will review the permits. We will hopefully see fewer agencies involved, and we will also hopefully see more service-oriented agencies.

I can only regret that a thorough investigation into the environmental permit processes was not initiated much earlier. But now the reality is what it is, and as I said, one should be careful about patching and repairing the existing system. We will soon have a new system in place, and it is my conviction that this new system will be launched during this parliamentary term. We will hopefully be able to reap the fruits of it already during this period.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! One can start by reflecting on the exchange we just heard. Why is the government even submitting a bill if all the changes are to come later? In that case, time has been taken up completely unnecessarily for both us members and for officials in both the Government Offices and the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is currently in a serious situation regarding our economy and labor market. Under this government's leadership, we see that Sweden has some of the lowest growth figures in the entire EU. We have a higher unemployment rate than our comparable European neighboring countries, and at the same time, we see how the inflation crisis is still hitting Swedish households, companies, municipalities, and regions hard.

Despite this reality, the government chooses to move forward with a budget bill for 2025 that does not address these acute problems in a responsible manner. Instead, we see a policy that does not provide the stimuli needed to restore growth and secure more jobs. And now, as an addition to these failures, we see how the government's proposal for environmental assessment misses an important opportunity to streamline and facilitate a necessary transition.

We Social Democrats stand for a green transition that is both fair and job-creating. We are convinced that Sweden can lead the way and create jobs across the entire country through sustainable investments and innovation. Through our proposal for a more predictable and simpler process for permits for environmentally hazardous activities, we ensure that necessary changes can be implemented without unnecessary bureaucracy and uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's proposal means that a permit application can be stopped if the authority's interpretation is that a holistic assessment is required even when the proposed change is clearly delimited. This opens up for long, costly processes that affect businesses and hinder development. With such a system, companies risk hesitating before necessary investments and innovations, which slows down the green transition.

We Social Democrats have a different view. We believe that a permit for change should apply when an application only concerns a specific change to the operation. This gives companies predictability and security to dare to invest without the entire operation needing to be reviewed when it is not necessary.

In this way, we can combine growth with continued strong environmental protection. Our proposal ensures that the green transition goes hand in hand with the creation of jobs and economic development across the entire country, not just in the metropolitan regions.

With the government's policy, we risk not only to slow down the green transition; we also risk wasting Sweden's potential to be a leading country in climate transition and sustainable industrial development. The SD government's inability to streamline the environmental assessments is just another example of how it chooses the wrong path - not only for the environment, but also for our economy.

Mr. Speaker! We need a policy that both strengthens growth and ensures sustainable development. That is what we Social Democrats stand for, and I therefore move for approval of reservation 1 regarding the amendment.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sofia Skönnbrink and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (both S) concurred.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is no doubt that the climate transition is our time's greatest challenge. It is easy to be weighed down by gloomy forecasts for the future that the transition is proceeding too slowly and that we risk not achieving important goals. In light of this, the focus in environmental policy must be placed on the right things: effectiveness and results.

The Moderates' view on climate, energy, and environmental issues is based on technological optimism and hopefulness. We are convinced that through technical progress, science, and facts, humans can solve the problems we face and reach the climate goals. Part of the amount of measures needed to succeed in this is to do what is required to support the Swedish business sector in the transition. Swedish companies have long been at the forefront regarding innovation and development, and it is together with the business sector that we can manage the transition.

The climate benefit of Swedish exports corresponds to approximately 23 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is approximately half of the total emissions generated in Sweden today. With the right conditions, we can ensure that the climate benefit of the Swedish business sector becomes even greater and that we take more steps closer to net zero.

Sweden must be a country that attracts companies and investments. When more and more entrepreneurs express a desire to transition, we must safeguard this. The business sector is the new environmental movement.

We need to continue working so that Sweden can benefit from new technologies and innovations that protect and develop both large-scale industry and our small business owners, while simultaneously contributing to increased prosperity and reduced emissions.

It may sound contradictory, but one of the main obstacles to a sustainable transition of our society concerns the possibility for companies to obtain an environmental permit - this is due to long and complicated permit processes. The climate crisis is here and now. In that case, it is not reasonable that a permit review for companies that, for example, want to invest in more climate-smart technology takes several years to reach completion.

The permit processes are also often characterized by an uncertain outcome. This entails great risks that the costs for the companies increase, that the work is delayed, and that the willingness to invest decreases. This goes completely against what is needed for us to manage the transition. Through faster and more efficient permit processes, we have the opportunity to increase the pace of the climate transition.

Sweden needs a competitive business sector that moves us forward in the green transition, and it is not acceptable for cumbersome bureaucracy to hinder that. We need to send the right signals to our entrepreneurs and say: We stand on your side in the climate transition!

With the proposition Steg på väg towards a more efficient environmental review, the government highlights the issues with the protracted permit processes and submits necessary proposals for changes to address this, including the proposal on amendment permits. That amendment permits for operations shall be the main rule is a prerequisite for the transition to occur at a rapid pace. That permits only need to be reviewed based on the change to the operation that a company wants to make, and not on the entire operation, will significantly cut processing times.

This is of utmost importance so that the willingness to invest is not hindered and so that the phasing in of new, more efficient and more environmentally friendly technology is not delayed. This enables more Swedish companies to dare to invest in the transition and that they can further contribute to the global climate benefit.

Mr. Speaker! I mentioned earlier that the Moderates are a hopeful party. We believe that it is possible to get out of the climate crisis in a smart way. It must be easy to start and run businesses that have great social utility. Industry is already ready now to make the investments for the climate transition that are important for our path towards net-zero emissions. In that case, it is not decent for a country of entrepreneurs like Sweden to systematically stand in the way of those who are willing to transition.

The green transition is a competitive advantage, and it should be treated as such. The Government and this assembly need to continue to work very actively so that the transition can proceed as swiftly as possible, hand in hand with the business sector. Through the changes now proposed, we contribute to better conditions for the climate transition and for Sweden's growth and prosperity. That being said, I stand behind the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Joanna Lewerentz for her speech and welcome her to the debates with the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

I agreed with much of what the member presented in their speech, and I agree that the government highlights the problems in the bill.

What I do not agree with is the claim that one is delivering a solution. The solution, however, has been presented by us Social Democrats. If one truly wants amendment permits to be the main rule, there is such a proposal on the table today. Just as we heard Member Martin Kinnunen think that our proposal is very good, I hope that more can agree and vote correctly when we finally take a stand on the proposals that are on the table.

Is one really satisfied from the Moderaternas side with the proposal?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It must be remembered that the Social Democrats want to see the proposal on permits together with the part concerning mandatory review. It risks, I believe, also becoming a shot in the air. It will send signals to companies not to dare to invest, if it is the case that there are only a few years left until one is forced to do a major review of their entire company.

I would like to ask a counter-question. How does the member believe that an amendment permit together with the mandatory reassessment will have a better effect than just proceeding with an amendment permit?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I received no answer to my question as to whether the Moderates are satisfied with the proposal – whether they truly believe or consider that the changes being proposed actually remedy the problems that are so clearly described in the bill.

We Social Democrats are in complete agreement that much more is needed to simplify the permit processes. That is not the question. The question today, and the alternative proposal that we Social Democrats have, is instead about making modification permits the main rule for real. Are the Moderates truly satisfied with the proposal that is being presented today? Or are they, like the Sweden Democrats, more eager for the proposal that we Social Democrats have submitted to the chamber?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Based on the underlying material that exists today - and I think that was clear in my speech - I would absolutely say yes. I see great risks with proceeding with the proposal that the Social Democrats are pushing for, namely to conduct the amendment review together with the mandatory reassessment. I believe that it will put even more hurdles in the way for the companies.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Joanna Lewerentz for the speech.

The Speaker mentioned the climate crisis on several occasions and that the business community is the new environmental movement, as the Prime Minister also said in his government statement.

But what we have seen since the Moderaterna took power is that the Swedish business sector's climate transition is stalling. In recent weeks, we have received notice after notice of how planned green investments are being paused or pushed into the future. The current government is not delivering the conditions that the business sector demands to carry out its climate transition and contribute to Swedish competitiveness.

It is very much as the member mentioned in their speech, namely that the business sector and the green transition are an enormous driving force for Swedish competitiveness and Swedish business development. But what we see as a result of the government's policy, where the fossil is made cheaper and the renewable climate-smart alternatives more expensive, where sufficient resources are not delivered for the authorities to conduct an environmental assessment and where the investments required in infrastructure are not made, is that the green transition is slowing down and that Swedish business is falling behind.

What do the Moderaterna intend to do to tackle this and get started with the green transition that they say they want to enable?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! We must also remember that Sweden has dropped in the ranking of mining nations, and Sweden ended up last in the EU regarding growth under the previous government. We have had a period of high inflation and uneasy times. Yes, it is slow, but now we are doing what is necessary so that we can accelerate the transition. We need, just as the member says, to help and support the business sector in the transition. That is what the government is doing with this bill and with what is to come.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Here the member refers to growth and that things are being done to increase growth. Then we need to be clear that it is one thing to burn for the sake of getting any growth started. Today we burn more fossil fuels in Sweden, while at the same time there is a large surplus of fossil-free electricity. It is a way to stimulate growth, that is to say, to try to get the fossil industry and fossil use started. It can lead to economic growth, but it is not the growth that Sweden's business sector wants to drive, and it is not the type of growth that Sweden has a major competitive advantage in.

Swedish industry stands ready to deliver fossil-free steel, trucks, renewable fuels - one solution after another for the climate transition. But now the investments are stopping, now the investments are pausing, now the climate goals are being pushed into the future, because the current government is not delivering the conditions that the business community demands to carry out a climate transition that the business community stands ready to do to preserve the fantastic opportunity for strengthened social development, competitiveness, and green growth across the entire country.

What we see now is that the government is making the fossil [option] cheaper, that fossil combustion is increasing, that emissions are increasing, and that Swedish business is falling behind. In that case, the connection to environmental assessments is also relevant. What we see in the proposal from the government is that they do not want to include those parts of the Environmental Assessment Inquiry that secure faster permit processes with maintained environmental performance. Instead, they remove the parts about mandatory reassessment, which means we risk falling into a more unsustainable ditch as a result of the government's way of doing the work.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that the member nevertheless agrees that it is green growth that we need to fight for. However, I wonder if the member has missed that there has been an economic crisis with enormously high inflation. It is clear that no company has wanted to invest over the last two years.

What this bill proposes is precisely a simplification of the permit processes so that people will dare to invest and so that the green transition can now gain momentum.

The committee chairman also refers to maintaining the environmental requirements that we have today. The rigorous assessment of environmental permits that we have is something that one wants to safeguard, but one also wants to remove the obstacles that it entails. For example, the larger operations we have today are already covered by EU legislation which ensures that they are assessed, so I do not see the necessity of having mandatory assessment of environmental permits for operations where they are already assessed if they meet the requirements that are set.

I completely agree with the member regarding the approach that it is the green transition that is the way out of the climate crisis and to reach our goals. But I do not agree with the member that the government is not doing enough, because I think it is.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! Welcome to MJU's debate!

Yes, there are many authorities and organizations involved in the permit processes in our country. It is positive that the government has now finally come forward with this bill. It has indeed dragged on. It is a delayed proposal, but better late than never. However, it is not enough. There is much more we should do.

My first question to the Moderates and the government is what is being done to improve the government's own permit processes. I think there are a lot of processes that the government has on its table, for example, offshore wind power and solar power. Cable installations take time, so what is the government doing to improve its own permit processes?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that we would also like to go further, and as previous debaters and members have mentioned, there are more things on the way.

I unfortunately cannot comment on the question that the member poses. I have no answer; I am sorry.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is positive that the Moderates have a desire and a striving to go further. I would then like to remind them that they own the issue. It lies on the government's table.

Most recently today came the news that LKAB is pausing its development and its investments because the electricity demand cannot be met. There are probably other reasons as well, but the infrastructure for electricity is lacking precisely because of the government's slow processes.

We see that the climate transition and the green investments are being sidelined and are coming to a standstill, so it is not only to the authorities that this criticism should be directed but also, as said, to the government itself.

What message do the Moderates have for the business community and for the companies that are considering moving forward with the green transition but are now hesitating because of the government's slow processes, which the government is responsible for? What message do you have for the business community, Joanna Lewerentz?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! The message is simple - it is that we want to support the companies as far as possible.

The electricity demand is a huge problem, and it is something that we need to work on. We need to upgrade the power grid and increase the capacity. These are things that the government is working on, and the Moderaterna will always stand on the side of the business sector and work to make it easier for companies to transition.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the environmental review and how we can achieve faster permit processes.

The reason why we do it is clear. We are in a climate crisis, and the news of the last few days and of the year shows that the situation is more serious than the researchers had previously predicted.

We have had a global average temperature over the past year that has been the highest in over 100,000 years. We have seen floods with catastrophic consequences in Europe and hurricanes with catastrophic consequences in the USA. The list of how global warming affects people's lives, health, and property and entire societies can be long.

It is extremely important that we, in this situation, with the risks we face, see the truth in broad daylight, put the facts on the table and do everything we can to transition society and ensure that we achieve a societal development that takes the climate crisis seriously and protects our populations.

For Miljöpartiet, it is clear that we in Sweden need faster permit processes. In this situation, we need to be able to make large investments in new technologies, transition industries, expand infrastructure for sustainable transport, ensure that we can electrify Sweden and move away from fossil fuel dependency. This requires faster action because the fight against climate change is a race against time. It also requires faster permit processes.

How do we then speed up the permit processes? It can be done in different ways. For us in Miljöpartiet, it is central that we get faster permit processes with maintained environmental performance, because while the climate challenge is enormous, we have PFAS in people's drinking water today, dioxins in the fish we want to eat, and areas where mushrooms cannot be picked due to environmental toxins.

It is our task in this chamber to ensure that we obtain good environmental conditions in our country so that people's health can be protected, and in that regard, the environmental permit processes are completely central.

That is why I take the new investigation seriously, which the current government has appointed on the same subject, where the first point in the investigation directives concerns bringing the environmental requirements in Sweden down to the EU's minimum level. We do not work with environmental issues in Sweden's Riksdag to follow the EU's minimum level. For me, we work with environmental issues in Sweden's Riksdag to ensure that we get good living conditions for the entire Swedish population - that we get good drinking water and that we can pick mushrooms.

That is why there are also parts in this bill where the Green Party supports the proposals. Measures that have emerged in the environmental assessment investigation that we commissioned when we were in government are good steps forward for faster permit processes. But we have also reserved ourselves against parts of the bill.

We see it as very important that mandatory review occurs after 20 years so that it is ensured that modern environmental conditions are introduced, while amendment permits become the main rule. It is therefore not about making things difficult for the companies, but about a process that ensures that the companies can feel secure that they have modern environmental conditions in their operations, so that it does not happen that 50 years pass, the conditions change completely, and one is left with an old environmental permit that has not been updated based on today's circumstances.

We also want Kammarkollegiet to continue to represent the public's interests in environmental processes. It is an important voice in these proceedings.

Climate change entails enormous risks. I cannot emphasize enough the serious situation we find ourselves in. We are currently on track towards a global average temperature increase of nearly 3 degrees by the end of the century. The children who go to school with their backpacks on their shoulders today – their entire upbringing until the age of 80 is the period between today and the year 2100. As it looks now, we will exceed 1.5 degrees, where we begin to pass the threshold for tipping effects that accelerate global warming, in the mid-2030s. And we are set to exceed 2 degrees in the 2050s.

If this is to become the development that we and our children and grandchildren need to manage, it is decided by how we act now. We need to quickly transition society, move away from the fossil and build sustainable societies. What is so good is that it also benefits Swedish business development. It strengthens Swedish competitiveness and gives Sweden's population better and healthier lives. But it requires that we act.

That is why I am deeply concerned when the Moderates here in the speaker's chair say that they think enough is being done. At present, Sweden is on track to miss all climate goals, both the parliamentary goals we have established here in Sweden and our binding commitments in the EU. It is not enough.

I move for approval of Miljöpartiet's reservation number 4. I hope that in the future we will see much sharper climate proposals from all parties, because together we must halt climate change and seize the opportunities.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Our Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson, has in interviews pointed out heroes in the green transition, heroes who he does not think receive the recognition they deserve.

The business sector is one of these heroes. One way to help the business sector more is to change and simplify the permit processes. When talking with the companies, this also usually ranks very high on their wish list so that they can take further steps in the transition. If the companies are not given the opportunity to take these steps due to overly rigid and complicated permit processes, we are also not giving them the opportunity to be involved and be at the forefront of the green transition. If they do not do this, they are also not interesting for the market. It is a perfect synergy that we as legislators should not put spokes in the wheels of.

We have had many announcements regarding different types of changes in the permit processes. Now we are finally taking these parliamentary decisions and announcements seriously. The bill we are discussing today, Steps on the way towards a more efficient environmental review, presents a number of forward-looking proposals that will benefit both our country, our companies, and our environment. But this is only a small step on the way. It was very clear when we took over government power that much more needed to be done.

Fast and predictable permit processes are required for Sweden to be able to meet the challenges of the climate transition and at the same time secure the business sector's competitiveness. The Government therefore decided to appoint an additional investigation into shortened and simplified permit processes according to the Environmental Code. That investigation shall take a holistic approach to the Swedish environmental review. The environmental permit processes need to be simplified and shortened by making the review more flexible, efficient, and predictable. Long and unreliable permit processes are an obstacle to the green transition. Therefore, I also look forward to that investigation being completed at the end of this year. But let me return to the report and the bill we are discussing today.

One of the main proposals of the bill is to expand the possibilities for using modification permits. This is a welcome change that will make it easier for companies to adapt and modernize their operations without having to go through a completely new permit process. It saves time and resources while simultaneously encouraging continuous improvement and innovation within the industry. By making it easier for companies to implement changes, we can also promote a process where they can devote time, effort, and finances to what ultimately makes a difference, namely production. This is particularly important in a time when technological progress is rapid and companies need to be able to adapt to remain competitive.

The proposal also suggests that the period of validity for permits can be extended by three years. This gives operators more flexibility and time to either wind down their operations in a responsible manner or secure a new permit. It is a pragmatic solution that balances the needs of the business community with environmental considerations.

Giving companies more time reduces the stress surrounding narrow timeframes, which can lead to more deliberate decisions and better environmental measures. It also gives the authorities the opportunity to focus on more complex cases instead of getting stuck in administrative details.

Madam Speaker! Another important aspect is the proposal to develop the County Administrative Board's role during the delimitation consultation. This will increase the possibilities of producing a good decision basis and clarify the outcome of the consultation. It is a step towards a more transparent and efficient process that benefits all parties.

By strengthening the County Administrative Board's role, we can ensure that all relevant views are taken into account from the beginning of the process. This creates a more inclusive dialogue between authorities, companies, and the public, which hopefully ultimately leads to better decisions.

The proposition contains several proposals to streamline the processing by the investigative authorities. Among others, it is proposed that there should be increased use of oral preparations and time plans, and that more cases should be able to be decided without a main hearing. This will contribute to shorter processing times without compromising legal certainty. By introducing clearer timeframes and focusing on oral preparations, we can significantly speed up the process. This also means less burden on the courts, which makes it possible for them to handle more cases effectively.

In line with the digital development in society, the bill also proposes increased scope for digital processing. This is an important step to modernize the process and make it more accessible and efficient. Digitalization does not only mean faster processes - it also means increased transparency and the possibility for better traceability in decision-making. Through digitalization, we can also reach out to more citizens, which creates greater engagement and participation in environmental issues.

It is also worth mentioning the economic opportunities that this bill opens up. By investing in green technology and efficiency, we are not only creating a more sustainable future but also a platform for economic growth and new jobs. It is not just an environmental initiative - it is an investment in Sweden's future economic stability.

I vote in favor of the bill.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to talk a little about credibility. It is often said that to have credibility, one must both speak as it is and also do what one says.

If we look at this government's year in power, we can observe that they speak very well about more efficient permit processes. What is being said sounds good, and I and the Social Democrats agree with a great deal of what is said regarding what is required to streamline the permit processes.

But if we instead look at what the government is doing, we can see that in all budgets, they have allocated far too few resources to the relevant authorities. When there is an opportunity to streamline environmental permits when it comes to specifically change permits, they present a half-measure.

I have great hopes that the investigation that has been appointed will come with even more and important proposals for changes to streamline the permit processes, but the credibility is not particularly high. Kjell-Arne Ottosson, how great hopes should I actually have that good proposals will come from the government?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the question! I have noted in Joakim Järrebring's speeches and in the replies he has made so far that the tail-end has been quite high. I can also note that we have a number of announcements on these issues when it comes to more efficient permit processes and fast tracks, i.e., making it faster and more efficient precisely so that we can reach there, as I believe we both want to reach.

The earliest I could find is from 2016. We made a huge number of announcements during the 2018-2022 term. It was a period when Joakim Järrebring's party sat in government together with Miljöpartiet. Why were these changes not made when you yourselves were in power, Joakim Järrebring? There were decisions in the Swedish Riksdag that it should be done. You had the opportunity to appoint inquiries, but it took a very long time before anything actually happened.

When we then took over, we saw that we had to give a supplementary directive to the environmental assessment investigation that we handle parts of today. At the same time, we had to have a completely new investigation in order to take a significantly larger grip on the issue.

The question is rather: Why did you not do anything during the eight years that you sat in government last time, when you had the opportunity? Was it possibly the case that you did not make progress because there were different views between the governing parties, or were there other parts that caused it to only result in announcements and no delivery?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Whether I have a high tail-ranking or not, perhaps I will leave it there.

It is clear that these issues are extremely pressing. If one listened to my speech earlier, one heard that we have a very tough situation in Sweden. We have high unemployment. We have low growth. We are missing our environmental goals. It is required that one is active. That is what I want to convey.

Then it starts to become quite tiring to listen to a government representative who constantly wants to mix up the cards and say: Yes, but what about you. Now it is actually the Christian Democrats who are in a government position. The opposition's task is to scrutinize, point out deficiencies, and demand real solutions.

But my question remains. We can evaluate what the government has done to streamline the permit processes, with too low appropriations to the relevant authorities and with a missed opportunity to ensure that permit amendments become the rule in reality. How much credibility does the government have, and how great expectations should everyone listening to the debate have for the proposals that will hopefully come from the government when this investigation is finished?

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt that Joakim Järrebring and the undersigned are in complete agreement that these are pressing issues where solutions must be found. That is precisely why we are active and why we are taking further steps. You simply failed to do it when you sat in government, Joakim Järrebring.

Joakim Järrebring highlights the difference between the majority and the opposition regarding work tasks. That is absolutely correct. We tried when we were in opposition. But then nothing happened. Therefore, we must make the changes now that we are in the majority. It is now that we have the chance. That was why we gave an additional directive to the inquiry. That is why we have appointed a new inquiry - to take a holistic approach. It is not least about a holistic approach where one is actually allowed to touch the Environmental Code.

In the directives for the investigation that we are debating today, it was indeed very clear that they put up fences, electric fences, and all sorts of things precisely so that the investigation would not go in and touch formal requirements in the Environmental Code, which is actually what is needed if we are to move forward. This was not what the previous government wanted, and therefore they really fenced it in. Then we can ask ourselves why they did not want it. Because that is where we have the opportunity to make the decisions that make a real difference.

Another thing that makes a real difference, as Joakim Järrebring pointed out in his speech, is this matter of the economy. It is precisely for that reason that we are now allocating additional funds in the budget to the county administrative boards, to Sweden's courts, to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. We do that precisely so that we can move faster in these issues regarding permit processes. We are active and allocating more funds so that progress can be made faster there as well. It is therefore not just about legislation. We have taken parts of that step, and we are on our way to taking longer steps. At the same time, we are allocating more money so that those who are then to handle the whole thing can do so in a faster and more efficient way. In that way, one is active in environmental policy.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet is positive towards simplifying and streamlining regulations to meet the challenges of the climate crisis and improving conditions for companies. But we cannot agree to decisions that risk weakening environmental protection. The purpose of environmental legislation is fundamentally to protect our health and the opportunities for our descendants to live good lives, and that must continue to be safeguarded.

The government's bill is largely based on the report of the Environmental Assessment Inquiry. However, the bill lacks the holistic approach that the report has and contains only parts of the inquiry's proposals. We in Vänsterpartiet support several of the proposals in the bill that we believe can contribute to making our current assessment system smoother, but we also believe that there are proposals here that could weaken our environmental protection.

There is no need to introduce an entirely new system for simplified and efficient processes for environmental permits. It is also confirmed by the government in the bill that the statistics show that most goals and cases are handled in a timely manner. The statistics also show that the absolute majority of operators receive permits. Only 3 percent of the applications at the Land and Environment Court during the years 2020-2021 were rejected.

There is a possibility in current legislation that, when changing an environmentally hazardous activity, the permit can be limited to only concern the change. Such a permit is called a change permit. In practice, many operators already receive change permits today, which means less extensive documentation during the assessment than if the entire activity were assessed.

The Government proposes in the bill that the main rule shall be that a permit shall be limited to only concerning the change. That proposal is based on the Environmental Assessment Inquiry, with the difference being that the inquiry considers that such a proposal should only be introduced on the condition that requirements for mandatory review of judgments and decisions are introduced so that environmentally hazardous activities shall receive modern environmental conditions.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency emphasizes this in its referral response: When the possibility of limited amendment permits was introduced in 2005, the legislator underlined the importance of actively updating older permits, and it was envisioned that all permits and conditions would have adapted to the requirements of the Environmental Code by 2015 at the latest. This has not been the case. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency proposes that modern environmental conditions shall mean that the permit's conditions or provisions for the protection of human health or the environment have been determined by a judgment or in a decision that is not older than 20 years.

Vänsterpartiet shares the objections that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and environmental organizations have raised against introducing simpler rules for modification permits despite that requirements for modern environmental conditions for environmentally hazardous activities have not been introduced. We are therefore not against simpler rules for modification permits, but that presupposes that requirements for modern conditions and permits are introduced simultaneously.

To take into account technological developments and a new state of knowledge regarding climate, environment, and human health, 20 years is a reasonable balance. The majority of all permits for environmentally hazardous activities and water activities that exist today apply forever, and there are many activities operated with the support of permits issued according to the 1969 Environmental Protection Act. I believe that Sweden can do better than that. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 5.

In addition to the proposal regarding modification permits, the government proposes that it should be possible to extend the validity of an existing permit for environmentally hazardous activities or water activities, or an existing Natura 2000 permit, for three years. We believe that that proposal could result in weakened environmental and health protection. In practice, it could weaken the operator's responsibility to apply for a new permit in good time before the current one expires. There is a risk that extension becomes a new norm. The consequence could be that the licensing authority is not given the opportunity to take into account that much new knowledge has been acquired since the activity was originally granted a permit. We therefore propose that that proposal in the bill be rejected.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Unnecessary bureaucratic overhead and complicated regulations with - all too often - unclear purposes do not promote a positive societal development. This is something most agree on - we have heard that here today. This is something that many parts of the Swedish public administration struggle with. I can state this, with many years within a state agency in my background. This is unfortunately one of the hallmarks of Swedish bureaucracy.

Long processing times and regulatory frameworks that are difficult to oversee do not make anyone happy. It is definitely not to anyone's benefit, and it is also not to the advantage of the state as an employer in a time of skills shortages. We need to use tax money and the time of state employees wisely and resource-efficiently, for we, as we know, have neither a bottomless treasury nor unlimited labor.

Madam Speaker! That the frustration regarding the permit processes in the Environmental Code is palpable is clear after we have heard the debate here today. It is in no way news. It is a picture I share. There is a job to be done here.

The bill we are now handling is a small step in the right direction. We need a modern, efficient and predictable regulatory framework. The Environmental Code's permit processes need to be simplified and streamlined so that the industry's transition can be accelerated, prosperity increased and emissions reduced faster. Obstacles must be removed so that the climate transition can be accelerated.

Measures to simplify and shorten the permit processes are absolutely necessary for Sweden to manage the green transition. It is also important for the competitiveness of Swedish companies and for attracting and retaining investments in Sweden. Many companies, large as well as small, testify that the permit processes are a major obstacle when one wants to transition their operations. Unnecessarily complicated, unpredictable, and protracted environmental assessments make investments more expensive and difficult, which often leads to them not happening at all.

It is a problem for Swedish competitiveness, it is a problem for society, growth and our common welfare, and it is a problem for the climate transition. It also hinders and delays the massive expansion of fossil-free electricity production that we need to obtain enough energy for electrification and industrial expansion.

Sweden has and will continue to have strong environmental legislation, but in order to strengthen competitiveness, the permit processes must become simpler and more efficient. Now we are taking a small step in the right direction, and that is good for Sweden. And more is to come. This government is dedicated to simplifying these processes.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the speech! I am convinced that the Liberals truly have a great commitment when it comes to both climate and environmental issues.

When it comes to streamlining the permit processes, I have in a previous exchange of remarks pointed out that the government is not doing enough regarding resources for the authorities involved in the processes. Even though more funds are allocated in this budget bill, at the beginning of this mandate period, they were significantly reduced, and we still have lower appropriations to the relevant authorities than we had when the government took office.

I am wondering if it is perhaps the Sweden Democrats' lack of commitment to the climate transition that lies behind the shortcomings I have pointed out in the current policy, or if it is quite simply the case that the Sweden Democrats are putting spokes in the wheels and preventing the government from pursuing the policy that is required.

My question is therefore: Are the Liberals and Elin Nilsson really satisfied with what the government has achieved in this area so far?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

We have just gone through a difficult economic period. We have pursued a budget-restrictive policy which now means that we see the end of the escalated inflation and finally see brighter times ahead, albeit still with dark clouds in the sky for many reasons.

Our commitment to the green transition and the climate issue is strong, and there is a strong will within the government base, in the Tidö parties, to get the permit processes in order. Here, we are working effectively, dedicatedly, and committedly to achieve more efficient permit processes, which is very important.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

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

It is clear that we have a tough economic period behind us. It is still tough for many households, especially for those with low incomes who need to stretch every penny.

When it comes to the appropriations to the relevant authorities, I must nevertheless ask about the priorities. With 60 billion in reform space, the government allocates approximately one-third to lowering taxes for those with the highest incomes. One could have prioritized differently and ensured that the relevant authorities received the appropriation levels required to truly streamline the permit processes.

I therefore wonder if the member has any thoughts or any reasoning regarding these priorities.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Järrebring, for the question!

An important liberal principle, which we have previously had great consensus on with other parties here in the Riksdag, is that one should keep half of what one has earned. Now we are on our way there again, and that is something we are very satisfied and happy about.

When it comes to the economic appropriations and how money is distributed in the state budget, the global situation means that we need to focus very much on defense. We have a situation in Sweden with severe organized crime that we need to act against. That also requires a lot of money. It costs very much and requires enormous resources to address the insecurity in Sweden. We also need to spend a lot of money on the school. We have prioritized that in this year's budget, and that means that appropriations have to be moved from other places.

Of course, we always want to do more in the area of the climate transition, and that is also something we are working on. What we are moving forward with now is a small but still important step on the way toward more efficient permit processes. More will come!

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

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

It is well known that the Liberals usually highlight the EU and the importance of EU cooperation. Therefore, I would like to ask how the Liberals view Sweden's role in the EU cooperation.

From the perspective of the Green Party, we have long been proud that Sweden has been able to be a driving force in increasing and strengthening the work on sustainability within the European Union. In this way, the progress we make in Sweden has had a greater effect both when it comes to halting climate change and when it comes to ensuring that the environment is improved. We have been able to push and gear up the work within the union.

Against that background, I am concerned that the government, in the investigation currently underway on permit processes, has as its first point to try to place the environmental requirements or environmental work in Sweden at the EU's minimum level. This would mean that Sweden would lose the power to demonstrate that better sustainability work benefits society and the business community and, in that way, the power to push forward and ramp up the work in the EU.

I would therefore like to ask the member how the Liberals view Sweden's role in the EU and how they view the investigation directive that has been commissioned linked to the permit processes regarding aligning Sweden's environmental requirements with the EU's minimum level. How does that affect the sustainability work in Sweden?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Söderberg!

It is true that we safeguard European cooperation and would like to see Sweden have a prominent role in a wide spectrum of issues, partly in the fight to support Ukraine, partly in environmental and climate work. We showed this, perhaps not least during the Swedish presidency, where the Swedish liberal minister was involved in pushing to get important legislative packages in place. We need to be involved in pushing European policy in the right direction.

Regarding the investigation the member refers to, we see the need for more efficient permit processes, and we also see the problem with the current system. We need to look at the issue broadly. When the investigation is reported, we will have to bring it home and review the proposals and see how we proceed. But that quite large changes are required on the environmental permit side is clear and distinct.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

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

It is pleasing to hear that the Liberals want to push forward, take pride in what liberal ministers have done regarding the environment and climate at the EU level, and want to work in that direction. The problem, as I see it, is that the government as a whole has voted no to or opposed several proposals from the EU Commission on the area of environment and sustainability. The Liberals sit in government together with the Moderates, who in the EPP group in the EU have introduced – or proposed – a moratorium on environmental legislation, which would totally stop the EU's forward-moving purpose when it comes to environmental work. Most recently, they also stood behind a doubling of the pelagic fishing quotas.

In a long row of areas, Sweden has not pushed for the environment and climate in the EU - which the member expresses that they want to do. Regarding, for example, the Fit for 55 package, which in some parts was introduced during the Swedish presidency, the government - where the Liberals have chosen to cooperate with the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats - is conducting a policy that means Sweden is on track to miss the EU commitments on the climate area. Thus, they are sabotaging the EU's common climate goals and commitments according to the Paris Agreement.

The question - which perhaps will now become broader - is why Elin Nilsson and the Liberals want to cooperate in a constellation that obviously goes in a different direction than the Liberals say they want. Previously, one has indeed cooperated in constellations where we have actually pushed forward the EU policy in the areas of climate and environment.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind [you] of the subject of the debate.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I will try to stick to the topic of today's debate but still want to briefly respond to what the Member said.

We take responsibility for Sweden. We have an agreement where we handle a long series of social problems that need to be addressed and managed, and we are doing that now. That is what I am proud of.

When it comes to the fishing quotas, I cannot fail to take the opportunity to address what the member said regarding the fishing negotiations that have just been completed. We have been in the government and pushed for the most restrictive line in many years. That was the starting point when negotiations were held in the Council. If I am satisfied with the outcome, doubled quotas? Absolutely not. That is not what the Baltic Sea needs.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate is about environmental assessments and permit processes. The area may seem bureaucratic, but it is absolutely important for our future. The permit processes for industry and infrastructure need to become more efficient and predictable. We have all seen how important it is to have a system that both protects our environment and gives companies the opportunity to grow and contribute to a sustainable development.

Sweden has the natural resources, the innovations, and the entrepreneurship to emerge victorious from the transition that can continue to create jobs and growth. But it often fails on such a seemingly simple thing as permits.

Madam Speaker! The Government's proposal is a step in the right direction. But let us be clear that it is not enough. We need to follow up and see what effect these proposals have. We must also be prepared to do more. The resources and efforts available for the green transition have been cut, and that affects both our environment and our economy.

I and the Center Party believe that the government during the mandate period has clearly shown that the climate is not a prioritized issue. They have cut back on important supports that contribute to the transition. The business community has clearly and explicitly stated that they want fewer obstacles to investing in the green transition. We must ensure that these obstacles are removed, and it is high time that we get started. Despite the stated priority to simplify, this is delayed. It has taken the government two years to produce this, and now we need to speed up the process even further.

Madam Speaker! One of the biggest shortcomings in our current legislation is that it does not weigh climate benefits in a satisfactory way. The Environmental Code needs to be reformed so that we can take into account the positive climate impact that new projects can provide. We must also ensure that the authorities' work is coordinated so that companies know what applies and can plan their investments.

Centerpartiet wants to see action here and now. We propose that the government appoints a permit preparation group. The preparation group shall function similarly to the Defense Preparation Group and work closely with ministers and expert agencies to, within a maximum of one year, resolve the biggest problems that the companies are experiencing. It should, among other things, handle issues such as which agency should become the point of entry for all permit issues and whether special teams should be appointed for climate projects over certain amounts, which can then be guided through the administrative handling. The purpose of a parliamentary preparation group is to ensure that there is good anchoring and a long-term majority for the proposals in the Riksdag.

We must also remember the local communities. It is crucial to ensure that revenues from, for example, power production and mineral extraction remain where the operations are conducted. Centerpartiet wants to look further into regional tax bases. They not only strengthen the economy in these areas but also provide a sense of participation and fairness.

Madam Speaker! In summary, I want to say that the deficiencies in our legislation and how it is implemented not only threaten our labor market and economy but also our opportunities to make a difference in the fight against climate change. It is time to act. We need more and more effective reforms to secure a sustainable future for both Sweden and our planet. This bill represents small steps in the right direction. However, significantly larger changes in the legislation regarding permit processes are needed so that Sweden's competitiveness can be strengthened and the green transition has a chance to succeed. Through broader cooperation, we could work out significantly better solutions than in the proposal we have on the table today.

I stand behind our special statement and move for approval of reservation 7.

Step on the way towards a more efficient environmental review

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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