Response to interpellation 2022/23:259 on a global nature agreement

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Rebecka Le Moine has asked me what I intend to do so that Sweden will fulfill the vision and the goals set out in the biodiversity agreement.

I welcome the outcome of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Montreal in December. The so-called Kunming-Montreal Framework, which was adopted during the meeting, contains global targets aimed at halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity. The loss of biodiversity is a critical issue for our planet, and the fact that the negotiations for a new global framework were successful is a significant milestone in halting and reversing the negative development.

The Government intends to actively counteract species extinction both globally and in Sweden through the conservation of particularly sensitive species and natural environments, a sustainable agriculture, as well as a fishing and forestry industry that continues to create environmental and climate benefits. Wetlands are important for the work on climate, biodiversity, eutrophication, and the landscape's resilience. The Government wants to develop that work and therefore invests in the rewetting of drained peatlands, which, if correctly implemented, is a very cost-effective climate measure that helps us address both the loss of biodiversity and the climate crisis.

The framework has the potential to be an important political and global commitment for the entire 2020s. The framework demonstrates a broad international will, which is very important for the implementation and for the path forward until 2030. Now we need to analyze the global declaration of intent from the party meeting and develop proposals on what Sweden can contribute with in light of this declaration of intent.

Naturvårdsverket has been tasked to report a proposal for a national strategy and action plan by October 1 of this year, so that Sweden can meet its commitments in accordance with the convention. The work shall be carried out with the relevant authorities. The strategy shall be based on the meeting of the parties' decision and propose what we from the Swedish side can do to achieve the goals in the framework.

Furthermore, the continued work with our national environmental goals for biodiversity is an ongoing effort that also contributes to fulfilling all the goals of the agreement. The Environmental Goals Commission has, through an additional directive, been tasked with developing a strategy with interim targets, steering mechanisms, and measures that contribute to Sweden's commitments for nature conservation and biodiversity, as well as uptake and emissions of greenhouse gases within the land use sector, LULUCF. That assignment shall be reported by December 2, 2024, at the latest.

Within the EU, during its presidency, Sweden will lead the work to ensure that the union maintains high ambition in the work ahead of the next party meeting. This applies in particular to the establishment of a monitoring framework, where the work with the further development of indicators has already started.

An important part of the Kunming-Montreal Framework is the decisions that developing countries shall receive increased financing assistance to implement the measures so that we succeed in reaching the common goals. A fund for this is now being developed under the Global Environment Facility GEF, to which Sweden has long been and will continue to be a major donor.

The Government will follow these questions closely and is working both nationally and internationally to ensure that we succeed in contributing to the framework's goals.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is immensely gratifying and important that we have finally secured this agreement, an agreement that has the overarching goal of stopping and reversing the loss of biodiversity and which is about us turning the nature crisis around, stopping the destruction of ecosystems and saving species one by one.

Time is running out to save many of Sweden's and the world's ecosystems. But there is still hope. Life has an inherent force for continued life. However, nothing will happen of its own accord. The government must now scrutinize the laws, environmentally harmful subsidies, economic incentives, and the production that puts an excessively harsh pressure on our ecosystems.

The agreement establishes that a significant part of the implementation lies in the financing. When I look at the home front and at how the budget looks, Madam Speaker, it does not feel particularly promising. The government's budget has resulted in a slaughter of the work to protect and preserve valuable nature. For 2023, 3.5 billion is being removed from the protection of valuable nature and measures for biodiversity, endangered species, and management. Just the item for protection of valuable nature has decreased by approximately 70 percent with the new government's budget.

Furthermore, the government has chosen to reduce aid. They are abandoning those who need it most in the world by saying "Sweden first." According to the Montreal Agreement, 700 billion dollars shall be financed annually to fund the implementation of the nature agreement. This is therefore an equation that is difficult to make work, and I truly hope that the Minister for Environment has a great commitment and wants to maintain the funding for the aforementioned GEF.

Furthermore, our authorities, Naturvårdsverket and Skogsstyrelsen, have found it very difficult to carry out their important missions because they have received much fewer resources.

In order to truly be able to implement this and reverse the trends, it is important that we transition to a sustainable use. Therefore, I find it very worrying when the Minister, in his opening statement, says that we shall have a continued sustainable forestry and a continued sustainable use of the seas, because it is far from sustainable today.

During the previous parliamentary term, we in Miljöpartiet received an announcement that we were to move the trawling limit further out. I have understood that the Minister for the Environment has a very great commitment regarding this, and therefore I was both surprised and disappointed by the outcome. If one looks at the needs of the species herring and sprat, protection would be needed all the way from the Bothnian Bay and the entire Baltic Sea down to Skåne. Sweden and the government have the capacity to make decisions to move the trawling limit twelve nautical miles out, but instead, they have chosen to protect the industrial trawlers by carrying out the upcoming relocation of the trawling limit only in a few small and few areas. This is some kind of experiment that truly risks our ecosystems in the Baltic Sea and in the oceans.

My question is therefore: How does the Minister for the Environment view the situation where we have researchers who are sounding the alarm regarding our fish stocks and a government that still does not do enough to actually safeguard and protect the oceans, but instead chooses to protect the industrial trawlers?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Now there have been many questions to handle in a short time, but I will do my very best.

Let us begin with the fact that this government is claimed to have slaughtered the climate and environment budget and would not invest enough money on the issues that I manage, Madam Speaker. That is not true. Our budget for climate and environment is 19.5 billion. That is a larger budget than Miljöpartiet managed to put forward for climate and environment during its time in government. It is therefore not true that we are not investing money.

Regarding the protection and management of valuable nature, which Member Le Moine raised, it is easy to say that we have reduced that specific budget area by 70 percent. One can say that precisely because the previous government had a very good specific initiative in that area which has now expired. However, it is not the case that there are no funds in that pot. This government continues to invest in the protection of valuable nature, totaling over 2 billion kronor. I consider this to be a fairly substantial sum that can be managed in the best possible way.

In addition to this, the government is investing just over 1 billion, Madam Speaker, in the marine and water environment. What is being raised here regarding marine and water issues is correct. As Rebecka Le Moine knows, I have also had a great commitment to these issues for a long time. Therefore, I am proud that, in addition to having invested 1 billion in the marine and water environment, we have tasked the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management to handle the issue of the trawling limit in a sensible way. They are now working out how we can present proposals that best correspond to a relocation of the trawling limit.

Let me then point out that this is far more than what Miljöpartiet managed to achieve regarding trawling limits and our marine environment during its time in government. The Liberals have, in any case, Madam Speaker, managed to change something on that front, which is more than what Miljöpartiet managed. I hope that Rebecka Le Moine, a member who also has a great commitment to marine and water issues, can be pleased that this government has managed to present proposals regarding this.

Then questions about aid and financing were also raised. It is true that it is a very important part of this work. When we look at the global situation regarding biodiversity, it is clear that there are many developing countries that do not have the possibility to work with these issues in the way they would wish. For that very reason, I am proud that the government, despite that we are generally reducing aid, has clearly announced that we will increase climate and environmental aid. We have a very large commitment specifically regarding climate and environmental aid worldwide that continues.

Even here I am somewhat disappointed, Madam Speaker, with the previous government, which promised a doubling but ultimately lowered the aid to climate and environment. I have also pointed this out to the Miljöpartiet spokesperson Per Bolund. The big words are fantastic, but what do you do in reality? What do you do when the money is actually required and when the situation becomes tough?

This government understands that it is not enough for Sweden to be the best in class. We shall continue to be the best in class, but we must help more countries advance in their environmental and climate work. We will stand up for this by increasing the funds that go through, for example, the Global Environment Facility to other countries, but also by actually taking action on the practical, for example, by addressing the issue of trawling limits in Sweden.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for an engaged contribution!

There is, however, a difference between commitment and will and actual money in the budget. To be concrete, I thought of taking the Arctic fox as an example. The Arctic fox is one of Sweden's most endangered species. There is probably no one who can look at an Arctic fox and not feel a commitment and a responsibility that we should preserve it. But this government has cut the item concerning measures for endangered species, precisely the money that must be allocated if we are to be able to fulfill the global agreement.

The Arctic foxes are so threatened that they need supplementary feeding. Had there been many more of them, it would have been part of the natural process that not all survived. However, just-threatened species like the Arctic fox need supplementary feeding. To provide supplementary feeding, money is needed that can go towards helicopters to reach these inaccessible places. That money is not in the budget. Therefore, voluntary forces and WWF have to pay the difference.

This is a very concrete example of how the government is failing the species that are most threatened in Sweden.

Then one can talk about money here and there and which government has done what, but I do not believe there is any doubt about who has really pushed forward on water issues. Isabella Lövin is a well-known name in those circles. The entire discussion we have about bottom trawling is backed by Miljöpartiet via a motion. It is nice that one wants to take up and continue the work that we have initiated.

If we are to come to terms with the extinction that is taking place right before our eyes here in Sweden, we must also start talking about what we are going to do about the clear-cuts.

I am a conservation biologist by profession, Madam Speaker. It is these issues that have made me politically engaged. I have seen how great the difference is between beautiful words and reality. If we do not address the major structural problems, which the global agreement calls for, time is running out for many of our species. 400-500 species are directly threatened and red-listed due to clear-cuts. The clear-cuts are unprofitable for the private owner. They are bad for water quality; they silt up and poison the water. They are bad for the climate. When one sees a clear-cut, it is a former ecosystem one is seeing.

If we do nothing, all valuable old-growth natural forests in Jämtland are estimated to be gone in ten years. What would be needed is to urgently protect the last remaining primeval and natural forests in Sweden and to stop the indiscriminate logging that occurs today. Today, the Swedish Forest Agency has only six weeks to handle a case; after that, it is free to log.

We need a government that advocates for a shift in cultivation methods from giant clear-cuts to small-scale and continuous-cover forestry. We also need to ensure that this industry is covered by the Environmental Code.

I do not, Madam Speaker, have very high hopes for the government given how it has acted, for example in matters that have come from the EU. When there has been talk about the forest strategy and the restoration strategy, one has put the brakes on. But I still want to ask the Minister for the Environment: Is how we harvest forest something that the Minister for the Environment can look further into and perhaps reposition themselves so that the government can begin to advocate for and promote clear-cut-free forestry methods?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! When you have two parties that both have a great commitment to climate and environmental issues, it can sometimes be a matter of a new government with new ministers taking over and continuing to work on something that previous governments have initiated, correctly. One such positive thing is that the previous government made a very large investment in certain areas in the issues we are now discussing. Those investments were welcome. It is very good that such investments were made and that we have taken steps forward in that work. It is nothing that this government takes issue with.

What it is about is that we in this government have a different situation when we come to the table. We have a situation with high inflation, and we are heading into a recession. Then one has to think in a different way: How do we structure our economic policy in the best way to handle the reality that we are facing?

It is not that everything that previous governments, for example with Miljöpartiet at the helm, have done is bad. Some of the things are good, and we will continue to work with those.

When it comes to how we are to live up to the new global declaration of intent from the party meeting and the fantastic successes that have occurred on a global level, I do not believe, unlike Rebecka Le Moine, that we can quickly say what is required. Now, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency must sit down and seriously analyze what the new declaration of intent implies and how Sweden can contribute in the best way. I think that is a responsible way to proceed in order to be able to live up to what has been agreed upon on a global level.

In the discussion taking place at a global level, financing is mentioned frequently. That is how it is: in the negotiations taking place globally on both climate and environment, we talk a lot about financing issues. This is because there is a large gap between us and developing countries, countries with different economic conditions, which do not have the economic possibility to succeed with, for example, work for biodiversity. It is a priority from this government, in a way that differs from the previous one, that we actually want to invest further in and expand aid to international climate and environmental work.

The government continues to invest over 2 billion on the protection and management of valuable nature, and the Environmental Goals Commission will, through supplementary directives, look specifically at the issues that Rebecka Le Moine highlights. It would, of course, have been appreciated to stand here and give sharp instructions on what applies, but this government obediently awaits the Environmental Goals Commission's conclusions so that we can also achieve stability in the policy we pursue. We shall see which proposals they present on 2 December 2024 and what we can do with those proposals. Which ones can we pick out and push forward in order to best ensure that we can handle Sweden's commitments for nature conservation and biodiversity, but also the commitments we have towards the EU regarding the forest?

I would like to take this opportunity to mention that there have also been great advances regarding marine and water issues internationally through an agreement that was finalized concerning what is called BBNJ, i.e., regulation - legislation, one could say - of international deep seas. It will have a major impact on the international work with water and oceans, and it is very welcome that global successes have been achieved there as well.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to stay a little bit on the forest, which is one of my absolute foremost heart issues. I am curious about how the government reconciles its different opinions and statements regarding the ambition. There are ideas from the other parties about having a protection that only applies periodically, i.e., that one should protect a forest for a certain period and then remove the protection. Voices are also raised that Sweden has protected enough forest. Some even want to loosen the protection that exists in order to be able to access more and increase production further.

At the same time, we have an Environment Minister who is signing the global nature agreement, which is very pleasing and completely correct, but where it also states that one should protect up to 30 percent of ecosystems and that those which are protected should be representative and well-distributed across the different nations that have signed. Furthermore, it states that one should work with restoration. They talk about 20 percent restoration of ecosystems that are broken today, and then I become curious about how the government stands on these issues. Should we in Sweden work for 30 percent protection and a restoration of 20 percent of the broken ecosystems? If the answer is yes, which the global nature agreement requires, then enormous investments are required. Then it is not about 2 billion but perhaps the order of magnitude 15 billion or even more.

My question is, therefore, whether the government stands behind the agreement, and if so, whether it is prepared to commit the money that would be required.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Rebecka Le Moine for another interesting and rewarding debate on how Sweden works with issues concerning specifically biological diversity!

Let me begin by mentioning that we have not only signed the agreements concerning COP 15 and the new Kunming-Montreal Framework, but we were also there on-site and pushed for it. Together with the Environment Minister from Germany, I have been responsible for the EU's negotiations in a part of the agreement.

The government places great emphasis on the fact that there is a global development moving in the right direction, not only regarding COP 15 and biodiversity but also regarding marine and water issues where we were present on behalf of the government to ensure that the BBNJ negotiations reached a conclusion. It was not expected, because some vocal countries were critical, wanted to drag this out, and did not see the fantastic successes that were ultimately achieved in the new global ocean agreement. It was not the case that Sweden stood by hesitantly and reluctantly and perhaps signed that paper. I was, on the contrary, personally present, and the government is pushing for a rapid, global development moving in the right direction.

It is the case that this government, like previous governments, has divided opinions on how we should handle the complicated forest issue in Sweden. But what we agree on is that we want to safeguard the stewardship concept and ensure that we can have a good dialogue on a solid basis with those who manage forests in Sweden and ensure that we protect the use and utilization of the forest but also the preservation of the valuable forest which must continue to be developed.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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