Response to interpellation 2022/23:311 on the LULUCF regulation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that the government has high ambitions for climate policy and sees the climate transition as an opportunity for economic prosperity 1. L believes that carbon sequestration in the LULUCF sector is significant for reaching net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest 1 and will ensure that Sweden reaches the goal 2. L argues that a corrective mechanism in the LULUCF regulation is poorly suited for forestry due to natural variations 1. L believes that active forestry with high growth provides the greatest long-term climate benefit 1. L invests over 2 billion kronor in the protection and management of valuable nature 3 and in nature-based solutions 3. L argues that a more sustainable forest policy is needed than under previous governments 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Elin Söderberg has asked me whether the government's position in the vote on what we call the LULUCF regulation at EU level will be reflected in the government's national policy.
The government has high ambitions for its climate policy, and we are committed to achieving the EU's climate goals. We see the climate transition as an opportunity to increase competitiveness and the economic prosperity of Sweden and Europe.
The Government also recognizes the importance of climate measures in all sectors and sees a need for LULUCF legislation at the EU level. We support the objective and the overall approach for the Fit for 55 package until 2030. Carbon sequestration in the LULUCF sector is significant, particularly for Sweden to reach the long-term climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest and net-negative thereafter.
In the eleventh hour of the negotiations, a corrective mechanism was added which is intended to be applied within the sector's short timeframe until 2030. It could mean significant restrictions in Swedish forestry. The mechanism is poorly suited for the sector, as it is characterized by great uncertainties and natural variations. That was why the government abstained from voting and left a written explanation as to why we chose to do so.
Mr. Speaker! I also want to remind Elin Söderberg that Miljöpartiet was also concerned about the short-sightedness of the legislation and its impact on Swedish forestry. This is clearly stated in the fact memorandum (2020/21:FPM138) which was produced when Miljöpartiet led the Ministry of the Environment in the summer of 2021. The government at that time, of which Miljöpartiet was a part, considered that Sweden's commitment was too high and that the maximum sustainable yield should be allowed.
Regarding the government's national policy, the Environmental Goals Commission has been tasked with investigating how Sweden can comply with the LULUCF regulation in a cost-effective manner. The national policy is also clearly described in the latest budget bill.
Regarding the forest's climate benefit and the consequences of climate change for forestry, the government assesses that active forestry with high growth and the use of products from renewable raw materials provides the highest long-term climate benefit. Swedish forestry shall therefore be able to contribute to a climate transition in Sweden and the EU as a whole. The government will therefore prioritize collective efforts for high growth, good forest health, and a growing circular bioeconomy.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Romina Pourmokhtari, for the answer!
The IPCC released its latest synthesis report earlier this spring. It states with all desirable clarity that the world is now in an extremely serious situation. It lists examples of how the drier weather will become drier and the wetter weather will become wetter, how millions of people are affected by the consequences of climate change already today, and how food production could decrease significantly in many regions.
We are getting both direct and indirect effects here in Sweden with difficult conditions for Swedish agriculture. There is an increased risk of flooding, landslides and rockslides. We already have Scanian municipalities today that are struggling with solutions to manage the sea-level rise. The list is long.
Extremely dramatic emission reductions are needed now in the near term for us to halt climate change. In that case, measures until 2030, which the minister here called the short time span, are completely central.
The IPCC also highlights that precisely nature-based solutions are incredibly important if we are to halt climate change. Nature-based solutions are also important for climate adaptation. Large synergies are seen between strengthening biodiversity and the work of combating climate change.
In the Swedish forests, the Swedish Forest Agency has quite recently reported that the net carbon sequestration has decreased in recent years, which is due to the fact that less has grown but also that we have harvested more.
Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet see a great need that a national policy is now pursued that helps forest owners to gain commercial benefit from increasing carbon sequestration in the forest and strengthening biodiversity.
Measures are also needed to build up a more circular economy and a more resource-efficient utilization of biomass and forest raw materials. But we do not see that type of measures from the government. Instead, the government has here opposed the work being done in the EU to increase carbon sequestration when it abstained from voting for the LULUCF regulation.
We also see that this attitude recurs in national politics. We have not seen any proposals regarding strengthening forestry's conditions to increase carbon sequestration. Instead, several statements have been made about increasing logging and not providing resources to, for example, protect forests or to take measures to restore nature.
In the 2023 budget proposal that the government submitted, 2.5 billion less resources were allocated to nature protection compared to the budget that Miljöpartiet submitted together with Socialdemokraterna. That is 70 percent fewer resources.
Since the government took office, the Swedish Forest Agency has also received 70 percent less in funding. We heard on the news today that the Swedish Forest Agency experiences receiving extremely unclear guidelines from the government. One does not know whether to protect valuable nature or whether to let it be logged.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I wonder if the Green Party seriously means that the position the government has taken towards the LULUCF regulation is what destroys our entire trust capital in climate work, and that it would really be so as is pointed out in their interpellation, that we are undermining our strong position as an example in climate policy.
How is it then that Miljöpartiet itself highlighted the same concerns regarding Swedish forestry when they were in government? It is remarkable that such great weight is placed on the fact that the government takes this position, which takes into account Sweden's specific circumstances regarding our large forest production, and argues that it would simply destroy our trust.
I think it is sad that one chooses to blacken Sweden's strong position as an example in that way with the strong word choices in interpellations and in other media statements from a party that claims to safeguard climate and environment.
We can, of course, speak about the crisis situation we are in regarding the climate: that global warming is increasing and that we have enormous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions that we must reduce. When we do not reduce emissions, it leads to flooded basements, landslides, and a lot of difficult situations such as heatwaves and others. As the drought looks now, we will certainly need to manage more forest fires. We also see how many parts of the world that do not have the same economic capacity as we do to handle the consequences of the climate crisis are being hit very heavily.
Mr. Speaker! There is a reason why the Green Party chooses to place such great emphasis on the crisis itself: people prefer to talk about the problem rather than what the actual solutions are. If we actually come to the question of how we solve the problem, the whole thing becomes much more complex.
Then it becomes, for example, a question of how Swedish forestry can protect the climate in a better way, and it is not by never touching a tree again. It is by making a sound assessment of how we utilize and manage our forest in order to be able to plant new trees that grow. It is when the trees grow that they capture the most carbon dioxide.
The short time span, Mr. Speaker, is something I want to highlight. When I say that it is a short time span for this specific sector to mention a goal for 2030, it simply has to do with what I mention in my answer: For this sector, 2030 is a short time span. As the member surely understands himself, forest production is a type of production that does not work with the same time spans as other production. If you plant a tree, it takes some time before you, so to speak, can harvest it.
Since this sector is characterized by great uncertainties, there are different conditions. There is, on the one hand, a large natural variation, and on the other hand, uncertain data that contribute to it differing greatly between different years. One can take Sweden as an example. The forecast was that we would underperform by approximately 4 million tons by 2030 and approximately 10 million tons between 2026 and 2029. That is a relatively small change. But if one looks, for example, at Finland's annual carbon sink of approximately 15 million tons, one sees that it suddenly dropped to zero million tons in one year, partly because it was a dry year and because the forecast simply did not hold true in reality.
The sector is characterized by conditions that must be taken into account. That does not mean that I do not want to solve the climate crisis during the years leading up to 2030 and then just lean back. I realize, on the contrary, that much needs to be done, but that it is sometimes a bit more complex than one can only point at the issue and say: Now it is a crisis, and therefore we shall solve this!
How do we ensure that Swedish forestry can truly contribute to sustainability? It is a more complex question.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, how does the government ensure that we can solve this and increase carbon sequestration? That was what I was seeking answers to. But I have not received any answers on what policy the government has to give forest owners and the forestry industry the conditions to increase carbon sequestration in the forest, strengthen biodiversity, and climate-adapt forestry so that we get robust forests that can withstand more drought.
Instead, Romina Pourmokhtari uses the tactic that offense is the best defense. But we in Miljöpartiet have been very clear about where we stand on forest issues. Several of the measures that we would like to see, I also mentioned in my first post. We want to see increased carbon sequestration in the forest, strengthened biodiversity, and a climate adaptation of the forest.
We included several measures in the forest bill. We presented a budget where we had 2.5 billion more for the protection of valuable nature that could go to forest owners who want to protect their forests so that they can also sequester more carbon. It is 2.5 billion that this government does not have in its budget. Forest owners who today want to protect their forests will therefore not have access to money to do so.
When it comes to the short time span, it is understandable that the time spans are precisely short. This is an industry where the forest grows over very many years. But it also plays a very big role what we do within this short time span. We are, as said, in a situation where greenhouse gas emissions must decrease dramatically by 2030, and we must take measures to increase carbon sequestration before 2030. It makes an enormous difference; it is absolutely crucial if we are to meet the Paris Agreement and avoid the most serious consequences of climate change.
Then the question remains: What does the government want to do until 2030 for the forestry industry and for the possibility of increasing carbon sequestration? I have not received an answer to that yet.
Instead, we have been informed that the government wants to significantly lower the reduction obligation. This leads to dramatically increased emissions of greenhouse gases from the transport sector. It also leads to the fact that Sweden is not expected to reach our interim goal for 2030 in the climate area. We are not expected to reach our sector goal for the transport sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport by at least 70 percent by 2030, and that also means we do not reach Sweden's commitment in the EU to reduce emissions from the non-ETS sector.
Our EU commitment means that we risk having to pay billions of Swedish taxpayers' money as a penalty because Sweden does not reach our EU commitment in the climate area by 2030.
Another tool could be that the forestry industry overperforms so that we reach our commitment on increased carbon sequestration in forests that we have through the LULUCF regulation, and that it does more to make up for the fact that the government is not delivering policies to transition the transport sector. In that situation, you put the forestry industry in an extremely tough position – to reach the LULUCF commitment, and partly overperform to make up for the transport sector – without you having presented policies that give the forestry industry the conditions to increase carbon sequestration.
My question remains, then: What does the government want to do to provide forest owners and the forest industry with the conditions to increase carbon sequestration in the forest, strengthen biological diversity, increase resource efficiency in the forest industry, increase the circular economy, and strengthen long-lived products instead of short-lived ones that lead to rapid emissions?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, what do we want to do? We have been clear in our budget proposal regarding how we view forest production and on forest issues in general in Sweden from the government's side.
We will also continue to work on these issues. If one has listened carefully, one has noted that, for example, the Minister for Rural Affairs has spoken about the government working on a forestry investigation that will clarify some of the questions that have arisen.
I can, however, understand why these question marks arise. When I hear the Director General of the Swedish Forest Agency speaking in Ekot, I hear what he says, and I understand why he says what he does. Sweden's system for forest protection has major problems. It is unpredictable for both the landowners and the authorities, and it depends on very large sums - large amounts in the billions every year.
Mr. Speaker! There is a reason why Member Söderberg chooses to attach such great weight to the budget presented in 2022. That was, in fact, a budget regulated by the government that the Green Party was not part of. If one had instead looked at the budgets with, for example, expenditures for the protection and maintenance of nature that were presented when the Green Party held the role of Minister for the Environment, one would have seen that the totals are lower than those that the government is now presenting. We continue to invest over 2 billion kronor on the protection and maintenance of valuable nature.
It concerns me, Mr. Speaker, that the member stands here and speaks falsely, saying that we are not investing anything in this area and that there is no money. That is not true. We are investing over 2 billion on this, but we have a major problem when we are dependent on very large amounts of billions every year to be able to protect our nature.
Nature-based solutions, which the member takes up as an example, are a very good way for us to manage the protection of our biodiversity while we can improve our sustainability in society as a whole and push back the climate crisis. Nature-based solutions are both profitable and cost-effective but also a very good way to manage the crisis with species extinction and the climate crisis in the same stroke. Therefore, the government chooses to invest 200 million kronor to make the investments in wetlands permanent, so that we can rewet and get the work done that needs to be done so that we can save our wetlands.
One can invest a lot of money here, but the important thing is that it works. If we look at previous sums that have been allocated for the wetlands, we see that they have not really been able to be utilized in the best possible way. It is complicated and difficult. This too must be reviewed.
As a government, one cannot simply invest the money and then lean back; one also needs to actively engage in how to ensure that the money spent achieves the impact one wants to see. This government is working diligently on this.
We will also, as I clearly mentioned in my response, through the Environmental Goals Secretariat, review how we can protect forests in a more goal-oriented and strategic way in the future. We see a great need for it. This is a need that the previous governments have not addressed but that this government will now need to address, among other things through an upcoming forest inquiry. We also, as mentioned, have a clear mandate for the Environmental Goals Secretariat to review how Sweden can best fulfill its commitments within the LULUCF sector.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to make some clarifications.
The statements from Minister Romina Pourmokhtari regarding the budget are incorrect. When we in Miljöpartiet were in government, we negotiated the forest bill that was submitted to the Riksdag. In connection with this, the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet submitted a joint budget for 2022 in the autumn of 2021, where there were 2.5 billion more in resources for nature protection than is the case in this government's current budget. This budget bill fell partially in the Riksdag because the current government parties specifically voted down the money for nature protection. These were funds that could have gone to Swedish forest owners who want to protect their forests, who want to contribute to increased biodiversity, and who want to contribute to increased carbon sequestration in the forest. It is this that I want to clarify.
In my speech, I also never said that the government is not investing anything in the protection of nature, which the Minister said in his speech. What I am saying is that it is 70 percent less than what we submitted in our budget proposal when we were in government.
In Romina Pourmokhtari's response to this interpellation, she said that the national policy is clearly described in the latest budget bill. In the latest budget bill, it is stated in black and white that with the government's policy, it is no longer expected to reach the climate goals by 2030. When Miljöpartiet was in the government, we were in line with reaching the climate goals by 2030.
What I want to clarify here is that Miljöpartiet wants us to reduce territorial emissions, transition the transport targets so that we reach the targets by 2030, and ensure that we increase carbon sequestration so that we fulfill the climate commitment we now have within the EU to increase carbon sequestration in forest and land. The government's policy leads to us not reaching the climate targets by 2030. I have also not yet heard of any measures that would lead to us reaching our goal within the LULUCF sector by 2030. This is what I have requested.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It is very difficult to get clarity on what applies here if one does not listen very carefully. The member continues to choose to focus on the past year 2022, and there is a reason for this.
If one looks at the totals for years earlier than 2022 - earlier than the election year - one sees that the totals look different. Then it is not a matter of us having reduced the astronomical totals that are mentioned, but it concerns specific investments that have been made in the election year 2022. If one focuses on them, the perspective becomes quite skewed.
One is dependent on billions of kronor to manage the protection of forests in Sweden. We cannot continue in that way if we seriously want a stable protection of our forests and a stable situation for both landowners and authorities. One is dependent on the government pumping in billions of kronor to make it all work.
We need to ensure that our forest policy is more sustainable. In the same way, we need to handle the climate crisis in a more sustainable way than previous governments have done. That is why it becomes like this in the situation we find ourselves in now. One reviews a measure that the previous government had for the climate crisis and changes one of the tools that exist to handle the climate crisis, and the consequences are that we suddenly stand very far away from the milestones for 2030.
The Chairman chose not to mention the long-term goal of net-zero 2045, which is Sweden's major climate goal and which the previous government did not appear to be on track to reach. This government will ensure that we reach it. This government will not invest short-term and rely on, for example, low fuel prices and that Russia will not wage a war of invasion. This government will have a more sustainable climate policy, and it will protect Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.