Response to interpellation 2022/23:330 on a new investigation into the shore protection
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that the shore protection needs to become more flexible and better adapted to local conditions to enable development in rural areas 1 2. L argues that in areas with low development pressure, the rules can be softened without harming nature conservation 1 2 and that investigations are part of the democratic process 3. L argues that the criticism that the investigation does not look at exemptions for residential construction should be directed at the previous government 4 and that they intend to return to the question of a reformed regulatory framework after the investigation 4. C argues that the current rules are absurd and hinder residential construction 5. C believes that the government is hiding behind an investigation that does not take a holistic approach 6 and that the investigation has too small a mandate.
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)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked if I intend to take the initiative for a new comprehensive coastal protection investigation in order to enable the development of housing and business activities in Sweden's rural areas.
Sweden's climate and environmental policy must be ambitious. Our common climate and environmental policy is based on the concept of stewardship and strives to find the most cost-effective measures, which at the same time do not harm industries and the countryside. The policy must be aligned with research and based on facts.
The coastal protection is important to ensure the public's access to beaches and to preserve good living conditions for flora and fauna. Since population density, the degree of exploitation, and the pressure on development show a great variation across the country, the coastal protection needs to become more flexible and better adapted to local conditions. In areas with low exploitation pressure, there are often good opportunities to soften the coastal protection without this counteracting nature conservation and outdoor life. At the same time, a strict coastal protection still needs to be applied in areas where the exploitation pressure is assessed as very high or where other special reasons exist.
The Government decided on 1 December 2022 to extend the reporting time for the investigation Purposeful exceptions from the shore protection for the land-based industries. The investigation shall report the assignment no later than 31 December 2023. The investigation shall propose legislative changes and other measures that modernize and clarify the exception from the shore protection for the land-based industries, which includes analyzing which activities should be covered by the exception in Chapter 7, Section 16, first paragraph of the Environmental Code.
The purpose is to ensure that the regulation takes sufficient account of the varying conditions that currently exist for different businesses within the agricultural sectors and that it addresses the need to improve the conditions for the sectors' development, particularly for small-scale farmers. The proposals shall also contribute to achieving the food strategy's goals of increased food production and sustainable development throughout the country.
The ongoing investigation covers important parts to enable business activities in Sweden's rural areas, and the government must return regarding the issue of a new and reformed regulatory framework for shore protection.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation.
I must admit that it is not entirely easy to understand where the government stands or what the government is striving for in these issues. During the election campaign, there was a lot of talk about the countryside and the opportunities to live, reside, and develop in all parts of Sweden. After the election, there has not been much talk about this at all; instead, it has been pushed into the shadows. I think the Minister's answer to the interpellation on the shore protection underscores this.
Sweden has, Madam Speaker, an enormous potential for development in Sweden's countryside. But to release that potential, reasonable conditions are needed. It is such things as we often take for granted in the cities, for example broadband, functioning roads, public transport, access to healthcare, school and care, or the possibility to live and build in attractive locations. It is not a given in the countryside.
In Varberg on the west coast, where I live, we are planning for a completely new district with up to 2,500 new homes. The project has certainly encountered some problems, but not in relation to the shore protection. Building a completely new district right next to Kattegatt works perfectly because it takes place in the old industrial harbor, where the shore protection has long since been lifted.
In the same municipality, the municipal housing company has long had a plan to build 18 apartments in the small settlement Tvååker, a few kilometers inland. But despite the area having been included in the municipality's comprehensive plans for a long time and there having been a detailed plan, the project has been rejected – because of the shore protection. There is, in fact, a small stream running near the planned area. The shore protection for the stream overrides the need for new housing.
This is just one of countless examples from across the country of how absurd the current shoreline protection rules are and how they lay a wet blanket over development in the Swedish countryside. What is a self-evident matter in our cities, whether it concerns Varberg, Helsingborg or Stockholm, is today an impossibility in smaller communities and in the countryside. Building new residential areas a stone's throw from the sea is fully possible, but building 18 apartments in a small rural locality is stopped because of a small creek. I hope, Madam Speaker, that the Minister himself understands how absurd it is.
Sweden is a country rich in water, and by that I do not mean primarily the coastline but all the watercourses and water bodies that exist all around the country in the form of ditches, brooks, streams, rivers, rivers, pools, lakes, ponds, dams and wetlands - all surrounded by 100 meters of shoreline protection. Natural watercourses or man-made watercourses - all surrounded by 100 meters of shoreline protection. This, Madam Speaker, is not reasonable.
The Minister refers in his answer to the investigation commissioned by the previous government to review the shore protection in connection with the land-based industries. The investigation concerns the specific conditions that apply to those who operate agricultural activities and opens up for more exceptions connected to that activity. It was supposed to be completed in March, but the government has extended the assignment until December.
It is naturally a good investigation, but it is a poor one to hide behind. Both the Minister and I know that the proposals in that investigation will not lead to proposals that enable new housing in Tvååker or in other places in Sweden. Nevertheless, it is the only one the Minister refers to in his answer.
I repeat my question: Does the government intend to appoint a new investigation into the shoreline protection to enable the development of housing and commercial activities in Sweden's rural areas?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me be even clearer than the member considered me to be in my first speech.
The population density, the degree of land utilization, and the building pressure show a great variation across our country. We see a need for the shore protection to become more flexible and better adapted to local conditions. It is the government's will, and we work according to it in accordance with the processes that exist in the Government Offices. There is an ongoing investigation. I do not intend to precede the presentation of the investigation, but I look forward to when it is presented. Its purpose is to review, for example, business activities. Changes in the legislation should be looked at that modernize and clarify the exemptions from shore protection that the land-based industries can receive in the countryside and in other parts of the country.
There is a clear mandate for the investigation, and we look forward to processing the proposals and returning with clearer announcements when the investigation is presented.
We agree that the shore protection needs to become more flexible. Just as the member mentions, the intention is not for it to lay a wet blanket over Sweden's countryside, but there must be systems and legislation that work according to local conditions. The opportunity that exists for the countryside to grow is something that we all want to safeguard and take advantage of. That requires the shore protection to become more flexible.
As has been mentioned previously, in some areas with low development pressure, there are good opportunities to do this without counteracting nature conservation and outdoor life.
The ongoing coastal protection investigation is nothing we are hiding behind; on the contrary, we are clear that we see a need to increase the flexibility of the coastal protection. We believe that the investigation will contribute to the government being able to handle this. The investigation covers important parts specifically to enable business activities in the Swedish countryside. The government will simply get back regarding the question of a reformed regulatory framework for coastal protection. It is not possible to announce any such decisions in connection with this interpellation.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! I would still like to maintain that the Minister and the Government are hiding behind the inquiry into the land-based industries. There has been an opportunity to provide supplementary directives, if so desired, and to significantly broaden the inquiry so that a holistic approach to the coastal protection can be taken, just as has been done in previous inquiries. But that is what has not been chosen to be done, instead, one has only extended the time. This means that it will take even longer before one can actually tackle the major question of the coastal protection.
I welcome, however, that the Minister says that the government wants to see a flexible coastal protection. In the Minister's response to my interpellation, she said the following: "In areas with low development pressure, there are often good opportunities to soften the coastal protection without this counteracting nature conservation and outdoor life. At the same time, a strict coastal protection must continue to be applied in areas where the development pressure is assessed as very high or where other compelling reasons exist."
Madam Speaker! I recognize that way of reasoning. Where could it come from? Exactly! That was approximately the mandate for the bill that the Riksdag voted against a year ago regarding a flexible and differentiated shore protection.
What happened with the bill? It was voted down in the Riksdag by the Moderaterna in cooperation with Vänsterpartiet, while the other Tidö parties joined in. The Moderaterna voted no because they thought it was an entirely too weak proposal. They wanted to abolish the shore protection completely, and they felt that was not being done by differentiating and making it more flexible. Vänsterpartiet voted no because it was considered to be far too extensive. It could threaten both the right of public access and biological diversity.
Overall, one could imagine that the proposal was thus quite well-balanced. Nevertheless, it was voted down, even by the Christian Democrats, the Sweden Democrats and the Liberals.
Now the Tidö parties are in power and have all the opportunities to completely abolish the coastal protection in the way that the Moderaterna claim is desired and which formed the basis for both KD and SD to say no to the bill.
Nevertheless, the coastal protection is not even raised in the Tidö Agreement. Nevertheless, no initiative has been taken to appoint a new investigation during the government's first 200 days. Nevertheless, the government is trying to hide behind the previous government's investigation on coastal protection for the agrarian industries.
This government, Madam Speaker, has had a motto of saying one thing before the election and another thing after the election. I do not think there is any other area where this has appeared so clearly as in rural issues. There was very much talk before the election about the whole country and about creating opportunities in all parts of Sweden. There were many promises before the election but very little delivery after the election. One does not even find any ambitions for delivery when reading the Tidö Agreement. But even though the shore protection is not mentioned in the Tidö Agreement and the countryside is hardly mentioned, the countryside still covers almost all of Sweden, and it has enormous potential for development.
I get the feeling that not much has been intended to be done regarding the shore protection area because there are divided opinions even within the government. But my question to the Minister - and I ask you, Romina Pourmokhtari, not to hide behind the inquiry into the land-based industries - is whether the government intends to appoint a new shore protection inquiry to enable the development of housing and business activities in Sweden.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It is instructive to hear from Member Bergenblock that when one investigates an issue, one hides behind the investigation. If that were the case, the entire form of government and Sweden's constitutional laws would need to be rewritten. That is simply how it is in Sweden that we investigate issues before we present proposals.
The previous government certainly wanted to succeed in handling the shore protection issue. The problem is that one needs to be in agreement and have a majority in the chamber before one can push through its policy.
In this government, we also have several parties that must reach an agreement before we can present our policies. It is something that we will succeed much better at than the previous government, with the crisis situations that arose during previous mandates, because we focus on what we agree on. We focus on what we see as necessary for Sweden, cooperate, and choose to work hard for Sweden's best. It is something that leads to the fact that we do not need to stand with great uncertainties when we come to the chamber with different proposals.
I can only regret that the previous government did not ensure that the entire cooperation stood behind the proposals to change the shore protection, but instead had to let that bill fall.
I wish all parties great luck in terms of succeeding in securing majorities for their proposals. It is an important part of the whole, and it is something that this government has succeeded quite well with so far. When we choose to come forward with our proposals on how the shore protection should become more flexible, we will in any case ensure that they are feasible.
What I have been very clear about during this debate is that we see this need, that we share the view that further flexibility is needed in the shore protection and that there is an investigation working on this issue.
It would be, as said, a big news if it were the case that every time one investigates a question, it is to hide behind the investigation. I can in any case state that I do not see it that way. When we investigate questions, we do it simply to ensure that the proposals we put forward can be implemented in a good way and are expedient, and that we can gather a majority for our proposals in the chamber so that they have not been worked out unnecessarily.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! When I say that the government is hiding behind the investigation, it is simply because this investigation does not take a comprehensive grip on the shore protection. I assume that the Minister is well aware of this.
What the investigation concerns is the conditions for the land-based industries regarding both food supply, that is, pure agricultural activities, and forestry, but also regarding complementary activities on the farms where land-based business activities are conducted.
It does not enable new housing, not in Tvååker or in any other locality in Sweden and not in our countryside, but it specifically concerns business activities linked to the land-based industries.
It does not make it possible to build a hostel near a lake. It does not make it possible to have canoe rentals near a river. It does not make it possible to have a café located right next to a pond. Those are the things I am requesting, and that is where I mean that the Minister and the Government are trying to hide behind an ongoing investigation that has a very small and specific mandate. What I am requesting is the whole. When will there be an investigation into the entire shore protection?
We in this chamber know that investigations take a long time. Is it the case that the government wants to see a broad majority for new coastal protection legislation, or does it mean that one utilizes the time available and appoints an investigation of the coastal protection? That is what I am requesting. I mean that one hides behind the current, very limited investigation and postpones it - perhaps because there is no agreement among the government parties regarding the coastal protection.
Sweden needs a new coastal protection legislation, Madam Speaker, but I ask myself: Will we get it or not?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! If one considers it bad that this investigation does not look at, for example, reliefs for housing construction in rural areas, one can direct that criticism only towards the previous government, which appointed the investigation – a task that I guess the member Bergenblock's own party was highly involved in. It was then chosen to limit the investigation to focus on the land-based industries.
There are, however, important parts in the investigation that we look forward to receiving. When we have done so, we intend to return with the question of a new and reformed regulatory framework for the shore protection.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.