Response to interpellation 2022/23:355 on the Swedish wolf population
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers the wolf population to be too large and that its negative impact on residents, livestock farming, and hunting cannot be ignored 1. KD wants to reduce the wolf's negative effects, lower its protection status in EU law to enable protection hunting, streamline protection hunting and license hunting, and investigate how the population can be further reduced 2 1. KD wants to review rules of thumb for protection hunting 1 and intensify cooperation with Norway 1. KD argues that the wolf population affects society tangibly and that it is unsustainable that animals cannot graze 3. KD argues that they deliver more in eight months than the previous government did in two parliamentary terms 4. KD is reviewing the mandate to make it clearer and is looking at a better regulatory framework regarding protection hunting 3. C wants clearer information for livestock farmers and rural residents about what steps are being taken to reduce the wolf population's size and what it should be reduced to 5. C argues that they have pushed through decisions to reach the lower limit of 170 wolves and that the government's response is not in accordance with that parliamentary decision 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Daniel Bäckström has asked me whether I and the government do not agree with the Riksdag's announcement regarding the lower limit of 170 wolves. He has also asked me when I and the government consider that the Swedish wolf population should have been halved and what measures I intend to take to achieve this. Finally, Daniel Bäckström has asked me when I and the government consider that a joint Scandinavian wolf management should be implemented and what initiatives I am prepared to take in connection with this.
The wolf has a strong protection status, and the development of the wolf population in Sweden has shown an increasing trend regarding the number of individuals over the last 20 years. At the latest inventory, which was conducted as recently as a few weeks ago, the population was estimated to consist of 450 individuals, which is significantly more than the current reference value of 300 individuals.
As Daniel Bäckström points out, the Riksdag decided in May 2022 on an announcement which, among other things, concerned that the reference value for the wolf population—that is, how many wolves are required for the wolf population to be considered to have a favorable conservation status—should be between 170 and 270 wolves. According to the announcement, under current circumstances, with an increasingly densified wolf population, it should be kept in the lower part of the range, i.e., closer to 170 individuals.
In the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's guidance to the county administrative boards ahead of the winter license hunt, the following was stated: "Based on the development of the wolf population in recent years, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency considers that there may now be room to decide on larger removals during the license hunt for wolves than in previous years." The county administrative boards followed the guidance and decided in September that 75 wolves may be culled during the upcoming license hunt. This is the largest decided hunting quota for wolves since the license hunt was introduced. For comparison, it was decided that 33 wolves should be culled during the 2022 license hunt.
I have recently held a meeting with the county governors in the counties where license hunting was conducted. It was a good meeting in a constructive spirit, and it was particularly interesting to hear the reasoning regarding the reasons why the entire hunting quota was not filled. I have also had meetings with the county governors in the other counties with a permanent presence of wolves to get their view of how the management functions. These are important pieces of the puzzle in the ongoing work to get a picture of what can and needs to be changed in the management. In this work, the cooperation with Norway regarding, above all, wolf territories shared between the countries is also something that should be considered.
In the broader perspective, the government also wants to work towards lowering the wolf's protection status by working to have the wolf moved from Annex IV to Annex V in the Habitats Directive. Such a change can increase the possibility of taking measures, for example, protection hunting, in order to reduce conflicts between humans and wolves.
I can conclude by reassuring Daniel Bäckström that I have not changed my position regarding the wolf management or the wolf population. The wolf must have the conditions to exist in Sweden in the long term, and we have EU legal obligations to fulfill. But I will do everything in my power to reduce the wolf's negative effects, and it needs to be a significantly smaller population than today.
Daniel Bäckström (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren. It is a bit difficult to know where to begin given how the predator issue looks in Sweden. But let me begin with the Minister's answer. It is good that the government is working to have the wolf moved from Annex 4 to 5 in the Habitats Directive. It is very worthwhile and something that many who are affected by and engaged in these issues support.
When it comes to the answers to the three questions I asked the Minister for Rural Affairs, I would however like to receive clarifications in today's debate.
About a year ago, the Riksdag took a decision on a notification to the government. The Christian Democrats were, together with the Centre Party, the Moderates, and the Sweden Democrats, driving the committee work and the chamber's decision. The Christian Democrats, the Moderates, and the Sweden Democrats constitute the majority of the Tidö base today, and given that, the notification should apply. Why does the Minister for Rural Affairs not clearly say that it applies and is also the government's policy? Or have these three government parties compromised and therefore cannot deliver on the decision they themselves made a year ago? That is my first question.
My second question stems from the minister's statement in Sveriges Radio some time ago regarding halving the wolf population. What does a halving in the number of wolves mean, Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren? What number are we talking about? Is it in relation to last year's inventory or the inventory just conducted? How does this align with the decision that Kristdemokraterna, Moderaterna, and Sverigedemokraterna took together with Centerpartiet in the Swedish Riksdag a year ago to reach the lower interval of between 170 and 270 wolves? There is a discrepancy here because a halving implies a higher number of wolves than the number Kristdemokraterna want in a Scandinavian management together with Norway.
It would be interesting to know what the government's clear position is. What is the target goal? Without a target goal, it is difficult to achieve a result and for the authorities working with this to know what the government's work aims for.
My third question is whether it is possible to get a more exhaustive description of when the government wants to see a joint administration with, among others, Norway. When is this to be implemented? This has been known policy for a long time from Kristdemokraterna, Moderaterna, and Sverigedemokraterna. Or is it the case that now that you are in a government position, this issue will be handled along with other matters and take as long as it takes? In that case, the question is whether it was worth making an announcement for a year ago. Now you must deliver on your own sharp announcement with very clear positions.
The situation is developing, and the entire country will soon be affected by a growing wolf population. The socio-economic effects are felt as far down as Skåne, and we feel them well in Värmland. Many wonder where the government stands and what the government is doing in this extremely important issue.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers to the important questions Daniel Bäckström has asked.
I come from Skaraborg, and I know that the minister, who comes from Värmland, has lived with the wolf issue for quite a long time. But now the insecurity for children, dog owners, livestock farmers and several others is also spreading to other parts of Sweden's countryside.
Let me give some examples. A family with children reported to the County Administrative Board that a wolf was wandering north of Skövde and received a response that the parents could perhaps drive the children to the bus stop for the two weeks before the wolf had wandered on. So, one hardly feels safe where they live.
Last year, my colleague Daniel Bäckström and I made a visit to Kate Mårtensson outside Skövde, and she could tell how stressed the animals had been. They had, in fact, left the enclosure. She cannot prove that it is wolves, but things are happening that she has not experienced before. For that, it is required that someone comes quickly and investigates it, and it is not always possible to get hold of someone from the County Administrative Board or someone else who can come and follow up on it.
In the Falköping area, sheep have been injured, and I have met a number of sheep owners who experience it as extremely difficult not to know if they can keep animals and then receive the answer that they should review their fences.
The wolf is now spreading south to Skaraborg, Sjuhärad and Jönköping, and I see the issue of safety as completely central.
Colleague Bäckström mentioned the announcement that the Riksdag decided on during the previous parliamentary term. In the underlying material, it was proposed that certain areas should be designated as wolf-free due to important livestock farming. With a new regulatory framework, they would be given the opportunity to remove any wolf that potentially established itself there.
I am very eager to hear the Minister's view on the wolf in connection with safety in the countryside.
Owners of hunting dogs and other dogs do not dare to train their dogs in the forest and countryside north of Skövde because wolves have established themselves there. This limits the living space for many people.
I am eager for the Minister to provide information not only regarding license hunting but also on how he intends to continue working to create conditions for continued animal husbandry in the Swedish countryside without threats from wolves.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! The government has stated goals and ambitions. We believe, as a majority in the Riksdag, that the wolf population is too large. It is more than what can be said about the previous government, which the Centerpartiet, as you know, supported. We cannot turn a blind eye to the negative impact the wolf has on residents, livestock farming, and hunting. I appreciate the commitment to these issues and can only regret that we are in this situation.
The meetings I had with the county administrative boards were an important step in obtaining a good situation report from those who, in the end, will ensure that laws and guidelines are followed. Several county governors highlighted the importance of reviewing the so-called rules of thumb, that is, how many attacks are required for a protection hunt to be decided, and this is something we are looking into more closely.
Sweden has an intensive collaboration with Norway on the wolf issue, with a common inventory system and a common database. Before decisions on license hunting are made, there is also broad cooperation. But there are things that mean we cannot have a total co-management, for example that Sweden is in the EU and Norway is not.
But it is my ambition to intensify this as much as possible. I have also asked my political staff to review all forms of regulations and investigations to streamline the protection hunt, review the license hunt, and investigate how we can further reduce the wolf population. I intend to return with updates as we progress through the different stages. Believe me, it is my ambition that we will achieve the necessary changes shortly.
Daniel Bäckström (C)
Madam Speaker! What was it that the Christian Democrats did not have a grip on a year ago? For it was the Christian Democrats who, in the Swedish Riksdag, very clearly pushed that we should have a common Scandinavian wolf management. Now the Minister for Rural Affairs answers in the debate that it is not possible, because Norway is not in the EU, but Sweden is. That was the conclusion of this, so thank you for that answer. The government's representative conveys here that it is not possible to achieve a common Scandinavian wolf management. It would be interesting to hear if this is shared by the Christian Democrats who are actively working with the issue here in the Swedish Riksdag. But that is good, then we have that point settled.
The next answer from the Minister for Rural Affairs is that the government's position is that the wolf population is too large. In that case, it is not the statement that the Minister for Rural Affairs expressed on the radio last spring, that the wolf population would be halved, that applies any longer, but rather that the wolf population is too large. So, the Minister for Rural Affairs answers now.
In the interpellation answer just a short while ago, the government's representative said that the wolf population will become significantly smaller. How many is that, Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren? What does significantly smaller mean, and what constitutes a large wolf population? I still do not hear a confirmation that the government and Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren actually consider that the Swedish Riksdag's clear announcement from last year applies.
If it is to become a significantly smaller wolf population and the wolf population today is too large according to the government, then one must ask why the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, and the Christian Democrats, now based on the Tidö agreement, have abandoned the clear position that actually exists, and existed, in Sweden's Riksdag. Why do Peter Kullgren and the government not stand behind that announcement?
Madam Speaker! These are incredibly unclear answers from the Minister for Rural Affairs. But it is also a sign of the times how little is being done to achieve the clear objectives that the government announced when they themselves were in opposition as individual political representatives, when they did not yet sit in the Government Offices. It is not just a question of credibility linked to how the Minister for Rural Affairs and other ministers lead the work to achieve a sustainable predator situation where one reduces the socioeconomic pressure in Sweden and also reduces the predator pressure.
The expansion is part of the decision that was taken in December 2013, but now we hear that the Minister for Rural Affairs cannot deliver on his own party's clear position as recently as a year ago in the Swedish Riksdag. It is worrying, and it is in some way a receipt for all those who are now forced to live with and adapt their lives based on having wolf territories in the fields, regardless of whether it is in Jönköping, Kronoberg, Kalmar, Östergötland, Skaraborg, Skåne or upwards towards Örnsköldsvik.
I repeat the questions once more. The Minister for Rural Affairs has the opportunity here to clarify his answers in relation to the two announcements that the Christian Democrats voted for last year here in the Swedish Riksdag.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It is clear that the Minister considers the wolf population to be too large and that it should be reviewed how many attacks are required for protection hunting to come into question. How long will it take to review these parts? The Minister says himself that the regulations shall be reviewed. Meetings have been held with county governors regarding license hunting and in parts of Sweden where there is established wolf. But when will the notice reach the livestock owners? When will it be known? I think it cannot be such long lead times without that one could receive notice quite soon. I am very eager that the Minister can give notice. When will it be known in what way these parts will be changed? These are not unknown questions we are talking about.
When one has animals and wolf territories are established in different ways, there is support for fencing. Is the minister prepared to review other parts? In what way can the livestock farmers all over Sweden be supported so that it is also ensured that they can feel secure with the management we have? Is the minister prepared to go as far as to state that in some areas, it is not feasible for wolves to exist at all? This was something that those from the Kristdemokraterna side were a bit thoughtful about in the proposal that was discussed during the last parliamentary term.
I look forward, like my colleague Member Bäckström, to the Minister clarifying the answers. Meetings are well and good, but when will the messages reach livestock farmers, to rural residents, regarding in which steps the wolf population will be reduced and what it shall be reduced to?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! How long does it take? Yes, for the government that the Center Party supported, it took a little over seven years before any mandate whatsoever came to do what the Riksdag had already said. I have been Minister for Rural Affairs for seven or eight months, that is, in approximately as many months as the number of years that the Center Party and Daniel Bäckström supported a government where you, directly in the hands of the Green Party, placed the question of wolves.
We have delivered more here so far in eight months than the government you supported during the last term did in two terms. I think it is somewhat remarkable to accuse us of not delivering.
What does Centerpartiet's Daniel Bäckström say to all those who have voted for him – who I know have a good position regarding Swedish wolf management – when one promises broadly before the election and is clear about what one wants, but then knows exactly that nothing will happen in this area because one supports a government that has a completely different direction?
It is a bit too bold, Daniel Bäckström, to come and accuse me after seven months that we have not delivered when I have just stated that we are going to review all rules, both for protection hunting and license hunting, and that assignments will be sent to the relevant authorities. Do not try to twist this into something other than what it de facto is about.
Daniel Bäckström (C)
Madam Speaker! In her answer to me a moment ago, the Minister for Rural Affairs wanted to calm me on the issue. I wonder if it is not someone else who needs to feel around and become a little calmer on the issue.
It is like this, Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren: I have not experienced that we have had any other position than the one that we helped push forward in December 2010 when the decision was made here in the Swedish Riksdag under the Alliance government.
When we have had collaborations in the Swedish Riksdag, it has been about budget cooperation. The January Agreement had many different points. Predator policy or hunting issues were not included there.
That was also why we took a clear position last spring, together with Kristdemokraterna, Moderaterna, and Sverigedemokraterna, to issue a notification to the Swedish government to reach the lower limit in the range, 170 wolves.
Whether it is honorable to talk about history in the way the Minister for Rural Affairs chooses to do today can be evaluated. But I know what has been decided here. It should be the simplest thing for a government party that wants power and then has it to deliver on its own parliamentary decision from a year ago. But the answer today from Peter Kullgren as a government representative is not at all in accordance with the decision that was taken in the Riksdag. The answer is that the wolf population today is too large and that we shall work with protection hunting issues and other things. This is well known – we stand behind that fully.
I expect much more from the Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren and the government in this matter.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I believe that Daniel Bäckström knows exactly what is stated in the mandate that the government, admittedly the previous one, gave. It is also the current government's position – that we should have 170-270 wolves. That is the mandate that has been given to Naturvårdsverket. But we are now reviewing that mandate to see if it can be made even clearer and more distinct. That is what my political staff is working on now, and we are also looking at how we can get a better regulatory framework regarding the protection hunt, where we know that we have major problems today. It requires up to four attacks before a decision on a protection hunt is made. These are extremely important decisions to move forward in this issue.
At the same time, we have intensive discussions with other EU countries that have similar or worse problems or that generally have an understanding of what predators de facto do. We must see that the increasing wolf population of the last 20 years affects our society significantly more than before. Farmers do not dare to invest in their livestock enterprises, and the animals are not allowed out to pasture due to fear of the wolf. And since pasture is the way in which many animals are provided with feed for more than a third of the year, it is completely unsustainable to be unable to let the animals go to pasture.
The increasing growth of the wolf population has also become a safety issue that we must take seriously. Wildlife, where predators are included, shall be managed in such a way that animals and humans can live side by side.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.