Response to interpellation 2023/24:148 on the oil spill in Pukaviksbukten
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L notes that existing environmental legislation contains significant penalties and that the government has a great interest in tackling oil spills 1 2. L emphasizes that they are working to tighten current legislation rather than designing new ecocide legislation 2 and does not see the proposal to supplement the Rome Statute with ecocide as relevant. L argues that they are working on competence supply and knowledge transfer to optimize protective measures, reviewing how traffic can be diverted and tightening the work to prevent accidents 3. S demands stricter environmental legislation as day-fines for crew members are too low. S proposes that vessel traffic be diverted, heavy fuel oil be banned, and ecocide legislation be pushed forward 4.
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 President! Magnus Manhammar has asked me what I intend to do to prevent large oil spills, such as the one that occurred in Pukaviksbukten, in the future.
The oil spill in Pukaviksbukten has affected the population and the marine ecosystem in the area. Swedish authorities, the county administrative board and municipalities have been on site quickly and continue to do a fantastic job of remediating and minimizing the effects of the spill.
The ship has now been towed away, but the residents in the area, those who derive their livelihood from the sea and not least the marine ecosystem, will be affected for a long time to come. In comparison to if the accident had occurred with an oil tanker, the spill is however small, which points to the need to minimize risks generally and especially in sensitive areas.
The committee notes that the Swedish environmental legislation is not powerful enough to prevent accidents. In this context, I would like to point out that provisions aimed at preventing accidents at sea are not found in the environmental legislation but in the maritime legislation.
Both the Ship Safety Act (2003:364) and the Act (1980:424) on measures against pollution from ships set requirements for various certificates as proof that ships meet applicable safety requirements. The legislation contains penal provisions which, among others, target situations where someone has used a ship lacking the necessary certificates. The Maritime Act (1994:1009) also contains provisions on liability for compensation and insurance obligations.
In addition, the penal provisions in the Environmental Code apply. Here I can state that the person who has caused an oil spill intentionally or through negligence can be convicted of serious environmental crime if the crime has caused lasting damage of a large scale. The penalty scale for serious environmental crime includes imprisonment for up to six years.
Swedish environmental legislation already contains tangible penalties today for those who have caused an oil spill. An ongoing investigation has been tasked with reviewing environmental criminal law and proposing increased penalties.
In summary, I can state that Magnus Manhammar and I share the view that a crime that has led to large-scale environmental destruction, for example through oil spills, is a serious crime that needs to be punished.
Magnus Manhammar (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! Early in the morning on October 22 this year, a ferry with trucks ran aground just off the coast of Blekinge.
What happened next is a catastrophe in many different ways, not least for those of us who live in the region. I am myself a Member of Parliament from Blekinge, and I know how this affects ecosystems and people living in the area. We would like to discuss this, have this debate, and bring forward these issues together with the Minister for the Environment so that solutions can be found for the future.
What is striking here in Blekinge is that one has been met with an incredibly great commitment. People have left their homes to volunteer and help with getting the oil up. But one is also met with a fear of the future. Can it happen again, and what happens in such cases to those of us who live here?
Most recently this morning, there was a segment on the local radio in Blekinge where it was noted that several ships departing from southern Sweden, including from Karlshamn, continue to use heavy fuel oil as fuel. In this specific case, with Marco Polo, it was a ship that had a dispensation for heavy fuel oil. Heavy fuel oil is actually prohibited but is still used under dispensation.
Diesel and other fuels also damage nature, but heavy oil unfortunately damages nature extra much. There is simply every reason to consider what we can do so that this and similar oil catastrophes cannot be repeated.
There is much to do ahead in order to be able to restore the ecosystems that have been damaged in Pukaviksbukten and in surrounding areas, both along the coast and in the sea. There are truly reflections on what we can do moving forward.
Something mentioned in the question to the Minister concerns what sentencing increases we can make.
So far, two of the crew members have been convicted of the crime. The two crew members have been sentenced to 50 day-fines each for this environmental catastrophe. 50 day-fines is very little money, and in context, it is actually nothing. It shows in many ways that the legislation we have, unfortunately, is not sufficient.
It is perhaps not the crew members who are primarily responsible for the environmental disaster. It could very well be someone else entirely. Who is it in that case? One can wonder about that. Yes, it is the one who owns the ship, perhaps the one who is the top chief at this specific ferry company, which is called TT-Line, a German company. It is probably that person who has not taken maritime safety seriously, who in many ways has neglected safety and other things, which unfortunately made the environmental disaster possible.
Therefore, I and many others here in the Riksdag demand stricter environmental legislation, and I know that it is being discussed in almost all parties. People are talking about ecocide legislation. The last time I heard something positive was actually from the government itself, when the Prime Minister in the EU Committee said that he was positively inclined towards harsh penalties for environmental crime or large-scale environmental destruction. Much is being said about it. One can say that what is happening in Ukraine is ecocide.
A type of oil spill like this can also be seen as ecocide, so I would like to hear a bit about what the minister thinks we can do so that this does not happen again.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam President! There are many general aspects to these issues, so in order not to get too bogged down in the individual case, which one would like to push and pull, I shall, as a representative for the government, remain more formal and present the work that we are carrying out nationally and the work that is also ongoing within the EU regarding issues concerning this.
I want to highlight what is relevant in this regard, including the fact that there are many different pieces of Swedish law, for example provisions on insurance liability and compensation liability, which regulate such matters. These functions shall come into force in such events, so that merely looking at the fines that have landed with the crew does not provide a sufficient overall picture. We simply need to look at the whole when it comes to such extensive crimes as have occurred here.
In addition to the work currently underway, there are today in the Swedish environmental legislation quite significant penalties with imprisonment of up to six years. There is also an investigation that is looking specifically at the questions of reviewing environmental criminal law and also proposing potential increased penalties.
With this in mind, it is not so surprising that the Prime Minister has also raised this. It is something that the government has a particular interest in. If one looks at the funds that have been increased in our budgets, one can notice that we have a great interest in tackling these problems.
Something that can also be mentioned and that I did not take up in my first post is that the environmental crime directive is being handled within the EU. There, the maximum penalty for environmental crime that has led to large-scale environmental damage shall be at least eight years of imprisonment. Sweden has, of course, been proactive regarding that regulation, and we have pushed for increased penalties for large-scale environmental damage.
As the member mentions, this is therefore an issue where there is a broad consensus, and we see that we need to address this. Perhaps the government focuses primarily on reviewing environmental criminal law and otherwise changing how we punish these crimes, not specifically by designing a new kind of ecocide legislation but by tightening current legislation in cases where we see a need for it.
Magnus Manhammar (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, and thank you for this conversation! I think it is very good to be able to have a conversation and not necessarily a debate about how we solve this.
I have three proposals that I would like to raise and would like to hear the Minister's comments on. It concerns, of course, among other things, ecocide, which we can talk a bit more about shortly.
I sat in the Environmental Goals Preparation Group myself when we looked at possibilities to reduce the risk of such incidents, and one possibility is to divert ship traffic from sensitive areas in the sea. It can be far out at sea, but it can also be coastal stretches that are extra sensitive to this type of accident.
I would like to hear the Minister's views on whether it would be a possible way forward. Just then, only a couple of years ago, there was support from all parties. It would have been fantastic if we from all parties could have helped each other to make it a reality.
It would have been very good in this case. The area that has been damaged in Pukaviksbukten is an area that many of us have dreamed of and which I would say would be fully possible to turn into a national park in the future, even though the bay is currently seriously damaged. Had such legislation already existed, this boat probably would not even have gone nearby, and even if one had steered wrong as in this case, one would probably have been much further away.
The second proposal concerns heavy fuel oil. I would very much like to hear how the government views heavy fuel oil as a fuel for shipping. We know that it is extremely dangerous and extremely harmful. How is the government thinking about this? I know that HaV, for example, is looking into banning scrubbers. A scrubber is what today makes heavy fuel oil possible through cleaning. In that way, one can have this type of dispensation despite that heavy fuel oil is so dangerous. It means that if you ban scrubbers, then heavy fuel oil will also indirectly become prohibited.
I would very much like to hear how the Minister views this, because had it not been heavy oil that came out in Pukaviksbukten, the damage probably would not have been nearly as serious at all. Even if it had nevertheless been a serious damage, it would not have been as serious, above all for the wildlife along the coast, which has now suffered very great damage.
The third thing I am considering is precisely the ecocide legislation. I am glad that the government is looking into it and that there has also been a positive attitude at the EU level. I am very grateful that you view it positively and I would like us to be able to push for it together and help each other across party lines, because ecocide legislation is needed on a global level. Even those who investigate environmental legislation at the international and national levels say that a global environmental legislation is needed that is effective, where a CEO or even countries that seriously destroy the environment can be held accountable. The idea is that they should be able to be held accountable at the International Criminal Court in The Hague and be able to end up in prison for a long time.
If the CEO of TT-Line had risked imprisonment, he or she would probably have ensured that the safety, the technology, and much else on that ship had been something completely different than it was today. Even though we have environmental legislation, the sea has in many ways become a lawless land where many companies and shipping lines do not take the environment seriously and thus also do not take nature or people's opportunity to live in the future on this earth seriously. It is sad to see. Not least the Baltic Sea, which I myself live just a stone's throw away from, is unfortunately already very damaged. But what is encouraging is that if you give nature and the environment a chance, it has an outstanding ability to recover.
I would very much like to hear the Minister's views on the measures that I mention. Can we in some way push forward ecocide legislation? Can we ban heavy fuel oil as fuel at sea? Finally, can we divert ship traffic from sensitive areas?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! As I have explained, there is a broad will to address these issues. The question is how to do it in the most appropriate way. For example, taking the initiative to supplement the Rome Statute with provisions on ecocide as an international crime, as some Social Democratic members have motioned for, we do not see as current at this time. There are some differences between the parties regarding how we view the actual implementation of such tightenings and how one can manage a development where we increasingly need to prepare for risks that may follow from the fact that oil transports and shipping traffic, particularly across the Baltic Sea and the Western Sea, are expected to increase.
We need to take measures to secure Sweden and to secure our waters and seas, and we do that in many different ways. Not least on the criminal side, if one were to stop there, much work is underway. I mentioned that in my previous contribution, so I can perhaps instead mention the many other aspects of this problem that would need to be looked at.
It is about, for example, competence supply and knowledge transfer between authorities and the actors who are on site. There is also an opportunity there to improve the work and ensure that there is a knowledge support in the event of oil and also chemical spills. We work continuously with, for example, MSB, the Coast Guard and also HaV as mentioned, different authorities that can in different ways optimize their protective measures and ensure that a new structure for the knowledge support is designed now under the leadership of MSB.
So, much of such work is ongoing, and we know that competence support is needed so that we can handle various environmental consequences resulting from acute situations that arise. Here, one needs to ensure that there are suitable contractors, that the knowledge is on-site, and that the situation can be managed as well as possible.
I do not know if any new information has emerged, but if I have understood it correctly, it was indeed the case that heavy fuel oil was also being transported. It was not the case that heavy fuel oil was on board solely as its own fuel, but heavy fuel oil was also being transported. That was the reason why there were such large quantities in this specific case.
As the member pointed out, it was also the case that the ship was not on the route it was permitted to travel along, but the ship had simply deviated from its route and - which was a terrible stroke of luck - ended up in a Natura 2000 area, where the accident occurred.
It will therefore take a lot to be able to prevent such situations from occurring in different ways. Regarding how traffic can be diverted in different ways, that is absolutely a question to look at. How can we secure our seas in different ways given that we have a forecast which says that the number of trips is expected to increase within ship traffic? We therefore absolutely need to ensure that we strengthen this in different ways.
The government is currently working on reviewing how the penalties are designed and also how the knowledge transfer can be carried out in the best possible way, so that we have the knowledge of how we handle these acute situations when they occur.
Magnus Manhammar (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for a very good answer, Minister! It feels hopeful, because even if we do not think exactly alike in everything, we think alike in much. It is pleasing to hear. I truly want to extend a hand for cooperation across the block divide and between parties in these issues, for it is incredibly important that we move forward together.
There is a lot going on, but we who live in Blekinge experience it as if a motorway is running on the sea out in the Baltic Sea. It is cargo ships, oil tankers, and also ferries and so on. Many of them transport dangerous goods, and oil is one of those things. Since the war between Ukraine and Russia began, we have unfortunately seen that it is increasingly worse ships that are coming from Russia. Because of the war, they perhaps do not have access to the same ships as they have had previously, and they perhaps do not follow the same regulations as they have done previously.
What many, in any case, testify to is that even ordinary cargo ships now have oil on board, which they are not supposed to have. It should preferably be double-hull and other such things if one is transporting oil. In the case of just Marco Polo, it was however heavy oil for the ship's own operation, as I have understood. It is still about that much; it was a tank of 163 tons that broke, and they had an additional 200 tons on the boat - but that tank, thank goodness, did not break.
What is needed is quite simply a ban on heavy fuel oil. There is already a consensus around it in many ways; we just need to remove the exemptions that exist. We are concerned, because if every day so many ships - around a hundred - pass off our coast, all of which risk creating this type of environmental disaster, something must happen now.
I believe that all three things I mentioned were needed. We do not need to have harsher penalties against the crew themselves, but rather against those who own the companies. That is what was needed. Then it is a matter of ecocide legislation, and I believe unfortunately that it is necessary for us to truly be able to ensure that this does not happen again.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member, who raises a very important question.
I believe we should not let time slip away. When such a situation has arisen and highlighted the need for a sharpening of the work we from the state side can carry out when these situations occur, it is something to seize upon. I appreciate the constructive tone and the willingness to cooperate - here we can, as said, truly find a common view regarding the fundamental pillars. Hopefully, we can in different ways sharpen the work of preventing these accidents from happening, as well as how we from the state side can handle them when they do occur.
The chairman has a greater local anchoring than I do, as I only visited the site on one occasion. I believe he sees what an incredible proof it is of what Swedish society can achieve when we come together – the way they have managed to handle this dreadful situation, where they have truly used all the resources they could get hold of and cooperated across boundaries between both authorities and municipalities as well as all possible organizations.
It is, if nothing else, a good example of how we can handle the situations when they arise, but it is also an opportunity to seize by seeing how we can further develop this and work forward. Therefore, I say again, thank you for a very important question. I look forward to continuing the conversation regarding this important matter.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.