Response to interpellation 2023/24:15 on the review of rules for Natura 2000 areas
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the review of rules for Natura 2000 areas. L argues that the government wants to promote rural development and that there are too high thresholds on the housing market 1. L emphasizes that the government appointed an inquiry to simplify and make the permit process more flexible and predictable 1. L argues that Sweden should not impose higher or overlapping requirements than what the EU regulations require 2 and wants the state to speak with a united voice 3. L wants to enable a living life throughout the country 4 and review the application of environmental legislation 4. C argues that Natura 2000 rules must not stop development in the countryside 5. C considers it important to be able to build individual homes in the countryside 6 and that nature and housing must be able to go hand in hand 7. C considers it important to develop Natura 2000 areas linked to tourism to benefit the countryside 7. C argues that the countryside is about school, business, and people's life situations 7 and that it should be possible to find ways forward to enable the construction of, for example, a single house within a Natura 2000 area 7.
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 work for the rules for Natura 2000 areas to be revised and if I intend to take any other initiatives so that Natura 2000 areas do not put a stop to development in the countryside.
The basis for the Swedish provisions in the Environmental Code regarding Natura 2000 is found in the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives.
From the Environmental Code, it appears that an activity that can significantly affect the environment in a Natura 2000 area requires a permit according to Chapter 7, Section 28 a of the Environmental Code. Such a permit may, according to the same chapter, Section 28 b of the Environmental Code, only be granted if the activity or measure, alone or together with other ongoing or planned activities or measures, cannot damage the habitat or habitats in the area intended to be protected, and also does not result in the species or species intended to be protected being subjected to a disturbance that can significantly hinder the conservation in the area of the species or species.
At the same time, the development of rural areas is crucial for the success of the whole of Sweden. A living countryside is important, and the opportunity, not least for young people, to live, reside and work in the entire country needs to be promoted. The Government assesses that there are excessively high thresholds to the housing market and has, among other things, a collective focus on strengthening the conditions for living, residing and working in rural areas. The Government also focuses on improving the situation, among other things, by increasing the availability of buildable land.
Regarding regulatory simplifications within the environmental area, the government decided in June on a committee directive (2023:78), where a special investigator shall review and submit proposals on how the permit process according to the Environmental Code can be simplified and shortened by making the process more flexible, efficient, and predictable. The purpose of the review is to secure the business sector's competitiveness, increase investment willingness, and promote an efficient industrial climate transition, which contributes to the climate and environmental goals being met. The investigator shall, among other things, analyze the Swedish implementation of EU regulations in the environmental area, including the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. The analysis shall contribute to making the implementation and application more predictable and efficient than they are today. The purpose of this is simply to investigate how the Swedish regulatory framework can be changed so that the Swedish legislation does not impose higher or overlapping requirements in relation to what the EU regulations require where it is not justified by national reasons to have stricter requirements.
I am convinced that Sweden's Natura 2000 areas and other national conservation protections contribute great values, not only for nature but also for tourism and people's need for recreation and outdoor life, which includes both accommodation and visitors.
Mikael Larsson (C)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer to my interpellation which I have submitted.
I want to use the time and the interpellation debate to dig deeper into this type of issue and truly problematize what people encounter regarding Natura 2000 areas and specifically construction in rural areas. Unfortunately, it does not always align.
We have had Natura 2000 areas in Sweden for a little more than 20 years. It is exactly as it sounds. It was introduced in the early 2000s throughout the EU. It is nothing that only Sweden has. It is the country's county administrative boards that are responsible for this. They prepare proposals for new areas which are then sent to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency for review. Then new proposals are given to the government on where Natura 2000 areas can be established.
We have, within Sweden's borders, decided how we shall interpret the provisions regarding Natura 2000 areas and built up our regulatory frameworks. Much is interpreted back to how it is written within the EU and by the EU Commission. I have made visits around the country and looked at these types of issues.
It is a question where the County Administrative Board in many places claims that it cannot be done in any other way and that the Riksdag in some way owns the issue. If the regulatory framework is to be changed, it is the Riksdag that must decide on it. That is why I have chosen to submit the interpellation.
When I meet many people around the country, I am told that the county administrative boards interpret the Natura 2000 regulations in different ways depending on which county administrative board it is in the country. This creates uncertainty for many who live in the countryside and perhaps want to build within a Natura 2000 area.
In the response from the Minister, reference is made to the investigation on permit review according to the Environmental Code. We also heard the Minister comment on this. The Minister says in the response that the countryside is seen as an important part. I will come back to this later on.
The regulatory framework we have linked to Natura 2000 areas and also to others should go hand in hand so that one regulatory framework does not put a stop to development in the countryside. Precisely in the case of Natura 2000 areas, it does not always quite align.
I had two questions for the Minister. One of them was linked to whether the Minister wants to work towards being able to revise the regulatory framework that exists for Natura 2000 areas so as not to put a stop to or hinder, for example, the ability to build within Natura 2000 areas in the countryside. I feel that that specific question was not quite answered.
Based on the answer I received and that the directives for permit assessment according to the Environmental Code have been issued, I would like to ask the Minister whether the directives for permit assessment according to the Environmental Code include anything linked to rules for Natura 2000 areas and specifically construction in Natura 2000 areas.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Two wise questions have been asked here. One concerns how Sweden intends to act regarding Natura 2000 areas. It is in that regard that we refer to the ongoing investigation, which has been commissioned because the government has identified a deficiency in how we in Sweden choose to apply different types of legislation.
The investigator shall, among other things, analyze the Swedish implementation of regulations in the environmental field, and that includes the Habitats Directive as well as the Birds Directive. In addition to this, the commission looks at how we apply the Environmental Code. That is the one used when, for example, assessing situations such as the one the interpellor mentions in the specific case. You surely understand that I, as a Minister, shall not point out anything specific regarding this case, because that is not how it works.
But generally, we have identified a need to simply review and investigate how the Swedish regulatory framework can be changed so that we do not set higher or overlapping requirements in relation to the EU regulatory frameworks.
Many different countries apply the regulations in different ways. As the regulations are designed, all EU member states are obliged to protect these areas through national provisions in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Birds and Habitats Directives.
The starting point is that the protection for Natura 2000 areas shall be equivalent in all Member States. However, it is the national regulatory frameworks that implement how the requirements are designed, and here certain differences can be identified.
If one compares Sweden with other EU countries, one can see, for example, that some countries have designated a few, but very large, Natura 2000 areas. In Sweden, we have instead designated a large number of Natura 2000 areas, but many of these have each been a small area. This can, of course, affect the assessment of activities and measures in such a way that the Swedish Natura 2000 areas overall do not contain particularly large complementary areas with lower nature values. It is there that such types of activities can otherwise find space. That is an aspect to take into account in this.
If one looks specifically at Sweden, one sees that many Natura 2000 areas here are also protected as nature reserves. This is also something that affects the work with this.
But to return to the questions, there are aspects to take into account regarding how other EU countries choose to apply the regulatory frameworks. We have an investigation that looks at how both the Environmental Code and the EU regulatory frameworks are applied because we have identified issues similar to those appearing in the member's interpellation.
Mikael Larsson (C)
Madam Speaker! I also thank the Minister for the answer, and I share the view expressed by the Minister: in the individual case, the Minister should not intervene and comment. This is truly an individual example, and it is entirely correct that the Minister should not comment on it.
The case on which I base the interpellation concerns an incident in Uppvidinge municipality in Kronoberg county, where a person owns forest and land that has been a Natura 2000 area for many years. It is, as mentioned, this person's land, but it has been difficult to be able to reach out and build specifically because it is a Natura 2000 area.
If one looks at how Sweden is built today, one notices that generations earlier have cultivated forests and land all around the country. Back then, it was possible to live, reside and operate, but also to manage to cultivate the land in some way. That is what is important to remember when one is to grant new housing within a Natura 2000 area. In that case, it is not large residential areas that are to be built, but perhaps it is an individual dwelling.
In this case, it is a person who wants to move out with wife and children to a smaller locality in Uppvidinge municipality. This can also be seen as providing access to more pupils for the local school and a richer community life when more people choose to get involved.
The Minister writes in the response that the government sees the need for an active and good rural policy across the entire country. But what does that mean when we have these parts and regulations that really put spokes in the wheels? I am the first to sign off on the fact that we need to have an active and attractive countryside in the whole country, and then one must really remove the problems that exist with the regulations you have.
The Minister states in the response regarding the housing situation that there are high thresholds. I would say that this is a high threshold, but it is not impossible to address by going through the existing regulations to review how building permits can be granted more easily within Natura 2000 areas.
This is a question that I know is discussed in Uppvidinge municipality, at the kitchen tables of people in the countryside. It is a typical question for the ordinary person in the countryside.
It is this that is important to remember: We in Sweden face great challenges with gang violence and everything that is escalating around us in our world. We therefore need to be able to keep two things in mind at the same time and concentrate on both the big issues and the small issues, which the ordinary person in the countryside really talks about.
I am nevertheless glad that the Minister refers to the fact that they want to review this and investigate how it works elsewhere in the EU. It is linked to the question of perhaps obtaining a more equivalent view on Natura 2000 areas and also making it easier for people to be able to build if they have land within such an area.
Therefore, I would like to ask my second question, which has emerged during the interpellation debate. If one looks at such a regulatory framework within the framework of the investigation that is currently ongoing - how do the government and the minister ensure that it becomes similar across the entire country when the regulatory framework is interpreted?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It is exactly as the member mentions: regulations that put spokes in the wheels. That wording is completely in line with what we have both accounted for in the Tidö Agreement and quickly set to work on when we entered the department.
It is about conducting a proper investigation that can lead to changes in how we apply our permit processes. In that, we have identified that the state speaks with several different voices and that it is a problem. Thus, we see a need to implement a regulatory framework that ensures that county administrative boards and others representing the state have a strong and clear unified voice so that it becomes more predictable and easier to comply with the regulatory frameworks we have in Sweden.
We have also identified the need to investigate how the Swedish regulatory framework can be changed so that Sweden does not impose higher or overlapping requirements. Then we shall apply EU legislation in a good way; we will continue with that. Not least, it contributes in many different ways to tourism and other things that benefit our countryside in Natura 2000 areas. Given how much tourism there is within these protected areas, it is something that is positive for the countryside.
We have quickly initiated the investigation. The special investigator shall review and submit proposals on this, and the assignment will be reported on December 15, 2024. It is tough to hear such a date when one lacks patience. We naturally want, as quickly as possible, Madam Speaker, to ensure that our entire country and realm can have a powerful activity, livelihood, and environment. But one simply must investigate things and matters, and we are looking precisely at this in the investigation. Necessary legislative proposals shall be submitted.
We all look forward to the investigator's results and hope that, among other things, it will be able to secure the business sector's competitiveness and increase the willingness to invest in all parts of our country - something we truly see a need for. It is also about promoting an efficient transition so that we can achieve much of the activity that, also, requires environmental permits.
Mikael Larsson (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, again, to the Minister for the answer! This is, as mentioned, an important issue for many in the countryside. When one is out visiting and sees how things look in the country, one understands that nature and housing must be able to go hand in hand. We must be able to manage to protect valuable nature in certain places, but we must also not put spokes in the wheels of developing housing.
I also want to emphasize something the Minister said about seeing how one can develop Natura 2000 areas, among other things, linked to tourism, because it benefits the countryside. It is quite clear; it really does. But the countryside is much more than tourism. Just as the Minister said, the countryside is the people who live there. It is about school and business. It is about the exact same issues as those in Stockholm, in Gothenburg, and in Malmö – people's life journeys, people's life situations.
I think it is important to emphasize in these types of issues: When it comes to enabling construction within a Natura 2000 area, it does not have to be any large residential areas we are talking about. It might be a single house on someone's land that, long ago, it was said that one wanted to designate as a Natura 2000 area. It should be possible to find ways forward in that.
I will continue to follow this issue. I believe that, similar to nature reserve issues and other issues linked to permit processes and the like, it is an important issue that people in Uppvidinge and in other parts of the country talk about at their kitchen tables. It is probably not the last time the Minister and I stand and discuss this issue in the chamber of the Riksdag.
I would like to thank you for a good debate and will continue to follow the government's work in this matter.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I simply want to finally highlight what the member points out, namely the importance of us enabling a living life in our entire country, so to speak – that we enable these life journeys. It is rooted, Madam Speaker, in both our parties' will to ensure that all people in our country have freedoms and opportunities to enjoy. We must really ensure that it does not become something isolated to the areas where the business sector has its activities and where the schools, social services, and the police can maintain quality and other things. Our entire country must live.
There is a lot of politics taking place regarding this. Part of this work is precisely to review how we apply the environmental legislation in Sweden so that it becomes predictable and enables a living and strongly protected environment all around our long country.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.