Response to interpellation 2023/24:237 on a growing wolf population
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD wants to see a significantly smaller wolf population 1 and argues that the wolf population must decrease so that animals and humans can live side by side 2. KD pushes the issue of changed protection status in the EU 1 and argues that the wolf population increased during S's government tenure 3. KD argues that the government is in agreement that the wolf population should be in the lower range of 170–270 wolves 2. S considers the wolf population to be too large and that a gigantic animal cruelty is taking place 4. S criticizes that the government's measures are weak 4 5 and that the licensed hunting is heavily reduced 6. S argues that 75 wolves are more than 36 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.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Patrik Björck has asked me when I and the government plan for the goal of more than halving the wolf population in Sweden to be fulfilled and what measures I and the government plan to succeed in reducing the wolf population by more than half.
I want to start by saying that I have full understanding of the frustration that many feel, both hunters, farmers and others in the countryside, not least in those parts of the country where the wolf population has increased in recent years.
The Government wants to see a significantly smaller wolf population than the one we have today. It was precisely for that reason that on 13 July 2023 we changed and expedited a mandate to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to analyze how the wolf's reference value according to the Habitats Directive could be in accordance with the Riksdag's announcement. The analysis shall specifically report under which conditions the reference value can be in the lower part of the interval of 170-270 wolves. The mandate shall be reported no later than 30 June 2024.
In addition, the government made a decision on the same day regarding a mandate to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) to update the guidelines for protective hunting and to review the possibilities of allowing protective hunting after an attack on domestic animals or dogs and to enable the tracking and culling of damaging wolves immediately after an attack. The mandate shall be reported by March 31, 2024, at the latest.
The Government is awaiting the reports of these assignments. At the same time, the Government is working to ensure that the national administration receives greater room for maneuver. The Government is pushing within the EU for the question of whether the wolf's protection status should be changed by moving the wolf from Annex IV to Annex V in the Habitats Directive. The Government has urged the EU Commission and other Member States to support our position to change the wolf's protection status. It is a task that also seems to have had an effect, as the Commission recently conducted a collection of current data to be used to, if deemed appropriate, propose a change of the wolf's protection status.
Furthermore, even though fewer wolves may be shot during this year's license hunt, we can state that for the first time in modern times, a license hunt was granted in the southern predator management area, and last year an extensive license hunt for 75 wolves was decided. Despite the fact that fewer wolves may be shot during the winter's license hunt, the wolf population is judged to be decreasing.
This is an important issue for the government. The wolf must have the conditions to exist in Sweden in the long term, and we must live up to our EU legal obligations. But it needs to be a significantly smaller population than the one we have today.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! There was an interpellation debate here just before this one regarding the wolf population, which dealt with animal testing and how important it is to prevent animal cruelty. At that time, a number of animals subjected to animal cruelty for medical purposes were counted. It is of course good that efforts are being made to work towards reducing it.
One must be well aware that the gigantic animal cruelty taking place in the Swedish countryside and in Swedish forests regarding the growing wolf population is many times larger than the number of laboratory animals that are tortured for research purposes.
It is very many who have difficulty understanding that this with wolves is not just something cute and fun that one sees on some kind of TV program, but that it means that moose and sheep are eaten alive and that cows stand on three legs and try to nurse a surviving lamb after wolf attacks. It is a gigantic animal cruelty that we let continue. Unlike animal testing, it has no benefit whatsoever. It is important to let that sink in.
I also want to thank you for the answer following the brief introductory comment to the previous interpellation debate.
I can state that the question of when the pledge to more than halve the wolf population in Sweden will be fulfilled remains unanswered. It states that the government wants a significantly smaller wolf population than the one we have today. That is positive and in the right direction. But the question of when the pledge to more than halve the wolf population will be fulfilled is not answered, so I will have to return to the question in future interpellations, Mr. Speaker.
My second question concerns what measures the minister and the government plan to succeed in reducing the wolf population by more than half. If I am to be positive, it was an attempt at an answer. It was an unclear and weak answer, but it was not a full answer to the question. There, we must also try to clarify a bit what the minister actually means.
Working with the EU Commission is good. I fully support that. But to have a license hunt this year on 36 wolves and claim that it means the wolf population will decrease is something that no one but possibly the Minister for Rural Affairs believes. No one who understands the issue believes in a quota of 36 wolves in the license hunt.
During the previous license hunt last winter, it was permitted to shoot 75 wolves. I believe 52 or 53 were shot, approximately two-thirds. If approximately two-thirds manage to be shot during the short time available for the license hunt this year, it could be a question of just over 20 wolves that manage to be shot. The number of wolves is 400-500 in Sweden.
There is no possibility whatsoever that these measures constitute a fulfillment of an election promise. One risks a breach of promise with the policy that Peter Kullgren stands for. One would have needed an allocation of perhaps at least 100 wolves per year for a number of years to succeed in delivering on the election promise within the mandate period. This is unfortunately part of a race of broken election promises that the government engages in in everything from diesel prices and gasoline prices that affect the rural population to now also the wolves.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Mr. Speaker! The reason I have signed up for this debate on the wolf issue is that it is still, to say the least, highly topical. Furthermore, the number of wolf attacks and the wolves' distribution in the country has skyrocketed – unfortunately in the wrong direction.
Last week, I was called by several concerned members of the wildlife management delegations of various county administrative boards in Småland. It concerned a newly received request from Naturvårdsverket regarding the establishment of new minimum levels for lynx and wolf in southern Sweden. The minimum levels are to be reviewed every five years, and that was nothing remarkable. But what was remarkable, Mr. Speaker, and surprising, was that they have obviously received a new assignment, and that assignment was not, as the Minister usually advocates for, to reduce the number of wolves. This was about significantly increasing the minimum levels for wolves in southern Sweden.
The proposal from Naturvårdsverket to the County Administrative Board is to move from today's minimum levels of 5 wolves to 60 wolves. This is therefore about obtaining acceptance from southern Sweden's farmers, hunters, and food producers to achieve more than a tenfold increase in the number of wolves. That increase shall therefore occur and be possible in the part of the country where we have by far the most and most grazing livestock in the entire country.
If this decision is implemented, it will lead to major protests. What is worse among not least the farmers is the risk of a feeling of resignation and hopelessness, which can and likely will lead to more people closing down their milk and meat production farms. Thus, our national conditions for an increased self-sufficiency rate decrease instead of, as both the minister and we others wish, the self-sufficiency rate increasing in our country.
Mr. Speaker! What we see today is a wolf population that is increasing significantly in number and is likely at nearly 500 individuals. The Riksdag's decision regarding a wolf population of between 170 and 270 individuals is therefore far from being fulfilled.
Furthermore, we see more and more wolf attacks on livestock, not only in Värmland and central Sweden but also a considerable increase in the southern parts of the country. This means that the acceptance of the wolf as a wildlife species among others, not least among the population in rural areas, is small.
I believe that we are in a situation where we should seriously discuss reaching the Riksdag's decision to significantly reduce the number of wolves and achieve a considerably more permissive form of protection hunting that enables the protection of livestock and dogs. To propose an increase of the wolf population in this situation, regardless of where, is truly a challenge for many people in the countryside across the country, so even in southern Sweden.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I also received a lot of reactions after the media attention regarding the statement, also regarding the idea of physically moving wolves from certain parts of the country to others. That is not the case. This concerns an official proposal to change the distribution. This is based on the rules that apply now.
This government has not had time to change what has been applicable in Sweden previously. Both the interpellor and the member know what the government has done, namely that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has received a clarified mandate regarding the license hunt. It was a mandate from when the previous Social Democratic government, truly at the eleventh hour, pushed through a review of what the Riksdag has many times requested of the government regarding a reduced wolf population to the range of 170-270.
We have clarified how this should be done - not whether it is possible at all. As the regulations stand in Sweden, which the members are well aware of, the assignment needs to come back before we can execute this.
I appreciate the commitment in the questions. It is good that there is a broad consensus on the issue. The government's and also the Social Democrats' position regarding the number of wolves in Sweden bodes well for us to resolve the issue.
In connection with an interpellation debate with Member Kronståhl, I was told that it is easier to hunt wolves in opposition. It is very possible that is the case. That is how it sounds for the Social Democrats today, that is to say that it is easier to hunt wolves in opposition than when one sits in a government position. I can state that during the Social Democratic government tenure, the wolf population increased by 150 individuals in the country. If that had not been the case, we would have been closer to my and the government's goal of a reduced wolf population.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, that matter with government and opposition is indeed exciting.
Last winter's wolf hunt, the licensed hunt of 75 individuals that was declared, was an administrative decision made following the Social Democratic government's directive and administrative governance. It was not a decision that Peter Kullgren had anything to do with at all. Peter Kullgren was not even the Minister for Rural Affairs when that decision was made.
The hunt itself began in January 2023. At that time, Peter Kullgren was minister, but he had nothing to do with the hard work that Anna-Caren Sätherberg put in as Minister for Rural Affairs, which led to this powerful effort to reduce the wolf population from the Social Democratic government's side. It is a fact.
When I had an interpellation debate on the same issue with Peter Kullgren this spring, he complained that he had had so little time to act as minister. But Peter Kullgren also told that he had now been out and spoken with the county administrative boards and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency so that they would implement the government's policy.
The result, Mr. Speaker, was not quite that of halving the wolf population. The result was that the wolf hunt was more than halved. After Peter Kullgren had been out and had his authority dialogues and written his regulatory letters and so to speak used all the power that government office provides - then, Mr. Speaker, the wolf hunt was halved.
It is somewhere here that it fails. It is somewhere here that it just becomes talk. I think it is good that Peter Kullgren has appointed an inquiry into improving the protection hunt, because the protection hunt as it looks today is not worth the name. It is good, but we must see results. The result of Peter Kullgren's attempt to govern is, so far, not particularly successful, to put it cautiously as we shall do here in the chamber.
Now Peter Kullgren has quite little time to live up to his election promise. Therefore, I must still try to get an answer to question number 1. When does the minister and the government plan for the goal of more than halving the wolf population in Sweden to be fulfilled? It was a very clear promise to the voters. Many rural voters surely had that with them in the polling station.
I promise Peter Kullgren that I will continue to submit interpellations on this. I will continue to discuss it with my friends, with my neighbors and with my constituents and point out that it is one thing to talk and to talk in opposition. But when one has the power of government, one actually also has the opportunity to turn the talk into workshop, and that is what I want to see - workshop, Peter Kullgren, not just talk.
For proper authority dialogues, use the power that holding government gives and ensure that the authorities begin to act in accordance with the democratically made decisions that exist! That is what I would like to have an answer to - when will it happen?
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Peter Kullgren, for your good memory! It becomes quite clear that it was easier even for you to hunt wolves in opposition, and it may be that it looks the same now.
The fact remains, however, that the license hunt for 2023, which we Social Democrats worked hard for, was actually at a full 75 individuals. The one you are now responsible for will be at only 35 individuals, plus the number of wolves is to more than tenfold increase in southern Sweden. Then the question becomes: Does Minister Kullgren really want to reduce the wolf population, or does he want the opposite?
The decision in the wildlife management delegation in Kalmar County - and this is what the minister can actually use - was made with the vote count 12-2 against this proposal. It was only the County Governor Allan Widman, the Liberals, and one additional member who voted for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposal. All others were against it. It actually strengthens the fact that the wolf population is too large and that there is a desire for a reduced wolf population.
Mr. Speaker! If we are to use the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's current slide rule for the number of wolves, then perhaps 60 wolves in southern Sweden means that in reality we end up around 150 wolves. Then I think we have reached the real end when it comes to keeping the open landscape open with the help of grazing sheep and cattle. Then that part is probably over.
I want to conclude by saying thank you at this late hour. The Minister has had a long day. But I must also say that what the Minister for Rural Affairs Kullgren often says sounds very good, but what has been delivered so far is unfortunately the exact opposite. A bit of sharpening is required here.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! There must be some order. I thought it was very good that the previous government finally, in the last year, when you—finally, perhaps one might say if one is allowed to take this question hostage—became alone in government, could appoint this investigation or give this directive. It was, therefore, the eighth year you sat in government. So, this newly acquired enthusiasm for us to hunt wolves in this country falls a bit flat. Had you placed this assignment earlier, it would have already been reported.
And speaking of promises: I have been at so many debates where Social Democratic representatives have said that we are to have a smaller wolf population, both before the previous term and before the last one. You make fine rhetorical points that the first wolf hunt that took place when I was Minister for Rural Affairs was indeed in '75, that it was the previous Minister for Rural Affairs' merit, and that it now looks like there will be significantly fewer. But I know that both members who are engaged in the debate have a full grasp of the Swedish administrative model.
I neither may nor should go in and tell authorities exactly how their decisions should be. That happens through government mandates. In Sweden, the government makes decisions and directs its agencies collectively, not in any other way. And however impatient I may be in this matter, one needs to do it the right way.
We need to give this assignment. We need to review how we can live up to the legal obligations we have, which I am convinced we will manage, and at the same time have a wolf population in the lower range of 170-270 wolves.
Furthermore, it is not a general mandate or an investigation to review the protection hunt. It is quite precise mandates to review the nearly 18-year-old rules of thumb that have become practice in the administration of justice regarding the protection hunt on wolves.
I genuinely believe that few among the people in the countryside who are affected by wolves perceive that I or the government have been unclear about what we want. I feel the frustration. I hear it; I share it. I suffer with those who are affected, who go out into their sheep pasture where perhaps their entire life's work has been wasted overnight. I truly suffer with them, and it motivates me to continue working at the national level and at the European level to move forward in this issue.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! I hope so. We will continue to follow this issue and ensure that the Minister for Rural Affairs takes this seriously.
But it is nevertheless the case that 75 is more than 36 - it is like no rhetorical point. It is reality; you cannot talk it away.
Then I became a bit curious. The government makes decisions collectively – that is a claim that the Minister for Rural Affairs has touched upon a few times. I have read articles, and it now also came here from the rostrum from the Minister for Rural Affairs. I believe that the Minister for Rural Affairs wants to send a message to those listening to this debate: If I had only been allowed to decide myself, it would certainly have become 100! But since it is now so tragic that the Minister for Rural Affairs belongs to a government that makes decisions collectively, he cannot really take responsibility for this lousy policy.
It is clear that life can be so hard sometimes. But the fact is that both the Moderates and the Christian Democrats promised the voters to reduce the wolf population by more than half; it was an election promise. Then it is the Liberals who are the brake. Is that the case? It could be interesting to hear which part of the government it is that puts shackles on the Minister for Rural Affairs that prevent him from carrying out his mission to the fullest and force him to go around feeling prevented from doing what he actually knows is right and correct.
The Minister for Rural Affairs said in a previous interpellation debate with me, half a year or perhaps nearly a year ago, that the government would as soon as possible come back with a statement on what concrete measures will be taken to address the issues we see with an increased and widespread wolf population. I will follow up on this and chase the minister again, because I have not received any answer today.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The government is in agreement, unlike how it was during seven of the eight years with the previous government. Therefore, we three parties in the government could give a mandate to finally implement what the Riksdag has decided on countless times: that we shall have a wolf population of between 170 and 270 wolves in Sweden. We have also, in this mandate, stated that the population shall be in the lower part of the interval. These are the collective decisions.
My whole point with this was that it does not work that a minister goes to a site and says: Now you are to shoot 75 wolves this year. It is about how one calculates, and it was the same calculation model then as it is now. Unfortunately, it still applies. I would have liked to have seen the previous government have appointed a sharp and clear mandate earlier so that we could have been in a different place than we are now.
But the Swedish government is now in agreement that we should have a reduced wolf population. This is because the predator population in Sweden must be managed in such a way that animals and humans can live side by side. If we are to manage this and have a food supply, not least in the areas with more domestic animals in the southern parts of Sweden where the presence of predators causes more trouble than, for example, in a forest county like Värmland, the wolf population must become significantly smaller than it is today. And I will do everything I can to contribute to this. We have done a part – things remain.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.