Response to interpellation 2023/24:35 on the phasing out of funds for climate adaptation work
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that climate change is already being felt and that the government is working on a revised strategy 1 2 3. L asserts that the tasks of the county administrative boards and MSB remain and that their activities can be carried out within existing funding 1 2 3. L emphasizes that the government is investing 507 million kronor for municipalities to apply for climate adaptation 1 2 3. L argues that politics is about priorities and that they do not want to fuel inflation 4. L argues that they want to strengthen the work by redistributing funds and that climate adaptation is a local task 4. MP argues that the decommissioning risks leading to a loss of central personnel 5 6 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! Elin Söderberg has asked me how I justify the phasing out of current activities for climate adaptation at MSB and the county administrative boards.
Let me begin by stating that the effects of climate change are already being felt in Sweden and that the climate scenarios indicate that they will become increasingly clearer in the future. 32 agencies and all 21 county administrative boards are responsible for working with climate adaptation. SMHI operates the National Knowledge Centre for Climate Adaptation, which is a node for collective knowledge and advice on climate adaptation. The Government's national expert council for climate adaptation has evaluated the climate adaptation work and given several proposals for areas of development. The Government is currently working on a revised strategy for climate adaptation that will take a collective approach to the needs we see to manage a changed climate in Sweden.
Both the County Administrative Boards' and MSB's work with climate adaptation is continued to be important for Sweden to become adapted to a changed climate. Climate adaptation is continued to be an area that the County Administrative Boards have a task to work with. The decisions that the government has made do not mean that the government intends to change the County Administrative Boards' tasks as set out in the ordinance for authorities' climate adaptation work.
Regarding MSB, the activities that the appropriation has financed will continue to be possible to carry out within the agency's existing funding. The Government assesses that the tasks that MSB has according to the Ordinance (2009:956) on flood risks and the Ordinance (2018:1428) on agencies' climate adaptation work can be carried out without funding from the appropriation for climate adaptation.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! In the budget for 2024, the government is phasing out funds to MSB for mapping, impact assessments, and risk management plans regarding climate-related floods, landslides, avalanches, heatwaves, and forest fires. Funds are also being phased out for the county administrative boards' task to coordinate local and regional work on adaptation to a changing climate. The money could also have gone to municipalities for knowledge-raising initiatives in areas where the municipality has identified a particular need for climate adaptation.
These are funds that go towards the salaries of the employees at these agencies who have the competence and work with these issues today. That funds are phased out means that the agencies do not have money to pay these officials' salaries. We are facing a situation where we risk losing incredibly central personnel at the county administrative boards and MSB, who have worked systematically with climate adaptation.
If the government wanted these assignments to continue and the activities to proceed regarding climate adaptation at central authorities, they would not have written "phase out" in the budget bill. Then, for example, one could have written that one is moving the funds from expenditure area 20 to expenditure area 1 when it concerns the county administrative boards in order to strengthen the appropriations for the county administrative boards' work in coordinating climate adaptation. But that is not how the budget looked. It states clearly and distinctly that one is phasing out funds to MSB and the county administrative boards when it concerns climate adaptation.
If the government wants these assignments to continue, the government must immediately return with an amended budget where funds are allocated so that the agencies can pay salaries to the people who work with these issues. The risk is imminent that the agencies will now lose staff and that there will be large gaps in the climate adaptation work across the country.
My question is: What are the motives behind the government's decision to phase out the funding for climate adaptation at MSB and the county administrative boards?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! If all problems could be solved only by putting money into them, many problems here in the world would have been solved long ago, especially considering how the previous government conducted the funding of, for example, climate adaptation work. They saw to it to allocate 75 million in 2020 and 24.9 million in 2021, and now this government is therefore allocating 507 million for the municipalities to apply for the work with climate adaptation.
It was welcome that Miljöpartiet themselves were very insistent and pointed out that money was needed for the local work with climate adaptation. But when the government chooses to continue working with large sums for the municipalities to apply for so that they can carry out the work with climate adaptation measures, they choose to mislead the Swedish population by claiming that the government is phasing out all work for climate adaptation.
We had, Madam Speaker, a special debate on climate adaptation here in the chamber a few weeks ago, and I clearly noted how the member's spokesperson could not answer the questions regarding the alleged reductions of the appropriations I am speaking of, appropriation 2:2 within expenditure area 6. It was claimed in major evening newspapers that the government is cutting back on climate adaptation work even though we had not done so, and one could not account for where these figures were obtained from. I can only regret, Madam Speaker, that one chooses to mislead when there are different sums and figures to look at in different budgets.
But the fact remains. In 2020, 75 million was invested in preventive measures against landslides and other natural disasters. In 2021, 24.9 million was invested in preventive measures against landslides and other natural disasters. And in 2022, when the budget that we all know was M's, KD's, and SD's passed in the chamber, 520 million was suddenly invested. This is work that now continues, and we even switch up from the previous year with tough finances, where we invested 482 million kronor. Now we return to 507 million kronor, which has been budgeted for next year, 2025 and 2026. It is 507 million kronor that are available for our municipalities to apply for to carry out these interventions.
To be able to assist them, many agencies are available. We have 32 different agencies that work with the mission to climate-adapt our entire country. And we have two agencies that work specifically with this. It is SGI, which carries out risk calculations, and MSB, which provides large sums for the municipalities and also contributes in other ways to this. Additionally, the county administrative boards work with this.
To choose to only focus on the changes made by the sums available in appropriation 1:10 within expenditure area 20 is simply to mislead the Swedish people. There are 507 million available for all municipalities in Sweden to apply for. There are 32 authorities available to assist in the work. And that the county administrative boards and MSB have less to work with to employ officials who work with this is not the big issue.
The major change for the climate adaptation work in Sweden is that the municipalities have money to apply for to carry out the measures on-site. This government is fighting for us to continue doing so.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I am aware that there are resources for the municipalities to apply for in the government's budget, and that is good. We do not disagree on that.
What this interpellation debate is about is precisely appropriation 1:10 within expenditure area 20, for it is resources that go to central authorities' work with climate adaptation. To simply say that there are a lot of authorities available to the municipalities is not to respect and see what these authorities have actually worked on. In the description of what these appropriations should have been used for, it clearly appears that it concerns mapping, consequence assessments, and risk management plans regarding several different types of climate-related risks and that the county administrative boards have worked on coordinating the local and regional climate work.
The county administrative boards' climate adaptation coordinators have, for example, procured heavy rainfall mapping for urban areas. Particularly small municipalities in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas do not have the resources to procure this type of heavy rainfall mapping. When the county administrative boards have coordinated that type of work so that the municipalities have a basis, they can then apply for funds from MSB to carry out interventions.
But if there is no central work by the authorities to carry out mapping and risk management plans or to coordinate and support the municipalities, the municipalities do not have the prerequisites to effectively apply for funds for effective climate adaptation measures. It is this that I oppose, and I really want to get answers as to what the motives are behind the government phasing out central authorities' work on climate adaptation in the budget. It is not about the money that is available for the municipalities to apply for, but it is about central authorities' work to coordinate and lead climate adaptation at local and regional levels and produce mappings, impact assessments, and risk management plans regarding climate-related floods, heavy rainfall, landslides, avalanches, heatwaves, and forest fires, as well as developing the work on civil protection and preparedness regarding the climate's change.
This type of basis is needed by the entire society in order to be able to carry out effective climate adaptation measures. If we do not have that type of mapping and basis, and if we do not have support in the coordination between the municipalities at the local level and the authorities at the national level, we will not get an effective implementation of the climate adaptation work in the country. It is precisely these funds that the government has phased out in the budget bill for 2024.
I wonder therefore: Why? What are the motives behind the government phasing out the work of just central authorities for climate adaptation?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! If the member had made an effort to listen more carefully to my answer, she would have heard that I clearly pointed out that there are mandates for our authorities to work with this. There are mandates for the county administrative boards to work with this. It has not disappeared. Climate adaptation is still an area that the county administrative boards have a task to work with. These decisions do not mean that we are changing the county administrative boards' tasks. It appears in the ordinance for the authorities' climate adaptation work.
This is a discussion about means. If it is the money that makes the difference, how is it that it is claimed that the government which invests 507 million in the municipalities' climate adaptation work would not carry out climate adaptation work as well as the previous government, in which the member's party was included? That government invested 24.9 million in a year.
It is not as crystal clear as the member wants to make it that by lowering the appropriation, one simply destroys, ruins, and withdraws all assignments performed in this area in Sweden. We have SMHI, which performs work that I accounted for in my response. We have SGI, which performs risk assessments in a satisfactory manner. We have MSB, which I accounted for in my response. Their activities, which the appropriation has financed, are still judged to be possible to carry out within the agency's existing funding. These are the assessments that form the basis.
This government does not, like the opposition, engage in throwing around amounts in the hundreds of billions to magically solve the problems. It is a matter of placing the tax money where it does the greatest good. We know, Madam Speaker, that climate adaptation work is a local task that municipalities carry out in good cooperation with SMHI's knowledge center, with SGI's risk assessments, and with the large sum of money available at MSB. Precisely for that reason, we ensure that these funds are available now. Unlike the previous government, which allocated 24.9 million when Miljöpartiet last had its budget passed in this chamber, this government is allocating 507 million to this.
If one looks at the development of the total figures and includes the appropriations that the member chooses to focus on, and furthermore includes the fantastic work being done in Sweden by specifically taking measures to secure against landslides and avalanches along the Göta älv, which is a particularly sensitive location, one can see that in 2020 there were 263 million total within these three different forums and that in 2021 there were 295.9 million. Then it jumps sharply upwards when M, KD and SD got their budget through in the chamber. With this government, we have over 700 million at our disposal for climate adaptation work in Sweden.
This is not a political issue where we disagree, but this is a political issue where we all see the importance of securing our country for the severe weather shifts that will occur in the future due to climate change. It is a task that 32 different agencies in our wonderful, elongated country contribute to carrying out, and it is a task where there are funds available, even if it is not exactly in the way that Miljöpartiet obviously desires.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! My question concerned the motives behind the government phasing out the work of central authorities regarding climate adaptation while we are in a climate crisis. Several Swedish municipalities have only this year experienced serious consequences as a result of extreme weather such as floods, collapses, and landslides.
The Minister for Climate and the Environment refers to the fact that the assignments remain. It is pleasing to hear, and I hope that they will remain in regulatory letters and instructions also in the future. But for there to be any progress, personnel who work with these assignments are also needed. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Climate and the Environment to return to the Riksdag with an amended budget where this central work is allocated resources.
As the Minister for Climate and Environment mentioned, there are several agencies working with climate adaptation: SMHI, MSB, SGI, Boverket, among others. All agencies have received mandates regarding climate adaptation precisely because they fulfill central functions in the national work with climate adaptation. This also includes MSB's work with mapping and risk management plans, and also the county administrative boards' work with coordinating climate adaptation.
I have not received any answer from the Minister for Climate and Environment regarding the motives behind phasing out exactly these funds for exactly these agencies' work with climate adaptation. Therefore, the question remains: What are the motives for phasing out the county administrative boards' and the agencies' work with climate adaptation in the budget? A follow-up question is: Will we see the minister return to the Riksdag with an amended budget, so that staff can actually receive a salary for working on these assignments?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me be brief. Politics is about priorities – either we are in a situation where the municipalities do not have stable funds available for climate adaptation measures, or we are in a situation where the county administrative boards have just as much money available as they did during the years when Sweden had a very strong economy. We can all look at Sweden's state budgets and see what happened in 2022. It was an election year, and there was a very large amount of money to be thrown out of the treasury. We are not in that situation now. To fuel inflation is not wise.
The reason for redistributing funds is simply that one wants to strengthen the work being done. One sees where there is a need for prioritization. Every time I meet municipalities that are struggling to climate-adapt their areas, they speak about the importance of predictability, of having good funds available, and of coordination and cooperation. In that case, it is important that one does not reduce the appropriations for the interventions that are to take place on-site in our municipalities. As the member is aware of, climate adaptation is a local task. It happens with the support of our authorities, absolutely, but the adaptation work itself must be carried out locally. Therefore, I am very pleased that the government in the upcoming budget is increasing the funds for our municipalities to carry out such interventions.
One can see the work that is taking place around Göta älv. It is a fantastic progress in the climate adaptation measures. Nature-based solutions are being used. Recycling is being done. It is a fantastic work that is ongoing. One can carry it out because there is a predictability that the money is there. That is why it is so important that we do not shift the funds that are available to our municipalities, who are the ones carrying out the climate adaptation work, but that one simply has to prioritize there.
We will do everything we can so that all our authorities and county administrative boards can carry out the assignments they have in a satisfactory manner. But one cannot give everything to everyone, especially not in economically gloomy times.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.