Response to interpellation 2023/24:359 on measures for valuable nature
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the government's budget for valuable nature. L argues that Sweden has high ambitions and that the government strives for cost-effective measures that do not harm industries 1. L emphasizes that they are investing in the protection and management of valuable nature 1 2 and that they are taking responsibility for the Swedish economy through responsible cuts where irreplaceable natural values are prioritized 3 4. S argues that the government has brutally cut the appropriation for valuable nature by 45 percent in 2023 and a further 30 percent in 2024 5 6. S claims that the cuts affect predator inventories, nature rooms, and outdoor facilities 6 and that the government has not conducted sufficient analyses of the consequences 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.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg has asked me if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of the consequences of the funds for measures for valuable nature decreasing, for example what needs to be deprioritized or removed among the various activities that are financed through the appropriation, and if I in that case can account for the outcome of the analysis.
Let me begin by saying that Sweden shall have a high ambition in the work with nature conservation, biodiversity and ecosystem services, both nationally and internationally and within the EU. The Government's policy is based on the stewardship concept and strives to find the most cost-effective measures, which at the same time do not harm industries or the countryside. The Government assesses that measures are also still required to reach the relevant environmental quality objectives.
The conditions for biodiversity need to be improved. Destroyed habitats, overexploitation of species, climate change, pollution, and invasive alien species are the most important impact factors that we need to address in this work.
Healthy and resilient ecosystems are important for the human living environment and provide conditions for biodiversity, sustainable food production, pollination of plants, and clean drinking water. They are a prerequisite for managing the climate crisis and enable the extraction of sustainable biomass as an alternative to fossil products, materials, and energy. Well-functioning ecosystems are also an important tool for the climate adaptation work that Sweden needs to carry out.
The work of preserving and restoring valuable nature and ecosystems, as well as making valuable nature accessible to everyone, therefore needs to continue. In Sweden, there are many nature reserves and national parks that protect irreplaceable natural values. Many of the areas need to be managed effectively so that natural values are preserved and developed, ecosystem services are maintained, more habitats are created for our Swedish species, and the areas become accessible to visitors. Allemansrätten, which makes it possible for everyone to move freely in nature, shall be protected.
I finally want to emphasize that the government is investing a total of almost 3 billion kronor on the protection and management of valuable nature and an additional just over 1 billion on measures for the marine and water environment. The government intends to actively take measures to counteract species extinction, both globally and in Sweden, by preserving particularly sensitive species and natural environments, not least through sustainable agriculture, fisheries, and forestry that create environmental and climate benefits.
Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! The conclusion of the answer was that more should be done for half of the resources.
We Social Democrats believe that our Swedish nature is a national treasure for the entire Swedish people. Throughout our elongated country, many of us have chosen to live close to nature. And we who live there also see that more and more people visit our fantastic nature. At my home in Jämtland, people would like to hike. Many visit Sonfjället, Tyresta national park or Kosterhavet.
Mr. Speaker, nature must be managed, cared for and addressed, for us who live here in Sweden now but definitely also for future generations. In the budget for 2023, the SD government brutally cut the funding for measures for our precious nature - by 45 percent compared to 2022. In a survey that TT conducted in the autumn, 18 out of 21 of the country's county administrative boards stated that they had been forced to cut back on maintenance of hiking trails, rest shelters and other outdoor facilities in protected nature.
An outdoor visitor emailed a picture of the broken path to the manager John Granbo at the County Administrative Board in Västernorrland. He had to respond as he has done so many times this year: There are no resources to rectify the matter. At another County Administrative Board, in Norrbotten, Erik Granerot is concerned that popular hiking trails such as Kungsleden may eventually need to be closed again due to a growing maintenance debt.
The County Administrative Board in Västerbotten testifies to an extensive impact. All maintenance work there is now focused on sites that might otherwise pose safety risks, for example bridges. In Örebro county, the management measures for the restoration of nature and biodiversity have been cut by 55 percent, and in Skåne county, it has been stated that it is difficult to manage their nature reserves. In Jämtland county, nearly 70 percent of the grant disappeared.
Some of the consequences of the government's slaughter in the 2023 budget were clogged toilets, ruined hiking trails and trashy mountain peaks.
In the government's budget for 2024, there are some positive things, including the investments in the restoration of wetlands. After removing all resources for the fight against invasive species in 2023, the government has had the sense to add resources for 2024.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriation is raised to a level that is below these investments, which means that it becomes a reduction of an additional 30 percent for the other activities that the appropriation is to finance. This was the reason for my question in the interpellation, Madam Speaker, and the Minister now gets a new chance to answer it: Has the Minister taken the initiative for an analysis of the consequences of the funds for measures for valuable nature decreasing, for example, what needs to be prioritized down or removed among the different activities that are financed through the appropriation, and can the Minister in that case account for the outcome and the consequences of the analysis?
Malin Larsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to my colleague for a very important interpellation!
The consequences of the government's policy will be felt throughout the country. At home in Västernorrland, they mean, among other things, a continued strained budget for the maintenance and management of protected areas. The funds for work with endangered species are decreasing by 30 percent. The funds to Naturum Höga Kusten and Naturum Ånge are decreasing by 30 percent. The funds to the local nature conservation initiative LONA are decreasing, as are the appropriations for predator work, despite an increased need for resources.
In Västernorrland, we have two nature centers, one in Höga Kusten and one in Ånge. Many know of the Höga Kusten World Heritage site – an incredibly beautiful, dramatic and fascinating nature that attracts large numbers of visitors every year. Naturum Höga Kusten is located in the middle of the world heritage site, with the Skuleberget nature reserve as its nearest neighbor and Skuleskogen National Park a mile away. From April to October, knowledgeable staff receive all the tourists, school classes and other visitors who want to know more about nature, outdoor life and people's impact on nature.
Naturum Ånge is located at Borgsjö along the E14. I have personally made many visits here together with my children. It is a fantastic meeting place that focuses on the children and lets them discover nature and all its life. Throughout the year, our naturums offer exhibitions, lectures, and guided hikes for all ages and knowledge levels.
But it was until this year. What does the Minister consider that our nature centers should stop doing now? Should they have fewer activities, shorter opening hours, or restrictions in the cooperation with the schools? It will affect the children.
The reduced appropriations will also entail cuts and tough prioritizations for biodiversity and outdoor life, but the greatest consequences of the reduced appropriations for measures for valuable nature will first be felt in the future.
The government also reduces the appropriations for predator management with this cut, despite the fact that we see an increased need for resources in this area. It will require tougher prioritizations and reduce the opportunities to develop the work with inventory and the work with our large predators. Lack of predator inventory will affect the entire predator management. The results of the inventories govern both license hunting and protection hunting and furthermore form the basis for the assessment of whether a species is endangered or not.
For the samebys and the individual reindeer owners, the inventory is of great importance both in terms of the possibility of taking measures such as protection hunting and regarding the level of compensation for damaged and dead reindeer.
That a good and safe inventory is carried out is therefore of the utmost importance for everyone. When there are no resources for inventories, there is a risk that the number of predators will increase even further. Does the government want the number of predators to increase?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! This is a very interesting discussion, and many relevant parts of these issues have been highlighted.
Let me begin at the same end as Member Anna-Caren Sätherberg did and speak about the desire to live close to nature. This is something that many Swedes want. I am one of them – I have chosen to live close to nature. I live adjacent to a nature reserve and love to walk in the fantastic protected nature that exists there. It was also my party that pushed for that specific area to become a nature reserve. In my municipality, there is a fantastic biodiversity that we love to guard both locally and nationally.
When speaking about the financing of various measures, it is very easy to make reality look a bit more black and white. If one only looks at what has happened during the past year, namely that we have had – and still have – an economic situation that requires restrictive budgets, one can reflect on the cuts that are occurring and the consequences of them.
But one can also look a bit at how these costs have developed and make an analysis of the needs, as one does when submitting a budget. One lets the authorities come in with their demands regarding the funds they consider necessary. Then an assessment is made from the finance side regarding the economic need. After that, it proceeds to the political priorities and the political needs within each respective area. Then one lands on a budget. That is how the work proceeds. That was also how the work proceeded in 2019 and 2020 when the member who submitted the interpellation was involved in voting through budgets where the appropriation for measures for valuable nature was lower than it is now.
I would, of course, have wished that we could always have an upward curve with ever-increasing resources, but that is not how reality looks. As reality looks, we have a fantastic system in Sweden. It is of course concerning when one cannot always allocate funds to the extent that one wants, but the government has confidence that the country's county administrative boards, agencies, and other relevant parties make the necessary prioritizations based on the budget frameworks that the financial situation offers.
That is how one works. One must ensure that the initiatives being made achieve the greatest possible benefit from the funds available. That is how reality looks.
The reality also looks in a fantastic way. It is the case that we in Sweden protect approximately 15 percent of our country's total area through some form of area protection. We have 30 national parks and around 5,300 nature reserves. It is something fantastic that we all want to safeguard. Together they constitute 96 percent of the permanently and nationally protected area. This is truly something to guard. We shall guard the opportunity we have in Sweden to take part in all the protected nature, and of course, to the extent possible, we shall carry out various measures for protection and management.
Finally, I want to say something about the claim that the government in the previous budget would have cut all funding for measures against invasive species. That is not true. Temporary investments expired when we took office. We also made an investment against invasive species in marine and aquatic environments.
There is a commitment, and I look forward to pushing forward in this area as soon as the financial frameworks allow, so that more people can take part in the protected nature we have and so that it can receive the maintenance it requires.
Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)
Madam Speaker! If the Minister's party pushed to create a nature reserve in the Minister's immediate surroundings, I hope that the Minister's party also understood that resources are required for maintenance and measures.
The government chose to largely halve the budget for the protection of valuable nature in 2023. In this year's budget, they choose to make a further reduction of 30 percent regarding measures for biodiversity, local and municipal nature conservation projects, outdoor life in nature reserves and national parks, activities at nature centers, action programs for endangered species, predator inventories, wildlife and predator management, and much more. The consequences will be felt throughout nature during this year.
What is the government's analysis of the consequences of this? What is to be reduced? What is to be deprioritized? Is it the management of wildlife and predators? Is it the predator inventory? How can Sweden ensure a sustainable predator management without a functioning predator inventory? On what grounds shall protection and license hunting be conducted?
Should the action programs for endangered species be reduced or removed? The County Administrative Boards in Norrbotten and Jämtland have worked very hard with the Arctic fox, which is an acutely endangered species, and this has yielded results. In 2022, a record number of Arctic foxes were born. However, with last year's reduction, the risk increased that the Arctic fox population would decrease again.
Or should outdoor life be scaled back? The Minister received a petition before this year's budget with over 67,400 signatures from the Swedish Tourist Association, which stated the consequences of the cuts for 2023. The petition stated, among other things, the following: "In the latest budget, you in the government cut significantly in the maintenance and protection of nature reserves and national parks. This means that windbreaks, hiking trails, toilets, and grill sites cannot be maintained and may eventually need to be closed. There is also no money to inform about the right of public access or to start municipal nature conservation projects this year."
In the appeal that Svenska Turistföreningen submitted to the government, the following was also stated: "The government says that you protect both nature and outdoor life. We want you not only to say it but also to demonstrate it in the autumn budget. When more people head out into nature, the outdoor budget needs to be increased. Otherwise, we risk serious long-term consequences for both nature and people."
Madam Speaker! My question remains: What is the Minister's analysis of the consequences when cuts are made, the first year by 50 percent, the second year by an additional 30 percent, in the areas that do not concern invasive species and wetland measures?
The Minister refers to the county administrative boards, and 19 of 21 county administrative boards told the Minister clearly what they need to do this year. The Minister is well aware of what the reduction in 2023 did, so she cannot simply point a finger in the air and say "we give you this budget" without actually having done some kind of analysis of what the consequences will be.
Malin Larsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers, but I and many with me are very concerned about what is now happening with our nature and the deterioration in access to nature that this entails.
Interest in outdoor life has increased exponentially since the beginning of the pandemic, and many are making their way out to small and large nature reserves, nature areas, hiking trails, wind shelters, and cabins. It is a fantastic development for the Swedish tourism industry.
But unfortunately, the government is conducting a policy that actively counteracts this development. The SD-led government continues to pursue a common policy that reduces the funding for measures for valuable nature. The government does this despite the fact that the predator work has an increased resource need and despite the fact that the five large predators are increasing within the reindeer husbandry area. The government does this at the same time as the interest of the Swedes in spending time in nature only increases, and the government does this at the same time as the number of endangered species increases.
It is clear that the direction to more than halve the environmental budget is fixed for the SD-led government, just as Oscar Sjöstedt, SD's economic policy spokesperson, said. So that is what the Liberals' coalition partner said when the spring budget was presented last year, and it unfortunately seems to continue to apply as we see now.
How do you make this work? Where is the Minister for Environment and Climate's and the Liberals' limit for how much one can actually concede?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Yes, it would be fantastic if we could rewind the tape and start referring to the red-green government as the L-led government in the same way as this government is now called an SD-government. I do not know if the members have ever had to debate with a Sweden Democrat in an interpellation debate, but last time I checked, it was the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals who were part of the government. I would appreciate it if one could stick to facts and not fantasy.
We who sit in the government take collective responsibility for the Swedish economy. That is the reality we operate within, and it is what I would wish more parties would operate within when they prepare their budgets. We know that many parties in this chamber promise gold and green forests and extensive frameworks in their budgets. This distinguishes the opposition parties from the responsible bourgeois government in the current situation. You speak about how fantastic it would be to invest all this money, but you refuse to speak about the effects of pursuing an inflation-driving, expansive fiscal policy when Sweden has high inflation. What will be the effects of acting in this way? It would be terribly irresponsible and would ultimately lead to a situation where Sweden is poorer and where every krona we invest in measures does not yield as much effect. It is therefore a matter of having some sense and balance in what one claims.
Let me also point out once again that during 2024 we are increasing the funds for the area we are discussing. Existing funds are allocated to the extent that is possible from a financial standpoint, and at the moment we cannot expand quite as much as we would have liked. All agencies must therefore be responsible and reflect on how they should utilize their resources in an efficient and purposeful manner. That is how they need to work.
Madam Speaker! There was also talk about protecting nature and that one should not just talk about wanting to protect nature, the right of public access, and people's opportunity to take part in Swedish nature. Taking part in nature is something we all advocate for. What we are now discussing is how the state should act, what means should be available, and how the authorities should work. That is politics. We share a will to make nature accessible to people, but we do not agree on what role the state should have in this and specifically how much money should be allocated for that purpose. This is what we are talking about. We are not talking about how much one wants to protect nature. The opposition does not actually protect nature more just because one wants to allocate more of the state's money there. There is an ideological dividing line here, and it is good that it comes out in the debate.
Let me finally mention that for a long time, the tasks of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency have been increased so that the agency is now to do all possible things. However, it has not been reflected upon what this means for the operations and how to handle this reality. We have therefore tasked Statskontoret to analyze the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's work, which the agency welcomes. I would have wished that the previous Social Democratic government had thought that way, reflected on all the assignments and money that were given to the agency and reflected on assignments and outcomes instead of us now having to take some drastic measures.
Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Let me point out that the Social Democrats' budget motion has exactly the same framework as the SD government's.
Sweden's wonderful nature must be managed, protected, and restored. Sweden also has an *allemansrätt* (right of public access), which means that regardless of one's wallet, one can go out into nature and enjoy it. This can be prioritized. Or one can prioritize luxury routes for the very richest, and it is rarely they who live close to nature.
The answer from the Minister for Climate and the Environment regarding what no longer needs to be done or what should be done less of is conspicuously absent. I regret that the Swedish people are not getting answers regarding biodiversity, local municipal nature conservation projects, outdoor life in nature reserves and national parks, activities in nature areas, action programs for endangered species, predator inventories, or wildlife and predator management. Or is it simply not important to the Minister and the Government what the consequences will be when the government slaughters the budget for measures for valuable nature? Is it not important that our wonderful nature is cared for and managed for us here and now and for future generations?
The Minister says that the budget has increased. But as I said in a previous speech: Yes, they added to invasive species and on wetland measures but not enough, which means that the budget for all other areas I listed decreases by 30 percent - this according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which is the Minister's agency.
Igenbommed trash, ruined hiking trails and littered mountain peaks are not acceptable!
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It is very easy to use big words in the speaker's chair regarding what the cuts entail. We are aware that there are consequences when one cannot have as expansive budgets as during the grateful time when the red-greens were in government. It is clear that it would have been desirable to be able to continue all the initiatives that expired at this time. One must be grateful that there were funds in the state wallet then to spend on managing protected nature.
Even now, there is money. There are almost 3 billion in total for this purpose, to carry out various measures for the protection of our valuable nature. The claim of slaughter does not, in my opinion, align with reality. It is not any slaughter. It was responsible reductions for last year, and this year it is instead an expansion. This occurs in a time of financial gravity and economic crisis where we need to take responsibility so that it does not progress and we end up in an even tougher situation. It is important to reason long-term even when it comes to environmental efforts.
If one wants to know what the government considers the authorities should prioritize, I can say that we are very clear in our dialogue with the authorities that it is first and foremost the irreplaceable natural values that must be protected. The natural values that we cannot replace and the species extinction that cannot be rolled back – that is where we most primarily need to prioritize our efforts.
It is of course very good if we can also have toilet paper at the mountain cabins and ensure that we can accommodate all those parts of experiencing nature that we wish we should have in Sweden, but not every year and not as much every year, but a little less in certain years when it is a tough situation. I actually believe that the Swedish people have quite a lot of respect for and insight into this, even if there are many who are affected and who express their anger in articles, just as the opposition here before this in angry and harsh tones.
We all want to protect nature - the government does as well.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.