Response to interpellation 2023/24:628 on rewetting of wetlands
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that there is broad support for the government's initiative on the rewetting of wetlands 1, which is a reinforcement of previous work with secured funding until 2030 1 2. L argues that the design is good, that authorities are scaling up the work, and that the program contributes to climate and biodiversity goals 1. S considers the reduction of wetlands to be a concern 3 and wants to see long-term solutions that integrate rewetting with a ban on exploitation without harming agriculture and forestry 3. MP argues that the government's capacity has been spent on preventing the nature restoration law 4. MP wants to see a restoration law with long-term funding for other types of nature as well 5. S thanks the government for wise environmental measures 6. L emphasizes that the forest must be used wisely and that landowners must take responsibility 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! [The member] has asked a number of questions to me regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the current program for the restoration of wetlands.
I want to start by saying that it is pleasing that we agree on the significant environmental and climate benefits that rewetting of wetlands can contribute and that there is broad political support for the ambitious initiative to rewet wetlands that the government is now carrying out.
Member of Parliament Järrebring asks how many projects for the restoration of wetlands have started as a result of the current government's policy. This initiative is a continuation and reinforcement of previous initiatives, and it is difficult to say exactly which projects have started as a result of our policy. What we can state, however, is that during 2023, 861 measures regarding wetlands were carried out in 526 different projects. These are primarily hydrological restorations such as restoration through plugging or filling in ditches, but also other measures such as removal of vegetation, species measures, etc. The Swedish Forest Agency has during 2023 written 76 restoration agreements on a total of 244 hectares, which is an upscaling.
Madam President! It is important to remember that restoration projects normally take a long time and most often span several years. Scaling up the work therefore takes a long time. Long-term perspective and continuity in funding are crucial, which is why the government made a multi-year investment in the budget bill for 2023 and reinforced the same investment in the budget bill for 2024. I expect a continued increase in the areas of restored and re-wetted wetlands in the coming years. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency continuously monitors the work and presents the results on its website.
Member of the Board Järrebring also asks whether I consider the program for rewetting to be expedient in order to achieve both the climate and environmental goals, or if there are aspects of the program that need to be adjusted or provided with other or additional funding to streamline its implementation.
My assessment is that the design of the initiative is essentially good. The authorities are working on progressively scaling up the work. At the same time, development work is ongoing where the objective is to identify obstacles and opportunities for a more efficient implementation. Among other things, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is working on a guidance aimed at operators with a focus on rewetting for climate purposes, something that we see can increase the efficiency of the work. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is also currently evaluating whether the LONA Regulation could be designed better, also from a rewetting perspective. The Government Offices have ongoing reviews of that work.
Currently, my assessment is that it is primarily not the economic frameworks that limit the number of projects within the initiative. In the budget bill for 2024, the Government has signaled that the funding for the initiative is planned to increase both in 2025 and 2026. However, we are continuously evaluating the results to determine how the ongoing work should be designed. If it were to turn out that the initiative would need to be adjusted or improved to streamline its implementation, I am, of course, prepared to take the necessary initiatives to achieve such a change.
The difficulty of managing land drainage activities has been highlighted by some authorities as a major legal obstacle in the rewetting of wetlands. At the same time, functioning land drainage is very important for Swedish food production and creates cultivation conditions primarily in agriculture but also in forestry. The Government has therefore tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to, in dialogue with the Swedish Board of Agriculture and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, conduct a review of the regulatory framework to facilitate rewetting without negatively affecting agricultural land. The authorities shall also investigate whether there is a need to change the rules for reviewing and revoking permits for land drainage where there are no other conflicting interests, such as productive agricultural or forestry land.
Finally, Joakim Järrebring asks about my view on the program's contribution to Sweden's commitments on climate and biodiversity and whether the current pace and extent of wetland rewetting is sufficient to meet these commitments.
The initiative will, once the rewetting has been carried out in a correct manner, provide clear emission reductions, which will contribute to the fulfillment of Sweden's commitments within LULUCF. In line with the increased appropriations and the scaling up of the activity, more wetlands will be able to be restored and rewetted. The emission reductions and the significance for the climate will then also increase.
When it comes to the importance of rewetting for international and national requirements on biodiversity, I note in the same way that the program makes a clear contribution to our international commitments and the achievement of our national environmental goals.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the detailed answer and for the opportunity to discuss the great importance of wetland restoration both for biodiversity, for reducing our emissions, and also for climate adaptation!
Despite the significant investments that are being made and have been made under previous governments, we nevertheless see that the proportion of wetlands continues to decrease in Sweden, which is a concern that we cannot ignore. Just as the Minister pointed out, wetlands play a crucial role for both the environment and the climate.
Two years ago, I met a prominent researcher in the field from the University of Gothenburg who told me that even though the political initiatives on rewetting and restoration of wetlands are important, it is perhaps even more important to ensure that no further wetlands are drained. And right now, we have an unfortunate development which means that the proportion of wetlands continues to decrease.
The Minister of the Interior accounted for a number of ongoing projects and initiatives, which is pleasing. But seen in the perspective that we still have a decreasing area of wetlands, we need to ask ourselves whether the measures are sufficient. The Minister highlighted that the assessment is that this is sufficient. That may be the case; the Minister also points out that it takes time to see an effect and that this is a long-term effort.
I still feel a sense of concern, however, and I believe we perhaps need to have a bit more of a holistic perspective even on these issues. I know there are countries, for example Denmark if I remember correctly, that have worked quite strategically with programs regarding wetlands. There, they look at both stopping the drainage of wetlands and working strategically with rewetting in the right way. The Government was in its response about it being important, especially when it comes to the restoration of wetlands for climate purposes, that one is very careful and specific about which water level one should have for it to be optimal.
I believe therefore that we must consider both long-term solutions that integrate rewetting and that we achieve a stop on the exploitation of wetlands. We also need to do this in a way that does not unnecessarily harm our agriculture and forestry. We know that we need to increase our food supply in Sweden, and we also need to use the forest's raw materials to manage the transition to a fossil-free society.
I therefore want to urge the Minister to carefully consider further measures and reforms that can strengthen the work regarding the wetlands.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is very pleasant to listen to this debate with agreement on how incredibly important it is that we restore nature, and not least the wetlands, where there is a fantastic win-win effect when it comes to biodiversity, the climate, climate adaptation to tackle eutrophication and to create more resilience in our landscapes.
This is part of the restoration work. Wouldn't it be fantastic if there were long-term thinking not only in Sweden but in the entire EU, so that several countries could join forces with a common strategy, a common ambition, common goals and common legislation to repair 20 percent of the most damaged nature.
This is actually not just a pipe dream, but it is the nature restoration law. It has been very close to becoming a reality, Madam President. Unfortunately, Sweden's government has spent its political capacity, its ammunition, on preventing it from becoming a reality.
Yes, there is a consensus. The average person probably thinks that this sounds very wise. One sees the nature crisis, one sees the species crisis, and one sees that we must take effective environmental measures, effective environmental policy, and long-term strategies. Yet, Sweden's government exerts its effort to lobby and find dishonest alliances to shoot down this bill.
Madam President! I sit on the EU Committee. When we received a written submission before the approval of the restoration law, it emerged that the Swedish government had succeeded in convincing Hungary to oppose this. I am trying to understand how this could have happened. It is something that has not occurred in the light of public scrutiny, but one simply does not know what has occurred behind the scenes.
We have an Environment Minister here who speaks warmly about the wetlands, but the Swedish government is therefore putting a stop to this legislation which would have incredible effects, not only in Sweden but in the entire EU. It is these wetlands we are talking about, but on a much larger scale and without the abruptness and instead with a long-term perspective.
I have spoken with people who have worked with these legislations, and I have finally managed to get them to admit that it is judged that Hungary is easier to influence in this matter than Sweden. Sweden has invested its full political capital in talking down this legislation and ensuring that it is never realized.
The paradox is that one can read in communications from the Liberals and the Liberals' MEPs that they welcome this bill.
Madam Speaker! I am probably not alone in being incredibly confused and in wanting clear answers from the Minister for the Environment. What is the position on the restoration law?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Regarding questions concerning the government's positions on the nature restoration legislation, Member Järrebring and I had a long interpellation on this last week, the conclusions of which are welcome to be looked at.
Today we are discussing the restoration of wetlands and the work being carried out there. This is what the interpellation is about. The questions I have received ahead of today's interpellation debate, Madam Speaker, concern how the work is progressing with the restoration of wetlands in Sweden and how Sweden intends to work to improve the implementation of these restoration efforts.
The restoration of wetlands is an incredibly important issue. I am very pleased that there is a broad consensus regarding these measures. They are also one of my priority areas in the work I intend to carry out during our time in government. It is precisely because there are so manyfold environmental benefits—of course, it is the carbon sink they can contribute with, but it is also the environmental benefit that is constituted in the form of the biodiversity benefits that are created and the improved water quality that follows from measures to restore wetlands.
As Member Järrebring mentioned, it is also naturally the case that wetlands strengthen the landscape's protection against drought, floods, and fire. This is also important from a resilience perspective, or an adaptation perspective as it can also be called.
The government, due to the great benefits of the effects of work, has carried out a major investment of 355 million kronor in 2024 to rewet wetlands, Madam Speaker. This is then to increase to 435 million kronor in 2025 and to 575 million kronor annually during the period 2026 to 2030. In addition, there is also a support in the strategic plan for the common agricultural policy for wetland construction and management.
During 2023, as mentioned, 861 different measures were carried out in over 500 projects. This is very important. This is something we welcome given the effects it has. But we also know that the restoration of wetlands normally takes a long time, and we know that the work of establishing projects often takes several years to complete. Scaling up the wetland work is therefore time-consuming, and we see that continuity in funding is of very great importance. I would even say that it is absolutely crucial that one can rely on the money being there.
Now we know that this government has strengthened the work and that there will be money until 2030. But I can hope that in the event of a change of government after the 2030 election, other governments would also continue the work at the same level and with the same stable high level of funding. It would be interesting to hear the members for each party reason regarding that question. Given the long-term nature of the investments and the agencies' intensive work, I expect a continued increase in the areas of restored and re-wetted wetlands in the coming years.
Madam Speaker! I also want to mention that what Member Järrebring highlights regarding the work in Denmark sounds very interesting. I will make sure to contact my Danish colleague Magnus Heunicke after this interpellation debate to ask him about the work taking place in Denmark and see if it is something that Sweden can also take inspiration from.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the detailed answer.
I also believe that what the Minister points out is important, namely that the legal obstacles are being reviewed. Does the Minister have any planned timeframe for how that work will proceed and for when we will have measures in place that facilitate the rewetting?
Regarding the question of the timeframe for the financial support, I am just as convinced as the Minister is hopeful that there will be continued strong support even after the next and the one after that election to continue the work of restoring wetlands.
I also think the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's evaluation of the LONA regulation is very good. It is an important piece of work. Can the Minister also here provide a picture of what a planned timeline looks like for that work and when we can expect improvements in that area as well?
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I want to start by taking note of what the Minister for the Environment said about preparing us for a change of power. I fully share that hope, and I can give election promises that I hope others can stand behind at this potential change of power, that is to say, to continue with the important investments and preferably accelerate them.
I would also like to see a strategy for restoration being developed that is not only linked to wetlands but that also covers other types of nature. It is approximately the same win-win situation that we could find for other types of nature. I know that the frameworks are about the wetlands, but let us in that case – if we want an effective environmental and nature policy – provide protection for the old forests that remain in Sweden, not least the mountain forests.
Madam President! The Minister for the Environment mentioned the problem of abruptness and identified continuity as crucial. It is therefore incredibly important to get the restoration law in place, so that one knows which objectives apply and which areas one must scale up to, as well as a strategy to get there. This applies not least to long-term funding, regardless of elections and shifts in power.
I want to give a parting message, namely to continue to drive this enthusiasm for wetlands throughout the EU and to take this to the negotiating tables, instead of propaganda and myths from various industries that only see risks. There are incredible opportunities. I send this along and wish you good luck.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, members, for the questions!
Member of Parliament Järrebring asked about the timeframe for the work being carried out. I can inform that a research initiative was presented last week. I had the privilege of visiting the conference that was ongoing on the rewetting of wetlands to take part in the engagement and highlight the government's prioritization of these issues. The funds are long-term, and for that very reason, we would like to see more information on how the efforts can be improved and so on.
There was a solid program with many researchers and other experts in the field who discussed how the work can be improved. What is important to understand is that even though wetlands contribute many ecosystem services, a single wetland cannot contribute to all ecosystem services simultaneously; instead, there is a great variation. A large diversity of wetland types is also required. The right wetland in the right place in the landscape is therefore a central part of the work, and this was something I considered to be very interesting.
We assess that measures are still required to achieve our various environmental quality objectives. Even though it is positive that there is such a large and broad consensus regarding the value of efforts to rewet wetlands, it is not enough, and more must of course be done.
An example of such a thing occurring within Sweden is that the government is working with compensation for landowners who have high-conservation-value forest. This relates to the issue that Member of Parliament Le Moine mentioned, namely the need to compensate landowners who want to participate in protecting their forest.
The government has made 1,670 million kronor available for this purpose in this year's state budget. It is a large sum. One must, however, be honest and say that it is not enough, and there is a waiting period before payments can be made. Many landowners argue that the work needs to go better, and this is something that the government is taking to heart.
I must also mention that there are landowners who know that they have conservation-worthy forest and who choose to make logging notifications instead of applying to have their forest protected, so that the work goes faster. I believe there is a responsibility on these landowners not to exploit the system in that way but to truly take responsibility for the fact that they own conservation-worthy forest. It comes with a fantastic responsibility that one is happy to take for this natural environment. The state is working full out to maintain funds and improve the processes so that we can protect more forest, but one must also take responsibility as a landowner.
Then there is an additional perspective where I, if I may take that liberty, assume that Member Järrebring and I are in agreement, but where Member Le Moine possibly has a different standpoint, namely that Sweden is a forest country. 70 percent of our area is forest, and this forest will be utilized, harvested, and managed in different ways. That is how it is.
If one compares us with other countries, one sees that there is a big difference. Since Ireland and the Netherlands have approximately 10 percent forest, they manage their forest in a different way. I want to see a great respect for the fact that the forest is important for us. We must utilize it in a wise way, not just preserve it.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the interpellation debate! Usually, we have debates where we disagree and want to be clear that we think differently. This interpellation debate is important for another reason, and that is that it is an incredibly important work being done for both environment, climate, and climate adaptation, which we have all touched upon during the discussion.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the government for doing wise things in this political area. I also thank the Minister for the commitment to these issues and hope that we can return and discuss how we can further improve the conditions to both be able to streamline the work and have stability and long-term perspective in the work.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank Member Järrebring, because even though we have many interpellation debates where we do not entirely agree, I always appreciate the level of the discussions and the commitment to the real environmental and climate policy that we are working with.
Restoration of wetlands is, as said, an important task that we intend to scale up and continue with. I hope that we can all contribute to ensuring that this work proceeds in the best possible way, with consideration for everything else that is happening in our beautiful, elongated land - all the forest and all the agriculture that we have.
This is a task where we collectively need to take responsibility both for the environmental benefit and the nature we want to take care of in Sweden, and for the production that is ongoing in full in our country.
Thank you, Member Järrebring, for the debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.