Response to interpellation 2024/25:25 on reprioritization of appropriations for LOVA projects
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L believes that the government is making an investment in LOVA in the budget bill for 2025 because it is the most important state funding for physical measures in the aquatic environment 1. 1 L argues that it is natural for investments to vary between years based on current priorities 1. 2 L emphasizes that the government has had larger budgets for climate and environment than the previous red-green government 2. 2 L argues that greater effects can be achieved through correct regulations and legislation rather than solely through resources 2. 2 L works on reducing certain investments to expand others that are considered effective and have an impact on the environment 2. 2 L makes investments in LOVA, an initiative that is built upon every year 2. 3 L invests in presenting large bills with strong legislation for water and marine issues 3. 3 L proposes a permanent strengthening of the agency's framework grant for water management and other issues 3. 3 L proposes a substantial increase in the framework grant for water management 3. 3 L argues that one should not favor rich white men in a budget 3. 4 S believes that the government's priorities have displacement effects as the grant for the marine and aquatic environment is reduced by 470 million SEK during the planning period 4. 4 S questions how the government can ensure its high ambitions when the grants are successively reduced 4. 5 S believes that the reduction could affect important measures such as beach cleaning, combating invasive species, and coordination regarding eutrophication 5. 5 S points out that the government is now clear that inflation is low and that there is a large room for reform 5. 6 S believes that the grants are insufficient for the agencies 6. 6 S believes that the government uses the room for reform to lower taxes mostly for rich men 6. 6 S wants to prioritize differently in its budget 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! Joakim Järrebring has asked me how I justify my reprioritization of appropriations to LOVA projects at the expense of other important water-related measures. Furthermore, Joakim Järrebring has asked me what measures I intend to take to ensure that the projects receiving reduced funds are not negatively affected and that the achievement of goals for the aquatic environment can be ensured. Additionally, Joakim Järrebring has asked me how I plan to follow up on the effects of this reprioritization and ensure that the overall water care in Sweden is not weakened.
How the funds are distributed between different budget items and how the conditions for appropriation 1:11 Measures for the marine and water environment will be designed will be revealed in upcoming regulatory letters for the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. The work to design the regulatory letters is currently underway at the Government Offices. Since the conditions for the appropriation have not yet been decided, I see Joakim Järrebring's question in this part as premature.
It is correct that appropriation 1:11 decreases slightly compared to the current year in the government's budget bill. It is natural for the government to make temporary investments in different areas based on current priorities. The investments may look different from year to year, which means that the total amount of the appropriation can vary between different years. Regarding the achievement of the goals for the aquatic environment, the government, through the marine environment bill submitted in June, an interim goal decided for eutrophication, and the investments proposed in the budget bill, takes clear steps to follow up and ensure the achievement of the goals for the aquatic environment.
Support via LOVA is the single most important state funding for physical measures and local remedial work in the aquatic environment. LOVA involves local actors, and the funds are used for projects that improve water quality through, among other things, measures to reduce the input of nutrients and environmental toxins to water and seas. The Government is therefore making an investment in LOVA in the budget bill for 2025.
Joakim Järrebring also has a question concerning the follow-up of priorities made. The use of funds in appropriation 1:11 and the results achieved are reported in the annual report that the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management submits every year. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management also has a specific government mandate focused on precisely the reporting of the use of funds in appropriation 1:11. The Government considers that a careful follow-up of the use of funds and the results achieved lays a foundation for also in the future investing in those areas where the measures are most prioritized and provide the greatest effect.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I find it hardly surprising that it is positive that the government values the LOVA projects and makes a special prioritization of them in the budget. It contributes to maintaining the local work and commitment when it comes to the water goals. Local initiatives and local commitment are central to improving the water environment and addressing the major challenges that eutrophication, environmental toxins, and the vulnerability of biodiversity entail.
I must however point out that this prioritization also has displacement effects, as the Minister has chosen to lower the total appropriation for the marine and water environment in this year's budget bill by 40 million kronor. This means that other important water management measures now risk being left without sufficient resources.
For 2025, the appropriation is approximately 1.33 billion kronor. For the year 2026, it decreases to just over 1 billion and for 2027 to just over 860 million kronor. We are therefore talking about a reduction of 470 million during the planning period. I assume that the department has conducted consequence analyses of what the reduced appropriations entail.
In light of the fact that the total appropriation for measures for the marine and water environment is being reduced, I want to clarify my question regarding how the Minister justifies the reprioritization of the appropriation. Which measures does the Minister no longer consider necessary? Is it, for example, measures against eutrophication, fisheries management measures, or measures against invasive alien species that it is now considered that we can save on? Which projects will be affected when resources decrease? I mean that these are questions that need clear answers, not least because it concerns measures that often take a long time to implement and where continuous funding is crucial to achieve long-term results.
The Minister refers in her answer to the fact that the regulatory letters have not yet been designed and emphasizes that she therefore considers my question to be asked prematurely. But once they are designed and decided, there will no longer be any need for me to ask the question. Thus, the question is asked at exactly the right time.
I simply wonder whether the Minister's priorities will be reflected in the regulatory letters. The Minister surely has his own opinion on which measures are no longer needed, since it is chosen to make appropriation savings of 470 million kronor during the planning period.
I also look forward to hearing the Minister's thoughts on how the cuts affect the conditions for fulfilling the ambitions in the marine bill. I believe that the government has a duty not only to speak of high ambitions but also to ensure that the economic resources required to make those ambitions a reality are available. How can the Swedish people be expected to believe that the government's high ambitions in the long term are real when the appropriations are successively reduced by 470 million kronor until 2027?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank Member Järrebring, who at regular intervals gives me space to discuss the environmental initiatives that are so incredibly important and which evoke a great commitment in me and our entire government. It is, for example, very welcome to be able to discuss such a matter as the LOVA project and LOVA funds. LOVA was something that was started in an initiative of the Alliance and which has been built upon under successive governments, partly with the Member's party, partly the Tidö government. It is something that is very good. One can start with that foundation.
What are LOVA funds and LOVA initiatives then? Well, they mean that the state provides a certain amount of money which is then supplemented by local commitment. Often, the municipality also contributes some money. Collectively, it becomes a pot that can be used to carry out water conservation measures and improve the aquatic environment. These initiatives have been ongoing for a long time in various places around our country.
It is worth remembering that these are investments where various environmental measures are built up and then remain. It is not the case that all the work that has been done over many years disappears when one changes the appropriations. The investments are adapted to the needs that exist. What happens when one adjusts an investment such as LOVA funds, I think sounds somewhat more dramatic from the member's perspective than it actually is. Money comes to a certain pot, and work is ongoing in various projects bit by bit. Therefore, it is of course important that there is money there and that the investments continue, but it is also completely natural that the money shifts from year to year.
Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless point out that I truly mean that the interpellant's question is based on a misunderstanding that the government's investment - 100 million kronor to LOVA - would involve a redistribution within appropriation 1:11. That is, in fact, not decided yet. It is decided in a regulatory letter. The member may rightly be curious about what will be stated in that regulatory letter, but the member is surely well aware that I am not allowed to say what will be stated in the regulatory letter until it is simply decided and public.
I look forward to further discussing what the government's priorities look like once the regulatory letter is decided. But until then, one can of course talk about the other issues, Madam Speaker, that the member is raising here, including: How have the decisions regarding planned outcomes for BP 26, BP 27 and upcoming budgets been analyzed? Then I must point out, Madam Speaker, that we can of course sit and speculate on how the outcome for funds for achieving water environment goals will be handled in 2027 after a parliamentary election and much else that will happen, but it is a bit to anticipate what will surely be a budget outcome that is negotiated at that time when a budget for 2027 is negotiated, quite simply.
I think it is more appropriate, Madam Speaker, that we discuss the budget that the government has now presented for the year 2025, what the money will look like there and what the outcome of this will be.
I still think the member is raising many exciting aspects regarding how we should strengthen water management in Sweden. One does not need to worry about the government's ambitions here. One wonders: How can one believe in the government? There are many reasons to believe in the government, not least because the LOVA initiatives were fundamentally an initiative from the Alliance but also because we have submitted a bill for the marine environment. It is the first bill since 2009 in that area, so I understand that this is long-awaited.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answers! In almost all the debates that the Minister and I had during the entire last parliamentary year, there was a discussion regarding the lower appropriations in both the climate area and the environmental area. The answer was practically always: No, but we have an economic situation in Sweden that requires restraint. We need to get on top of inflation.
Now the government is, on the contrary, very clear that inflation is low. We have made it through this crisis. Inflation has gone down all over the world, so also in Sweden. The government is also very proud that there is a large reform space, of 60 billion kronor. But if one draws the line for where we are headed on the climate and environment area, I can state that the investments I had hoped for, when we received the budget bill for 2025 presented, do not exist.
It is not strange that I am concerned about where we are headed when, from the government's side during the planning period, it is sketched out that we are to reduce the appropriation by 470 million kronor. That is a lot of money. But it is also a lot of money with a reduction of 40 million, which we are talking about for 2025.
We can look at what the money in this appropriation area goes to. For example, there are 25 million kronor that go to beach cleaning. That could completely disappear in the prioritization regarding the reduced resources of 40 million kronor. When it comes to preventing and stopping the spread of invasive alien species, the appropriation for 2024 is 50 million kronor. Almost the entire appropriation could be lost. We can look at another appropriation, which concerns coordination regarding eutrophication of coastal and drainage areas. That is 30 million kronor. The whole of that could be lost.
I have great respect for the fact that the Minister cannot say how the regulatory letter will be designed in detail. But I assume that some type of impact assessment and prioritization has been made regarding the savings that one, despite there being a reform space of 60 billion kronor, chooses to make in this area. I also assume that one knows which of these measures the savings are to be applied to.
I have, therefore, respect for the fact that I cannot get an answer on what the regulatory letter looks like, but I might be able to hear how the reasoning has gone regarding the priorities and why one chooses to save on this appropriation area.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! As a politician, one needs to prioritize. In this situation, when we have tens of billions in fiscal space, the Government needs to prioritize. We have a continent where war is currently taking place. We need to upgrade our defense. We have escalating gang crime that Sweden seriously needs to tackle. This needs to be financed. We need money for the justice system so that we can get the rule of law in Sweden in order. We have many fundamental problems that truly need resources.
We also have environmental and climate initiatives, but in terms of environmental and climate initiatives, the answer is not always resources. That is what makes it incredibly interesting, I think as the liberal Minister for Climate and Environment. I can get a budget where I get a greater effect for climate and environment even if it is a smaller budget than in previous years. That is what makes it so interesting.
If one actually wants to discuss the issue in depth, one needs to talk about what it is that gives reduced impact on the Swedish nature, what it is that strengthens our aquatic environment fundamentally, and what it is that reduces our emissions of both pollutants and carbon dioxide.
Madam Speaker! If one looks at it, one sees that it is much more about finding the right regulations and about making the right changes to legislation and to the work that is ongoing all around our long country to improve our climate and our environment.
It is not least about something such as the fact that this government, unlike the previous one, has presented a major bill to the Riksdag on marine environment policy. It is the first bill since 2009 in that area. In that bill, there are many different proposals that are linked to exactly how we are to improve our water environment and marine environment in Sweden. It is something that, not least, will be able to affect our environment more than, for example, money. It is very interesting precisely when it concerns that area, Madam Speaker.
The Chairman mentions that various initiatives have decreased and that we have referred to inflation and to dealing with a tough economic situation. Here I must mention this: Despite the fact that we have dealt with inflation and then had restrictive climate and environmental budgets - if one wants to put it that way - all budgets that this government has presented have been larger than all budgets that the previous red-green government got through for UO 20, i.e., the climate and environmental area. We have thus had larger initiatives and more money for climate and environment in UO 20 than one had previously.
If one compares with the 2022 budget, which many in this chamber so profitably and repeatedly do, one must remember that it was actually the Moderaternas and Kristdemokraternas budget that gained approval here in the chamber and was implemented. If one talks about how the money is distributed, about financing, about credibility, and about how one can be able to believe in the government, one must look a bit more at the fine print. Then one must look at what happens when we, from this government's side, for example, reduce certain initiatives in order to expand other initiatives that we see have an effect, which we see are effective, and which we see truly have an impact on the environment.
That is how we will work moving forward as well. But, as said, we are making investments in LOVA, an initiative that fundamentally came from Alliansen and which is built upon every year. If one is curious about the remaining allocations, one needs to wait until the decisions are made by the government. Only then can we debate the outcome. It becomes very difficult for me when I cannot tell about the answers yet, and the member is well aware of that.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister again for the answers. Shall we correct something? The Minister is rhetorically skilled and never lies. But the budget for 2022 was, of course, a Social Democratic government's budget, where a majority in the chamber made some changes in the margins. The entire initiative that we had on UO 20 was also what was decided in the chamber. That is said.
I still want to return to the reasoning, which I agree with, that politics is not just about money and appropriations. Absolutely, that is the case. For a long time, we have received indications that the appropriations are insufficient for our agencies. As recently as this week, we received a summary of the Swedish National Audit Office's latest report on the climate and environmental area. For the sake of variety, they pointed out exactly the lack of resources for the agencies to fulfill their mandate. It concerned measures for valuable nature.
On a theoretical level, I agree with the Minister that it is not always about resources. But regarding this area, the county administrative boards, the EPA and HaV, I still believe we will come back to the question of whether there are sufficient funds to fulfill the mission. My view is that there are not, and I note that the government uses 60 billion SEK of reform space to reduce the tax by one-third mostly for wealthy men. I think one could have prioritized differently, and that is what we Social Democrats do in our budget.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member. We will certainly discuss these issues many times. One must be aware that water and marine issues are a heart issue for me. We are clearly investing in submitting large propositions with strong legislation. What we do on land, for example in the issue of emissions from agriculture and sewage, is to introduce many new regulations that will reduce eutrophication or increase the recycling of nutrients. We know that these issues are important for the marine and water environment.
I do not share the view that we are not investing. In the budget bill submitted to the Riksdag two weeks ago, the government proposes a permanent increase of the agency's framework appropriations for administrative tasks by 12 million kronor just for water management and other issues. Additionally, there are 15 million kronor for effective water management on top of that. It is a significant increase compared to how it looks today for water management. If we discuss other agencies, that will of course be a different matter. That is why the member is now speaking about measures for valuable nature, but that is not what concerns water.
When it comes to marine and water policy, we are investing clearly. In total, the authority receives an increased framework appropriation of approximately 29 million kronor compared to the current level. We are talking about an increase of approximately 9 percent. It is a long-awaited investment, and it is also combined with a large bill that the Riksdag will soon deliberate on, with much content that improves our marine and water environment in Sweden. It is satisfying for me to finally be able to present such a powerful environmental policy for the marine and water environment, and it is truly long-awaited.
We will always need to continue working with project initiatives and various initiatives that, in all corners and edges around our elongated country, improve the marine environment. I am convinced that all possible governments will be able to take hold of them.
If one does not want rich white men to benefit from a budget, one must ensure that others also earn as much as white men do right now in Sweden. We must both continue to work on the equality work.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.