Response to interpellation 2024/25:282 on the defense's cooperation with wind power producers

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! [The Speaker] has asked me if I and the government consider that the cooperation between the Armed Forces and wind power stakeholders is fully adequate. He has also asked if I and the government are prepared to take any measures to ensure that this cooperation functions better in the future.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally changed and worsened the security situation in our part of the world. The exercise of power through military violence is once again a reality in Europe and our immediate neighborhood. This means that the military defense must be strengthened and that the buildup needs to occur at a faster pace.

In order to fulfill its tasks from the Riksdag and the government, the Armed Forces, and other defense authorities, are dependent on being able to use land and water areas, facilities, and infrastructure in a purposeful manner. The current growth and increase in capability within the defense sector further reinforces this need.

At the same time as the total defense is to grow, an energy transition is underway with a continued strongly increased need for fossil-free energy. In order to achieve a long-term sustainable expansion of the energy system, it is required that other affected interests, including the military defense, are taken into account.

The Swedish Armed Forces are already working today for coexistence between military defense and the expansion of wind power. As a sectoral authority, the Swedish Armed Forces assess whether a planned wind farm risks causing significant damage to a national interest or an area of importance for the military part of total defense. In that work, the Swedish Armed Forces also support other relevant authorities within the military part of total defense.

That the Armed Forces are working with coexistence issues in this way is evident from several reports. From the reports, it further appears, among other things, that the Armed Forces' opportunities to contribute to the expansion of wind power are greatest in the planning stage, where the suitability of land and water areas for wind power is investigated.

If the Armed Forces assess that a wind power installation would cause significant damage to the military component of the total defense, a dialogue is held with the wind power project developer. In some cases, adjustments to the project can make it possible to avoid the damage. This could, for example, involve adjusting the number, positions, or heights of the wind turbines. The wind power project developer in question is then given the opportunity to submit a revised proposal.

Finally, I want to mention the investigation on offshore wind power that was recently submitted to the government. It analyzes how the regulatory framework for the use of sea areas during the establishment of wind power can be improved and how the permit process for wind power in open waters and the economic zone can become more efficient and clear. The investigation proposes, among other things, a transition to a so-called auction system.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Defence for the answer, which was as detailed as always. Detail, however, does not automatically mean that it is not possible to have any views or reflections on an answer. I now intend to present some such here in the Speaker's chair of the Riksdag.

Regarding the security situation, there is broad consensus here in the chamber about the threats and dangers that Sweden and the rest of Europe face. The attention-grabbing events in the Baltic Sea over the past weeks have hardly meant that that picture needs to be revised. I therefore do not intend to touch upon that part any further.

My interpellation concerns the defense's dialogue and cooperation with wind power stakeholders, not least the companies that have planned for wind power expansion for a long time in the southern part of the Baltic Sea.

When the government decided on November 4 to say no to all 13 wind farms in the southern Baltic Sea, it was a cold shower for the companies that had spent several years planning for these wind farms. The subsequent debate in the media clearly shows this. There, stakeholders and affected actors expressed great surprise and dismay over the government's decision.

That the stakeholders were shocked can perhaps be understood. What is, however, striking is the surprise. In the subsequent debate, it appeared as if no dialogue had largely taken place. It was partly this that inspired me to submit the interpellation.

Personally, I have in other contexts, without receiving any answers whatsoever, interpellated and submitted written questions to the Defense Minister's colleague, the Minister for Climate and the Environment, regarding what it is that has caused the government's decisions to drag on. This concerns above all the parks off the coast of southern Skåne. Not even the Swedish Riksdag has been able to obtain any clear information on why the decisions regarding the parks have been delayed, not until the decisions were a fact.

Madam Speaker! A few months or nearly a year ago, the Minister for Defence and I, as he mentioned in the previous debate, had an interpellation debate regarding a deletion in the Armed Forces' regulatory letter concerning the dialogue with wind power stakeholders. As the Minister for Defence said earlier here, he felt that the wording was unnecessary because the work was ongoing and there were instructions to the Armed Forces.

Those who look at the minutes can note that the undersigned did not consider this to be a completely satisfactory explanation. The debate after the decision raises certain questions as to whether it was so wise to delete the wording, but I am pleased to hear that the government has reconsidered its position.

The Minister of Defence refers in his answer to a number of reports. I assume that he will address these in his future speeches, but I want to alert the Chamber that there are reports indicating that the Defence Forces' cooperation with wind power stakeholders can be strengthened, including the report that Member Björklund referred to here earlier. It must be possible to do so despite, or perhaps especially because of, the security situation we have in the Baltic Sea. We must not forget that energy supply is also a vital security interest. Not least Russia's warfare in Ukraine has shown that it can become a military target.

Madam Speaker! The Minister of Defence should hopefully elaborate if he considers the dialogue between wind power stakeholders and the Armed Forces to be fully sufficient. I can guess roughly where the answer will land, but I note that the debate surrounding the dialogue is in no way concluded.

In Ystads Allehanda this week, it was possible to read about yet another wind power project, Blekinge Offshore, which the Swedish Armed Forces have expressed opposition to. The company behind the park has written in the statement to the Land and Environment Court: "The Swedish Armed Forces have, however, chosen not to participate in a dialogue with the company, despite repeated attempts from the company's side."

While I await the investigation that the Minister for Defence refers to in his answer, I want to assert that there are a number of question marks regarding whether the dialogue between the Armed Forces and the wind power stakeholders is deficient. It does not appear from the answer whether the Minister for Defence and the government are ready to act while awaiting the submission of the final report from the investigation mentioned, even if what concerns the regulatory letter is a form of action.

I now give the Minister for Defence the opportunity to elaborate on his arguments and hopefully provide further information in just that part.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! There were two parts concerning why the wording was included in the regulatory letter and why we subsequently removed it. One, as mentioned, was that it was included in the instruction that one should cooperate. The other was that the Armed Forces submitted a report on October 23 which was also an account of the measures they wanted to see to achieve a more efficient process.

We did not think there were grounds to routinely include it in the regulatory letter for 2024, but it should serve a purpose. However, we are doing it for 2025, because we now also have the new investigation that arrived on December 13 to work further with. This is the reason why it has gone in and out of the regulatory letter, just to clarify this.

I will say something connected to the dialogue. Adrian Magnusson says that the decision was a cold shower for the wind power companies concerned, and I can very well understand that because it was naturally a setback. But all those companies knew about the Armed Forces' view. In that respect, it therefore could not have been a big surprise, at least when it comes to whether one considered the security and defense policy reasons that were the basis for this. There, there has been a dialogue.

As has been said, there are opportunities for the Armed Forces and stakeholders to discuss the height of wind turbines, exact location, and so on. This happens during the application. The second dimension, which I know Adrian Magnusson also requests, is the somewhat more overarching, strategic dialogue between the Armed Forces and the wind power companies. That also takes place. It is certainly the case that from the wind power companies' side, they would like to have much more of it. I have respect for that. The Armed Forces must, of course, weigh it against other resources, but it happens both at a strategic level and during specific, individual applications.

The Armed Forces have also taken some measures to try to reduce processing times, at least regarding wind power in general. Staffing has been strengthened at the regional headquarters in order to be able to reduce processing times.

We are in a situation where the Armed Forces are growing and our energy dependence is increasing. This means that the Armed Forces, as I have understood it, handles nearly 3,000 applications per year - not just regarding offshore or land-based wind power. There is a high demand for statements and many who want to have strategic dialogues linked to coexistence with the Armed Forces.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe what the Minister of Defence says is quite correct. These companies are not satisfied with the dialogue. Some dialogue may have occurred, but it nevertheless appeared from the debate in the aftermath of the government's decision – regardless of what one thinks about it. I naturally have an understanding of the security situation and the types of trade-offs that must be made, but it was still quite clear that these companies were not particularly impressed by the Armed Forces' role in the dialogue part. It has obviously not become any better either. One can take the example of Blekinge Offshore. That company still says that they think the dialogue and cooperation are very deficient.

I understand that one wants to take a larger grip on the issues regarding offshore wind power and wind power. I believe that it is good. I believe it is good that one looks at what the Minister for Defence touched upon in his first contribution, for example, auction systems. Right now, we have a situation that affects, not least, the wind farms off the coast of Ystad, which are the examples I have primarily had insight into. In those projects, hundreds of millions were plowed down, and then a rejection decision came. It is clear that it creates distress. One can have quite strong sympathy for that. It is an order that is problematic.

I think the decision that has been made to reintroduce a provision in the regulatory letter indicates that the government is not just waiting for the investigation to eventually become legislation, and I hope that is the case. The Swedish legislative processes do take time. Quite a lot can happen until a government bill is submitted to the Riksdag, and before it has been processed, some more time may have passed.

I hope that the government looks at issues regarding how the dialogue can be formalized in a clearer way. Member Björklund touched upon some examples in his interpellation statements. One should be able to find forms for a formalized dialogue, both regarding the more overarching aspects and further regarding the specific design of the parks. If not, one can then avoid a rather tedious debate in the media afterwards where different companies express their disappointment. OX2 has, for example, said: "We see how other countries in the Baltic Sea with proximity to Russia, such as Poland and Germany, are expanding offshore wind power and where there is a constructive cooperation with the respective defense forces." That implies that they do not think there is a constructive cooperation with the Swedish Armed Forces.

I believe that this is important for several different reasons. One of them is, of course, waste of resources or destruction of capital when hundreds of millions are plowed into various wind power projects that then turn out to be unable to be completed.

I also believe it is of importance that the Armed Forces is a clear actor in society and the public debate. There is probably a risk, which I know we touched upon in our interpellation debate nearly a year ago, when Member of Parliament Karlsson also participated, which means that the Armed Forces is perceived to stand outside the social order, if I may put it that way. The Armed Forces is perceived to do exactly as they want and as if they are not an active party in the dialogue and the discussions that occur in other parts of society. I am not saying that is the case, but I believe there is a risk that it is perceived that way in different parts of society – not least by the wind power companies and the wind power stakeholders.

There may also be others who feel that the Armed Forces, if one expresses it somewhat sloppily, are running their own race. They feel that there is no possibility for dialogue and cooperation. Therefore, I hope that the government, before they lay a proposition on the Riksdag's table, reviews how one can strengthen this dialogue and cooperation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my opening remarks, there are reasons to further develop the forms of cooperation between the Armed Forces and other stakeholders so that we obtain a faster and more predictable process. There are inspiring examples. They concern land-based wind power. In Dalarna and Värmland, in a pilot project, work has been done on the equivalent of a designation system where the total defense interests in the counties have been examined.

The authorities must collectively roll up their sleeves and state where defense interests, municipal interests, and critical infrastructure are located. This requires that information can be shared—even classified information. Therefore, it is very important that there are people in the environmental units at the county administrative boards who have been security-cleared, and so on.

I have personally been to Dalarna and discussed with the county administrative board there how the project has turned out. It provides good inspiration for what we want to achieve, namely an auction system or an allocation system.

The government will continue to work on the bill. It will not originate from the Ministry of Defence but from the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, and I will not anticipate that work. But we also have a continuous dialogue with the Armed Forces on everything from target and result reporting to the budget, where wind power is one of several issues that arise.

I say as Ebba Busch when we presented the rejection of the construction of 13 wind farms and also opened for Poseidon on the west coast: This was not an easy decision to make. We naturally view offshore wind power positively. We need more wind power. But in light of the serious security policy situation in the world and that the Armed Forces were very clear that this would entail unacceptable security threats, the government is not willing to take the risks it would involve to expand offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea.

Adrian Magnusson is right that we will need to work more on finding better forms to achieve a faster and more predictable system, not least through a reinforced auction or allocation system.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by saying thank you, because I think this has been a good and constructive debate where we have been able to express our opinion. I feel more secure now that there is still a will from the government to work with this.

We find ourselves in a new situation, in some sense. A lot of electricity production must be built, preferably quite quickly. At the same time, we have a defense force that, due to the security policy situation, needs to expand, also fairly quickly – at least from a historical perspective. I can understand that this creates certain challenges. But I want to point out again that I believe it is very important that the Armed Forces are perceived as part of the rest of the social order and thus are not decoupled from the rest of society.

I understand that the Minister for Defence will not review individual statements from representatives of the Armed Forces. I have no illusions that he will do so. But I can think that even in the tone of voice from representatives of the Armed Forces after this decision, one sensed something along the lines of them seeing themselves as an interest that stands above all others and that does not need to take the same consideration required of others in a society. I understand that perhaps that was not the intention, but I thought I perceived such a tone.

I believe the Minister of Defence is onto something important in his speech, and when he highlights the examples in Dalarna and Värmland – that we probably need to review agency cooperation broadly in these types of issues as well with county administrative boards and perhaps with municipalities, and see how they work with wind power issues together with the Armed Forces.

I believe that we will also come across this in other contexts, for example, training areas and the like, where I believe it can be important to have an enhanced dialogue between the defense forces and the relevant areas and municipalities. Now, that is a different debate, which we are not going to take up here today.

I would like to conclude by saying that I am very pleased that the writing in the regulatory letter has come back. It shows that the interpellation tool may have some meaning after all. In opposition, one sometimes feels that it does not. I thank you for a good debate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! I also thank you for a pleasant debate with Adrian Magnusson. It was a substantive debate, I think, just like the previous one. Hats off to the member for him also being correct regarding the regulatory letter!

With that said, I do not share Adrian Magnusson's perception regarding the tone from the Armed Forces. If it were to be perceived that the Armed Forces in some way stands above the rest of the state or state interests, that would be deeply regrettable, for it is something we should feel pride over: the Armed Forces' rock-solid work every day to keep Sweden safe. I know that all people in uniform work tirelessly with this. Important support has also been provided to Ukraine, which is extremely fine and appreciated, so any form of framing in another direction would actually be to give an enormously misleading picture of an agency that does a very important job to keep Sweden safe so that I and Adrian Magnusson can stand here and debate these issues.

This is also an authority that receives ever-increasing support. All measurements in society show that the Armed Forces have strong support, and that is good. We need that.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)