Response to interpellation 2024/25:367 on hunting opportunities in nature reserves
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns processing times for hunting opportunities in nature reserves. L argues that the government cannot anticipate decisions in ongoing cases as processing times are affected by complex trade-offs between promptness, efficiency, and legal certainty 1 2 3. L emphasizes that the government is working hard to make nature reserves accessible and that hunting is a fundamental part of utilizing nature sustainably 3. S considers a ten-month processing time to be unreasonably long and that the government is not meeting the requirements for efficiency, which damages trust in the state 4 5. S argues that the minister should monitor the issue so that decisions can be made as soon as possible 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)
Mr. Speaker! Marie Olsson has asked me how long I consider it reasonable for a matter to take to be processed by the government and when the hunters in Orsa and in the rest of Dalarna can expect to receive a decision from the government regarding hunting opportunities in the Korpimäki nature reserve.
The question is posed on the grounds that the County Administrative Board in Dalarna County has made a decision to expand the possibilities for hunting within the Korpimäki nature reserve. This decision has been appealed to the government.
The starting point in the government's handling of appealed decisions according to the Environmental Code is that the processing shall be carried out promptly, efficiently, and without compromising legal certainty. As I have previously answered to Marie Olsson's parliamentary question regarding processing time, I cannot at this stage say when the government will make a decision regarding the Korpimäki nature reserve. Since this is an ongoing administrative matter, I cannot anticipate a decision in the case by commenting on the timeline or the outcome of the issue. The matter is still being prepared in the Government Offices.
Marie Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer to the interpellation.
As I wrote in the interpellation, hunting and fishing is a very important part of life for many who live in the countryside but also for many who live in large cities. The creation of nature reserves is many times a good way to protect nature areas that are worthy of protection, but to gain acceptance among the local population for the allocation of land in nature, it is extremely important that the state has a good dialogue with the local population.
After many years, the state has finally, via the County Administrative Board in Dalarna County, listened to the local population regarding the possibility of allowing more hunting in the Korpimäki nature reserve in Orsa. The decision was appealed and then landed on the government's desk. It was in April 2024, which is just over ten months ago.
As I wrote in my interpellation, municipalities are not allowed to have such long processing times for cases; instead, we in the Riksdag have decided through legislation how long the processing times may be. The question is whether it is not starting to be time for a similar system for the state and the government. In my assessment, ten months is an unreasonably long processing time. Furthermore, the government has not made a decision yet, so it will take even longer. However, decisions have been made in cases that have been submitted later than this.
Mr. Speaker! Just as the Minister said, I have sent a written question in the same matter to the Minister. The question was the same as one of the questions in the interpellation, namely when the hunters in Orsa and the rest of Dalarna can expect a decision from the government regarding the hunting opportunities in the Korpimäki nature reserve. The answer from the Minister was then that the Minister cannot comment on when the matter will be decided because it is an ongoing administrative matter that the Minister should not preempt. I can state that I receive exactly the same answer on the interpellation.
Based on the answer, I am left somewhat wondering. It is the government that is to decide in this matter, but according to the Minister, ministers should not step in and direct the matter. Who or who are the ones who are to direct if not the government, which is to make the decision, can do so?
The Minister also answers that the starting point for the handling of appeal decisions according to the Environmental Code is that the handling shall be prompt, efficient, and without compromising legal certainty. I must therefore ask the Minister if the Minister considers ten months to be a prompt handling of an appeal. Ten months is also the time that has passed so far since the appeal was received by the Government, and we do not yet know how much longer it will take before a decision is made. How much time does the Minister consider to be covered by the concept "prompt"?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the members for the opportunity to discuss these questions.
Just as the member states, I do not provide a new answer to the question of when a decision can be expected in this matter. I am convinced that the member is very well aware that as a minister, one cannot anticipate a decision in a case. One cannot as a minister personally go out and comment on the outcome in a certain case before it is decided, and one also cannot say when such a decision will be made. It is interesting that the member asks the question in that way if she is now aware of the conditions that apply to the government and for how the government expresses itself.
Mr. Speaker! The member points out that the starting point for the handling of such cases is that it shall be carried out expeditiously, efficiently, and without compromising legal certainty. What is relevant here is that of these three different factors, there is none that is more important than the others. There is no factor that is more relevant than the others to take into account when handling a case. The handling shall be carried out expeditiously, efficiently, and without compromising legal certainty, and if legal certainty is compromised as a consequence of handling the case more expeditiously, one has simply not fulfilled the conditions that apply to such an appeal and how it shall be handled.
Then the member asks, Mr. Speaker, how it is that I, despite the fact that it is the government that makes the decision, cannot anticipate the decision by making a statement. The answer is quite simply that it does not work in such a way that I, as an individual minister, sit and pretend to act as a lawyer and assess all the different trade-offs that exist in individual cases. As things work in the Swedish state's handling of appeals, it is instead the Government Offices, together with the relevant experts – one can call them that, even though officials is the correct term – that handle the various trade-offs made in different cases.
The member of the board also points out in his interpellation that other matters that have come in later have been handled faster. In that case, it is relevant to point out that in judicial reviews of decisions concerning nature reserves, there are a number of different issues. These issues differ depending on what type of appeal it is and what types of conditions prevail for the nature reserve in question, and in these examples, they differ.
I believe it is something that the member possibly knows about but that the general public might not be aware of, that is, how such conditions can weigh different decisions. Even if one makes the decisions in turn, it is simply the case that some decisions can be handled in a legally secure, efficient, and thus prompt manner because there are not as large trade-offs to make.
What is done is to manage different trade-offs and issues concerning succeeding in protecting the environment in different ways, but also about weighing the benefit for the environment against public interests and individual interests. Just as the member points out, Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that, when we protect large areas of nature, we also ensure to have a strong local anchoring and an understanding of the life that takes place in that part of nature before the reserve is formed. It should be able to continue to a large extent as long as it does not affect the purpose of the establishment of the individual nature reserve. It is, therefore, a trade-off that the government, and fundamentally the state, always has to take a stand on and which is extremely important.
Marie Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Out in the countryside – for example in Orsa, where I come from – there is unfortunately an increased mistrust towards the state and the authorities. There is a feeling that the state is not listening and that the policy is being carried out from a big city perspective.
If the government means what it said in the election about the countryside being important for the whole country, the SD government must also show that in action. It is not enough to simply lower the price of petrol and diesel. We cannot just occupy ourselves with driving cars out in the countryside, we also need state services. The government is now dismantling those in many places with the closure of service offices. We also need jobs, not the centralization to Stockholm that the government is currently carrying out.
We need a state that listens to the population in the whole country to counter mistrust throughout the country. The County Administrative Board of Dalarna County has, as a state authority, listened. It wants to contribute to creating opportunities for expanded hunting in nature reserves, and therefore the government's decision regarding the Korpimäki nature reserve is extremely important for all of Dalarna.
It will be seen as a direction for the processing of several cases in Dalarna concerning the expansion of hunting within nature reserves. Those cases will, however, also have to wait due to the government's long processing times. It is very unfortunate for the population, for the hunters, for the County Administrative Board in Dalarna County, for the trust in the state and thus the government, and for the acceptance of the designation of nature reserves.
Mr. Speaker! As I have previously stated, the Minister has said that the processing shall be carried out expeditiously, efficiently, and without compromising legal certainty. I have raised the issue of expediency and wish to agree with what the Minister says regarding that the processing must also, naturally, be carried out efficiently and with legal certainty. That is a self-evident matter. But ten months is an incredibly long time to meet the requirements for efficiency and legal certainty, and we do not know, as stated, how many months – or years – it will take before the government reaches a decision.
As I said in my previous post, the municipalities have the same requirements. They must also carry out the exercise of public authority promptly, efficiently, and in a legally secure manner. However, they never have ten months or more to investigate and make decisions. The municipalities must therefore be much more efficient, legally secure, and prompt than the government needs to be. Those are the requirements we place on the municipalities.
A question arising from that is whether we are setting too harsh requirements for the municipalities. Do they have too short processing times?
If the government fails to live up to promptness, efficiency, and legal certainty over ten months and more, one may perhaps need to review the processing procedure, in the same way as the municipalities have been allowed to do. It cannot be that the government considers that one works more legally securely in the government than is necessary out in the municipalities. Nor can it be that we set different requirements for legal certainty in the municipality and the state.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! As the member is in, there are certain parts of the work that take place within the government, and I believe quite a few would be surprised that these take place within the government. One example is one of the earliest cases I was asked to look at when I entered the Government Offices as the newly appointed Minister for the Environment. It concerned an appeal regarding the possibility of riding snowmobiles within a certain area that was partially protected. I can be clear that I myself was surprised that even such cases, which are of a very local character, end up on the government's table.
We have an Administrative Procedure Act in Sweden that regulates processing times. It states that if a case, for example, has been initiated by an individual party and has not been decided in the first instance by the latest within six months, the party may request that the authority decide the case. In that case, the authority must, within four weeks from the receipt of such a request, simply decide the case or decide to reject such a request.
Mr. Speaker! Just as the member states, there are no corresponding rules for processing times for appeals to the government. How is it that no governments have regulated such an issue? There may be several reasons. I do not believe it is about wanting to make things particularly pleasant for oneself. It is probably rather about the fact that the government is a very high instance, in many cases the last party one can appeal to. Consequently, it often involves more complex cases that can be of different characters. Possibly it is for that reason that one does not have the same strict processing times.
I do, however, think that what the member is raising is very legitimate. How do we ensure that it is possible to have confidence in the state? I share the picture that the member describes: that there is a concern for and a greater mistrust towards what purposes the state and the county administrative boards have in individual decisions. That the local population perceives that there is no understanding for the lifestyle and the conditions that prevail is a problem that should not be underestimated. It must really be taken seriously and ensure that the confidence is built up. I think it is very good that the member is raising it.
How should that problem be handled then? The Government has received a government review inquiry that, among other things, looked at this. In that report, the inquiry proposes, among other things, that decisions on area protection according to the Environmental Code, for example regarding off-road driving legislation, should be able to be appealed to court instead of as they currently are to the Government.
The investigation assesses that the proposals will likely result in shorter processing times for the cases. This is due, among other things, to the assessment that the Government Offices' organization is not adapted to handle appeals of this kind. Not least, the investigation provides some insight into this problem, which I am fully aware we have.
I think it is good that the member points out that it is a problem when it takes time and that it creates a mistrust towards the state. So, we shall, of course, not have that.
We will continue to work to the best of our ability to live up to the level of promptness, legal certainty, and efficiency that we have to follow. Different cases differ. How quickly or slowly it is possible to process individual appeals is therefore influenced by many different factors.
Marie Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have worked for quite some time with various forms of administrative exercise in municipalities and am therefore well acquainted with, among other things, the Administrative Procedure Act.
In this case, the government is actually the first instance for appeal. When the County Administrative Board has made a decision regarding a nature reserve and an appeal is filed, it goes to the government. It does not pass through any other instance on the way; rather, the government is the first instance.
As for the answer to the written question, I do not receive an answer to my questions this time either. The Minister cannot answer how long she considers it reasonable for it to take to process a case to be decided by the government. The Minister can also not answer what she considers to be urgent, which is the term the Minister herself refers to when it comes to how long it should take before decisions are made.
The answer to the hunters, the population, and the County Administrative Board in Dalarna is therefore that the Minister does not know. It is a very unfortunate message. It would have been appropriate if the Minister at least had some notion of what a reasonable time is.
We have also received the answer from the Minister that even though it is the government that is to decide, the Minister cannot step in and influence the processing of the case. I can understand that when it concerns the processing itself. On the other hand, one can step in and influence how much time it needs to take and push for the case to move forward. That is a difference from stepping into the processing.
I hope that this interpellation debate at least leads to the Minister being able to monitor the issue and ensure that decisions are made as soon as possible, i.e., expeditiously. I would have wished that the Minister had at least regretted the long processing time, but I give the Minister the opportunity to do so in the final statement.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Very clever word choices are being made here in the chamber today. I note that the member says that the minister cannot answer. Those are wise word choices, considering that it is just the case that I cannot answer. I do not have the possibility to anticipate this processing. The member is very well aware of that.
Then the member chooses to use other words and suddenly says that the minister does not know. It is not the same thing as me not being able to answer.
I have, therefore, with the rules that I and all other ministers have to work according to, no possibility to account for this. That would be to precede the processing that takes place of this appeal. I cannot precede the processing by pointing out how long one can expect it to take, when this decision is to come, or what the outcome will be.
Let me clarify for those watching this interpellation debate and who are affected by the matter at hand that they do not need to feel any mistrust. This government is working hard to make the nature reserves accessible. We shall be able to live in and enjoy the nature we have in a sustainable and balanced way. Not least, hunting is a fundamental part of us succeeding in that. We need an active management of the animals that move, even in our nature reserves. It is something that one should not worry about.
Regarding questions about such legal matters, it is simply not that I do not know, but I cannot answer when it concerns the current case.
As I previously explained, Korpimäki nature reserve is also a Natura 2000 area, which makes it extra complex and more time-consuming.
We are working as hard as we can to be able to provide information to everyone concerned in the best possible way, so that we can continue to utilize our nature in a wise way throughout our long country.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.