Response to interpellation 2024/25:521 on better coexistence with wolves
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD works for a balance between social, economic and ecological interests to achieve a sustainable predator policy 1. KD wants a wolf population with a favorable conservation status but with a lower number than today 1. KD has increased the wildlife damage compensation to support farmers 1. KD argues that the wolf population must be reduced to protect people's safety and opportunities to operate in rural areas 2 3. MP argues that the government's proposal is based on a fixation on numbers 4, that a small wolf population would become much more expensive to manage 4 and that the wolf population has an extreme problem with inbreeding 4. MP believes that the fear of wolves is overrepresented 5. S argues that the wolf is a major problem and a large cost for society 6. S argues that the culling needs to be tripled 6. M argues that it is extremely good that the government is going to reduce the predator pressure 7. M argues that one must stick to approximately 170 wolves 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Rebecka Le Moine has asked me what I intend to do to work against the illegal hunting of, among other things, wolves, for a better coexistence with predators in Sweden and for the wolf to have a favorable conservation status, as well as which countries I mean we should build a cooperation with regarding the wolf, how I want to work with preventive measures and how I view full compensation for those affected by attacks.
Madam Speaker! The Government is working towards a better coexistence with predators in Sweden through a predator policy that is a balance between social, economic, and ecological interests. The goal is to maintain a sustainable predator policy that takes into account both the ecological needs and the social consequences for people living in areas where predators are present. A review of the hunting legislation has been initiated to modernize and improve the rules within the hunting area. Sweden shall have a wolf population with a favorable conservation status but with a lower number of wolves than today. To achieve this, among other things, close cooperation is taking place with responsible authorities in our neighboring countries Finland and Norway.
Sweden is one of the countries that already uses several available tools, for example hunting and preventive measures, to manage the wolf and counteract the negative effects of predators. We will continue with that. To further support farmers affected by damages caused by predators, the government has increased the wildlife damage grant by 15 million SEK per year from 2023 onwards. This means more funds for damage prevention measures and compensation for incurred damages. All support for predator-deterring fences is handled within the wildlife damage grant, which simplifies the application process for farmers. The grant now totals 67.8 million SEK per year, which strengthens the work for a better coexistence between humans and predators.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I have, therefore, asked a number of questions concerning wolf management. But despite having had a long time to answer, we did not hear anything about the illegal hunting. Not much is mentioned about coexistence either, but what is mentioned are the investments that have been made in the budget. They are certainly good, but much more was needed.
The proposals that the government has presented are very focused on the wolf population decreasing in Sweden. This has been the case since the Minister for Rural Affairs' election campaign, which had a consistent line on this. One has also been very transparent, I must admit. But I would say that everything is based on a fixation on figures. Let's say that we halve Sweden's wolf population. There are many problems with that. But the election promises that the Minister for Rural Affairs has given to the hunting association and those who have a negative attitude towards wolves in the countryside do not solve the problems.
If one were to assume that we get such a small population as 170 wolves, it will reduce the space for both license hunting and protection hunting. The margins will become so small that it will be more difficult for those who actually need to have protection hunting granted. It would therefore disadvantage those who are in need of protection hunting.
We in Miljöpartiet are critical of trophy hunting, but we can agree to protection hunting when wolves exhibit escalating behavior or continuously or several times target livestock or attack sheep. But the margin for protection hunting will decrease with the government's proposal.
Another problem is the costs. If one is to have only 170 wolves in Sweden, the management will become much more expensive. From the agency's side, one must then have individualized wolf management and extremely good control before any protection hunt – or license hunt, for that matter – can be permitted.
I do not know if the Minister for Rural Affairs has made any cost calculation and would very much like to get an answer to that. The question is whether it is worth it. Probably the cost will increase so much that it exceeds the costs that one could say lie on the wolf's deficit account in the form of compensation to sheep owners and so on. Individually tailored management of 170 wolves will become expensive. It will not solve the conflicts that exist. It will reduce the opportunities for protection hunting. It will absolutely complicate the entire issue surrounding genetics.
Madam Speaker! In Sweden, the wolf population is based on only three individuals, which were furthermore related. We thus have an extreme problem with inbreeding. The genetic base is so narrow that the level of inbreeding on average is as high as when full siblings mate. It will not be solved either, but will only be worsened, if one intends to reduce the population to 170 wolves. I would like to know if the Minister for Rural Affairs has even thought about the genetics. Is one willing to relocate wolves? Is one willing to import wolves? How does one think regarding the genetics?
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I must begin by praising the Minister for Rural Affairs. In this interpellation response, the Minister for Rural Affairs did something that not all ministers do, namely went through the questions to be answered. I think it is exemplary and something for too many other ministers to follow.
Then I became a little less happy. I know that when the Minister for Rural Affairs is out meeting residents, entrepreneurs, and livestock owners in the countryside, he has a somewhat more offensive and productive tone than in this answer. That, Madam Speaker, was unfortunately somewhat defensive and worrying.
The background is that the wolf is a major problem. The wolf causes great damage. The wolf is a major cost for society. The wolf is a threat to biological diversity. Given this, and given the Minister for Rural Affairs' promises that the number of wolves shall decrease, we would need at least a tripling of the culling before next year's license hunt. The answer from the Minister for Rural Affairs breathes nothing of an insight into this today. But we are only at the beginning of the year, and I look forward to the decisions that will eventually come.
I really hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs does not disappoint the rural population. There are many of us who are watching how the Minister for Rural Affairs acts and whether he truly takes seriously the promises he makes to concerned rural residents, livestock owners, and entrepreneurs when he travels around Sweden.
Lars Beckman (M)
Madam Speaker! It was liberating to hear Patrik Björck praise the government. It was very good. I understand how frustrated he must have been during the eight years when the Social Democrats ruled Sweden and the wolf population increased day by day. That is what happens when the Social Democrats cooperate with the Green Party and the Green Party is allowed to rule.
Madam Speaker! I am from Gävleborg. Gävleborg belongs to the counties with the highest predator pressure in the country. I have met frustrated sheep farmers, other animal owners, and farmers. I have met the farmer in Kilafors who, night after night, films the wolf on his land. Unfortunately, the protection hunt does not work to the extent we would wish. If it worked well, that is to say that the County Administrative Board quickly shot the wolf when it is on the farmer's farm, we would not have this problem. I believe that the County Administrative Boards simply have to step up.
I am happy, proud, and satisfied that we now have a rural affairs minister who will reduce the predator pressure in Sweden. It is extremely good, because it is completely unreasonable that three counties – Värmland, Dalarna, and Gävleborg – have had to bear virtually the entire wolf population with all the consequences that has entailed for the livestock owners. The Riksdag has made a very good decision, namely that we shall have 170 wolves in Sweden. It is this decision that is now to be realized.
When the Green Party was in government, it was unfortunately as simple as the Social Democrats sacrificed the countryside. They probably didn't think the issue was worth enough, and the Green Party would get to decide on some other issue. Then they sacrificed the countryside, with all the consequences it entailed for sheep farmers, agricultural producers, and hunters. I met a hunter who had had his life companion eaten by a wolf. That happened because the old government did not take the issue seriously.
The old government allowed the wolf population to increase drastically. If we had not allowed the wolf population to grow so quickly, we would not have had any conflicts. When we have an acceptable level of predator populations, there are no conflicts.
Just like Patrik Björck, I think the Minister for Rural Affairs gave a well-balanced answer to the interpellation when he said that we should have a balance between social, economic, and ecological interests. I once met a family with children from Lingbo, and I remember them saying something like this: Why are our children in Lingbo less worthy than the children in Nacka when a wolf appears? When the wolf appeared in Nacka, it was shot within 24 hours, but when the wolf ran onto the farm in Lingbo and threatened families with children, practically nothing happened. Gradually, however, it became a protected hunt.
I am, as I have said, proud, satisfied and happy that the Minister for Rural Affairs and the government take these issues seriously and ensure that we reduce the wolf population so that we can live in coexistence.
Crister Carlsson (M)
Madam Speaker! I am very pleased that the government has addressed the issue of better coexistence with predators in Sweden. Sweden shall have a favorable conservation status for wolves, but absolutely with a lower number than today.
I live in Dalarna, and there the issue is very heated. The problem has been significant. Let me give an example of what the issue is about. If a hunter sees a rabid fox, it is culled immediately so that it does not have to suffer. But if you, for example, cull a wolf injured in a traffic accident, you risk prosecution, so that is not allowed to be done.
A major problem regarding coexistence with wolves arises when a hunter is out hunting and has their dog eaten, as Member of Parliament Beckman just said. We must stick to approximately 170 wolves, which we thought had been decided upon previously.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! What we have just heard from the speaker's chair in the Riksdag puts the finger on why so little has happened within Swedish wolf management. I am completely convinced that the Socialdemokraterna have had the ambition to follow the Riksdag's decision, but the government power has been prioritized and the fact that Miljöpartiet has wanted something completely different has not been handled.
I can promise Patrik Björck, Madam Speaker, that we will also ensure that what the government has said is implemented. We need to significantly reduce the wolf population in Sweden so that we can achieve a better coexistence between predators and humans. That is why we have pushed for a change to the Bern Convention, and that is why I also welcome that the commission has now presented a proposal to change the Habitats Directive. We have also several times given the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency renewed assignments to investigate how we should handle a situation with significantly fewer wolves in Sweden. We are currently analyzing this.
We have also recently given a mandate that instead of setting a fixed number of wolves for the different predator regions, we should talk about percentages so that this in itself does not become an obstacle to realizing an expanded hunt in the future when we have received a new reference value. So, things are happening.
Madam Speaker! I find it interesting at the same time that the Green Party, which claims to be engaged in the issue of coexistence between humans and predators, still does not want to take into account the fact that the number of wolves has increased significantly over the last two decades. If the Green Party seriously safeguards a true coexistence, I wonder how one can ignore the negative effects that too large a population of wolves entails for the rural population.
A study from SLU shows that license hunting is linked to reduced poaching. But don't misunderstand me! I think very poorly of poaching. It should not occur and should be prosecuted as far as possible. But you in Miljöpartiet want to stop license hunting. How do you think that will affect the poaching situation? How will people in the countryside handle this?
Madam Speaker! The Green Party also speaks of working preventatively. But what is being proposed is that we should act reactively, that is, put a price tag on lost animals instead of preventing the attacks from happening in the first place. Full compensation to farmers is a necessary support, Madam Speaker, but we must not be naive and believe that it solves the entire problem. We must not forget that for a farmer, it is about more than a sum of money for a sheep or a cow. It is about their life's work, their daily life, and their security. It is about their fear of going out into a pasture and being met with the fact that their life's work is gone, dead, or has run away. There is no money in the world that solves that.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I believe it is clear to everyone following the debate where the different parties stand. In the Green Party, we are very keen on including facts where such exist. A great deal is being said here about the countryside. As it has sounded so far in the debate, people in the countryside want to get rid of the wolf, but that is not quite the case.
An opinion poll has been conducted on rural residents' attitudes towards large predators. It was carried out in ten EU countries in November 2023. I will read out some figures from there. It is 78 percent who agree that large predators have a right to exist within the EU and 6 percent who do not agree. Furthermore, 67 percent believe that large predators should continue to have strict protection while 9 percent do not agree. There is strong support for strict protection of large predators, for preventive measures, and for protection hunting only as an emergency measure.
It is also interesting, Madam Speaker, that only 16 percent feel represented by hunting organizations and 18 percent by agricultural organizations. One can ask why the Minister for Rural Affairs does not listen to the rural inhabitants, when there is black and white on what they actually think and want in this issue.
There are also studies from SLU which show that in Sweden, more people want to live in proximity to wolves than those who do not. That fear of wolves that is being pumped up is perhaps overrepresented here in the Riksdag. I would say that it is quite irrational to be afraid of being killed by a wolf in Sweden. No one has been killed by a wolf in more than a hundred years. We do not have that problem in Sweden. The ideological wolf-hatred, which is the underlying factor, simply does not have its basis in science and does not contribute much to solving problems either.
The illegal hunting was mentioned by the Minister for Rural Affairs, and I am pleased that one is distancing oneself from it. But the question is: Where is the money then? It concerns a crime that is extremely difficult to investigate. Brå, the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, already stated in 2007 that the number of convictions in this area is extremely low compared to how many animals are hunted illegally.
Madam Speaker! There are estimates which say that the most common way for a wolf to die in Sweden is illegal hunting. Here, one could start by not fueling and exaggerating the unjustified fear of having wolves nearby and work with a more constructive tone – inform that the wolf does not throw itself at anyone but on the contrary is very shy towards humans. I simply wonder why one does not want to listen to the rural inhabitants when this is so clear both in Sweden and within the EU cooperation.
I also wonder what happened with my question about genetics, and I believe, Madam Speaker, that I know the answer. There is no study that provides grounds for that one can reduce the number of wolves in the extremely vulnerable position that the wolf is in right now. It is not possible to reduce to 170 wolves and simultaneously achieve a favorable conservation status.
If the Minister for Rural Affairs is to be honest, he should also be clear that one is now choosing to politically phase out the wolf from Sweden. I am sure that it could win some applause here in the chamber, but if so, please be clear towards the Swedish people and the rural inhabitants, who would rather keep the wolf in Sweden.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to be very clear on one point: I have not praised the government in this debate. It would be very sad if someone listening to this debate thought that. I gave specific praise for the Minister's introduction in that the Minister took responsibility for actually listing the questions that the interpellor had posed to him. Many of the Minister's colleagues miss that. This I praised – I did not praise the government. I want to be very clear about that.
I did not think the answer was balanced. I also want to be very clear about that. I did not really recognize the answer given what I hear the Minister for Rural Affairs say when he meets rural residents, entrepreneurs, and livestock owners out in the country. In those instances, the Minister for Rural Affairs is usually much clearer.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Rural Affairs corrected himself in his second answer and now promised a tripling of the license hunt until next year. I thank him for that, and I shall monitor it.
Lars Beckman (M)
Madam Speaker! I respect that Miljöpartiet is an extremely urban party. I suspect that when you want to see something green, you go to Skansen and think that it is cozy there.
I am completely convinced that there is not a single environmentalist who has been to Kjell in Vallsta and spoken with him about how frustrated he is over the recurring predator attacks on his sheep. It is his livelihood that is threatened when the wolf population has been allowed to become too large.
It is the same thing for Irene in Kilafors; it is also her livelihood. She and her husband are farmers and agriculturalists. It was their income that the Social Democrats sold off over eight years when you let the predator population grow as it did. It is regrettable that the Social Democrats sacrificed the countryside because you thought power was more important than a bearable life there.
I sat in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture when we drafted the predator bill that was subsequently adopted by the Swedish Riksdag. There, very careful analyses were made of what level of the predator population Sweden could handle. The problem was then that the Social Democrats did not follow the Riksdag's decision. It was an accident, and it has affected very many people out in the countryside: families with children in Lingbo who have repeatedly had wolves on their farms, Kjell in Vallsta, Irene in Kilafors, and all those hunters who have had their life companions eaten by the predators.
It is, therefore, obvious that all of Sweden benefits from the policy that the government is now pursuing. Not least those who protect the predators should understand that if we have a reasonable level when it comes to the predators, it will not be a problem. It is this, the balance, that is what it is about in the policy that the government is now pursuing.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck is very skilled at putting words in my and others' mouths. What I promised was that we will fulfill what we have promised: to reduce the wolf population. I have not said anything explicit about the level of the license hunt, for this will, of course, be handled through the correct process. But what I tried to demonstrate was that we will do what we have set out to do.
I wonder if Miljöpartiet has truly understood what consequences a wolf population of over 500 individuals – we have heard higher figures as well – would have for people who live and reside in the countryside and have their livelihood and income from there, not infrequently with animal husbandry as the focus. If we are to talk about coexistence, how can we then reason with representatives of a policy that risks completely abandoning the people who actually have to live with the consequences? For me, it is incomprehensible.
Speaking of fear, it is true that it has been a very long time since a human was attacked by a wolf – at least a wolf living freely in the forest. I have also never said or brought up as an argument that such a thing would have happened. I believe, however, that most can understand and empathize with the anxiety that a wild animal, a predator, can evoke, and how it would feel to let your children out on the farmyard where a wolf family passed by the day before. I would not let my children out to a dog I do not know – because it is an animal. Things can happen, and I want to have control. But when I have raised that anxiety earlier, it has been brushed aside as totally irrelevant, among other things, by the Miljöparti side. It is to ignore people's anxiety, and I believe that in itself is a great danger for a politician. I believe there is a great danger in not taking people's anxiety seriously, because it is genuine.
The same applies to the concern among people who have sheep and live from animal production. Sheep farmers are, in and of themselves, a dying breed, which I think is terrible to see in a country with fantastic opportunities for keeping sheep. As consumption now increases, we would rather import lamb from the other side of the globe, and it is something that I would very much like to see us change.
I also received a question from the member regarding genetics. It is precisely this that we have tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, our expert authority, with. We have received feedback in several rounds, and now we are analyzing the latest – precisely how we should handle lower levels, what is required, what steps we need to take, and at what pace we can reduce the wolf population.
It is an immense neighborly effort that must take place for us to be able to reduce the wolf population. But the ambition and the government's goals are very clear: We shall have a favorable conservation status for the wolf in Sweden, but the population needs to be significantly smaller than it is today.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by congratulating Member Beckman for having completed two visits and met his core voters. I believe that it is very valuable.
However, he is completely wrong about Miljöpartiet. I believe that Lars Beckman has seen few people who are as much from the countryside as I am; I grew up in the forests of Småland in a village consisting of three houses, it was said, but we only saw two. I have a lot of contact with the countryside. For the countryside, my heart beats the hardest. Therefore, I am also saddened and distressed that one chooses not to listen to the voices of the countryside when they are expressed and when one asks.
Of course we should try to find solutions. The Minister for Rural Affairs says that it is a great danger to exaggerate and say that a perceived fear does not exist. I agree with that. But we, all members in this chamber, also have a responsibility not to exaggerate the problem. If there are solutions, the possibility to provide compensation and the possibility to inform, I think we should take that responsibility.
Also, regarding the illegal hunting, more must be done, and earmarked funds must be provided.
In this debate, I would like to point out that the entire Swedish wolf management today, with the reference levels that one dreams of, is based on active cooperation with Russia. This has received criticism in the Tapiola judgment. There, it was established that the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives apply within the EU. We cannot count on a population that extends to Russia.
I think it is problematic that the government, with support from the Riksdag, counts on being able to lean on a rather problematic partner in this situation, namely Russia. I think we should be able to stand on our own feet and achieve a favorable conservation status worthy of the name, based on facts.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Just over two years ago, exactly when this government took office, a vote took place in the EU on whether to advocate for a change to the Berne Convention. At that time, it was Sweden and Finland that were in favor. But in the latest vote, it was, as counted in an EU context, more than the equivalent of 86 percent of the EU's population who stood behind a change to the Berne Convention. This is also an aspect to keep in mind when talking about support for different directions.
I am completely confident that there is support to carry out the policy that the Swedish Riksdag, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, and the EU's population stand behind. I do not know how many times the Swedish Riksdag has announced to the government – a government that then consisted of Social Democrats and Green Party members – that it was time to reduce the wolf population. This is what we are now acting on, and it is about time.
I want to return once again to the fact that this must be about more than economics. It concerns people's safety and their opportunity to protect their domestic animals from predator attacks. For many, it is also a question of being able to continue living and working in the countryside. Therefore, the wolf population needs to be significantly smaller than it is today.
Our goal is to reduce the number of wolves in order to improve the situation for those who are negatively affected. It is to truly take responsibility for coexistence.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.