Response to interpellation 2024/25:91 on dust demolition
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns dam removals and how these should be assessed against environmental conditions. L (1) argues that dams can have cultural-historical and social values and that the government wants a fair regulatory framework that balances environmental measures with access to hydropower 1. L (4) claims that courts already consider landscape, cultural environment, and effects on neighbors 2, and L (7) argues that removals require a careful investigation of these effects 3. L (9) emphasizes that the cultural environment perspective and those affected by the environmental transition are not underestimated 4. S (2) argues that social and economic values should weigh more heavily than ecology 5. S (3) argues that water-regulating dams risk being removed 6. S (6) believes that current legislation is insufficient and that the public interest weighs too lightly 7. S (8) argues that local considerations in communities built around dammed watercourses must be valued higher than biodiversity 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.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Lars Isacsson has asked me whether I and the government will take the initiative to broaden the memorandum regarding the water directive so that smaller dams and hydropower plants can also be saved from demolition. Lars Isacsson has further asked me whether the government will submit proposals so that more criteria should be considered before decisions on demolitions are made, for example, cultural values or social values.
I am well aware of the great concern that environmental adaptation of hydropower will lead to evictions, as well as the conflicts of interest that arise when evictions are discussed. Dams can constitute environments with cultural-historical and social values of general interest, contribute to attractive environments for housing and tourism and so on, but can also have negative consequences for the environment. Hydropower plants and dams connected to these shall therefore be tested against modern environmental conditions according to the national plan. Other types of dams are not covered by the requirement for modern environmental conditions but are only tested when the authorities request it.
It is important that we have a fair and applicable regulatory framework that provides better conditions for cooperation between operators and authorities. In the referred memorandum Better conditions for the reassessment of hydropower, proposed changes are suggested that are of significance for the balance between the need for measures that improve the aquatic environment and the need for a national efficient access to hydropower when modern environmental conditions for hydropower plants and dams are established.
Madam Speaker! The proposals also aim to ensure that the relevant operations are tested against the correct level of requirements and that the scope provided by EU law to ensure continued national efficient access to hydropower during environmental adaptation is fully utilized. The consultation period expires on November 22, and I look forward to the consultation responses.
If a removal becomes relevant, the general provisions of the Environmental Code apply. A decision on removal is preceded by a careful investigation of the effects of a removal. A permit for removal may be subject to conditions in order to minimize any negative effects of a removal. The assessment that the court must make before its decision includes, among other things, the removal's impact on landscape, cultural environment, flora and fauna, infrastructure, as well as the effects for neighbors, whose property may be negatively affected by a change in the water's depth and position. A removal may also require a permit according to the Cultural Environment Act (1988:950).
The government's proposal to improve the review of hydropower affects many of the country's dams. In addition to that process, I and the government currently have no intention of reviewing the regulations that directly govern the removal of dams. But I want to assure the members that we continue to follow this issue closely.
Lars Isacsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
This is currently a very important issue for many localities, companies, farmers, and homeowners. I visited Fredriksberg in Ludvika municipality a few weeks ago, where the demolition of dams now threatens the entire locality's survival. Region Dalarnas laundry will have to be shut down. No more skiing in Säfsen. Many who have their houses on islands in the lakes will no longer be able to reach their island. It will take a few years before roads can be constructed in what will now become marshland.
I am pleased that the Minister is aware of the concern regarding the dam removals. When dams that have existed since the 1700s are being removed across Sweden, few know what effects it has. These are removals occurring on a broad front. The investigations preceding the removals focus, in my opinion, only on the ecological side of sustainability. Time and again, only aquatic values and the fulfillment of environmental quality standards are prioritized.
In 1987, Gro Harlem Brundtland led the Brundtland Commission. She defined sustainable development as follows: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development consists of three dimensions that interact and support each other: ecological sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability.
Of course we must protect our water and the life that exists there. But when Sweden now implements the water directive, Sweden does so unilaterally. It is the ecological dimension that completely governs how we, for example, view dams.
The government's referred memorandum Better conditions for the reassessment of hydropower is well-intentioned. But it only targets larger dams and power plants, much like those where I come from at Dalälven. The large ones operated by Fortum and Vattenfall can afford to manage it. It is the small power plants in the tributaries that are affected.
The investigations that take place before the evictions focus on ecology. Admittedly, cultural environment and effects for neighbors are often mentioned, but often everything is weighed together into a situation where cultural or social factors are weighted lower.
We need to take a deep breath. We do not need entire urban areas like Fredriksberg to risk being turned into swampland. There are certainly displacements that are very well-founded. But they must not be made indiscriminately, and they must not be made without letting ecology, economy, and social values interact.
Madam Speaker! One of my questions remains, and I have an additional question for the Minister.
Why will the government not present more proposals for more criteria to be considered before decisions on demolitions, for example cultural values or social values?
The second question is: Does the Minister see any risk at all that Sweden over-implements the EU directive?
Mikael Dahlqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to the interpellor!
I chose to sign up for tonight's late debate because it is an important issue for me.
I come from Värmland. Värmland County and especially Bergslagen have an enormous number of dams. This is related to the historical heritage. It was important for forestry and ore and iron production.
Today, many of these dams lack economic value. It is often large power producers that own the dams. They have openly declared that they have no interest in keeping them because there is no economy in it, which leads them to apply for demolitions.
My parliamentary colleague mentioned here Dalarna, which is at the beginning of the process. We in Värmland unfortunately started a few years earlier. We see the effects of these decisions. Dammar is being demolished at a furious pace.
My experience is that the focus in recent years, regardless of government, has been on power-producing dams. We have forgotten about the water-regulating dams. The Minister's answer to Member Isacsson also has that direction.
Of course, the government's memorandum implies improvements for the large dams and especially for the large power plants. But the small dams or the pure regulation dams that today regulate water levels will be demolished.
In Värmland, as I said, several dams have been demolished, and many are under review. It is quite a number of dams we are talking about, Madam Speaker. In Värmland, it is currently a matter of exactly 90 dams that are under review.
I have followed the issue both as chairman of the municipal executive board, in the regional council, and now in the parliamentary work. My experience is that the public interest weighs very lightly. I dare to assert that it is non-existent, Minister. Cultural values are also not taken into greater account. The Swedish National Heritage Board has also had views. Here, economic interests are weighed first, and then ecological ones. Those who lose out on this are we as citizens and we as a society.
It is clear that many values are lost when dams are removed. We are not just talking about electricity production and electricity preparedness. It is as the Minister and Member of Parliament Isacsson has said. It is about water supply, drainage, flooding and the cultural environment - yes, the entire living environment for the people who live and work along rivers and lakes.
An important dimension that is perhaps forgotten in the debate is preparedness. Preparedness is deteriorating now. Many of the dams in, for example, Värmland border streams, brooks, and lakes out towards Klarälven. This will mean that in the event of a flood, one will not be able to regulate the water further upstream. The Minister can imagine what consequences that could have for, for example, Karlstad. It is so serious now that even the Rescue Service has gone out in county media and warned about that process.
I see that there are naturally opportunities to demolish certain dams. For that reason, I would like to ask the Minister two questions.
Does the Government consider that today's law, the Environmental Code, takes sufficient account of the public interest when it comes to the removal of dams?
The second question is: Does the Minister and the Government intend to introduce new legislation in this area?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin where the member concluded, namely with his questions. These questions were also present in Lars Isacsson's speech, namely whether the government intends to make changes to laws, why a more unified assessment is not made, and how the government intends to act to handle this situation.
Here I want to oppose what Member Dahlqvist says, namely that in my previous contribution I would only have spoken about the function that hydroelectric power can have from dams and other such things. I would therefore like to repeat the penultimate paragraph in the government's response to the interpellor: "The assessment that the court has to make before its decision includes, among other things, the removal's impact on landscape, cultural environment, flora and fauna, infrastructure, as well as the effects for neighbors, whose property may be negatively affected by a change in the water's depth and position. A removal may also require a permit according to the Cultural Environment Act."
This is what I mean, Madam Speaker, are examples that both the government and the members need to contribute to highlighting if it is now argued that the assessments are not being made on the grounds that they should, according to the current regulations.
Madam Speaker! I must also mention that I warmly appreciate hearing that sustainable development does not only encompass the ecological perspective, but that true sustainable development encompasses both an ecological, social, and economic perspective. It is about a balance in the change that the transition entails. The environmental perspectives, biodiversity, the transition to remove pollutants in our society, and the climate transition are all parts of an ecological development where we need to take into account the social and economic in the work we carry out.
Madam Speaker! That is precisely why the government has allowed perspectives on, for example, just transition and other matters to be incorporated into the policy we are presenting. There are many examples of this. Not least the very active work to ensure that the NAPs, which we call the environmental reviews, take place in a sound manner that balances different values is just one such effect of the government wanting to incorporate to a greater extent a consideration of what real, comprehensive sustainable development entails.
Madam Speaker! Sweden truly has a potential to develop when it comes to including both economic and social perspectives for a true sustainable development. We know that it is extremely important for this to be implemented in a good way and for more to see that one wins from the environmental adaptations that are to be made.
I want to conclude, Madam Speaker, by saying that the purpose of the Water Framework Directive is to achieve a better environment and better ecological sustainability in our watercourses, and we know that it can be done without damaging cultural values, damaging our landscape, and worsening conditions for people. On the contrary, it can be something that improves conditions not only for the ecological but also for the economic and social.
Lars Isacsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer, especially the part about sustainability and the different dimensions! I believe we share this.
It is not enough, however, that the Minister and I share that view. In Bergslagen, where Mikael and I come from, few recognize themselves in that what concerns the dust removals is something that could benefit the local area and so on.
When all members of the Riksdag from Dalarna were invited to Fredriksberg a few weeks ago, three of us came. There was a great interest from local media regarding what we took away from that day and what our impressions were. Dala-Demokraten writes as follows on October 8, 2024:
If this goes through, there will be major changes that will be perceived very negatively by many people and their living environment, says Lars Isacsson (S), Member of Parliament from Avesta.
He receives agreement from both Crister Carlsson (M) and Mathias Bengtsson (KD) who also participated during the tour.
- We Moderates have a parliamentary decision that all dams and power plants older than 100 years shall not be touched. That is our principle in this, says Crister Carlsson.
- It is completely senseless when one prioritizes the migration routes of fish instead of the cultural and social environment. It is a horrible prioritization, says Mathias Bengtsson.
Crister Carlsson further says in the article that now this lies on the table of the Liberals and on Pourmokhtari's table. So we will see what happens. I hope for strong opinions in the referral bodies as well in order to retain what we have.
Madam Speaker! My question to the Minister for the Environment is whether there is support in the government and the governing parties for the position of taking social aspects and cultural environments into account. At least, that is not how it appears in local media in Dalarna, where it is rather the case that this is an issue driven by the Liberals.
Mikael Dahlqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
I just want to make a clarification: I noted that the Minister weighed in different interests, but I humbly observe that the previous government and also the current government have focused their attention on power-producing dams. Most dams in Sweden today are non-power-producing and are primarily for regulating water levels, hence my concern for a flood risk.
I also note to my delight, Madam Speaker, that the Minister weighs in the overall assessment in the environmental work, just as my colleague Lars Isacsson has said, and I sign on to that, that we completely share.
With this said, Madam Speaker: According to prominent lawyers in the field, current legislation is not sufficient to change the process of the eviction. New law is simply required. As I said, the public interest weighs less, and the interest that is weighed in the courts is primarily ecological and economic. It is, for example, entirely, I dare say, economic reasons that drive this process in Värmland.
This is an important issue that arouses opinion and great upset and concern out in the country. My question to the Minister therefore remains, Madam Speaker: Does the government intend to change the legislation so that the public interest carries much more weight?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me then point out once again that if a removal were to become relevant, the general provisions of the Environmental Code of course apply, but a decision on a removal needs to be preceded by a careful investigation of the effects of a removal. This includes the assessment that I mentioned earlier and can again take the opportunity to mention, Madam Speaker, namely that the court's assessment needs to include the removal's impact on the cultural environment and landscape as well as the effects for neighbors whose property may be negatively affected by a change in the water's depth and position, which is precisely the type of issue that the members are raising.
It is also the case that a permit for demolition can be combined with conditions aimed at minimizing any negative effects of a demolition. There is therefore a large scope here, where a demolition can also require a permit according to the Cultural Environment Act.
The government has a proposal to improve the review of hydropower. It concerns very many of our country's dams. It is also an important aspect to take up here.
Large quantities are being discussed in the interpellation. The interpellator mentions that a large part of Sweden's 10,000 dams are to be demolished and that it will have negative consequences. I have not seen any concrete data that it would occur on such a large scale. The government is, of course, following the issue very closely. I am well aware of the great concern that exists that this should happen, but I still want to point out as a minister that we have no data on those types of quantities. We will, of course, need to follow this closely, but for the time being, there is no such concrete data unless it has escaped my notice. I assume that they have not escaped the government, especially considering that we are following this so closely.
Madam Speaker! In addition to this, I also want to mention that we will continue to need to continuously follow up and analyze the work being done. It has been discussed for many years, not least how the application of these reassessments should take place, and it is a discussion that will continue. I therefore appreciate that these aspects of the work are being addressed now that the government has made progress regarding how the national plan is applied to many, not least small-scale, hydropower plants. We now also have a debate on how we handle reassessments for the dams.
It is clearly a power-producing perspective that is applied when we talk about just that function, but not least for that reason it is good that we have this discussion and debate and can further talk about how it looks beyond the power-producing dams.
The vast majority of dams in Sweden have no connection to the production of hydroelectric power. They are therefore not covered by the national plan, and there are no requirements for the operator. However, it may be the case that the authorities intervene. We are, of course, following this very closely.
Lars Isacsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! On behalf of Member Mikael Dahlqvist and my own, I can invite the Minister to Fredriksberg, Säfsen, Ludvika and the border areas towards Värmland. It is there that this really has major consequences. It is also fine to take the Members of Parliament on the government side along and see if you have the same view.
Bergslagen is largely built around hydroelectric power plants, thanks to the forests, the ore, and the smelters. The cultural environment since the 1600s is characterized by dammed watercourses that people have since settled around. We Members of Parliament from Dalarna have had to witness the great anxiety, sorrow, and anger that people feel when this is threatened. Lakes may be drained, drinking water supply is threatened in many places, ecosystems are threatened, tourism may disappear, the risk of flooding may increase, and companies may be forced to close down or move.
I understand, of course, that several interests are being weighed against each other here and that biodiversity is incredibly important and must be strengthened, but it must also be possible to take much greater local considerations in communities that are built around lake systems dammed in the 1700s. We visited a small place called Gravendal and stopped at a dam that consists of a road. It is classified as an ancient monument. It is the first example of people having lived there. First came the hydropower which was to be used for the sawmill, and then came the people. It is many generations that have struggled to build up a society and a future around the water and the hydropower, and I believe that must be valued much higher.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member who submitted the interpellation and to the other members who are engaging in this issue! We will, as said, continue to need to generally follow how the work with the application of the water directive is proceeding, but also the specific question regarding what the development looks like for all the dams that exist in Sweden.
I think the member gave examples in a very meritorious way of what a fantastic role dams can play for the Swedish cultural environment and the values we are all very concerned about - not least we liberals.
I want to conclude by saying that the cultural environment perspective and the perspective of all those affected by the environmental transition, as one might call it, is not something that the government underestimates. We are following this issue very closely and look forward to further dialogue between many parties so that Sweden can handle this in the most sound way possible.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.