Response to interpellation 2025/26:106 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
L annuls the government's decision on hunting regulations for Korpimäki nature reserve because the county administrative board has not conducted the necessary impact assessments for the Natura 2000 area 1. L emphasizes that the referral is a formal measure due to insufficient processing, but that hunting is still permitted and expanded hunting is conceivable 2 3. L argues that regulations must uphold the reserve's purpose 3 and that the management is carried out in consultation with lawyers 3. L hopes that the county administrative board provides a good basis for the decision 4 and argues that Natura 2000 areas are an EU protection with its own rules 4. S argues that hunting creates quality of life 5 and that bans in small reserves are not effective conservation consequences 5. S considers hunting to be a large part of the local culture and tradition in Dalarna 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.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Marie Olsson has asked me to account for the reasons and grounds for the government's decision to overturn the county administrative board's decision on hunting regulations for the Korpimäki nature reserve. She has also asked whether I intend to take any general measures to clarify the scope of regulatory power when it comes to hunting in nature reserves.
Initially, I want to say that the member of Parliament in an exemplary manner describes the government's reasons for the decision themselves. Special reasons are always required for the County Administrative Board to be able to, in whole or in part, revoke a decision regarding a nature reserve. Since Korpimäki nature reserve also lies within a special conservation area in the form of an EU-legally protected Natura 2000 area, additional requirements are set for the County Administrative Board to be able to revoke a reserve regulation.
Regarding the scope of regulatory power, it appears clearly from Chapter 7, Section 5 of the Environmental Code that a decision to establish a nature reserve shall be combined with the restrictions on the right to use land and water areas that are necessary to achieve the purpose of the reserve. This can, for example, involve regulation of hunting opportunities within a reserve.
The Government notes in the decision, among other things, that the County Administrative Board has not assessed the consequences for the constituent nature types or made any such assessment of the typical species for each nature type in the Natura 2000 area as must be done according to Section 19 of the Ordinance (1998:1252) on area protection according to the Environmental Code etc. before the authority issues such a decision as is now in question. It is against this background that the Government has vacated and referred the case back to the County Administrative Board, which will now need to conduct a new review. It is simply the Government's decision in this case.
Marie Olsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer to my interpellation.
It is not the first time we stand here in the chamber and debate exactly this, and that is because this is a very important issue back home in Dalarna where I live. It is important from the perspective that hunting and fishing create quality of life for residents in many municipalities in Dalarna, including in my own home municipality Orsa, where the Korpimäki nature reserve is located.
Hunting has been and still is limited in this nature reserve based on the regulations that the County Administrative Board has previously decided upon. In order to achieve a change and expand the hunting opportunities in the nature reserve, among others, the Orsa hunting management district has pushed for the County Administrative Board in Dalarna to develop new regulations for the reserve.
The County Administrative Board in Dalarna introduced new regulations that increase the possibilities for hunting in the area. Subsequently, the decision was appealed by the organization Birdlife Sverige, and that is why it ended up on the government's desk for a decision.
Hunting is already permitted in many nature reserves, and in recent years, the county administrative board's regulations have not been as restrictive as before regarding hunting opportunities in nature reserves. I hope that the Minister and the Government have noted that the County Administrative Board in Dalarna, in its decision to expand hunting opportunities, itself writes that the original decision to limit hunting in the nature reserve was made in accordance with the county administrative board's policy at that time for hunting during the establishment of nature reserves.
The County Administrative Board also writes that this specific regulation can be claimed to be more far-reaching than what the reserve's purpose requires. The policy has thus been changed and become more permissive for hunting. The question then also arises, based on the government's decision to repeal the County Administrative Board's decision, whether it is even possible for a County Administrative Board to change policy when it sees that the policy it previously had has been too restrictive in view of various purposes of reserves.
Madam Speaker! After 18 months, the government took a decision on October 9 this year. To the great disappointment of many, the government decided, as stated, to revoke the County Administrative Board in Dalarna's decision to expand the hunt in the Korpimäki nature reserve to also include other game than moose, roe deer, fox, and hare, which it is already permitted to hunt in this reserve. This is, therefore, a reserve where certain hunting is already permitted. It is not forbidden to hunt there.
Most reserves are small from the perspective of many wildlife species, which is also the case here. Individuals of most wildlife species move over larger areas than individual nature reserves. For conservation reasons, prohibiting hunting of a wildlife species in a single small nature reserve is not an effective measure to improve or preserve a species' conservation status. If hunting were to pose a threat to a species' conservation status, the hunting would instead need to be restricted in a significantly larger area.
Based on this, I want to ask the Minister what the Minister considers to be the difference in impact on the reserve between hunting for wild reindeer and fox, which is permitted in this reserve, and hunting for, for example, black grouse, which is prohibited in this reserve.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I want to be very clear that what the government has done is to vacate and refer the matter back to the County Administrative Board so that the County Administrative Board can conduct a new review. We have, therefore, pointed out that the County Administrative Board has not done what it should have done in order to be able to reach its assessment. We have thus not made an assessment of what we think about what the County Administrative Board has decided or not.
Regarding the question from the member as to whether a county administrative board can even change its practice when one notices that a "no" is received from the government, I want to be very clear that the county administrative boards can change their practice and change their method of, for example, approaching hunting within nature reserves.
One must, however, still follow Sweden's laws. One must, for example, conduct a consequence assessment that meets those laws. The County Administrative Board in Dalarna has not done that. That is the reason why we have referred the matter back to the County Administrative Board – so that it can conduct a consequence assessment that meets the laws we have. After that, we can decide on, for example, a potential appeal in a certain way based on what we consider to be the actual issue.
I hope it is clear, because I and the government are not opposed to hunting – on the contrary. We believe that hunting should be able to take place even in nature reserves, and we believe that hunting is often used in a very reasonable way to maintain strong ecosystems and ensure that we have a nature that is doing well.
The regulations for the hunt must, however, be established according to a specific process where, for example, the purpose of the nature reserve must be taken into account and consultations must be held with different parties in a way that has not quite been done here. In the case of the Korpimäki nature reserve, the County Administrative Board has, for example, not consulted with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. It is something that usually happens before such decisions are made – they usually happen, but they do not have to.
A proper impact assessment has also not been carried out. This is strictly regulated, especially when it concerns a Natura 2000 area designated by the EU. In that case, proper impact assessments must be made, which we in this case believe the County Administrative Board has not done. Therefore, they may do it again, and then we shall see what happens next. They simply must live up to the regulations that exist.
Even after the government's decision to revoke and refer back the decision from the County Administrative Board regarding expanded hunting, there is hunting in this nature reserve. Expanded hunting in the nature reserve is also conceivable in the future. I want to be very clear about that.
What the government has done here is not an assessment of our opinion on whether the hunt should be allowed to take place or not in the nature reserve. What we have done is to refer the matter back to the County Administrative Board because they have not lived up to the criteria that are set when such decisions are to be made.
Whether this will happen or not, whether we will expand the hunt or not in Korpimäki nature reserve, depends on how the County Administrative Board chooses to handle the matter moving forward. What will the consequence description look like? What will it contain? And will it be produced? If it is, I am convinced that this matter will be handled in a different way, because the rules that exist will then have been followed.
I want to conclude by again emphasizing that what we have done is to refer the matter back to the County Administrative Board. In that case, one vacates it, and then refers it back. It is not to make an assessment of what we think regarding the merits of the case itself.
Marie Olsson (S)
Madam Speaker! That sounds like a positive message from the Minister for the Environment.
The hunt, in fact, is not just about shooting animals, but it is about nature and about interaction in hunting parties – if one hunts in hunting parties. It is about interaction with dogs – if one hunts with dogs – and much more. It is about knowledge of species, and it is about encounters with animals and nature.
It is the animals that everything revolves around, and that is good for both nature and the hunters. Nature is also helped by keeping the populations in check. The hunters are aware that there are limits to how many animals may be culled in order to preserve the ecosystems and to ensure that the forest is not affected. The hunters are fundamentally wildlife caretakers.
The entire system is based on trust, and the hunters have a responsibility to follow laws and regulations from, among others, the County Administrative Board. The authorities are also dependent on the hunters for reports and inventories. One must follow the rules for the hunting areas. All of this is so that hunting remains sustainable.
The Swedish model for hunting is based on responsibility and trust. It is a model that we need to help each other protect so that Swedish forest life with hunting will remain strong even in generations to come.
As I write in my interpellation, hunting and fishing is an important part of life for many who live in the countryside, but also for many who live in large cities. Creating 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 these allocations of land in nature, it is very important that the state has a good dialogue with the local population and listens to it. That is what Länsstyrelsen Dalarna has done. That is why one wants to allow more hunting in the Korpimäki nature reserve in Orsa. I can also state that it is not the local population who has appealed the county administrative board's decision.
Out in the countryside, for example in Orsa where I come from, there is a mistrust towards the state – unfortunately – and we must work together to ensure that there is less mistrust. There is a feeling that the state is not listening and that the policy is carried out from a big city perspective.
Even though the government has not now decided that hunting in the Korpimäki nature reserve will never be expanded, it still creates a greater mistrust towards the state with this type of decision. The government's decision on expanded opportunities for hunting in Korpimäki could have consequences for more nature reserves in Dalarna – decisions could be made to expand hunting in more places. Therefore, the disappointment is great over the government's current decision.
The expansion of the hunt would mean negligibly more hunting days in the area. Hunting will occur during the same periods as other hunting throughout the year. Regarding the expansion of hunting specifically for forest bird, an inventory of forest bird has already been conducted in the adjacent nature reserve Koppången. The inventory has shown that the hunting of forest bird specifically does not have a primary negative impact on the population, but rather it is predators, the climate, and forestry that primarily affect the population of forest bird. In this reserve, it is not the hunting that has been prohibited, but hunting of certain species has been prohibited. Those species actually have no connection to the purpose of the reserve.
Against this background, I would like to ask the minister the following question: If hunting of a species is prohibited in an area, but not outside of it, and the area is so small that it does not sustain a population of the species on its own, what is then the purpose of the protection?
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member for a good discussion. It is important that we talk about how we can use our nature in a wise and responsible way. That is what we do when we hunt in Sweden. There are precise regulations for how the hunting should take place, and there are skilled hunters in Sweden who take fantastic responsibility for all the rules that are to be upheld. They are not few, and we really want to safeguard the hunters' trust.
It concerns me when I hear that people in Orsa and generally everyone who uses the Korpimäki nature reserve are disappointed with the government's decision. This is actually about the government having made the decision for formal reasons because the County Administrative Board has failed in its handling. It is formal reasons that are the basis for us overturning the County Administrative Board's decision and thinking that they should conduct a new review.
It is difficult for the government to go against the assessment of which laws should be met or not, which regulatory frameworks should be met or not, from the county administrative board's side. It is not an assessment that should be made lightly. If we consider that the county administrative board has not followed the rules that exist regarding these decisions, it would be wrong of the government not to refer the matter back. The government would act incorrectly if we think a certain thing in the actual issue.
What has happened is that the County Administrative Board has not handled the case in the correct manner, and therefore the case is being sent back to the County Administrative Board so that they can conduct a new review. When that review is correct, an assessment will be made on the question of whether hunting is to be permitted or not. The discussion now is not whether the hunt should be allowed or not, but the current decision is based on formal grounds, namely that the County Administrative Board has failed in its handling. I want to be very clear about that.
The regulations that exist for hunting in nature reserves require that it is the nature reserve's purpose itself that must be upheld by avoiding the hunting. If it is a population that, for example, does not exist within the nature reserve but in other places, it is a typical example of that the nature reserve's purpose is not to constitute an environment for that specific species. Then the assessment of whether hunting should take place or not should not be affected.
But it should also be mentioned that it is a question of a legal assessment. The cases where we handle, for example, appeals of county administrative board decisions occur in consultation with skilled lawyers who make good assessments and where we discuss the issue together. It is of course so that the hunting that takes place in the nature reserves is greatly influenced by how the species naturally exist in the areas that are protected.
More and more is being protected. We know that in Sweden there are over 5,000 nature reserves. New nature reserves are formed at regular intervals, and it requires more discussion and debate on what the regulations look like and how the government handles appeals when the state makes assessments to form nature reserves and how we then use nature reserves – for hunting and recreation.
Marie Olsson (S)
Madam Speaker! There are, in some parts, impact assessments described in the County Administrative Board's decision, based on the species that are not allowed to be hunted today. Korpimäki is, just as the Minister pointed out in his answer, a Natura 2000 area, and there are more than 4,000 Natura 2000 areas in Sweden. Some of them are nature reserves or national parks.
Natura 2000 areas shall be a representative selection of natural environments in Sweden. Many of the areas are selected precisely because they are important habitats for endangered species. But the purpose of Korpimäki is not to protect species that are not endangered and which are currently not permitted to be hunted in the reserve, for example bear and forest birds. On the other hand, the forest in Korpimäki is an important environment. Hunting is a large part of the local culture and the tradition of outdoor life in Dalarna. Many experience nature precisely through hunting. The purpose of the reserve is to experience a Dalarna nature forest, and one way to experience a Dalarna nature forest in harmony with nature can be through hunting.
Everyone who has ever hunted bear or forest bird – which is not permitted to hunt in this nature reserve – knows that one can move across large geographical areas. In bird hunting with a dog, it is the dog that hunts and the hunter who follows. The bird flies long distances to then settle down. Neither the bird nor, for that matter, the bear knows where it is not permitted to hunt them. It is not the case that they seek shelter in nature reserves to be left in peace and not be hunted.
Now the County Administrative Board will, just as the Minister has described, return to the government with further documentation. I really hope that the government does not take 18 months to make a new decision, but rather that they speed things up. Then I hope that they listen to the hunters' wishes so that they can expand the hunting not only in Korpimäki but also in more nature reserves in Dalarna.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I also have many hopes for all the matters handled within the Government Offices. Regarding this matter, I can say that my hope is that the County Administrative Board does not fail in its processing but ensures that it provides us with a good basis to make a decision in the event that the decision is appealed.
When the matter is referred back, we hope that the review will contain everything it should contain so that we can actually make an assessment on the question of whether the hunt should be allowed to take place or not. In this case, we have not made an assessment of whether the hunt should be allowed to take place or not, but we have made an assessment of the handling that the County Administrative Board has had of the matter regarding the Korpimäki nature reserve.
We look forward to looking at the matter when it returns. The hunting ban revoked by the County Administrative Board applies to species other than moose, roe deer, fox, and hare. That is something that may continue.
Just as the member points out, a Natura 2000 area is an EU protection – simply put. This means that different rules apply than the rules that apply for nature reserves. Two different forms of protection in the same area is a typical such thing that makes the case more time-consuming. But we will, as always, do everything we can to handle these legal issues as quickly as possible. We look forward to handling the case again in the event that it comes to us.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.