Response to interpellation 2025/26:188 on Sweden's reference value for wolf
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that the wolf population needs to be reduced stepwise to reduce negative socio-economic effects and create safety in the countryside 1 2. KD argues that the current reference value can maintain a favorable conservation status through investments in wolf management 1 2 and that budget reinforcements for 2026 are necessary to protect genetically valuable wolves 3. KD claims that the model is necessary to take responsibility 4. MP argues that the government has departed from science by pushing through a reference value that only corresponds to the minimum value for short-term survival 5. MP criticizes the management as an expensive prestige project and argues that the policy is about phasing out the species 6. MP emphasizes that they will always protect endangered species 7.
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 if I and the government intend to immediately revise the report sent to the EU Commission regarding the wolf's reference value. Rebecka Le Moine has further asked me, if the reference values are revised, in what way I and the government intend to ensure that the new reference values are established on a scientific basis. Finally, Rebecka Le Moine has asked me in what way I and the government intend to ensure that Sweden follows the Habitats Directive and avoids an infringement case.
The overall and long-term objective for the predator policy implies that, among other things, wolves in Sweden shall achieve and maintain a favorable conservation status, while livestock farming is not significantly hindered and socioeconomic considerations are taken into account. The Swedish wolf population needs to be reduced to decrease the negative socioeconomic effects, while Sweden fulfills its EU legal obligations. The reduction needs to be carried out gradually. The Government has clearly expressed that a first sub-objective in the wolf management was to reduce the population to 270 individuals during the 2026 licensed hunt.
The County Administrative Boards' decisions regarding license hunting of wolves 2026 were overturned by the Administrative Court in Luleå after appeal.
The Administrative Court's judgments were appealed by the County Administrative Boards to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Sundsvall, which has decided all cases. The Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the County Administrative Boards' appeals, which means that the decision regarding license hunting remains revoked. The judgments will now be analyzed in the Government Offices and consultations will be conducted with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the relevant County Administrative Boards in order to create good conditions for a sustainable and well-functioning wolf management moving forward.
The courts' assessment of this year's decision on license hunting has not changed the government's assessment of the reference value and the future wolf management.
The Government's assessment is that it is possible to maintain a favorable conservation status with the current reference value combined with the initiatives proposed in the budget bill for 2026, which the Riksdag has supported. The Commission has asked questions regarding Sweden's reporting of the wolf's reference value. The matter is currently being prepared within the Government Offices. I cannot anticipate that process.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! Wolf management in Sweden is in a serious situation. The Government has chosen to depart from both science, legal precedent, and the common European nature conservation model.
The government has pushed forward a reference value of 170 wolves. It is a value that, according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's own underlying data, corresponds to the minimum value for short-term survival, not a favorable conservation status. Already now, Madam Speaker, it is perhaps a bit difficult to keep up.
The Minister for Rural Affairs says time and again that the wolf should have a favorable conservation status in Sweden. There are different ways to calculate this value, and researchers, expert agencies and others can help us politicians with the underlying data. But the government and not least Peter Kullgren have decided that 170 shall be the result. It shall be the new reference value. The EU Commission has expressed criticism that it lacks a scientific basis. For the same reason, Swedish courts have recently put a stop to carrying out the license hunt in practice; it lacks a scientific basis. This is about political wishful thinking from the government's side.
A favorable conservation status can be achieved by a species if the population is long-term viable. In that case, the species' size and structure are such that the risk of extinction is low in the long term. A second criterion concerns whether the population's natural distribution is maintained or increased. This means that the habitat and dispersal capacity enable natural processes, dispersal, and genetic exchange. A third criterion concerns whether the species' natural types and habitat are in good condition.
There is also an assessment concerning future prospects. It concerns trends, threats, and expected developments, which can, among other things, include illegal hunting.
Madam Speaker! If any of these parameters are judged as unsatisfactory, the conservation status for the species as a whole cannot be classified as favorable. This is therefore about ensuring the long-term survival of different species. It cannot be solved by shooting more, protecting less, or maintaining isolated populations. That, Madam Speaker, would rather require more protection, that the population is allowed to grow, that it is given the opportunity to spread and not be isolated, and that there is a political will to repel illegal hunting.
Madam Speaker! For the wolf, the estimated proportion of mortality linked to illegal hunting is between 15 and 18 percent. Extensive illegal hunting is carried out on wolves specifically. Against that background, it is deeply problematic that the government is pushing forward a policy that further pressures the wolf toward a minimum value, which for the wolf is an existence level. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I want to ask how the government intends for illegal hunting to be combated effectively when the wolf population is simultaneously being pressed down to levels where every lost individual has great genetic and ecological significance.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I am well aware that the Commission has posed questions to us and requested clarifications regarding Sweden's reported reference value of 170 wolves, but at this moment I cannot account for exactly how we will respond because the matter is still being prepared in the Government Offices. I shall not anticipate that work, but I can be clear about the principles.
The reference value according to the Birds and Habitats Directive cannot be determined arbitrarily. It must be based on the best available science, where both demographic and genetic factors are weighed, as well as the species' function in the ecosystem and the precautionary principle.
The Government has tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to report on how different levels in the range 170–270 wolves relate to which management measures are required. In that work, the concept of minimum viable population, MVP, is central. MVP is developed using so-called viability analyses, PVA, where long-term survival is modeled based on births, deaths, reproduction, and environment.
For the Swedish wolf population, it is particularly important that genetics are included because the population has a high degree of inbreeding and is dependent on recurring immigration to ensure long-term genetic viability.
Research also shows that assumptions about immigration play a major role. With higher immigration, a lower level may be possible from an MVP perspective, while lower immigration requires a larger population. For this reason, the Government has presented proposals for extensive budget reinforcements in the budget bill for 2026 with a special focus on measures to protect genetically valuable wolves.
Madam Speaker! Let me be a bit political and possibly rhetorical. I previously had a debate here against the Social Democrat Patrik Björck. I would like to ask a question to Member of Parliament Rebecka Le Moine regarding the Social Democrats' view on the wolf. If you are to sit in government again – what reference value will Miljöpartiet then allow to be reported? I believe many are quite interested in that, not least considering the Social Democratic rhetoric in those matters.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! As Peter Kullgren said, this is a management that the government is investing in. It concerns approximately 338 million kronor over three years to reduce the wolf population.
When we look at where the money is to go, an almost surreal picture emerges of what is desired for the wolf management to entail. There shall be an individual monitoring of all wolves in Sweden. Monitoring that is individually adapted requires a lot of fieldwork, tracking, and GPS marking. One must also have a readiness to move genetically valuable wolves, as Peter Kullgren mentioned. It requires a readiness to sedate, move, and relocate wolves, even with helicopters.
There is also a socioeconomic perspective. Do we have the support to move wolves around in Sweden, hey vilt? How much is the government prepared to pay for this? It becomes almost bizarre. This is a very expensive prestige project.
I am glad to hear Kullgren mention some of the concepts that I, as a conservation biologist, have worked extensively with. I have worked with precisely these models to calculate when species and populations are viable. The tragic thing is that it seems as if Kullgren and the government have misunderstood what is the long-term survival point and what is the short-term survival.
Madam Speaker! If I, as a conservation biologist, speak from a conservation perspective, it is completely irrelevant to talk about what is the short-term survival for, for example, the wolf. If the population is only allowed to be of this size and is managed and administered in this way, it means, in other words, that we imagine that the species will soon die out.
Madam Speaker! It might have been more honest if the government and Kullgren himself had used that rhetoric and said that their policy is about phasing out certain species. That is, after all, what one does when one sets such a reference value. It should instead be much higher and have a good margin relative to the minimum value.
Madam Speaker! Just as Kullgren mentions, the Swedish wolf population has an immense vulnerability in its genetics. That is why we must apply the precautionary principle.
Peter Kullgren also mentions the importance of immigration. Yes, it has been a condition. In order to be allowed to have such a small wolf population as we have in Sweden, we have had a requirement that immigration shall occur from Russia and Finland. My questions back to Peter Kullgren are: How shall this immigration take place? How many wolves shall be allowed to immigrate to Sweden, and how high-frequency shall this immigration be? How does Peter Kullgren intend to ensure that measures are taken? We see when we look in the rearview mirror that this immigration has not functioned at all, despite it being a requirement to be allowed to have such a small wolf population.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I can state that the voters will not know what the reference value will be for the event that the Social Democrats and the Green Party would be in government. I believe it can be stated that it will in any case not be a lower reference value than when they were in government last time, and that is an important declaration. In a government, it is the case that you in the Green Party have every opportunity to put your foot down and do nothing. I believe that was why nothing happened in the wolf issue until the Green Party left the government during the last year of the previous mandate period. It was only then that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency was given the task to even look at the announcement that the Riksdag had directed to the government several times.
It is perfectly okay to have different opinions. But it is good that it is made clear.
I received a question about how much it is allowed to cost, Madam Speaker. Just as the member said, we have allocated 338 million. I actually haven't added it up, but I trust the member fully and that it has been calculated correctly.
It is thus 338 million that we have allocated for this. It is clear that it is a lot of money, but in a situation where we have a heavily pressured food production, this is a central and important measure. It is not least about those who keep animals – investments are being pushed back and the desire to invest is decreasing in an industry that rather would need to invest a lot so that we can manage to put food on the table. It is also a measure that has very broad support here in the Riksdag.
I have full respect for the member's competence as a natural biologist, but I nevertheless allow myself to believe that there are also very many political considerations in the argumentation being put forward. I also believe that is why, in the same post, one can criticize that we are making so many efforts to live up to the level of favorable conservation status while simultaneously criticizing us for wanting to reduce the wolf population.
However, that is what needs to be done. In order to take responsibility and live up to our EU legal obligations, this is the model we have chosen. We need to be even better at keeping track of the wolves we have in Sweden if we are to press down the wolf population. We have collectively concluded this in this chamber several times. There is a broad majority for this. I therefore see it as my and the government's task to also try to deliver on that.
We have done this through the assignments we have given to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. We have pushed to change the Habitats Directive, and the Bern Convention has been changed. This could not have happened if it had not been established, both in Europe and in the Bern Convention area, that the wolf is not as endangered as it has been previously. It is therefore that those adjustments have been able to be made.
Now we have the legal situation we have, and we will continue to try to convince [people] that we have a model that works. The government's policy in this area is therefore fixed.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I will begin by trying to answer the question that Kullgren asked – even though in interpellation debates it is perhaps rather we members who get the opportunity to ask questions to ministers. But I intend to be clear. The interpellator from the Socialdemokraterna had a completely different rhetoric earlier today; I noted that as well.
I will take all the credit and all the praise that Peter Kullgren directed towards me and Miljöpartiet. We will always protect endangered species. It is my calling, and it is also why I am a politician today. It began with my education and my work for the tigers in India and Cambodia. Now I am a representative in Sweden's Riksdag, and I will fight to ensure that our lynxes and our wolves are not driven to extinction from Sweden. We will devote a lot of political force to ensuring that endangered species are not driven to extinction.
One sometimes, Madam Speaker, not least in this and previous debates, gets an exaggerated picture of the opposition that exists against the wolf being allowed to exist in Sweden. Therefore, I want to mention that a majority is actually positively inclined towards the wolf's existence. Within the EU, surveys have also been conducted showing that there is also great support among sheep owners and people living in rural areas for the predators to continue to exist and have strict protection.
With this said, Madam Speaker, I believe it is clear that the government will continue to pursue a reference value that lacks scientific grounding, which the European Commission has criticized and which conflicts with the commitments and the legislation that we must adhere to within the EU.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! The Government's policy aims to create security and good conditions to be able to live, reside and work in the entire country, not only for those who live in large cities but also for all those who live and work in the countryside, where the wolf causes damage and contributes to insecurity.
We will, of course, have wolves in Sweden. But in order to reduce the conflicts and the negative consequences, the population must be smaller than it is today. This is something that needs to be achieved step-by-step and in a controlled manner.
Of course, Sweden shall fulfill its EU legal and international commitments. The Government's assessment is that it is possible to maintain a favorable conservation status with the current reference value combined with the investments proposed in the budget bill for 2026 and which the Riksdag has backed.
The government's plan is still to gradually reduce the wolf population while ensuring that a favorable conservation status is maintained.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.