Response to interpellation 2025/26:222 on costs for hunting dogs during swine fever restrictions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns compensation to hunters for costs during swine fever restrictions. KD argues that hunters who worked actively during the outbreak received compensation for their work 1 2 3. KD claims that S is lying about these hunters not receiving payment 3 and emphasizes that the epizootic law regulates compensation for those directly affected 2 3. S argues that the debate only concerns the hunting rights that the hunters paid for but were unable to use 4 5. S believes that the government is hiding behind the authority and that the hunters feel exploited 6 4 5. KD regrets that hunters have not received compensation for the hunting rights 7 but calls for an appeal of the authority's decision 2 3 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)
Mr. Speaker! Åsa Eriksson has asked me whether I will act so that an opportunity is introduced for hunting groups to receive compensation for costs for missed hunting, for example during swine fever restrictions.
African swine fever was detected in Sweden for the first time ever in 2023. Thanks to rapid and effective measures, not least by hunters, Sweden was declared free of the infection after one year, which is a record short time from an international perspective.
Rules for how infectious animal diseases shall be monitored and controlled are among others in the epizootic diseases act (1999:657). There are also EU regulations in the field of animal health which entail obligations for the Swedish Board of Agriculture to decide on measures and restrictions to combat serious animal diseases such as African swine fever, for example.
It can be measures such as culling and disinfection at the affected animal facilities as well as restrictions in the surrounding area, including hunting bans and cordoning off of forest areas if the infection also affects wild animals. It can have consequences for the companies and private individuals affected, and therefore there are also provisions for compensation in the epizootic disease act.
In order to provide animal owners with incentives to report suspected cases of disease and follow authorities' advice in the fight against it, the state, for example, pays compensation to animal owners for costs incurred due to decisions from Jordbruksverket. Anyone who considers themselves to have incurred costs or losses as a result of Jordbruksverket's decision has the opportunity to apply for compensation. Jordbruksverket shall review the compensation claims, and anyone who is dissatisfied with Jordbruksverket's decision also has the opportunity to appeal the decisions to the administrative court.
According to the Swedish Board of Agriculture's decision, which has not been changed by the Administrative Court in the cases that have been appealed, the assessment has been made that none of the hunting associations or other actors who have applied for compensation for costs or losses linked to the lack of hunting in connection with the restrictions during the current African swine fever outbreak have been entitled to compensation according to the epizootic diseases act.
Sweden has long experience of preventive work with animal health and infection control, which is the basis for preventing the emergence and spread of diseases between animals and humans. In recent years, significant work has also been invested in the preparedness to quickly be able to combat an outbreak. The Jägarkåren has been invited to seminars and exercises in combating African swine fever together with relevant authorities and animal organizations.
On these occasions, it has clearly emerged that hunters have a decisive role in combating wild boar that spread infection. It has also emerged that other activities in the forest will need to be restricted for a period to prevent the spread of infection, so for the hunting community, the stopped hunting has not come as a surprise.
I am pleased that the hunters were ready and could quickly contribute to the fight against the infection during the outbreak of African swine fever. This was something for which they received a lot of praise, among other things, in the current Agency for Civil Protection and Emergency Management's evaluation of the joint handling of the outbreak by the actors.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The background to my interpellation is a rather long article in the magazine Svensk Jakt in December last year, where it describes the case that arose where the hunters in Fagersta and Norberg, exactly as the Minister for Rural Affairs described, stepped out in great numbers. They took time off from work, took leave, and went hour in and hour out through dense forest in all types of weather to search for carcasses and find more pigs to stop the swine fever. They did it record-fast, exactly as the Minister for Rural Affairs says.
The Minister was personally visiting Fagersta, which was appreciated. According to the magazine, the Minister said that if the authorities were to fail to replace those who had helped to stop the infection, the government would take responsibility. Unfortunately, we see nothing of that now, Mr. Speaker.
I have personally spoken with Lennart Skansfors, who leads Persbo jaktlag and who the article was about, to better understand their criticism. He told me that they are 13 people in the team – 13 ordinary people, living mainly in Fagersta and Norberg, who stepped up when the community called. He said that some of them have spent as much as 500 hours searching the forest and looking for infected pigs.
"We did it because society asked us to. But the government ignores us now that it is over," he said. "The money itself is not of such great importance, it is the feeling that is the worst – that we were exploited."
Mr. Speaker! These are strong words, but they come from a very concrete reality. Hunting is the main interest of many of the hunters, and it is a lifestyle that they were forbidden to practice during the restrictions. Areas were closed. The leases were, of course, already paid. When the hunters then turned to the Swedish Board of Agriculture to receive compensation for the lease, they were refused with reference to the fact that the lease had already been paid. Yes, hunting leases are usually paid annually, and no one knew that there would be swine fever and restrictions.
I think the government is hiding behind the agency and letting the agency take the hit. The agency must, of course, follow the legislation. I am saying nothing else. But if the agency cannot grant compensation because the rent was paid before the African swine fever was detected, then the government must be able to step in and do something about this, right?
What happens otherwise is that these hunters, and a lot of others, feel cheated. It also sends a signal to the whole society that the next time there is a crisis, perhaps a swine fever outbreak somewhere else in Sweden, hunters and volunteers will consider whether they really should devote a lot of time, take leave from work and volunteer for the community if, when it is over, they are going to feel exploited and have not been paid for their costs for something they have had no joy from.
Mr. Speaker! My question to the Minister is therefore: Will the government take responsibility and compensate these hunters so that they can feel that they have been appreciated?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat dismayed by the way the member describes the situation, and I think the member is fueling an anxiety and painting a picture that is not correct. The member is mixing and confusing things when it comes to the compensation. Does the member mean that the hunters who de facto were out and working did not receive any compensation at all, that they were not paid for the work they performed? I do not believe that. The member talks about this in the same breath as she talks about the hunting areas, and I think that is a bit too bold and paints a picture that actually does not correspond to the facts.
My view is that the hunters who were out and actively working during the restriction period received the compensation we talked about. That is also what I say in the article that the member refers to. But if it is not possible to compensate the hunters for the work they do, then we shall look into that.
The Animal Diseases Act is quite clear that the person who is directly affected is entitled to compensation. In many cases, it is interpreted as owning something – that one needs to cull an animal, that one is not allowed to use their land, or that one's harvest cannot be handled. We also had quite complicated discussions about who should apply for compensation for ordered forestry machines that could not be used. Was it the owner of the forestry machine or the landowner? All of this is tangled legalities and something that the Swedish Board of Agriculture has a responsibility to assess and that courts ultimately adjudicate.
In the cases of hunting dogs that I have seen, none of what the member is talking about here in the chamber has been referred to. One question in return is therefore: Has the member read the documents from the Swedish Board of Agriculture regarding why, according to the epizootic act, there have been no grounds to pay out compensation?
Mr. Speaker! I also want to ask if the member, in her conversations with the hunting law, has urged any of them to appeal the decision so that it can be reviewed. Or has she only seen a political opportunity to give an impression that the government is worse than it de facto is? It may be happened, but it would be interesting to know. It is through an appeal that we have the assessment of the Swedish Board of Agriculture reviewed.
I have also read articles in Svensk Jakt, and in them, it has been quite clear that you should have a discussion with the person you lease the hunting land from. Landowners have also been urged to seek compensation. It has also been described how the agreements should be designed so that one receives compensation according to the epizootic law.
I think it is a bit rude to mix these things up and make it sound as if the hunters who were out searching for wild boar carcasses and culled wild boar in the affected area would not have received compensation when they took time off from work, because that is de facto not the case.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is only Peter Kullgren who is mixing this up. I have only spoken about hunting fees, and that is the heading of the interpellation. It is these funds that the hunting association has not received, and it is those they are disappointed about. They feel exploited. They stepped up and organized but could not hunt at all because there were restrictions, and now that they can hunt, there are no pigs. They think they should receive compensation for the hunting fees they paid for but could not use. This is what the article and my interpellation are about.
I cannot interpret Peter Kullgren's answer in any other way than that he thinks this is good. It is the signal to all of Sweden's hunters and all others who are considering stepping up when society calls. This is how it turned out.
The government obviously does not intend to do anything about this. I think that is a shame, and I believe that all the hunters in Persbo jaktlag also think that it is very much a shame and disappointing. It does not send any good signals to others who are considering running in the future.
The signal from the government is clear, and I regret it but note it.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It is good that what is said in the chamber is recorded. The member is talking about how they did not receive a single krona for taking time off work to search for carcasses and cull wild boar. But it is utterly dishonest to stand in the Swedish Parliament and say such a thing. We can have heated political debates, but as a Member of Parliament, one has a responsibility to distinguish between truth and lie – and this is a lie. It is on tape, so one only has to listen if they deviated from the speech script. I do not think I am the only one who perceives that Åsa Eriksson stands in the Parliament's rostrum and says that they were not paid when they took time off work and performed a central and important social contribution. But it is not true, because they did receive payment.
I do not neglect the problems, and I feel sorry for the hunters who end up in legal entanglements and hair-splitting over who is directly and indirectly affected. But it is not up to me to place myself above the legal processes in this country.
I consider that the epizootic law is quite clear. The person who is directly affected and has suffered economic damage from a decision made by the state has, according to the epizootic law, the right to compensation. It is the Swedish Board of Agriculture that handles these cases, and if one is not satisfied with the Board's decision, one has all the possibilities to appeal it.
I repeat my question: How many of the concerned hunters has Åsa Eriksson urged to appeal the decision they are not satisfied with? Or has the member simply directed the criticism at the government to score cheap political points?
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is fortunate that there is a recording. I urge the Minister for Rural Affairs to listen to it, because then he will likely regret some of the accusations he has just delivered.
This debate is only about hunting areas. The Minister for Rural Affairs and I have previously debated the African swine fever, and then it was companies that did not receive the compensation they had demanded. Now, Peter Kullgren is arguing as if the epizootic law is the only legislation in Sweden, but there are other possibilities if the government would like.
I have never claimed that the government should review the authorities' interpretation of the legislation. The authorities do their job and interpret the legislation as it stands. But there are other possibilities if one wishes. It is, however, clear that this government does not want to provide compensation to the hunters who have paid for a hunting lease they could not use because the state imposed restrictions on the lands. This is what the debate is about.
The feeling of having been exploited will send a signal to the rest of Sweden, and this is what I and the Social Democrats are afraid of.
The answer is clear: The government will not act. I can only regret that.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Rural Affairs can read – I see what the interpellation is about. What I reacted strongly against was when the interpellator in the spoken word brought up hunters who are out and making great efforts but who do not get paid for it. There is, as mentioned, on the recording.
I regret that hunters have not been able to utilize the hunting leases they have paid for, that they have not received compensation, and that they have not been able to settle with those from whom they have leased land and paid. It would have been a functioning process.
I have tried to familiarize myself with the cases to get some background. In the various decisions made, one can see the argumentation and why the agency has considered that hunters are not entitled to compensation according to the epizootic law. But, again: If one is not satisfied with the decision, it should be reviewed by a higher instance. One has every possibility to do so if one is not satisfied.
I have very clearly praised the hunters' efforts in Sweden and Europe. When other countries have been affected by this terrible animal disease, they have turned to Sweden to ask how we could act as quickly as we did. My answer has always been that it is because we have an incredibly dedicated hunting corps that stepped up without hesitation and without knowing if they would receive compensation for the work they performed. They took leave or time off from their work and lost income without having any given guarantee at the moment of action.
That is why it was important for me to state in the article that we must solve this, so that no one needs to suffer economic damage when they are out in the forest looking for wild boar that have died of swine fever.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.