Response to interpellation 2025/26:326 on the risk of collapsed ecosystems
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the risk of collapsed ecosystems and the government's environmental work. L argues that the government has a robust system for governance and monitoring 1, invests record amounts in restoring wetlands 2 and has increased the investments in wetlands by two and a half times compared to the previous mandate period 3. L emphasizes that forest owners manage the land responsibly and that the government provides compensation in the event of logging stops 2. L also argues that the national plan for biodiversity is based on a parliamentary inquiry 4. V argues that the government has cut resources for the protection of valuable nature 5 and that the presented measures are insufficient 5 6. V advocates for a nature policy framework 7 and argues that forestry threatens natural forests 7. V believes that the use of the forest should be transformed 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! Andrea Andersson Tay has asked me what measures I intend to take to manage the risks of ecosystem collapse described in the report published by the British Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Furthermore, she has asked why I have not campaigned for Sweden to fulfill its obligations under the Kunming–Montreal framework, the EU's biodiversity strategy, and the nature restoration regulation. Finally, she has also asked me if I intend to campaign for the introduction of a nature policy framework, similar to the climate policy framework.
In 2019, the UN's Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES, presented the first comprehensive report on the state of the world's biodiversity and ecosystem services. The situation was described as serious. More species than ever in human history are threatened with extinction, and many ecosystems are changing at a rapid pace. The Kunming-Montreal Framework, a new global framework negotiated in 2022, has as its overall objective to halt and reverse that loss.
Sweden is a party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and had a central role in the work to develop the Kunming–Montreal framework. In connection with the world's countries agreeing on the framework, decisions were also made that the parties should update their strategies for biodiversity and ecosystem services and adapt their plans to the new goals in the framework.
The government therefore decided on 5 February on a new Swedish strategy for biodiversity and ecosystem services. In the strategy, the government describes the work to achieve the goals in the Kunming–Montreal framework. Through this, Sweden also contributes to achieving the targets within the EU's strategy for biodiversity to 2030.
The government has made several initiatives to protect and restore ecosystems. One example is our historically high investments in rewetting drained wetlands and in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and promoting biodiversity, which also occurs through that work. The Riksdag has also decided on the government's marine environment bill, the first since 2009. That includes increased protection of marine areas, reduced eutrophication, and sustainable fishing. The goal is to ensure that at least 30 percent of all inland water areas and coastal and marine areas are preserved and managed effectively by 2030 at the latest.
As a result of the requirements in the EU Nature Restoration Law to establish a national restoration plan, the government has tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to, together with the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Swedish Forest Agency, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, and the National Board of Housing, develop a proposal for such a plan. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shall report on the assignment to the Government Offices on February 27, 2026. After that, the basis needs to be prepared by the government before a draft plan can be submitted to the Commission. This must occur by September 2026 at the latest.
The government will also make investments in 2026 to enable the implementation of the nature restoration regulation. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management have, among other things, received funds to scale up the work on environmental monitoring, including monitoring the conditions for pollinators.
Since 1999, Sweden has had an environmental goals system which today consists of one generation goal and 16 different environmental quality goals that have been decided by the Riksdag. The system includes a number of milestone goals. On 5 February, the Government decided on a new milestone goal regarding wild pollinators and updated the milestone goal regarding urban greenery. The environmental goals are followed up on a regular basis, not least through our annual budget bill to the Riksdag. Through the environmental goals system, together with our international commitments, we today have a robust system for steering, goal-setting, and regular follow-up of the Government's environmental work.
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! It was during the early 90s that both the climate convention and the convention on biological diversity were signed. Since then, no country can claim that it has not understood what must be done for the environment. There has since long been agreement that we face both a climate crisis and a nature crisis, i.e., a crisis caused by the runaway loss of biodiversity.
In 2022, the world's countries agreed through the Kunming–Montreal framework that the loss of biodiversity shall be halted and reversed by 2030 and that 30 percent of the earth's surface shall be protected by the same year. We shall also restore 30 percent of the damaged ecosystems. The agreement is an important milestone in the work for biodiversity. Romina Pourmokhtari was there herself and stood behind it.
But what has she done since then? In Sweden, there is still no goal to protect 30 percent of nature. Resources for the protection of valuable nature have been cut significantly since the government took office. The Minister first presented the action plan for biodiversity required by the global framework more than a year too late. Now that it is in place, it is still completely insufficient to solve the problems. The years pass, and unfortunately, today we are further from the goal of stopping and reversing the loss of biodiversity than we were when the government took office.
Madam Speaker! The reason why decisions are made in international agreements to protect nature is not primarily because one likes cute animals or forest walks. No, such decisions are made because we as politicians have a responsibility for people's lives and health. The nature crisis is a threat to our welfare, to our health, and ultimately to our lives. The British intelligence service is now sounding the alarm that several important ecosystems risk collapsing as early as during the 2030s, which is in just a few years. Since we are dependent on these ecosystems for our access to food and water, this is an acute security threat.
One of the ecosystems that is particularly highlighted in the report is the boreal forests, i.e., northern forests. A large part of Sweden is covered by such forest – or was covered by such forest, perhaps I should say, for today very little of the original forests remain. The absolute majority of the forest in Sweden is intensively managed with clear-cutting, and only a small remnant remains of forests that have been allowed to develop naturally. The habitats of many species have disappeared, and they are now threatened with extinction. Logging is one of the factors that has the greatest negative effect on threatened species in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! This is not only sad but also a threat to our security. In a situation where people risk losing access to food, water, and medicine due to collapsed ecosystems, all countries must do their utmost to reverse the development. Since Sweden is particularly dependent on imported food, we run a significant risk of food shortages if ecosystems around the world begin to collapse. In such a situation, the countries that are affected will act to secure their own needs for food and water. We then risk escalating security threats. Fear is perhaps the word that best describes the feeling when one hears about these scenarios.
I asked the Minister for Climate and Environment what measures she intends to take to manage the risks of ecosystem collapses described in the British report. The answer I have received here indicates a total lack of crisis awareness. The so-called strategy and action plan that the government has presented is completely insufficient to reach both the Swedish environmental goals and the global goals for biodiversity. We do not have time for the passivity that the Minister expresses. She claims that we have a robust system in place. We do not. We have good goals, but the lack of measures means that we miss them by a wide margin.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Andrea Andersson Tay chooses to criticize the government because, according to her, we are too late with our work. But Sweden reported national targets before the 2024 party meeting. That was the schedule in place, entirely in accordance with the decisions made at the 2022 party meeting. One was urged to report targets if the update of one's national strategy, what we call NBSAP, was not ready. I do not know if the Left Party prefers that one cobbles together a biodiversity plan that one reports in faster than all other countries and that is then weaker in content. So we do not choose not to work. As a Liberal, I think it is important that we deliver a good plan. We will absolutely adhere to the timeframes, which we have also done.
The plan that we have now presented is based on a parliamentary inquiry. I think it is very good, Madam Speaker, when all parties in the Swedish Riksdag can be involved in working out the more long-term, major documents, such as the national plan for biodiversity, species richness, and the environment. When we have a broader group of parties that have looked at what needs exist in Sweden and extracted a basis, it also becomes a more robust document that the government can then present. It can hold over time and have greater support across our entire country. Since the parliamentary inquiry needed to submit its proposal for the Swedish strategy, we had to await that report. When we then received it, we had to refer it. After that, we have worked very quickly.
The goals that we have reported span 13 different expenditure areas. Naturally, the expenditures within climate, environment and nature are the largest. But there are also many goals that span other areas of responsibility and other parts of the work that is carried out from the government's side.
Madam Speaker! The member mentions that I was present and stood behind this framework. I would like to point out that I was not just present. I negotiated this framework. I sat for many hours with colleagues from many different countries and fought for the framework to have high ambition and for more countries to take more responsibility for, not least, what happens in sea and water areas, where we have a particular commitment from the Swedish side.
We also ensured that we negotiated very hard regarding the reporting to ensure that all countries are as transparent and open as they can be about the situation prevailing in their respective countries. I would say that democratic countries have come a much further way with reporting the actual situation for biological diversity.
Madam Speaker! There are many different perspectives on this work. It is of course clear that the work being done with protecting valuable nature by establishing nature reserves is an important part. But I also think it is important to mention that there is work that can be developed. The establishment of nature reserves and national parks belongs to what has been ongoing for a long time. Then there are areas where we are truly lagging behind and strongly need to catch up.
I am referring, among other things, to the work of protecting our marine and water environments. It is a task that has fallen behind and where Sweden has not been good enough. We have not taken responsibility for the very worrying situation we have in our seas and waters. Therefore, I think it is very good that Sweden's government has presented a new marine environment bill where, among other things, it is included that at least 30 percent of all inland water areas and coastal and marine areas shall be preserved and managed by 2030 at the latest. There is also a 10 percent requirement for particularly strong protection, entirely in accordance with the new framework that I was involved in negotiating.
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! Regarding the government's strategy and action plan for biodiversity, Torbjörn Ebenhard, who is a research leader at SLU Centre for Biodiversity, says that his assessment is that it is not a strategy or action plan at all.
The Government has not presented any new commitments, steering measures or actions. This occurs at the same time as it itself assesses that the environmental goals cannot be reached with the current and decided steering measures and actions.
There are good documents to lean on to reverse the development for biodiversity. The EU has a strategy for biodiversity and now also a nature restoration regulation.
The countries that will fare best according to the British alarm report are those that invest in the protection and restoration of ecosystems. Everything, therefore, speaks for making powerful efforts here and now to avoid catastrophic consequences.
The Swedish government has instead done its best to avoid taking measures and is trying to wiggle out of the requirements. The government first fought against the nature restoration law being introduced at all and has since acted to ensure that the effects in Sweden are as small as possible.
It has, for example, chosen to politically steer the reporting to the EU so that it does not base itself on what science assesses is required to protect biodiversity. Through numerical manipulation, they want to make it look as if Sweden is already protecting enough nature.
Madam Speaker! The elephant in the room when it comes to Sweden's work on biodiversity is forestry. The Environmental Goals Preparation estimated that there are approximately 1.5 million hectares of old-growth forest and natural forest that are not protected in Sweden. The timber extraction from them accounts for less than 1 percent of the annual logging. These are the most valuable forests in all of Europe, and they risk becoming paper because the government does not want to protect them.
The government's so-called initiatives on forest protection have, when viewed over the entire mandate period, in fact been substantial cuts. It is billions that are missing to meet the needs.
In addition to protecting the most valuable forests, the management of the rest of the forest must also be transformed in order to contribute to stopping and reversing the loss of biodiversity. Otherwise, we will not succeed.
Madam Speaker! I also asked if the Minister wants to work towards the introduction of a nature policy framework similar to the climate policy framework. Since the nature crisis is as great a threat as the climate crisis, it is obvious that such a framework is needed. In the same way as the climate policy framework, it should include legislation, objectives, and a nature policy council.
Every government shall produce a nature policy action plan showing which measures shall be taken to achieve the goals, and shall annually report on how the work to counteract the nature crisis is progressing. In the same way as the Climate Policy Council, the nature policy council shall evaluate the government's work.
I have not heard any real answer as to why we should not have a nature policy framework. When we are so far from doing what is required, i.e., stopping and reversing the loss of biodiversity, it is clear that much more needs to be done.
Why then should the nature crisis not be given the same dignity as other societal crises? It cannot be that one does not dare to stand up against the forest industry and their lobbyists?
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I simply have to realize that the member does not want to discuss the new types of investments that the government is very invested in. For example, it has never in Swedish history been invested so much in restoring wetlands as under this government.
The government has presented a marine environment bill that takes off precisely in the framework that I helped negotiate, the Kunming–Montreal framework. It contains a goal to protect exactly 30 percent of our seas and waters with 10 percent strict protection, precisely in accordance with the framework.
Instead, the member wants to focus strictly on protection. That works very well. We can absolutely talk about the needs for nature reserves, national parks, and different types of land-based protection. The government is now investing, for example, an additional 500 million kronor per year 2023–2026 for just the protection of valuable nature.
It is primarily about providing compensation to different landowners who have valuable forests with high natural values so that they can be protected as nature reserves. It is an important part of the work that is being done.
Madam Speaker! I notice that the member, in his questions, has taken off from the report. There, it is described that it is particularly worrying for Sweden because Sweden is part of the boreal coniferous forest belt.
It is important to highlight some aspects. For example, the warming is more intense. In the report, boreal forests in Russia and Canada are highlighted. The situation is similar, but the threats do not look the same.
For example, there is a more extensive rate of exploitation in Canada than we have in Sweden. They have a greater permafrost melting which also has an impact. They also have a warming that is stronger, because the warming at high latitudes is faster than the global average. There are some such aspects to take into account.
We naturally need to strengthen resilience in Swedish forests as well. We need to develop in different ways how we do that. Personally, I can think that it has been a major problem when forest owners in Sweden who take care of their forest are only met with a logging ban when larger environmental and nature values, a greater natural wealth, and sensitive species that have protection according to EU legislation appear.
It might not be such a good incentive if we want all landowners in Sweden to ensure a strong biodiversity and strengthen the nature values in their forest. Therefore, the government has proposed compensation to the forest owners even when it is due to, for example, the Birds and Habitats Directive or other reasons that they cannot harvest. In that way, it becomes positive when, for example, a stop is placed on a harvesting decision.
We must in different ways ensure that we strengthen those forest owners who protect their forests that have high natural values. It is a matter of ensuring that there is something positive, both economically and generally, so that one does not see the environmental laws as a threat. In Sweden, a very large amount of our forest is owned by private landowners and entrepreneurs of various kinds.
There are many issues to work on when it comes to the protection of nature. It is, of course, about investing in establishing new nature reserves and managing the nature reserves one already has. But it is also about building trust in how we work in Sweden and Europe, namely that one receives compensation when one receives a logging ban for environmental reasons.
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! I can concede that the government has made certain efforts regarding the marine environment and wetlands, even if they are not sufficient. But the big question is the forest. There, the government is doing nothing to improve for biodiversity, but rather the opposite.
I can repeat what I said earlier. Even though the government has restored some of the funds for the protection of valuable nature that were previously cut, the money for protection is still completely insufficient to cover the need that exists. It is reported from different parts of the country that landowners are standing in line to have their valuable forests protected. This is not happening due to a lack of resources.
I absolutely think that we must focus on more than just protection. We must also transition the utilization, as I also touched upon in my previous post, so that greater consideration is taken for biodiversity during the utilization of the forest.
There, I think the government's policy leaves quite a bit to be desired. It will be interesting to see what comes in the government's forest bill later in the spring. I do not feel particularly hopeful, because I assume that it will be based on the latest forest investigation which goes in a completely different direction.
I want to return to how I began. The nature crisis is a threat to people's lives and health. In such a situation, it is deeply irresponsible not to do more to counteract it. Today we have a government that leans back and instead wants to do as little as possible.
If we want to, all possibilities exist to act. There is a global framework in place, and there are EU rules in place. We can easily use the climate policy framework as a model for a nature policy framework.
Not least, the people feel a strong love for nature. The only ones who do not want us to act and solve the problems are those who make money by destroying nature.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It is a bit bitter to make a closing statement where I must criticize the member for her view of Swedish land and forest owners as people who want to destroy nature.
Those who own forest and land in Sweden are very different people. Compared to the conditions in other countries, one often owns a much smaller amount of area, and one is very keen to take care of it in a responsible manner.
Vänsterpartiet speaks in the same turn about that we should phase out all fossil plastic, all packaging and everything that uses coal, oil and gas as a base and replace it with something else. What should it be replaced with if not paper and pulp products? Somewhere there is a logic here that one must take into account.
In Sweden, we have a very sound way of relating to the forest and land that we have. We do not exploit it in the way that is done in other countries, such as in Canada or Brazil, but we have a responsible use that leads to us having growing forests that increase in volume. We ensure that all of Europe is supplied with clean packaging and clean products that can be used. I think that is a very good thing, and I oppose the image that one wants to destroy nature when one owns forest and uses it.
The Speaker points out that while it is indeed good that we are investing in wetlands, argues that even that is not enough. But in fact, never in Swedish history has as much been invested in wetlands as with us in government. During the previous parliamentary term, the basis that the Left Party (V) was part of invested as much as we have done in a single budget on wetlands. It becomes a bit difficult with credibility when we have invested two and a half times as much as was done during the previous parliamentary term, totaling almost 1.8 billion, to restore wetlands.
More needs to be done, and I look forward to debating it further.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.