Sweden's implementation of Agenda 2030

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's communication regarding Sweden's implementation of Agenda 2030. I want to warn already that I will use slightly more than my registered speaking time because I believe some initial public education is needed on what Agenda 2030 actually is. There seem to be many misconceptions about this.

Agenda 2030 is a document that was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015. In December 2020, the Riksdag adopted goals for the implementation, and it is now the second time that the government reports to the Riksdag on how the work is progressing.

Agenda 2030 contains 17 different goals. It concerns, for example, the fight against poverty and hunger, promotion of good health, education and equality, access to clean water and sanitation, sustainable energy, decent working conditions and economic growth, sustainable industry, sustainable cities, sustainable consumption and production, combating climate change, safeguarding oceans, ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as safeguarding peaceful and inclusive societies where democracy, the rule of law and human freedoms and rights are important parts.

Agenda 2030 has sometimes been criticized for being extreme, and there is no restraint in the attacks on social media against Agenda 2030 specifically. I believe, unfortunately, that this is based on a great deal of ignorance. Most should be able to agree on the majority of the 17 goals, regardless of where they stand politically. The goals themselves are general, and it is up to each country to design a policy to achieve the goals.

Agenda 2030 explicitly states that all goals have equal value and that the 17 goals are indivisible. At the same time, there is an obvious risk that certain goals may conflict with other goals. The entire Agenda 2030 presupposes that policy has a holistic view and makes wise trade-offs.

Madam Speaker! This introduction shall constitute the background to the rest of my speech.

The Tidö Agreement between the four parties in the government base regulates how the policy shall be designed to give Sweden a better development and address the societal problems. At the same time, the Tidö Agreement also constitutes, in relevant parts, the framework for the government's ambition to fulfill Agenda 2030.

In the report, the government demonstrates how the work is progressing to achieve the 17 goals regarding both measures in Sweden and Sweden's role in fulfilling the goals globally. The government states in the report that Sweden has good conditions to achieve the goals in Agenda 2030.

Madam Speaker! I now intended to place a little extra focus on climate policy, because precisely that may risk clashing with other goals in Agenda 2030.

Core parts of the Tidö Agreement are to re-establish a functioning electricity system with increased electricity production at as low electricity prices as possible, as well as to enable an efficient climate transition. When it comes to this work, there are certain core parts in the agreement that differ clearly from the previous government's irresponsible poster politics.

Firstly, there is no longer any fast track for climate policy. All proposals within climate policy that affect the state budget shall be treated in the ordinary budget process and weighed against other important interests and needs.

Secondly, the Tidö Agreement stipulates that all proposals in climate policy shall undergo proper impact assessments and be evaluated comprehensively.

Thirdly, the government has changed the energy policy goal from 100 percent renewable to 100 percent fossil-free, which enables investment in nuclear power.

For the fourth, the agreement prescribes that climate and environmental policy shall be combined with a safeguarding of Swedish competitiveness.

For the fifth, it is explicitly stated that the policy shall be fact-based.

For the sixth, it is established that the utility and effect of the pursued climate policy shall be evaluated and reported on repeatedly.

These points in the Tidö Agreement hopefully mean that, gradually, there will be an end to populism and meaningless or, in the worst case, purely harmful symbolic politics. And it is about time. We now see how failed so-called green industrial initiatives cause large costs for society. Northvolt's bankruptcy entails, among other things, large losses for our pension funds, and here there is every reason to reflect on how these funds' boards have acted under previous governments – and on whose instructions.

The risk that more green bubbles will burst during the coming years should not be underestimated. These are bubbles that were built up by the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet during previous governments.

The tightening of the Tidö Agreement's policy means, as said, that the risk of us creating new green bubbles decreases, and the risk also decreases that climate policy will push out other pressing goals in Agenda 2030. Today's government sees the whole of the policy. That is good for Sweden, and it is also in line with what Agenda 2030 prescribes.

One of the goals in Agenda 2030 is reduced inequality between individuals and groups in society. Even here, there are conflicts with an overly one-sided climate policy without consequence analyses. For example, inequality between city and country was hardly reduced when low-paid rural residents who were completely dependent on the car were forced to pay unreasonable fuel costs simply because the city dwellers in the previous government wanted an unreasonably high reduction obligation. The proposal for worsened travel deductions was also a direct blow to the countryside and thus also against both the green industries and food production – which is also part of Agenda 2030.

Now all of this is history thanks to our new government. Fuel costs have decreased dramatically, diesel is more than 10 kronor cheaper per liter and travel deductions are significantly improved. The inequality between country and city has decreased – completely in line with Agenda 2030.

Madam Speaker! One of the goals in Agenda 2030 is economic growth, and growth presupposes competitiveness. During the Swedish presidency of the EU, the Swedish government succeeded in highlighting competitiveness as an important issue, and some time ago we were able to take part in Mario Draghi's report on the EU's weakened competitiveness compared to other parts of the world.

The reasons for the weak competitiveness are many, but it is evident when reading the report that certain countries' decisions to prematurely phase out nuclear power and thereby drive up electricity prices, in combination with very far-reaching climate policy and associated bureaucratic regulations, are some of the important reasons. There is also reason to remind that Agenda 2030 has not only economic growth as one of the goals but also access to sustainable energy for all. Both of these goals are threatened by the policy that has been pursued in the EU in recent years.

One must remember that large parts of the rest of the world, including the four most populous countries – China, India, Indonesia and now also USA – actually do not place any particular importance on climate policy anymore. One can think what one wants about this, but significantly more coal power is being built than renewable energy production.

If the EU chooses to continue as before or even to tighten its climate policy, Europe is actually in danger. We will lose even more of our competitiveness, and it will definitely be very difficult to reach the other goals in Agenda 2030. It is quite simple mathematics to state that the EU cannot bear the entire burden itself when it comes to the reduction of global emissions.

The previous argument that the EU benefits in the long run by leading in climate policy is no longer obvious, especially not when the USA leaves the Paris Agreement. This assumes, however, that the rest of the world follows suit. If other large countries in the world have no interest in following suit, there is no benefit for the EU in leading. All we do then is drive up our own costs without the global climate being affected even measurably.

This issue is currently being discussed in many countries in Europe and has been an important election issue in several places. People are worried, and politics must meet this concern. The EU and its member states must, in the same way as Sweden, look more at the whole of the policy and ensure that other goals in Agenda 2030 receive the same weight as climate policy, just as the countries agreed when Agenda 2030 received support in the UN General Assembly in 2015.

It is high time that we open up for a discussion within both Sweden and the EU regarding what levels of climate targets are reasonable in the short and long term, so that the climate targets can be reconciled with a positive development for the EU's competitiveness and the possibility of reaching all the goals in Agenda 2030. Only an economically strong EU with good growth will be able to afford a long-term ambitious environmental, energy, and climate policy.

Madam Speaker! A large number of motions are linked to this document. Unfortunately, many of them aim to return to the previous, rather socially harmful symbol politics and the inability to think about consequences in climate policy.

Eight different parliamentary committees have commented on the government's communication, and all eight committees have recommended rejection of all motion proposals concerning their area. I naturally do the same and move for rejection of all motion proposals and approval of the proposal in the Committee on Finance's report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating Agenda 2030, which is an important agenda for the future. I will devote my speech to why I think it is important. But now I want to focus on asking some questions to Jan Ericson from Moderaterna.

Every second year we handle the report on Agenda 2030, where we evaluate and follow up on what the government has done during the years since the last one. Two years ago, the Moderaterna submitted their own motion, which was signed by, among others, the current Minister for Finance Elisabeth Svantesson, the current chairman of the Finance Committee Edward Riedl, and Jan Ericson himself. The proposal in the motion was that the Riksdag should back what is stated in the motion—that the government in the next report of results—namely the one that has arrived here and is now on the table—should assess the goal fulfillment in all of Agenda 2030's 169 sub-goals, even in cases where data and statistics are deficient.

I wonder why Jan Ericson thought it was important when they were in opposition, but when they lead the country, they no longer seem to think it is important.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! If one reads the entire communication, one actually sees that the government has a very clear account for all 17 goals. One only has to read the communication thoroughly. I therefore do not quite understand what Eva Lindh is after.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Now I believe that Jan Ericson listened very poorly, about as poorly as I think the content of this report on Agenda 2030 is.

I said that what you wrote was that one should assess the goal fulfillment in all of Agenda 2030's 169 sub-targets. All 17 goals in Agenda 2030 are broken down into sub-targets and together the sub-targets are 169 in number.

My question was why Jan Ericson and, for that matter, also the Minister for Finance and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, who have signed this and are now responsible for the document, no longer think it is important. Why does it matter when one sits in opposition but apparently not when one is now in government? That was my question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! If Eva Lindh had listened to my speech, she would have heard that I was very clear about what the Tidö Agreement says on this issue. It is that today's government places great value on and has decided that all measures that have a connection to Agenda 2030 shall be closely monitored at all times. We are to evaluate what we do, so that we do the right things and do not waste money on things that are meaningless without achieving an effect from what we do. It permeates the entire agreement.

This communication from the government is a summary of all the evaluations that are being conducted. And all those different sub-points are gathered into these 17 points. Then there is a summary in the 17 points of how it is assessed that the different 17 goals have developed since the previous report, which the previous government made two years ago.

I think, therefore, that we are accommodating precisely what we wrote in our motion that we wanted.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for the approval of our Social Democratic motion, so that it is clear even before I deliver my speech.

Nearly ten years ago, the UN member states adopted Agenda 2030 and the action plan for the transition to a sustainable society for people, for the planet, and for prosperity. That is what the world's countries must achieve to reach socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable development. There are 17 goals. Many of us may have seen them. But there are also broken-down sub-goals for what needs to be done. And we must follow up on those goals. It is about ensuring that no one is left behind.

Agenda 2030 is an ambitious agreement for sustainable development. The world's leaders have adopted it. Sweden stands behind it. It would mean a great deal of positive things for Sweden and for the world if the world's leaders actually worked according to this and if we were to achieve the goals that are in Agenda 2030. It is about eradicating extreme poverty. It is about reducing inequalities and injustices in the world. And it is about promoting peace and justice and about solving the climate crisis.

Today we are talking about how the government is doing in terms of fulfilling the goals in Agenda 2030. If I were to give a grade, it would probably be judged as fail. We Social Democrats believe that the government is failing in its handling of the Agenda 2030 goals.

I will come back to what it means in practice in terms of policy, but I just want to mention how the management is failing. Earlier this year, the government abolished the Agenda 2030 office. The government has removed that agencies should report on their work with Agenda 2030. And they have cut the budget. It has simply been a continuous reduction over a longer period. And now there is very little left in practice.

We have also heard from the Moderate MP Jan Ericson that one had very high demands when one sat in opposition, but one neither fulfills those demands nor has any ambitions when it comes to Agenda 2030 anymore – obviously. You are breaking what we as a country have promised that we will work with.

The goals for this work are many, and all are extremely important. But our speaking time is limited, so I will focus and particularly highlight two areas. One is the environmental and climate policy. The other is the equality and gender equality policy.

I will begin with the environment and climate area. This government's action plan lacks sharp measures. Figures from SCB show that carbon dioxide emissions increased significantly during the first half of 2024. Sweden now appears to be missing virtually all climate goals. This is not only what others are saying, but the government acknowledges it itself in its updated national energy and climate plan. This naturally risks worsening the climate but also leading to expensive fines and damaging Sweden's credibility.

Furthermore, the government has implemented significant cuts in nature conservation, which is crucial for protecting our natural areas, species and ecosystems, but also for promoting outdoor life and creating new job opportunities.

Something that is not mentioned in the communication is the lack of sufficient resources for the food strategy. This lack hinders the work of securing Swedish food supply.

Our transports have a decisive impact on the climate. Almost one-third of the country's total emissions are caused by domestic transport, and the majority comes from road traffic. A good and important alternative for transport is the trains. Something should be done about cancelled departures, derailments, delays, and impaired accessibility regarding the trains. One should have the strength to invest in new capacity but also do something about road and railway maintenance.

It is also noteworthy that the government only takes a few assessments and makes them its truth. It is not the case that one works fact-based, as Member Jan Ericson spoke about, when one chooses to take only one type of statistics but does not mention another type of statistics. Sweden is not judged to reach these goals even by 2040, as has been discussed. With the steering instruments that the government is now working with, it is also judged that the goal of net-zero emissions by 2045 will not be reached. It is just too bad, and it is very worrying.

Even the government's own agencies have directed scathing criticism. This is obviously something that the government must work harder on. The climate issue is relevant right now. It cannot wait. We must act now, but the government is not doing so.

Madam Speaker! In the area of equality, the government fails in several respects. The underfunding of the welfare system risks worsening schools, healthcare, and elderly care. It is a blow to all those who utilize the welfare services and hits those with the smallest margins hardest. In the long run, a weaker welfare system also strikes against equality and integration.

A prerequisite for ensuring equality, safety, and equity in society is the Swedish welfare model. By having well-developed childcare and elderly care, women and men can participate in the labor market as much as they do today. If this deteriorates, it risks affecting everything in our society: equality, gender equality, and growth.

In the school system, we see increasing inequality and segregation. Sweden today does not fully live up to Agenda 2030's goal of equitable education. School resources are distributed unevenly; the students and schools that have the greatest needs often receive the least support. Furthermore, the Swedish school system favors profit-driven actors, which contributes to money that should have gone to the school instead going to profits.

The government's economic policy benefits those who already have the most at the expense of those who have it tougher. It has been clearly noticeable during the years that have passed since the so-called Tidöregeringen – the SD-led government – came to power in the autumn of 2022. They prioritize tax cuts for the richest over support for ordinary people, and this disadvantages equality, which is truly something central in Agenda 2030. The reduction of the housing allowance and the lack of increases in the child allowance will lead to increased poverty.

I want to specifically mention child poverty. Sweden now has the highest child poverty in the Nordic countries. Repeated alarms are raised about families who do not have sufficient resources to manage their finances and be able to put food on the table for the children. It is a fact. The increasing economic inequality hits above all those families who have the lowest incomes and have had little or no economic development. The government should implement reforms and invest in those who have it toughest, that is, the low-income earners. But none of this is being done, despite the fact that the vulnerability is great.

Madam Speaker! One can say nothing other than that the government has capitulated when it comes to both these 17 goals and the development policy, which concerns all the 17 goals. The government must sharpen its work to reach the goals, among other things by implementing the proposals we Social Democrats have presented in our motion. The Agenda 2030 work must be taken most seriously so that we can achieve socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable development – for a better Sweden and for a better world.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Dear listeners, who may be following this via television or some site where you are streaming it! What is actually the relevance of a document on Agenda 2030 for your everyday lives? Yes, it is much greater than one might think.

As mentioned in the debate, many important goals have been agreed upon. In this debate, I would like to focus on the most obvious one: goal 13 on combating climate change. We traveled around the world and showcased Sweden as the country that could increase growth and thereby achieve some of the other goals, for example by reducing poverty and increasing economic prosperity, while simultaneously reducing emissions.

Today, after only a few years with the Tidöregeringen, it is exactly the opposite. The growth is mediocre from an international perspective, and emissions are skyrocketing. They are increasing in a way we have never seen before.

Even that which is supposed to save these goals for Sweden's sake, namely the electrification of Sweden, is coming to a complete standstill. It was supposed to be that everyone would have the means to switch to a plug-in hybrid, perhaps a cheap and used one, to a used electric car or even to a new electric car. But what has happened with the sales of them? They are being exported abroad now. Now it is only fossil that matters in Sweden. People do not have the means to buy electric cars, according to a survey. People do not even have the means to buy used electric cars or hybrid cars.

These 2030 goals are therefore extremely relevant for where Sweden stands in the world right now. And why has it become like this? Well, because the government has removed everything that allowed ordinary people, in line with these goals, to participate in the climate transition. In its place, they have put a one-sided focus on binding people as tightly as possible to fossil diesel and such things that everyone knows will become more expensive over time. They have done that instead of giving them cheap opportunities to move forward with something that is much more profitable for them themselves and for the whole society.

Furthermore, among the goals, and this is what many do not know, is to have increased secure food supply. With the rising food prices reaching every kitchen table in Sweden, we have noted that it is significant that Sweden has a low self-sufficiency rate when it comes to food. The government talks a lot about the countryside but has not done anything during the recent years to strengthen food production and self-sufficiency in Sweden when we are in such a difficult security situation. This is proving to be significant.

Countries in other parts of Europe that have a high degree of self-sufficiency when it comes to food do not have the same price increases as we have in Sweden. There are other explanations for this as well. The government has burdened everyone involved in food with new taxes up to their ears, and despite all the talk and all the coffee breaks, nothing has been done about the lack of competition in the wholesale sector, which affects farmers, small retailers, and above all, consumers. It certainly matters for the everyday lives of Swedish citizens if the goals are reached!

I want to conclude with what is perhaps the most serious thing today, namely that the government coalition's largest supporting party today has essentially gutted the entire climate strategy that Sweden stands for, i.e., that we actually believe that we need to solve the climate issue. It is also about the fact that in this security situation, we believe that we must be less dependent on dictatorship states such as Russia and Saudi Arabia and their oil.

In Dagens Nyheter this morning, the Sweden Democrats said that they want to increase the dependence on fossil fuels and undermine the competitiveness of the green Swedish business sector, which is at the forefront in the world. This is, so, what they want to pull the rug out from under, and it is supposed to somehow increase the competitiveness and the opportunities for Sweden.

I see that the Government's representatives are laughing at this in the benches. But my question to the Government's representatives is straight and clear: Is it SD's policy in DN Debatt that applies – that is, that we pull the rug out from under the competitiveness of our Swedish companies in climate issues – or is it the government's Agenda 2030 strategy in the communication that applies? Is it the Sweden Democrats' line that applies, with full back in on dependency on dictatorship states' oil and gas and full back out from everything that our large Swedish producers of trucks and advanced technology work with? The Sweden Democrats are so delighted by Putin's and Saudi Arabia's gas and oil.

What is the situation, the government? This is not something to giggle at. You can answer this if you want. Who is it that decides – is it Ulf Kristersson or Jimmie Åkesson?

It turns out that the communication regarding Agenda 2030 affects all Swedes quite a lot. It is about our future, whether we believe in climate change and in self-sufficiency of food or if we want to take a full step back into the future, which will affect us all across the entire country.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has, in many ways, come a good way in the transition to a sustainable society in accordance with Agenda 2030. At the same time, development is heading in the wrong direction in a number of areas, with for example increased economic inequality, clear class differences regarding health, and climate and environmental goals that cannot be reached with current policy.

We are in a climate crisis. In 2024, the warming exceeded 1.5 degrees for the first time. It is absolutely necessary that the pace of transition increases significantly and that global emissions decrease rapidly.

Rich people have caused the climate crisis and have the greatest impact on the climate. Those who are hit hardest, however, are the world's poor. It is the rich countries that bear the historical responsibility for the climate crisis, and we therefore also have the greatest responsibility to reduce emissions. Furthermore, rich countries must provide support to poor countries both to transition and to be able to manage the effects of the warming.

Unfortunately, the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has completely abandoned Sweden's climate ambitions. Through numerical trickery and a one-sided focus on nuclear power, they are trying to wiggle out of their responsibility and are instead increasing emissions. The government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy thus stands in sharp contrast to goal 13 in Agenda 2030, which states that we need to take immediate action to combat climate change and its consequences.

The Left Party's climate and environmental policy is based on the premise that we must carry out a comprehensive transition here and now to avoid a climate catastrophe. Many of the necessary changes to our production and consumption need to be implemented in the next ten years. In a very short time, the climate transition must be placed at the center of society's development and economic policy.

With a different policy, Sweden would have good conditions to reach the climate goals. Through joint efforts and an active state that invests in the climate and the environment, we can achieve a rapid climate transition. Through investments of 700 billion kronor, we in Vänsterpartiet want to ensure that the climate transition is accelerated over the next ten years.

Lack of resource efficiency and unsustainable material use must be broken. A more equitable distribution of resources is a prerequisite for a significantly reduced total resource use to be able to be combined with a good material standard for all, in Sweden and globally. Sweden must as a country significantly reduce its material footprint.

Vänsterpartiet advocates for an economy that is circular, where we do not take more from nature than is sustainable and where what is used can be used again through reuse and material recycling. There is no lack of opportunities to promote a circular economy – what is lacking is political will and ambition from the government's side.

Madam Speaker! We are also living in a nature crisis. Biodiversity and functioning ecosystems are a prerequisite for our lives. But the government and the Sweden Democrats have significantly reduced the resources to protect and care for nature. Furthermore, at the national level and within the EU, they appear to be working to weaken laws aimed at protecting nature. This stands in sharp contrast to the goals of Agenda 2030.

Vänsterpartiet has for a long time proposed significantly increased appropriations for the protection and management of nature. In our budget proposal for 2025, we proposed several billion more than the government for these purposes.

Madam Speaker! The Government prioritizes the interests of Swedish business in development policy and states that Sweden will no longer pursue a feminist foreign policy. The Government and the Sweden Democrats have also scrapped the one percent goal in aid and carried out a total reorganization of aid that has major negative consequences for the people who are in the greatest need of support. Among other things, it is now Swedish interests that shall to a greater extent be the basis for aid policy. This goes completely against the principles of how aid should stem from justice-creating measures and poverty reduction. The Government also uses aid for migration policy purposes and as a tool to be able to send people back to the countries they fled from.

The amounts that leave the poorer countries and go to the rich are almost three times larger than the total global aid per year. The majority consists of capital and tax evasion and debt payments. Reversing this development is a central part of the work to create a more equal world. Therefore, it is important that an active aid policy is combined with debt cancellations and measures against tax and capital flight.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to see decisive action to ensure that companies respect human rights and contribute to sustainable development. A binding treaty is needed that gives those affected by human rights violations the opportunity to hold companies accountable. It is important that Sweden works for this within the UN.

Madam Speaker! The government writes about the negative effects of the shrinking democratic space in many countries. At the same time, one renders invisible the effects of its own policy, which systematically undermines the Swedish civil society as well as partners in other countries. This concerns, among other things, extensive cuts in adult education and support for civil society. To this are added general savings in the public administration completely without a plan. This makes it more difficult to build effective, reliable, and transparent institutions, which is one of the sub-goals in Agenda 2030.

Madam Speaker! Goal 1 in Agenda 2030 reads: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

The proportion of Sweden's population living in material and social poverty increased from 3.5 to 5.5 percent between 2021 and 2023. This corresponds to over 200,000 people. For the measure of severe material and social poverty, the increase over the last three years is even clearer. The increase is largest for women and worst for single parents with children. The picture is reinforced by the fact that both evictions and indebtedness among private individuals are also increasing.

This development is due to how the government has handled the high inflation of recent years. Instead of protecting the most exposed and vulnerable households, they have prioritized tax cuts for the richest. It is unfortunately clear that they intend to continue on the same path. The best measure to achieve the goal of abolishing poverty is obviously to change the government.

Goal 10 in Agenda 2030 reads: Reduce inequality within and among countries.

The Government mentions nothing in its report about how the tax cuts being implemented in 2025, which amount to nearly 34 billion kronor, are primarily aimed at high-income earners. At the same time, the tax is raised for some of them with the smallest margins, and no major investments are made to protect the most vulnerable households. The Government's policy is the exact opposite of what is needed to increase equality.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that Sweden will not reach the goals in Agenda 2030 at home and that the work for the goals to be reached globally is not a priority for this government. Vänsterpartiet wants to do what is required to reach the goals in Agenda 2030 and thereby reduce income inequalities both in Sweden and in the rest of the world, distribute wealth and resources equitably and increase and strengthen international cooperation.

We want the government to return with an action plan for how Sweden shall implement Agenda 2030. We also want to see a politically composed committee with a mandate to evaluate the work and provide proposals for measures. Given that there has been no national coordinator for the work with Agenda 2030 for a year now, the need is even greater.

Madam Speaker! The Government concludes its memorandum by drawing the conclusion that Sweden has good conditions to reach the goals in Agenda 2030. With the right policies and sufficient resources, there are undeniably good conditions, but that the goals would be reached with this government's policies is completely unthinkable.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we face one of the greatest challenges of our time: to create a sustainable future for coming generations. To be really clear, I can say that it is about creating a livable future at all on this planet or not doing so.

Agenda 2030 and its 17 global goals for sustainable development constitute a common path forward for the world – a plan for how we can collectively combat poverty, reduce inequality, and protect our planet. But for this to succeed, it requires more than just good intentions and fine words. It requires follow-up, action, and responsibility. Unfortunately, we do not see that in the government's policy, and we definitely do not see it in this communication.

Unfortunately, the letter deserves criticism in terms of both substance and form. It is the way for the Riksdag and the citizens to gain knowledge about the policy the government has pursued in the area. It should have been taken significantly more seriously.

That the government succeeds so poorly in the report in explaining how it works with the global goals creates a democratic problem, because it does not give us in the Riksdag any real insight or coherent picture of the policy being conducted and we therefore have no real possibility to scrutinize it. It would have been an advantage if the government had wanted to report in its report how Sweden stands regarding reaching the global goals and the goal and interest conflicts that are seen with its policy and how this has been handled within the framework of Agenda 2030.

Let me specifically point out three points.

The first is about how, instead of providing resources for the work on the global goals, they have cut and reduced various actors' opportunities to work with them. The government has, for example, removed the national coordinator. He was crucial for bringing together different actors – municipalities, regions, civil society, and the business community – in the work for a sustainable future. Abolishing this coordination means that we risk losing the strength and momentum that is actually required to drive Agenda 2030 forward.

The municipal and regional level plays a key role in the implementation. It is there that many of the goals gain actual significance and affect people's everyday lives. It is about education, public transport, housing construction, energy and healthcare. All of this is areas where municipalities and regions make the major effort.

The government did not only remove the coordinator. They also ended the project Glokala Sverige prematurely by reducing Sida's funding and scrapping the one percent goal.

Municipalities and regions are very important actors, but so is civil society. Almost half of all Swedes are active in voluntary organizations. Their efforts are also crucial for us to be able to achieve the goals in Agenda 2030. Civil society has historically been an important party in government-led forums, and their work has contributed to very concrete results. That the government is now dismissing consultations and reducing support to these organizations is therefore extremely problematic. Instead of shutting civil society out, one should better take advantage of the power and will for development that exists there.

Furthermore, there is now a lack of follow-up. One of the biggest challenges is that we often see ambitious goals but lack systems to follow up and measure progress. It is not enough to just set goals. We must also ensure that we are moving in the right direction, and the follow-up needs to be measurable. We in Miljöpartiet would therefore have liked to see the government ask Statistiska centralbyrån again to coordinate the follow-up of how we meet the 17 goals and the 169 sub-goals, as they did before the government concluded their assignment in 2022.

Point two is about the fact that we need a feminist analysis. We need more equality, equity, and democracy.

Agenda 2030 has equality as a separate goal, but it is also a fundamental prerequisite for the other goals to be achievable. Despite this, the government has chosen to remove gender equality integration from the regulatory letters for 41 agencies. It has abolished the feminist foreign policy and Sweden's global gender equality ambassador. Furthermore, it pursues an economic policy that disadvantages women.

This is several steps in the wrong direction. Instead of backing down, the government should take steps forward, conduct a feminist analysis that permeates all decisions and measures, and separately report on how the implementation of Agenda 2030 affects women and men.

The agenda also speaks clearly about increased equality. But the government's cuts and priorities within the welfare sector are completely incompatible with the global goals, especially when it comes to promoting social welfare, equality, and inclusion. Instead of increased equality, the government's policy creates increased gaps through tax cuts for millionaires while low- and middle-income earners take the hit.

We know that freedom and democracy are fundamental for building prosperous societies, but today only 40 of 198 countries and territories have an open, democratic system where freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association are respected in politics, in legislation, and in practice. This is unfortunately steadily decreasing.

In many countries, things are moving backwards, unfortunately also in Sweden. We should instead be a counterforce. The Government should highlight the importance of Agenda 2030 in national and international contexts and always link this to international commitments on human rights and democracy, as well as the fact that no one should be left behind.

My third point is about the fact that climate and environmental work is, naturally, absolutely crucial. It must be a high priority, and the reporting must be based on facts. The climate crisis is, as I have said very many times in this chamber, our time's greatest fateful issue. But the government's actions are going in the opposite direction of what research, international commitments, and common sense require. Both the Climate Policy Council and the Fiscal Policy Council, as well as the OECD, have directed sharp criticism at the government for increasing emissions, slowing down the climate transition, and pushing the responsibility onto the future.

The fossil fuel subsidies have increased, public transport support has decreased, and stricter climate requirements in public procurement have been halted. This is simply not a responsible policy but a dangerous path that jeopardizes both our future and our credibility internationally.

Sweden has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest, but the government's current policy makes that goal increasingly distant. Instead of investing in a rapid and just transition to a fossil-free society, development is being slowed down and the risks of climate-related disasters are being increased. In this, they are also trying to muddy the waters. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to show a transparent and fact-based climate report, where the government's policy is evaluated against our national and international climate goals. But they do not do that.

We in Miljöpartiet want Sweden to be a leader in the global climate transition, not, as it is now, a brake.

But it is not just about emissions. Biodiversity is also a vital issue that must be given higher priority. The forests, the oceans, and our ecosystems are fundamental to our existence, but they are being depleted at an alarming rate. Forestry is being intensified without sufficient regard for biodiversity, and important, protected natural areas are threatened by exploitation. The government's cuts in the protection of valuable nature and the erosion of Swedish environmental work is nothing other than a betrayal of future generations.

The Baltic Sea as well as the West Sea are in a state of acute ecological distress. Overfishing, emissions, and climate change are driving a negative spiral that we simply must break. International and national experts have established that we need to significantly increase the pace of our efforts to restore the ecosystems in the seas. Instead of floating aimlessly toward the goal, the government should develop a clear action plan so that Sweden can achieve the goals in the Kunming–Montreal framework and secure resources to protect our unique nature.

Madam Speaker! The government has truly underperformed in this submission. The question that remains is, in fact, why. Why does the government care so little about international commitments and agreements? Why does it submit such a substandard product to the Riksdag? At best, it indicates a lack of interest; at worst, it indicates that they do not care. Instead of working to achieve Agenda 2030, we see the government pursuing a policy in the completely opposite direction in more and more areas, a policy that increases emissions, threatens biodiversity even further, creates inequality and poverty, and reduces democratic space.

I wonder if the government thinks it is worth it. Is it worth exposing our own citizens and all the people in the world to danger, just so that some people can become a little richer? Unfortunately, I cannot perceive any answer other than a yes from the government to that question. It makes me deeply concerned and very disappointed. I see no other answer than that it is time to change the government!

Sweden's implementation of Agenda 2030

We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I would like to move for the approval of reservations 3 and 9.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)