Exceptions from requirements under the Birds and Habitats Directives in the reassessment of hydropower

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Committee on Civil Affairs is debating Report 2025/26:CU41 Exemptions from requirements under the Birds and Habitats Directives in the reassessment of hydropower.

What does that mean in Swedish? One could say as a civil servant in the Government Offices did – for reasons of privacy, I unfortunately cannot reveal either names or departments. But what did the person in question say then? Yes: We are not going to perform idiot-shutdowns of functioning hydropower plants.

So, that was it!

Madam Speaker! I believe I must elaborate on this.

There are approximately 1,700 small hydropower plants in Sweden that are an important part of Sweden's preparedness. If Sweden is to be resilient in war, these must function and deliver electricity if the large power plants are knocked out.

Now, however, a massive shutdown of Sweden's small hydropower plants is threatening, especially those that are smaller than 200 kilowatts. The problem is all of the EU's directives, which have caused the hydropower owners to get stuck in a bureaucratic swamp with unreasonable costs. Strong signals from industry organizations indicate widespread dissatisfaction with the authorities' actions and their interpretations of their directives.

Madam Speaker! As a Member of Parliament, one is flooded with emails from lobbyists from interest organizations. I have tried to structure these into group folders such as Authorities, Business, Research, Infrastructure and so on. These folders have subgroups where all emails from that specific lobbyist are placed. All lobbyist emails are saved.

So how should I, as a Member of Parliament, prioritize in this jungle? Well, one obviously starts with the areas that concern one's own committee – a good start.

Madam Speaker! Where do I actually want to get to with this talk about lobbyists? Well, there is an association called Västsvensk Vattenkraftförening, which has approached us Sverigedemokrater in the Committee on Civil Affairs. I am a Gothenburgian myself, so it was at least the right side of Sweden. In any case, it became a study visit after much back and forth. A small hydropower station in the Halland town of Älvsered was visited, an idyllic little hydropower plant that has produced local electricity for over a hundred years.

What is the problem then? Well, we received a good lesson from the hydropower association about how bureaucratic and crazy everything has become. In short: the EU's Water Framework Directive has been over-interpreted by Swedish authorities so that many small hydropower plants risk being shut down. The costs for environmental adaptations are simply so large that hundreds of small hydropower plants are threatened with closure.

Madam Speaker! What is the problem really? Are all these small hydropower plants, which only account for a fraction of Sweden's electricity supply, necessary?

As the world looks today, the answer is undoubtedly: Yes, they were needed. The war in Ukraine has taught us that power plants are popular targets. Hydroelectric plants, gas turbines, and combined heat and power plants are being bombed to pieces. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, and we stand on the brink of a global energy crisis.

Is it then sensible to shut down these small Swedish hydropower plants that are independent of imported fossil energy? No, no, no! These hydropower plants are needed as reserve power if the worst were to happen and neither oil nor gas arrives at the refineries on Hisingen. When the EU's Water Framework Directive was drafted, there was no war in Europe. We are in a new situation, and we must adapt to it.

Madam Speaker! I will now move on to ecology and Swedish ecosystems.

When I was little in the 70s, there was a lot of talk about mercury and DDT. Animals at the top of the food chain, for example sea eagles, ingested so much poison that they were on the verge of extinction. The fish in some rivers were inedible. This is now resolved, but how is the inland fish actually doing? What does the statistics say?

I take two quotes from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management:

"Just under two-thirds of the surveyed lakes have a fish fauna that corresponds well with the lakes' natural conditions. The sampling carried out over 28 years does not indicate any general changes in the lakes' fish fauna."

Does it sound like a catastrophe? Hardly.

Another quote from the same authority:

"During 2016–2021, 45 trend lakes were sampled … 26 of the lakes … had good or high ecological status, which means that these lakes' fish fauna corresponds well with the lakes' natural conditions."

Of course there is room for improvement, but it is not that bad.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Tidö parties are now presenting this report in order to adapt to reality, so that important infrastructure is not threatened by overzealous agency interpretations. When the wars are over, we can catch our breath, and then we can once again apply the EU's directives a bit more strictly.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I want to assert that not all directives from the EU are good. Some are even inappropriate and directly harmful. For example, the habitat conditions for the Tabernas Desert in Spain are not comparable to the mountain lakes in Lapland. For us in Sweden, it is as obvious as knowing that flora and fauna differ in our elongated country depending on which latitude we study. But for the EU's bureaucrats, this may be a bit harder to understand. Then it becomes what it becomes, that is to say, that we have to stand here in Sweden's Riksdag and debate exceptions from the Habitats Directive during the reassessment of hydropower.

With this said, I move for approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Björn Tidland for a clarifying speech on where the Sverigedemokraterna stand on the issue. I do not agree with that picture, but I would still like to hear a little more.

The Speaker speaks about the 100 smallest hydropower plants, which account for 0.25 percent of Sweden's electricity production. Each hydropower plant obstructs the passage of fish, for example eels that are to move further. We have our common rules via the EU, the Water Framework Directive, and both the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management warn of legal uncertainty in the proposal on the table and for the negative consequences for endangered species and habitats. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management believes that certain parts of the proposal risk leading to fewer environmental measures than the EU's Water Framework Directive requires. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency rejects the proposal. They consider that the government does not sufficiently ensure requirements for environmental assessment and EIA, and furthermore, it is questioned whether the proposal is compatible with EU law.

Is it the case that the Sweden Democrats do not care about EU law but see it as optional work? How should we view EU law? We ourselves have been involved in developing the law. We risk being fined if we do not meet the legal requirements. There were also proposals on how we should proceed with hydropower, which this government has eroded and undermined. Now it turns out that we will not meet the legal requirements. Is that what the Sweden Democrats want?

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the question. I interpret the question as being about how we should weigh EU law against the crisis situation that prevails.

If I interpret the question correctly, the Sweden Democrats and I believe that power production must be prioritized. Sweden is a large country. The map is full of lakes, and most of them are healthy.

Of course it can become better for hiking trails and so on, but with the two scales in one's hands, one must prioritize electricity production. There is a special situation in Europe, and one must adapt to that. I produced two quotes, and it appears there that many lakes have good conditions.

Now, I do not sit on the Committee on Environment and Agriculture myself, and I do not have the same conditions to acquire knowledge in the area, but that will be my answer to the question.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We know that the condition for many species is poor. Salmon and trout are classified by SLU as threatened species. If we do not strengthen these species, there will be no balance in the Baltic Sea's ecosystem.

When it comes to strengthening the Baltic Sea's ecosystem, it is still a question that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag now agree on. But if we do not deal with the migration barriers, if there are no open passages, they will be even more strangled. Without predatory fish in the Baltic Sea, it will not recover.

The eel will be gone by 98–99 percent from the earth's surface, much due to hydropower. The eel is born in the Sargasso Sea, travels across the entire Atlantic, comes to our coasts and travels up into our freshwater to feed. Then it gets a turbine from a hydropower plant in its head, and that is the end. It must, after all, return to the Sargasso Sea to reproduce.

It is about incredibly large interventions in the environment that have a major impact on the sea as a whole, not least in the Baltic Sea which is so threatened. We have said that we are to adapt to the environment, but it is not about tearing everything out, it is about adapting to the environment. There is a fund, so that funds can be obtained for this. Is it too much to ask that it should continue, or shall we have so many exceptions that nothing needs to be done and the fish that need to migrate are allowed to die out?

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting that Member Emma Nohrén brought up the Baltic Sea. I have myself seen films showing the bottom of the Baltic Sea, which is totally dead due to oxygen deficiency. I am following the debate on trawling, and it is a question of far too high quotas.

I agree with the problem description regarding the Baltic Sea's serious situation. Significant emissions from the other side of the Baltic Sea affect the environment. I also agree that we should have a good stock of salmon, trout, and eel. But it is a matter of trade-offs, and that is where we differ in the details. I stand by the government's position that the exemptions must be applied for the time being.

Then we can have a different debate about the funds to build these stairs, but they might need to be located somewhere other than just at the hydropower routes.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Björn Tidland for the account of how the member sorts his inbox and which emails he has received. It does, however, seem that the member is not inclined to listen to the emails. If one listens to what Västsvensk Vattenkraftförening has said, in referral responses and in emails, it is that the current legislation is far too inadequate. That which is being presented now risks making the situation for small-scale hydropower worse.

What is also interesting is that the Sweden Democrats, together with the Tidö parties, say that no further measures were needed for small-scale hydropower. This was stated in the Committee on Industry in May, document 75, which the government sent to the Riksdag regarding processed announcements. At that time, the Sweden Democrats thought that no more were needed.

Centerpartiet pushed, together with S and V, for the need for further measures for small-scale hydropower, but the Sweden Democrats did not agree. They considered that the matter concerning the announcement on protecting small-scale hydropower was finalized. No further measures were needed than those that have already been decided.

Despite the kind words, Björn Tidland, how can you stand behind the decision that no further measures were needed? It is obvious to everyone, both operators and environmental organizations, that we are far from finished with the action plans.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question from Rickard Nordin.

The member referred to the Committee on Industry. The member himself sits on the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, and now we are debating in the Committee on Civil Affairs. Putting this puzzle together may be an insurmountable task when it comes to such complex issues.

I am proceeding from the report itself and what is written there, and from the infrastructure needs in Sweden. I am also proceeding from what I quoted from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. I can neither confirm nor deny the specific issue regarding special measures that Rickard mentions here.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Now, I sit in both the Committee on Industry and the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, but this is a hydropower issue. It doesn't matter which committee one sits in. Is it the case that the Sweden Democrats do not speak to each other between the committees? How then can one trust any policy that the Sweden Democrats advocate?

The fact is that in the Committee on Industry, the Sweden Democrats say that no further measures were needed for small-scale hydropower. I do not care if Björn Tidland does not speak with his party colleagues, but one must be able to trust what the Sweden Democrats decide on.

No one would be happier than I if the Sweden Democrats changed their minds and supported more measures for small-scale hydropower. But then they would have to change their minds in the Committee on Industry as well, and they have not done that.

There is a lot of talk from the Sverigedemokraterna, but there is very little in the way of real announcements. It is very good that one wants to do things, but it is concrete decisions that matter. And the decisions that exist in the Committee on Industry say: We do not need any more measures. The ones that are planned and those that are being implemented now are enough.

There we are deeply in disagreement. It is completely obvious to everyone who deals with both hydropower and the aquatic environment that this is not sufficient. There are a number of different proposals that could create improvements on both sides, but everyone agrees that it is not true that we are finished now.

My question to Björn Tidland is once again: What do the Sweden Democrats actually want? Does he not speak with his party colleagues in the Committee on Industry? How can one make a decision in the Committee on Industry and then stand in the Civil Affairs Committee's debate here in the Riksdag and say something completely different? It is completely unreasonable. Now, one must talk it over and come back, and then one must ensure that one changes their mind and makes the right decision in the Committee on Industry.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the argumentation regarding the state of our party.

The Sweden Democrats follow the party line here in the chamber and in the committees. We follow the Tidö agreement and the coordination, order and regularity. We follow the committee's report, order and regularity. And we trust the government and the government's officials who produce these proposals.

If Rickard wants to create a debate about the fact that there is disagreement between our members, he has the right to do so. But it is not a description of reality that I share.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs hydropower. It is a central part of our fossil-free electricity system. It contributes with regulating power, power balance, and stability as industry is electrified and society transitions. But we also know that the historical expansion of hydropower has had major consequences for our aquatic environments, for biodiversity, and for migrating fish stocks.

That is why we believe we must manage to have two things in mind at the same time. It is clear that we need to safeguard the electricity system, but we must, of course, also safeguard our environment. The task of politics is not to rule out one or the other. The task of politics is to find the balance that is needed so that we can manage both electricity production and our environment. That is why the reform on modern environmental conditions is so important.

One could perhaps say that the exceptional possibilities provided by EU law, those should be usable. But, and this is important, the exceptions must not become a matter of routine. Every exception must be based on individual proportionality assessments. Every decision must rest on sufficient decision-making bases. And the Riksdag must be continuously informed of how the exceptions are used and what consequences they have for the aquatic environment, biodiversity, and energy systems.

It is precisely what our reservation is about – not about stopping hydropower and of course not about stopping the transition, but about ensuring that the processes become legally secure, transparent and long-term sustainable.

Madam Speaker! There is also another important aspect, and that is the uncertainty that has existed during the mandate period. Processes have been slowed down, and reappraisals have been paused. The signals to both the energy sector and the environmental side have been erratic. The result has been uncertainty for investments, uncertainty for operators, and above all, a delay of important environmental measures.

We need, instead, to have clarity, predictability and a long-term game plan where both the energy supply and environmental responsibility are taken seriously. Therefore, we also want the government to provide the authorities with national guidance and methodological support so that the application does not differ significantly between different parts of the country. That is why we say that we need to follow up to ensure that the compensation measures used actually lead to real environmental benefit and do not just become formulations on paper.

Madam Speaker! Good politics is about being able to have two thoughts in your head at the same time. Of course we need fossil-free electricity, but Sweden also needs living watercourses and functioning ecosystems. One does not exclude the other.

With that, I move for approval of reservation number 2.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

Let us state that the Social Democrats and the Moderates and other responsible parties have historically taken responsibility for the electricity supply in Sweden. I believe that many take for granted that there should be electricity in the power outlet.

Unfortunately, it was the case that the EU legislation was over-implemented during the time that Miljöpartiet sat in the government. We heard earlier in an exchange of remarks here that Miljöpartiet is very clear: The fish come before the human, we need no electricity, and they want to tear out the small-scale hydropower in Sweden. It was very clear and distinct, and that is probably why Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet say no to the government's proposition.

Then I would like to ask the Social Democrats: If fortune should be on your side and you win the election in eight or twelve years, can the member guarantee that the Green Party is not given influence and that this bill, which allows us to take a step forward to try to save small-scale hydropower and the rural environment, is not torn up?

I saw that M and the member's party friends in S in Värmland appeared in a large debate article in Svenska Dagbladet some time ago and pleaded with us national politicians: Do not destroy the rural environment in Värmland! Do not destroy the lakes that exist and the dams that exist!

I would like to know how the Social Democrats view the fact that the coalition partners Vänstern and Miljöpartiet are saying no to this bill, which is a step in the right direction.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Beckman, for the question!

I can begin by saying that the Social Democrats, if luck is on our side and we lead the government, will of course negotiate with the parties that want to cooperate with us. We do not exclude any party except for the one that spoke before me, the Sverigedemokraterna.

If disaster strikes and Lars Beckman continues to govern together with the Sverigedemokraterna, we will see a different Sweden – a Sweden that is destroyed in terms of both the environment and people.

The Social Democrats are running on their own policy, that is, what I have just told you that we consider important. We as politicians have a responsibility to ensure that both the environment and people have a place in our society.

Today I read that the Moderates are taking over the Green Party's policy, when they propose – what was it now – 7 billion for halved public transport fees. Is it okay? Is it good? Yes, I believe at least that it can be good for Sweden to halve this so that more people might use public transport.

My answer is that the Social Democrats are running for election on their own policy. That is what we have always done.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It was impossible not to hear the answer: that you Social Democrats intend to negotiate.

Just as someone said earlier, I also think that the bill is a step in the right direction, but we must do more. The reason we have ended up in this situation and that we now have to present this bill is that you Social Democrats allowed the Green Party to decide on these issues. This was expressed very clearly by the Green Party member here.

It may also be because Miljöpartiet is not a rural party. One does not protect the living environment in Värmland – or in Gävleborg, for that matter – and one does not protect electricity production.

It is very unfortunate that the Social Democrats allowed the Green Party to over-implement the legislation that existed. It naturally concerns the hydropower owners who exist all over Sweden and whom Björn Tidland referred to, among other things, but it also concerns the living environment for all those people who are affected by the removal of dams. It concerns the children's swimming spot in Bergby and the children's swimming spot in Åmot – which I will tell about in my speech.

I note that the Social Democrats say that one can negotiate about everything with everyone, and one does not put down both feet on this issue and guarantee to keep the Green Party away from political influence. One should, but I note that the member does not share my view on that.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know what world Lars Beckman lives in, but I do know that Lars Beckman, together with the Tidö parties, has negotiated with the Sweden Democrats, who do not see me as a person equal to the others here in the chamber because I have an immigrant background. The negotiation is therefore about who will be able to push through the most of their own politics. I hope that Lars Beckman understands that you Moderates have also had to give up things that you should stand behind, such as the human part of Sweden that is being lost today.

It is clear that we Social Democrats run for election as Social Democrats, and I have said that after the election we will hopefully negotiate a new government where the Sweden Democrats do not have the power they have today. For my part, I would rather govern with the Green Party than with the Sweden Democrats.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Committee on Civil Affairs' proposal in the report CU41 Exceptions from requirements according to the Birds and Habitats Directives in the reassessment of hydropower.

When we took office in 2022, energy policy was in a morass. We had a situation where, with great courage, nuclear power had been shut down. Not only that, Madam Speaker, with great courage as well, they were dismantling small-scale hydropower. It was incredibly effective of the Green Party to succeed in over-implementing the legislation that exists now and which we are currently trying to rectify.

Just as Björn Tidland – and also the Social Democrats – said in their posts, Sweden needs electricity. I believe that very many of us take for granted that electricity will come out of the socket when we get up in the morning and turn on the coffee maker. It doesn't matter if you live in Södermalm in Stockholm, in Svappavaara in Norrbotten, or in Ystad or Haparanda. There must be electricity in that moment and that second when one needs the electricity.

The war in Ukraine has shown that we need all electricity – every kilowatt. We must be careful with it. The need for electricity should therefore be indisputable. But what other consequences has it had when small-scale hydropower is dismantled?

I myself was in Åmot, Madam Speaker. Not everyone knows where Åmot is located, but it is in Ockelbo municipality, a bit outside of Ockelbo. There is a fantastic industrial culture history in that region.

I received a very good document, because what has happened in Åmot is that the consequences of the Miljöpartiets and Socialdemokraternas policy have now been discovered: they are now going to demolish dams there. These are dams that have existed for a very long time. It concerns the children's swimming spot in Åmot, that is, the swimming spot that during the summer is the place where different families meet.

The activities were established in 1710. As far back as the 1670s, dams were constructed. There was a blast furnace, and ore was taken from the mines in Torsåker. It is an industrial landscape we are talking about. It is a living environment that has existed for several hundred years.

Madam Speaker! During these several hundred years, the fish have survived – at least it seems that the communities have survived – and now the dams are threatened. One example is the masugnsdammen.

There are those who have a cottage by a beautiful lake – a red house with white corners by water that is mirror-still during lovely summer evenings – and so the Environment Party's policy gets to go through. What remains of the beautiful, fine pond in Åmot is, at best, a trickle. I believe that is why, Madam Speaker, which is why, among other things, Villaägarnas Riksförbund has been deeply involved in this issue in recent years.

We Moderates in the Civil Affairs Committee were ourselves down in Skåne and visited desperate property owners. There, a sketch had been made, a projection, of where the beautiful lake is today, and in 30 years one will, at best, live by a pond, but likely in the middle of a forest, because Miljöpartiet gets its policy through and tears out the dams.

The matter today is about us trying to save the electricity supply, for every kilowatt is needed. We shall also save the living environment for those who live by the dams.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the interest organizations that have been very active in these issues and informed us members about how things work out there. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Villaägarnas Riksförbund, which has engaged in this issue. I would also like to thank the friends in the village council in Åmot, who gave a very good description when we went around and looked at what the consequences of national policy are when one lets Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna rule Sweden. One can see this tangibly in Åmot – but not only in Åmot. There are very many places all around Sweden.

Are we satisfied with this then? Is it enough? Is this the best decision we can take in Sweden's Riksdag today? No, it probably is not, but it is a big step forward compared to how it works now.

I would really like to appeal to municipalities, county administrative boards and others to listen to the people who are affected. If one has a beautiful cottage by a lake, one wants to live by a lake. If one has a fantastically nice functioning swimming spot in Åmot, let it remain. Politics is for the people. Politics is for improving the living environment.

And just as Björn Tidland said, we need every kilowatt.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I move again for the approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I can remind Lars Beckman that it was the Moderates together with the Centre Party, the Green Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats who sat in the Government Offices in 2017 and 2018 and negotiated exactly the legislation that the Green Party is being blamed for.

It was the current State Secretary Lars Hjälmered who negotiated on behalf of the Moderaterna. One becomes a bit curious whether his stance then was radical, or if it was his fault that Miljöpartiet got their policy through, something that Lars Beckman now blames the legislation for.

One also wonders why the government has not done more during these four years if it is so problematic. Or is it the case that the Green Party's policy, which seems to have governed and continues to govern the expulsions, still has an influence on the government's policy? I am a bit curious about how that works in that case, given that the Green Party is in opposition and the Tidö parties have a majority.

I am also curious about whether Lars Beckman can guarantee that swimming spots outside Ockelbo will remain with this legislation. It primarily concerns the large-scale power that receives relief and not the small-scale dams.

In addition to this bill, there is the government's communication 75 to the Riksdag, where the government accounts for the announcements to be handled by the Riksdag, and with that, it says that it is finished and done with the legislation and with the assignments that exist for the authorities. With the legislative proposals that are on the table, it is finished. It is not thought that more needs to be done.

Lars Beckman says that he does not think it is sufficient. I can point out that the Centerpartiet has a reservation in the report that he can then vote for. The government obviously thinks it is sufficient.

My big question is: Does Lars Beckman not share the government's assessment that the legislative work on hydropower is finished?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party is going to the election with the Left, the Green Party, and the Social Democrats. It was even so, Rickard Nordin, that your party leader sat in SVT's 30 minutes and said: I do not rule out forming a government with the Green Party.

Then we know that it has two consequences, at least – it has many bad consequences. For the first, there will be no new nuclear power. On that, C and MP agree, in contrast to what the industry, the Swedish people, the households and everyone who wants electricity in Sweden desire.

We heard very clearly from Miljöpartiet here earlier that they, together with Vänsterpartiet, are voting no to the bill. One votes no because one thinks that the fish takes precedence over the human. It was very clear. One can think that. It is completely free to vote for those parties.

For my part, I think we need electricity. We shall safeguard small-scale hydropower. We shall safeguard the neighbors' living environment. We have seen the outcry that came from Värmland. It was not a single Center Party member who signed it. I do not know why. I noted that it was Social Democrats and Moderates who made an outcry in Svenska Dagbladet some years ago.

We Moderates safeguard small-scale hydropower. We safeguard the human living environment. It would be interesting to know from the Center Party: How are you going to get the Green Party to change its mind? If you four are in a common government, all four government parties must be in agreement to the smallest detail. We heard the Green Party say: No, we do not agree to that.

How the Center Party in a dark red government will manage to push through improvements for small-scale hydropower will be interesting to hear, Madam Speaker.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I should inform Lars Beckman that Erik Evestam from Centerpartiet signed the appeal. Lars Beckman probably needs to read a bit better if he is to accuse Centerpartiet of not standing up for small-scale hydropower. Furthermore, it was even more Centerpartists who were involved there.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Lars Beckman speaks about what he thinks for his own part. It is the Moderaterna and the government that are relevant here. Lars Beckman votes with them in the Riksdag. He would of course very much like to vote on the Centerpartiets reservation, but I do not think we can expect that, unfortunately.

The government and the Moderates say: We are finished with small-scale hydropower. That is the message they have given to the Riksdag. It is written in black and white in document 75, which they sent to the Committee on the Constitution, which is being handled by the Committee on Industry and is then to be voted on by the Riksdag in June. Does Lars Beckman not share that picture? How will he act in that case?

He speaks more about what the opposition does, or wants to do, than about what the government has actually delivered. It is simply because the government has not delivered. It has not solved the situation. It is crystal clear when one reads the responses from the referral bodies. Neither the environmental organizations, which the Miljöpartiet refers to, nor the operators are satisfied with the legislation that the government is presenting. They have completely failed in this area. They introduced a pause that they did not manage, and then it is this that they come back to. It is completely substandard legislation that does not solve the underlying problems and does not handle the trade-offs that must be made.

It would have been nice if Lars Beckman, instead of talking about other parties, could tell what one wants to do to solve the situation. As Lars Beckman also said, the government needs to be in agreement. The government has said that they are finished. They have no new proposals. They think it is fully processed and that we should not do more for small-scale hydropower. That is the message the government has given. The question is whether Lars Beckman agrees.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we present a proposition to try to solve the chaos that the Green Party and the Social Democrats left behind. The reason we are standing and debating this today, Madam Speaker, is precisely because the government has submitted a proposition.

The difference is that the Center Party in a dark red government could never have submitted a bill on small-scale hydropower because the Green Party and the Left Party would say no. Of four parties in the government – if it were to become so unfortunate in eight or twelve years – 50 percent of the Center Party's government would have said no to the smallest change. It is quite interesting.

As I said: Are we Moderates 100 percent satisfied with the bill? No. When I say something, it is for the Moderates' sake. Do we think that perhaps more must be done? Absolutely. Was this the product we could submit to the Riksdag today? Yes. Will it correct some of the deviations that exist? Yes.

I also mentioned county administrative boards, municipalities and others. Even during the break, which the government made decisions about, there were county administrative boards that continued to work on the removal of dams, despite the government saying that one should not do so. One can also have views on that.

We are correcting major mistakes committed by Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. We are taking one of many steps forward. We shall protect small-scale hydropower. We shall protect the living environment for those who live by the lakes. We shall protect the children's swimming area in Åmot.

It is good that the Center Party does not share the Left Party's and the Green Party's opinion. It is good nonetheless. You must be commended in the party for that. But in a dark red government, you would not have been able to present this product, because a government must be united when it makes decisions.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Beckman, for the speech!

I can only be flattered when the member believes that Miljöpartiet is behind the entire NAP and all environmental policy in Sweden. We are of course happy to do that, but there is a bit of historical revisionism there. The member's own party was to a very high degree involved in developing the content of the NAP, and it was a broad agreement.

It was based on what the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Energy Agency, and Svenska kraftnät had fundamentally, and also on political agreements to ensure that hydropower received modern environmental permits. There is also a fund for how it should be done, which is financed by the large companies in exchange for them having property tax removed.

Despite the fact that it has been quite a few years now, it has not gotten started. It has not worked. The Tidö government has put it on pause, and since then, there hasn't been much of it. Then, the regulatory framework has been hollowed out without it becoming any better.

Madam Speaker! In today's hydropower system in Sweden, there are 4 percent functioning fish passages. In Västernorrland, there is not a single one, and there we have large hydropower plants. I thought this was something the Moderaterna thought should be addressed.

I am reading from the Moderaterna's own assembly decision: Migration barriers are a problem for migrating fish species. These should be remedied by building fish passages in suitable locations. My question to Lars Beckman is: Do the Moderaterna not stand by what they produce at their assembly?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I have nothing against this. If Vattenfall, Fortum or others want to build fish ladders – fine, do it! No one is against it. It is a market economy, and if one wants to seek help from funds, one can do that.

The consequences of the influence that the MP-S government had when it over-implemented an EU directive – the one we are now in the process of adjusting – are, however, appalling.

Let us take Åmot as an example. It is believed that the first dams in Testeboån were established in the 1670s. Then there are also dams from the 1700s and 1800s. Does MP Emma Nohrén mean that we should go back to the time before the 1670s? It still seems that one has managed reasonably well in Åmot and Ockelbo during these 200–300 years, and that naturally also applies to the fish. At what point in time does Miljöpartiet consider we should start?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The legislation is intended so that we can have functioning fish passages through the landscape, and it should be done by drainage basin and not by year. There must also be modern environmental permits that meet modern environmental requirements.

There are many who have already done this. Tranås Energi, for example, has opened up and removed four dams to get functioning faunapassages. And they have increased their customer inflow by 50 percent! Skellefteå Kraft has improved and installed new turbines so that more power is obtained while measures have been taken. It is therefore possible to combine this.

It always sounds like, according to Lars Beckman, that the smallest thing one does for the environment means that we won't get any energy. The fact is that it is possible to do both. That is what the legislation was intended for: modern environmental requirements in order to be able to do this.

I want to return to the Moderates' high-level commitment when it comes to fishing policy. We know that the eel is critically endangered. Salmon and trout are listed as near-threatened species. In June 2025, the Prime Minister was out and stood before the Swedish people and said that the Baltic Sea's fish stocks must be saved. The Moderates have their parliamentary decision that fish passages shall be built where needed.

If we are to get the Baltic Sea in order, we must also have functioning fish passages into the country because we have migratory fish that are important top predators.

Is this not of importance? Is it just about being able to sit and look out over a body of water? Or have the Moderaterna completely lost their bearings? Do you perhaps not think that we need to have any fish in the water?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate the Green Party's clarity. You are very clear on this issue: You believe that the fish come before the human. That is where we differ. I believe that children should be able to swim at Masugnsbadet in Åmot.

If power plant owners want to build fish ladders, we Moderates have nothing against that – it is fine. When it comes to the Baltic Sea, the Moderates are well one of the most proactive parties regarding small-scale fishing. Bergmans Fisk is someone we have very close contact with.

However, this does not prevent it from being the responsibility of politics to ensure that corrections are made when one sees that something is going wrong, and here it has become very wrong. That was why Moderates and Social Democrats sounded the alarm in Svenska Dagbladet and said: No, but wait a minute in national politics, because this does not work in reality!

This is the problem for the Green Party. When you test your policy against reality, it doesn't work. If we Moderates have been complicit in this, we take responsibility for it now as we correct the policy.

I do not rule out further measures that are needed so that we can ensure that people can continue to live in their red cottage by the lake and that the children have a playground to run to. We safeguard the countryside, and we safeguard every kilowatt of electricity that is needed. This applies in particular, Mr. Speaker, in an uncertain situation here in Sweden.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Hydroelectric power plants and dams are among the most important reasons why two-thirds of the watercourses in Sweden do not have good ecological status. Since hydropower has been developed over a period of 100 years, it is easy today to forget what enormous environmental impact it has had and still has.

In 50 years, the stocks of migratory freshwater fish in Europe have decreased by 93 percent. In Sweden, there were previously at least 37 rivers with stocks of wild salmon. Today, there are only 16, and things are not going particularly well for the salmon. Today, there are only a few larger watercourses that are unaffected by hydropower and dams.

Flowing water such as rivers and streams are among the most important habitats we have, and a long line of species are dependent on them. This applies not only to fish such as salmon and eel but also to mussels and birds. Adapting hydropower to the environment is good for the species that live in flowing water but also important for outdoor life and the opportunity for people to experience nature.

Recreational fishing is important for tourism, but not least also for the local population. Environmental adaptation of hydropower has been calculated to be able to generate billions to society thanks to sport fishing and nature tourism.

It was therefore a very great step forward that it was decided in 2020 that Swedish hydropower shall be granted modern environmental conditions according to the national plan for the review of hydropower, which the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Swedish Energy Agency and Svenska kraftnät drew up. The decision was a result of dialogue between the state, the hydropower industry, the environmental movement and others involved in water issues.

As a result of the agreement, the first applications for reviews were submitted in 2022. Sweden had thus taken important steps to ensure that hydropower would receive modern environmental conditions without it having any major impact on the availability of electricity from hydropower.

When the current government took office, it chose to immediately undermine this historical agreement, which gave Sweden the conditions to safeguard fossil-free energy supply while we would move closer to the environmental goals and live up to the EU's water framework directive.

First, the government paused the review process in several rounds until July 2025, this being before the review process had even managed to get properly underway. This led to sharp criticism from the EU Commission. Before the process was resumed, the government also made regulatory changes at the request of the hydropower industry, which eroded the environmental considerations in the regulatory framework. The environmental requirements were lowered, and the industry's interests will now weigh more heavily than the natural environment and life in the watercourses.

With this bill, further steps are now being taken to make exceptions from the requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives and to minimize the protection requirements for Natura 2000 areas.

Vänsterpartiet argues that a heavy responsibility rests on the government when it undermines the broad agreement that the national plan is. It confirms the image of a government with extremely low, if not non-existent, ambitions in the environmental field.

Just as in so many other cases in recent years, the right-wing parties are exploiting every possible loophole to the maximum to avoid making important environmental efforts that would also benefit the Swedish people. With the bill, the protection of endangered species and living watercourses is weakened in favor of the hydropower industry's demands.

Vänsterpartiet safeguards the importance of hydropower for the energy supply, but it does not need to be further favored through changes that will only marginally contribute to Sweden's energy supply but will, on the other hand, affect the environment very negatively. The potential for energy efficiency is far much greater than what we have to gain in energy production by eroding the environmental requirements for hydropower.

Vänsterpartiet also does not share the government's assessment that the proposals are compatible with EU law. As the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and several other referral bodies point out, it is required that each individual case be examined and that there is sufficient basis for such an examination.

In practice, the government chooses once again to only favor a special interest. But the reality is that nature is the foundation for our welfare today and in the future. A policy that safeguards functioning ecosystems and reduces climate emissions would build Sweden stronger, more sustainable, and safer.

We therefore mean that the bill should be rejected, and I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my speech, I was in Åmot some time ago. We looked at the dams, we looked at the bathing places, and we were given a well-described historical overview. Why does Åmot exist, and why did Åmot's mill exist? Industrial activity has been conducted there since the 1600s.

Mr. Speaker! I also posted pictures on social media and showed what it looks like at the dam and at the children's fantastic swimming spot. Then it was another Member of Parliament who, on Twitter or X, or whatever one wants to call it, asked me a question. I wrote very clearly that the swimming spot will disappear and that, at best, it will only become a ditch at the site. And it is difficult to swim in a small creek.

Then it was a member of the Swedish Riksdag who asked me why we aren't doing anything about this, and I believe that the Vänsterpartiet member might know that member. It was, in fact, Ida Gabrielsson who asked on Twitter why we aren't doing anything about this and saving the children's swimming area.

It is a fairly reasonable question, but I note that you are voting no here today. You are voting no to trying to save the children's swimming spot in Åmot and other swimming spots and lakes. Does Vänsterpartiet have any sympathy or empathy for the children in Åmot whose swimming spot you do not want to save?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! As Lars Beckman is very well aware, an individual assessment shall be carried out for every case within the national plan for hydropower. Therefore, it would be wrong of me as a member of the Riksdag to state exactly what shall happen with a single dam in a specific location. It may very well be the case that just this dam has such values that it shall remain. That possibility has existed within the system all along.

I completely share the concern that children's swimming places will disappear, but what above all threatens children's swimming places today is the Moderaternas policy regarding the shore protection, which means that Swedish beaches should be able to be privatized to a greater extent and that people can be excluded from swimming there. It is a much greater threat to children's swimming places than the national plan for the review of hydropower.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now the Left Party must decide. Just now in the speaker's chair, we heard that we are making it easier for the power plant owners to keep their power plants. The consequence in that case will be that the children get to keep their dam in Åmot. Now the member says that she cannot comment on individual facilities. In some way, the Left Party must decide.

I still think it is good that you are clear. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say no to this change. Therefore, I would ask: Is Vänsterpartiet worried about being overridden by the Socialdemokraterna if the accident were to occur in eight to twelve years and you were to enter government with the Socialdemokraterna? Are you worried about not getting your policies through, or would you want to tear up this bill which ensures that you get your policies through?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am not worried about what we would get through in a potential government negotiation given that we have Ida Gabrielsson as a negotiator on our behalf and that she is a very skilled one.

I think it is quite strange that Lars Beckman wants to demand answers from me on which decisions should be made in a Swedish court in an individual case. None of us members of Parliament can answer that, so it would be quite unprofessional to comment on such matters.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to start in Halland County, in Tvååker, where Strömma power station one good year manages to produce 650,000 kilowatt-hours. For the owner of the power station, that is a turnover of approximately 500,000 kronor. It is a power station that has undergone the reassessment that we are fundamentally discussing.

The result was that an investment of 10 million kronor was needed if one wanted to keep the power station. If one wanted to remove the power station and have a salmon ladder, it would cost 15 million. As a side note on the salmon, it means that energy production will be reduced by half, and if one were to remove the power station itself, the cultural environment around it would be destroyed.

It is actually this that we are talking about: completely impossible costs that are placed on an individual. Furthermore, the situation for people around them changes.

The purpose of today's report is to utilize the space provided by the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives for less stringent requirements when reviewing modern environmental conditions for hydropower. It shall facilitate the updating of old facilities without the environment being unnecessarily degraded, that is to say, other considerations shall be taken into account besides only environmental considerations.

To avoid the risk of negative impact on the electricity system and to ensure that, upon reconsideration of modern environmental conditions, there shall be an opportunity to utilize the scope for exemptions that the Birds and Habitats Directives allow, the Government considers that such an opportunity for exemptions should be introduced.

The legislative changes involve changed provisions of importance for the balance between, on the one hand, the need for measures that improve the aquatic environment and, on the other hand, the need for an efficient national access to hydropower when establishing modern environmental conditions for hydropower plants and dams. During the review for modern environmental conditions, it will be possible to lower the requirements for environmental adaptation for these operations. The Government also receives an expanded authorization to issue regulations on exemptions from the prohibitions against deteriorating the aquatic environment and jeopardizing the possibility of achieving the quality that the water is to have according to an environmental quality standard.

What is the situation today then? I assert that in Sweden, the directive is applied more strictly than EU law requires and thus imposes higher environmental requirements on our hydropower producers than we need to do. The authorities strive for a "natural" state that is not realistic for watercourses that have been affected for a long time. The hydropower station I spoke about was, therefore, built in 1915. That is quite a long time ago. We also do not utilize today the exemptions and the flexibility that the EU provides for societal interests such as electricity production, local supply, and economy.

What are the requirements? There may be requirements for fish passages or, in the worst case, complete removal, which means decommissioning power stations. That means we lose power in a situation where we actually need more base load in Sweden. There is a lack of balance between environmental requirements and social utility, cultural values, and rural development, because these power stations are most often located in rural areas.

We mean that small actors are disproportionately hard hit compared to large companies. The costs are not economically reasonable in relation to the limited environmental impact from individual small plants.

I vote in favor of today's proposal.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is starting to become very interesting! We have heard the Sweden Democrats say that more legislation and more measures are needed. We have heard the Moderates say that more legislation, more measures, and tougher rules are needed. Now we hear the Christian Democrats saying the same thing. Still, the government has said that they have fulfilled the announcements that exist and do not intend to come back with any new legislation.

My question to Larry Söder is very simple: What is the problem? Why is one satisfied if one says that one is not satisfied?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In reality, no one is satisfied. Sometimes negotiations are such that no one becomes satisfied. We Christian Democrats have for a long time, just like the Center Party, protected small-scale hydropower, as it is located in areas that actually need the small-scale hydropower. Unfortunately, we have not succeeded in coming up with a proposal that is good enough for the government to place it on the Riksdag's table.

This is a proposal that I still believe can help. But it is not the whole picture; we would have needed to make it much clearer. During the break we had, actually two breaks, we did not manage to shake out enough funds to be able to resolve the situation that exists.

I believe that small-scale hydropower is needed. I believe it is very important. I believe we need the base load as such. But that does not prevent me from saying that I still want to push forward.

Rickard Nordin and I are quite in agreement that we need to continue working on this, but unfortunately, we will not go any further than this today.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I share Larry Söder's and the Kristdemokraternas commitment to this. I think it is very welcome, but that is also why I am a bit disappointed. If the Sverigedemokraterna want to do more, and the Moderaterna want to do more, and the Kristdemokraterna want to do more – is it then the Liberalerna we should blame for the negotiations not having progressed further? What is actually the problem? It seems as if a very large part of the Tidösamarbetspartierna want to do more. We will have to hear what Elin Nilsson from the Liberalerna says in her speech, but Larry Söder is very welcome to enlighten me as to what the problem is.

In the government's report 75, where the announcements and how they have worked with them are described, it is stated that they are satisfied with the work. Unfortunately, we cannot expect any more legislation given that they have said it is now finished. I am also a bit disappointed, if I may say, that they have moved away from the side of the Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, and Kristdemokraterna in favor of possibly the Liberalerna – or if it is someone else.

I would very much like to have an additional account of what the problem lies in. What has been the problem in the negotiations? Why has one not progressed further? Why is there an agreement not to do more in the area? It is obvious that it is not enough. Both Larry Söder and I think so.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In document 75, the government states whether the announcements have been fulfilled or not. I mean that one can think both parts, that is, that the announcements are actually fulfilled – or that no more is being done – but that one also wants to introduce other measures that facilitate, for example, small-scale hydropower. I imagine that they are not in conflict with each other.

I believe that all four parties in the government cooperation favor small-scale hydropower based on the fact that it is a base power source and that they want this to remain and be managed in the best possible way. On the other hand, it is complicated to know how to do it so that all parts are included.

It is not easy to present this proposal – the Habitats Directive – because it also states that it is not only the environmental issue or the environmental measure that is important, but that other parts must also be weighed in. Rickard Nordin knows just as well as I do that when one starts weighing in different parts, the problems in politics begin.

I think we have come some way with this, but I want to continue forward. I do not think it is a party that is at fault, but it is probably the whole that must be the basis. I do not think we are finished, but I think we continue. One should not interpret document 75 in that way.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in the midst of the largest energy transition in modern times. Industry is being electrified, and the transport sector is transitioning. Companies all over the country are investing billions to reduce emissions and strengthen Swedish competitiveness.

The need for fossil-free electricity is growing rapidly. In that development, there is one thing that must be clear: We will need more electricity, but not just more electricity, but more electricity production that can be regulated and controlled. That is what is called capacity and flexibility, and in that regard, hydropower is not just crucial but completely outstanding.

If we unlock the potential of hydropower, we will get a stronger, more stable, more robust, and more competitive electricity system with regulation capacity and flexibility. It gives us the opportunity to manage the electrification without spending hundreds of billions on the taxpayers' bill. For a long time, there has been a broad political consensus. Sweden shall modernize the environmental conditions for hydropower. It was the M, KD, C, MP, and S who agreed on that legislation. I even believe that more parties voted for it when it reached the Riksdag.

We shall strengthen the aquatic environments. We shall protect biodiversity. But we shall also secure the access to hydropower. It is no coincidence that this balance was written into the legislation. We cannot conduct energy policy without consideration for the environment. Nor can we conduct environmental policy without consideration for the energy system. The Center Party stands firm on that basis. So do, for example, Erik Evestam and Markus Bäckström in Värmland. They signed the op-ed in Svenska Dagbladet, contrary to what Lars Beckman said from the rostrum.

It is also reasonable that the regulatory framework uses the space provided by EU law to weigh important societal interests against one another. The bill is about precisely clearer opportunities to use exemptions in the Birds and Habitats Directives when reviewing hydropower. That is good, but it does not mean that the government has handled this issue well. On the contrary! That is why I move for approval of reservation 3 in the report.

What should have been characterized by long-term perspective has instead been characterized by abruptness. What should have provided clear rules of the game has instead created new question marks. What should have provided security for investments has created uncertainty.

We view with concern that the government is increasingly pursuing energy policy through point interventions. The pause in the environmental review for hydropower is a typical example. A pause was good. It was the Center Party that took the initiative for the announcement that the Riksdag also decided on during the previous mandate period. But the government did not utilize the pause. No legislation was presented to adjust the balance and the needs. Fish ladders are still being built for pike and perch in the south, while important stocks of trout and salmon in northern rivers are wasting away.

All over the country, there are people who are directly affected by these decisions. They are small-scale hydropower owners. They are local companies, entrepreneurs, sport fishers, and swimmers. The government has failed in its management and succeeded in the feat of making everyone dissatisfied.

This legislation does not solve the problem with the swimming area in Ockelbo. People who have lived for years with uncertainties regarding permit processes, regulations, and future requirements need answers. Should I invest in my facility? Am I forced to tear it down against my will because the County Administrative Board sets unreasonable demands? Can I see the trout spawning in the water where I grew up again? There are plenty of questions, but very few answers from the government.

It is serious that the government now considers itself finished and that no further measures are needed. Nothing more is being done regarding the small-scale – and nothing regarding the environmental measures either, for that matter. That is the message the government is sending very clearly and the justification it gives when it says in its communication 75 that it is finished with these announcements. The work that has been done now is what it is.

One thing that everyone who cares about hydropower and the aquatic environment agrees on is that we are far from finished. The Centre Party believes in entrepreneurship, innovation, and local engagement, and in the power of people building development themselves. This also applies to the energy system.

We see enormous potential in modernization, technological development, and more efficient solutions. In fact, Sveriges Ingenjörer shows in a report that hydropower in Sweden can increase the power in existing facilities twice as much as the government's nuclear power plans can provide – at a quarter of the cost. We also see a fantastic opportunity to do such in harmony with biodiversity. The problem is that no one has done that inventory. The inventory for energy has been done. Works have been classified and boundaries have been drawn – at least from a national perspective. The local and regional benefits, they have not managed to inventory.

No one has looked at how to get the most environmental benefit from the 1.5 terawatt-hours in measures that we agree upon. Right now, time and money are being wasted in court processes because the consultations are not working. At the same time, there are amounts of energy and water in fish ladders where one will never see salmon migrate because there are natural migration barriers downstream. It is madness.

We have environmental quality standards that are not based on reality but on desk assessments, because the authorities do not have sufficient resources. This has also been clearly shown in, for example, Svartårundan, which the operators and the industry together with interest organizations and authorities carried out when they traveled around and looked at how it looked in reality.

We cannot have it this way. It is time for politics to take responsibility. It is time for the government to take responsibility. If this is the result after four years with this government, it is totally substandard. Stop handing over difficult decisions to agencies and courts! Stop blaming the county administrative boards for making incorrect decisions! It is the government that governs the county administrative boards. Stop trying to choose between biodiversity and competitiveness! We do not need to choose between the environment and electrification. We can and we shall, in the vast majority of cases, manage both.

The operators also want that. But that requires a government that knows what it wants, that knows what is to be done and that ensures the whole thing is anchored so that it holds over time. Unfortunately, this government, despite sometimes well-meaning ambitions and good intentions from not least the Christian Democrats, has failed completely.

It is time to reform the hydropower management. It is time to allocate resources to environmental measures instead of court processes. It is time to replace this government. They were given the chance, and they clearly failed. It is time for those who can address the issues in depth. It is time for the Center Party, and it is time to show that Sweden can do more.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Member Rickard Nordin has a high tone: "The Center knows" and "The Center can." I am old enough to remember Thorbjörn Fälldin, a remnant from the Farmers' Union and a stable father of the nation. He said "Hold the border" when Submarine 137 violated our borders.

He also said no to nuclear power. The left-wing movement was engaged to shut down nuclear power. We voted against it. We were to shut it down over 40 years. But what happened? It became a complete catastrophe. We do not have electricity balance.

What is the Center Party's vision? How are we going to increase this? How are you going to solve the critical electricity situation we have in Sweden? The electricity system simply doesn't work. Yet we hear a high tone that you can solve everything and that you will solve it with hydropower. But more dispatchable energy was needed. Fossil-free electricity was needed. Where are we going to get it now when the Strait of Hormuz is closed? It is war. If it is half a year or a year, we might have an energy crisis. What is the Center Party's solution?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Unlike the Sweden Democrats, the Centre Party does not deal with planned economy. But let me give some examples.

We can look at what Sveriges Ingenjörer has calculated. As I said from the rostrum, there is approximately twice as much power in existing hydropower facilities to get for about a quarter of the price. From combined heat and power, which is also controllable and flexible, we can get approximately 2,000 megawatts for 10–15 billion, which is almost as much as the government spends on nuclear power plans. It is between 1 and 2 percent of what the government wants to spend on its nuclear power plans.

The difference between the government's plans and hydropower and combined heat and power is that nuclear power is a base load power that delivers steadily, regardless of whether it is negative prices or not. It only provides power without any type of regulating capacity, in contrast to hydropower and combined heat and power which can adapt, which is much smarter.

We can look at energy efficiency. The Swedish Energy Agency has stated that there is 20–25 terawatt-hours of profitable potential that is not being utilized, because there are insufficient incentives.

Björn Tidland speaks about the Strait of Hormuz and the crisis there. During this parliamentary term and this government, it is fossil energy that has increased the most. We have become more dependent on oil from abroad. It is a huge problem. We could have, in fact, been less dependent.

Now, the development of electric cars has completely stalled because the government has removed all powerful incentives. If we look at Denmark, we see that they have doubled their share of electric cars during the same period.

There are so many solutions – and I haven't even talked about vehicle-to-grid, electric car batteries, storage, and flexibility. There are heaps of solutions. The technology exists. The big problem is that the political leadership is completely lacking. It has snowed in on one area: nuclear power. It is clearly visible. The only thing that has come regarding hydropower this mandate period is a bill that is not enough, and everyone agrees on that.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I hear what the member says. But in this chamber, there is a majority for an expansion of nuclear power, and that is a completely different vision than what the member Rickard stands for.

I am also an engineer. I understand this with heat pumps and energy storage. One can store energy by having better control of district heating and, as you say, storing in batteries. There is also control technology. Technology can solve a lot and solve part of the problem.

Overall, however, I wonder how one solves the problem with the Center Party's vision of wind power, hydropower, and solar power on a cold winter day when the industry is running at full capacity? It doesn't work, and it will fail.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now I believe that Björn Tidland did not listen, because I did not speak at all about wind or sun. I spoke about the power potential in hydropower, combined heat and power, and energy efficiency. If we also add them together, we can get approximately twice as much or perhaps even three times as much power, which is what is needed on the cold winter day, compared to the government's nuclear power initiatives. We can get that at not even half the price.

If one thinks that nuclear power is so fantastic – I have nothing against nuclear power as a technology – one should dare to put it out to competition. Why not introduce a technology-neutral support where all types of power can compete on equal terms? There, a biogas turbine, a hydroelectric plant that is made more efficient, a combined heat and power plant that is run more optimally, or a wind installation combined with batteries would get the opportunity to deliver electricity on the cold winter day.

The Sweden Democrats or the government do not dare to introduce this, because they know that it would not be profitable.

There are some questions that have to be rhetorical because Björn Tidland cannot answer them, and neither can the government. Who is going to pay? If you add up credit guarantees, a loan framework of 400 billion, a guarantee price of 400 billion, and now the waste tax, which probably violates the Euratom Treaty, at 183 billion, we are up to almost 1,000 billion.

And when will it be on site? The first reactors are to be on site in 2035, they say, but Poland and the Czech Republic, which are further ahead in their planning, say that it will probably be later than that in their countries. How we are going to be able to overtake them is very unclear.

The message from the government is that it is probably the taxpayers and households who will have to pay. We will not have it in place for at best a decade. In the meantime, there will be no investments. Through that, they have killed the entire energy market. It will be an expensive bill on the cold winter day. The government shall pay that bill.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are finally almost at the finish line with the product that we are debating today. This is a special debate. It is my first debate on the occasion of a report from the Committee on Civil Affairs. Furthermore, I have special guests. My parents are visiting and are sitting up in the gallery. I think that is very fun.

Mr. Speaker! If one looks up a bit, this debate is about the balance, or perhaps rather the restoration of the balance, that the Liberals and the government are trying to create in environmental policy.

During the mandate period, I have spent an incredible amount of time on issues linked to the Habitats Directive and the Swedish application of this. Environmental policy needs a better balance. It has tilted in many areas. We need to find better ways to weigh different interests against each other. We cannot do what the alternative on the red-green side categorically does; they focus unilaterally on the environmental aspects.

We must stop over-implementing EU regulations through an all-too one-sided focus to the detriment of competitiveness, property rights, and actually also people's freedom.

We have previously heard quite a lot here in the debate about who or whom is responsible for what in the issue that we are debating today. That can, of course, be of interest. But what is important and interesting in reality is how we handle the situation that we now stand in, the result of the decisions that have been made previously, and how we see, relate to, and handle the reality that many people out in the country are now living in.

Everything I have said now could be an introduction to a speech about both the shore protection and the forest policy, or about how we in general reduce the regulatory burden and increase freedom for those of us who live outside the cities. Water and species protection are, in fact, linked to very many political areas.

My absolute favorite question in this context is the coastal protection – or not the coastal protection itself in its current form, but the potential to implement a freedom reform that would truly increase the ownership of properties out in Sweden. By that, I do not mean by moving the shoreline through reclamations, but by actually reviewing the coastal protection.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not the coastal protection that is being debated here today, but exceptions from requirements according to the Birds and Habitats Directives in the review of hydropower. It is a question linked to many aspects of policy and to the necessity of safeguarding the electricity production we have in Sweden – also an unwanted consequence of previous policy with decommissioned nuclear reactors, which means that we now have problems delivering the electricity that is required.

The importance of a well-functioning hydropower production is becoming increasingly clear. Hydropower is important for us to manage the electrification. It is important for the climate, and it is important for competitiveness. And it is, in the long run, important for Swedish independence from the countries in the Middle East. I visited Ukraine this week and saw how it can be if things go really badly. The importance of well-functioning energy production is difficult to overstate in the situation we find ourselves in.

Mr. Speaker, back to the subject. We see how the regulatory framework has turned out. We want to make a new attempt, and we want to use all opportunities for exceptions. The legislative changes that we are now proposing mean, in practice, that we are re-weighting the balance between, on the one hand, the need for measures that improve the aquatic environment and, on the other hand, the need for an effective national supply of hydropower when establishing modern environmental conditions for hydropower and dams. In this context, the protection of animals and plants carries great weight, but it is not the only thing that should be weighed. Here we need a better balance, and that is what we are creating now.

During the mandate period, the government's work in this matter has been led by Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari, and it is now being completed by her deputy, Johan Britz. Romina has been clear during the time the work has been ongoing. The instruction has been issued that all exceptions permitted by EU law shall be utilized.

As a Liberal, it feels important in this context to say that beneficial adaptations for the aquatic environment are good. A well-placed fish ladder – great! An opened migration route and restored wetlands are also important. But we need a better balance in the system we have today.

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, we have governed with the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, and the Christian Democrats. In my script, it says that I should not speak for my coalition partners, but they have already expressed their views. I can nevertheless state that important values for all our parties that are sitting and governing are property rights, Swedish national self-determination, and the conditions for hydropower. Here, we are working together for a new direction.

Together we have developed a policy to do everything possible to achieve a more rational review of the environmental conditions for hydropower. It shall, as I have previously mentioned, take into account precisely ownership rights, Swedish sovereignty, and the conditions of hydropower. When we vote on this report in a moment, we will have completed another stage of the important journey towards creating more reasonable regulations linked to water issues and environmental policy. We have truly done everything we can within the framework of EU law to achieve the best possible changes, regardless of what representatives from other parties say here in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! To wrap things up: When the House closes for the summer in a few weeks, the forest bill and the bill on forest owners affected by species protection restrictions will also be passed – important parts of the reorganization of environmental policy that we are working on. But there is more to be done.

On my wish list for the upcoming parliamentary term is not only a revision of the shore protection and strengthened property rights for forest owners, but also a completely necessary and substantial review of the Environmental Code and also a review of water management in general. It is difficult to grasp but all the more important to tackle. They are a couple of real bureaucratic monsters that we would need to set our teeth into.

In conclusion, my friends: For this, it is clear – four new years are required for the current government so that we move forward even in those areas.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is great that Elin Nilsson's parents are in the gallery! I hope that they are proud and know what good work you do in Sweden's Riksdag.

I took to heart the lesson from Ukraine, which Elin Nilsson spoke about in her speech. When I spoke with a general there, who deals with energy supply, he said: We no longer build anything large-scale; if Russia bombs a facility, we build ten small ones.

Then we come very clearly to hydropower and small-scale hydropower – a decentralized energy system that is incredibly important from a vulnerability perspective. I become a bit curious. Elin Nilsson said: We have done "all we can" to achieve these better conditions. Does that mean that the Liberals and Elin Nilsson are now satisfied and think that we have the conditions we need, or are there further measures that should be taken so that we can get better conditions for small-scale hydropower, and for fish passages and other environmental measures that, of course, are also needed?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the kind words!

Yes, visiting Ukraine is truly an experience that provides very many new impressions. One really sees how local preparedness at all levels is crucial in the fight against Russia.

The answer to the question of whether we are satisfied or if further measures are required linked to the area we are debating today is that it remains to be seen, I would say. So it is with many of the questions we have. Not least the shore protection is a telling example – one makes a change and sees how it turns out and lands. Then perhaps one needs to take new steps.

I think that as a politician, one should be generally cautious about declaring victory in an issue one has struggled with for a long time before one actually sees the results of the changes one implements. So I am absolutely not closing the door for further changes.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is where it gets a bit exciting. The Sweden Democrats said more was needed. The Moderates said more was needed. The Christian Democrats said more was needed. Now Elin Nilsson, Liberals, says that maybe more is needed. But the government has in its communication to the Riksdag said that more was not needed.

Then it becomes difficult to understand. If the Liberals are open to more measures, why don't they say so? Where is the stop somewhere if one says that one is satisfied? Among the Tidö parties, three are for more measures and one says that perhaps they are needed – where is the problem?

For me, it is obvious that more measures are needed. Everyone is dissatisfied. Those who want to get the migratory fish back in the rivers of Norrland are dissatisfied. Those who are operators in the south are dissatisfied. There is no one who is satisfied here, which in itself is quite fascinating. Usually, at least someone is satisfied with the legislation, but in this case, therefore, no one is satisfied.

If one then opens up for more measures, can Elin Nilsson mention something that one could think of doing? Perhaps she can also explain why the government in communication 75 has said that one does not need the announcements regarding small-scale hydropower without they being satisfied. In practice, one says that one thinks one is finished when one lists the measures that have been taken, and therefore one does not think any further are needed. For me, it is difficult to understand this, when three and a half parties think that more measures are needed.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the contribution and the questions! I can start with the assertion that everyone is dissatisfied.

In this debate, the tone has truly been high and sometimes not entirely objective. But if we have now reached something that doesn't make anyone very happy, it is a sign that we nevertheless have a successful compromise. When one enters a meeting room, one often says that the goal is to come out with something that everyone is moderately dissatisfied with.

We simply have to wait and see. We are, of course, satisfied and stand behind what the government has now presented. But that does not mean that we cannot handle situations that arise in the future. One must always be open about that, especially if one is prepared to lead the country in the right direction, which we are. We would, of course, like to continue for another four years.

Now we present this. The question is whether you in the opposition would have managed to deliver this product. We are capable of delivering even such things as needs arise in the future.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I was so eager to get to the rostrum that I bumped into the Centre Party on the way out. I apologize for that.

Elin Nilsson, Liberalerna, we have now heard some different versions from the Tidö parties regarding why this is good. Liberalerna has previously been the party in the bourgeois camp that has held the banner highest for biodiversity and such. Then a lot has happened during this mandate period.

I recoiled a bit when the member said that all possibilities for exceptions should be utilized. I believe that was how she expressed it. This comes from a party that usually says they are the ones who love the EU the most. But at the same time, one wants to stretch the boundaries as much as possible in the existing EU legislation. In this case, the boundaries are stretched so much that our expert agencies say that we have probably stretched too far and that we might not meet what the EU legislation requires.

Then my question is: Is this how we are to handle the EU legislation? We have indeed agreed on something together, but when we finally have it in place, the Liberals mean that one can twist and turn it as much as possible – so much that it doesn't even become correct.

I would also like to ask a bit about what balance is. The member returned several times to the point that one must have balance, but what is balance here? When does it become balance?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I think I will refrain from saying anything witty about the tackle. But it would have been fun.

We continue to be the green voice of the center-right. And as a liberal, I love the EU. I say that with emphasis every time. But it does not mean that I say "yes please" and "amen" to everything that comes from Brussels and ensure that it is over-implemented in Sweden. It is part of the balance I am talking about.

When we negotiate EU regulations, we in the government during the mandate period have truly worked to advance Swedish interests when the products are developed at the EU level. Then we are to implement them in a way that does not create imbalance in Sweden. Here we have an imbalance in the application of the legislation we are debating today.

Let me take a clearer example. Both I and the member work with forest policy and the implementation and application of the Birds and Habitats Directives in forestry. Even there, I and the Liberals believe that there is an imbalance, where the effects of the application of, for example, red-listing and national protection have had unreasonable effects on forestry to the detriment of property rights. It is such an imbalance that we want to rectify.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the answer! It is still exciting. Our joint legislation is about what we are to achieve. We have implemented the Birds and Habitats Directives nationally, and it is to preserve biodiversity and provide good conditions for what exists around us.

Two-thirds of our watercourses in Sweden do not reach good ecological status according to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. Shall we then say "Oh well, it doesn't matter!", or shall we fight to ensure that they actually achieve good ecological status? Or do the Liberals mean that "good enough" is sufficient?

It is also exciting when the member addresses the right of ownership. There are many who want to fish and have ownership rights to water, but then suddenly there is no fish. In that case, one is also encroaching on the right of ownership, because someone else, further up or further down in the water system, has taken the right to use the water in a way that disadvantages other owners. How does one solve this?

I think you are jointly responsible in all discussions about property rights, even when it concerns the forest. What the neighbor does on their land also affects the land that I own. There must be a balance there. But what comes first, and what do the Liberals mean by this when it comes to hydropower?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, what comes first? We should not rule out safeguarding either biodiversity or property rights. It is possible to do both. The problem is that the consequence of the regulatory framework we have many times sets property rights out of play. In that case, we need to restore it and strengthen the landowners' position to find balance again.

Then I believe there is a difference in basic outlook between our parties. Now this is becoming something of a forest debate – the forest or the wolf always returns when we debate. But my full conviction is that the one who owns something also manages it wisely in the vast majority of cases. There, the freedom to use the forest can increase without state restrictions.

But let me tie this together and return to the subject. Of course, it is very important with more hiking trails, rewetting, reduced eutrophication, that we favor the fish in the Baltic Sea and much more to address all the environmental problems we have. But it must not happen along the way that people's living environments are wiped out. As the representative of the Moderaterna spoke about here, we must also protect people's living environments.

Now, this is not a debate about dam removals specifically, but that question is truly engaging, especially if one, like I do, lives in the middle of the country and has many dams from the time of the mining industry in the surrounding area. There is a great concern among people about what is to come. One cannot go forward and say that everything shall be demolished. We need, as said, a better balance.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I started the day at a sawmill outside Mariefred – a modern sawmill. It was very fascinating to see. The logs came in, and it was measured with lasers exactly what could be obtained from the logs. Along the production line, logs fell out to the right and left, and they were packed at the end.

I said to the foreman there: I wonder what my grandfather, who stood by the saw all his life in Lissfors in Dala-Floda, would have said if he had seen a modern sawmill.

There is a fairly big difference between how it looks today and how it looked when grandfather started – he was born in 1914. But most of our industries – sawmills and other things – have been located by water, because that is where there is power and energy. That has also built Sweden's prosperity. It is impossible to escape the fact that hydropower is and has been incredibly important for Sweden. Today, it accounts for a large part of our fossil-free electricity production. It is thanks to it that we can puff out our chests when we say that we are almost fossil-free in Sweden. It contributes with regulating power, stability, and flexibility in the system. We know that.

That was why Miljöpartiet stood behind the national plan for modern environmental conditions for hydropower, the so-called NAP. When much of the hydropower was built a hundred years ago, one did not know what we know today. One knew well that one was closing off the waterway, but one did not have a grasp on how it connected with the various ecological systems. This was seen as a good source of energy. It provided prosperity. But one did not think about – and did not take into account – the fish in the water, species in flowing water, and that the water in our landscape was being changed.

Today we know better, and it would be strange if we did not have better knowledge today than we had a hundred years ago. Therefore, a broad agreement was reached. The environmental conditions were to be modernized but also – and this was important – a stable energy system was to be safeguarded.

But it is a problem when two-thirds of our watercourses do not achieve good ecological status according to the EU Water Framework Directive. In that case, we have an obligation to do something about it, and that is what the agreement entailed. The necessary measures were to be environmentally adapted – there is a fund. And this was to be done watercourse by watercourse so that an actual effect was achieved. There is no point in removing some small thing in the middle if there are still blockages upstream and downstream.

It is precisely this balance, which we have heard about in many other parts, between production and nature values that the government is now in the process of destroying. It is said that they want to create clarity and protect the importance of hydropower for the energy system. That is reasonable; we want good energy. But in the bill, something else appears. One clearly shifts the balance of power in favor of hydropower interests. The balance becomes skewed. One is to make it easier to have exemptions from EU's environmental legislation. One sends a clear signal to those authorities and courts that have this in their lap: The environmental requirements shall be pushed back.

It is not only we in Miljöpartiet who are saying this. The referral bodies are also saying it. From some perspectives, one might start to complain about the environmental organizations. But it is actually Naturvårdsverket, our own agency, that has pointed out the risks that the environmental quality standards for water will not be met. We will still have two-thirds that do not achieve good ecological status. Havs- och vattenmyndigheten says that the proposals hinder the work of improving the aquatic environments. There are legal objections from both agencies and from other sources. If we do this, we might not even live up to EU law. Then we could risk fines, Mr. Speaker. It is the Tidö parties' policy and apparently the policy of some other parties in the Swedish Riksdag.

I will preempt some criticism that usually arises. People often try to make it sound as if every environmental measure threatens Sweden's electricity supply: if a fish were to swim past, it would become pitch black in the area. That is not true.

The national plan was built from the beginning on major trade-offs. It was the Energy Agency. It was the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. It was Svenska kraftnät. It was political agreements. Trade-offs were jointly developed for how much electricity production could be accepted. Now we also know that with the expansion of hydropower, we can increase the capacity, so that we get out much more even though we also carry out environmental measures.

We need fish passages, minimum flow, environmentally adapted flows, improved migration opportunities, spawning gravel, and so on. But it is not about phasing out hydropower. It is about taking responsibility for the environment, even for hydropower.

Mr. Speaker! Biological diversity is decreasing rapidly. Freshwater environments are the most vulnerable ecosystems we have in Europe. Many of our common species have ended up on the red list. Many of them are also important for the marine environment. Trout, salmon, and eel need these watercourses to either go up and spawn – trout and other salmonid fish – or go up and become adults – eels. But if there is a stop – a migration barrier in the way – this does not happen. It is not only the fishing that reduces the fish populations, but it is actually also our migration barriers.

Furthermore, we are losing a lot of great values for us humans – it is about being able to fish. In Västernorrland, there is not a single functioning fishing route – not a single one. Think what it could do for tourism if one could fish salmon and trout there.

Mr. Speaker! I believe my point has been made. I think the signaling value in this bill is problematic. Tidö doesn't care about the environment. We heard earlier that politics is for people. It is, but we also have a common planet to take care of. It is clear that we can do both. We can increase energy production. We can make environmental trade-offs so that we get more fish and so that we get more flowing water for all species that need it – everything from insects to mussels. It will then also become more pleasant environments for us humans to be in, and there will be more opportunities to do things.

Mr. Speaker! Finally: Miljöpartiet says yes to hydropower. We say yes to regulatory power and fossil-free production. But we also want to see living rivers, functioning ecosystems and modern environmental conditions. We do not think that one needs to choose between electricity and the environment. We can do both. This is a false contradiction that some are trying to paint. Therefore, I move for the rejection of the bill and approval of our reservations 1 and 4.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I was struck by a sentence that Emma Nohrén said in her speech. She said that there is no point in removing any blockage in the middle if there are blockages upstream and downstream. I completely agree with that. I think it is a very good quote. The problem is that it is exactly what is happening right now. We have places where we are building migration routes for pike and perch despite there being blockages, perhaps especially downstream. How it is upstream perhaps matters a bit less if there are good spawning areas right where a migration route is being built.

We may not agree on all parts regarding what should be done concerning this committee report and this bill. I am a bit curious about what Miljöpartiet wants to take for measures to ensure that the right environmental actions are taken. It is obvious that the right actions are not being taken now. Trout and salmon stocks are dwindling while we build incorrect fish passages in unnecessary places. What does Miljöpartiet want to do to get the right measures in place?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, we in Miljöpartiet want to back off so that we are as close to the original national plan as possible. When one carries out these measures, it is important to look at drainage basins. Then, it is not wrong to remove migration barriers in the inland. Not everything needs to have contact with the sea from the beginning. We can, for example, look at what Tranås Energi has done. They have removed four migration barriers and opened a stretch of two and a half miles. It makes a difference for the entire ecosystem – for pike and perch, yes, but also for many others. We have insect species that need running water.

They started with two and have continued on their own initiative. They got started as early as the beginning of the 2000s – out of pure pleasure, as they themselves say. Now they have seen that it has actually resulted in money in the till as well – the customers have increased by 50 percent.

One must take the right action in the right place. We must ensure that there are drainage areas. The water authorities have been responsible for this before. It has worked more or less from time to time, depending on where in the country it was.

As Rickard Nordin said, the pause has not been utilized in the right way. Even I received signals that it might be good to have a small pause so that we can catch up on implementing the legislation and ensure that we do it correctly. But the Tidö parties have used the pause for the wrong things. They are undermining the legislation instead of ensuring that it can be implemented. I absolutely believe there is plenty we can do to make this work, and we must do it step by step.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Tranås Energi is very skilled. It is great that Småland companies from my own home region are highlighted. I do that every day of the week. But one should not imagine that all energy companies will get 50-percent customer increases if they take the right measures. The number of customers is limited, so not everyone can increase.

Back to Emma Nohrén's proposal! I completely agree that one should look at drainage basins. The problem is that it is what is not being done in the constitutional legislation. That is what has led to situations where fish ladders are built despite there being natural migration barriers that mean the fish do not get through anyway, except for pike and perch. I do not think they are the ones we should build fishways for; it is a waste of resources.

In the original NAP, which Emma Nohrén refers to and thinks we should go back to, it is very clear that the goal is for us to spend one and a half terawatt-hours and get as many environmental measures for that as possible. But that has not worked. Here it is obvious that better steering was needed, so that we value the environmental benefit better.

I think it is good that Emma Nohrén says that water management is not working and that the water authority has not managed as one had hoped. For the Center Party, it is clear that we would need a complete environmental inventory to be added on top of the energy inventory, so that we get as many environmental measures as possible for the one and a half terawatt-hours that we agree on and which we, Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet, negotiated forward with Moderaterna, Socialdemokraterna and Kristdemokraterna.

The problem is that this is not where we are headed. In the Svartå round, where Tranås Energi participated, it was concluded, for example, that there were a number of incorrect standards. It would have been good to rectify them before one reached the court and before operators were forced to adapt to non-functioning standards.

For our part, we believe that there are a number of different measures that would be needed to achieve a good balance. But it does not help if one is only to go back to the original proposal, because that is what has created the current problem. Then the Tidöre government fails to rectify it – there we are in complete agreement. But simply backing back is not the solution.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with much of what Rickard Nordin says. But the hardest part is getting legislation in place. Then one has to see how to adjust it.

I did not sit in the negotiating group, as Rickard Nordin did, but I sat in the internal group within Miljöpartiet. My main point was that we should ensure there was a research and evaluation council linked to the entire NAP and the fund, so that one learned from what was done and developed it continuously. Unfortunately, that did not come through, but we write about follow-up in our reservation.

We must learn from what has been done so far and change what is not good. But to say, as the Tidö parties do, that the problem is that environmental requirements are too high – period – we do not believe is the right way to go. We must ensure that we do this. We shall have both production and modern environmental requirements in accordance with current EU law. Migration barriers shall be removed. We shall have flowing water that provides good conditions for people, animals, and nature.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The re-evaluations are different for different power companies. The larger power companies can handle this in a completely different way. They can make redirections and increase their power production in the same stroke. They have completely different possibilities than what one has with small-scale hydropower plants. I would like to say that the NAP has become just a bite for small-scale hydropower plants. Many of them are allowed to fall asleep only to be torn out and disappear, even though we actually need that production.

In my main submission, I took Strömma power station as an example. There, it has been concluded that an investment of 10 million must be made to get a salmon ladder, which also results in less electricity being produced. I mean that it is completely unreasonable. We need to find other ways and take into account cultural environments and economy so that small-scale hydropower plants can remain.

If I understand the Environment Party's speech correctly, they are not prepared to do it at all, but think that it is only the environmental goals that should apply. What does the Environment Party say to Strömma power station, which is allowed to make a reinvestment of 10 million and has its turnover reduced from 500,000 to 250,000? That will never pay off. It means that the power station itself has to be torn out. There will be no power. Then it will cost 15 million instead. Who is going to pay the 15 million? The state will not do it, but the individual will have to do it. It is not enough that we do not produce any electricity – we put someone in a debt of 15 million.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Larry Söder for the question.

Regardless of what kind of business one has – a hydropower plant, a farm, a factory or something else – one must comply with laws and regulations. It concerns everything from employment rules to environmental rules. And it will need to be modernized rules, regardless of what kind of legislation it concerns.

When it comes to hydropower, the modern environmental permits and the national plan for reassessment include a fund so that these reassessments can be carried out, so that it does not result in unreasonably high costs for the individual. Then there is the question: Do we need everything? In some places, one might have to tear out, in others adapt. But in some places, it may be the consideration for the cultural environment that carries more weight. It must be weighed. That is also why many go to court for a review of how the different legislations stand against each other.

A little south from the place Larry Söder took up in his example – if I get it right geographically – an adaptation has been made and thus sport fishing has been introduced in the middle of the city. It has become a very popular route for everyday life and for walkers. There, the money has been recovered in other ways than through power production. There are, therefore, many different examples. To say "one size fits all" is not possible – one must take each part individually.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The last thing we agree on is that we must look at each individual situation in one way or another.

What should be remembered is that all the small-scale hydropower plants that are located next to, in, or around Natura 2000 areas are actually approved for that. It is not the case that a hydropower plant or a power station was built in 1915 and that nothing has been done since then, but rather that approval was obtained later than that.

I mean that it is completely unreasonable that after 20 years to say: No, now it is better that you invest 10 million, and the power station will produce less. Who wants to own a power station in that case? The situation becomes that no one will own that power station. It will be society that has to bear the cost of dismantling it, and we get no production.

I mean that we must keep all the small-scale hydropower that exists. We may not be able to develop it as much as we want, but we must keep it. We do not know what will happen in the future. It is base load power we need, and then one cannot say as the Miljöpartiet does, that is, that only the environmental goals matter. One must instead take into account other parts, such as economic costs.

Some hydropower plants can certainly be remediated a bit more cheaply, so that this can be managed, but for many it is exactly like for Strömma power station: You have to choose between making a huge investment and getting less production or tearing it out completely. We must also know that not all these power stations are owned by companies, but that some are owned by sole proprietorships. A sole proprietorship means that you have to bear the cost yourself, and it affects people.

The environmental goals cannot be all-encompassing. That is what we are saying with this: Sweden shall not do more than other EU countries, but rather one shall use the exceptions that exist in the Birds and Habitats Directives. That is all we wish for.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in a previous contribution, the 100 smallest hydropower plants in Sweden account for 0.45 percent of our power production. I am not convinced that all of them are needed. Instead, we should invest in those hydropower plants where we can increase the output and ensure that we get more power. Some will need to be demolished, and others shall be adapted; it depends on the conditions.

We have something within almost all environmental policy called the polluter pays principle, namely that the one who pollutes shall pay. In this case, it feels strange to talk about polluting, but the one who actually stops here must also adapt to the new rules, just as when you have other activities. It is about large sums of money there and then, absolutely. But do we want something to be okay to do today just because it was done before? Today we have different knowledge.

In parts of Halland, there are bays where the European eel goes up. There are only 42 individuals left in Sweden – 42! I think it is important that they should be able to continue to live. I do not know if the Christian Democrats perhaps think it is okay that they die out, but I do not.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

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