Water care

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we will debate the Environment and Agriculture Committee's report on Water Management, where a number of different water-related issues are addressed for both fresh and salt water. It concerns eutrophication, treatment plants, individual sewage systems, Baltic Sea cooperation, the EU Water Framework Directive, and so on.

I will begin by moving for the approval of reservation 29, which concerns the introduction of a marine environment law based on the report *Havet och människan* (The Sea and the Human) which the Environmental Goals Commission submitted to the government over two years ago. I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of only this reservation.

The work of the Environmental Goals Preparatory Committee continued for over two years. It was a piece of work that culminated in the report *The Sea and the Human*. It was a solid piece of work, and I do not say that only because I was the chairman and led the work, but because it actually was. All parties in the Swedish Riksdag stood behind it. There are no reservations in the report. There are over 100 proposals for the marine environment. In addition to dealing with things that affect the marine environment, it also deals with things that are on land and in fresh water, because most of it eventually flows out into the sea.

Countless hours have been spent by civil society, researchers, NGOs, local politicians, regional politicians, associations and companies on this. The entire society has been involved and given its view on the matter, and we have received this report.

It was submitted to the government as said in January 2021, and all parties stood behind it. The report has since been out for consultation, and in the autumn of 2021, the then S-MP government announced that a bill would be submitted last spring. But in December of the same year, Miljöpartiet left the government, and only the Socialdemokraterna remained in the government. Then the marine environment bill disappeared.

Now we have a new government. What it intends to do, I do not know. It stands in our documents that this is still being prepared within the Government Offices. The autumn term has passed, and spring is here. But we still know nothing more than that it is being prepared in the Government Offices.

Therefore, I would like to urge, or perhaps even appeal to, the sitting government and representatives of the governing parties here today to ensure that this work does not go to waste. So much work has been invested, and it is so rare that we in this chamber actually agree on things. And this could lead to a new floor being established for the ocean policy that we could proceed from.

There are several reservations in today's report where reference is made to this work. I chose to vote in favor of reservation 29, which concerns a marine environment law. It was the one that was supposed to hold this entire work together. In a similar way to the climate law, it was intended to ensure that there is a follow-up or methodology regarding how we are to reach our environmental quality goals, in this case Sea in Balance as well as Living Coast and Archipelago as well as No Eutrophication. It was intended to ensure that the ecosystem approach would permeate everything and that the work for this would rest on a scientific basis. And all governments, regardless of party, would work in a similar way with these issues. That was the point. We all saw that it was a very important issue to take forward. Something that the Environmental Goals Commission also stated was that sea and climate are two sides of the same coin. And here we would need to do that.

It was also about how to reconcile the EU directives, which we will probably also debate here today, and how the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Water Framework Directive, and the Birds and Habitats Directives would be coordinated to help each other instead of working against each other as they sometimes can do.

Madam Speaker! I would like to say that this is a low-hanging fruit to seriously get started with the marine environment work, set a new floor for the issues and have a large positive impact on all marine issues and water issues - freshwater, coastal water and seawater. It would provide answers to and a lot of measures for the eutrophication problem, contribute to biodiversity, have a positive impact on fishing and on the coastal environment. There are LEVA coordinators and LOVA coordinators involved. It is about shipping, tourism and agency and EU work.

Please, the government, deliver on this and do not let this work go to waste!

Madam Speaker! I shall raise another matter that I do not quite understand regarding this government. It concerns the reduction of funds for environmental monitoring. Several of the parts in this report that we will discuss today are precisely about how we are to get clean water and how we are to be able to have monitoring. It does not work without control programs and proper environmental monitoring on site.

The Director General of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency said that environmental monitoring is the backbone of environmental work. It is a prerequisite for being able to do anything on a scientific basis. And if there is something that we in Sweden have been good at for a long time, it is this. We have long time series, and it is in this way that we can detect and see changes in the environment, whether it is sea, land or water. And it is in this way we know that our measures yield results. I believe that we will return to this during the consideration of another report today which concerns chemicals.

I want to once again issue a call to the government: If you take these questions about clean water seriously, then ensure that we also have monitoring programs that work!

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to take up the committee's proposal for an announcement regarding wetlands. The current government has said that it wants to invest in wetlands. It was perhaps the only investment in environmental issues that we have seen so far. We can agree that it is important to have measures when it comes to wetlands. Creating wetlands and increasing the number of wetlands strengthens biodiversity as well as provides more ecosystem services, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved water management, better retention of water in the landscape, flow equalization during heavy rainfall, reduced eutrophication, and increased groundwater formation. It therefore matters for climate, biodiversity, eutrophication, and the landscape's resilience.

Despite all these positive parts, one can see that the investment that the government has spoken about is a joke. One takes 200 million kronor from the protection of valuable nature, exactly what this is supposed to contribute to, and earmarks these funds rather than using them for investments. Even if it were to have been additional money, it is less than what previous governments have invested.

Therefore, a notification is proposed in this report that we want to increase the pace of the work with the wetlands and that there shall be more of them.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall speak about an issue of utmost importance for the world's and Sweden's future, namely water. Today I will place special emphasis on four areas, namely measures against eutrophication, protection and creation of wetlands, sewage treatment, and protection of drinking water.

We Social Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for time-saving reasons, I move for approval of only reservation 30.

Madam Speaker! Today we are living beyond the planet's resources and conditions. Climate change is real, and the environmental crisis is a fact. Each one of us is affected, but it is the most vulnerable in the world who are hit hardest. We Social Democrats reject all ideas that Sweden would have done enough.

Science leaves no room for doubt. The facts are on the table. Now is the time for action to reach the climate goals as quickly as possible. The pace of transition and investment must increase powerfully, and Sweden shall lead the green transition. Growth, welfare, and transition are not only compatible with one another but are also prerequisites for each other. By leading the transition and assuming that every country makes the investments required to comply with the Paris Agreement, we strengthen our competitiveness, create more Swedish jobs, and increase the resources for welfare.

To achieve sustainable resource consumption, it is required that the economy becomes more circular and that our consumption becomes more sustainable. This applies in particular to our most valuable resource, namely water.

Madam Speaker! We humans all have a responsibility to protect our waters, both for our own health and for the sake of the environment. Water is one of the most important resources on earth and plays a central role for humanity, nature, and all life on our planet. Water is, as far as we know, a necessity for life itself, and for humanity, water is a fundamental prerequisite for our survival. We need water to drink, to cook food, to wash ourselves, and to clean things. We use water in industry and in agriculture. Water contributes to both creating and maintaining various ecosystems, from wetlands to rainforests.

But water also has other effects on the environment, for example by contributing to regulating the temperature of the planet through inertia for temperature changes.

Not to be forgotten is that water is also an important power source. Hydropower is a clean and renewable energy source used to produce electricity in many parts of the world, and it is the backbone of the Swedish electricity system. But water is also a limited resource threatened by overexploitation and pollution. Climate changes also affect water resources in various ways, for example by affecting water flows and water qualities. We need to secure a safe drinking water supply in light of climate changes as well as potential crises.

The EU has made important progress regarding water issues, for example, the EU Water Framework Directive. Meeting these requirements for good ecological and chemical status in our aquatic environments will be a challenge.

Sea and water in Sweden have long been threatened by eutrophication and acidification. This continues to be a major problem even though the emissions of eutrophying substances into the Baltic Sea are now decreasing. The previous S-led government introduced several powerful measures against eutrophication, and that work must continue.

To reach the water-related environmental quality objectives, more efforts are needed, particularly against eutrophication and environmental toxins. We therefore need to reduce the emissions of eutrophying substances and instead use phosphorus and nitrogen in cycles to a greater extent. New methods must be developed to reduce pharmaceutical residues in wastewater.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency assesses that new interim targets need to be developed within areas that are particularly important for achieving the environmental goals where the development in the environment is negative and where interim targets are currently lacking. One such area is biodiversity and the recovery of ecosystems. Just as Emma Nohrén said, one of the most effective measures to protect and increase biodiversity is to protect existing wetlands, restore drained wetlands, and simultaneously create new ones.

Wetlands function as nature's own treatment plants by capturing eutrophying nutrients and binding them before they reach the sea. They are also home to an extensive fauna, not least in the form of birds and insects - of which a large proportion are red-listed. Additionally, they bind carbon dioxide in a very cost-effective way and increase groundwater levels.

Restoring wetlands therefore gives us a lot in return, and it is something we really must invest more in moving forward. To strengthen the work at the local level, we want to see expanded investments in wetlands and water ponds to increase the retention of nutrients in the landscape. It is positive that the proportion of wetlands has stabilized in Sweden, but their ecosystem services still do not reach their full potential. To derive the greatest possible benefit from our wetlands and ponds, it is required that we actively maintain and restore already existing areas and that we reinforce the work of constructing new ones. The measures implemented by the previous government have contributed to balancing water flows, improving water management, increasing the recharge to groundwater, benefiting biodiversity, as well as reducing climate impact and eutrophication.

We want to see a reinforcement of these efforts to ensure that we reach the environmental quality objectives. As a Social Democrat, I want to emphasize the importance and significance of these types of environmental efforts for jobs and growth all over Sweden, not least in the countryside.

(Applause)

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation 27.

We have the privilege today to debate water management. Water is fundamental to all life on earth, and therefore it is necessary to protect our water resources and ensure that they are used in a sustainable way. Several reports have shown that we need to improve water purification and use new technology to remove pollutants and pharmaceutical residues.

To reduce the supply of pollutants and increase producers' responsibility, it is important to strengthen chemical legislation. Sweden should continue to work towards developing chemical legislation in the EU. At the same time, the EU Water Framework Directive is a significant part of environmental protection in Europe. The crucial point is that the directive is implemented in an effective manner to support environmental protection activities, for example, wastewater treatment plants and other environmental measures in society.

We must also ensure that the directives do not hinder investments in new technology that can enable maximum purification of our water resources. Sweden has, in fact, previously faced certain challenges regarding the implementation of EU directives. It is crucial that this happens effectively and without unnecessary bureaucracy. Therefore, cooperation and coordination between the EU and the member states are required. I hope that the government continues to work towards this goal and ensures that these measures are implemented and become realistic.

Madam Speaker! I also want to argue that the emissions of nitrous oxide from treatment plants should be reviewed. Nitrous oxide is, as those of you listening to this know, a very potent greenhouse gas that can have a negative impact on the climate. Research has also shown that treatment plants are a source of nitrous oxide emissions, and therefore it is important that this is looked into.

I want to highlight the great progress that has been made regarding eutrophication in Sweden and other EU countries, in the work to reduce emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus from land. Despite these advances, it is important that we maintain a restrictive stance regarding nutrients coming from land.

A method that has proven to be successful for certain agricultural lands is structural liming. It can be a profitable investment for farmers, but it requires good drainage. Unfortunately, the cost of drainage can be high and in the short term constitute a barrier for farmers to invest in this. Therefore, it is crucial that farmers have access to the resources required to take these measures and reduce nutrient leakage, including support for drainage in connection with structural liming.

It is important to remember that structural liming is not a universal solution to the problem of eutrophication and emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus. A combination of measures is required to achieve a sustainable solution to this problem.

To address the problem in the Baltic Sea - with bottom death and oxygen deficiency - coordination is required both nationally and internationally. Within the framework of Helcom, the Helsinki Commission, it is necessary to negotiate and strengthen regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea region as well as to manage the challenges that eutrophication and plastic pollution pose for the Baltic Sea's ecosystem.

I want to emphasize the importance of focusing on plastic in our marine environments. Measures need to be taken to promote the circular economy as well as the recycling and reuse of plastic and other products. It is also necessary to ensure that there is long-term support for beach cleaning and international support to reduce the amount of plastic in the oceans globally.

Another problem is lost fishing gear – the so-called ghost nets. They are a serious threat to life in marine environments in the Baltic Sea. They continue to drift around in the water and catch fish and other animals, which leads to much suffering and a painful death. Furthermore, these nets damage seagrass beds and other important seabed areas.

This is not only an environmental problem, but it is also an economic problem. Lost fishing gear causes loss of fish and shellfish, which affects fishermen and others who work within the fishing industry. This is an issue that we must address if we want to protect the Baltic Sea and its ecosystem for current and future generations.

In summary, we must ensure that our water resources are protected and used in a sustainable manner. Cooperation and coordination between the EU and the member states, as well as investments in research and technology, are required to achieve these goals.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I have a question concerning wetlands. I did not perceive that the member mentioned this at all in their speech. Therefore, my question is: Why do the Sweden Democrats choose to deprioritize the wetlands? And does Beatrice Timgren consider wetlands to be unimportant?

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

Wetlands are an effective way to reduce environmental impact. There is much that can be done to protect our environment and our waters, including with wetlands. However, not everything can fit into a single speech.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! In the debate on global warming and carbon emissions, representatives for the Sverigedemokraterna have claimed that there are no climate changes and that the shift of seasons and more extreme weather changes have nothing to do with the climate.

I want to clarify to the member that precisely wetlands and rewetting are important from several aspects. Wetlands contribute to slowing down climate change and increasing biodiversity.

What do the Sweden Democrats and Beatrice Timgren think we should do to promote biodiversity and curb climate change?

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! As far as I know, our representatives have never claimed that humans would not have influenced the climate. It is important to look at which effective measures exist, and wetlands are one of the measures that it is important to look at.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! The parties in the Tidö government have agreed to pause the trials according to the national plan for modern environmental permits for hydropower. The Government has stated that the pause shall be used to analyze what our electricity system can handle and then adapt the trial system.

Mr. Speaker, the trials are already taking place today based on a regulatory framework which has as a starting point that the activity shall be able to continue by the hydropower being so-called sustainable activity according to the EU's taxonomy when necessary environmental measures are implemented. None of this will be changed by the government having analyzed the importance of hydropower for the Swedish electricity system. Sweden must comply with the Water Framework Directive if Swedish hydropower plants are to be included within the EU's taxonomy.

If the collective ambition of the Tidö group with the pause is to review how additional decision-making bases can be provided for the water authorities in their assessment, we Social Democrats will view this very positively, but right now I am afraid that the pause will lead to nothing other than a delay of the reassessment of the environmental permits.

This has an opportunity cost. With the pause, it is currently the environment that bears the cost. Measures that would have needed to be taken to improve the environment in Sweden are being delayed. Many of the power producers who have had a plan to adhere to have procured consultants to help with the reassessments, and all of a sudden the timeline is shifted by one year. This means that one needs to have the consultant procured for a year longer than intended or that one must cancel the consultant's assignment and then hire a new one.

That is why I and the Social Democrats are concerned that this pause is managed in a very wise way. My questions to the member are whether she agrees with my description of the problem and what the Sweden Democrats are doing to ensure that the pause leads to something constructive.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for an incredibly important question. This matter regarding water treatment plants and the reassessment is incredibly important when it comes to environmental adaptation and ensuring that we can achieve fish migration – the eel has indeed been debated very much.

As the member surely knows, we have a problematic situation right now regarding energy and energy supply. We previously had a government that chose to shut down nuclear power plants. This means that we now have very expensive energy. Right now, we must look at how this can affect the energy supply, and therefore this break is necessary. I do, however, look forward to that after this break, one can get started with this incredibly important work.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that it is time for the government parties to stop their historical falsification. Everyone knows that no political decisions have been made to shut down nuclear power and that there has been an energy agreement since 2016 that enables the construction of new nuclear power in Sweden.

But my question was not about that, but about how we are to get hydropower in Sweden that in the future fits within the EU's taxonomy and thereby can continue to produce cheap, dispatchable electricity while we meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.

I ask again: What does the member think about the problem picture I have described for the environment and not least for all those hydropower owners who are waiting to be able to secure their operations within the taxonomy? What are the Sweden Democrats doing to ensure that the pause leads to something constructive?

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

Let me begin by stating that it was not a political decision to close the nuclear power plants, but it was a highly political decision to make them so unprofitable that they were forced to close. That was the goal of the policy, and the industry has also noted that.

When it comes to the hydropower plants, I also hope that the pause will lead to us being able to obtain an efficient and good environmental assessment and reassessment and at the same time ensure that the electricity supply is not negatively affected.

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a water-rich country. We are largely surrounded by water through a long coastline, and we also have many lakes and watercourses. Our water affects us fundamentally.

Water can mean different things for each of us. One might think of a glass of drinking water, another of a warm shower, and a third of a wonderful swim in the sea or a quiet fishing trip in the lake. The thought can also go to large, noisy ships or to algal blooms in the Baltic Sea where the fish have disappeared. One can also feel concern about what the water even their children drink contains. The enjoyment of a beautiful sunset over the sea can be mixed with thoughts about dumped chemical warfare agents on the seabed. A clean, cold glass of water and a morning dip in a clear sea on a warm summer day is probably what my thoughts are drawn to.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of reservation 16.

Water is crucial for our society's functioning for completely obvious reasons, including as drinking water, for hygiene and as a source of food - and our capital is, after all, called the Venice of the North.

In the water in our seas, lakes and watercourses, there is a large part of our biodiversity. The ecosystems in our waters are sensitive and are today subjected to great pressures. Heavy traffic on the water gives rise to emissions and noise. Other types of pressures include eutrophication, overfishing, acidification and climate change that warms up the world's oceans.

The sea unites countries, and no country can alone solve and manage problems with, for example, marine litter and acidification. International cooperation is therefore absolutely crucial to restore a viable marine environment.

Madam Speaker! The House decided in the autumn regarding the government's budget, which in many ways starts the work of getting Sweden in order. It is also a strong budget regarding the work of restoring and preserving our water quality.

The appropriation for the rewetting of wetlands is increased by 200 million kronor in the budget. 340 million kronor is estimated for removing and reducing environmental toxins through work with contaminated areas, also in seas and waters. Furthermore, the government considers that additional measures are required to reach the sea- and water-related environmental quality objectives and therefore adds 250 million kronor to continued work to reduce acidification and prevent the spread of litter, pharmaceuticals, and other pollutants.

Both in the government statement and in the budget bill, the government's high ambitions for the marine and water environment are clear. The government also makes it clear that Sweden shall be an international driver to increase the ambitions for a better marine environment, not least when it comes to the Baltic Sea.

The announcement that a majority in the committee wishes to direct to the government today is completely unnecessary. The will and ambition are the same for the government parties and the proposers. The announcement is based on motions by the Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet, and Sverigedemokraterna and aims at the promotion of wetland establishment and an intensification of the restoration and construction of wetlands.

This purpose is completely in line with the government's stated ambitions and investment in wetlands in the budget for 2023. Here are funds for measures for protection, maintenance, and restoration of wetlands, biodiversity, the landscape's resilience, recovery for fish stocks, and against eutrophication. The government is thus developing the work with wetlands, which, if correctly implemented, is a very cost-effective climate measure.

Cost-effectiveness in measures for our climate and for our environment needs to be in focus. Most climate benefit for every tax krona must be the guiding principle in the work ahead when the challenges and crises are many. To combat and prevent environmental destruction more effectively is a central priority for the government.

Madam Speaker! The government's clear prioritization of the environmental crisis in the Baltic Sea is more than warmly welcomed. There are many of us who move in and around the Baltic Sea and who see all too clearly that our shared inland sea is not doing well. Eutrophication manifests through algal blooms but also leads to oxygen deficiency and bottom death. Fishermen along the coast testify to drastically reduced fish stocks and overfishing.

The government's focus on getting the Baltic Sea in order is long-awaited. Much has been done with high ambitions, which are now being raised even further. No one can believe that it will go either quickly or easily, but what is being done is not enough. We must raise the ambitions, and that is exactly what the government is doing.

Madam Speaker! Water is our most important food source. In Sweden, we expect clean, safe, and tasty water directly from the tap 24 hours a day. In recent years, however, it has become known that there are drinking water sources that are contaminated. Our treatment plants are heavily burdened and cannot always handle or purify many of the chemicals and nutrients found in the water.

We also have a completely new security situation, and the government is therefore raising the alert level, also regarding drinking water. The government has already decided on increased food preparedness and a more robust drinking water supply. A national drinking water laboratory shall be established to increase our ability to meet microbiological threats against the drinking water supply during crisis and high alert.

In Sweden, we can, to a much greater extent than in other countries, easily get ourselves a glass of clean, cold water. But we must not take that luxury for granted, as preventive measures are already required today. We need to be on our guard so that we can continue to have clean water in the future.

Our water continuously affects our everyday lives and our society fundamentally. I am proud of and confident in the high ambitions that the government has for our water.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by asking a different question than what I had intended from the beginning. Since the member was so clear that there is no difference in the level of ambition when it comes to wetlands, the question arises as to why there is then a reservation in the committee report and why the member insists on its approval.

Another thing I reacted to in the member's speech was the question of an effective environmental policy and that we should get as much as possible for every tax krona in environmental policy. We Social Democrats of course agree with this, and I believe the member agrees with me that it must, in that case, be based on a scientific foundation. It is on a scientific basis that one ensures that one gets the most effective environmental policy.

Then another question arises: Why has it been chosen to so drastically cut the resources for environmental monitoring, which is the instrument we have to ensure that long-term and wise decisions are made?

I also want to take the opportunity to delve further into the question I asked the member from Sverigedemokraterna and ask the same question now: Does Johanna Hornberger share my view of the problem regarding the pause for the environmental assessment of hydropower? And what are the Moderaterna doing to ensure that the pause leads to something constructive?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Järrebring! It was not just one question but many questions, but I will try to get through them.

I will begin with cost-effectiveness. I understand that the Social Democrats think that more money should be spent and that all good things might come from that, but for us Moderates, there are clear limits to how much money we have at our disposal. This is based on a fundamental respect for the taxpayers' money.

I believe it is familiar to most here in the chamber that we have many crises to handle, including the economic crisis and the electricity crisis for which the previous government, regardless of background, must nevertheless be held responsible. In that case, one must prioritize, and in that instance, we have chosen to make the changes in the state budget that are required to meet all crises simultaneously.

The earmarking of the money specifically for wetlands is a way to try to be more efficient with the money that is spent on supporting and managing our environmental and climate crisis.

Then I can only agree with Member Timgren's earlier answer regarding hydropower and the pause that is completely necessary for us to handle one of the crises I just mentioned, namely the electricity crisis. We need to take a pause to think and manage the electricity crisis we have while simultaneously taking care of households' money and companies' operations so that they do not have to go to their knees more than necessary.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Once again, I must begin by saying that it is time to stop the totally false historical narrative. That we were to have had an energy crisis depending on some form of lack of production in Sweden is not true at all, but we have been the largest exporter of electricity in all of Europe. The price of electricity is set far too high. That crisis is real, but it does not depend on Swedish electricity production.

With this said, I received no clear answer as to why the Moderaterna say they want an effective environmental policy, which we should be able to agree should rest on a scientific basis, while at the same time the government is cutting back on the environmental monitoring that is the very resource for being able to make decisions on a scientific basis.

If we can agree that the EU taxonomy does not take into account what effect Swedish small-scale hydropower has on the Swedish electricity system, the question remains: How do the Moderaterna intend to ensure that the pause does not just become a delay of necessary environmental measures, with increased costs for the hydropower owners who today are standing and waiting for a new, modern environmental permit? How will the Moderaterna ensure that the pause leads to something constructive?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! A break is necessary.

We can stand here and debate whether the responsibility lay with the government that governed this country for eight years during the time when the problems with our electricity production arose. I believe that quite a few agree with me that that government has a responsibility for the electricity crisis that we now have to deal with.

The appropriations that the member referred to, and which he wonders how the Moderaterna can consider cost-effective, must nevertheless be said to be high historically. They are based on a high environmental and climate ambition from the previous government, which our government is now increasing and where the focus is placed on precisely the water issues.

But priorities must be made when we have to handle several crises at the same time, and that is what I am confident in. I believe that we have a very ambitious government regarding environment and climate, and it focuses on cost-effective measures, one of which concerns wetlands. But we have already heard about this here in the chamber today, so I will stop there.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Johanna Hornberger spoke about clean water and the importance of this, and I believe many of us saw a bobbing echo before us. But I pressed the reply button when the member began to speak about cost-effectiveness and about investments that, upon closer inspection, are not investments but a redistribution of money.

How is that vision of the clean water, the bobbing boat, and the fishing lake going to become a reality with the politics pursued by the government and the governing parties that Johanna Hornberger represents? As I mentioned in my speech, a quick and simple way should be to implement the Environmental Goals Preparation's proposal. It would provide cost-effectiveness and use work that has already been done. It has already been out for consultation and is something that we in this chamber, at least party-wise, have said we agree on.

My question to the member is therefore: Will we see a government bill on the marine environment based on the Environmental Goals Commission's report *The Sea and the Human* and if so, when?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Nohrén!

I noted the member's remarks regarding the Environmental Goals Commission. I have great respect for the work that has been done within the framework of the commission. As we can read regarding what we have to decide on today, there are a number of issues where the Environmental Goals Commission has submitted proposals that are now being prepared in the Government Offices. I look forward to what will emerge from the work currently taking place, but just like everyone else, and also the member, I must wait for the government's and the Government Offices' work in that part.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer, even though I did not become much wiser.

The whole thing was, as said, left over to the government in 2021. It has been on referral, and an almost finished bill has been on the new government's desk. But it is still being prepared, and there is no notification of when the bill will arrive or if there are certain parts that they want to take out. For example, in the regulatory letters that have been sent out, there are certain parts that do not need to go through the Riksdag.

Is it really true that it is being prepared within the Government Offices? Will we see a bill? Will MP Hornberger work for such a bill?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! My heart burns just as much as the member's for our environment and the climate - we simply have different solutions.

The question perhaps should also be asked to Member Järrebring, who represents the government that has been in power for the greater part of the time. I remind that the current government has been in its position for a very short time. Given the high environmental and climate ambitions that this government has, I look forward with confidence that they will lay their stocks on the report that exists and come back to the Riksdag. Those are my hopes.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Five of the Swedish environmental goals concern sea and water. They were supposed to have been reached by 2020, but the state of the environment is still far from what the goals describe. They also do not look to be reached by 2030.

The climate and the condition of our ecosystems are interconnected. Large amounts of carbon are bound in the oceans, which also account for a large part of the oxygen produced on Earth. In order for these ecosystem services to continue to function, it is required that the oceans' ecosystems are preserved and that biodiversity is protected. Research on coastal ecosystems has shown that there is a risk that these environments, which normally bind large amounts of carbon, could instead become sources of emissions in the future if the environmental condition deteriorates. The climate crisis and ocean acidification amplify the effects of other marine environmental problems, such as eutrophication and oxygen-depleted bottoms, which affect the oceans' resilience.

Despite extensive and long-term remedial work for a better marine environment, there are still many signs that the environmental status in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea is not good. The biggest problems are linked to eutrophication, hazardous substances, physical exploitation, and fishing. The difficult problem of extensive oxygen deficiency and dead bottoms in the Baltic Sea persists. The supply of organic material is increasing in both the Baltic Sea and the Western Sea. Microplastics affect all of the earth's marine environments and have negative effects even in Sweden's sea areas.

It is important to note that environmental measures yield results. In a number of places around our coasts, one can see positive effects from the fact that emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen have been addressed through better treatment. The sea eagles were almost extinct in the 1970s, but today there are over 700 breeding pairs. Bans on environmental toxins have been a very important factor for this success. It shows that political decisions yield results.

Madam Speaker! In 2020, the Environmental Goals Preparation, in its report *The Sea and the Human*, proposed that Sweden should introduce a marine environment law to create conditions for broad and sustainable actions both nationally and globally. The Government should, in every mandate period, produce a marine environment bill with a description of planned measures to achieve the environmental goal. Vänsterpartiet supports this proposal, which provides conditions for a broad political consensus for a more powerful marine environment policy. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 29, which concerns exactly this. But I also, of course, stand behind Vänsterpartiet's other reservations in the report.

Madam Speaker! Eutrophication is one of the most acute threats to the marine environment. Nutrient leakage from agriculture and forestry, traffic on land and at sea, wastewater treatment plants and industries must be addressed if the situation is to improve. Vänsterpartiet proposes a number of measures to solve the problems. The current action programs within water and marine environment management as well as the rural development program are insufficient when it comes to measures to reduce nutrient input to aquatic environments. The Government should ensure that the action programs are coordinated so that they contain the measures required to reduce nutrient input to levels that enable an aquatic environment free from eutrophication. The Government should also introduce an interim target for the return of nitrogen and phosphorus to food production in accordance with the Environmental Goals Preparation's proposal.

Agriculture is today the primary land-based cause of the nutrient leakage that leads to eutrophication. Manure should, as far as possible, be returned to the cycle by being used to grow crops. Vänsterpartiet believes that further measures are required for manure use in Sweden to become cycle-adapted. Such targeted work would also, in addition to environmental and climate gains, reduce the need for imported synthetic fertilizer and strengthen our food security.

Madam Speaker! Restoring wetlands and creating new ones offers many benefits for the climate, the environment, and society. By letting wetlands store carbon, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. Establishing wetlands also has great significance for biodiversity. Wetlands strengthen the landscape's protection against drought, flooding, and fire, which is of great importance from a climate adaptation perspective. In addition, wetlands can reduce eutrophication by retaining nutrients and thereby reducing the nutrient load in watercourses, lakes, and seas. Vänsterpartiet wants to increase the investments in restoring and establishing wetlands and carry these out in the long term. We therefore welcome the committee's signal to the government that it must intensify its work with establishing and restoring wetlands.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! In recent times, wetlands have moved higher up on the agenda. More and more people have noticed all the benefits that wetlands offer, environmental activists are trying to gain visibility with wetland messages, and there is reporting with maps and tools on how we can establish new wetlands in the best way. But unfortunately, more wetlands are still disappearing in the world than new ones are being established.

Why are wetlands so important then? There are several different reasons. Restoring drained wetlands and simultaneously creating new ones is among the most effective things we can do to counteract the eutrophication of seas and lakes. They function as nature's own treatment plants by capturing eutrophying nutrients and binding them up before they reach the sea.

Wetlands also strengthen local biodiversity and are home to an extensive fauna, not least in the form of birds and insects, a large proportion of which are red-listed. At the same time, wetlands bind carbon dioxide in a very cost-effective way, and therefore it is a tool to reduce climate change.

New wetlands also increase groundwater levels. Especially in the southeastern part of Sweden, initiatives are needed so that people and animals have good access to clean water. Unfortunately, the reduced precipitation in recent years has shown that something must be done for the groundwater levels in, for example, the Kalmar region and Blekinge.

Unlike most other measures, we do not need to choose between benefits and ecosystem services when wetlands are restored. We get a lot for free. Particularly large benefits occur when drained and drained peatlands are restored. These areas leak large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Although the peat-forming wetlands only cover about 3 percent of the land area, they contain twice as much carbon as the world's forests.

Wetlands are therefore good for the climate, the groundwater and the biodiversity. That is exactly why I am very pleased that the Center Party's motion to invest locally in establishing more wetlands has now received a majority and support in the committee.

Madam Speaker! The second area I choose to raise in the chamber concerns eutrophication. Because the Center Party truly cares about the Baltic Sea, I want the Riksdag to take an extra look at all the proposals and reservations we have to reduce eutrophication. There are several of them. For time reasons, I choose not to move for approval of any of the reservations right now, but I still stand behind them.

Even though the supply of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen has decreased over time, large amounts of nutrients still circulate in the sea, which, among other things, leads to algal blooms. The measures we take today will only yield results in several decades. It therefore takes a long time, and we cannot afford to wait any longer. To ensure clean and living seas for future generations, there must be a concerted effort to stop the supply of nutrients and toxic substances, especially at point sources, but also efforts to remove the pollutants that are already in the water.

To address part of this surplus problem, the Center Party wants to introduce a national interim target for the recovery of phosphorus and nitrogen. In the current situation, a large part of these nutrients are in the sewers in our urban areas. Potentially, they could be returned to agriculture, but it does not happen. What we do today is not sustainable and circular.

Several Swedish companies have today come far in technological development, which enables these nutrients to be recycled directly from the treatment plants in an efficient way without traces of toxic substances. In the long run, this technology can become an important export product for Sweden.

Today, many actors are waiting for a decision on which objectives shall apply. To move forward, we argue that it is necessary with a national goal for the recovery of phosphorus and nitrogen at 70 and 20 percent respectively by 2030. By 2040 and 2050, the goal shall be raised further in step with technological developments.

The ultimate goal is to close the cycles and reduce the eutrophication in our seas and watercourses. Studies from, among others, Svenskt Vatten and Svenska Miljöinstitutet have also found that recycled nitrogen has had difficulty competing economically with virgin-produced nitrogen, even though the climate impact is often significantly lower. In order to stimulate production at wastewater treatment plants and take steps towards a more established market, we want to review the possibility of developing a national certification system for climate-smart and recycled nitrogen.

The problem of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea is, of course, not limited to Sweden's emissions. All Baltic countries must take greater responsibility and reduce the eutrophying emissions. For a number of years now, the Center Party has advocated for the proposal of a trading system for emission rights, which means that the countries around the Baltic Sea must pay to release eutrophying substances, in particular nitrogen and phosphorus.

The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management reported during 2021 an investigation assignment which showed that such a trading system has many advantages and can be created without Russian involvement. Some implementation aspects remain to be investigated. But already today, the government should initiate a dialogue with the neighboring countries around the Baltic Sea and the regional cooperation bodies with the objective of introducing a trading system in the coming years. I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 13.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I am pleased that the Riksdag is issuing a request and an announcement to the government regarding increased investments in wetlands.

In order to reduce eutrophication, our water treatment plants need to be equipped with modern and advanced treatment technology. A bonus is also that these substances can be recycled and returned to agriculture and in this way reduce our import dependency and strengthen the circular economy.

A national milestone for the recovery of phosphorus and nitrogen and a trading system against eutrophication is needed. Centerpartiet wants to see expanded investments in actively caring for and restoring existing wetlands, but also in creating many new ones in the future.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Water is a resource that we cannot do without. Water is absolutely crucial for life. Therefore, the report on water management is one of the most important we handle in the committee, yes, in the entire Riksdag. At the same time, it is a report that is not among the most extensive in terms of either the number of pages or the number of motions. Despite the fact that we now have a debate, it still indicates a very large consensus on many of the issues.

In the budget proposal for 2023, it is reported that Naturvårdsverket and relevant authorities during 2021 continued the work on the assignment regarding better knowledge for the management of contaminated sediments, among other things through marine investigations. Naturvårdsverket has also decided on special research funds to develop new and improved methods to obtain more knowledge on what effects contaminated sediments have on the environment, on human health, and of course on water.

In the budget bill for 2023, the government assessed that investments in the remediation of environmentally hazardous wrecks and contaminated sediments have yielded results by removing environmental toxins from seas and waters. According to the government, it is of great importance that the work to remove and reduce environmental toxins through the work with contaminated areas on land and in the sea maintains a high pace. The government therefore proposed a reinforcement of 340 million kronor to the appropriation for remediation.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, it is a neighboring task to do right when in some cases it can cause greater damage if one begins to handle poisoned areas and toxins that have previously been encapsulated are instead released. Research is completely decisive there to do right so that one does not cause even greater damage.

Another important issue that many before me have raised here today is the over-exploitation problems. It is an extremely important issue to address. At the same time, it is a matter of ensuring a sustainable use of our natural resources.

Proposals for a new milestone for the recycling of phosphorus and nitrogen to food production have been put forward by several investigations, including the Environmental Goals Preparation, where I myself participated in the development of what became our final product, The Sea and the Human.

At the same time, I note that the government states that new milestone targets are an important part of the development of the environmental goals system and that these shall be decided within priority areas and designed to drive the work to achieve the environmental goals, which is good. Work is therefore being done on the issue.

We simultaneously have the challenge regarding our inland sea, the Baltic Sea. Many states around our inland sea are to take responsibility for reducing eutrophication. After Russia's full-scale and heinous invasion of Ukraine, cooperation on the environment in the Baltic Sea does not become easier. Furthermore, focus is shifted to other issues instead, which in a way is quite understandable.

But in the government statement from last autumn, the government says that special efforts shall be made to counteract eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. During the EU presidency, the government shall strengthen and develop the implementation of the EU's strategy for the Baltic Sea region and particularly for regional cooperation.

Without cooperation on the issue, we will fail. We will, of course, take our share of the cake. It is not a question of anything else. But at the same time, we cannot make up for the fact that other states are not doing their jobs. In that case, we also risk, for example, our own food production, which would be very serious.

Madam Speaker! Another matter that has truly been on the table here concerns wetlands. There is no doubt that wetlands are important for the work regarding climate, biodiversity, eutrophication, and the landscape's resilience. Therefore, the government wants to develop the work. The government is therefore investing in a rewetting of drained wetlands.

The government proposed in the budget bill 200 million kronor starting from this year to finance the rewetting of wetlands. However, here, just as in the handling of others' private land, cooperation, consensus, and voluntariness are important. There must be an understanding that in the vast majority of cases, it is someone else who owns the land, unless one chooses to invest in doing it only on the state's own lands.

At the same time, it is interesting to look up a bit. One can ask the question: Why are the fields drained from the start? Peat extraction has a long historical tradition in Sweden. At the beginning of the 1900s, there were even state peat schools that taught how to utilize peat for energy and cultivation.

The state provided grants until the 1990s for landowners to drain their peatlands. The purpose was to expand the country's agricultural and forest land. This has resulted in that over a quarter of Sweden's peatlands are drained.

On many of our previously drained wetlands, we have food production today, which is also not to be underestimated. It is therefore time for some common sense and balance in the issue. Similar to Joakim Järrebring, I also think that reservation 16 is a good reservation to move for approval, and I also want to do this.

Madam Speaker! This morning, we in the committee were visited by the Minister for Climate and the Environment for information ahead of next week's environmental council in Brussels, including regarding the revised wastewater directive. As so often, we see how the EU acts without having a consideration for the consequences for the entire union. Even though many parts of the proposal are good, it is extremely important that the government now works to, among other things, avoid requirements for nitrogen reduction that are not proportionate or justified from an environmental perspective.

Another important issue that we also touched upon during this morning's exercises was the WFD (Water Framework Directive). Last year, the Riksdag submitted a notice to the then government regarding the EU's regulatory framework's impact on the expansion of Swedish treatment plants. The committee pointed out, among other things, the challenges with the WFD and the application of the so-called non-deterioration requirement.

The Environmental Goals Secretariat has also proposed that the government should carry out a careful analysis of potential and long-term negative effects on the environmental status of water and seas as a result of the non-deterioration requirement. It is problematic if the requirement poses obstacles to the development of new environmentally friendly technology that in the long run could replace today's technology and reduce emissions.

It is of course important to both expand the country's wastewater treatment capacity in line with the growing population in Sweden's municipalities, and to invest in new advanced and environmentally friendly technology. The interpretation of the EU Water Framework Directive through the Weserdomen case entails challenges in these respects.

It cannot be the purpose of the judgment that operations that already have high environmental ambitions and use the best environmental technology should be negatively affected if they need to expand their operations, unless even more purification technology can compensate for the increased operations. Therefore, it is good that a proposal for a revised sewage directive has been presented and that the government now intends to work to ensure that the requirements in the directive are consistent with the requirements in the Water Framework Directive and that they also intend to work to ensure that the sewage directive is designed in such a way that population growth is not hindered.

Finally, Madam Speaker: In March 2022, the government submitted the bill Roads to sustainable water services to the Riksdag. In the bill, the government stated, among other things, that the pace of action regarding deficient small sewage systems needs to increase and that an increased control of small individual sewage systems was needed. The government therefore proposed that a new authorization should be introduced in the Environmental Code. With the support of this, individual property owners could be required to inspect their own system and provide information to the supervisory authority regarding the system's design and function and the inspection that has been performed.

According to the government, new regulations on control could contribute to increased awareness for the person responsible for a sewage treatment plant, both regarding the plant's function and the applicable requirements. The increased awareness could, in turn, contribute to an increased pace of corrective actions.

Thankfully, the Riksdag rejected the then government's proposition in this part with the justification that the municipalities already have the task of exercising supervision over small sewers. With regard to the supervisory work carried out within the municipalities, the Riksdag questioned whether a new authorization of the kind proposed by the government was the right way to go to achieve an increased rate of action. A risk was seen that new regulations supported by the authorization could lead to unjustified costs for the individual property owner that are not offset by a corresponding positive environmental benefit.

We already have far too many examples, even without the proposed legislation, of searching for individual sewage systems where it is not measurable whether discharges occur and thus truly represents an unjustified cost for the individual.

We shall, of course, do the right thing, Madam Speaker, just as I mentioned earlier regarding the sewage directive and the EU. But the same must apply here regarding costs and impact. The era of symbolic politics must be over.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the speech! It became very clear that the Christian Democrats won that wrestling match against the Moderates. It is KD who does not have the same level of ambition as the opposition, while the Moderates think that the announcement is actually just unnecessary because they share the level of ambition. But now we received clarity on why there is a reservation and why it is also demanded.

I intended to give Member Kjell-Arne Ottosson the opportunity to answer the same question that I have asked both the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates. Does the Member share the view on the problem picture that I have described regarding the pause? And what are the Christian Democrats doing to ensure that the pause leads to something constructive?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the questions - especially the last one! I am serious when I say it, because I was considering placing a note on Member Järrebring's bench when I walked past to deliver my speech, where I asked that I should also be allowed to receive the same question that the Member has posed to the others. So, a special thanks for the last question!

Regarding the first question, it is the case that in the committee's position, which among others the Social Democrats stand behind, no money is invested. This is, therefore, a matter that was not included in the budget bill or the handling of it, which took place in the autumn. This is a text that is being taken now, and the text says that we should have high ambitions.

Of course we shall have high ambitions; there is no doubt about that. But this actually says nothing about how much larger your investment shall be than ours, for it is not quantified. It was not included in the budget report, but it is only a text here and now that speaks of wetlands being important. And we think exactly the same.

Regarding the question that I wanted the government to have decided on January 12 regarding the pause. Joakim Järrebring highlights one side, but he chooses not to highlight the other side – the side that I have received an enormous number of calls and emails about. I have visited very many dam owners who are incredibly concerned about what the reassessment will lead to. There will be costs, and the question is whether this will provide the environmental benefit that is hoped for.

And last but not least: Will we manage our electricity production? Small-scale hydropower currently delivers the electricity production required for the city of Gothenburg. It is therefore not a small electricity production that could fall away if the smaller hydropower plants are not allowed to continue. I note that my speaking time is up now, so I will have to continue later.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually return to the question. If it is the case that even the Christian Democrats think that the announcement in itself, that higher levels of ambition are required when it comes to wetlands in the future, is good – why is there then a reservation, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, and why do you move for its approval if we share the same view on the matter? It is incomprehensible to me.

When it comes to the pause, the entire purpose of the review is actually that all our hydropower plants should receive modern environmental permits so that they can continue to exist. They shall continue to deliver electricity and continue to deliver services to the electricity system. But we must live up to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. We must ensure that hydropower is counted as sustainable according to the EU taxonomy. Here, there must be no conflict between the environment and the need for continued hydropower production.

We Social Democrats welcome it if the government intends to produce an improved decision-making basis so that the water authorities have more material to base their decisions on. If such a basis is coming, we welcome it, but right now the only announcement from the government is that they will analyze hydropower's contribution to the electricity system. That says very little.

Again: Kjell-Arne Ottosson is given the opportunity to answer the question. What are the Christian Democrats doing to ensure that the break leads to something constructive?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I clearly experience that the Social Democrats still have not understood the other side. When we decided on the announcement that this is based on, the Social Democrats were not part of it. They were in a government position then; that is why it was an announcement.

And why did we do this? Well, it was because so many dam owners contacted us and were desperate about what was happening and what they saw some of our authorities doing. These were enormous costs that one had to incur for a reassessment—a reassessment that then might not lead to being allowed to continue having one's dam. Then one got double costs, because first one had paid for the reassessment, and then one would have to pay for the dam to be removed. Then one can ask: Is it right to handle it in that way?

We have previously spoken about water issues and the aquatic environment. Is something that is truly important for the aquatic environment that we have dams – just so that we can manage when there is too much water, for example during floods. Then we should be able to discharge it so that we do not suffer any destruction. It can also be about the summer – that we manage to maintain the water level and have water all the time. Dams can have a very positive function from a pure nature and environmental perspective. But here, it is about people who see their entire operations go under because of gigantic costs and requirements.

From the EU, it has been stated very clearly: We do not demand that any dams be removed. But then we see how Swedish authorities have acted in certain matters. There, demands are made that they should be removed and restored to pre-industrial times – as if humans had not even existed! Then, Madam Speaker, we can talk about how we truly do good for ourselves.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! We are dependent on nature and biodiversity for our survival. In order for future generations to be able to grow up with the same opportunities as we, the ecosystems must be protected and biodiversity must be safeguarded. Climate change means that the efforts to protect nature and the environment need to be given ever higher priority.

Large areas of wetlands have been drained in Sweden in recent centuries. Drained wetlands release large amounts of greenhouse gases. Biodiversity and water management have been negatively affected.

Madam Speaker! When moving in nature in my home region and in large parts of Sweden, it is rarely long before one sees traces of drainage or land reclamation.

At the end of the 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s, Sweden was still a very poor country in many parts. There was a shortage of arable land. To obtain new land, large-scale drainage and lake-lowering projects were initiated. One of the more tangible examples is the lowering of Hjälmaren near Örebro.

There has been a long tradition in Sweden of draining and ditching. One should not hide under the table that this has created both more land and forest to cultivate and more jobs, perhaps primarily for people in the countryside. It has plainly played a role in the building of the welfare we see today. The land and the forest are fundamental foundations in the construction of society in Sweden. So it has always been, and so it must continue to be.

In this context, there is a point in reminding oneself of the journey our country made during the last century. Many of those who were born at the beginning of the 1900s experienced an increase in prosperity during their lifetime that is unparalleled. Many were born into overcrowding and poverty. They left behind one of the world's richest and most equal countries. The land and the forest have played an important role in the creation of this prosperity. The land and the forest are still crucial for Sweden's well-being.

Parts of the drained and dried-out wetlands will now once again play an important role for our common future, this time by being one of many parts in the work to meet the climate crisis and reduced biodiversity. Wetlands are among the most species-rich environments in Sweden. Through rewetting of dried-out wetlands, emissions are reduced, and the wetlands are converted into carbon sinks.

Important investments are now being made to restore and create wetlands. I am both happy and proud of the investments included in the budget for 2023. This makes a real difference.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 16.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I have now asked the same question to all the parties in the Tidö government. However, I have not received any answer as to what has been intended to be achieved in terms of something constructive that leads to the continued trial resulting in different decisions than those we have seen so far at the beginning of the trial period. But now perhaps we may have the opportunity to get an answer. Please, the member from the Liberals!

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

Now all of my colleagues in the Tidösamarbetet have received the same question. I think we should turn the tables a bit. My Moderate colleague was slightly on that. The pause for hydropower was required because we were facing a situation with blackouts in our system. We had a situation where the previous government had not taken responsibility for ensuring that we had such an energy supply as Sweden needed. In that situation, it became absolutely necessary to do everything we could, to turn over every stone, to achieve stability.

The review is necessary. It is a short period, and we must hope that important conclusions will be reached. I do not have much more to say. But the pause was actually completely necessary.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! It would have been a good argument if it were true. We have not had any problem with electricity production in Sweden. We have had large surpluses. We are the largest exporter of electricity in all of Europe.

Future power systems need to be strengthened. We need to expand electricity production in line with our need to achieve the green transition and electrification. We need to modernize the power system to be able to handle more solar and wind.

But that was not what the question was about. This is about environmental assessment to ensure that we have a water activity in Sweden that is sustainable according to the EU taxonomy. In order to be able to continue conducting operations, one needs environmental permits.

The underlying data that the water authorities have to take into account today have obviously led to some different effects. Some owners feel that the measures that need to be taken are not worth the costs they entail. Despite the fact that there is money to be obtained from the Water Power Environmental Fund, the costs are sometimes so large that some choose decommissioning.

There is no doubt or any differing opinions regarding the actual circumstances. As I have said several times, we welcome Social Democrats if the government intends to produce a new decision basis so that the authorities can take into account things that they cannot take into account today.

But I still have not received any answer: What does the government intend to do? And what are the Liberals doing to ensure that the break actually leads to something constructive, to a new decision basis?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I share the view that it is important that the work starts again. But now this pause was completely necessary, with reference to the situation we faced. Then the government, of course, works on the issue, and we will see what the government comes to. But it has also been a short time. One has the whole of this year to do it, and we must ensure that we deliver. It is urgent. In detail, however, I have no more answers than that.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I requested a reply when Elin Nilsson reminded us of the history regarding the drainage of wetlands. I have personally visited a farmer whose great-great-grandfather received a medal from the King for having drained out, and now he himself had received a medal from the King for having restored the wetlands. We have different knowledge through different times, and it is important that we always use the latest knowledge and scientific basis in the decisions we make.

Regarding the question that the member just debated with the Social Democratic member about the pause in hydropower, I think it might be a bit of a historical revision to say that it is due to the electricity shortage that we are taking this pause. This does not affect this, rather it should be adapted so that we can have both electricity production as well as fish passages and other things for biodiversity. But we can take that question later.

Regarding the costs, which the member from Kristdemokraterna also highlighted, there is a fund that finances this, so that question is also investigated. I did not have time to request a reply there.

What I would like to ask Elin Nilsson concerns an issue that I spoke about earlier and which has been raised by representatives for both the opposition and for the government parties, namely the work of the Environmental Goals Commission. Elin Nilsson belongs to the same party as the Minister for the Environment and perhaps has more information about the matter being prepared within the Government Offices. When will a government bill based on the Environmental Goals Commission's work "The Sea and the Human" arrive? Does Elin Nilsson know anything more about this?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question, but I actually have no answer to give. The Environmental Goals Preparation Group will resume its work shortly. I expect that we will receive more information after that. The question is being prepared at the Government Offices, and when there are answers to give, answers will be given.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I note that we will probably not receive any further answers from the government representatives regarding the Environmental Goals Preparation's work.

The Environmental Goals Secretariat works on behalf of the governments and has consulted with most parties regarding which topics should be addressed. This was about the marine environment and the water environment, and there is a finished proposal that I hope can become a reality because we have been in agreement. Since then, another report has been issued concerning consumption-based emissions, and now they are going to look at land use and LULUCF.

A solid piece of work has been done, and it has cost very many man-hours. There is a consensus that the result is good, and both researchers and companies as well as associations and others want that action is taken. I wish that Elin Nilsson takes this with her to the government and presses for it to become a reality.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I agree with the member that it is a very important issue, and it is important that the work moves forward. I promise to take the issue with me and return to it in another context.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

Water Care

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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