Government's work with documentation and evaluation within the climate policy framework
Transparency and evaluation of the government's climate-policy evidence base
What's at stake: The quality and transparency of the evidence base affects how well grounded decisions on emissions cuts and climate targets are, which in turn concerns Sweden's ability to meet its national climate targets and international commitments, as well as trust in climate policy.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether the ongoing work of developing and evaluating the evidence behind climate accounting and climate action plans - scenarios, assumptions and uncertainties - is adequate as currently conducted, or whether Parliament should formally direct the government to strengthen the work of producing accurate evidence and ensure the responsible agency has sufficient resources.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee welcomes the audit by the National Audit Office and shares the government's view that the work of producing scenarios and impact assessments is continuously evaluated and developed, and that the description of the assumptions used in the scenarios should be reviewed. The committee agrees with the government that the climate accounts and action plans could usefully be supplemented with sensitivity analyses, especially for key sectors, but sees no need for a formal parliamentary statement beyond the ongoing development work and therefore rejects the motion.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 1 (V, C, MP)
The reservation (V, C, MP) agrees with the National Audit Office's criticism of insufficient transparency and clarity in the evidence behind climate accounts and action plans, and calls for Parliament to formally direct that the work of producing accurate evidence be strengthened, that the responsible agency receive sufficient resources for high-quality evidence, and that uncertainties and assumptions in calculations and future scenarios be clearly disclosed - since major decisions on cutting emissions, meeting climate targets and complying with EU legislation rest on this evidence.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 1 by V, C, MP.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
Vown reservation
–
No 0/13/0/8
S
–
Yes 91/1/0/14
MPown reservation
–
No 0/15/0/3
Cown reservation
–
No 0/20/0/4
L
–
Yes 9/0/0/7
KD
–
Yes 16/0/0/3
M
–
Yes 57/0/0/9
SD
–
Yes 60/0/0/10
Broke with the party line
SDenis Begic(S, Örebro län)
No — party line: Yes
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
Parliament rejects the motion
2025/26:3924 by Katarina Luhr et al. (MP) demands 1-3.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motion
2025/26:3924 av Katarina Luhr m.fl. (MP) yrkandena 1-3.
Riksdag decision: Parliament has considered a letter from the Government. It concerns the National Audit Office's examination of whether the Government and public agencies have conducted effective work with documentation and evaluations within the climate policy framework.
The National Audit Office's overall conclusion is that the handling has several shortcomings, particularly concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's work in preparing comprehensive documentation for the Government's climate reports and climate action plans. The National Audit Office also provided a number of recommendations to the Government, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Agency, and the Climate Policy Council.
In its letter, the Government welcomes the National Audit Office's examination and largely agrees with the National Audit Office's problem description but makes partly a different assessment of what measures should be taken. In its letter, the Government emphasizes that it is conducting ongoing work to evaluate and develop the documentation within the climate policy framework in order to improve the quality and clarity of the climate report and climate action plan. The Government also notes that in recent years, measures have also been taken to improve the public agencies' work with documentation within the climate policy framework.
Parliament, like the Government, welcomes the National Audit Office's examination and views positively the Government's work to improve the quality and clarity of the climate reports and climate action plans and assumes that this work continues.
Parliament referred the letter to the records, that is to say, closed the matter.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants the government to strengthen work on accurate climate foundations and clearly describe uncertainties and assumptions in climate reports and action plans. (V, C, MP) — Reservation 1
Motion 2025/26:3924 — med anledning av skr. 2025/26:122 Riksrevisionens rapport om statens arbete med underlag och utvärdering inom det klimatpolitiska ramverket av Katarina Luhr m.fl. (MP)
Regeringens skrivelse 2025/26:122 — Riksrevisionens rapport om statens arbete med underlag och utvärdering inom det klimatpolitiska ramverket