Agriculture, rural areas and food

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the state budget within expenditure area 23 Rural industries, countryside and food. This includes, for example, agriculture, forestry, fishing and reindeer husbandry. I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The situation is as follows. Sweden today has high inflation with rising prices, and at the same time, Sweden is heading into a recession. The blue and yellow coalition partners have presented a slightly contractionary budget that ensures that inflation does not become entrenched.

At the same time, a number of temporary support measures are presented to compensate companies and households that would otherwise be hit even harder by the price increases.

The situation means that the pace of reform is lower this first year of the mandate period. Otherwise, there is a risk that the budget would reinforce inflation, and that is not what we want to see.

Despite this, the government is implementing a tax cut on diesel for agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture that is as large as the EU allows. It is not temporary but long-term and amounts to 368 million kronor in 2023 and double every coming year.

The common agricultural policy, together with national funding of related items, amounts to 12.9 billion per year, which is slightly more than for the previous programming period. This policy will, in addition to enabling agricultural activity through basic support, also enable increased productivity through, among other things, investment support and innovation support, increased environmental friendliness through, among other things, environmental support, restoration of meadow and pasture land and the construction of irrigation ponds, as well as strengthened knowledge development, not least within animal production.

This includes rural initiatives such as increased resources for broadband and infrastructure in rural areas as well as strengthened healthcare in rural areas. The fuel tax reduction and the improved travel deduction are also well known.

Agriculture, rural areas and food

The budget continues to strongly support increased Swedish food exports, food processing, and research and skills supply for the sector, and it increases the pace for strengthened crisis preparedness and wildlife damage compensation.

One must remember that this is the first year's budget in a four-year mandate period. It will get better in the coming years. The budget work this year was particularly rushed. The next budget will be more elaborated, and we have already begun with it. If inflation and recession then let go of their grip, upcoming budgets can become significantly more reform-oriented.

Agriculture's competitiveness shall increase. Just as important for that as the budget is the work that the government will undertake to simplify the rules within agriculture and to increase legal certainty.

A beef producer who is also a crop grower has 450 rules to follow today, and the number is constantly increasing. It takes time, costs money, and steals focus. When the farmer plans new measures, he has to stop and find out if what he wants to do conflicts with any of all these rules. It is not strange if it creates an uncertainty. If the rules become even more numerous, the uncertainty can become paralyzing for the industry's development.

As I understand it, all the blue-yellow coalition partners are prepared to take action here, but at the same time, we must not forget the EU dimension in the work of simplifying regulations.

I summarize Sweden's situation by saying that it is an economically gloomy time but domestically a very bright time. The Swede has awakened, and now we have begun to turn the oil tanker.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. It will get better in the coming years, he says. I truly hope so, because it sounds like the right-wing conservatives didn't quite know what they wanted because he says it is not good now. He also says that now the thinking is being reversed and that Sweden's population should be happy.

I believe, however, that Sweden's population at this time of year is very concerned about the costs for electricity, fuel, and interest rates. In the current situation, Sweden's population probably does not see the bright future that the member, despite everything, seems to see.

Madam Speaker! Something that worries me is the attacks and damage we see on Swedish forests. How do the member and the Sweden Democrats view the climate changes that pose a threat to our green gold, the forest? I wonder because the cuts in the Sweden Democrats' and the government's budget are made on, among other things, better cultivation methods, climate adaptation of forests, and so on.

This is important, because we want to see a healthy and green forest in all of Sweden. We do not want to see the attacks that are occurring right now and which could result in Swedish exports, among other things, decreasing.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna-Caren Sätherberg for the question.

Pests are an increasing problem for various reasons. Among other things, new pests are spreading in our forests, and the conservative parties have therefore decided to implement a breeding program to prevent the otherwise imminent demise of the elm and the ash. This is not included in this year's budget, but I am sure it will be included in next year's budget.

We also have problems with bark beetles. The causes for this are several. On one hand, the slightly warmer climate has made the trees drought-stressed and thereby more susceptible to bark beetles; on the other hand, attacked spruce trees have not been removed from the nature reserves. However, there have been rule changes here because the previous opposition pushed for this to also occur in the nature reserves in order to prevent spread from there.

The question also concerned the reduction of the grant. The grant is decreasing slightly because the biotope inventories have ceased. Pending a new order and a different type of inventory, the resource requirement at the Swedish Forest Agency is smaller.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! What Staffan Eklöf tells me is that there are problems in the forest with attacks and pests, but that one still chooses not to do anything about this now. Instead, cuts are made regarding better cultivation methods, climate adaptation of forests and so on in the budget that the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind. The answer to me and the Swedish people is therefore that one sees the problem but chooses not to handle the problem in the budget now but some other year. That was how I understood the member.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! As I tried to say, the cut occurs because the Swedish Forest Agency does not need to perform certain tasks as a result of previous regulatory changes. However, an increase would be desirable. But just as Anna-Caren Sätherberg has pointed out, it is tough this year. We cannot have an expansive budget, because then people will be hit by even more interest rate hikes. We must, therefore, hold back a little this year.

If inflation and the recession loosen their grip, next year's budget could become more expansive. In that case, the Sweden Democrats would like to see an increase in the appropriations for management that are to go to both nature-conserving management and management for increased productivity in the forest.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Staffan Eklöf for the speech.

I am thinking back to the debate we had about a year ago regarding this year's budget assumptions and the issues we had on the agenda at that time. In that debate, I asked questions to the Sverigedemokraterna representatives about why they did not want to make any reinforcements of the Rural Development Programme, given that they had money for, among other things, the food strategy in their own budget proposal. But the common answer from Sverigedemokraterna and from several parties in the Riksdag was that they did not have time to present an initiative in the joint budget reservation.

Since then, the development during this year has been very testing for Swedish agriculture, and the situation is also well known among members of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

When listening to Staffan Eklöf, it has been a particularly forced budget process. If that is the experience, I understand why certain parts were not included. How did it actually go with the Sweden Democrats' proposals on abolished wage fees for three employees, abolished sick pay responsibility for nine employees, the Sweden Democrats' investments in research, technology development, and technology dissemination for the long-term profitability of agriculture, the Sweden Democrats' investment of 900 million kronor on precisely the food strategy, as well as the investments on growth-promoting measures and an active forestry? In the government's and the Sweden Democrats' proposals, I cannot see that they are included. Why?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Bäckström for the question. We are in a situation where many budget items have been squeezed due to the gloomy economic situation and the high inflation. We must have a restrained budget. I believe everyone agrees on that. In a situation where many budget items in many areas have been affected by cuts, I am happy and proud that we have succeeded in getting a reduction of the diesel taxes down to the lowest level that is possible to have in this area. This area is one of the few areas that has received an increase. Many other areas will have to wait until the next budget. But it is very pleasing with this increase.

I think it would be very positive if we could eventually carry out a reduction of the employer contribution. The problem with reducing that contribution is that it is inflation-driving and unsuitable to carry out right now.

But I think it is good that the Center Party is pushing for more money for agriculture, just as we have done and do in our new role. But the Center Party does not want to lower the tax on diesel for agriculture and forestry in the long term. That means that almost all of the Center Party's investment in agriculture, beyond what the government invests, is eaten up by the missing reduction of the diesel tax. Now they want to compensate this with an agricultural deduction, and that is not a bad idea. But I think an eventual agricultural deduction should be taken in its own order so that it can be dimensioned and designed for the needs of agriculture and society. There is, in fact, a risk that such a deduction becomes what it becomes when it is introduced, because it is so difficult to adjust when it is the EU that sets the framework and approves the result.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! The assertion that we would be against a reduction is incorrect; rather, we want a permanent reduction for agriculture and forestry based on what is possible. We have also contributed to that this year.

The only thing included in the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget is an extension of this reduction for half a year. Otherwise, there are no investments in either agriculture or the countryside in general within this expenditure area.

We in the Center Party want to see a permanent reduction until we have introduced the new deduction possibilities that are to benefit sustainability work to meet climate change and also transition within the industry.

Madam Speaker! Once again, there are many points that the Sweden Democrats have presented over the recent years but which are not included in sharp politics now that they are part of the government and which are absolutely decisive for the three governing parties' hold on government. It is very strange that they actually argue from the standpoint that they also have not had time this year to prepare to push through these priorities. At the same time, they say that the domestic political situation is bright. It is surely extremely misleading given everything that is happening right now and which truly puts the questions at the center of where society, business, and people's household economies are headed and from the security policy, where measures were really needed to strengthen the conditions for Swedish agriculture and also to reach the goals in the food strategy.

It is, therefore, extremely empty in terms of concrete measures. It is precisely now that they are needed. We need stable conditions in the short term, but obviously also in the long term, so that the industry can have an extremely clear direction in order to be able to develop in a direction that is positive for Sweden.

I want to repeat the question as to why the very concrete parts that the Sweden Democrats have previously said they want to implement are not included.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Bäckström points out that there are difficult problems in many areas and specifies a number of areas.

As we see it, Sweden is mismanaged. This applies to energy policy, defense and security policy, and agricultural policy. The conditions have thus become poor, and that is where the analogy with the oil tanker comes in.

The previous government has seen to it that we have received a vulnerable energy system, and at the first opportunity of a crisis, we will face difficulties in many ways that propagate and lead to price increases and difficulties in getting goods delivered.

It takes time to turn something that is going in the wrong direction, especially when it occurs in a recession and when we cannot pursue as expansive a budget policy as we would like to. We hope that next year we can make as expansive a budget as we want.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We just heard from the member from the Sweden Democrats that he was happy and proud of the new government and its initiatives. As is known, the Sweden Democrats are the government's support party.

I think it is stomach-turning in a time like this to beat one's chest when we see that you are removing investments in valuable nature and say that the reduction obligation should be abolished and that logging can increase, while the UN conference on biodiversity is ongoing in Montreal.

The only thing we know for sure is that this government and the Sweden Democrats are making a major push to increase Sweden's climate emissions and are stopping the protection of valuable nature. They are pulling the rug out from under the industry's transition and introducing new rules day by day while doing absolutely nothing at all to save the climate and the environment.

As much as I would like to address these claims, I intended to use my time here at the rostrum today to describe what I and Miljöpartiet want to do and which initiatives are included in our budget, which should be seen as a whole.

Miljöpartiet considers that agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, and fishing - all these land-based industries - are the foundation of the transition to a fossil-free economy. It is there that we find the solutions for the supply of food, the solutions for a fossil-free economy, the solutions for the materials of the future, and the solutions for the energy of the future. The green industries are a central part of the economy, and they are crucial for a living countryside. A living countryside is, in turn, crucial for us to get this running.

At the same time, the transition to an ecologically long-term sustainability and a societal economy that fits within the planet's boundaries is urgent, and that transition must also be made within the green industries. We receive report after report that the ecosystems of the oceans and forests are in crisis in many ways. We overexploit natural resources, and we fail in environmental consideration - unfortunately in a very extensive way and more as a rule than an exception.

Miljöpartiet therefore believes that a thorough transition to sustainable, nature-oriented cultivation methods within forestry and to small-scale and gentle methods within fishing is needed. We must let the ecosystems' vitality set the framework. We cannot take the capital; we must only tax the interest.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party therefore presents a budget that enables this. It protects as we usually do, it strengthens the self-sufficiency and the resilience in the ecosystems, and it safeguards and builds up a robust animal welfare.

Madam Speaker! I wanted to talk a bit about the forest. I am a forest owner myself. I have inherited forest, so I am marked by clear-cutting. But for a few years now, we have been transitioning to clear-cut-free methods, and I must say it is a joy to be able to return to the same mushroom spots year after year while simultaneously harvesting timber from the forest. This, however, requires knowledge and perseverance, and it takes time to change. One needs knowledge to do it right. Miljöpartiet therefore wants a transition support for the shift to clear-cut-free management methods aimed at individual forest owners.

We also see that climate adaptation of forestry is central to preventing all the problems we see in the form of drought, forest fires and floods, as well as to be able to better manage the effects of climate change. The resilience in the forest needs to be built up, and we need to improve the reforestation. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to invest in a national advisory campaign aimed at individual forest owners to work precisely with climate adaptation and increased environmental consideration.

Madam Speaker! We also see major problems regarding our marine environment. The sea faces great challenges, and we have a long way to go before we achieve the environmental quality objectives Sea in Balance, as well as Living Coast and Archipelago and No Eutrophication. The herring stocks in the Baltic Sea have a skewed size distribution. We see that fish become sexually mature too early, and the cod we catch are of poor size. We also see that the cod has disappeared from large areas and that the oxygen-free seabeds are spreading out.

We need to achieve an ecosystem-based management of our marine environment. I believe there are great opportunities to reach a consensus in this chamber on these proposals—for example, the Environmental Objectives Council has developed over a hundred proposals that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag support for a better marine environment, including a marine environment act.

I hope that the government submits a marine proposal - I appeal to it to do so - so that we can move forward and take a step closer to a better marine environment. We must, in fact, move out the trawling limit, and we must remove the industrial fishing where we vacuum the seas to produce animal feed or other things. The fish should go to human consumption. We must also support coastal fishing and ensure that we get a living archipelago.

I also want to take the opportunity to highlight aquaculture, which I believe is a large part of the transition. We are now seeing many initiatives for modern aquaculture in Sweden - circular systems on land that do not pollute the sea and land, and where the wastewater from the fish is utilized for cultivation. Here, agriculture and aquaculture become one, and we see new industries emerging.

Unfortunately, there is still a lot of red tape; most recently, it was the Fisheries Fund that put spokes in the wheels so that those who are farmers cannot apply for money. Here, I hope that the government takes its responsibility and changes the rules as soon as possible - and also injects money into our courts so that the review processes go quickly. That is what we have done in our budget proposal.

I must also speak a little bit about agriculture, Madam Speaker. Russia's unjust and horrific war in Ukraine has, in addition to a horrific suffering for the Ukrainian people, led to great consequences for all of Europe. We see skyrocketing electricity prices, increased food prices, and great costs for agriculture.

The high cost level for agriculture regarding the important input factors has led to a rather serious situation. It is important that we support agriculture in this and at the same time continue the transition to a fossil-free agriculture with increased environmental and climate benefits. Miljöpartiet wants to see a living agriculture in all of Sweden that secures a high degree of self-sufficiency of food, feed, energy, input factors, and raw materials.

We know that the transition in accordance with the EU's Farm to Fork strategy, the strategy for biodiversity, and the upcoming plant protection act presupposes increased investments in organic farming. Several funding opportunities are required to make that transition fully possible, and Miljöpartiet has included several of these investments in its budget proposal: strengthened biodiversity, special support for fodder crop cultivation, and the maintenance of important grazing lands.

I will use the last seconds of my speaking time to talk about animal welfare. It is something that is close to our hearts, and that our animals are doing well is something we in Sweden are proud of.

Unfortunately, we see that when animals are in production, it can be the case that production conditions and welfare are at odds with each other. Therefore, we must ensure that we have a secure animal welfare. Miljöpartiet also wants to remove certain possibilities for having animals, for example mink farms. We also want to phase out caged hens. But we must have veterinarians who can carry out supervision of these, and therefore we also have increased support for the county veterinarians.

Madam Speaker! My speaking time is running out. Since Miljöpartiet is investing more money than the government in this area, I cannot approve our proposals. The Riksdag has, in fact, already decided on a lower budget framework. But with our budget, we still want to show that it is possible to both meet the climate goals and strengthen welfare. It is possible to protect while we usually do. It is possible to have a budget that strengthens both the self-sufficiency rate and the resilience in the system and that safeguards and builds up a robust animal welfare.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the speech.

I note that Emma Nohrén's criticism of the government and, not least, the Sverigedemokraterna is not lenient. It is very sharp - and that even in a situation where the second-largest environmental and climate budget in Swedish history has been presented in expenditure area 20. No budget presented by the red-greens has been larger. But it is still a scandal, according to Miljöpartiet. In that case, all of MP's previous budgets should be a scandal. It would be pleasant if the member acknowledged that.

I believe that Miljöpartiet thinks it doesn't cost anything. It is, in fact, always someone else who pays. I think it is time that Miljöpartiet's environmental policy is scrutinized. It happens very rarely. I want to ask Member Nohrén if Miljöpartiet still wants that reserve of half a million hectares of mountain-adjacent forest in the inland of Norrland that they wanted before the election.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

We see that we need to protect more nature than we do today. Our natural forests and old-growth forests where there are no traces of human impact are disappearing at an ever faster pace.

In the Artskyddsutredningen, a proposal for a unified protection of the mountain forest was made, and I assume that is what the member is referring to. It is something that we absolutely still stand by and wish would happen. It would be a way to safeguard the Swedish old-growth forest and at the same time obtain a good carbon sink. It is also about an area that is valuable for many animal and nature species.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Half a million hectares of forest corresponds to a million football fields. It is an incredible amount, and this applies to a type of nature that is already very protected.

I worked a lot towards Brussels before, and there they used the expressions "nice to have" versus "need to have". Let me show the authorities' reporting to the EU regarding the status of endangered species and nature types. I have this one here in my hand.

It takes an incredible amount to get a green dot, which means that it is approved and that no further measures are required. Almost everything here is red.

If you look at the mountains, you see green blobs everywhere. When you look at the forest, you see quite a few red blobs, but when it comes to the mountain region, there is nothing red but instead a lot of green, including the mountain birch forest. To then preserve half a million hectares in these areas, which also already have a certain protection today even though they are production forests, is very clearly something that is "nice to have" and not a "need to have".

A reserve designation means that there will be no timber extraction in the inland of Norrland. There will also be no sawmills or forestry contractors, no maintenance of forest roads, or any agriculture, as agriculture is dependent on forestry in these parts of the country - and also far to the south.

This is what one is, and is prepared to do, for something that is "nice to have".

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not have such a fine brochure to wave, but had I had it, it would have been the major investigation on precisely the Species Protection Ordinance which has a colorful frog on the front cover. There it is clearly shown that this would have an effect and that it is areas that coherently would give the boreal forests a cohesive protection, which would also mean that we get what we need to achieve our climate goals and the goals for biodiversity in these areas.

Some of them are already protected or are not possible to fell, for example because they are located on mountainsides, and in those cases it does not matter if we protect them. However, it is a matter of seeing this as a whole, so that we get a functioning ecosystem.

We think the investigation's proposal is good and would like to see it come to fruition.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I feel that it is becoming a long journey toward night before we are finished, but it is indeed wonderfully fun and important to debate these issues!

There were a few things that I reacted to during the Green Party's presentation that I would like to get some clarity on. I am, of course, aware of the Green Party's positions on many of these issues, but since the member is quite new to their post, perhaps I can get some new explanations as to how one reasons regarding these positions.

It was spoken about, among other things, about unsustainability in agriculture and forestry and about lack of soil health. Does Miljöpartiet also apply this to Swedish soil health? Does Miljöpartiet apply "unsustainability" to Swedish agriculture or Swedish forestry? It would have been interesting to hear the reasoning around this.

The member described his own forestry, which was interesting. I am also a forest owner and do not think quite the same way. I would not claim that my forestry is unsustainable. I am double-certified. I have clear-cut forestry and continuous-cover forestry. I have forest grazing. I have nature reserves. I have a nature conservation agreement. I have key biotopes that remain.

I would say that I am quite sustainable in my forestry. That assumes, however, that I have production on the other hand, because just like all other forest owners, I also have a responsibility to provide raw materials for everything that we want the forest to suffice for. Continuity forestry in all its glory, but there will be less raw material. Even with a shift to organic farming, there will be a smaller amount of raw material.

This is not something one speaks about so often from the perspective of the Green Party. It would have been interesting to hear an argument about what it means that we are to produce less food and produce less in the forest.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite understand it as a question, but rather as a reasoning about our policy from the member's side.

I know that Member Widegren is skilled in forestry and has knowledge. More people with knowledge are needed – that is why we propose that there should be the possibility of consultancy and transition support for forest owners who want to make a transition to, for example, non-clear-cut areas. It is also about how they can be managed so that one achieves better climate adaptation. We also want to see support for those who want to transition to organic farming.

In the matters that lie before us regarding EU directives - the restoration act and others - it is evident that we have homework to do, even though we are a capable country and in many places are better than many other countries. We will need to recreate certain areas, for example wetlands. In some parts, soil health will be improved.

I am not saying that it looks the same everywhere, and I am not saying that we are worse than anyone else - in many places we are better. But we will need to do this, because we must have an agriculture and a forestry within the planetary boundaries.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the answers.

Does this mean that Miljöpartiet does not think that today's agriculture and forestry in Sweden are sustainable? That is how I interpret it; Emma Nohrén is welcome to clarify if that is correctly understood.

We will return to continuous cover forestry. It will lead to a smaller amount of raw material; we can be completely in agreement on that. There was a reason why it was almost banned in the late 40s - it delivered too little raw material.

Is it not better if the landowners themselves get to decide whether it should be continuous cover forestry or clear-cut forestry, just as we think the farmers themselves should choose whether they should be organic or conventional? They work in the way that best suits their circumstances. Is it then not foolish to use sticks from politics to say "This is how you shall do it!" when we should instead have more freedom?

Miljöpartiet unfortunately did not answer what it means to reduce the amount of raw materials from forestry and agriculture and what one believes this will lead to. The Balance Commission, I believe, had an interesting report that was presented this summer in Almedalen regarding what it would mean to transition forestry from clear-cutting to continuous-cover forestry according to the proposal on the table from the EU in connection with the EU's forest strategy. In rough terms, it would mean reduced revenues of 12 billion per year for forest owners and reduced revenues of 20 billion per year for the Swedish forest industry. At the same time, it would cause the value of the Swedish forests to be written down by 300 billion.

I think these are quite large sums, and one probably has to consider which money should instead pay for this.

Does the Green Party have a problem with us receiving less raw material from agriculture and forestry with the proposals that the Green Party puts forward?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The question was whether we see that less raw material will come out of forestry and agriculture. That may happen in some places, but we also see that the raw material that is needed and that perhaps yields the most money should be extracted. Within the EU system, there is talk of a cascade effect and of the fact that one should also see what the timber is used for and extract the most value.

I believe that my uncle, from whom I inherited my forest, received approximately the same amount of money - albeit with a different monetary value - 20 or 30 years ago as I am receiving now when I withdraw. The value of the forest and what comes out is less for me than it was for him. There is high demand for the forest, but that is also true globally.

I believe that as a forest owner, one wants to be proud of the products one extracts and that they should go to the right things. Using the forest to build houses, store carbon and so on is something we all want to do, and we want to increase that use. There, we can perhaps in some parts get the same value even if we have a smaller extraction - if we make the right extraction.

Miljöpartiet sees it the same way when it comes to agriculture: It depends on the processing and what is done with the products. The costs will become enormous if we do not ensure that we solve the climate crisis and what is happening with biodiversity. We must have an agriculture, forestry, and fishing that is within the planetary boundaries, which is what we can actually manage – otherwise, it will not matter how much money we take out, because it will become even more expensive to do so. It is better to do right now, so that we can live well in the future.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The member mentioned fishing, which is a concern in the Baltic Sea. A fear that has come up now and which may have existed for a while is that countries that have built offshore wind power say that it has caused the fish to be unable to reproduce as before and that the noise makes the school not come there where they usually are. I want to ask Miljöpartiet and Emma Nohrén how they view that. Is it something that you discuss when it comes to offshore wind power? Do you see it as a problem or not?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Magnus Oscarsson for the question. Now we come to a subject that is close to my heart. More offshore wind power will be needed in order to manage the energy transition. That is not to say that all offshore wind power is good wind power. It depends entirely on where you build, in what way you build, what type of turbines you build, and how you run the cables to land.

That means that a wind farm can be very good, increase biodiversity and act as a refuge for fish and seabirds, while another park in another location can do the opposite. There is therefore no simple answer here. Good underlying data will be needed to get the wind farms in the right places. If correctly placed, they can become a good addition that is needed in the Swedish energy mix and actually also contribute to biodiversity in certain places.

In some cases, it will be possible to fish within the parks, in other cases not. No park will likely be like the other. It also depends on the fact that the sea and the seabed do not look the same in all places.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. It was interesting.

Another issue that we talk a lot about here is the reduction obligation. Today, a 30.5 percent blend applies and the price is what it is. Many people have said that it is incredibly expensive to fuel up, for example, diesel, but it does not stop there. The previous government – above all the Green Party (MP) – planned that the reduction obligation in 2030 would go up to 66 percent. With that, the price would increase significantly.

When I discuss with farmers and many others who live in the countryside, they say that it is incredibly expensive to refuel and that they are wondering how they will manage if it were to become even more expensive. Therefore, my question is what Miljöpartiet and Emma Nohrén say to farmers who are having a tough time today with the diesel price increases that have occurred, given what the party intended to do. What do you say to everyone in the countryside who realizes that with Miljöpartiet as a force in a coming government, there will be much more interference and also much more expensive?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The reduction obligation is one of the tools that the previous government, which we were part of until last December, has used to achieve the climate goals - both our own and those Sweden is bound to via the EU and through the Paris Agreement.

The blending is intended to reduce emissions. At the same time, the industry must manage to deliver biofuels. In my home municipality Lysekil, for example, Preem is in the process of transitioning to be able to produce such fuels. But overnight, the government, with its coalition partner SD, changes the rules of the game for these large industries.

It will result in an increased cost, but the cost if the climate goals are not achieved will be even higher. I do not know what the government and its coalition partner will do to meet the goals. It will be expensive to buy emission allowances because there will not be any on the market.

The government has removed one of the few tools available to achieve the climate goals, without putting anything else in its place. The question should therefore be how the government is going to solve this and who is going to pay the bill. Unfortunately, I will not get an answer to that question today.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to express my approval of the proposals in the committee's report.

Friends in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture! Some say that the future is bright, and that is what I truly hope. The current situation is a bit darker, we can completely agree on that. First came a pandemic that affected Sweden in a number of different ways, and then came Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, which immediately affected us extremely much. The expenditure area that we are debating today, namely food, rural industries, and the countryside, was affected very much.

Food production in the world is normally at a good level, even though a growing population also requires a growing production. All of that changed that morning in February when the bombs began to fall over Ukraine. The availability of food in the world changed rapidly.

Russia and Ukraine are among the world's largest exporters of wheat. Wheat is the most important food we have, after water. Inputs from these countries are extremely important for Europe's and the rest of the world's agriculture. That export changed, just as the export of wheat, during this period and up until today.

What has this then meant? Well, increasing famine in the Horn of Africa - and it will continue - and that certain countries have closed up when it comes to the export of important inputs and also finished agricultural products. This clearly shows how important it is to have one's own production.

Sweden has taken access for granted for a long time. We Moderates will not escape responsibility - we have also been naively positioned in this issue and thought that domestic food production had not been so important. Our eyes have been opened, absolutely. We want to see a strengthened food chain in Sweden and a strengthened defense. We want an increased production of energy in Sweden and increased production in the forests.

We need to see if our own house is in order and protect ourselves in this situation, but also take greater responsibility when it comes to the export of, for example, food. The export of food was one of the important goals in the food strategy that was adopted in this chamber in 2017. It was fantastically good then and was adopted broadly by all parties. The goals in the strategy were clear: increased production, increased export, and so on. But unfortunately, they have not been achieved, despite the previous government's three action plans.

It was probably not anyone in here who believed that the action plans were the entire medicine for living up to the food strategy, but they were all that came. Otherwise, nothing came to strengthen the competitiveness out at the farm level. The farmers, who fundamentally are those who are to increase food production, did not receive the tools or the signals required to do so.

It is obviously unfortunate when it turns out this way because Sweden is a country that could produce much more food. Grain production has been heavily utilized. One cannot manage much more there. On the million hectares where grain is produced, the harvests can certainly be increased a little more, but then modern technology must be used – for example, gene scissors, GMO crops, and so on.

Cereal harvests have increased since the 90s by on the order of 2 tonnes per hectare. One has thus been able to increase them, but it is by being able to maximize the production.

We have 1.5 to 2 million hectares of farmland on which we can practically only produce grass. And on a large proportion of that farmland, nothing is produced today. We practically mow down the grass there, because the competitiveness conditions are too poor. It is considered that it is not worth producing food on those areas. This is primarily in northern Sweden. Here we have a huge potential to strengthen Swedish food production.

Mr. Speaker! Then it is about a food strategy 2.0 where we are to give the farms competitiveness. We naturally need to see a lowered cost level. We need to see long-term ownership and usage rights. We need to see reduced red tape and bureaucracy. And we need to see improved agency work and agency response. It is, in fact, one of the biggest fears that farmers in Sweden see today, my friends. Shall just the agency work and agency response be the limitation for how much food we produce in Sweden?

Many of the proposals are such that they do not need to cost particularly much money. It is important that we can maintain a restrictive budget in the situation Sweden finds itself in now. If we do not manage to handle the inflation and reverse that trend during the coming year, we will not have the possibility to make any investments at all, and we will see a continued trend of declining food production in Sweden. Inflation is the most important thing we have to turn around at the moment. In that case, we need to have a restrictive budget policy.

There are other fears linked to both agriculture and forestry. That is what is happening at the EU level right now. A number of strategies linked to the forest but also to agriculture are coming from the EU, which in one way or another want to reduce production. I know that some parties in the Riksdag are cheering for some of the proposals that are now coming from the EU. But what they could lead to is directly dangerous when it comes to reduced production.

The EU's food strategy Farm to Fork implies that one should reduce the use of plant nutrients by 50 percent, reduce plant protection by 50 percent and increase the proportion of organic. And at the very bottom of the last line, it is written that we should increase food production. That does not add up. USDA was early out and said that it does not add up, that it will lead to reduced food production in Europe and to more people in hunger. The Commission had a very difficult time taking that to heart. Now a number of impact assessments have also come from some European side. I therefore hope that it is taken to heart. But in many of the proposals, they are pushing forward.

In a report from the commission, we were able to read two weeks ago about the new taxonomy and a number of proposals in the new taxonomy proposal. They were downright hideous. They would mean a significantly reduced production in Sweden and Europe, when production needs to increase.

It may sound like one does not care about anything other than production. But we know, just as I said in my previous exchange, that we in Sweden have a sustainable production when it comes to both agriculture and forestry. Therefore, it is now important that this government takes the chance to point out a new path for Swedish agriculture and forestry. That is what strengthens the Swedish countryside. Then we can increase production in a sustainable way, continue to produce according to Swedish sustainability aspects and consider the economic, social and ecological aspects. Then we will move forward.

This government is prepared to turn around what now needs to be turned around. The government that has sat in power for eight years has, in fact, clearly shown that they did not manage it. Food production has gone down. They have not stood up for Sweden in a sufficiently powerful way when proposals have come from the EU. This government wants to change that.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Speaker, the Swedish Parliament Administration, the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's secretariat, and all my friends in the committee a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We will see each other here again after the holidays. But I assume I first have a small point to address.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I nevertheless agree with much of what the member says in his speech. But I think that in his speech he also agrees with the Sverigedemokraternas member's opinion that it will get better, at some point. We do not know when, however. First, you must reach an agreement.

I would like to quote a text and see if the member recognizes it. It says: We will "better care for already protected forests in order to strengthen biological diversity. - - - Outdoor life and nature shall be accessible to everyone. More state resources were needed to manage and maintain areas with valuable nature, as well as to renovate existing and, if necessary, create new trails in national parks and state nature reserves". It comes from the Moderates' election manifesto, if the member wondered.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask a question. Now we see the budget that the Moderate-led government has presented, and it does not quite rhyme with the election promises that were presented. Instead of investments in those areas, it is precisely here that they choose to cut back with almost surgical precision.

My question to the member is: Is it as the Sverigedemokraterna member said earlier: that it will be better times and that you will make those investments at some point, but definitely not this year?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that we all should hope for better times. We must assume that we are on our way toward better times.

There is, however, quite a lot to handle in the situation we find ourselves in. We have strongly increased inflation. It also increased unfortunately in the latest assessment we received. We also have the situation with energy, due to the former government's somewhat or rather – it is an understatement – naive view when it comes to energy production in Sweden. That means that Sweden is now in an extremely difficult situation with high electricity prices and so on.

It is no secret that we Moderates agree with the things the member mentioned in their question regarding investments to take care of already protected nature and so on. The Moderates have for a long time said: Make sure to take care of already protected nature in a better way than by starting a lot of new projects and taking more land out of production.

When one does not take new land out of production, one also frees up money to manage already protected areas, outdoor recreation areas, trails and so on. We do not think, *in absurdum*, that we should continue – as if the sky is the limit – to take more land out of production. In that way, funds are freed up.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. But I do not believe we have followed the same debate. The Swedish Forest Agency has indeed warned about the legal issues currently occurring in the area. Forest owners actually have the right to receive compensation for the cuttings they are not allowed to perform or for the forest they voluntarily wish to protect. That was something we were very much in agreement on. Despite that, the member's party and the government choose to cut completely on that area, even when it concerns compensation for forest.

Mr. Speaker! It is strange. It is said that the right of ownership shall be strong. It stands in our report: "The protection of the right of ownership shall be strengthened. A supporting part in the question of strengthened ownership is that landowners shall receive financial compensation for restrictions in the right of ownership and use to the extent that they have a right to it." We also know that there is currently a lot of people who want their rights tested in court. Despite that, we see the total reduction both in expenditure area 20 and in expenditure area 23, which we are debating today. The member may be welcome to help me understand how one intends to do this.

I must also comment on the electricity discussion. The Alliance produced an energy agreement. The Alliance raised the capacity tax. Then we jointly agreed on an energy agreement where we finally removed the capacity tax on nuclear power. That was in 2019. Does the member seriously mean that the Social Democrats in three years have in some way destroyed Swedish energy? I simply do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will not engage in any further energy discussion, but had we chosen to vote in a different way in this chamber in January 2020, we would, of course, be in a slightly different situation right now regarding electricity.

When it comes to the environment and climate and cuts in the budget, we must remember that the levels are historically high regarding these issues within all these expenditure areas in comparison with previous budgets. There is a lot of money for environmental and climate initiatives.

We believe, perhaps in contrast to the other side including the Social Democrats, in the forest owner and his opportunity to preserve high natural values and so on while simultaneously being allowed to retain the ownership, usage, and management rights over his forest. It is therefore why I return to the point that one does not need to continue to take more and more land out of production. The so-called ownership rights inquiry - actually the Forest Inquiry - which led to the forest bill dealt in principle only with how we should come up with new proposals on how we take more land out of production. That was the final result. We think instead that it should be up to the forest owner to decide how he wants to manage his forest.

When it comes to the proposal for a 100-mile long reserve for mountain-adjacent forest, I thought the Sverigedemokraterna representative very clearly preferred what it would mean to make those types of restrictions in areas where we have already protected more than half of the forest. We must calm down and start reporting in a correct way to the EU according to Article 17 when it comes to the protection of nature, classification of nature types and so on. Here we need to stop. In the meantime, we should not keep pumping out a lot of money to take more land out of production.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the honorable member Widegren for his many important reflections and views on the situation we find ourselves in regarding Swedish food production and the conditions for the green industries.

I had questions similar to those of the previous speaker before this debate. For several years, we have worked side by side, the Center Party and the Moderates, to strengthen individual ownership from a forest perspective and promote voluntary paths to formal protection. I am aware of John Widegren's strong commitment to these issues and his competence in the area.

It is clear that as a forest owner, one has received the distribution that the Moderaterna made before the election, where it is told how good Swedish forest policy would become if the Moderaterna were allowed to decide. But it is important to consider the whole, once, twice, and three times, based on what the government says and what is not implemented. There are many reasons why things are not implemented. But in the budget proposal and the proposition that the government has submitted to the Riksdag, it is very clear and concrete. This creates difficulties for individual forest owners, reduces resources for the care of nature and recreational values, and can also risk resulting in even larger spruce bark beetle infestations as a consequence. How can it be, John Widegren, that you do not protect what you so clearly declared before the election but instead make large cuts in the area?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am not quite following the reasoning, but perhaps I can get a clarification in the next reply. Why would it lead to increased spruce bark beetle attacks? It is difficult to understand. We have a method for how we handle the spruce bark beetle today, with cutting and searching and so on, which works in a good way. The major problems that some landowners have experienced have arisen when these issues have not been handled in formally protected forest or state forest. But an intervention at the right time during a potential spruce bark beetle attack does involve a net surplus. That state money would be needed to handle it, I find it difficult to see.

In the forestry committee that was held before the election from the Moderates' side, we spoke about strengthened ownership rights, a different forest policy, and so on. I am quite convinced that much of it will be implemented. But much of it is not about money in the budget, but about how we are to write our regulatory letters and how our agencies are to work towards individual forest owners.

An example concerns the forest near the mountains. We have a concern with the points that exist in the Forestry Act today regarding specifically forest near the mountains. I see a problem in this and would gladly review it. I will convey to the government during the mandate period that we need to review it, because it essentially means that it is impossible to cultivate this forest today. This is also a sign of how we want to work to strengthen the ownership rights.

Then, of course, we cannot get through everything we say. We are going to negotiate this between four different parties. But I am quite convinced that these four parties safeguard ownership and usage in a slightly different way than the parties that Center chose to cooperate with during the previous mandate period. It is probably harder to get through politics to safeguard ownership and usage with those parties.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Then let me clarify. The government's budget contains large cuts to the maintenance of already protected areas and nature reserves. There is a clear connection to risks concerning drought, spruce bark beetle infestations, and spread. Furthermore, the reduced appropriations for entry compensation are linked to denied logging permits and species protection cases. The consequence is that even more forest owners end up in a Catch-22, where they can neither log their forest nor receive the compensation they are entitled to. This is extremely serious from a macro perspective, but not least from the perspective of the individual affected forest owner. We have seen, case by case over the last few years, how it has been very tough.

Now the new government is heading in a direction that will make things even worse. I cannot quite see how this aligns with what was said during the election campaign. While the responsible minister at the Ministry of Finance sits and coordinates the entire budget work, they choose to deprioritize these extremely central issues, which concern strengthening Sweden as a forest nation. We know that this is revenue-generating and creates growth that is also sustainable. It is extremely important for a positive rural development. Obviously, the four coalition parties, three of which are government parties, have chosen to make clear deprioritizations after we have fought in recent years to ensure the best possible conditions. Once again: How can it be like this?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the clarification on how this could complicate the spruce bark beetle work. I still mean that the question of the spruce bark beetle should not have to be a problem due to a lack of funds. It is perhaps rather clear guidelines that are required to handle the spruce bark beetle issue.

When it comes to the species protection, the Centre Party and the Moderates jointly submitted a committee initiative during the spring which was supported by several parties. We got through a number of announcements, which of course need to be fulfilled. Some of this has already been handled; the entry into force took place on October 1, I believe. But the big hurdle is not handled, and it concerns the responsibility for investigation for individual forest owners. It is hoped, and I assume, that the government will look further into this during this mandate period, for it is a major stumbling block.

The right to compensation applies absolutely. It is clear that one should have the right to compensation when one is denied the use of one's property. In the Swedish constitution, the European Convention, the UN human rights, and so on, we see that there is a property right. I believe that as a member of the Centerpartiet, one probably needs to be less worried that the property right will not be strengthened and maintained at a high level with a Moderate-led government than with such a government as we have seen during the past eight years.

Regarding the funds in the budget, there are still historically large amounts of money in several of the expenditure areas that the member highlights in their speech. If there is no money in the budget, one also cannot take land out of production.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the hour is late, and it is Saturday.

We are now debating the budget and the section expenditure area 23. Here, the Social Democrats have presented a budget that is to be seen as a whole. We, on the other hand, have a specific statement within the expenditure area.

Mr. Speaker! A vital agriculture and forestry have an intrinsic value. But the green industries are also needed more than ever to manage the climate transition and to strengthen Sweden's competitiveness, food security, and preparedness.

The previous Social Democratic-led government acted in several ways to strengthen our green industries. It, for example, produced Sweden's first food strategy, which is intended to contribute to ensuring that the potential in the entire food chain is fully utilized.

To secure food production when Russia invaded Ukraine, we Social Democrats, together with the Center Party, took forward support packages of over 3 billion during the spring. These were important measures to strengthen production here and now.

From 2023, 60 billion kronor will now be invested within the common agricultural policy until 2027. This is so that we can promote Swedish food production and strengthen profitability and the underlying competitiveness.

It is an important piece of the puzzle for the next generation to dare and want to enter these industries. That agriculture manages the generational transition is one of the industry's most important issues. We were also driving from the Swedish side to get a greater focus on young people in the EU's agricultural policy.

In order for agriculture to continue to be able to produce the food we eat, it is required that we break unhealthy dependencies on import countries and, with that, also on fossil inputs. Therefore, we gave the Swedish Board of Agriculture the assignment to analyze the conditions for increased fertilizer production in Sweden.

We also need to utilize the residual flows from agriculture and forestry. Therefore, the Social Democratic government appointed an investigator who shall develop a national strategy for bioeconomy.

We introduced support for biogas production and a climate bonus for agricultural and forestry machinery. It is very gratifying to see when traveling around that these initiatives have been welcomed and utilized by farmers all over the country.

We also want to continue making it easier to choose Swedish. We therefore took on the issue of requirements for origin information on meat in restaurants.

We also appointed an inquiry to strengthen Swedish food preparedness. These are important steps to secure the food supply in Sweden. In our budget proposal, we prioritize more resources to strengthen the capacity within food and water supply.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats simply want to see more Swedish on the plate, more Swedish in thought, and more Swedish fertilizer. It is good for the climate and for Sweden's preparedness while simultaneously creating jobs across the entire country.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish forest is our green gold. It creates jobs and sustainable growth throughout the country. The forest has been and is a backbone of the Swedish economy. But the Swedish forest also has a unique natural value and must therefore be managed in a balance between nature conservation and forestry.

The forest will play a central role and already does so in the climate transition. By replacing fossil products and acting as a carbon sink, the Swedish forest creates the jobs of the future.

We Social Democrats believe that all the forest's values - jobs, biodiversity, cultural environment, outdoor life, nature tourism, reindeer husbandry, hunting, fishing and the tourism industry - should benefit society to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. Speaker! Climate change poses a threat to Swedish forestry and increases the risks of damage. We have debated this from the speaker's podium today. By adapting forestry to cope with a changed climate, the chances for the forest to withstand, for example, storms, insect attacks, and fungal attacks are improved.

The previous Social Democratic government invested resources in the upgrading of paths and doubled the support to outdoor organizations so that more people can get out into the forest for recreation and mushroom and berry picking. It is very sad to see that the right-conservative government and the Sverigedemokraterna are cutting back on these investments in the budget proposal that has been presented.

Mr. Speaker! Voluntarism shall be the basis for the protection of forests. In order to meet landowners' wishes to protect land, sufficient appropriations are needed in the budget. But the government is reducing the appropriations for nature conservation within both expenditure area 20 and 23.

We know that the Swedish Forest Agency is in need of significantly increased resources for supervision due to the legal developments in the area. We therefore prioritize allocating 100 million kronor more than the right-conservative government to the Swedish Forest Agency's work with logging cases and the authorities' work with nature and cultural heritage conservation measures within forestry and measures for establishing and managing forests.

Mr. Speaker! Fishing and the blue value chains are important for Sweden. They are important for growth and for rural development and important in the green transition. We Social Democrats want to promote and develop the Swedish fishing industry in both the short and long term, create growth and employment and contribute to a sustainable development in the whole country through, among other things, sustainable fish farming with high environmental requirements that can protect wild fish stocks and create more jobs in the countryside.

A great responsibility truly rests on the new government to continue to work for and safeguard environmental work so that the Baltic Sea can once again become a living and healthy sea.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a leading country in managing our natural resources and wildlife populations in an ethical manner. People shall be able to live and work in Sweden's rural areas while we preserve the biological diversity.

Protection hunting and license hunting are important tools in our predator management. Decisions shall be made regionally, be designed so that they comply with EU law, and be made in good time.

Sweden is an elongated country where wildlife and hunting are distinct. We Social Democrats believe that it is important that we safeguard the local. We want decisions regarding a sustainable and ethical hunt to be made as close to the citizens as possible. We see here that the county administrative boards and the wildlife management delegations are important and want their work and mandate to be developed.

Wolf, bear, wolverine, lynx and golden eagle shall achieve and maintain a favorable conservation status. Sweden shall continue to live up to the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives but without domestic animal keeping being significantly hindered and while socioeconomic considerations are taken into account.

Now we see, however, that the wolf population is increasing every year. According to us Social Democrats, today's population of 460 individuals is too large. Therefore, the previous Social Democratic government tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to look at how we can reach the goal that the Riksdag has decided on with an interval of 170-270 wolves while simultaneously maintaining a favorable conservation status. We Social Democrats also want to make it easier to manage the wolf and pushed the issue in the EU to move the regulation of the wolf from Annex IV to Annex V in the Habitats Directive.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying the following. In Sweden, households and companies are being pressured by both high inflation and rising interest rates. Real wages are being eroded, and economic reality is intruding into people's everyday lives. The difficult economic situation highlights the need for a secure society, where welfare delivers across all of Sweden and where we face tough times together.

It is not sufficient for the government not to look at the needs of the whole of Sweden, such as when one chooses not to give electricity support to 60 percent of Sweden's area, worsen the possibilities for veterinary field work, and not give the reindeer husbandry the conditions it needs in the face of climate change. What this government and the Sweden Democrats actually have against Norrland is something one might wonder about.

Regarding the debate we are having today, I unfortunately only see that the right-conservative government and the Sverigedemokraterna have lower ambitions than the Socialdemokraterna in this area.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for this speech! I waited quite a long time before requesting a reply, but then we came to the predator policy. Then the word wolf was mentioned.

The Social Democrats have clarified their position in the submitted budget proposal, and reference was also just made to this in the statement: The number is too large. For quite a few years, we have had a number of debates in here with various representatives linked to predator policy and linked to the spread of wolves in Sweden. Therefore, it is welcome that the Social Democrats define a figure of 170-210 individuals.

Is this a reversal from the Social Democrats considering previous positions and considering how the Social Democrats have driven the issues during eight years in government? You have, after all, driven them in a direction that in practice has meant a very large growth of the stock and a spread, not least in central and southern Sweden.

I have another question. It concerns the investigation that the Alliance government once in history commissioned, linked to reviewing the hunting law fundamentally. The previous Riksdag passed a decision on a notification to the government that a new investigation needs to be appointed. We have still not been able to see any announcement from the new government regarding this. Therefore, I want to ask: Is it also the Social Democrats' position to push the issue to get a new investigation?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Bäckström, for the questions! Regarding the Social Democrats and the wolf policy, we have an old congress goal, set many years ago. There it stands, I believe, 200 wolves.

What the Social Democrats have always said anyway is that we should have a favorable conservation status. That was what we commissioned the investigation for. Can we reach the Riksdag's goal, which was an interval between 170 and 270 wolves, also with a favorable conservation status?

Naturvårdsverket had previously stated that the lower limit for this was 300, but we wanted them to look at it in different ways. In that case, it applied to it being an immigrated wolf and that it should help the population. But one could also look at what happened if two immigrated wolves arrived, if one could move wolves, or in other ways ensure that the goal was reached. That was the assignment that the Socialdemokraterna and the government in that case gave Naturvårdsverket to review.

The favorable conservation status regarding wolves is nothing that the Social Democrats intend to compromise on, but we can imagine that there are different ways to achieve this.

What we also did when it came to wolves during this time was to ensure that the management areas were changed, which is also something that can lead to it not becoming the concentration that it has become regarding the wolf population. It is supposed to be in several places.

Regarding the Hunting Act, I believe that Daniel Bäckström should ask the government how it intends to work towards the announcement and simply see if they agree, whether this is to take place in the future or when it is to take place now.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is important that we can also raise the issue of a new investigation in the Riksdag's discussions. It was a clear mandate from the previous Riksdag, and I believe it is just as important now that the new Riksdag, during this mandate period, drives the issue in this direction. We need to get a proper investigation but also a real review based on the overall picture that has developed over the recent years.

Given the predator situation, the spread of wolves and the consequences this has for the countryside and the conditions for primary production, food supply, and a number of different factors, I believe we share the view on these perspectives. I also believe there is a broad understanding in the Swedish Riksdag that what is currently happening is heading in a direction that is beyond control when it comes to the number of wolves. It is clear that the socio-economic consequences risk becoming even greater.

I therefore think that this is a step in the right direction. But when one summarizes a few parliamentary terms back, much more could have been done in the debate here in the Riksdag earlier; I believe we can agree on that. But now it is extremely important that we have a stable majority to address this even more in depth.

It will of course affect many in southern Sweden, who have not yet seen the consequences that regions such as Bergslagen, Värmland, Örebro, Västmanland, parts of Dalarna, Gästrikland and so on are living with. These are enormous consequences for civil society and the region.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I share Daniel Bäckström's opinion that it is good that we do something together, that we look at which paths we can take to succeed and that we follow the commitments we have towards the EU. But we shall also try to influence the EU so that we might also be able to move the wolf from Article 4 to Article 5 for a management that also involves a favorable conservation status there.

We are not at all in disagreement on this, and we will have to see how the new government chooses to act when the answer finally comes from Naturvårdsverket. We simply have to wait and see.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Anna-Caren Sätherberg for the presentation! I heard the Minister say that carbon sinks...

(ANNA-CAREN SÄTHERBERG (S): No, I am no longer a minister - but thanks anyway!)

There you have it! One can change one's mind over time. In any case, I heard in Anna-Caren Sätherberg's speech that carbon sinks in the forest would become the workplace of the new era. Then I wondered how the Socialdemokraterna intend to proceed. I can imagine two lines of reasoning. Either they intend to de-rationalize forestry and in that way have methods that are more labor-intensive, or they intend to make nature reserve designations and that one then gets work with tourism in these areas.

Is it any of this, or is it a third track that the Social Democrats are thinking of?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! What I meant, since I also spoke about all the values of the forest, was that values naturally exist in the forest, but there is even more if Sweden is to be a spearhead and be the country that leads the climate transition. In order for us to ensure that it creates jobs across the whole country, it is also about using the forest's products for the transition that we need to make.

This is smart politics. This is what we have worked on for eight years in climate steps, in industrial steps, and in other things: Sweden shall be the one that takes the lead. Sweden drives the development and creates more Swedish jobs. What we have seen happen with the green industrial revolution in the north is something that truly is absolutely fantastic.

It is required that both business, politics, and research go together when such things are to happen. My idea in all of this was that in the climate transition we are to make, the forest is enormously important both as a carbon sink and, definitely, for the products that we extract from the forest which also ensure that we instead remove the fossil products.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely when the forest is not used as a carbon sink that we get the benefits of the products that we can extract from the forest. Furthermore, there is surely something behind the Social Democrats' desire for the forest as a carbon sink because they now want larger reserve areas than the conservative government wants.

But every reserve designation means that you take forest out of use and that you get a smaller timber harvest. Given the previous debate we had here about the mountain-adjacent reserve of half a million hectares, that is a million football fields, we do not know how the Social Democrats stand on that matter. When it happened, there were no signs whatsoever on the surface that the Social Democrats opposed these plans. Given the company the Social Democrats seek for a government alternative, the Social Democrats will have to compromise with the Green Party on this.

It seems as if the Social Democrats are having difficulty creating more jobs in the forest, precisely because they intend to use the forest as a carbon sink. We heard from Emma Nohrén that the biggest advantage of this huge reserve would be precisely that it was a carbon sink.

Now, new research has come from SLU. It is a three-year study that shows that the forest binds net plus carbon much earlier than was previously thought, which strengthens the thesis that it is precisely active forestry that is good for the climate.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Staffan Eklöf is putting words in my mouth that I have never said. Regarding the mountain-adjacent forest, it is already the case that 61 percent of Sweden's formally protected forest consists of the mountain-adjacent forest. I do not believe that Staffan Eklöf has seen the interviews I have done on the issue either.

The Social Democrats naturally want protected forest in all of Sweden, not in a specific area where one already has the largest part of the forest formally protected. But what makes me worried is when Staffan Eklöf says that he believes the Social Democrats do not see forestry and logging as important. That is what I really think I tried to say. It concerns Sweden's exports, it concerns the climate transition we need to make, and it concerns the reduction obligation. I have even called the responsible minister to the committee regarding this.

If we do not make use of the reduction obligation, we also know that the forest in Staffan Eklöf's Sweden will be used as a carbon sink permanently. For it is precisely this that we have discussed all the time. The responsible minister in the government that Staffan Eklöf's party is a coalition partner to could not say what should be used instead. In June, we agreed in the committee to use the reduction obligation so that we could have our logging of forest. If one does not use the reduction obligation – what should one do then? It will be up to Staffan Eklöf and the government to answer.

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think of it this way: The Social Democrats gave a real fiery speech here about everything that has been implemented and what the Social Democrats thought and intended. It is clearer today than it was as long as there was a coalition government together with the Green Party, for then they were vanishingly silent in these issues handled by the Environment and Agriculture Committee.

During the 1980s, it was decided that Swedish agriculture should become the world's cleanest. We strengthened animal welfare, and we began to adapt the systems to the animals instead of, as in many other countries in Europe, trying to adapt the animals to the systems. We have significantly reduced the use of plant protection products, and we have started with precision farming. We have well-educated, skilled farmers in Sweden - farmers who, in most business sectors, perhaps produce some of the highest production results in the world. Nevertheless, we are one of the worst countries when it comes to profitability in agriculture.

During the Socialdemokraternas time in power, the food strategy was introduced with its clear objectives and what I thought was the most important goal in that strategy – that we should increase food production. By 2030, we were to see the results of the strategy. But we are not there at all, Mr. Speaker! And we are not increasing our food production. Now we are in quite difficult times where there is rather a risk that we will decrease our food production.

Do the Social Democrats see any other major structural problems that prevent us from meeting the strategy's objectives?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for a very important question. Some structural problems have been that we have a war in our immediate vicinity and that we have gone through a pandemic. The pandemic did, however, ensure that we chose more Swedish and perhaps even made it so that we got more Swedish on the plate, which the Social Democrats would like to see. But it is clear that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has made it difficult to reach the goals and that there have been expensive input goods. It has been expensive to be a farmer in Sweden, quite simply, and not only in Sweden. Therefore, we also carried out a fairly large investment of over 3 billion together with the Center Party during the previous parliamentary term.

I, however, share John Widegren's view regarding the fact that we developed a food strategy. I believe it was important. The latest evaluation that was conducted showed that profitability had increased in all parts, but not by as much in all. It was in the last one that it increased the most, unfortunately, and not as much in primary production.

So there was something there. But in the light of the fact that we have a war and are talking about Sweden's preparedness, the Social Democrats, just like the Moderates, see a great value in that we are now actually updating it and producing a new one. What I wanted to say was that in the latest evaluation we could still see positive signs in all areas when it comes to profitability, but it needs to be even larger in primary production.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answers. I believe that Swedish agriculture is experiencing a very good year in most business sectors this year, purely economically. Next year looks worse.

We introduced an emergency support in the Riksdag, which however could have been even larger if we had followed the Moderaternas line. But that being said - I am not in favor of emergency support, and Sweden should not distinguish itself as one of the few countries within the EU that needs emergency support for its own agriculture and for its own food production every time things go a bit wrong. We have utilized quite a few emergency supports in recent years, starting in 2018 when there were dry years.

Mr. Speaker! I am thinking about the forest. The member highlighted the climate as a major concern in the forest. I agree! It is primarily that we see more dry periods, a different insect pressure, and so on. The climate, however, has also become a guarantee for increased production. I reflect on what the Swedish Forest Agency presented in its SKA analyses regarding the future of forestry. There, it was stated that the possibility of increased production in Swedish forests is precisely the climate, because we have chosen to take so much land out of production and continue to take land out of production. The forestry bill was actually a number of proposals on how we take even more land out of production.

From the Moderate side, we see it as a major problem. We do not think that we should increase the proportion of land taken out of production. How do the Social Democrats reason about this now, when we receive these clear analyses, from for example the Swedish Forest Agency, which show that we are at the limit when it comes to whether we can increase production or not because we have taken so much land out of production.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

It was very interesting with the new analyses that have been made. We must look further into what they imply. Aside from that, we naturally stand behind the forest bill we drafted. But now new analyses have arrived, and we must look at them and at what they imply.

Just like John Widegren, I do not meet a single farmer who wants support. I meet farmers who truly want a settlement price so that the company they run simply breaks even and makes a profit. But I must still say this: Some things no one can influence, such as the drought that has occurred and the invasion and war in Ukraine. There, the government must simply ensure that socially important production can still continue. One must see it as that those supports were uninfluenceable.

However, we must ensure that we make this transition. Even though we have a fantastic agriculture and forestry sector, everything can always be improved. It is also something that a responsible government does, and perhaps that is not quite what I see in the budget that is laid on the table today and that we are now debating.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today, the Environment and Agriculture Committee's expenditure area 23 is being debated. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a fantastic country. But we also live in a very restless world.

Russia's war against our neighboring country Ukraine has caused many to open their eyes to how bad our preparedness is. In my first debate here eight years ago, I raised how poorly prepared we were in the country, how in a crisis or war situation we would only manage for ten days. Here in Stockholm, it is two days; after that, the grocery stores and their central warehouses would be empty. I spoke about how we could learn from Finland, which manages for six months without needing to import a single grain of wheat.

After my speech, a member from another party came up to me and said: Magnus, you don't need to worry about that. We have the EU, after all. It'll sort itself out, as they say in Ödeshög.

That is no longer the case. Everyone understands that Sweden needs a viable agriculture that can produce food for all the country's inhabitants. An agriculture that does not produce less food but more food is very important.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, we have had governments, regardless of party affiliation, that have said otherwise. We have had a Prime Minister who considered Swedish agriculture to be a special interest. We have had an Interior Minister who, in response to a direct question, answered: Well, we can surely ask our neighboring countries if there would be a crisis with the supply of mats in our country.

Mr. Speaker! We received a food strategy in June 2017. It was very important for us, and I want to give all the credit to the then Minister for Rural Affairs. The cornerstones of the strategy were to increase the profitability of agriculture, to make agriculture more competitive, and to increase our country's food supply.

It didn't go until April 29 this year before the then government presented a proposal on how to do this - from 2017 until this year. Now they say that the investigation is to be completed on December 1, 2023. That is, it will have taken six years from the time we made the decision here in the chamber in 2017 until we receive a proposal from an investigation. One can hardly call it quick decisions.

During the week, some of us had conversations with producers from various agricultural companies. Everyone says similar things: It is not actually support that we are looking for. What we are looking for, what we think is important, is precisely that we should be able to have a more competitive agriculture, that it should be more profitable to run a farm.

One can summarize the current government's eight years by saying that, as we discussed earlier in the debate, there were many discussions and talk but very little workshop. It is exactly as the farmers say: At the farm level, we have noticed no difference. It is very serious.

During my eight years in the Riksdag, I have experienced four different crises: the milk crisis, the drought, the pandemic, and now the Russia war. It is exactly as my colleague John Widegren spoke about before: It is not primarily about a lot more support packages. What is clearly being said is: Give us the conditions! Give us the same conditions as our friends in Europe! Then we can show that we are as skilled as we actually are.

Just as John Widegren also pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is concerning how the EU handles agriculture moving forward. It is incredibly important, and I am very glad we have a government that will stand firm on it, on handling the issues that concern Europe and the EU decisions. These will have a very large impact on our agriculture moving forward.

It is naturally very concerning to see and hear that there is so much going on ahead that will cause us to have reduced production in our country. It is, as said, incredibly important that we now have a government that can work forward for at least four years and really ensure that we get a new era for our farmers in our country.

With these words, I wish the Speaker, everyone in the rostrum and the secretariat, and all members a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We all remember that during the election campaign there was a constant waving of a falukorv when the Kristdemokraterna were out debating. Now we can state that the member, I and all other high-income earners will be able to buy very much falukorv. On the other hand, it will still be very tough for ordinary people to make the finances work at Christmas.

This falukorv is also to be produced. It will be tough for companies to produce falukorv when electricity costs are making companies go to their knees. And it will be even tougher where no electricity support is received. It is 60 percent of Sweden's area where the government has completely prioritized away the electricity support - in and of itself, no company has received any electricity support or any notice about it yet, but it has already been said that it will not be given to 60 percent of Sweden's area.

My question to the member is: How will food production and the entire food chain be secured in all of Sweden when the government chooses to prioritize away not only northern but also central Sweden?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for your question! Falukorv is very good. At least that is what I think. It was perhaps something significant for the election campaign that prices were discussed, just as the member touched upon.

This government has now been in power for nine weeks, if I remember correctly. It is clear that there is a lot that one takes in. One takes over, so to speak, the folder from the previous government and sees how things stand with the country.

It is obvious that the new government cannot finish everything at once. Everyone who has some insight into how the situation looks probably understands that. The government that has now taken office is doing everything it can to make it as good as possible.

What the member is raising right now concerns Norrland. The support that goes to the producers in electricity price area 3 and 4 is based on the previous year. It is therefore not the current year.

When prices are now rising even in northern Sweden, government representatives have actually said that it should be reviewed whether electricity price areas 1 and 2 can also receive support. That is probably the answer to the question. Then it is probably best to interpellate the Minister for Enterprise regarding this, so the member gets an even better answer, because I cannot know exactly what this government intends to do. It is quite impossible for me.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is impossible for the entire Swedish Parliament, as the Minister for Enterprise refuses to take a debate on the issue here in the chamber until the end of January. That is several months after the interpellation was written. I hope that we can get some order on this so that the ministers come and take their interpellation debates when we submit our interpellations in good time.

Now I have the Minister for Enterprise's party colleague here, who was also part of the election campaign where there was the falukorv and a campaign about ordinary people being able to afford to eat. I agree with that, and no one is demanding that everything can be done in nine weeks.

But what we are requesting concerns what has now been prioritized, that is to say that one is putting 13 billion into tax cuts for you and me and everyone else in here, but one has not prioritized those who do not earn over 50,000. They do not get a share of this. One chooses - this choice has been made during these nine weeks - not to include 60 percent of Sweden in the electricity support. One has not included those farms and food companies and everything else in the land-based industries that require a lot of electricity. They are not allowed to be part of the investments. These priorities have already been made. It is nothing that we should wait for or have understanding for. This is the policy that is being delivered to Sweden's Riksdag from the government and its parties.

My question remains: How are they supposed to manage during these Christmas times – I suppose I must also say Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker, so I have done that – as those who live in Norrland and have a lump in their stomach from worry, whether they are entrepreneurs or not? This Christmas they know that the government definitely does not prioritize them.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, once again, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for a great question!

I think we should take it from the beginning. The member starts with a falukorv. But one could perhaps start with another sausage, that is, simply how it looked when the government took over?

That we have high electricity prices has to do with the fact that we have had a government that for eight years has shut down nuclear power. That just makes the price go up. Wind turbines have been built, but sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Oh, they didn't think of that!

It is this that makes the friends up in Norrland, whom the member is speaking about, suffer today. The price has gone up because we do not have access to energy in the same way as before.

It is no small sum that goes back to the friends in Sweden. It is actually 55 billion that goes back, based on how much electricity one consumed last year. The friends in Norrland actually had quite low energy prices last year. This is exactly what it is about. The 55 billion applies to last year.

This year is another year. It is clear that we must ensure that Norrland and electricity price areas 1 and 2 also receive a share of the support when prices become this high.

If there is anything this government protects, it is our companies and our consumers. Most people know that. Now we are talking about the electricity price. The government also protects our agriculture. It is important: Everyone should know that this government cares about our country and those who live here.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Oscarsson, for the speech! I think that what is raised connected to the security policy situation is important. There is an incredibly strong connection between our food supply and our production in Sweden.

I am aware of how the discussion and debate has proceeded over the recent years. Most of us in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture have good insight into the economic conditions and how the government's - both the previous government's and the incoming government's - conditions have looked in connection with the economic situation.

We have often raised the conditions for primary producers and agriculture. Not least Member Magnus Oscarsson has, for over eight years, been very active in these issues, also in debates in the chamber.

The crisis support for Swedish agriculture, which the Center Party together with the latest government has pushed through, has in many ways been an important signal. It has also meant increased economic space. However, it was limited for the larger agricultural companies by the quota that the EU had, linked to animal production. This has, however, been raised now.

If we in Sweden were to adapt our support possibilities to the raised level, it would, if I have understood correctly, mean that the vast majority of farms and greenhouses could receive the full crisis support they applied for in September. It would have an immediate effect. Why has the government not taken any such initiative, and does the government intend to do this given the crisis situation we find ourselves in?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Bäckström, for an excellent question! Just as the member pointed out, we here in the Swedish Riksdag have tried to raise issues concerning these concerns.

As I said, I myself during my eight years in the Riksdag have witnessed that our farmers have had it very tough and lived through four crises. As I said in my speech, one notices that perhaps it is not support that is the most important. It is clear that support is important when things are as they are, but preferably one would have wanted to fill the barns beforehand. One would want it to have been so good that one could fill the barns in advance, so that one would avoid always standing with one's hat in one's hand and begging for alms.

This is what this government needs to work for moving forward. The support that the member is now speaking about is a very good issue. I intend to take it to the Minister for Rural Affairs. I can also suggest that Member Bäckström interpellate the Minister for Rural Affairs on exactly this issue. Just as the member says, it is important to raise this regarding the support in different ways even with the current government.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! As I interpret it, there is a shortfall of approximately 200-300 million in the national funding in the government's budget to be able to make this increase. It would have been a good addition during the journey if the government had managed to achieve this.

We in the Center Party have in our proposal half a billion extra for next year just to be able to have resources to handle crisis support even further. The global situation and the national situation point in one direction: It just becomes more and more difficult. It is not least about the conditions to secure production at home and increase it, which we in the Riksdag have a common ambition regarding, and about the food strategy.

But now we have a new government, and after many years of engagement in these issues in the Riksdag, I believe there is a good starting position for the government parties to actually deliver in the near term. One does not need to refer to the fact that it takes time to get into the work or that the global situation is pressing the economy so that there are no opportunities.

What concrete measures are there actually in this year's budget bill that are linked to fulfilling the objectives in the food strategy? These are things that we have worked on together for many years.

The only thing I can state is that there is a six-month extension of the reduction of the diesel part linked to land and forestry. It is very important. It can certainly be extended further – that is what we in Centerpartiet think would be completely right. But what does Magnus Oscarsson concretely see will happen during the near future, during the budget year we are discussing, that will ensure that the objectives in the food strategy are met?

The responsibility now lies with the government and the governing parties. It is not only the government that bears a great and heavy responsibility to fulfill the objectives in the food strategy, but also everyone in the Swedish Riksdag who belongs to the four coalition parties.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Daniel Bäckström again for the questions. These are very important questions. I truly share the view that it is important that we push in different ways.

What do we do now and moving forward? The Member of Parliament himself brings up a lowered fuel tax. Another issue we are raising is that we are reducing the reduction obligation in 2024. We believe this will do quite a lot for the price. These are important matters. It must be constantly highlighted that a lot is being done.

During this year, we will work to reduce the bureaucracy. It is important to constantly try to make it easier to do the right thing. One should not constantly feel that the bureaucracy is so tough and harsh that one gets so many stones in one's backpack that one sinks. I have actually even heard farmers say: I'm giving up now. I'm quitting, because this no longer works.

So we cannot have that.

I believe it is such things. Just as the member said, we promised a lot during the election campaign. Now it is important to also deliver. I really agree with that. Now we have a government that is forward-leaning to really work on the issues. I believe that is an important signal – that we are working. Then we all know how it is with our global environment, as the member touched upon. These are costs that we perhaps did not account for and all that. But we have at least now a government that will do everything it can and that will work on the issues to make Swedish agriculture more competitive and to achieve more profitability for Swedish agriculture. I believe that is important.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thought that was a funny remark about the falukorvs. Unfortunately, I have not prepared any falukorvs in my speech, so you will have to make do with one without.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' and the government's budget bill is characterized by a shocking passivity in the face of both major structural societal problems and the effects of the ongoing climate and nature crisis. What is presented is, in many respects, a crisis policy from the right that aims to take from the poor and give to the rich, as well as delay - yes, even almost prevent - the necessary transition we now face.

Vänsterpartiet presents a completely different direction in its budget motion. The economic policy shall be directed towards full employment and economic equality. The burdens of the rapid price increases must be distributed fairly, with special consideration for those households that have small margins.

Mr. Speaker! We must not forget that functioning ecosystems are the foundation of our welfare. Everything we manufacture and extract to live, we get in one way or another from what exists on our planet. At the same time, masses of species are threatened by the way we produce food, gadgets, heat, and energy. If we do not do something quickly about it, the consequences for life on earth will be great.

The climate transition work needs to be accelerated significantly if we are to reach our climate goals - the climate goals that the government, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, now seems to be abdicating from.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party, on the other hand, wants to see a climate and environmental policy that is structured, comprehensive and - this is important - rooted in the people. For the climate transition to be effective, the entire society and all parts of the economy must be restructured. Through investments of 700 billion kronor, we want to ensure over the next ten years that the climate transition is accelerated in the manner demanded by, among others, the Climate Policy Council.

With the Left Party's proposed investments, Sweden will be able to take real steps towards becoming the world's first fossil-free welfare state. We are moving from words to action and propose a transition policy that will be felt in all parts of Sweden. We want to see a red-green social construction.

I believe that the absolutely necessary transition should be seen as an opportunity to improve the quality of life for everyone living in our country, if we carry it out in the right way. This applies to both those who live in the countryside and in smaller towns and those who live in cities.

What do our initiatives look like in the expenditure area of agriculture, rural areas and food? I will highlight some of our proposals here.

Large-scale investments are needed regarding measures for forestry. Smaller forest areas with high nature values are not suitable as nature reserves, but it is important that the state can provide compensation to landowners to formally protect these areas in the long term. The Swedish Forest Agency can, in these cases, establish nature conservation agreements and biotope protection areas. It is particularly important that there are resources available for forest owners with smaller forest holdings with a high proportion of nature values.

We must also protect our mountain areas, which are completely unique in Europe. The need is great when it comes to the management of compensations regarding the mountain-adjacent forests, where logging permits were denied in order to protect forests with high natural values. Here we propose an increase of 1.48 billion kronor.

The completely dominant forestry method in Sweden is clear-cutting, also called clear-cut forestry. This method has a major impact on, among other things, biodiversity. The climate crisis requires urgent measures to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Vänsterpartiet wants to strengthen carbon sequestration and biodiversity by protecting forests to a greater extent and increasing areas with continuous-cover forestry instead of clear-cut forestry.

But then economic incentives were also needed for private forest owners to let the forest get older before it is harvested and to adapt thinnings for increased carbon storage. This would benefit both the countryside as well as the climate benefit and the biodiversity. For the countryside, it could also contribute to an improved living environment and strengthened conditions for nature tourism when the trees are allowed to get a little older.

To stimulate the cultivation of an increased area with clear-cut-free forestry methods, we want to introduce a transition support for the landowner, as the transition may involve increased costs during the transition. Therefore, we propose an increase of the appropriation for this by 50 million kronor.

Mr. Speaker! Our natural ecosystems have a great capacity to store carbon, and these carbon stores must be better protected if we are to meet the climate challenge. Our agricultural lands must be cultivated to a greater extent so that access to topsoil is protected and natural resources are preserved. Cycles need to be the starting point, and a diverse agricultural landscape must be stimulated to an increased extent.

Sweden has good conditions here to develop a sustainable agriculture that in the future can contribute both to the global food supply and strengthen our national self-sufficiency of food.

In order to achieve an ecologically sustainable and fossil-free agriculture, support and steering measures within the agricultural sector must be designed so that they can contribute to us reaching our environmental and climate goals as well as the global sustainability goals.

Agriculture today has a significant impact on a number of our national environmental goals. Vänsterpartiet considers it concerning that Sweden has a self-sufficiency rate of only 50 percent when it comes to food. An increased self-sufficiency rate would make us better equipped during crises and extreme weather as well as reduce our import dependency.

In our view, it would also give us the conditions to strengthen both the production and consumption of sustainable food, that is, food that is to a greater extent plant-based, locally produced, organic and, in the long run, fossil-free. We believe that Sweden should adopt a national target for a level of self-sufficiency in food on par with Finland's at around 80 percent. If Finland has the possibility of having such a level of self-sufficiency in food, it would be fully possible for Sweden as well.

We need more measures to achieve a more fossil-independent agriculture. It is necessary for the climate and can strengthen our preparedness in crisis situations. Therefore, we propose a special investment pot for state support for fossil-free machines and vehicles within agriculture of 100 million kronor.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to introduce environmental compensation for cultivation of grass. The measure strengthens the economic conditions for farmers with grazing animals and strengthens carbon sequestration in agriculture. We propose an increase of the appropriation for this by 150 million kronor compared to the government.

Finally, we want to increase the support in the strategic plan for Sweden's agricultural policy for 2023-2027 for the establishment and management of wetlands. We propose an increase of the appropriation for this purpose by 300 million kronor for 2023 compared to the government's.

In expenditure area 23, we add 3.64 billion more than the government. For us, the budget is a whole. This also means that we refrain from a position and instead have a specific statement within the expenditure area.

With this, I also wish you a pleasant weekend now that we are getting off!

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! A strong, prosperous, and vibrant countryside builds a strong, prosperous, and vibrant Sweden. A prosperous countryside is an important cog in a well-functioning crisis preparedness, and it is fundamental for a strong civil preparedness capability, something that has become clear as a consequence of forest fires, severe drought, the pandemic, and not least the war in Ukraine.

A prosperous countryside is, for me in many respects, synonymous with freedom. With the silence and the stillness. With vast forests. With hunting and fishing and breathtaking nature experiences. With the northern lights, mountain hiking and skiing. With the forest and the ore and the prosperity sprung from this. With agriculture and the food we put on our tables. With enterprise, green industries and generational forestry. With the tourism industry and entrepreneurship. With the management of previous generations' work and our common cultural heritage. Last but not least, there is in many places a vibrant association life, an important cohesive glue in many regions. The importance of what civil society does for the countryside must not be underestimated.

Mr. Speaker! Now it might sound as if I am describing an idyll, and the Swedish countryside is in many ways fantastic. But it is not Skansen, it is not a manicured Bullerbyn. It is important to remember. Reality is more complex than that.

Living and working in the countryside often entails a number of challenges. Life sometimes becomes unnecessarily difficult, partly as a consequence of long distances to community services. Furthermore, we live in an elongated country, a country where the conditions vary greatly depending on which part of the country one is in. Living in an old cottage in Kilsbergen in the border area between Närke and Värmland, less than an hour from one of Sweden's largest cities, differs greatly from living in the interior of Norrbotten, to mention one example.

Mr. Speaker! There is a way forward where we build the whole of Sweden stronger. A liberal starting point is always the safeguarding of the human power over one's own situation. Each one of us should be given the opportunity to create one's own future. We need to strive to create conditions for those who want to live, work, and run businesses in the countryside to be able to do this. One should be able to live and operate where one wants to.

To make this possible for more people, the whole of Sweden must grow. The whole of Sweden's development power, growth potential, and employment opportunities must be utilized. It cannot be emphasized enough that it is entrepreneurship and economic development that is the foundation for our common prosperity.

Therefore, people and companies across the country must be given opportunities to grow and develop. In this context, we need to clearly highlight how important the green industries are for a sustainable Sweden and that they are a key to the green transition.

The land and the forest are some of our country's most important resources and are absolutely crucial for the prosperity in this country. The land and the forest create jobs, food, and biodiversity, to name a few. It is completely fundamental for a living countryside and for creating job opportunities throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time when environmental issues need to be prioritized ever more highly, and we live in a country where many who live and work in the countryside work hard to make everyday life work.

For me, and for the Liberals, it is important that environmental aspects are included in the rural perspective and that rural aspects are included in the environmental perspective. Environmental issues and rural issues are in many respects closely intertwined. Therefore, I particularly want to highlight a stanza from the part of the budget that we are debating here in the chamber today:

"In Sweden, everyone should be able to live and realize their dreams, regardless of where one lives. The government's goal is that the policy for rural industries, countryside, and food shall contribute to a sustainable development in all parts of the country. The government wants to see living and vital countryside with competitive rural industries, jobs and companies while valuable environment is protected."

I close the circle by ending in the same way I began. A strong, prosperous and vibrant countryside builds a strong, prosperous and vibrant Sweden.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I wish to vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Members of the House! We soon have both Christmas and New Year's celebrations to look forward to, and thus also a new budget year. The Center Party's budget proposal lies above the government's budget level, and the Center Party's budget alternative should be seen as a whole. We in the Center Party therefore refrain from taking a position and have in today's report a special statement on our priorities.

For some months, Sweden has been governed by an SD-supported government based on the Tidö Agreement. What this concretely means for Sweden's agricultural sector remains difficult to see. We do not see the government mentioning the words countryside, agriculture, and forestry particularly often in this document. Nor did the Prime Minister's government statement point out any direction for the green industries for the next four years.

The government says that the protection of property rights shall be strengthened in certain areas, but it does not appear which these areas are. In any case, it does not seem to concern the landowners who see their cultivation limited by the species protection based on the government's budget proposal and the consequences of reducing the compensations, or at least the budget room for compensations.

Rarely in Swedish political history has a government overpromised so much before an election and underdelivered so much in its first budget.

I think we can stop for a moment and reflect on what it means that, within this four-party constellation, one has promised up to 10 kronor lower diesel price per liter at the pump, but then in the first budget work, it practically ends up at 40 öre. It says something about what the rhetoric looked like before the election and how much focus was placed on the rural areas' conditions by at least three of these four parties. It also says something about delivery capacity and priorities when it is time for serious action.

We see that prices, interest rates and, to some extent, unemployment are rising. Instead of lowered taxes on work and entrepreneurship, the government prioritizes increased unemployment insurance. In this way, it departs from the work line, which for several of the government parties has been a very important guiding principle for many years.

The only thing I can see in the government's budget proposal that delivers for the countryside and the green industry is the extension of the expanded diesel reduction. This is a measure that the Centerpartiet was involved in initiating this spring. It is good that it is extended for half a year, but the Centerpartiet would like to see it made permanent until a new system with agricultural deductions is introduced.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden really needs to focus on strengthening food preparedness. It is needed from many perspectives. Households are struggling, and many risk not having food on the table.

As has been stated previously here in the debate, it is also about the global situation and the security policy situation and what consequences this has in the near term for our country.

A competitive Swedish agriculture is the foundation for a living countryside, open landscapes, and the preservation of biodiversity. Most here are probably fairly in agreement that the costs for the companies need to be lowered, complicated rules removed, and processing times shortened.

An area that, however, has not been debated much today is the agricultural sector's supply of skills, which must also be strengthened. There is a very large shortage of people with the right skills for the industry. Many cannot find the right labor. In this situation, the government chooses to worsen the conditions regarding labor immigration. This exacerbates the skills shortage within Swedish agriculture. We see the practical consequences very clearly. This is one of many agreements in the Tidö Agreement that four parties jointly base continued work in the Government Offices on.

For our total defense, the countryside and the food supply are of very central importance. It is also a matter of seeing the connection to decentralizing more. Centralization creates insecurity and vulnerability in a security-politically difficult time.

Decentralization also creates opportunities in the countryside. I believe it is extremely important in these days to think more decentrally, to work more decentrally and to create the conditions for this in the state governance.

We have the worst security policy situation since World War II. This must really be taken seriously also when it comes to Swedish food policy. We need to promote the production of fossil-free Swedish mineral fertilizer, expand domestic biofuel production, and take advantage of the great advantages that it entails with fast and renewable electricity production.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Center Party were involved during the spring in pushing through extensive crisis support for Swedish agriculture - it amounted to a total of over 3 billion kronor. The support has eased the situation, but the situation remains serious, not least in light of the forecasts for the coming years. One can see poorer profitability and continued high risks.

Therefore, we from Centerpartiet propose in our budget proposal an enhanced crisis support with an additional half billion kronor for 2023 for animal production. For 2024 and the years thereafter, we want this half billion to be distributed so that 200 million per year is invested in a reintroduced hedge support and 150 million goes to expanding the budget for investment support for agriculture's competitiveness as well as for the establishment of young farmers. Finally, we want 150 million kronor to go to expanding the investment support for agriculture's climate adaptation.

Netto means this, Mr. Speaker, that the Center Party proposes that half a billion kronor per year be directed towards strengthening the Swedish food supply.

There is much to highlight in a debate like this. I want to emphasize the importance of us in the Riksdag driving issues linked to reviewing current hunting legislation and developing the management of ungulate game. Even here, there is a strong connection to food production and to enabling increased production.

I also want, based on our positions on forest issues, to make a point about how incredibly important it is to constantly focus on the fact that ownership rights and usufruct rights shall be at the center.

There are many opportunities ahead for the Swedish countryside. Enormous investment projects are underway. Several are on hold; this concerns, among other things, the renewable fuels with the forest as a raw material. I hope that we will see a nuance from the government's side in the coming years so that conditions are created that ensure these large investments are actually carried out. It will create an enormous amount of jobs, and it will strengthen the belief in the future in many regions.

We can look at areas in northern Sweden that have gigantic competence needs ahead. Could we have foreseen this four, five, six years back in time? Probably few did. But this is happening, and it is linked to transition but also increased willingness to invest in our Swedish regions. It is extremely important for our nation and also for sustainability and employment and for our total defense.

Mr. Speaker! I wish you all an immensely blessed conclusion to this year and a very Merry Christmas. Thank you for the good dialogue on these central issues!

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

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