Agriculture, rural areas and food

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the budget's expenditure area 23 Agriculture.

"Sweden is in an economic winter." That is how the government's budget bill begins. They are well-chosen words. The recession and the high inflation are damaging the economy of Sweden and the Swedes. I do not need to describe the difficulties in more detail for those who are listening. They know.

In this situation, a restrained budget and tough priorities are required, otherwise more currency depreciation and increased interest rates await. The Sweden Democrats and the government have been able to prioritize improving competitiveness and liquidity for Swedish agriculture. It has not been done as much as we Sweden Democrats would like, but quite a lot nonetheless, if one takes into account all parts and the fact that we are in inflation and a recession at the same time.

Agriculture, rural areas and food

The Government's budget bill for 2024 ensures that the diesel tax for agricultural and forestry machinery etc. continues to be kept at the minimum level. This means 3.93 kronor per liter compared to if we had not done so. The reduction obligation is reduced to 6 percent at the turn of the year. This will lower the diesel price further significantly. These efforts are important for the agricultural companies' liquidity and also counteract inflation because high costs for inputs drive up food prices. They are therefore important measures.

Then a crisis support of barely 200 million kronor is paid out. It is not a huge amount, but it is the maximum amount that Sweden can give for the EU. The crisis support is related to this year's miserable growing season.

The farm support is increasing as planned. This means it concerns the amounts that have previously been included in the Swedish strategic plan, but it also includes 500 million kronor in currency compensation.

Some smaller, but important, measures are also being taken.

80 million in reduced slaughterhouse fees is something that, among others, my good colleague John Widegren from Moderaterna has pushed hard for.

An important reinforcement of SLU Grogrund's plant breeding is being made so that Swedish plant cultivation shall have competitive varieties adapted to our cultivation conditions and to be able to take advantage of the latest advances in plant breeding.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture's funds for development and applied trials close to the industry are being strengthened, and a new focus is being added. It concerns method development to increase the climate efficiency in agricultural production. The Sweden Democrats are working to guarantee that competitiveness is not worsened by such new methods and that a portion of the money can also be used for method development that can solve bottlenecks in agricultural production.

A completely new farmland inventory is being started to monitor the biological status of intensively cultivated farmland for maintained future yields.

The calculated contributions are important for future profitability.

A few initiatives are being made for increased food security and drinking water security. Fishing and aquaculture also receive an important supplement according to the plan.

Finally, the reindeer husbandry has finally received a long-awaited supplement to the compensation for the damages caused by predators. It is something that the reindeer husbandry has requested for a long time.

Even though the situation is difficult, many things are happening in the Tidö cooperation.

Unfortunately, we have done something that complicates things for some actors in agriculture. I want to bring it up because we in Sverigedemokraterna say it as it is. It concerns the new labor immigration rules. There, we have set a minimum wage requirement for labor migrants from outside the EU at 80 percent of the Swedish median wage.

A reforming of the labor migration rules is extremely important for Sweden. After decades of extreme migration policy, immigration must decrease drastically. Sweden can then not have a labor migration policy that is one of the world's most liberal.

In 2022, over 300,000 people were unemployed, and 24,000 immigrated at the same time to work. It is unreasonable and leads to major obstacles for integration.

The system error becomes clearer when looking at specific professions, for example, chefs. 572 chefs immigrated as labor migrants during 2022, while the Hotel and Restaurant Union warned that nine out of ten of their unemployed members did not receive a job in the industry despite having sufficient experience. Something must therefore be done.

When the old labor migration rules were introduced, we warned, among other things, about such displacement effects, i.e., that workers in Sweden do not get work because one chooses to recruit from abroad. Now we are amending the rules. The rule change solves the problem of displacement effects on the general level. It is an important reform for Sweden.

Certain sub-sectors within the agricultural industry may encounter problems when wage requirements are raised for labor from third countries. Therefore, there are a number of exceptions. The new rules do not cover seasonal labor or those Ukrainians who have arrived and will arrive under the mass flight directive, and naturally not neither labor from the European Union.

It is no secret that the Sweden Democrats wanted a model with means-testing instead, which has the advantage that consideration of the different needs of the industries is built into the model.

In the new government cooperation, there is a will to provide funds to the agricultural sector, to simplify the rules and to develop agriculture so that the general profitability in agriculture shall increase. We prefer to do so instead of completely exempting the agricultural industry from the new labor immigration rules.

We believe that Swedish agriculture can move from a negative spiral to a positive spiral when we increase profitability. In that development, in the longer term, it will not be a problem with certain wage increases in the industry, but rather an asset that facilitates recruitment. Being a distinct low-wage industry entails disadvantages.

In the ongoing work, not least in the reviews of the labor immigration rules, we will continue to try to alleviate the problems of agriculture without infringing on the purpose of the rules.

Madam Speaker! Increased profitability is also important for investments and generational transitions. In the immediate future, in a period of inflation and high interest rates, we are reviewing the possibilities to facilitate investments moving forward. We believe this will become very important for the development of agriculture.

I vote in favor of the proposals in the committee's report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD) agreed.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Labor migration was a major discussion in the member's speech. I can think that if one wants to solve that problem, one simply has to vote with the Social Democrats because a labor assessment between the parties is naturally the way forward. The parties see what is needed. That proposal is on the table. One simply has to vote with S if one wants to solve the problem for real.

I also thought it was good that the member said in their speech that the Tidö government is now adding 10 million to the reindeer husbandry and thereby follows the Social Democrats.

But my question to the member, Madam Speaker, concerns the herring stock in the Bothnian Sea. It has fallen to critical levels. The stock has more than halved. It is primarily the older individuals that have disappeared. The spawning biomass has decreased sharply over the last decade and is at the threshold where the stock risks collapsing.

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt that the herring stock in the Baltic Sea is in bad shape. We have received warning signals from coastal fishers, and this year's scientific report confirms this.

The herring and the cod in the Baltic Sea are also a food base in the ecosystem and are therefore a species that constitutes food for everything from marine mammals to birds and other fish. Ahead of this year's negotiations on fishing quotas, the EU Commission acted and wanted a total ban on herring fishing. We Social Democrats wanted to protect small-scale fishing but otherwise agreed with the Commission.

The result of the government's negotiations was a catch of 55,000 tonnes and thus also that the large-scale industrial fishing continues. My question, Madam Speaker, is: How does the member view the risk that the entire herring stock collapses?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for a very relevant question!

The herring is threatened; that is absolutely true. Sweden's minister made an attempt to negotiate down the quotas, not least for industrial trawling for feed use. We think that is a real priority.

Unfortunately, it was only Sweden that moved in that direction. The other member states moved in a different direction – towards increased quotas, or at least not decreased ones. Sweden was therefore quite alone there.

In an attempt to help Sweden in these negotiations, the Sweden Democrats have contributed in two forums: partly the parliamentary Baltic Sea Conference, and partly the Nordic Council. There, we have campaigned for wording that all other member states have stood behind in the hope that this would also make an impact in the quota negotiations in the EU, but unfortunately, it did not. We must try to find other strategies. We are clearly of the opinion that industrial and large-scale trawling must be reduced and that the focus must be on preserving coastal fishing.

I have time to briefly comment on labor migration and the Social Democrats' proposal in that area. The result here is, of course, part of a whole - we cannot break out a part to vote on another party's proposal.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! A good proposal should always be voted yes to, especially when it is what the parties want and when both the business community and the staff organizations think it is important. I believe that such proposals should be prioritized over bad proposals that potential partners might consider submitting.

My question, Madam Speaker, was how the member views the risk that the entire stock of fish will collapse. This is the warning now. This is what we are facing. The latest reports say that we are so close that we cannot have any fishing at all.

My dream is that children and grandchildren will be able to continue fishing and that we will be able to increase the availability of herring along the entire coast. Since herring is so enormously important for the entire ecosystem that exists in the sea, this is a very big issue. I saw a debate article from all four Tidö parties before the vote where they definitely said no to the Commission's proposal for a ban on fishing. At the same time, there is a report that says the entire herring stock could collapse and that we are very close to this.

My question is still how the member views the risk that the entire streaming stock collapses.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

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

The labor immigration proposal that we adopted is not a bad proposal at all. It will be good, but it must be adjusted with some exceptions. This is what we have been working on.

When it comes to the salmon, there were proposals for a total ban. We did not want to see that, and I had also not perceived that the Social Democrats wanted to see a total ban on salmon fishing. If a total ban is introduced, it hits the coastal fishing – if one cannot catch any fish at all, then that industry cannot sustain itself. We do not want to see a total ban. We do, however, want to see reduced quotas, and that is how we acted.

This is a question that we must continue to work on.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Eklöf for his very honest speech, one might say, in which it was clearly shown what the Tidö parties' policy is and what shortcomings the Member sees with this.

I got stuck on one thing, namely what was said about it being winter in the economy and that it is therefore important that we lower the diesel tax and reduce the reduction obligation as much as possible, so that it does not affect agriculture. But however you turn it, we must reduce our emissions.

We saw figures today, or perhaps yesterday, that Sweden's emissions actually decreased last year, if one disregards the large gas leak. That reduction, which I believe was 4 percent, is actually attributed entirely to the transport sector due to the reduction obligation.

One could directly reduce emissions via the transport sector and the machinery fleet. One does not need to replace machines. If one has biofuels and replaces a certain part of the fossil with fossil-free in the tank, one can use the same machines but still reduce emissions.

You want to remove that possibility and reduce the reduction obligation as much as possible. However, I find nothing about what you want to do instead. What remains then is to reduce the extraction of forest, which you do not want, and to put certain lands into fallow, which you also usually do not want. These are things that will affect agriculture and the countryside regardless of the reduction obligation.

How does the member want to reduce this by not continuing with the reduction obligation? What is the alternative? How should the transition take place for agriculture?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question! The major climate debate will be held on December 19.

There is a whole palette of measures that can be taken and which will be included in the climate action plan going forward. Much more will be explained regarding this in the debate on 19 December.

There are, for example, opportunities to increase growth in the forest in different ways. One can increase carbon sequestration in agriculture using different methods. There are also opportunities to trade emission allowances so that reductions can be made in other countries. These were just examples. I am no expert on the climate issue, so otherwise, I will defer to the debate on December 19.

I want to talk about agriculture's emissions. We are reducing the diesel tax and the reduction obligation, which in itself increases emissions. But because this enables a profitable agriculture, it becomes possible for Sweden's farms to remain instead of being closed down. I would not be surprised if the outcome becomes plus minus zero if one performs a holistic analysis and calculates this from a climate perspective, because Swedish agriculture is so much more climate-friendly than agriculture in the rest of the world.

This is nothing that one can account for in the tables we are looking at, but it is something that happens in reality. What happens in reality is more important for the climate than the figures in the tables we are looking at; at least I believe so.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I received no answer to my question. The Member himself raised the reduction of the diesel tax and the reduced reduction obligation as a part for specifically agriculture and as part of the committee report, which is also titled Expenditure Area 23 Rural industries, countryside and food.

I believe that the Tidö parties must tell the countryside what is waiting. If we do not reduce emissions, it will affect the environment. We have an opportunity to reduce emissions relatively quickly and easily through the reduction obligation. We can use the existing machinery, for example tractors and forestry machines, and still reduce emissions if we run on biofuels.

But if we do not do this, what remains? In Hassler's investigation, which you often refer to, it is precisely in agriculture and the land-based industries that measures must be taken. Even though this is not the member's special area and we will talk more about climate on Tuesday, one probably needs to say what should happen instead when these opportunities to reduce emissions are removed.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! The reduction obligation must be reduced so that it becomes bearable to live in the countryside and so that the profitability in agriculture shall be at a reasonable level.

The alternative is biofuels, and they have very different climate performance. Slaughter waste sent around the world does not have such good climate performance, and even worse is it with residues from palm oil production, which can be found in HVO fuel. But it is better now than before. When we took biofuel from palm oil a few years ago, studies showed that it was worse for the climate than burning fossil diesel. Now certifications have arrived, but there is still a residual effect of using certain areas to produce palm oil. Since not everyone buys certified palm oil, there is still a leakage, and there is a risk of some deforestation of rainforest.

Again: Given the emissions in reality, it is not at all impossible that it becomes plus minus zero for the climate when one allows Swedish agriculture to have a reduced reduction obligation.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating expenditure area 23 Agriculture, rural areas and food. We have just heard a Sweden Democrat member speak, and there was much I would like to comment on, including regarding the existence or non-existence of the reduction obligation and that if we increase it, there will also be more jobs in the Swedish countryside.

But it is not to focus on their proposals that I am here, but to talk about the Green Party's budget initiatives, and our budget must, of course, be seen as a whole. We want to see a historic investment in green transition and a robust social construction where we meet both the climate crisis and the nature crisis, strengthen welfare, and create conditions for people to grow and develop through lifelong learning and popular education.

Sweden now has a very low national debt, and we believe it is time to use that space to make the social investments that are required. We must break the fossil dependency and protect households, welfare, and companies from future cost shocks. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants to invest 100 billion per year for the next ten years on precisely a green social transition. It is now that we have the opportunity to do so. In that case, it is also natural to invest several of these billions in the expenditure area we are now debating. Miljöpartiet believes, in fact, that agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, and fishing are the foundation for the transition to a fossil-free economy. It is here that we find the solutions for a sustainable supply of food, materials, and energy.

We have many initiatives in our budget, and I will now take a closer look at some of them.

It is rare that we debate environment and agriculture without the forest coming up. I was therefore very pleased when, the day before yesterday, an investigation from the Swedish Forest Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency was released, which has analyzed the obstacles and conditions for continuous-cover forestry. The investigation establishes, among other things, that the state forest owners can lead the way by using continuous-cover methods to a significantly greater extent than today. With continuous-cover forestry, we get a more diverse forest and increase other environmental values. We get a forest that is better equipped for climate change, which provides a better balance between the forest's various values.

One of the proposals in the investigation is that a training program should be developed and financial grants offered to forestry entrepreneurs who wish for competence development. It is argued that investments also need to be made in research within forest management, forest technology, and forest planning to improve the conditions for continuous cover forestry. Economic incentives and business models, as well as developed consultancy, should also be developed for individual forest owners.

The investigation argues that by using clear-cut-free and more nature-oriented forestry methods, one achieves a reinforcement of biological diversity, better climate adaptation, and an increased recovery after damages.

This is exactly what we in Miljöpartiet have talked about for a long time, and it is included in the budget this year and was included last year. We want to see these investments. We want new business models, more advice and support for foresters, compensation support, transition support, and a national advisory campaign for individual forest owners – all to promote the work with nature-oriented and continuous-cover forestry for climate adaptation and increased environmental consideration.

Now there is a golden opportunity for the government to pick up this investigation and make an effort.

Madam Speaker! Organic farming is another area. Due to the current economic situation, it has unfortunately fallen into a difficult position. Despite the fact that the price difference between organic and conventionally grown food has never been as small as it is now, fewer people are buying organic goods. It is very sad because organic farming is the spearhead for increased sustainability within agriculture and contributes to a multitude of ecosystem services. No foreign pesticides are used, and thus the burden of toxins in soil and drinking water resources is reduced.

A major pillar of support for organic farming is the public procurement for public kitchens. Sweden has a national goal that by 2030, 60 percent of what is procured shall be organic. Now, this goal is in danger due to the strained economic situation. We therefore want to see financial support to municipalities and regions so that they can stick to their organic goals and continue to purchase this type of food.

Madam Speaker! I move on to water. Last week, the so-called PFAS judgment was announced. It is a milestone for Swedish environmental legislation and a victory for those affected. The Supreme Court has now clarified that the residents of Kallinge, who have drunk poisoned tap water, are entitled to compensation. It is a victory. The residents of the locality are not responsible for their poisoning, as those who have drunk PFAS-contaminated water from the waterworks in Kallinge have not been able to avoid ingesting the poison.

Now we must do what we can to ensure that this does not happen again. We want to establish a Lex Kallinge that guarantees individual rights in connection with chemical disasters. We must also ensure that municipalities that lack the economic resources to, for example, install PFAS treatment receive it.

In our budget proposal, we have a large water package that spans several different expenditure areas. In the expenditure area we are discussing now, we have a large water package aimed at the municipalities so that they can develop a long-term climate adaptation and disaster preparedness and also be able to modernize their sewage and water treatment plants. The water package is 300 million per year. We must ensure that one can drink their drinking water at home. One should not be poisoned by it.

Madam Speaker! I will move on to speak about animal welfare here at the end. I was myself present in 2016 when we in this chamber took the decision to allocate funds to build up a 3R center in Sweden. It is a competence center at the Swedish Board of Agriculture to replace, reduce, and refine animal experiments. 3R stands for reduce, replace, refine. The center was established in 2017 and has since been a contact point for the development of this work.

This was something that the S-MP government pushed through, but I actually believed in my simplicity that we had deep support in this chamber. Reducing animal testing and strengthening 3R centers is something that many members from many different parties motion for every year. That is exactly why I was incredibly surprised when I saw that there was no continued support included in the budget bill.

They are removing the 15 million, which means that Jordbruksverket has already issued notices and laid off 39 people. Nine of the twelve positions at the 3R-center are disappearing. This is a catastrophe, and it means that we will not live up to the goals in the European Parliament's and the Council's directive to phase out animal testing when it is scientifically possible.

I hope that the Tidö parties come to their senses, find those 15 million, and ensure that we do not destroy the infrastructure that actually exists here.

Madam Speaker! With that, I intend to leave the rostrum. We are investing more money than the government on this area. I therefore cannot demand our proposals, as the Riksdag has already decided on lower budget frameworks. But I refer to our specific statement in the report where it can be read what we want.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! That was an interesting speech from Emma Nohrén from Miljöpartiet. I noted, however, that nothing was said about the reduction obligation in her speech. I did not expect Miljöpartiet to be honest about wanting to significantly increase costs for families with children and commuters in Sweden who are dependent on a petrol or diesel car.

Emma Nohrén criticized my colleague after his speech regarding SD's view on the reduction obligation. At the same time, I do not think one should forget that it was the Miljöparti's policy and the previous S-MP government's policy that were harshly criticized by the Swedish National Audit Office quite recently regarding precisely the reduction obligation and that such a one-sided focus was placed on transport's part in the climate transition. The criticism was precisely that all the eggs were so clearly put into one and the same basket. I wonder how MP views its own policy which received such harsh criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office.

I know that, in broad terms, everything you in Miljöpartiet do is done with reference to the climate. But what do Emma Nohrén and Miljöpartiet say to all those commuters and families with children who, under Miljöpartiet's policy, would face significantly increased costs to get to work or to drop the children off at preschool or extracurricular activities, because it is they who will be affected?

Many people want to be able to contribute to a green transition, but not everyone can afford it. Many are dependent on their diesel car or petrol car. How does it benefit society if those people are faced with significantly increased costs and cannot get to their work? I would like to have an answer to that from Emma Nohrén.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question. As we established earlier, this is not the climate debate, and it was the member from Sverigedemokraterna who himself brought up the reduction obligation. We will discuss much more about this on Tuesday.

We have a 2030 goal in Sweden to reduce emissions from transport. To achieve that, the reduction obligation has been a tool. There are other parts for us to be able to achieve it, for example lowering the speed on roads or introducing bans on certain streets - there are many different parts to be able to do this.

But the reduction obligation has been absolutely simplest, because one does not need to remove the entire vehicle fleet at the same time. We have also had a support for electric cars. One could get up to 70,000 when buying an electric car, which has made it so that we have gotten this started. However, the Tidö parties removed it overnight. It was an incentive and a way to be able to buy a car but also to be able to lease - the leasing prices went down very much. We also want to improve for public transport and other things for many.

Now the Tidö parties, with the Sweden Democrats at the forefront, are pulling this down to a level that will result in our agreed goals not being met. We will need to find other areas where we can reduce emissions when we cannot reduce them in road traffic in this way.

My question is still: How do you want to do it? We cannot have business as usual. We have just had COP 28 in Dubai where we agreed to phase out fossil fuels - or phase down, or whatever it became in the end. We are therefore going to move away from fossil fuels, and that is not done with business as usual. In that case, there will be a complete stop one day. Actually, it is probably not us who should answer the question, but it is you and the government.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I hear that Emma Nohrén is getting a bit irritated that it is not the climate debate, but it is still important to be able to discuss this issue even from a rural perspective.

Criticism was directed at my colleague here, but an important rural issue is precisely the reduction obligation and the levels that will now actually be lowered from the turn of the year. I know that Emma Nohrén and Miljöpartiet were against it. Sverigedemokraterna have been driving the reduction of the levels for the reduction obligation. We see it as an investment in the countryside so that people can afford to travel to and from work and drop children off at extracurricular activities or whatever it may be.

I think it is interesting that Emma Nohrén is involved in electric cars. The Sweden Democrats are not against electric cars, and we are not against people wanting to invest in electric cars, but not all people can afford to do so. I am thinking of northern Sweden, at the top of Norrbotten, where it is cold for large parts of the year. You do not get the same performance out of an electric car, and you cannot drive those distances with an electric car. It is partly because the charging station system is not fully developed, of course, but it is still such great distances that it might not be possible to fully rely on electric cars today.

As said, not everyone can afford it either. I am thinking, for example, of the single mother who might have to take out a loan if she is to afford to invest in an electric car but who will not be able to afford to repay the loan. It is naturally unsustainable to think that it should go that way. It is about the fact that people may want to make a transition, but they must be given the right conditions. They do not have that now, and they will not get it with Emma Nohrén's policy either.

Finally, I want to say something about public transport. I am a professional driver by trade, so I have a great sense for public transport transport. Even if one wants to invest in public transport, it cannot be expanded across the entire country to the extent that Emma Nohrén wants in order to cover all the needs that exist. Therefore, the car is necessary. People need to be able to use their diesel and gasoline cars to get to work, for example.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Here, the member and I are in a way completely in agreement. I live in the countryside myself. We have two cars for two adults. Until a year ago, one of them was a petrol car. Now it has been replaced, so now we have two electric cars, one of which is five years old. I know all about having range anxiety when winter comes with the old car, but with the new one, it works very well. Public transport is practically non-existent.

But just as the member says, not everyone can afford to buy an electric car. In order to be able to continue using the cars and the vehicle fleet we have today, we must change the fuels, and the reduction obligation is a part of this. If we do not do that, we must have fewer cars, because even fossil fuels will cost more. The reduction obligation means that one can use the same car but with a different fuel or with a blend of another fuel. It is therefore a part of this.

Biofuels are actually a part of rural policy, which was discussed just before us here. In Lysekil, where I live, we have Preemraff. They want to invest several billion to produce biofuels from Swedish forest raw materials that will be taken from Norrland and from all over Sweden in order to become just these new fuels.

It creates new advanced jobs in the countryside, and it is good for the climate. By pulling the rug out, providing new conditions and not following agreements, one creates a great deal of uncertainty for the large companies that want to invest in this.

With biofuels, we get a domestic production of fuels, which gives us crisis preparedness, good jobs are created and it is renewable in spirit.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Expenditure area 23 Agriculture, rural areas and food is, as usual, the most important budget debate for the year. All of us present in the chamber know this.

I first wish to express my support for the committee's proposal.

Friends in the Swedish Riksdag! We obviously have problems with the future's food supply, Swedish agriculture, the use of the forest, and so on. We know that we have problems. That problem consists in that for a long time we have tried to take away the freedom from those who are to produce food and forest. It is when we give those who are to produce food and forest the freedom that they manage the production in a responsible way.

I have seen this in the forest. When we introduced freedom under responsibility in the forest, Swedish forest owners delivered by increasing production by 1 million cubic meters per year. And production was increased in several of the parts where we usually measure biodiversity. They took responsibility. But ever since the forest investigation from 1993, it has become worse. We have let the authorities step in and poke, destroy, obstruct, and make it more expensive for individual forest owners. Those forest owners who, since 1993 with freedom under responsibility, have increased the sequestration of carbon, which has made Sweden's climate work free with what they own and have, have that work destroyed time and again.

We must return to freedom under responsibility for the forest owners. There is talk today that we will achieve the goals by 2030. But it is not by restricting and complicating forestry even further that we achieve the goals by 2030. I promise you that is the case.

Yes, it will be difficult to reach the goals in LULUCF, but Sweden is not alone in finding it difficult to reach the goals in LULUCF. In what way would we win by starting today to scale down the successful forestry, produce less in the forest and produce a smaller amount of substitutes from the Swedish forest? We will not win anything.

Madam Speaker! I, just like the Forest Industries, have a good hope that we will achieve the goal by 2030 with the forestry that exists today. The same applies to Swedish agriculture. As long as we can maintain a high production, they will continue to deliver environmental and climate benefits.

Madam Speaker! What is the government doing to maintain high production in Swedish agriculture? One thing is to lower the diesel taxes to the EU's lowest. In the short term, this provides a liquidity boost, which makes it possible to dare to invest in high production. It is, of course, not optimal in the long run to remain with subsidized fossil fuels in that way. But to provide a quick injection of liquidity, this is the best way to maintain high production in agriculture.

I am completely open to looking at agricultural deductions or similar in the future according to the government investigation. There are also other models. But the important thing is that we maintain liquidity. After this year, which in every way has been challenging for Swedish agriculture, we enter the 2024 growing season with tough conditions when it comes to liquidity. That is exactly what we deliver with the help of a reduced fuel tax.

Another part is that we are delivering on the issue that I, as was said before, have nagged about for a number of years, namely the slaughter fees. We have in Sweden had a model that has distinguished itself from the rest of the EU and which has been a competitive disadvantage for Swedish animal producers. Now we are fixing it to strengthen the liquidity, competitiveness, and legal certainty in the Swedish animal production.

Madam Speaker! When the government took office, we were clear from the beginning that we want to change the conditions for Swedish agriculture. We began the work with the food strategy, not a new one but a revision of the existing one. I believe I was the first to speak from this rostrum about the fact that we had to update the food strategy. Now we are almost there.

During this time, a competition investigation has been commissioned with maintained animal welfare. Today, the government presented an additional investigation which, from a competition perspective, shall improve what concerns regulatory burdens, public control, and so on for Swedish agriculture. The government delivers time and again to strengthen Swedish agriculture, to maintain a high production, and to keep production within Sweden's borders.

Just as was said earlier, it is when we export Swedish production outside of Sweden's borders that it begins to become problematic for the environment and climate. The climate is, as we often say here in the chamber, global. When we produce beef in Sweden, it results in 70 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions than in large parts of the world. We shall have the production within Sweden, and it is the livestock production that is the engine of Swedish agriculture.

Madam Speaker! I am completely convinced that Swedish agriculture on the market will solve this if we give them the right conditions. The right conditions are not to stand in Sweden's Riksdag and set percentage targets for organic farming, to steer more and give the authorities more tools and muscles. Give freedom to Sweden's farmers and foresters, and they will continue to come up with smart solutions.

If you are a bit of a geek, like I am, and have followed this autumn's Agritechnica, the agricultural fair, you can see the entire development in agriculture. Weeds are fought mechanically with the help of robots, which burn up the weeds with small fires. That is so much that is happening right now.

Let us look at skilled machine developers in Sweden, for example Väderstadverken in my home region. They produce and develop new technology all the time, to reduce processing and find row-chopping methods to reduce the amount of plant protection products. It is the industry that does these things, not politics. Give the industry these opportunities!

Lantmännen want to develop fossil-free fertilizer produced in Sweden. It would be very good for the Swedish preparedness to actually have a mineral fertilizer production in Sweden again. It is only Sweden and one other country in the entire EU that do not produce their own fertilizer today. That is fantastically good! But what is the catch for Lantmännen to produce a fossil-free fertilizer? Yes, it is the electricity.

What are we doing to get more electricity? Well, we are making major investments in nuclear power. Within a time, it will lead to there being much more electricity and that all companies that are prepared to transition can do so.

This is what applies: We deliver the large parts, and the industries and entrepreneurs deliver the environment and climate benefit as well as produce the food.

Madam Speaker! I will soon be entering for landing, but I see another obstacle that I perceive to be a limitation. Research on agriculture and forestry over the last 20 years has focused too much on things other than production. Swedish agriculture suffers from the fact that we no longer have research on production-enhancing methods in Sweden. It will become extremely important that research is turned towards production-enhancing measures again, otherwise we will not be able to manage to produce more food.

When we also take more and more arable land out of production in different ways, we will need to produce more on the areas where we have production.

Madam Speaker! I am coming down for landing. But I would like to take the opportunity to wish my colleagues, the Speaker's Presidium, the Parliament's staff and others in the Riksdag a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I hope that we get a productive 2024 and, above all, a much, much better year for agriculture and forestry in 2024.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The forest is and has been a backbone of the Swedish economy and shall continue to be so. It also definitely has many more values than the economic ones.

What worries us right now is that the annual carbon sequestration in Swedish forest and land has fallen by 40 percent over ten years. This corresponds to more than the combined emissions from all domestic transport over one year.

In the statistics of the national forest inventory, the falling curve for growth is now approaching the rising curve for harvesting and natural mortality. And when the curves meet, we no longer have a carbon sink. We have had a higher harvesting and a higher natural mortality as a consequence of both drought and spruce bark beetle. We also see a reduced growth rate, even though it has increased slightly since 2019.

Climate change is here and now, Member, and it is visible in the forest. According to what the Member also took up in their speech, the EU's new climate legislation on LULUCF, Sweden shall increase the average total net sequestration in forest, land and wood products by 4 million tonnes by 2030 compared to the average value 2016-2018.

This is a great challenge, and it is a particularly great challenge if we simultaneously see that our carbon sink is decreasing year by year.

My question to the member is: How is this to be achieved?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. These are absolutely the major issues.

But just as the industry itself says, many of these lost years are due to the drought, especially in 2018. We are not going to say that we hope for better weather in the coming years, but if we have normal years until 2030, the industry itself is quite convinced that we will meet the increased LULUCF target with continued use at the level we have today.

I also believe that it will be incredibly important that we continue to use [the forest] just as we do today. If we were to stop now and reduce our use, we will suffer from it in the future instead. It is actually through continued use at this level, and even a slightly increased use, that we get the truly long-term benefits of what the forest can do when it comes to carbon sequestration.

What can we do in the short term? We can still do a number of things. We can, for example, increase forest fertilization, which provides increased growth. We can take more measures to increase growth, but many of them do not provide increased growth in the very short term. But we must review the possibilities for increased forest drainage in the productive areas to achieve a better water supply. We need different planting material.

Linné University presented a study which showed that today it only takes seven years from a harvest until we have positive net sequestration again. This means that if we had not taken as much land out of production as we have, we would have gained a greater benefit. But unfortunately, over the last eight years, we have taken very much land out of production.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I still do not believe that this answers the question of how we are to manage this carbon sequestration by 2030. I am very aware of what both the Swedish Forest Agency and others say about how we would have managed this before when we had the reduction obligation and could use the flexibilities. We no longer have that. The Government is truly obliged to tell both the Riksdag and agriculture and forestry how it intends to meet the goals by 2030. It is a law, and it costs very much if one does not manage this.

But I do not expect any further answer. I have asked the Moderates about this before, and it usually does not result in any more answer than this.

But I intended to ask the member some other questions. One question concerns the Forest Inquiry. We heard about it early on, but we have not seen any directives to it yet. So the question is: When, how and why?

When it comes to the food strategy, there is no participation from us members in it. The question is: When, how and why?

I also want to raise a challenge that the member did not take up in their speech and which I experience strongly. It is about the fact that there are farms that have really worked hard with their transition and use, for example, biogas and have invested heavily in it.

The government is sitting on its hands. Nothing is happening with that situation, namely that biogas is no longer tax-exempt. It really affects the farmers in Sweden who have made this transition.

So, my questions were about the Forest Investigation, the food strategy, and the biogas. The member may also be able to explain exactly how the increased carbon sink is to be implemented. It would be nice to hear that.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I am nevertheless pleased that the member has such great confidence in me.

I am fully aware that it will be a tough challenge to reach the 2030 goal. But if we do not try and hope and believe that we will manage it, it will only become negative. Several speakers just stand here and say: How are we going to defend and tell our farmers that we will not manage this?

But what is it that says that we will not manage this? Imagine if 2024 and 2025 become fantastic growth years. It is not incredible. Then we are there. So what is it that just today says that we will not reach our 2030 goals when it comes to LULUCF? I am convinced that we will. Sweden's farmers have faced tougher goals than this.

Furthermore, Sweden's farmers are doing Sweden's climate work. They should be benefited and not hindered.

I am also waiting for the Forest Inquiry.

When it comes to the food strategy, I know that a massive amount of work has been ongoing regarding information gathering and so on. However, I do not know where it lies in the pipeline. But I assume that at some point during the spring, a proposal or an account of what it will contain will be presented. A number of investigations have already been commissioned that are linked to the revision of the food strategy, for example the one that arrived today.

I do not know what the situation is with the biogas. The member says that the government is sitting on its hands. But we are adding 200 million kronor to the budget for the manure gas support. I know that negotiations are ongoing in Brussels, and from what I understand and receive signals about, we will receive a decision earlier than we had thought regarding the tax exemption. So, I have good hopes there.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank John Widegren for his speech. I agree that it is important to provide freedom and good conditions for Swedish entrepreneurs, and not least farmers and the entire green industry.

I therefore have a question based on the government's and the Tidö parties' budget that is now being discussed in the Riksdag. It is interesting that the Moderates are pushing through an investment of 180 million kronor to phase out the mink industry. How does it feel, John Widegren, as a libertarian and business-friendly political representative, to in practice push through a phase-out where about twenty mink entrepreneurs will be given the opportunity to share in 180 million kronor over two years? This is very interesting politics from the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals, who have long strived in a different direction, namely to promote entrepreneurship in all areas.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! It may seem strange. It sounds like it. But I believe this: This is an industry that would have soon collapsed of its own accord even in Sweden. I do not think it is incredible that it would have collapsed before we see common EU legislation for this, which will happen soon.

That is why I think it is a very moderate solution to offer a transition payment for a period of time to an industry that I believe is on its way out. It is clear that the Swedish mink industry perhaps would have had one, two, or three good years left – it is not incredible – but in the long run, I do not believe it would have had any more good years. Therefore, I think it is a very moderate solution to do it in this way.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! If this is the Moderates' new policy for promoting entrepreneurship – and also for handling companies facing a closure – it will be interesting to see if it becomes precedential in more areas and for more types of companies within the primary industry. I am thinking about how many agricultural entrepreneurs and others within the green industry have had to wind down their operations in recent years or perhaps are facing closure. It is very interesting considering that the average for a score of entrepreneurs becomes 9 million per company.

When it comes to finding conditions for fair and long-term terms for Swedish entrepreneurship, this is worth considering and reflecting upon based on how the Tidö parties are pushing through the transition support.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I perhaps did not quite perceive any question in the last statement.

I probably don't have much more to say about this, but when the Center Party starts criticizing the Moderates' business policy, rural policy, and so on, I think perhaps one is a bit like throwing stones in a glass house. The Center Party has, in recent years, chosen to cooperate with a party that perhaps is not particularly business-friendly. I do not think that the industry and the business community perceive the Center Party as the great green agricultural party anymore, but I think perhaps rather that it is perceived as something else. But that one is enthusiastic about the mink industry, we have all understood that here today.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I begin by turning to the gallery and saying: Hello Hampus!

Today we are debating the budget for expenditure area 23, which concerns rural industries, the countryside and food. I want to start by saying that we Social Democrats have presented our own budget alternative which is to be seen as a whole. Therefore, we abstain from taking a position and instead have a special statement on the expenditure area.

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time, and our country is currently being pressured by several parallel crises. There is war in our neighborhood, and we have a cost crisis in the form of higher food prices, interest costs, and rents that make it tough for ordinary people. Single parents are particularly affected, who already previously had it tough with their finances. On top of that, Swedish wage earners have seen ten years of real wage increases go up in smoke - and furthermore, we have a climate crisis where climate changes are already tangible and threaten future generations and Swedish prosperity.

Madam Speaker! We need to see more Swedish on the plate, in the glass, and in the mind. Green nutrients are needed more than ever to manage the climate transition and to strengthen Sweden's food supply and preparedness. With war in our vicinity, it is clear that Sweden and the EU need to secure their own production of food and input goods, for example fuels and fertilizers, even under strained conditions and crises - and ultimately during war.

Sweden needs a competitive agriculture in several aspects. Swedish agriculture creates good and healthy food, green jobs in the countryside and open landscapes all over Sweden. But there are also great challenges.

This year, Sweden was affected by climate change with both drought and floods.

We see reports on chicken handling, where the authorities' controls have been far too few.

African swine fever affected Fagersta and neighboring municipalities. The neighboring pig farms had to make the most difficult decisions, but this continues even now to complicate operations and outdoor life in a large area.

The tax exemption on biogas, which the EU Commission approved, was appealed. Here, the government must urgently ensure that it delivers answers to all farmers who have invested in biogas production.

We Social Democrats have actively promoted the issue of origin labeling of meat in restaurants to make it easy for the guest to choose what they believe is right. During our government's time, we also submitted a notification to the EU Commission that Sweden would introduce origin labeling. The SD government then withdrew it, Madam Speaker - and now there is complete silence.

Because of all this, we Social Democrats are investing almost twice as much as the government in combating infectious animal diseases. We are investing 23 percent more in a competitive food sector, and we are investing more than three times as much on environmental improvement measures in agriculture in our budget proposal.

Madam Speaker! Food prices are high. The cost increases are higher than in Finland, Denmark, and Norway. This week, one could read in Dagens Nyheter about record dividends for the grocery retailers. We Social Democrats have demanded and continue to demand that the government appoints a price commission for lowered food prices, takes control of price developments, and ensures that unreasonable increases in food prices are not made. In this, all actors in the entire food chain shall be included, from producers and wholesalers to the retail giants, as well as consumer organizations and relevant authorities.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be a leading country in managing our natural resources and wildlife populations in an ethically sustainable way. It shall be a management that leads to people being able to live and reside in the countryside while we preserve the biological diversity.

Hunting is an important part of many people's lives. Sweden is an elongated country where wildlife and hunting are distinct. We Social Democrats believe it is important to safeguard the local, and we want decisions regarding sustainable and ethical hunting to be made as close to the citizens as possible. We see the county administrative boards and the wildlife management delegations as important and want their work and mandate to be developed.

Protection hunting and license hunting are both important tools in our predator management. And when it comes to wolves, Madam Speaker, one can only conclude that nothing that was promised by the Minister for Rural Affairs during the election campaign has been fulfilled.

The Swedish forest, which is our green gold and which creates jobs and sustainable growth throughout the country, is now threatened by climate change. The Swedish forest will likely grow faster due to a warmer climate, but at the same time, the risks of damage are increasing. By adapting forestry to cope with a changed climate, the opportunities for the forest to withstand, for example, storms, insect attacks, and fungal attacks are improved.

The Swedish forest also has a natural value and must therefore be managed in a balance between nature conservation and forestry. The forest also plays a central role in the climate transition both as a carbon sink and by replacing fossil products. We Social Democrats believe that all the values of the forest - jobs, economy, biodiversity, cultural environment, outdoor life, nature tourism, reindeer husbandry, hunting, and the tourism industry - should benefit society to the greatest extent possible.

Something that is pleasing, Madam Speaker, is that the bioeconomy investigation commissioned by the Social Democratic government has now submitted its proposals. Sweden has all the prerequisites for more bioeconomy, but the question is how the SD government will act. The partial report on more Swedish production of biofuels from Swedish waste products has been in the Minister for Rural Affairs' desk drawer since March. Or is it in the wastebasket? In any case, it has not been sent out for consultation, which I regret.

Madam Speaker! The government is the Riksdag and the Swedish land and forest owners are owed an answer. In the bill regarding a significantly reduced proportion of biofuels to be mixed at the pump, there is no impact assessment for Swedish forestry and agriculture. Will logging decrease? Will agriculture take the hit? Will Sweden pay expensive fines? Many questions we have asked for over a year, but the answers to the questions still shine with their absence.

Madam Speaker! Fishing and the blue value chains are important for Sweden. And 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, a sustainable fish farming with high environmental requirements that can protect our wild fish stocks and create jobs in the countryside. But, Madam Speaker, we have a crisis situation. This year, the warnings from research were more serious than ever, and the EU Commission acted and wanted a total ban on herring fishing.

We Social Democrats wanted the small-scale coastal fishing to be protected. The result of the government's negotiations was that the large-scale industrial trawl fishing continues. It is also serious that too few fisheries controls are carried out. Dagens Nyheter reveals, among other things, that a Swedish vessel reported that the catch was 60 kilos of herring when the actual catch was 11 tons. This is completely unacceptable. More controls are needed.

Sweden needs a policy that allows our children and grandchildren to continue to fish and also get fish and, not least, my friends, make delicacies such as surströmming.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, companies and households in Sweden 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 throughout Sweden and where we face tough times together. Unfortunately, the government's budget bill for 2024 does not meet the situation that Sweden faces.

With this, Madam Speaker, I say thank you.

(Applause)

In this speech, Malin Larsson (S) agreed.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The goal for expenditure area 23 Areella industries, which is the subject of today's debate, is that the measures taken shall contribute to good conditions for work, growth, and welfare in all parts of the country. The green industries shall be viable and contribute to the climate transition and to the sustainable use of natural resources.

Regarding both the green and the blue nutrients, we must achieve a production increase which in turn contributes to an increased self-sufficiency rate of food, while at the same time our food producers get a more stable economic existence. The vulnerability in the food chain shall decrease. That is the government's goal. Here, the update of the food strategy, which is now ongoing, is a supporting pillar.

Madam Speaker! It must not just become a strategy, a desk product as it has been until now, but I truly hope now that with the update being made we will see a difference for the individual food producer.

The design of rules and conditions shall support the goal of a competitive and sustainable food chain where production increases. This shall be achieved through purposeful taxes and fees, regulatory simplifications, administrative reliefs, and other measures to strengthen competitiveness and profitability. It is crucial for the survival of Swedish agriculture but also from a preparedness perspective.

When we in the committee visited the Baltics earlier this autumn, it became very clear that their goal was to be as self-sufficient as possible regarding the goods that can be produced within the countries' borders. And the Baltic countries have certainly been tested. They know what they are talking about. We should learn from them in this regard.

I want to touch upon one of the announcements addressed in the report that Swedish food production should be driven by consumer demand and not by politically determined quantitative targets for production and consumption linked to specific production forms. Here, the government states that the then-government in the budget bill for 2018 presented targets for organic production and public consumption by 2030. The government does not consider there to be a need to have a target for organic production and consumption, because Swedish food production should be driven by what consumers demand. The need instead is to strengthen competitiveness in the entire food chain, regardless of how one cultivates.

The Government shares the Riksdag's assessment that Swedish food production should be governed by consumer demand and not by these politically set goals. Regarding the visit to the Baltics, it is important that food is produced within the country's borders. Whether it is organic or conventional plays a significantly smaller role. The important thing is that we produce more food in Sweden.

In order to intensify the reconstruction of civil defense in order to strengthen the total defense, the government considers that funds for the construction of a food preparedness and measures to ensure the availability of drinking water need to be gathered and furthermore, additional funds must be provided in the uncertain times we live in now. It is important that we look out for our house for the sake of preparedness and the inhabitants.

Madam Speaker! One of the headings in the report is the direction of the policy - a coherent rural policy. In the bill, the Government emphasizes that the development of rural areas is crucial for the success of the whole of Sweden. Here, the Government has a unified focus: All of Sweden shall function. The conditions for living, living, and working in rural areas shall be strengthened. The goal for a coherent rural policy is a viable countryside with equal opportunities for entrepreneurship, work, housing, and welfare that leads to a long-term sustainable development in the whole country. To achieve the goal, a breadth of measures is required within many expenditure areas.

The Government argues that the conditions in rural areas differ in different parts of the country, which requires different measures and solutions, for it is extremely important to realize that we have many different rural areas. The countryside in itself is not a uniform concept.

Furthermore, we read the following in the report: "The municipalities, regions and state authorities as well as civil society organizations have important roles when rural policy is to be implemented. When it comes to the agrarian industries, competitiveness needs to be strengthened and production within the industries must increase in a sustainable way." Of course, public service is absolutely crucial, but we must not forget civil society and the association life, which is often a supporting pillar in our rural areas where other services no longer exist. Therefore, the association life and civil society must be strengthened in various ways, which this government does through various measures. We see the value of civil society and the association life.

The Government has high ambitions for the entire food chain in all sustainability perspectives—economic, social, and environmental—in its work on updating the food strategy. The Government emphasizes that Swedish food production in many ways is an example with high quality, low environmental impact, and with great consideration taken for animal welfare.

The Government considers that the Swedish added values must be clarified and thus also hopefully be able to provide more payment to the producers. The development of the rural areas includes strengthening the competitiveness for Swedish livestock production with maintained food safety and good animal welfare.

Madam Speaker! I move on to speak about the forest. The Government considers the principle of freedom with responsibility to be extremely important to safeguard. The Government prioritizes that Swedish forestry is not restricted but can fully contribute to achieving climate goals as well as to jobs and growth throughout the country. At the same time, a number of new EU legal acts are relevant which can affect forestry and national forest policy. It is therefore, for example, a self-evident matter that the Government votes no to the Nature Restoration Law. The Government considers that a review of the national forest policy is needed to develop a future purposeful forest policy that promotes long-term sustainable Swedish forestry and a growing bioeconomy. Therefore, a forest inquiry will be appointed shortly, which the Prime Minister also stated in the autumn government statement.

Speaking of legal acts, the government is currently reviewing how to expeditiously handle the Species Protection Ordinance, as we see how it truly lays a dead hand over our rural areas and our forest owners' properties.

The protection of species cannot override other legislation, and that was not the intention either. We must redo the implementation and do it at a minimum level, while ensuring that those who are nevertheless affected by restrictions against their will receive reasonable compensation. Nationally protected species can also not stop ongoing land use.

We already see today how this leads to a reduced amount of measured timber to our sawmills around the country. They can therefore not process our Swedish green gold, which in turn punishes the countryside even further.

We must turn around the sector-splashing in the forest, where the forest owner and the management of the forest shall be given the right conditions to be able to be a part of the transition that we are currently in the middle of. We must be completely clear that the forest and Swedish sustainable forestry is one of our great competitive advantages in the transition.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I agree with much of what the member said. I also agree that we have completely dismantled our preparedness. That is why the previous government appointed quite a few food preparedness inquiries, which I hope will come forward with good proposals in due course.

I would like to read out something that I read on Facebook. It says as follows:

Deafening administrative decision on license hunting. The announcement just came regarding how many wolves will be shot during the upcoming license hunt, only 36 animals. An allocation that appears to be deaf. It is not that Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren has been unclear about what the government thinks on the issue.

Despite the fact that the government has said it wants to see a halving of the wolf population.

Despite the fact that Naturvårdsverket has been commissioned to develop a plan so that it can become a reality.

Despite the fact that the EU Commission has now begun to signal an upcoming shift in the wolf issue from the EU's side.

Despite these clear signals, the authorities nevertheless choose to turn a blind eye to the new political direction and only grant 36 wolves on the license. Fewer than last year. Yes, according to the models, this will still result in a smaller wolf population even next year, but not at all at the pace that the policy has now signaled that it wants to proceed at.

If the Swedish political system is to function – where ministers are not allowed to give direct orders to agencies – but agencies are to be compliant with the political direction that is set, then goals and implementation must go in sync. This is not sufficient!!!

So Member Kjell-Arne Ottosson wrote. The question then becomes: Did the authorities listen more to the previous, Social Democratic rural minister because the allocation that year became 75 wolves?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, the former Minister for Rural Affairs, for the question! It is funny that she is in here and reading my social media.

It is like this: We had to really realign the policy regarding the predators because during the Social Democratic years, a significant increase in the wolf population could be seen. But unfortunately, we have not kept up regarding the management.

In the wolf hunt 2023, we had a license for 75 animals, but only 57 were shot. Unfortunately, not as many were shot as one had a license for. But after an announcement from the Riksdag, the previous government left a mandate to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency regarding the wolf population. They wanted to know, namely, if the wolf population could be lowered to the level that the announcement specified. It was thus an announcement that Anna-Caren Sätherberg's party was not part of.

When we took over, the assignment to Naturvårdsverket was revised. At that point, the question was not whether we could lower it, but how. The question, therefore, was not whether we had the possibility to do so at all, but the question was how we should do it, i.e., what is required to go down to the level that was decided in the announcement.

The idea is that this should have a better effect on the wolf hunt and that we should get a smaller wolf population, towards what was actually the decision in 2013, which was the decision in the announcement. That is where we want to get to. It is significantly longer than what Anna-Caren Sätherberg's party wanted because in their assignment to Naturvårdsverket, they asked whether it was even possible at all.

Yes, we want to go further. We look forward to the answers coming now, so that we can go further.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite get an answer to the question of whether the authorities are really supposed to listen to ministers or not, and whether the previous Minister for Rural Affairs was simply clearer or in some way was more favored by the authorities. I do not really know how I should interpret the whole thing.

But the historiography is still interesting, because the announcement from the Riksdag came exactly one week before the assignment to Naturvårdsverket was given. I do not know if the member knows how the Government Offices work, but it is not possible to prepare a case in a week. We can leave the historiography there.

I just wonder what the member actually thinks has happened in this issue during the long year that has passed since we changed government. Well, really, nothing much more has happened than that the license hunting this year resulted in much fewer wolves?

I also have another question for the member. It concerns the labeling of origin of meat in restaurants. It was also an issue that the previous Social Democratic government pursued. We even sent a message to the commission that we would introduce this. But to our surprise, this was withdrawn by the SD government. They did not want to introduce it.

Since then, there has been a complete lack of new proposals. It has been said that we should wait for two, three, or four months. Now, Madam Speaker, over a year has passed, and nothing has happened in the matter. But the member may know where the matter stands.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for the questions! I will take them in reverse order and begin with the last one.

My colleague Magnus Oscarsson, who is actually responsible for agriculture, food, and animal welfare, has for as long as he has sat in the Riksdag pursued this with the labeling of the origin of meat. He even managed to get it so that in the Riksdag's dining room, it should be indicated where the meat came from.

I do not know what has happened. But if you ask my colleague Magnus or me, we answer: Welcome origin labeling! No problems on our part!

But back to the wolf again. First, Anna-Caren Sätherberg says that the work in the Government Offices takes a very long time, but in the next breath, she asks why more has not happened.

It is like this: I mentioned the assignments that Anna-Caren Sätherberg had given. We redid those assignments. The question was changed from whether we can lower to how we can lower – we want to know what is required and whether we should look at genetics or something else. We are going to carry it out – what is required? Furthermore, we shortened the time period. Anna-Caren Sätherberg's investigation had more time. We shorten it to get answers faster, so that this can have an impact during the wolf hunt that begins in 2025. It is extremely important.

The second part is that we have commissioned a mandate regarding protection hunting. Wildlife damage centers, which handle the rules of thumb, have long requested new guidelines for protection hunting because the wolf situation looks completely different. They have not received them from the Social Democratic government despite having requested them for a long time. Now we have ensured that they will receive them. The mandate is to be presented in May. At that time, we will receive new and updated rules for protection hunting, which is required given the large wolf population we have in Sweden and which we now see spreading out more and more.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the presentation in this important debate!

I had a debate about half a year ago, in June, with a party colleague of Kjell-Arne Ottosson, namely Sweden's Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren. It was about the veterinary situation and Swedish animal welfare and the conditions for having operations around the clock in the entire country.

It was a very interesting debate based on the investigation that was presented just over a year ago, that is, last year. The answer given by the party colleague and the government representative was that the government was working very actively on this issue and would return in the preparation in due course.

The entire situation is extremely serious. It is a fundamental prerequisite for being able to succeed in increasing Swedish production within agriculture. This applies to all animal species involved, linked to the need for veterinarians and functioning veterinary activities.

It is extremely important to follow up on how the situation looks and what one hears when meeting various representatives. I was in Skara on Monday and met representatives for the emergency services there. One learns that horses are transported for many hours and die during transport before reaching emergency care.

The request from the Swedish Board of Agriculture was 68 million more for 2024 for the veterinary activities. This was not met, and in the budget, an unchanged framework remains.

Then my question is to Kjell-Arne Ottosson as representative for one of the government parties: How does one intend to act based on the proposals that are available, and when will the government return with measures?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Bäckström, for the questions!

I fully agree with the description of the problem that Daniel Bäckström mentions. Unfortunately, we see all too often that we have a major shortage of veterinarians. We see how we do not get enough veterinarians for the on-call service. We see that we have the enormous distances.

We also unfortunately hear from our educational institutions regarding veterinarians that in some parts it is very difficult to get hold of veterinarians. This applies in particular to the types of animals that I believe Daniel Bäckström is primarily thinking of. We are not talking about small pets now, but about cows, horses, sheep and so on.

We have a great challenge in getting people to seek out that path. We must in some way better manage the education and also the reality for our veterinarians so that we get more people seeking out that path. There is no doubt about that.

What is happening at the Government Offices in this matter, I do not dare say more about than exactly what Daniel Bäckström mentioned in his question. They are looking at different proposals on how to manage to solve it. This concerns, among other things, the on-call duty.

It is incredibly important. There we see that we get the enormously long transports. Last summer, I had a good friend whose dog was bitten by a viper during a weekend. It became a journey from western Värmland down to Gothenburg, a one-way trip, instead of being able to travel significantly shorter distances within the county.

It is a serious issue. I know that all possible conceivable solutions are being looked at. This applies in particular to being able to solve the on-call service during evenings, nights, and weekends.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is nevertheless interesting that we could have seen a proposal from the government in the budget bill that is completely in line with what the Minister for Rural Affairs says in the chamber in June. One shall return, and one shall work on the issue. We intend to take measures.

But no measures were included in the budget proposal. No extra money was provided that would enable a better working environment, increased recruitment conditions, and also an increased dimensioning to cover the large needs that exist, not least linked to on-call services.

It is also a matter of finding incentives that would make it possible for the veterinarians who exist and work in other areas to seek out those assignments. It was needed to actively provide the conditions for primary production to function and also develop.

It is an extremely serious situation that the government does not meet the demands and does not give signals for 2025 and 2026. There are, in turn, increased appropriation demands. If it was 68 million for the coming year, the Swedish Board of Agriculture demands 103 million for 2025 and then 133 million for 2026. That is more than the amount for 2024, 124,496,000 kronor.

It says something about how enormous the need is and how the authority describes the conditions required to be able to have an operation that is sustainable over time.

It is a clear message from the government that does not prioritize veterinary activities here. We will then have to return and follow up when the government intends to return to the Swedish Riksdag with a decision on how to handle an investigation that has now been presented for over a year.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the problem picture that Daniel Bäckström mentions. As I said in my previous contribution, I know that they are working to find solutions that will work in real life to solve the major challenges. There is no doubt about that. We are in complete agreement on the matter.

Regarding the economy, one can ask what has happened with the Center Party's budget. There, they are cutting further funds for the responsible agency, and they are cutting 11 million on SLU, which is an educational institution.

Would it have helped in this issue if the Center Party's budget had been approved? Would we then have received more veterinarians, when both the responsible agency and the educational institution are being cut?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Ottosson, for your speech! I noticed that you also caught a bit of the acute cold that one seems to get up in the speaker's chair today. I hope that we both make it through this exchange of remarks.

Actually, I didn't intend to comment much on what you said. I am simply stating that we think the same thing, but exactly the opposite in almost everything. I suppose that's just how it is. One simply knows where we stand.

There is a question where I hope we could have a consensus and where we have previously had a consensus. It concerns what I raised in my speech regarding the 3R-center. It is the center that exists at the Swedish Board of Agriculture which deals with reducing, refining and replacing animal testing - reduce, refine, replace.

It was established in 2017 and exists there as a center and a support point for those who are working on these matters in order to reduce and replace animal testing. It is, of course, a step towards achieving the directives that exist in the EU regarding phasing out animal testing where it is possible.

The Centre has existed since 2017. If I am not mistaken, it has had practically the same budget the whole time at 15 million. Now it should rather increase.

In the budget proposal coming from the Tidö parties, it is no longer included. It has been removed. The Swedish Board of Agriculture has already notified that people will be laid off. I believe it was 39 people due to the reductions in the appropriation, of which nine out of twelve were at the 3R center.

My question to the member is: Is it a mistake, or is it intentional? Will the 15 million be found and a correction be made in the regulatory letter, or is it over?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question!

I can state that the instructions from the Swedish Board of Agriculture include that there shall be a competence center for 3R issues within the agency with the aim of promoting and coordinating the work to replace, reduce and refine animal testing.

I want to remind that the funding of the 3R center has been time-limited and special investments. In that case, it is natural that such an activity becomes part of the regular operations.

Regarding money, Miljöpartiet does not have any more money in its appropriation to Jordbruksverket that can be allocated to this purpose, in any case not according to what is stated in the budget proposal.

I note that Miljöpartiet has infinitely more money than all of us others, except for one party in particular that is in this chamber right now. It becomes a bit strange, in a way, to stand and have a budget debate when we are in such different worlds.

We heard today that the inflation figures are now changing faster than expected. It is really going in the right direction. It is clear that if the Miljöpartiet budget proposal had gone through, it would instead have fueled inflation. Then we would have had higher prices and higher interest rates. That budgeting would have hit households and companies very hard, so in that sense, I am eternally grateful that that budget did not go through.

There was money for very many 3R centers there, which the member is requesting. But this, as has been said, has been time-limited parts, and it stands in the agency's instructions that they shall exist. Consequently, one must find money for it.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer!

Yes, we have 77 million more in the appropriation to Jordbruksverket. There is also money for the 3R-center there.

The answer I get here is that it should remain but not have funding. Is that how I should understand it? There will be no targeted funds or anything, but it will state in the regulatory letter that this should exist. Given the budgeted funds, it will then be low-budget, and there will be three people instead of the twelve who work there now. Is that how I should understand the member's answer, or will funding be found so that this can continue and develop as it does today?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question!

I am not involved in writing the regulatory letters, so I do not dare say what will be written in them.

In that case, I must correct the member. In the Green Party's budget proposal, they add 77 million more, just as Emma Nohrén said. But 3R is not mentioned at all here, not in the text that I have found. Now Emma Nohrén nods and says otherwise, but in the text that I have found, it says as follows:

"We also want to strengthen appropriation 1:8 Swedish Board of Agriculture by 77 million more than the government for 2024. These increased funds can enable financing of work with civil defense and preparedness, increased threats such as zoonoses and animal diseases such as salmonella."

There is nothing in that text about 3R-center, which the member is requesting here. But, as said, what will be stated in any regulatory letter I do not know because I am not involved in writing them myself.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet present in our budget motion a new course for a safer Sweden.

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.

The profits of the banks and the food giants need to be choked. They must not be able to make profits at the expense of households.

The welfare sector has for a long time been underfunded and is now crumbling away completely. In order for welfare to be able to continue to be one of the foundations of society, resources are needed so that those who need care receive it in time, those who are on a path into gang crime can be stopped, and those who are older can receive the support they need in everyday life.

Everyone who seeks employment in preschools, healthcare, schools, and elderly care needs a good working environment and good working conditions. This is created through investments, not through cuts.

Mr. Speaker! The climate crisis is here and now, with extreme weather such as prolonged droughts and heavy rains with major floods.

At the same time as we must drastically reduce climate-damaging emissions to reach net-zero emissions, Sweden has a government and a supporting party whose climate policy is so harmful that it would have resulted in lower emissions if they had done nothing at all.

In our collective budget proposal, we prioritize allocating significant resources to welfare initiatives through general state grants, and we prioritize climate transition work that can actually take us to the goal of net-zero emissions.

Mr. Speaker! For expenditure area 23 Agriculture, rural areas and food, Vänsterpartiet is investing a total of 2.6 billion more than the government.

We need to increase the efforts for forestry. Smaller forest areas with high natural 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 for forest owners with smaller forest holdings but with a high proportion of natural values.

We must also protect our mountain areas, which are completely unique in Europe. There is a great need for the management of compensations when logging permits are denied for the forests near the mountains in order to protect forests with high natural values. Here, we propose an increase of 1.3 billion more than the government.

Mr. Speaker! The completely dominant forestry method in Sweden is clear-cutting, also called clear-cut forestry. That 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 increase biodiversity by protecting forests to a greater extent and increasing areas with continuous-cover forestry instead of clear-cutting.

Economic incentives are 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, the climate benefit, and the biodiversity.

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

We also want the national key biotope inventory to be reintroduced. It is of great importance for achieving our environmental goals, protecting endangered species and strengthening the knowledge base for forest owners.

Mr. Speaker! The preventive work to reduce the risks of attacks on domestic animals from predators is important. Currently, it is possible to receive compensation for the material costs of predator-deterring fences. Here, we propose to introduce state support also for the labor costs and also increased compensation for the loss of domestic animals due to predator attacks. We increase the appropriation by 40 million kronor more than the government.

We are also increasing the investment in 3R centers by 20 million kronor in order to be able to continue the work of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animal testing.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's 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 arable lands must be cultivated to a greater extent so that access to topsoil is protected and natural resources are preserved. Cycles must be the starting point, and a diverse agricultural landscape needs to be stimulated to an increased extent.

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

To achieve an ecologically sustainable and fossil-free agriculture, support and steering measures within the agricultural sector must be designed so that they contribute to us reaching our environmental and climate goals and the global sustainability 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 prepared for crises and extreme weather as well as reduce our import dependency. It would also give us the conditions to strengthen both 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 goal for a self-sufficiency rate in terms of food at a level comparable to Finland's at approximately 80 percent.

Mr. Speaker! Increased costs for agricultural water management are a consequence of a changed climate. Today's water facilities in agriculture are often built according to previously prevailing climatic conditions. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to introduce state support for investments and measures in agriculture that strengthen agricultural water management in a changed climate and which thereby contribute to strengthening our self-sufficiency regarding food.

A bio-premium should be introduced to support those who convert work machines and vehicles to fossil-free fuels, which at present are generally more expensive than fossil fuels. The bio-premium should be designed as a subsidy per liter of fuel. Vänsterpartiet proposes an increase of this grant by 25 million kronor more than the government.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to introduce environmental compensation for meadow cultivation. The measure strengthens the economic conditions for farmers with grazing animals and simultaneously strengthens carbon sequestration in agriculture.

In total, we want to increase the appropriation in the national co-financing for the common agricultural policy 2023-2027 by 1 billion kronor more than the government.

Finally: For us, the budget is a whole. This also means that we refrain from taking a position and instead have a special statement within the expenditure area.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the speech! I hadn't actually intended to request a reply, but in the end, I could no longer resist. I may quote what my good colleague Emma Nohrén began her exchange of replies with me with: We think exactly the same about everything, but in the opposite way. It is probably in roughly the same way here.

Kajsa Fredholm speaks quite a lot about the forest and how it is viewed from a Left Party perspective. It is clear, and not at all surprising, that it is not actually that meticulous how one handles things that others own. We do not value all the work that the individual forest owner does to manage their forest. We also heard that even more forest should be protected.

I would like to ask Kajsa Fredholm if there is any limit at all on how much forest should be protected. Is there any limit on how much forest the state should take away from ordinary forest owners all over Sweden who work and manage their forests?

It is also interesting to hear what the member says in the speech regarding this matter of climate. If you want to have as much long-term climate benefit as possible in the forest, the research is very clear: Then you should manage the forest as we do in Sweden today. If you want increased carbon stocks in the very short term, the forest must stand, but the forest is a living organism. It will die, and then you lose carbon dioxide out to the atmosphere again.

Does the Left Party see no problem at all with just this, that we have a nature that is alive?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that Kjell-Arne Ottosson and I may have the same goal, but our paths seem to go in different directions. It is quite different how we are to get there.

Regarding the protection of forests, I want to say that we propose an increase of 1.3 billion more than the government, which among other things shall go specifically to forest owners who want to protect their forest – it is therefore voluntariness I am talking about here. Then we have the opportunity, through our jointly owned state forests, to lead by example and introduce, test, research, and implement clear-cut-free methods. That is the answer to that.

I believe the member is completely wrong in their reasoning that we would in any way take forest from Sweden's inhabitants. That is not true.

When it comes to the climate benefit of the forest, we need to have the forest as a carbon sink. We have a 2030 goal that we are actually required to achieve and reach. It will be very strange for the member to bring this up when he represents a government and a supporting party that, through a reduction of the reduction obligation, ensures that we must use the forest and agriculture instead of the transport sector to lower climate emissions.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Kajsa Fredholm!

Actually, it becomes exactly as I said when I initiated the exchange with Emma Nohrén. It becomes a bit strange to have a budget debate even with Vänsterpartiet considering that one borrows up 175 billion during the current mandate period. In that case, the inflation figures we see today would not look the way they do, but instead, they would have turned again and gone in a completely wrong direction. Those who would then have been affected are ordinary residents and our companies. It is a bit strange to have a budget debate when we have such very different amounts of money to manage.

Kajsa Fredholm mentions our jointly owned state forests. These are, to a large extent, concentrated. If we did as Kajsa Fredholm says, we would see how, for example, forest contractors and sawmills in these areas, not least in northern Sweden, would have to close. They would not receive enough timber if we were to act in that way.

This would in turn rule out just parts of the transition. The transition needs materials that are non-fossil. Forest material is non-fossil.

I also intended to ask another question, even though I have very little speaking time left. It concerns the wolf, Mr. Speaker. I note that Kajsa Fredholm says that one wants to invest more money in predator-deterrent fences. Does Vänsterpartiet have any view on when we have too many wolves in Sweden? When have the damages become so great that we actually must begin to manage our wolf population in a way that is worthy of the name?

Administration means that we should have as many as we can actually manage to have. There we claim that we are not today.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions. There were quite a few of them. I do not know if I will have time to answer all of them.

Regarding our climate investment budget, we want to make large climate investments because large state climate investments will be needed to transition Sweden. This applies across all sectors. It is 100 billion per year for ten years forward. I am very surprised that the government is not investing in large climate investments in this way.

Regarding the wolf, we want the starting point to be what is a favorable conservation status. As I mentioned before, we want to increase the support for those animal owners who have animals that are affected and killed by wolves. I find it a bit surprising that the government, which talks very much about shooting away wolves, does not increase the support for those who are affected and have animals that are affected by wolf attacks.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The questions we are debating here tonight can be spoken about at length and with great sincerity, but my voice does not carry, so I will content myself with a very brief contribution tonight.

I want to highlight a small part of the budget, namely the initiative to phase out mink farms. This will take place in a planned and orderly manner.

We must not raise animals under conditions where they are not allowed to express their natural behaviors. The fur industry is such an example. Therefore, the Liberals are, of course, extra pleased with just this part of the budget. This is what we have fought for. This is what we have waited a long time for. We have strived in this direction for a long time, and this will make a difference for animal welfare in Sweden.

I vote in favor of the proposals in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! On this fine Thursday evening, we have important issues on the Riksdag's table. In this situation, we must prepare for 2024, however it may turn out. We are heading towards a spring where Russia will, with great probability, reinstall Putin. We have an EU election campaign where things could go in different directions and lead to several changes linked to the support Ukraine needs. We are heading towards an autumn with an American presidential election which could also change the conditions in our global environment and for Sweden's security policy situation.

I am thinking about what ÖB said when he was here in the Riksdag a few months ago. He said that it is a particularly serious security situation. I want us to take those words with us when we talk about security of supply, the conditions for the agrarian industries, the entire rural policy, and how we work in this chamber with various decisions to strengthen Sweden's possibilities for a stronger total defense.

The Defense Preparation Board is preparing the next report on civil defense in the coming days. It will be released next week. It is an extremely important signal to the collective work of strengthening our preparedness and getting primary production more integrated into the food chain, also from a civil defense perspective. I hope that will be the case. We are working in that direction. It is extremely important given the conditions that will exist to handle the times we live in. These are times of great anxiety where things can happen very quickly.

Mr. Speaker! Supply capacity is crucial for our security. We need to take these steps quickly, and we need to do what we can to, out of solidarity and from other perspectives and climate aspects, do as much as possible to produce more in Sweden. It is also linked to necessary input goods where we have large import dependencies from countries far, far away.

Centerpartiet has a budget proposal that is collectively 175,300,000 kronor more than what the government and the Sweden Democrats are presenting for decision in the Riksdag. Our budget should be seen as a whole. We have many proposals that lie outside this expenditure area but which affect the conditions for the countryside and other areas.

We need to constantly have a focus on how the competitiveness of green industries can be strengthened and also follow up on what is being done in practice during the year ahead of us.

We in the Center Party expect that major measures will be taken that strengthen competitiveness. We will follow up on how it turns out in practice, not least in view of the discussion that has been here earlier.

The supply of competence is an immensely large issue for the entire Swedish countryside, not least within the green industries. We see that this major challenge is being handled by the government in a way that makes it difficult for companies within primary production to obtain competence and personnel to the extent that is needed.

We heard at a seminar organized in the Riksdag last week from leading representatives of various business groups within primary production that there were clear signals regarding this. It is very important to listen to what the business representatives highlight.

The shortage of veterinarians and animal caretakers has also become increasingly noticeable in recent years. I am still waiting for the government to act on the investigation that was presented over a year ago. If, with active work, those time perspectives are met, we have many considerations regarding how we are to follow up on what is being done in practice.

Special measures are also needed to continue facilitating ownership changes so that young farmers can establish themselves. We need to follow up on what the investment levels will be in the coming years in order to be able to see the dimension moving forward.

When the government chooses to update the food strategy and work with it together with the Sweden Democrats, it will also be interesting in the coming year to see what will happen in practice and what the proposals will entail.

Some years ago, there was a proposal for changes and reforms of the shore protection on the Riksdag's table. It was voted down by the government's parties. But this week, a proposal of practically the same scope was presented. It is rural policy, that! But it would have been much better if the government's parties had said yes when the proposals were last to be decided here in the Riksdag. Instead, they delayed the matter in order to be able to put their label and sender on the same proposal.

Mr. Speaker! The summer and autumn that have passed have brought about major changes with drought and a longer rainy period. We have followed this and had other debates regarding the conditions for how climate changes and economic changes affect Swedish primary production.

We need to make efforts so that the industry can adapt and take measures to cope with increasingly extreme weather in the future. We have money for this in our budget proposal, and even more will be needed in the coming years. It is important to also focus on providing the countryside with the conditions to transition in the near term.

Swedish agriculture needs to be adapted to a Sweden with net-zero emissions. Therefore, in our proposal, we are allocating 200 million for 2024 for green transition in agriculture. We also have 15 million annually for compensation for catch crops, as an additional example linked to our budget proposal.

We do not know how the African swine fever will develop next year. More funds are also needed here to be able to have leeway for measures and compensations in different ways, not least to prevent it in the operations that can be quickly affected. Great values are at stake. In our proposal, we add twenty million extra for the fight against infectious animal diseases.

There has been a strong focus on predators and hunting in this debate. I want to send a message to Sweden's government and the Tidö parties: It is about time to establish a hunting and wildlife management authority with powers.

I am also thinking about forestry. It is important to constantly focus on achieving a balance between a sustainable hunting and wildlife management policy and developing wildlife as a resource. The Center Party wants to see a growing forestry industry and sustainable forest growth with good and secured access to biomass from the Swedish forest.

Almost half of the Swedish forest is owned by private individual owners. For many, this is an incredibly important income and a security to be able to live and work throughout our rural areas.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude with an observation. I once saw a debate between Thorbjörn Fälldin and Olof Palme. It was about gravel extraction fees. I can state that in the collective proposal from the Tidö parties, there is an increase in the natural gravel tax from 19 to 22 kronor per ton. This concerns the part that exceeds the consumer price index. This means a 16 percent increase before 2024.

The gravel, like the access to natural gravel, rock quarries and other important parts, enables investments and a positive rural development. When one hears about all the promoting measures, it is interesting to see how the government parties in various respects make it difficult for individual entrepreneurs even in the countryside.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report 2, which concerns expenditure area 23 in the state budget and issues such as rural industries, the countryside, and food.

I want to begin by agreeing with what my party colleague Staffan Eklöf previously stated from the rostrum and at the same time agree with the supporting motion to the committee's proposal.

I intended to take the opportunity in this debate to speak about the Swedish forest, national self-determination, and the threat from the European Union against precisely that Swedish self-determination and the forest owners' rights, which is becoming increasingly clear.

The Swedish forest is unique, as is our forestry. In few places in the world can one speak, in the same way as in Sweden, about the unique value of and the pride one feels for our forestry. Ownership has often passed directly down from generation to generation, as the heritage it constitutes from parents to children.

We Swedes love our forest, whether it is about owning it, cultivating it, or simply being able to hike through it. Through the right of public access, the people are also given the opportunity to discover and explore the forest.

Mr. Speaker! It is difficult not to love the Swedish forest and all the added value it gives back to our country. It is not just about economic value and jobs, but also about the pride in and knowledge of our work and our forestry, and that it takes place right here in Sweden.

A threat - I cannot describe it in any other way - is building up ever more from the European Union. Despite the fact that it is not within the EU's right to legislate on this, they are trying to take ever greater freedoms.

Many of us know what is happening within the EU. If you give the EU a pinky finger, the EU takes the whole hand. For the Sweden Democrats, it is more important than ever to safeguard national self-determination over the Swedish forest. Decisions must be made here in Sweden. Power must not be handed over to meddlesome politicians in Brussels who lack an understanding of Swedish needs and Swedish forestry and for our unique knowledge and our work.

We shall cooperate, but we do best to legislate ourselves in Sweden.

In this situation, it feels good to be a Sweden Democrat. We will stand up for Sweden, for Swedish forestry, and for keeping the EU away from Swedish forest policy. This is a line we can pursue in the European Parliament, and it is a line we will pursue in the European Parliament. This is a promise we can give to voters and forest owners in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I am convinced that more parties can agree with what I have just stated and that more parties hold that line, at least in Sweden. The difference between us and other parties in the European Parliament is that the Sverigedemokraterna are part of a group that safeguards national self-determination. There, we can vote for Sweden's best interests. This cannot be said about the other parties, who will relentlessly be subjected to the EU bureaucratic whip. The EU's will and needs shall come first. We saw that recently in the EU when the Socialdemokraterna voted for forced renovations of small houses simply because back home in Sweden they claimed something else.

To you as a voter and forest owner, I want to say this: If you want parties that promise broadly in Sweden but fall for the EU whip in the European Parliament, you should vote for one of the other parties. If, on the other hand, you want a party that in the European Parliament stands up for Swedish forest owners, for national self-determination, and for Sweden, you vote for the Sverigedemokraterna in the election to the European Parliament on June 9, 2024.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Eriksson Falk, for the speech! It led me to a question about the upcoming management of the predator policy. It concerns the Tidö parties' efforts based on the possibility of deciding for themselves.

The investigation will be presented at the mid-year point of 2024. What is Mattias Eriksson Falk and the Sverigedemokraterna's view on the continued management? When can we expect a proposal for a decision to be available based on the efforts that, among others, the government parties - or at least parts of the government - have announced when it comes to reducing the number of wolves?

It would be interesting to hear if Mattias Eriksson Falk can describe how this issue will be handled next year, given that there is quite a tight schedule from the time the investigation is presented until a decision is to be made on the upcoming management allocation before the autumn and winter of 2024/25.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Daniel Bäckström for the questions.

We await with anticipation the investigation that is to be presented in the future. Exactly what will happen with the handling of this, I believe we will have to return to when we have something more concrete to go on after it has been presented.

It is pleasing to hear that Daniel Bäckström and I seem to be in agreement regarding the issue of wolves in general. We need a clearer decision. Sverigedemokraterna have had an ambition to reduce the wolf population and therefore increase the hunting in the future. I hope that the upcoming administrative decision will be more in line with what Sverigedemokraterna and the government are pushing for.

What results this will yield, we shall return to. For the Sweden Democrats, it is obvious that the hunt for wolves shall increase and that the population shall decrease.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly what I want to know more about. What is the Sweden Democrats' line in the cooperation in Tidögänget, and how does one intend to take this issue forward ahead of the 2024/25 season? It is one thing to say that one wants to reduce and change, but I want to know how the issue is handled and what the plan looks like in connection with when the investigation is presented. When it comes to other investigations that have been presented, for example regarding the veterinarian issue, it has already been 13 months without us having received any announcement from the government.

I perceive that the Sweden Democrats have a great influence on the governing parties' ability to carry out their work. This is an issue that is often communicated, but where it is rarely given answers on how one is concretely to reach the various results that are painted and presented from the different parties within the Tidö cooperation.

What is the path to reach what you say you strive for?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, the Riksdag decided on a level for the wolf population that the authorities were expected to adhere to. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, at least not to the extent that the Sverigedemokraterna had desired. Naturvårdsverket has been tasked with reviewing how this issue should be handled and shall return with an answer.

My and the Sweden Democrats' hope is that moving forward we will see decisions from the county administrative boards regarding more wolf hunting, in line with the decision the Riksdag has made regarding the level of the wolf population for the coming years. My hope is that we will be able to land on this as soon as possible, preferably already when decisions are made regarding the 2025 wolf hunt. What it will look like and what the investigation will show we will have to return to, but my and the Sweden Democrats' hope is that we will get there so that the wolf hunt can increase and the population be reduced according to the Riksdag's guidelines.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 December.)

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