Agriculture, rural areas and food

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

When our government took over, there was high inflation. Inflation has now been defeated. It would not have been if the government had spent too much. Then inflation would have continued to erode values in all areas of society until today. Last year's state budget was thus characterized by inflation-induced restraint. Now it has loosened up somewhat, even though this year's budget work began in the shadow of inflation. Much of the budget space has been weighted towards all parts of crime fighting and our neglected defense.

Much has been said about large investments in infrastructure and research, crime prevention measures, as well as income tax cuts in connection with this year's budget. In this debate, I want to summarize the steps taken forward for the land-based industries in this year's budget. I can state that the big steps were missing this year, but in return, the steps are many. I will list what we have done.

The investment support for agriculture's competitiveness is increased by 100 million kronor, and a new category called robust primary production is introduced. The specific work with the food strategy 2.0 is increased by 80 million kronor.

Restoration of meadow and pasture land receives 30 million kronor more in 2025 and will be scaled up in coming years, which is important not only for increased food production but also for biodiversity because the overgrowth of hay meadows and pastures is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in the agricultural landscape.

The exchange rate for agricultural subsidies is adjusted upwards, which means that the common agricultural policy receives 646 million kronor more over the budget period. However, all changes occur as usual against the background of other previously decided changes resulting from many factors, which means that items can go up and down without active decisions having been taken in this year's budget. At the same time, Sweden has incurred increased costs for new EU requirements, and I want to take the opportunity to say that it is another reason to say no a bit more often in Brussels. For the first time, however, 76 percent of the exchange rate adjustment goes to the farmers, and that is important.

SLU Veterinary Services is granted funds that make it possible to have emergency services open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which ensures that the EU accreditation for veterinary education can be maintained. The veterinary field operations and its important emergency services are also strengthened.

A nitrogen step of 100 million kronor is introduced to support farms' efforts to reduce ammonia emissions.

Madam Speaker! A paradigm shift is being implemented for forest tree breeding. In 2017, the proposal was only present at the Sverigedemokraternas landsdagar, but next year, 2025, the starting shot is fired for the work to ensure that the alder does not die out due to alder disease and that the ash does not be marginalized due to ash dieback. It will probably also save about fifty other species from extinction and save Europe's probably largest alder population on Gotland.

Furthermore, a forest pest screening center will be established, primarily for the major production species in the forest, namely spruce, pine and birch. It will enable healthier planting material in the future and thus fewer forest damages, higher growth and better economy. It will contribute greatly to the forest's ability to meet all the demands we have, from carbon storage and substitution of fossil products to increased exports and living rural areas. Even in the event of future threats from fungi, bacteria or insects that again threaten the existence of a Swedish tree species, the forest pest screening center will constitute a central resource.

The Swedish Forest Agency also receives an addition for law enforcement, which is important for regulatory compliance and competitiveness and for handling the deforestation regulation. The funds shall also enable Sweden to be more active in the EU and internationally.

The Swedish Food Agency, the National Veterinary Institute, and the Swedish Board of Agriculture receive large supplements to improve Sweden's preparedness. Other strengthened preparedness within food and water supply also receive large supplements.

The fight against plant pests in soil, gardens, and forests is being strengthened. Sweden will finally get a reference laboratory for the diagnosis of plant pests.

The aquaculture also receives a value adjustment of the subsidies. Furthermore, the production of biogas is strengthened, as is the work with water management within LOVA, which provides greater opportunities for environmental friendliness and also, to some extent, improved water management. Research and innovation in this area receive a clear increase.

We continue to keep the diesel tax for agriculture, forestry, and water management as low as possible. It is very important for the profitability and liquidity of agriculture.

Even the low reduction obligation is very important, not only for the countryside's logistics but also for the profitability and liquidity of agriculture. On farms that I have visited recently, they have saved 50,000-200,000 kronor per farm and year solely as a result of the reduction obligation decrease - and that regardless of whether they use diesel or HVO, which I will return to. The reduction obligation is now increased slightly, but for motoring, we compensate fully with a tax reduction.

I would like to dwell for a short moment on the reduction obligation. Some of you may remember that we in Sverigedemokraterna nagged before the election that it was a bad idea with the reduction obligation, especially the requirements for a large and increasing involvement of biofuels. We warned that it could mean that the supply of biofuels would not be able to meet such a large and increasing demand. We argued that this, in turn, could drive up the price of biofuels.

When we won the election, we lowered the reduction obligation that we had promised. Then the diesel price dropped by 4 kronor and 50 öre per liter directly - and the price of HVO dropped by 6 kronor per liter. It is the receipt that we were right: The reduction obligation made it more expensive to drive on HVO. SD was therefore right here as well.

Another tax cut is the reduction of the employer contribution for small companies through an expansion of the so-called växa-support. It will admittedly be a small reduction, but since the number of agricultural companies that currently utilize the opportunity is low, there is great potential for more to receive a reduction. For someone who has two employees, it can amount to up to 110,000 kronor per year if they meet the criteria for the support.

This may have been a somewhat tedious enumeration – it is just so much we have done – but the guiding principle in our work has been to strengthen many of the parts that limit the land-based industries from getting a boost forward. Doing it in that way means that all farms can benefit from something.

Hopefully, we can take the next step in the budget for 2026. In combination with already introduced and respective upcoming measures - such as regulatory simplifications, continued low reduction obligation, lower slaughter fees, reinforced breed and technology development, origin labeling in restaurants, export initiatives, a reduced wolf population, and a lower interest rate, among others - we hope that this will be able to turn the negative spiral in agriculture into a positive spiral.

(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! I thank the member for the speech.

I wanted to bring up something that the member did not mention. I live in a rural municipality in Jämtlands län, and I am well aware that none of the cabinet ministers live north of Borlänge, and that the Sverigedemokraterna parliamentary member representing Jämtlands län lives in Skövde. Consequently, one probably does not meet the villagers in the grocery store in Jämtland. One does not travel the long distances to deliver goods and services, and one also does not meet those who work at a municipal office and have few colleagues, all of whom have difficult priorities to make when resources are to be distributed.

One also does not know how it is supposed to be possible in a rural municipality, which usually has a high tax level while the level of service is low, to manage to focus on the important business development. The Social Democratic-led government introduced targeted support in 2018 to 39 rural municipalities to develop business, and for these 39 municipalities, the state grant has been important for the possibility to work with a better business climate. In the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget for 2025, however, the special state grant for the rural municipalities' business development is not included.

It is 70 million we are talking about, at the same time as we know that the government is investing 60 billion this year in new measures, and that high-income earners in large cities are prioritized when it comes to the majority. My question therefore becomes, Madam Speaker: What is the reason why the Sverigedemokraterna want to remove the targeted support to strengthen local businesses in 39 of the municipalities in Sweden that have the toughest conditions? Is it the Sverigedemokraterna's opinion that the need to support business development has decreased in the rural municipalities in the north?

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

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

We have many who come from the rural areas in our party. There are several people from Norrland, though not from the upper half of Norrland, and I myself come from Norrland. We also have many members from what I call Little Norrland, namely Småland. There, the conditions are similar, and the rural areas have great problems.

Our party has a great focus on ensuring that it works in rural areas. The support that Anna-Caren Sätherberg speaks of can perhaps fulfill a function, but it only reaches 39 municipalities in the country, and there are many municipalities that have problems.

I listed about twenty initiatives we are making in this area. Many of them can be utilized by all rural municipalities. Let me focus on one of them, namely the lowered fuel price, and say that it has been crucial for many rural municipalities and for the people who live there.

This is somewhat of an ideological discussion. The main thing that can be done for the sparsely populated areas and the countryside is to give them the conditions to move forward with their own strength. The fuel price reduction is one of many examples of how one can do this. The reduction of the employer contribution is also such an example. This provides conditions for everyone, regardless of which municipality they live in, and on the premises that one sets up oneself as a rural resident and as a municipality.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite understand the member's reasoning: Småland is also having a hard time, and therefore we should not provide better conditions to the 39 rural municipalities in support area A. Support area A has specific conditions. Should we direct the fuel price reductions to areas where people live sparsely and definitely need the car, even if the rural inhabitants are few, or should the fuel price reductions go to the whole country and mostly be utilized in the large cities?

At my home in Jämtlands län, all municipalities have received a share of the money, and they have meant a lot. Bergs municipality has invested in conditions for more housing and increased attractiveness. In Ragunda, the money has been used, among other things, for recruitment-promoting initiatives for the business sector. Åre and Bräcke have been able to strengthen their business units. Härjedalen has focused on local food entrepreneurship, sustainable fishing, and co-financing of various projects within business and association life.

So, development has occurred. This is only about 1.8 million for these 39 municipalities. This development would not have occurred without these resources.

The rural municipalities have a high tax level and a low level of service. They do not have the resources to reverse the development and work with the necessary business development. What I can state is that with the Sweden Democrats' and the government's policy, the rural municipalities are only becoming more rural.

This is about 70 million kronor when the government invests 60 billion. We Social Democrats have kept these funds in our budget motion.

The motive for the Sweden Democrats' cut is still completely unclear. Do the Sweden Democrats then have any other proposals aimed at support area A, that is, these 39 rural municipalities in the north?

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! The examples of measures that Anna-Caren Sätherberg listed have a common denominator, namely that they go through politics - admittedly locally, which perhaps is better than centrally; it depends on which perspective one takes.

It is about classic social democracy. One collects money and then distributes it. One may want it that way, but one can also have another opinion, namely that this must at least be complemented by creating conditions for change from below, on the rural area's terms.

When it comes to this matter of fuel prices, Anna-Caren Sätherberg says that city dwellers benefit from it and that the price reductions are not aimed at rural municipalities. But the more one drives, the more benefit one has from a lower fuel price and the more one is plagued by a high fuel price. It thus becomes automatically a targeting towards those who have it worst.

When you ask people what is the best thing we can do for the countryside, you sometimes hear—I have heard it more than once: Leave the countryside in peace! Leave it in peace from regulations, rules, detailed regulations and high taxes. People want an opportunity to create their own life conditions themselves.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for your speech! We think very differently on many issues. What the member said was therefore not surprising. I will tell you myself what I think.

But there was one thing in the member's speech that I could not reconcile, and that is why I requested a reply. The member dwelt for quite a long time on measures for different tree species and other things. It was about pests, invasive species, fungal attacks, and other things. It is good that the member brings up these tree species, elm and ash, which he often returns to, but there are many more. They are also key species for others.

The problem, however, is that many types of damage are increasing due to the climate crisis we have. In a new climate, which we are heading towards - we have just had a record-warm November - these pests thrive. They come further up in the country. They survive longer. They survive in our climate.

The next part of the member's speech was about him being proud that the reduction obligation and the diesel tax had been lowered, which indeed drives the development with increased greenhouse gases. SD supports a government that increases the emissions of greenhouse gases. For the first time in many years, Swedish emissions are increasing instead of decreasing. It is a bit like putting a bandage on one of the holes in a large sieve while pouring gasoline and other greenhouse gases in from above. It just leaks through.

My question is. How do the Sweden Democrats reconcile the policy? Will the small initiative regarding vandals, mushroom attacks and other things play any role when you continue to destroy the climate?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

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

I want to first address what the member said last, that we are destroying the climate. That is not the case. It is other actors who are destroying the climate. In the statistics, Sweden is one of the smallest emitters, even per capita and even historically. Neither we as a country nor we as a party are any climate destroyers.

Climate is an important issue. I agree with that. In all important issues, it is a matter of maintaining high efficiency. We had a presentation from the Minister for Climate and Environment today, with a long series of proposals and entry points in the climate issue. In many ways, they also mirror the Sweden Democrats' entry into the issue.

We must find solutions that do not only unilaterally fulfill agreements. That is not enough, but we must have proposals for changes to other countries' emissions. At the moment, China emits a third of the carbon dioxide. They are building coal power plants at home and in other countries. Malawi got its a few years ago. China is developing in that way and choosing a coal path, which we must try to prevent. Therefore, it is so important that one uses Article 6, so that we can make investments in developing countries that make it greener there. It is six times more efficient per krona.

Now I don't have time to say everything I had intended, but that will have to be in the next turn. What we can do here regarding ash, elm and other species plays a major role. I will return to that.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite know which long presentation by the Minister for the Environment the member is referring to. I can guess that it concerns the information point we had in the committee this morning before the Environment Council is to discuss the climate targets for the EU.

It was a long standpoint, and the Minister for Climate and Environment said a number of things. Above all, there were six points with reservations, strings, and conditions. They did not want to agree to these things as long as the own Swedish interests were not satisfied. I do not quite think we can do that with climate policy and do not share that view.

We must do everything we can. We in Sweden trade with China. There has been an extraordinary series of articles in DN about how everything we buy affects the country of emission. We emit a good deal at home as well, but a major reason why we have reduced our emissions is that we buy from and trade with other countries where what we trade is manufactured.

The follow-up question here is: Is the Sweden Democrats' only climate policy to hope that someone else will do something? Or do you want to impose trade tariffs or something similar when it comes to carbon dioxide? I have not understood that you have been so positive about that previously.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is about the context mattering. These reservations are very important, because they prevent it from becoming symbolic politics and from causing harm in other ways.

I believe that the most important thing in climate policy, apart from adhering to the conditions that are agreed upon, is that it does not damage Sweden's competitiveness, that it is not symbol politics but has a real effect and that there are significant emission reductions per krona, that is to say that it is effective.

What else is happening? The commitment that exists in the climate issue will be eroded if we do not play our cards right. We do it right by not damaging Swedish competitiveness, not engaging in symbolic politics, and not having inefficient policy. It is extremely important.

Then I shall return to why it is important not only to look at emission levels when talking about climate. It is also about taking measures that prevent the negative problems that follow from climate change. What we do here in our nature, we can do without involving anyone else. We have both raised difficulties with climate work – and with reducing emissions – internationally. But what we can do to help our species here, we can do without being dependent on any other actor, who does not quite do as they say or who otherwise complicates the situation.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here again to debate expenditure area 23 Agriculture, rural areas and food. It is primarily about agriculture, forestry and aquaculture and about how we simply produce food and utilize our natural resources.

These are incredibly important industries for us to be able to transition to a fossil-free economy. The green industries are a central part of the economy, and they are a crucial part for a living countryside.

The transition is incredibly urgent. When we make it, we must ensure that we achieve ecological and long-term sustainability and that the economy of society fits within the same sphere. But it is actually the planetary boundaries that set the framework. The vitality of the ecosystems must set the framework.

Madam Speaker! Right now, there are many debates ongoing, but one of the largest and most recurring for our committee concerns the forest. Much of the forest policy lies in this area. Next week, the forest inquiry will come forward with its proposals. We also have the Environmental Goals Commission, which will be reaching its conclusion ahead. Based on the leaked parts from there, it looks quite bleak when it comes to staying within the limits of the ecosystems' vitality and carrying capacity.

It feels like the government parties' and their support party Sverigedemokraternas greatest driving force is: bite, bite, bite.

This is not something we in Miljöpartiet stand behind. We see that we need to cultivate the forest, but we must do so precisely within the limits of the ecosystems' carrying capacity. We therefore have several different proposals in our budget motion so that we can achieve sustainable forestry, where biomass is extracted from the forest, where it is ensured that the ecosystems are maintained, where the landowner receives money, and where those who want to protect the forest are allowed to protect the forest.

In our package for the forest, we include a transition support for those who want to switch to nature-oriented and clear-cut-free forestry methods. It can be a bit complicated at the beginning. One might have a forest that is marked for clear-cut forestry. That must, of course, be resolved. Therefore, we see a transition support in the beginning. That is also what state inquiries have shown previously.

We also see that there is room for a forest loan. For many, it is nothing other than a final felling that needs to be carried out in order to, for example, be able to make a change of ownership or divide between siblings. Actually, one might have wanted the forest to remain, but the values are too large; one cannot afford it. Imagine if one had the opportunity to take a forest loan in order to be able to manage this forest in a sustainable way in the future! We believe that there should be room for this. We have included it as a proposal, which has been very well received.

We see that there is a shortage of forest contractors who can perform the old gentle methods. We therefore propose a competence development voucher for forest contractors. Then those whom I, as a forest owner, hire to perform operations in my forest will have the opportunity to obtain the knowledge needed so that they can perform these parts. Today, there is a lack of knowledge and a very low availability of contractors of alternative methods.

We also need to have advice for forest owners. Here we have a major initiative on independent advice. This concerns climate adaptation, which also concerns the forest, and nature-oriented and clear-cut-free areas.

When it comes to the forest, we have a large package that concerns cultivation, staying within the ecosystem, and ensuring that it also becomes good for the forest owners.

There is a part here that I want to highlight. It is that we must ensure that there are compensations for those who want to remove or protect their forest. It cannot be that one has gone through the process and does not receive money because the money has run out. There, the government has a homework assignment to do.

Madam Speaker! I was in on climate adaptation in the exchange earlier. I would like to bring up an appropriation, which perhaps is a bit smaller, that we have included. It concerns climate adaptation within the reindeer husbandry. It is the Sami Parliament that has requested these funds. Reindeer husbandry has major problems in a changed climate. There are different types of snow and ice, which mean that the reindeer cannot reach the lichen. One has to provide supplementary feed and such. We need to climate-adapt reindeer husbandry. The Sami Parliament has demanded these funds but is not getting them from the government. Had our budget passed, they would have received them.

Madam Speaker! I would like to speak a little bit about agriculture. It is also an industry that we all cherish. We are dependent on it. We eat food every day - hopefully. But it is not straightforwardly sustainable how we use the land.

We must achieve an increased investment in organic farming methods. We must also increase climate adaptations within agriculture. And we must ensure that young people feel a sense of hope for the future, so that they want to take over and become farmers and agriculturalists.

We have a major initiative to involve young people. This concerns counseling. It concerns knowledge checks. It concerns how one should be able to take over during changes of ownership and so on. We have specified several of these proposals in a private member's bill which we will raise later, during the general motion period.

But we know that precisely these parts are needed. It is about how one is to obtain land, where one can live, and that one gets access to the facts one needs to transition their farming or take over farming.

Even here we see that there is a need for a consultancy voucher, somewhat like the consultancy voucher that existed within forestry. It is a system that exists in other European countries. There, as farmers and agricultural producers, one has access to a sum of money that can be used to bring in a consultant regarding what one is interested in. It could be that one would like to convert to organic farming. One might want to purchase a new machine or switch to another system or new crops. It can be expensive and difficult to do, but other European countries have seen great benefits from providing the opportunity to access knowledge in this regard and to test and gain knowledge.

We also know that a farmer in their work often has connections to up to 15 different authorities. One is supposed to be able to do the one thing with the third, while also doing their job. We in Miljöpartiet want the farmer to be able to devote themselves to being a farmer and not an administrator.

We therefore have a proposal to introduce a one-stop shop, as it is often called. It shall therefore be a point of entry where everything is gathered so that, regardless of what the problem is, one comes to a person who can actually help one further and knows what to do. We believe that it would facilitate and make it so that more can access other grants and find it easier in their everyday lives.

Madam Speaker! Our budget has a larger framework than the government's budget. We invest over 3.7 billion more in the report. I therefore have no reservation but instead a special statement. I also want to say that in addition to the larger framework, we also have proposals for three new appropriations. One is precisely the compensation development check for cut-free. We also see a great need for water measures and that the municipal sector in public kitchens needs help to be able to maintain their ecological goals.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the speech!

In budget contexts, one often discusses what the opposing party has done. One discusses somewhat less often what has not been done and very rarely what the opposing party does not say no to – but that is what I intended to talk about today.

I clearly remember the then Environment Minister Isabella Lövin's committed opposition to the Sverigedemokraterna's proposal to, with the help of plant breeding, provide elm with resistance to Dutch elm disease and ash with resistance to ash dieback. These are diseases that risk wiping out these tree species. The elm in particular is very threatened. It will probably die out if the problem is not solved through resistance to Dutch elm disease.

The Minister did not want that solution at all, but instead wanted to continue cutting down sick trees. However, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has judged this to be ineffective, as it leads to a single result: It delays the extinction.

I see, however, that Miljöpartiet has the same initiative in this regard as the government. That is, they have not removed that initiative.

My question to Emma Nohrén is therefore: Has Miljöpartiet changed its mind and realized that Sverigedemokraterna were right?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

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

I shall say that we in Miljöpartiet, in every way possible, and which are also compatible with ecology, want to ensure that these species are preserved. A lot has happened within these technologies, but I do not know how reliable the methods are. My understanding does not reach that far, I was about to say, but of course, we want to do what we can to save these species.

Genetic engineering maybe can be a part - or new genomic techniques, but I don't know if it has been tested. I don't think we are ready to release it into nature, but on the other hand, I cannot see that we have any problems with continuing to research this and ensuring that a safe way is found.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! The main part of this initiative concerns conventional breeding. Genetic engineering is only a plan B, if nothing else helps. Emma Nohrén does not need to worry about that, therefore.

Just as Emma Nohrén said, or at least implied, in a previous speech, several other species are linked to the trees. The trees are key species, and other species are dependent on the trees. It is also the case in this instance, that many species are linked to the alder. One can estimate that one saves about fifty other species simultaneously, if one saves the alder.

This is therefore extremely important, especially in the perspective of Artdatabankens assessment that only – and I mean to say that it is sad – 200 species have become extinct since the year 1800. Compared to that, 50 species is extremely much.

I conclude by asking whether there is no need to update the Green Party's environmental policy so that one obtains a more effective environmental policy.

Then I can only state that the Green Party has accepted this by not making changes to the budget and that the Sweden Democrats lead and others follow, even within the environmental area.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Staffan Eklöf for his input regarding the Green Party's environmental policy, but I believe we will develop that ourselves.

We have never been against new technologies, but we want them to be safe before they are released. We simply perform a different risk assessment when it comes to many of the genomic technologies. But within the pharmaceutical industry and within closed systems, it has never been a problem for Miljöpartiet.

Then I must say that I appreciate the member's commitment to biodiversity. It has not always shone through in other areas, so I hope that we can take this with us also into other reports and when we discuss wolves and other parts.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! When we prioritized this week's matters at the group meeting on Tuesday, I would mention this debate today. Then someone asked what it would be about, and I said in my Östgöta way that the debate would be about pigs, cows, and tractors. That is roughly what we are going to talk about as well.

When we stood here together a year ago and debated expenditure area 23, Swedish agriculture had had a very tough year. It was a difficult harvest situation, small harvests, low liquidity, high prices on inputs and so on. Furthermore, interest rates had shot up incredibly much.

Now that we are landing in 2024, it looks a bit brighter. The harvest has been a bit more normal, interest rates are heading downwards and the costs for inputs have balanced out - albeit at a higher level than we have had before. The faith in the future of Swedish agriculture is simply a bit stronger. This is of course due to global factors, and it is also due to a government that listens and does things for the green industries.

We saw during this autumn's grain harvest many who suffered because the harvest looked good but delivered a bit less. That was due to something new in our wheat fields that we could not quite explain. Therefore, I think that in a year like this it feels extra important when we include new work against plant pests in the budget. Work against plant pests is, in fact, something that has until now taken place outside of Sweden's borders, and it is a pity because Sweden has a history of being very good when it comes to plant breeding. Now, however, we must also become very good at handling plant pests, because it is a future threat to Swedish agriculture.

I am not shy to say that this is due to the climate changes we are seeing. We will face a higher pressure of more difficult harvesting work and more pressure from fungal diseases and insects in our crops. We need to develop in these areas.

I am therefore happy when we make extra investments in the budget for research within agriculture. The research that we have had for a time in Sweden has focused heavily on making agriculture more sustainable, and environmental thinking has received a prominent position in the research. It is not that this is not good – it is very good – but we must also remember that Swedish agriculture is still, and all the time has been, more environmentally friendly than agriculture in all comparable countries. We are also more climate-smart and thus more sustainable in Swedish agriculture.

We also need to look at the other sustainability aspects, and above all, we need to look at research that becomes production-enhancing for Swedish agriculture. We have lost ground when it comes to production, and we all know in here that we will have less cultivable area in the future for various reasons. In that case, it is incredibly important that we manage to raise the levels of our harvests. Therefore, the investment being made in research in the budget is incredibly important. Let us direct our research towards production-enhancing methods!

We also know, Madam Speaker, that we will need to increase Swedish livestock production. We have said this for a long time; I have said it many times in this speaker's chair. It is through a strengthened and increased livestock production that Sweden has the opportunity to seriously increase food production. Therefore, the investments being made on veterinarians in the budget are very important.

It is important that we make investments to keep the University Hospital open more, but it is also important to organize the field operations in a completely different way so that all animal owners can feel secure that there is a veterinarian there when they need it.

I hear many farmers today saying resignedly that there is no point in calling a veterinarian because no one is coming. So we cannot have that in Sweden when we are to increase our livestock production. The legal certainty and the security for our food-producing farmers must be strengthened. Therefore, the investments being made in veterinary activities in the budget are extremely important.

Madam Speaker! We have war in Europe. We have a food production in Sweden that is far too low. We need to increase our food production. In that way, we strengthen our preparedness. That is why the initiatives in the budget to strengthen preparedness are good. These are new missions linked to increasing preparedness. We need to once again, and in a different way, begin to review our stocks; we perhaps should not have the stocks of the old times. We need rotatable stocks.

I am sorry that it currently looks like we will not get a domestic production of mineral fertilizer. At least that initiative has stalled. This is unfortunate, because it is a very important part of the Swedish preparedness.

Sweden is one of the few countries that does not have its own production of mineral fertilizer, and everyone who is even slightly well-informed knows how great an importance mineral fertilizer has in Swedish agriculture. Therefore, I am concerned. I hope that there can be a reversal in the issue moving forward and that an investment is made in Swedish mineral fertilizer.

Madam Speaker! We have many times in this rostrum spoken about the food strategy – fundamentally the food strategy that came in 2017. Some have said that there has been poor delivery on it, but I want to say that we must look at it positively. Since we introduced the food strategy under Sven-Erik Bucht's leadership, we have started talking about these issues in a completely different way. It is very important that more people understand the importance of Sweden having a food strategy.

The strategy did not quite provide the tools required for Swedish agriculture to be able to deliver on the targets. A revision is now being made, and I hope that the updated food strategy will be in place any day now so that we can begin working according to it.

I know that I stood at this rostrum in this debate or in the agricultural debate and spoke about a food strategy 2.0. It is the one we will see soon. Then we hope that Swedish farmers feel that they are getting the tools required to increase production in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish forest, which we all here cherish - we also cherish Swedish self-determination - shall deliver much. According to many, it shall deliver most of the future's society. We will not achieve this, but it is incredibly important that we also in this matter dare to think anew and that we dare to think forward.

As Moderater, we are not against production methods and so on. I know that, for example, Emma often highlights various new, or old-new, production methods. We are not against that, but let the forest owner decide for themselves! That is the entire basis. Also give the forest owner the opportunity to cultivate! Give the forest owner more freedom to cultivate! Then the forest owner will also deliver environmental and climate benefits, raw materials, and everything else that we ask for.

Madam Speaker! I am going to move to the conclusion, but I also want to mention some of all the inquiries that are currently ongoing or have already been completed.

We have a very important investigation led by my colleague Magnus Oscarsson which will look at the complications linked to authorities and entrepreneurs. We have had investigations linked to environmental permits, so that there will be a more legally secure and simpler way forward when it comes to such permits. We have seen major problems with environmental permits within the green industries in recent years.

We also have an investigation that has been led by Östergötland's former county governor Elisabeth Nilsson and which concerns competitiveness and animal welfare.

There are very many important and good proposals that we need to get in place during the time that remains until the next election. We need to be prepared to let go of some sacred cows and try new ways forward, for example the grazing legislation.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas to the Speaker's Presidium, all the staff here in the Chamber and all the staff in the Riksdag, but of course most of all to my colleagues in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. Thank you for this year! We will start fresh next year.

(Applause)

In this speech, Helena Storckenfeldt (M) agreed.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an inspiring speech!

Cows and pigs need veterinary care, but unfortunately, there are far too few who want to work with farm animals.

Madam Speaker! There is something that worries animal owners, and that is that they are forced to pay astronomical sums for veterinary care. Thousands of Swedes have, during recent years, ended up with the Enforcement Authority because of veterinary bills.

One of the explanations is that venture capital marched into the market about ten years ago. They quickly bought up clinics across the country, and today the market is dominated by two large chains. The limited competition means that the costs for veterinary care, and as a consequence of this also insurance premiums, have increased exponentially. They have increased by 50 percent over the last four years and just during last year by 25 percent. Veterinary care has had the largest increase of all service sectors.

We have seen examples of dog owners paying 100,000 kronor for veterinary costs. For example, the price for treatment of diarrhea in dogs has increased by an average of 81 percent between 2020 and 2023 at the two corporations, from an average of 5,150 kronor to almost 9,450 kronor. This is not reasonable, Madam Speaker. It is not a functioning market. It is definitely a market failure.

We Social Democrats have submitted proposals. We want society to step forward and increase competition in this non-functioning market, but from the government's side, it has been deathly silent.

My question, Madam Speaker, is therefore: Do the Moderates see this as a problem? What, in that case, is the Moderates' proposal? And if the Moderates have proposals, why is the government not acting?

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for an important question. I also see it as incredibly concerning.

My speech was mostly about the farm animals and veterinary care there, but we also see this. I personally have hunting dogs and so on that happen to encounter things. I have sought veterinary care, and it is very expensive. I see this as a huge problem. I also do not think it is a functioning market. I am, however, in favor of a free and functioning market, but it is clear that interventions need to be made here.

The reason is that there need to be more veterinarians on site. It creates a healthier competitive situation, and parts of what we are doing now are about trying to get more veterinarians in place.

I do not believe in regulating the market or anything similar. I do not believe that it is a way forward. Making it more attractive to train to become a veterinarian and making it easier for individuals to conduct business as a veterinarian are instead things that I believe strengthen competition in the industry and, in the long run, can lower prices.

I know that discussions are ongoing in the Government Offices regarding this, but I cannot provide a broader answer than that at this moment.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is well and good that discussions are held, but they usually stop there and do not go much further - we do not see anything in the chamber of the Riksdag, at least.

Other countries have gone ahead. They have the exact same situation as Sweden, which is that large private equity firms have taken over the veterinary market. In France, a law has been introduced stating that veterinarians must be majority owners in the clinics and that animal healthcare must not be operated for profit. In Germany, veterinary fees are determined by a tariff system established by the federal veterinary chamber. This then functions as a guideline for veterinarians across the country regarding the fees for their services. I think we should investigate the systems applied in these two countries. In the United Kingdom, it has been said that private equity firms may no longer buy up clinics but must sell them out.

Other countries are therefore entering and regulating the market, which the member does not think we should do. But when we have such a market failure, with two large venture capital companies owning the market and buying up more and more clinics, one must actually start to act – at least that is what we Social Democrats think.

One in three Swedish households has pets, Madam Speaker. A cat can be a lonely person's best friend and someone one truly needs. A dog is not only a source of joy and love but can also get us to go out and exercise a bit from time to time.

It is obvious that the venture capital companies' exploitation of animal owners, who want to save their animals at any cost, has led to costs that are too high for ordinary people.

The question remains nonetheless. I think it is good that the government is open to discussions, but what do the Moderaterna have for proposals if one, then, does not want to regulate the market? How do we address the problem?

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! It almost sounded as if the member was speaking from her own experience when she said that it is mostly talked about in the Government Offices and then nothing happens.

(ANNA-CAREN SÄTHERBERG (S): That is not the case at all - it depends on who is sitting there.)

I think this is very concerning - it is not something to mess around with. The price increases have in no way reflected the inflation that has been there, but it has been about something completely different. I still believe that we can achieve a market that works by strengthening the conditions for more veterinarians and the corporate conditions for the veterinarians. I believe that this is a first step.

Then, of course, we shall look at what other countries have done to find a more reasonable level for the costs of having pets. It is not reasonable today.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the budget for expenditure area 23 Agriculture, rural areas and food. I want to begin 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 specific statement within the expenditure area.

Madam Speaker! We need more Swedish on the plate, in the glass, and in the mind. The green nutrients and Sweden's hard-working farmers are necessary to both meet the climate transition and strengthen Sweden's food supply and preparedness. Sweden and the EU really need to increase the pace to secure their own production of food and input goods such as fuels and fertilizers. Therefore, we Social Democrats also want to increase the Norrland support by 60 million, so that we have food production and preparedness in the entire country.

We need a sustainable and competitive agriculture for many reasons: for good and healthy food, for green jobs in the countryside, and for open landscapes all around Sweden.

Challenges exist, such as climate change, which is already affecting Swedish agriculture with both droughts and floods. But, Madam Speaker, to see cows grazing out in the open is the image of a rural Sweden that leads the way, sees more values, and makes so many of us choose Swedish.

Since we Social Democrats want to see more Swedish on the plate, we have actively pushed the issue of origin labeling of meat in restaurants. The purpose is to make it easy for you, as a guest, to choose what you think is right. During our time in government, we acted and sent a notification to the EU Commission that Sweden would introduce origin labeling, which the government then chose to withdraw – only to submit a new notification two years later. Does this sound reasonable? No, it is clearly not. Swedish restaurant visitors were made to wait for two years to find out where the meat comes from before the government came to its senses.

Madam Speaker! In small and sparsely populated municipalities, there are specific challenges. These can involve population decline and long distances to customers, suppliers, and services. Therefore, the Social Democratic-led government introduced a special state grant for business development to Sweden's 39 rural municipalities. The funds have been of great importance for developing the business sector and supporting the companies. We therefore view it with concern that the government has now chosen to withdraw the support, as the rural municipalities' challenges remain, Madam Speaker. The government should also know, if any of the ministers lived and worked north of Borlänge. We Social Democrats therefore want to continue the investment at 70 million.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish forest is our green gold, which has created and continues to create jobs, prosperity, and sustainable growth throughout the country. The forest plays an enormous role in the climate transition, both as a carbon sink and by replacing fossil products. The forest shall be managed in a balance between nature conservation and forestry.

Climate change also affects the Swedish forest, and the risks of damage are increasing. Forestry must therefore be adapted to cope with a changed climate so that the forest can withstand, for example, storms and insect and fungal attacks.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has all the prerequisites for more bioeconomy. The Social Democratic government appointed the Bioeconomy Inquiry, which has delivered its proposals. The partial report on more Swedish production of biofuels was received by the government in March - last year. But the question is whether the government will act, or deliver.

This also concerns the question of how the government intends to reach the EU's and our Swedish climate goals. After the government's more than two years in power, the Swedish people are still owed answers. When the government chooses to prioritize increasing emissions, is it the logging that is to be reduced? Is it agriculture that is to take the hit?

Madam Speaker! It is actually not reasonable that Sweden's government does not have answers for Sweden's farmers.

We also have a crisis situation regarding the Baltic Sea and access to fish. We Social Democrats do not stand behind the government's yes to increased herring and sprat quotas in the EU, nor do we stand behind the continuation of large-scale industrial trawling. And it is serious that too few fisheries controls are carried out in Sweden.

Sweden needs a policy that ensures the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea increase and that the water meadows become more numerous – a policy that makes a difference in both the short and long term. We welcome the direction proposal on marine environment policy, but we Social Democrats also demand action here and now, before the fish stocks collapse.

Madam Speaker! The market failure within veterinary care means that the costs for treatment are sky-high if your animal becomes ill. Two large venture capital companies hold a large part of the market. We Social Democrats have submitted several proposals to rectify this.

We also have proposals to tackle crime in the form of smuggling of dogs and illegal breeding. From the government's side, however, it has been silent for a long time.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time when cost increases are pressing ordinary people. The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has produced a report showing that the general price level in society has increased by 23 percent over five years. Food prices, however, have increased much more. Over the last five years, the price for Christmas food has increased by as much as 38 percent. When Sweden has a government that, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, does not prioritize ordinary people but instead prioritizes tax cuts for high-income earners, the Christmas table becomes meager for many Swedes this year.

Furthermore, Swedish wage earners have seen ten years of real wage increases go up in smoke. New statistics from SCB show that every fifth person over 16 years old cannot cope with an unforeseen expense today. It is worst for single mothers - half of them cannot cope with unforeseen expenses. Therefore, we Social Democrats have, among other things, proposed a food price commission to bring down prices and that the child allowance be increased. Stockholm Chamber of Commerce's report shows that a household consisting of cohabiting people with children received 32 Christmas tables for their disposable monthly income in 2011. Today, that figure is 18.

Madam Speaker! What Sweden needs is a responsible policy that accelerates Sweden's growth, combats the sky-high unemployment, secures the welfare, and arms Sweden and the Swedish people in tough economic times. We need a policy that takes advantage of and manages the entire country's opportunities and challenges and creates more green jobs from Haparanda to Ystad. Sweden needs a policy that simply ensures that the Christmas table is not for the few but for the many.

Merry Christmas, Madam Speaker, and everyone else!

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Malin Larsson and Sofia Skönnbrink (all S) concurred.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! We heard the Social Democrats once again bring up the support for certain selected municipalities in rural areas. The support is in the magnitude of 70 million, I believe, or as a larger dairy farm. Would it not be better if the Social Democrats, if they ever end up in a government position again, invested a bit more in entrepreneurship and in dairy farms and gave the dairy farms the opportunity to become a bit larger with more modern legislation? Would it not be better if the Social Democrats sometimes cut the shackles for their old government friends in Miljöpartiet and ensured that these municipalities get rid of their coastal protection? That would provide increased opportunities to live and operate in the conditions that one wants to live, live and operate in.

Would it not be better to reduce the authorities' power over companies, abolish excessive bureaucracy and fees, and perhaps get authorities that work with instead of against? That is how business owners in the countryside experience it today. The society that the Social Democrats built up over eight years has created a corporate structure where business owners feel they are being opposed. That is why a number of investigations are currently underway to make it easier for business owners to conduct their operations.

There are also parts of the rural areas where one can no longer cultivate one's forest because more and more is to be taken out of production. This too is linked to the Social Democrats' former government partners.

How do the Social Democrats view making these investments instead of promising extra grants to these municipalities?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank John Widegren for the very interesting questions. I agree with many of the proposals, but I have not seen a single one of these things emerge from the government's hands.

We had a coastal protection proposal, but it was voted down. We appointed the food strategy with clear mandates to the authorities to make regulatory simplifications, review the entire mass, and invest in exports, new innovation centers, and new plant breeding centers. It was about enormous investments in everything. I have, however, not seen a single thing come out of the government's hands in the issues the member raised.

On the other hand, I have seen that the conditions for rural municipalities to carry out business development are being worsened. It concerns the 70 million that the member raised. When you live in a rural municipality, you know that you already have a low level of service - much lower than others. You also have a high tax level already as it is. There are no resources to invest in what could give momentum to an entire municipality, that is, its business sector. This is exactly what the government chooses to remove.

The government also chooses to remove the sector grant of 300 million that has gone to those municipalities that have under 9,000 inhabitants, i.e., to those that have it even tougher. This, too, they choose to remove. The member calls it a grant to these municipalities. I call it a necessity if all of Sweden is to live.

I look forward to the member and the government moving forward on the various issues the member raised, namely a changed shore protection, simpler rules, and everything else. So far, however, the inbox is empty from the government.

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I didn't really get much of an answer, but rather a statement that the government is currently in the process of preparing very many new proposals. I am pleased that the Social Democrats look forward to the changes in the coastal protection. Be patient!

I do not mean that these municipalities do not need to receive reinforcements in different ways, but I do not think it needs to happen through grants. We should instead give them better opportunities to conduct their activities through simpler legislation and fewer requirements on authorities, administration, and so on. We should let them flourish instead of limiting them in different ways.

In the member's speech, she highlighted an interesting question that I think we should talk about, Madam Speaker, namely that food has become so expensive. Have not food items in Sweden been a bit too cheap? Now that food is becoming more expensive, we see higher settlement prices on milk, meat, eggs and so on for the farmers, who for a very long time have been paid far too little for their food. It is clear that food has become expensive for some; that is nothing to hide. But we have perhaps lived in a time when food has been far too cheap and then we have adapted to the fact that food is basically supposed to be free. I think that is unfortunate, because when food prices now begin to land at perhaps more normal levels, there is an outcry that food is too expensive.

That is why it is good to have a government that is now lowering taxes and making it a bit simpler and cheaper for the common man to live, so that one can spend more money and increase the portion of one's earned income that one spends on Swedish, well-produced food. Is it not good that food has become a bit more expensive, Madam Speaker?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The fact that food has become more expensive has had no correlation with primary production. It is not the farmers who have made money from food becoming more expensive. Most often in this chamber, we talk about the profitability of primary production. This is about something else. Even here, there are large corporations that do not just own a business but also own the entire wholesale chain. Even here, we have a market that causes food prices to increase, but the competition is too poor.

I would like to say a few more things. If the Social Democrats had continued to govern, labeling of meat would have been in place two years ago. Something would also have happened with the bioeconomy investigation, which was delivered much earlier. The update of the food strategy has taken over two years, and we have not seen it yet.

Speaking of food prices, this is a private chain. It does not look like the entire chain is profitable, but rather it is more profitable in some parts than in others. Then one must, as I said in my speech, invest in other things than lowering the tax for high-income earners, because 50 percent of single mothers cannot handle an unforeseen expense. That was exactly what I said in my speech, and if that is the Sweden we are to have, it is not a Social Democratic Sweden. It is a Sweden where the government prioritizes its investments, and the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, Kristdemokraterna and Sverigedemokraterna have to account for how it looks right now.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to express my approval of the committee's proposal.

Madam Speaker! I have had the privilege of being a member of the Riksdag since 2014. During this time, a great deal has happened within Swedish agricultural policy. In fact, I have worked, on and off, with three or even four different ministers.

I remember a large gathering at Mynttorget here outside the Riksdag. It was 2015 or 2016. Hundreds of dairy farmers had gathered to speak about the very concerning situation within the dairy industry. The price for milk was then down at the bottom level of 2.30 kronor per kilo. The then Minister for Rural Affairs, Sven-Erik Bucht, had to receive 158,000 signatures for measures to improve liquidity for the farmers. A farmer said this on the radio: We have long said that it is a crisis, but now it is a catastrophe.

Madam Speaker! It was almost ten years ago. We have seen crises come, and we have seen crises go. As my capable colleague John Widegren said here at the beginning, we also see forward and backward how agricultural policy is. It is a matter of concern in different situations. But the fact is that now it is a completely different matter. When I am out among farmers around the country today, I notice a completely different sense of optimism for the future.

A few weeks ago, I was at the Swedish Agricultural Tenants' Convention in Nässjö. When I was about to leave, a farmer ran up to me and said: You politicians must understand that the reduction in fuel prices that you have made has meant an enormous amount for us farmers. In my farming business, he said, the difference is 400,000 kronor in lower expenses. Don't forget that!

He is right. The Christian Democrats and the government have, during the mandate period, implemented diesel price reductions totaling 2 billion kronor and introduced the possibility of quarterly repayment of diesel tax - this in order to improve the farmers' liquidity and create better economic conditions, especially for the smaller companies.

Madam Speaker! I mentioned a bit of history in my introduction and that I have been involved since 2014. Another historical decision that we have talked a bit about was when all political parties here in the chamber were involved in introducing the food strategy in 2017.

I have done so before, but I would like to once again thank the then Minister for Rural Affairs, Sven-Erik Bucht, who took the initiative for the food strategy. I know that during the club meeting here in the chamber, many farmers expressed their joy that the policy was now in agreement on wanting to invest in Swedish agriculture. The key words were to strengthen competitiveness, increase profitability, increase food production, and strengthen Sweden's food supply.

Unfortunately, the joy was replaced by frustration that the strategy was never noticed at the farm level. That is why I am so grateful that we now have a government that understands that this must be reflected in the budget and that it must yield results.

One result is the investigation on strengthened competitiveness for food producers and strong animal welfare. Here we have received several important proposals to strengthen Swedish agriculture. The investigator Elisabeth Nilsson has, among other things, proposed measures to reduce wildlife damage, change the grazing requirement, and facilitate investments.

The government has also allocated 746 million kronor within CAP to strengthen competitiveness.

Another area is the activities of the veterinarians, which are strengthened with 30 million annually.

Research within agriculture is important, as we have discussed. Here, the government is investing 50 million on, among other things, increased preparedness for new plant pests as a result of climate change and on Formas.

Furthermore, the government allocates 110 million to the Swedish Board of Agriculture for compensation and control in connection with outbreaks of infectious animal diseases such as salmonella and Newcastle disease.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must have a robust food preparedness. When I spoke about this here in the chamber a few years ago, some said: But Magnus, you don't need to take it. It is not important. It will work itself out. We have the EU!

Now we all know that this is not a non-issue. In principle, everyone from right to left is talking about the fact that we must have a robust food preparedness.

Here we have Finland as a shining guiding star. They have had a preparedness stock and supply for six months without having to bring in a single grain of wheat from outside. Now they have increased it to nine months, because they think that six months is too little.

One can say here that Sweden has something to learn. As it stands today, we have for ten to twelve days; after that, the warehouse is empty.

This is something very serious that it is very important that we rectify. We have talked a lot about it over the past years. But now the government is investing, and I think that is fun and important. One invests 1.3 billion to strengthen the food chain and build up a robust preparedness at the farm level.

Madam Speaker! The Government is working purposefully to improve the conditions for those who live and work in both urban areas and in the countryside. It shall be possible to live, work, and exist in the entire country. The Government is therefore raising the maximum amount for operating support and expanding the investment support for rural grocers. It is the first time since the special operating support was introduced in 2016 that there will be a support adjustment, and it is an investment in a living countryside that will benefit all of Sweden. We know that it is a very welcome and pleasing announcement for the country's many and important rural grocers.

I will conclude by saying that some time ago, Arla had a large meeting in Denmark. Their CEO began the meeting by showing a film from the current Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, where he tells about how they want to work to get more Swedish milk in our country. The CEO said that something has happened in Sweden. We now actually seem to have a policy in Sweden that wants more milk and wants to increase production.

It is something very positive that we now finally have a government that wants to invest, that believes in Swedish agriculture and that wants to take various measures to strengthen agriculture in the country.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

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

I just want to point out that if one first brutally cuts the funding for infectious animal diseases, only to put back a little of that cut this year, it is not quite what I would call a major investment.

During the previous parliamentary term, the member and I had several debates in this chamber regarding the food strategy, the first of its kind in Sweden, which the social democrat-led government introduced for the entire food chain in 2017. It was, as Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund wrote, a historic decision.

The starting point of the food strategy was a competitive food chain where total food production increases while relevant national environmental goals are met in order to create growth and employment and contribute to sustainable development throughout the country. The production increase was to meet consumer demand and contribute to an increased self-sufficiency rate of food.

Action plans were decided, and many agencies received assignments. It concerned the regulation of the food chain and simplifying Verksamt.se, reviewing the strategic competence supply, investing in innovation-promoting work, developing a competence center for plant breeding and a food export program aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises, working for equivalent control, strengthening the Keyhole labeling, making efforts against food fraud and reducing food waste. Four agencies produced a powerful wild boar package. This is just a small part of the work.

The Member wants the food strategy to be updated in those debates. I share that opinion. The strategy has existed for seven years now. The Member wanted, when he sat in opposition, that the update should be made together with all parties. I share that opinion. My question is why there is no update that all parties are involved in. It is, after all, the Member Magnus Oscarsson's party colleague who is the Minister for Rural Affairs.

On February 7, 2023, Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren communicated that a new food strategy would be developed. Very many are waiting for it. When will it arrive?

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for the question! It is true that many of us are waiting for the food strategy. Member Widegren just said that we are waiting and waiting. But it is coming! I know that it will be very good.

The Leader of the Opposition highlights much of what the previous government did, but the problem is that many say that at that time there was a lot of talk in the Riksdag and from the government level, but that nothing was ever noticed at the farm level. I tried to say in my speech that this is the difference between us, but the opposition will surely have other opinions, for that is your role. But we think that now that the strategy has existed for almost seven and a half years, it is time for it to be put into practice. We are not going to take another lap and go through what should be added, because the preliminary work has been done.

I praised the member's representative Sven-Erik Bucht who took the initiative. In fact, he did it very well. It was historic. But the joy turned into frustration when nothing was noticed at the farm level. We took that to heart, and then we got started. We hope that the food strategy will arrive any day now. The money for this is at least set aside, and that is what is important.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We have had this debate many times. The latest evaluation report on the food strategy concerns 2022 and shows that profitability has increased in primary production, the food industry, and food retail, but decreased in the restaurant sector. It shows that the development of environmental sustainability in several cases is moving in the right direction, but that it is not moving fast enough, and that the development of social sustainability is moving in the wrong direction when it comes to public health and access to competent labor. That was the latest evaluation.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want agriculture in the whole country. It creates jobs in Sweden's rural areas, provides good and healthy food, and strengthens Sweden's supply capacity and preparedness.

An official at the Swedish Food Agency said on Sveriges Radio that in the event of a prolonged crisis or war, the people of Norrland would need to be evacuated to southern Sweden to receive food. This is completely unreasonable and is also one of the reasons why we Social Democrats want to increase the support to the farmers in the north by 60 million. I know that none of the cabinet ministers live north of Borlänge, but the fact that none of them even comment when it is spread that there is a strategy for the whole country worries us who live scattered across 50 percent of Sweden's area. It was just dead silence.

Madam Speaker! Do the Christian Democrats see no need to strengthen Norrland's agriculture? There are no supplements in the government's budget. The government prioritizes high-income earners in large cities. What do the Christian Democrats think about Norrland residents being evacuated south to gain access to food during a prolonged crisis or even war? What proposals do the Christian Democrats have for the farmers who face special challenges in the north?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you once again to the member for good questions, which I shall try to answer!

We are in complete agreement that we want to invest in Swedish agriculture. We want to invest in having a living countryside. It is perhaps not strange that we agree on that, but the interesting thing is that the investigation for 2022 that Anna-Caren Sätherberg mentioned shows that it perhaps was not so positive then. Now we want to highlight that and take a new approach. We hope that the next investigation of the situation and the willingness to invest shows that things are turning around.

We spoke about the situation for the dairy farmers and the farmers in the north. It is an incredibly important issue, because from a preparedness point of view, it is concerning that dairy farm after dairy farm is being shut down. As I understand it, the last dairy farm in Lycksele was shut down recently. We notice that it is becoming tougher and tougher in municipality after municipality.

What medicine is there then? Well, the medicine that I and the government believe in is to ensure that there is profitability regardless of whether one lives in Ystad or somewhere up in Norrbotten. That is the most important thing, and we have actually carried out various things. The farmer who ran up to me said that I must not forget to talk about how the diesel price has gone down a lot. For him, it was about 400,000 kronor. So it wasn't like that before. It wasn't on the map. Now the price has dropped, and I know that even our dear, capable farmers in the north think it is a very positive initiative. And more will come; I think that is good.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The member's enthusiasm for agriculture and, above all, milk is well-known. We entered the Riksdag at the same time, and I was present at Milk Day, which the member organized at Mynttorget. Therefore, I am very surprised that the Christian Democrats and Magnus Oscarsson think it is a good proposal to remove the grazing requirement. Previously, we beat the drum loudly when it came to Swedish animal welfare and that one should drink Swedish milk because we have happy cows that go out and graze. There is no reason to import and for prices to go down because of that; instead, the Swedish added values are a major reason to buy Swedish milk. The price of milk has gone down very much over many years. Now it is back at a reasonable level.

The proposal that the investigation has produced – which has not yet been sent for consultation – concerns removing the grazing requirement. This would mean that cows could be kept indoors. According to the investigator, it would be easier to have cows in modern stables on smaller farms if one does not need to have land outside where they can go out. At the same time, it is a classic fact that farms that are already large and can achieve efficiency will have lower marginal costs. The proposal could therefore mean that the smaller farms are completely wiped out because they will never be able to compete with the large ones that can have several hundred animals in the herd. With current legislation, one rarely has the opportunity for that because the pasture must be located near the barn, but with this proposal, one could have large halls with many animals. How does that add up?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Emma Nohrén, for the question! It is very good to be able to discuss this, because it has been a rather big issue since the investigator's proposal was submitted. As I said in my speech, there were also other proposals, including much else about managing wildlife damage and providing investment support, but this became the big issue.

We listened to the investigator Elisabeth Nilsson when she visited the committee on Wednesday. She was very clear that the main problem is trying to see the competition in the world. The Swedish farmers do not get the same economy as their colleagues around Europe.

In the previous debate, we had the example of Norrland, where dairy farm after dairy farm has unfortunately been shut down. And it is not just there – for a very long time it has been the case that people stop their dairy farms. It is about profitability and competitiveness.

This is a proposal to try to address this. Naturally, we can talk about the history, about how Astrid Lindgren received this as a gift and what it looked like on the farms back then. But we must see how it looks today.

I know myself how it was. My father was a dairy farmer. We took the cows in during the autumn, and then they stood tied up until the spring. Then we let them out, and it was a great run. So that is how it looked at that time.

That is not the case now. We who sit in the committee know that it is a completely different time. Now, free, fine stables are being built where the cows choose to move back and forth themselves. I think it is important to highlight that. It is a new era for Swedish dairy farmers, and we must be able to trust that they know what is best for the cows.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I cannot quite follow the reasoning. For me, it is first and foremost wrong that the cows should be kept indoors, and therefore I want to find out if the member thinks it is right that the cows should be indoors.

I believe that grazing animals should have the right to graze outside, and I would like to see more animals doing so. I would like us to have a stallion subsidy so that even the bulls - which are castrated, of course, otherwise it might become a bit too dangerous - could be out.

The difference in the direction of the policy is therefore about whether one thinks that animal welfare and the cows' right to graze should take precedence.

Behind this lies a major market failure. I believe that many farms in Norrland have had to close also for the reason that there is no dairy or because it is too far to travel. Does the member believe that such a proposal, if it were to work as the member and the investigator say, would give more farms in Norrland? As I see it, the only thing that happens is that we get a large-scale rationalization. We get larger farms in southern Sweden, and the smaller farms in the rest of the country will be wiped out. Then it would be completely wrong.

I cannot make the calculations work in any other way, so the member may well explain how this could help the smaller farmers survive. There will be higher costs for the smaller ones when the conditions are not equal.

I also want to repeat my question: Does the member not think that cows should have the right to graze?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Emma Nohrén once again. I will try to continue from where I left off.

I have also previously tried to speak about this. We are, therefore, the only country in the world that has such a grazing requirement, and we must be able to compensate our farmers for the fact that we have it. The interesting thing is that I have constantly received the answer from previous ministers that we cannot do that because we are in the EU. It is a fundamental law, so we cannot pay for it.

That is the point, and that is why we are completely convinced that the smaller farms will be able to get paid to take the cows out. 80-90 percent of the cows will continue to go out. There will be no difference.

The only difference is that one can now receive payment, that is to say that the state, like Finland, provides payment per cow that is culled. Finally, one can receive compensation. This is something very positive, and I think it is an answer to the member's question about what I think regarding smaller farms. They will be able to receive payment for culling the cows. That is the point.

As said, I am convinced that if there is anyone who knows how the cows are doing, it is the farmer! They know themselves what is best and whether the cows should be out or in today. We must trust them, and I can promise that they will continue to take the cows out to pasture regardless.

This is something that is positive and which shows that we actually trust our Swedish farmers.

(cont. § 10)

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