Agriculture, rural areas and food

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

This is, therefore, a budget debate on expenditure area 23, land-based industries.

The production of food and biomaterials in Sweden is very important, not least for our preparedness to meet crisis and, ultimately, war. Food production must increase. At the same time, agriculture, the forestry industry, fishing, and other rural industries have been affected by difficulties. The difficulties look different and are many times influenced by factors outside Sweden's borders. The budget proposed by the government within expenditure area 23 reflects exactly that. It is multifaceted and has many different initiatives.

As I have said so many times, good profitability and large degrees of freedom are the most important factors for agriculture and other industries to cope with various problems and also new, emerging problems. With good profitability, margins can be created, which gives the actors completely different alternatives and opportunities. Large degrees of freedom mean that different farms can solve the problems in different ways that suit their conditions. These are two of the guiding stars for our work: better profitability and greater degrees of freedom.

Simplification of regulations is obviously central for large degrees of freedom, but it is also important that the state enables various measures and tools and solves certain problems that an individual company or a farmer cannot solve themselves. Technological and knowledge development, as well as the dissemination of this, is the third guiding principle.

In the budget for 2026 that we will decide on later today, there are the following initiatives with great relevance for the area of rural industries:

continued tax reduction on agricultural diesel and the same for forestry and aquaculture

continued low reduction obligation

reduced food VAT

reduced employer contribution for young people

compensation for dairy cows on pasture

increased support for agriculture in northern Sweden

agricultural advice on the export markets

promotion of coastal fishing and aquaculture

education at SLU adapted to the green sector with, among other things, food preparedness and food supply

Enhanced plant breeding at SLU Grogrund

Special initiative on plant proteins for Swedish primary production

increased infection control work with increased surveillance of virus and bacteria vectors

more effective and more equal food control

advice to forest owners regarding increased carbon sequestration and biodiversity

Establishment of emergency stockpiles in the food supply chain

reduced electricity tax

means for the reduction of the wolf population.

This should preferably be seen in combination with last year's initiatives and measures; then one gets a better overall view. One year is, after all, only one year. Therefore, I want to quickly mention last year's budget initiatives that continue even this year:

currency adjustment of the agricultural support

saving of SLU's animal hospital

food strategy with its various parts

investment support for competitiveness

continued and increased higher support for the restoration of grazing land

strengthening of the veterinary field operations and its on-call services

The nitrogen step for reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and plant nutrients

the establishment of a forest damage screening center for future healthy forest cultivation material

saving of elm and ash as tree species in our Swedish and European forests

supplement to the Swedish Forest Agency for the application of the law

large supplement to authorities for strengthened preparedness for food and water supply

strengthening the fight against pests in soil, garden and forest

Currency adjustment of support to the aquaculture industry

strengthening of biogas production and water management within LOVA

small reduction of the employer contribution for small companies within the so-called growth support.

It should also be mentioned that our government has laid the largest infrastructure budget and research budget ever. The government has also made a large tax cut on income as well as pushed down inflation and interest rates. This is not insignificant at all for the agricultural industries, on the contrary. All of this solves problems and creates opportunities. But in the end, it is the companies that solve the problems and create the results. We provide the conditions. We must never forget that.

As everyone notices, we are taking measures or reinforcing many different parts that limit the land-based industries. In industries with such different and varying conditions, I mean that is how a policy should look if it is to get the land-based industries to leave a negative spiral and enter a positive spiral.

Today we are debating the budget, as said. Many other parts must also be addressed, not least those linked to rules – both Swedish rules and EU rules. But we will have to speak about and debate those another time.

Are the points in the budget bill that I listed sufficient? No, they naturally are not. More must be done. There are more limitations to address. We are already planning for many other budget initiatives for 2027. It is perhaps a tip to the voters in the autumn election.

Even though the Tidö construction has been a success, the budget work will become more efficient with a regular cabinet preparation for negotiations of, among other things, the budget. Therefore, it is also important for the agrarian industries that the Sweden Democrats are included in the government after the election.

(Applause)

In this speech, Chris Dahlqvist (SD) agreed.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member for the speech!

This week, we have seen horrific images in the news of how cows have been kicked, jumped on, and struck with tools. This must absolutely not occur. We have strong animal welfare in Sweden, but it must also be complied with, otherwise, one must receive an animal ban. We simply have more to do.

These horrific images will remain with many for a long time. They show how important animal welfare is, but also how important it is to have functioning systems around the animals. This applies to both the supervision and the veterinary care that must be available when animals are harmed.

Now, after three years with the SD government, we see that the situation has become worse than ever regarding veterinary care. Veterinary prices have increased by 55 percent in five years. Worst was it between 2022 and 2023. Then prices increased by 25 percent in just one year.

Sweden stands out as the worst in Europe with these price increases. Two venture capital companies dominate the market. The SD government has done nothing to change that. You have even said no to several proposals that would break the oligopoly. Therefore, I want to ask the Sverigedemokraterna member: Why is nothing happening? Why have you, as the largest party in the government base, not delivered, taken back control over the veterinary market and stopped the skyrocketing prices?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Malin Larsson for the question!

Much has been done regarding the veterinary education and to get more places there. Investments have also been made in veterinary field work and on-call work. It was 30 million kronor this year, and it was budgeted in the previous budget. We want 30 million also in 2026 and 2027.

Malin Larsson asked an important question. Animal welfare must work – but so must legal certainty, and that is a balance we must ensure. We are working on both sides.

Malin Larsson focused at the end of her speech on the competitive situation and the increasing prices. There is a lot to be done there. Among other things, we believe that transparency in pricing is a good first step. Sverigedemokraterna and Socialdemokraterna have almost cooperated and had an announcement passed. A review is underway. I do not know what the proposal looks like, so I cannot comment on it, but something will come in our [time/term].

I do not know if Malin Larsson has said anything about the rather tough price controls that have occurred, but we have said no to that. We believe that such things can have other negative effects. But ensuring that prices become transparent and that there are enough veterinarians are two very good measures.

We know that work is underway to reduce the over-treatment of small animals that exists today. It will likely lead to a reduced veterinary shortage and perhaps also lower prices, especially if transparency exists.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member for the attempt at an answer! But there was no answer as to why one does not take back control over the market and stop the skyrocketing prices. People simply cannot afford to take their animals to the veterinarian today. If they do, they risk ending up with the Enforcement Authority instead. The prices are, in fact, incredibly high. Sweden stands out as the only country in all of Europe that has these terribly high prices for animal healthcare. So, it cannot continue. Unfortunately, I heard no answer and no proposed solutions from the member.

Another important issue is veterinary preparedness. An investigation has established that the state will no longer take responsibility for emergency care of companion animals. Hunting dogs, which I have myself, are counted as companion animals. But hunting dogs also perform searches for wildlife injured in traffic and have an incredibly important function in society.

The reality in large parts of the country is that if something happens, one must travel 20, 30, 40 miles to reach a veterinarian with an emergency clinic. Search and rescue teams and their dogs perform missions every day where they take great risks. They work voluntarily, and the dogs deserve the same respect as all other animals in service.

Do the Sweden Democrats think it is reasonable that the state does not take responsibility for a severely injured hunting dog, an animal that works in the service of society with search operations during traffic accidents? The only alternative becomes euthanasia, not emergency medical care, if they are severely injured. Do you think it should continue that way? If you do not think so, why do you pursue a policy that leaves large parts of the countryside without a functioning veterinarian on call?

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Veterinarians on call are important. That is why we allocated 30 million kronor to it in the budget for this year, 2026 and 2027. There are indications that the shortage of veterinarians may decrease. We are working on the budget for 2027, and that question is raised there. But then we are perhaps thinking of a larger amount for the district veterinarians. We do not believe in coercion. We do not believe that one should force veterinarians into on-call service. We believe that one should provide funds and reward those who want to do on-call service. It can go through the district veterinarians. When we give the district veterinarians money, we might increase the amount and rectify some work environment problems that exist in the organization. Work is ongoing regarding this.

Malin Larsson spoke about taking back control of the market. I get a bit of a chill. It sounds a bit too socialist. We do not believe in going in and changing the market which largely works, but rather we shall influence with various smaller signals.

What can happen if one starts with a planned economy model is that the shortage of veterinarians increases. Then there may come other significantly more negative effects of such a management. We are using soft methods. We believe that it will be sufficient. Much points in that direction, but it will take some time.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today is the budget debate on expenditure area 23. Since Miljöpartiet wants to see an appropriation that exceeds the budget framework, I cannot reserve myself against the government's proposal. Instead, we are submitting a special statement where we present what we think and how we view this. I will make a few points regarding what we want in this area.

Agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fishing are the foundation for all of this. They provide us with food, energy and quality of life – a pure nature. The green industries are a central part of the economy. They are crucial for a living countryside and for us to get food and other things into the cities. It is they that keep both Sweden and the world running.

At the same time, there is an urgent need for a transition. We know that the world has a fever. We need to reduce emissions. We need to make a transition and ensure that it does not occur at the expense of environmental goals. It must be the ecosystems' vitality that sets the framework for the policy.

An expanded perspective is needed on what land should produce per hectare, beyond food. Different ecosystem services such as clean water, fertile soils, and biodiversity must be included. In our budget motion, we have several proposals for support measures and investments that must be implemented to get closer to this.

A large part of the expenditure area concerns forestry. A transition to a more nature-oriented, clear-cut-free forestry is needed, where the forest can be managed while the other values are preserved. There are major problems with the forestry that has been practiced for almost 100 years in Sweden. It was state of the art at its time. Now we know better and can do better, but it takes time to transition systems where people have worked in a certain way for almost a century. Reforms and transition support are therefore needed so that we can manage the forest while simultaneously preserving the other values.

We see that a bonus-malus system needs to be introduced, a rather boring and academic term. Through that, one could introduce a fee on the larger clear-cuts for the climate emissions they cause in the short term. The money would instead go back to carrying out a transition for those forest owners who want to work in a nature-oriented way. We simply switch everything around.

The fee would not apply to the very smallest clear-cuts, which means that it does not affect the vast majority of private owners. The average clear-cut in Sweden is between two and three hectares, depending on where in Sweden one is located. Often, these are the core of a family business. But now we are talking about those that are larger. In my opinion, there are extreme examples of clear-cuts ten hectares in size. For them, there shall be a fee that can be fed back so that we can get back another type of forestry.

In order to be able to manage the forest in other ways, support is also needed during the time one makes a transition. We want to see a transition support for clear-cut-free forestry methods. Actually, they should probably be called nature-oriented forestry methods, because "clear-cut-free" has acquired a connotation in a certain way. But since the forests are different, different methods are needed in different places and depending on the forest's age.

We also think that one needs to help forest owners during, for example, generational transitions. Logging of forest is often what finances the whole thing when one takes over and buys out their siblings. We want a loan system that means one can borrow advantageously for this so that one does not need to cut down everything at once. Instead, one can get a transition so that we get generational transitions and can still do it in a good way. Otherwise, many are left without other alternatives.

We see that many forest owners want to transition their forestry, but they do not have the knowledge and there is no help to be had. We therefore want a competence development check, which entrepreneurs could apply for to acquire knowledge that they can then offer to forest owners. I myself have had problems finding entrepreneurs who can harvest in my forest in the way that I would like.

This is something about how we view the forest and which we have included in our budget motion.

We also have other writings about the forest as a value. Those who want to preserve their forest and have not redeemed it have not received money for it. There must be money. Forest owners should not have to wait for years because the money in the state budget has run out, even if in this case it has been forwarded to the Swedish Forest Agency. There must be funds so that one receives money when one does not harvest but wants to redeem their forest. Otherwise, one ends up in limbo, which undermines the system and the trust in the laws and rules we have. This must be resolved.

Madam Speaker! There is a lot of forest here. During the week, we have been able to read in the newspapers about increased ecophobia. One could laugh at that. But research – I believe it was conducted at Lund University – has shown that many today feel a disgust for nature and do not want to be in nature. It sounds a bit crazy, but I also believe it is a problem. If one does not dare to be out in nature and does not know what it looks like there, one also has no sense of what one should preserve or how one should utilize it.

One reason for that is that we live further and further away from nature. Many do not have the knowledge and confidence to go out into nature. One way to remedy that is for the nature near urban areas to remain and be accessible. We know that the social values of the forest are very important. Therefore, we have an initiative on the preservation of forest near urban areas and that these areas should be made more accessible for everyone. I believe that this could be part of many ways to remedy ecophobia, which I hope we can get rid of.

Madam Speaker! I see that my speaking time is running out. We also have investments in agriculture and other areas. One thing that I want to bring up before I conclude is one-stop shop.

Something one always hears about when meeting farmers is the bureaucratic red tape. They want rule simplifications, because it is so difficult with all the paperwork. With larger farms and more responsibility, there is also more to keep track of. One should obviously not have rules for the sake of rules. Those that are not needed should be removed. But those that exist must be complied with and they must be helped with.

Today, a farmer often has eleven to twelve different agency contacts. We want to see a one-stop shop where, as a farming entrepreneur, one only needs to make one call and have one contact to get help with all of this. The person on the other end of the line should be able to guide and help one in this.

This proposal is included in our motion, and we have also allocated funds so that the work can be started, as well as other parts to initiate generational shifts. It is such things that are needed for these industries to do well.

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety. I also want to say that I do not harbor the slightest fear of nature. I enjoy being in nature very much, in connection with the preceding statement.

Madam Speaker! The year 2025 has been a good year for Sweden's farmers with good harvests and high production results. As for grain cultivation, prices have been low. World market prices are significantly depressed. Sweden's crop growers have actually been lucky this year that the harvest has been as good as it has been. Swedish crop growers are balancing on the edge right now. They are having it very tough. If the government had not ensured that fuel prices were kept at a reasonable level, we would have seen bankruptcies after this crop year. Sweden has today regained a competitive advantage, which we have requested for many years, namely that fuel prices should be at a reasonable level. It is those now for the Swedish farmers and especially for the Swedish crop growers.

New problems are emerging, Madam Speaker. For example, a new fertilizer tax is being introduced at the EU level, which means increased costs for Swedish crop cultivation.

We naturally hope that Putin's unjust war of aggression against Ukraine will approach an end. When that happens, the grain market in Eastern Europe will flourish properly again, which means that it will increase the pressure even further on Swedish crop growers. We need to give them the right conditions to be competitive when also Ukraine, with the opportunities they have, takes back its place on the world market. We hope this will happen soon, preferably yesterday.

There are other concerns regarding the future. For example, Swedish milk has had a couple of really good years, but now milk prices are turning downwards. As I have said many times before here in the chamber, milk is the engine of Swedish agriculture. It is super important that it goes well for Swedish milk production.

We are currently seeing increased production all around the world. It is that which is pushing down the prices. Sweden's farmers are in a world market and are to compete in it. This presupposes that we give them rules of the game and competitive conditions in order to be able to produce on the world market.

There are other concerns ahead, namely the supply of competence. I last spoke yesterday with two large agricultural companies that have problems obtaining competent labor. One has to look outside Sweden's borders to find labor. Previously, we have found the labor in Europe, but now we have to look further away. Then we need to find ways forward for how we best solve this, and there we are not quite at today. I know that this government is part of this, but this government is also prepared to take the responsibility and ensure that improvements are made for the future. We cannot afford to scale down production.

There are clear dividing lines, Madam Speaker. If one listens to the speech before and my speech now, it appears that we believe in increased production. We want as high production as possible, that is to say that we do not want to reduce, limit, and complicate. We think that we should produce as much as we can in Swedish forest. We shall increase the growth in Swedish forest, and we shall provide the advice required for Swedish forest owners to maintain a high production with high carbon storage and high biodiversity.

This is best solved with freedom under responsibility – precisely the freedom under responsibility that we have given the Swedish forest owners for many years. We do not want to regulate and impose new cultivation methods on them. We believe in how the Swedish forest is managed today. Therefore, we are allocating funds to the Swedish Forest Agency to make it possible to increase advisory efforts.

If one is to lower production today, as a clear-cut-free forestry would entail, it will initially take between 150 and 200 years to convert the forest to a clear-cut-free management. But it is the spruce that would benefit most in clear-cut-free forestry. We often talk about wanting to reduce vulnerability by reducing the extent of spruce in Sweden and increasing the proportion of deciduous trees and mixed forests. Clear-cut-free methods will work poorly then.

Swedish logging has decreased in recent years, and growth has increased. We have reversed the downward spiral thanks to the weather having become a bit better – that is what it depends on. But it also depends on the spruce bark beetle having calmed down its ravages. There have been fewer attacks by the spruce bark beetle over the last two years, which has allowed the high logging rate due to the spruce bark beetle to be lowered.

Madam Speaker! Some initiatives are being made in expenditure area 23. Among others, an initiative is being made to strengthen Swedish milk production. Swedish farmers who release their cows – a Swedish law that does not exist around the EU in the same way – can receive a payment for this. I and some others with me might have thought it would be better to switch to a more flexible grazing legislation.

But this is a proposal that is almost something, and above all, it is the first time a Swedish government has put forward that type of money and strengthens Swedish milk production. It has not been seen before. We believe in increased production, and we understand how important an increased production is for the Swedish preparedness. Therefore, a large sum is placed in the budget for an increased preparedness. The important assignments are distributed to the agencies that are to solve the preparedness: the Swedish Food Agency, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, and so on. They shall produce the assignments, points, investigations, and so on as required to increase the Swedish production.

We are allocating funds to strengthen agriculture in northern Sweden. Unfortunately, northern Sweden has recently been more dismantling than developing its agriculture. There are great opportunities there, especially for livestock production. In northern Sweden, it is perfectly feasible to grow both grass and maize and keep livestock for increased food production.

We also need to start the reconstruction of what we have together in the Riksdag dismantled, that is to say, emergency stocks of supplies, finished agricultural products and so on. We are starting the entire journey over, but it is so very important that we do so.

Another investment in the budget is the money spent on wolves and wolf management. The Tidö parties have had a clear line that the wolf population should decrease. This requires more money in the budget because it requires increased monitoring and increased inventory. Perhaps this can lead to a relocation of important individuals to keep the number of wolves down. We need to keep the number of wolves down because they are also a major threat to increased food production and increased production with grazing animals. It is important that the authorities receive these tools and that Sweden reports a new reference level to the EU.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say that new funds are being allocated for research in agriculture. Staffan Eklöf listed various areas in an exemplary manner: soil, plant breeding and so on. These are issues that should strengthen Swedish agriculture in a changing world. When we see that there are different cultivation conditions than before, plant breeding must be developed, and that happens with this budget.

Let me summarize: This is a budget that leads to increased production and preparedness. It leads to actively sustainable forestry. It leads to research and innovations for the future of agriculture. It is about us anchoring our predator management locally. We are simply going to strengthen the conditions for Sweden's countryside, and that is happening now with this budget.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish the committee a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I would also like to do the same to the Speaker, the Speaker's Presidium, the Chamber Office, our party offices and so on. Merry Christmas!

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Widegren for the speech.

In the 2022 election campaign, the Moderaterna sent a letter to every Swedish forest owner. I also received a nice letter with spruce trees. The blue M had been replaced with a green logo. One could almost believe that one was receiving a letter from Miljöpartiet – it was very green.

The letter contained a number of promises. They were promises that the Moderaterna have not delivered on yet. Many with me wonder what actually happened to the promises. Despite the government having appointed investigation after investigation, no proposals have been submitted. There is no unified forest policy, no solution to the most acute problems of species protection. The issue of birds, which in practice stops most of the logging, was not even included in the Species Protection Investigation.

While the government continues to talk, real people are stuck in a situation of legal uncertainty. These are not small issues, but this is about life's work being destroyed. The number of appeals continues to pour in.

In 2023, 203 appeals were received, and in 2024, 421 appeals were received. Then we can reflect on how it looks today in 2025: 877 appeals up to December 1. We all hear, and we all see, the absurdity in this.

The question is whether the Moderaterna will deliver what you promised. Time is running out. When will the government come with the promised whole, that is to say a coherent forest policy that solves species protection, including the birds, which gives the forest owners legal certainty and compensation when cultivation is stopped, and which ensures that the Hyttsten family does not have to have their future destroyed by unclear rules?

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

It was funny with the forest letter. When one then read the letter, one understood that it was not from Miljöpartiet. I personally thought the content of the letter was very good.

It is in progress. For the parts connected to the EU and the forest, we have already delivered. The EU encounters something completely different today when they meet representatives from Sweden and talk forest than what prevailed during the previous government's time.

When the EU's forest strategy was to be negotiated during three meetings, the Social Democrats' Minister for Rural Affairs did not even deign to be present at any of the three meetings. Others were sent instead.

Regarding the EU, we have put our foot down firmly during the mandate period. We are present and advocating for Sweden and the forest in a way that has not occurred for a long time.

When it comes to the parts concerning species protection, this is very concerning. I absolutely agree. If you ask me, it has taken far too long, but I also know that we are now entering the landing phase. We are resolving the problems that have built up over quite many years until now and which have also led to a number of legal proceedings, which is very unfortunate. One should not have to go to court in order to be able to exercise one's constitutionally protected right of ownership and use, but the parts linked to species protection have caused problems.

Now we are taking action on this, and I know it is underway. It will be delivered during the spring. If one from the Socialdemokraterna is worried about whether the Moderaterna will live up to their election promises or not, the answer is: Yes, we will do that. The Moderaterna usually live up to their election promises. Right now, I believe we are somewhere around 85 percent when it comes to election promises that are completed, and we still have a number of months left until the election.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Widegren, for the answer! I know that former Prime Minister Löfven and former Finance Minister Andersson also raised the forestry issues many times and were very clear in the EU regarding Sweden's position.

I must say that I really hope that proposals will now be put forward that actually solve this situation for the country's forest owners. We Social Democrats would have gladly helped to find solutions so that this would become long-term sustainable; I have said that before. The government has, however, chosen another path.

Another question I also want to take the opportunity to ask concerns the missing compensation to the hunting teams that fought the swine fever. We in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture also traveled to northern Västmanland and visited the area affected by African swine fever. We met the hunters who had stepped up and did a fantastic job. Without them, we would not have managed to stop this infection. The hunters stepped up when society needed them.

When the hunting associations now seek compensation for this hunt, which they have paid for but which could not be carried out due to state restrictions, they are met with a cold shoulder. They are left with the costs for the hunting areas while they themselves did the work that kept the country free of infection. When the Minister for Rural Affairs was on site, he said that the government would take responsibility if the authorities were not sufficient – yet not a single one of these hunting associations has received compensation for the missed hunt.

Does the member believe it is reasonable that the hunters who carried out these efforts should now bear the entire cost themselves? Do you intend to take the initiative to create a possibility for compensation to hunting groups that have been affected by these restrictions, or shall they, despite their great effort, continue to be left without support?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question! The short answer is no. I do not think it is reasonable.

The Swedish hunting corps made an incredible effort, I want to say, which led to Sweden being the country that in the shortest time has been declared free again from African swine fever. They made such a good effort that even Spain, when they are hit by swine fever, contacts the Swedish Hunters' Association and wants help from the Swedish hunting corps. Swedish hunters are skilled, and this was solved fantastically well.

I unfortunately cannot please the members with an exact answer to the question, but I know that discussions and work regarding this are currently ongoing. If you ask me about our position on this, it is clear that the compensation should be in place, and I hope that it is a matter of time. I cannot speculate further on that than that, but that is my position on the whole thing.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mr. Widegren, for the speech! I intended to continue speaking about the forest and about the Swedish Forest Agency's supervisory responsibility.

To fell forest that is over half a hectare, a felling notification must be submitted to the Swedish Forest Agency. Landowners who wish to fell are obliged to report which precautionary measures and protective actions are planned to prevent damage to health and the environment. It is then the Swedish Forest Agency's responsibility to check whether these measures constitute sufficient protection against unauthorized impact on protected species and high natural values. It is the Swedish Forest Agency's supervisory responsibility.

Unfortunately, environmental considerations within forestry remain deficient, and the development has been negative. The Swedish Forest Agency would truly need increased appropriations to be able to conduct more physical supervision. Deficient physical control leads to logging in natural forests with protected species.

I wonder why the government parties – especially the Moderates, who one could say hold the purse strings – do not take this seriously enough and ensure that the Swedish Forest Agency receives sufficient resources in the budget so that they can exercise the required supervision.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! Here one can see one of the biggest dividing lines when it comes to forest policy here in Sweden. From the Moderaternas side, we believe in the forest owner, in freedom with responsibility, and in the positive development that has occurred since freedom with responsibility was introduced in 1993.

Forest with some high nature value will always be felled. It is reasonable, because private forest owners are also quite good at letting the forest stand for a long time and become older. Then nature values grow in. It is like the natural – it happens. However, there will come new forests that will become old again and where high nature values grow in. But it is also by cultivating the forest that we lay the foundation for Swedish success. The forest and the mines are what Swedish success has consisted of. That is how we have built Sweden strong.

It has become even better since we introduced freedom under responsibility. Many of the biological parts have also become better since then. There have been more birds in the forest, the amount of deciduous trees has increased, and the amount of old trees has increased.

This is more about how one views ownership and usage, I mean. If one does not like private ownership and that the forest owners themselves get to decide their own fate, one can step in and regulate. Then one can cause complications and return to some form of regulated forestry in Sweden again – but that has not been a success.

We know ourselves how it looked when the state was to decide on Swedish forestry. There were large clear-cuts and a single tree species, and if by some chance a few deciduous trees grew up, they were sprayed with hormoslyr so that we could get rid of the miserable deciduous trees that looked up into our large monocultures. So no – we are not so worried when it comes to whether Swedish forest owners can manage this themselves.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for a straight and clear opinion on the matter!

Now, the question was why the Swedish Forest Agency has not received sufficient funds to carry out its supervision. It has even gone so far that it has been reported to the Parliamentary Ombudsman by a number of environmental organizations for not following the law regarding control and supervision.

This JO-report is based on over 240 court cases where courts have repeatedly overturned the Swedish Forest Agency's control and supervision of logging notifications. According to the courts, in many cases the authority has not even sufficiently investigated species protection and precautionary measures. The courts have several times stated that logging in natural forests risks causing irreparable damage to protected species.

We in Vänsterpartiet think it is very serious that the Swedish Forest Agency lacks resources to be able to carry out sufficient physical supervision – for it is this we consider to be the error here – which leads to logging in areas that actually should have been protected. We have therefore budgeted an increase in the appropriation in our budget alternative.

To come back to this, I wonder again why the Swedish Forest Agency cannot be given sufficient resources, when it has been flagged that it needs them.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for further questions!

The answer is not more money for the authority – we are completely convinced of that. More money was not needed for the authorities.

If it is the case that there is a potential shortage for this specific purpose, then efficiency must be improved within the agency. That is how it looks for all farmers and forest owners today. They have to improve efficiency with existing budgets. I absolutely believe that there are great opportunities for efficiency in a number of our agencies that concern green industries.

No, the answer is not more money. But, just as I said before, we believe in freedom under responsibility. We will always have high nature values in Swedish forests precisely because we manage Swedish forests in a responsible way.

From the Moderates' side, we are more concerned about the activist behavior that is currently taking place, where people run around and inventory other landowners' forests and then let it affect individual forest owners. If these activists are not satisfied with the authority's work, they can barricade themselves at the authority or something similar instead. But they must not let it affect individual forest owners and individual forest owners' ability to manage their own forest. It is a bigger problem than that the Swedish Forest Agency would not be performing its duties, and we think that the Swedish Forest Agency performs its duties perfectly well.

Of course, one fails in certain inspection matters sometimes, but that happens everywhere. Not everyone is perfect. Here and there, there will be failures, but on the whole, the Swedish forestry apparatus works very well. The big problem today is the activists who choose to conduct some form of independent inspection, many times moreover without any quality assurance regarding what they report.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, John Widegren, for the speech!

I was in two minds about whether I should press the button, but you captured my interest when you began to speak in your speech about the lack of labor. We know that. So it is not just in this place, but in many.

One of the reasons there is a shortage of labor is the rules that this government has introduced, especially regarding labor immigration. You have to earn over 33,000 to be able to get a job in Sweden if you come from another country. I myself had contact with healthcare very recently. I can say that I would not have received much care if it had not been for foreign-born Swedes. It was they who ensured that the place was run.

In many places, it is the same thing in agriculture and forestry, where it is about planting seedlings, working on farms, and so on.

I will not prolong this too much, but I became curious when it sounded like the member actually opened up for changed rules regarding labor migration. Is that correct, or did I hear things?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

No, dream-heard, I hope one didn't do that.

But this is a problem. It is a real problem. I think I hear it time and again, especially when I meet somewhat larger agricultural entrepreneurs. People are worried about this. Taxes and so on, one can sometimes buy, but not getting labor and that there is a lot of red tape and so on is a major concern.

I think it is unfortunate. We currently have a relatively high unemployment rate in Sweden, and unfortunately, it is not possible to find people for the green industries within that unemployment. It is a huge concern. It means that we need to fetch the labor from other countries, and I am told time and again that it is quite difficult now.

No, it is not a promise, but I am pushing quite hard on the fact that we must find exceptions and so on for the green industries. I hope that it will eventually land in that. It is also a matter of understanding what it means if we cannot keep production running at our larger units. It is the larger farms that produce 90 percent of the food in Sweden. When they are forced to decrease in efficiency, it looks dark.

I am working on the issue, but unfortunately, I have no promises to give.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, John Widegren, for what appears to be a sincere answer!

It is, after all, John Widegren's government and coalition partners who have ensured that we have ended up in this situation. It is not that we did not know what these consequences would be. This is something we from the opposition and referral bodies have said.

The vast majority of labor migrants work in occupations where the wages are not so high. There are specialist occupations where we have a very great need for foreign labor, but above all, it is about green jobs and those parts where there are also seasonal workers.

You have done this "with full confidence"; I was about to say the old worn-out expression. It is your government that has put us in this situation. But you have a little over half a year to change the situation. Does that mean we might be able to see something in the supplementary budget?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I have, as I said, no promises to give. Yes, we know that these problems were raised early. I thought, perhaps, that we would have more exceptions linked to the green industries. But there was also a quite valid underlying principle in that these things regarding labor immigration were done to solve various problems in the labor market. It is, therefore, good, but one must also be honest and say that certain socially important sectors are directly suffering from the proposal that exists right now. I hope, as I said, that we will be able to resolve this.

There are nine and a half months left until the election, and after that election, this government will continue. There will therefore be plenty of time to strengthen precisely these parts. But the competence supply in agriculture will be a directly decisive issue if we are to manage to increase production, which we do want to do. Let us return to this in our [motion/proposal]!

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! 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 refrain from taking a position and instead have a specific statement regarding the expenditure area.

Expenditure area 23 concerns some of the most fundamental things for Sweden: agriculture, which ensures we have food on our tables, the jobs in our rural areas, the forests that have built our prosperity, and the hunting and fishing that have shaped our communities. It is about animal welfare, about self-sufficiency, and about Sweden's preparedness in a restless time. And it is about the whole country functioning. It must be possible to live, work, and run businesses regardless of whether you live in Ånge, Dorotea, Bjuv, Eda, or Stockholm.

We Social Democrats want to build a stronger and more cohesive Sweden. Therefore, we add 100 million kronor more than the government in this area. We restore the support to the 39 smallest municipalities, a support that the municipalities themselves describe as absolutely crucial to be able to work with development. And we strengthen veterinary preparedness across the entire country.

Madam Speaker! We need more Swedish food, more Swedish input materials and more Swedish fuel in the tank. Our green industries are necessary to strengthen the country's food supply and preparedness. Farmers do one of our most important jobs but still receive too little pay while the food wholesaler giants make record profits. The government's food strategy does not provide the answers we need, and climate emissions need to be reduced in a way that is long-term, fair and economically sustainable for farmers. We want to strengthen innovation and research to develop more sustainable systems.

The transition of agriculture needs to go significantly faster. When the EU's emissions trading system comes into force, fossil fuels will become more expensive. At that point, long-term conditions for fossil-free alternatives such as biogas and biofuels are needed. There are many good proposals in the Bioeconomy Inquiry, which was commissioned by the previous Social Democratic government.

A question that is also particularly important for us concerns the future of agriculture in the north. The Swedish Food Agency has warned that in the event of a crisis, northern Sweden risks being left without food supply. That is completely unacceptable. The Norrland support for milk production is therefore crucial. But it is not enough. We want to strengthen and broaden the support so that it, for example, also covers the sheep farming industry. It is about keeping the landscape open, about biodiversity, about preparedness, and about giving farms in the north long-term conditions to grow. We need more living farms in the north, not fewer.

We Social Democrats want to strengthen competition throughout the entire food chain. It must become easier for new actors to enter. We want to break the lock-ins in the wholesale sector, clarify price information for consumers, and make the labeling of origin in restaurants written and mandatory.

Madam Speaker! Animal welfare is still one of Sweden's most important competitive advantages, but there is more to be done. I am thinking again of the horrific images from the news this week of cows being beaten, kicked, and neglected. We have a proposal to introduce cameras in slaughterhouses as a complement to the inspections and to ensure that the animal welfare inspection is equivalent and legally secure throughout the country. We want to tighten the penalties for animal cruelty, combat dog smuggling, and improve supervision.

In order for animals not to have to suffer unnecessarily, we are also strengthening the veterinary preparedness around the clock. At the same time, we want to address the market failure in the veterinary market, where venture capital companies have driven up prices. We want better price transparency and better comparability between insurances, and we want to investigate rules that limit the profit interest in animal healthcare.

Madam Speaker! The stocks of herring and cod are under heavy pressure and in some areas near collapse. Herring is a basic food source for many other species, and when it weakens, the entire ecosystem in the Baltic Sea is disturbed. Despite this, large-scale industrial fishing continues to take enormous amounts of fish, and 95 percent of all catch goes to feed production. It is not sustainable, it is not responsible, and it is not compatible with the goal of a living sea.

We Social Democrats want to stop large-scale industrial fishing in the Baltic Sea. We want to reform the quota system, move out the trawling limit, protect sensitive areas, and strengthen controls with cameras on board. We want to safeguard small-scale fishing and inland fishing. It delivers food to our tables, is significantly gentler on the marine environment, and also provides important emergency food.

Madam Speaker! There is, however, some hope. Through the reassessment of hydropower, we now have a historic opportunity to regain functioning fish passages and living aquatic ecosystems in our rivers. Along Ljungan and other watercourses, people can once again see salmon and other species migrate upstream to spawn. This, however, requires political courage that ensures environmental requirements are implemented and that hydropower is modernized so that we unite energy production and ecology where it is possible and reasonable. A functioning ecosystem in the Baltic Sea begins in the rivers.

When it comes to hunting and predator policy, a long-term, responsible management is needed that works for both people and nature. Among other things, we want a co-management of all wild ungulates, a reduction of the wild boar population, and a significant limitation of the cormorant population. We support a wolf population of 170–270 individuals with a continued favorable conservation status and simultaneously want to make it easier to decide on protection hunting when domestic animals or dogs are threatened.

Madam Speaker! The forest is Sweden's green engine. It creates jobs, climate benefits, and export revenues. Swedish forest policy rests on two equal goals: production and environment. It is important that that balance remains, but today we see a legal situation regarding species protection and compensation that creates great uncertainty for forest owners. The appeals are escalating, and forest owners are not allowed to harvest their forest – and they are also not receiving any compensation. This must be given a solution as soon as possible.

We Social Democrats want long-term and clear rules of the game with fair compensation for protection and an active sustainable use. We want to strengthen the advice and develop the research regarding sustainable forestry methods. We also want to see fair working conditions in the forest and increased equality throughout the entire sector.

Madam Speaker! All of this is gathered in the question of preparedness. The pandemic, the climate changes, and the war in Ukraine have shown how vulnerable Sweden is. We need to build up preparedness stocks, secure the availability of supplies, and strengthen the drinking water supply. It is not a cost, but it is an investment in Sweden's security.

We want to build Sweden stronger, and we begin by strengthening the industries, the people, and the places that build the country every day – from north to south and from coast to mountain.

I would like to wish the Speaker and everyone else a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 23 Agriculture, rural areas and food. I want to first mention the food strategy. It is not the first time we have talked about it in the chamber, and it certainly will not be the last either.

The food strategy was actually adopted by a unanimous Riksdag in 2017. I praise the then Minister for Rural Affairs, Sven-Erik Bucht. I must say that he did a fantastic job. His work meant a lot and laid the foundation for what we have today.

The basis for the food strategy, Madam Speaker, was the idea to increase food production, achieve a more profitable agriculture, strengthen competitiveness, and increase the Swedish food supply. It is the same basis that the food strategy 2.0 stands on. It is the government's statement of intent to strengthen Swedish food production. The strategy sends a clear signal: Competitiveness and profitability in Swedish food production must be strengthened so that we can achieve growth.

Madam Speaker! A burning hot issue that I myself have been very involved in for many years is how Sweden can increase its food supply. In Sweden, this was not an issue for many years. Other countries would produce the food for us, that was the idea. Agriculture and our self-sufficiency were so low-prioritized that we even had a Prime Minister who said that agriculture was a special interest. After my first parliamentary debate in 2014, a member said to me: Why talk about the food supply, Magnus? You can be calm. Don't worry – the EU will fix the food for us!

Today, barely eleven years later, there is no politician who expresses themselves so carelessly. The threat from the east is unfortunately a reality. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine shows that we must have our own preparedness, and in that, the food supply is absolutely crucial.

Madam Speaker! Our neighboring country Finland did not do as Sweden did but maintained its good readiness, and therefore Finland has today been able to increase its food readiness from six to nine months. Sweden has a readiness for ten to twelve days. After that, the food stores are empty, which is very concerning.

Sweden today has a food supply that is under 50 percent. Every second bite we eat does not come from Sweden, and we are self-sufficient only in grain, sugar, eggs, and carrots. This is not sufficient. We must get more agricultural enterprises in all of Sweden. We must get more dairy cows, more meat animals, more pigs, and more sheep, as well as more who grow vegetables, potatoes, fruit, and so on. Why? Well, Sweden's pantry, which could be bulging with Swedish-produced food, is today only half full.

We see a far-reaching trend with fewer dairy farms and more closed farms. In ten years, 1,685 farms have been closed. In Norrbotten, the decrease is drastic; there, four out of five dairy farms have disappeared since the turn of the millennium. In all of Norrbotten, there are fewer than 50 dairy farms remaining. One could ask the rhetorical question of what the Socialdemokraterna did during eight years.

Madam Speaker! This government has realized this and developed various proposals for measures for change. The food chain must become robust again in order to be able to withstand disruptions, serious crises, and in the worst case, war. Therefore, significant funds are being allocated to increase our food supply. Grain warehouses are now being rebuilt around the country. Also, the storage of input goods is extremely important.

The government is providing increased support to agriculture in northern Sweden to meet the acute closure of farms that I have just spoken about. Strengthened competitiveness and increased profitability are among the absolute most important factors to get more people to want to invest and to get young people to take over.

As an example of this, the government continues to lower the tax on agricultural diesel. I know that it is much appreciated by our farmers, and it really makes a difference. I was at a place where I met many entrepreneurs. A farmer ran up to me when I was going to the train. He asked if I could understand what we had done for his company. He said that we had reduced the costs for his company by 450,000 kronor. When did that happen last? he asked.

The competitiveness investigator Elisabeth Nilsson proposed several measures, Madam Speaker, including virtual fences, which will now be permitted from January 1, 2026. We therefore needed to get a new government to get this in place.

The second thing proposed was a reduced wolf population. The government has allocated funds in the budget so that the number of wolves will decrease. We here in the Riksdag have decided on a goal of 170 individuals. The first sub-goal, 270 individuals, is now set for the next license hunt, which takes place in 2026.

A changed grazing requirement was also proposed. In response to this, the government in the budget bill for 2026 has proposed that the existing animal welfare compensation for dairy cows be reinforced with a grazing compensation of 1,000 SEK per cow per year. We Christian Democrats, however, see that exceptions would be needed for cows in loose housing. A law introduced in 1988 on the premises that applied then must sometimes be reviewed to become up-to-date.

Today there is no animal welfare compensation for pigs, but there is no doubt that pig production also faces clear challenges regarding profitability and reduced production. Work is being done at the department on how this can be developed for the next budget year.

Another proposal being addressed in the investigation is a state-subsidized removal service within agriculture. For the larger agricultural companies, this is not an issue at all, as they have employees. For the smaller farms, however, it is an important issue, as they have no possibility of hiring people. Sweden has had this possibility before, but it was removed. In our neighboring countries Norway and Finland, this possibility remains. The issue is being investigated at the ministry.

Madam Speaker! I will never forget what a farmer said to me at a farmers' breakfast outside Nässjö. He said: Every morning I ask myself which rule I am going to break today. The question he asked is still very relevant. Farmers have 862 rules to keep track of. So that is what everyday life looks like for our farmers – no wonder many are considering quitting. God help the farmer who makes a mistake; it can become very costly.

In 2023, I received the honorable assignment to become a single investigator. The assignment was clear: to review and reduce the regulatory burden within the green industry. It has been a very inspiring piece of work. In May this year, I presented a report in which several measures to facilitate and reduce the regulatory burden are highlighted.

In the preparatory works, it is proposed that the regulatory authorities be reformed and that the number be reduced from today's 270 to 2. Furthermore, it is proposed that costs be reduced to strengthen the competitiveness in the green industry and that the owner's position in connection with slaughter be strengthened. Authorities shall, together with industry organizations, review the regulatory framework to reduce red tape and review the authorities' treatment of companies in the green industry.

It is pleasing that there are funds for this so that it can become a reality for the coming years.

Madam Speaker! Much has been done to improve the situation for agriculture in Sweden, but much also remains to be done. It is pleasing that the number of cows is now increasing. After 15 years of a downward trend, it has finally turned! Sweden has 3,500 more dairy cows in 2025.

A CEO of a large dairy company operating in many countries said that Sweden stands out in a positive way. He said that Sweden's Minister for Rural Affairs speaks about increasing the number of cows and not about decreasing the number, which is what is discussed in many other countries.

Cattle are not environmental villains but a fantastic resource. We want more dairy cows. We want more Swedish meat on the grocery shelves. We want to continue to fill our country's pantry, not just for our own sake but also to help other countries with their needs.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Speaker and all my colleagues a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for his speech.

Magnus Oscarsson often speaks about carrot cake. Today, I heard him speak about the ingredients for carrot cake as a symbol of Sweden's self-sufficiency. We Social Democrats, however, also want to be able to serve herring on our plates. It is a healthy fish.

The herring crisis is absolutely crucial, not only for Sweden's food security but also for the entire Baltic Sea and its ecosystem, as well as for the coastal culture in Norrland. Over 90 percent of the herring is caught by large-scale industrial trawlers. The catch is ground down into fish meal and becomes feed. It does not become food on our plates and does not contribute to food security. This is not sustainable.

I come from Västernorrland. For us, this is not just about ecology but also about culture, identity, and food traditions. Surströmming is a part of our soul, but today we have hardly any strömming to ferment or to preserve for the Christmas table. The industrial vessels empty the sea before the fish have a chance to reach the coast.

If the Christian Democrats are serious about strengthening food security, they must start by saving the food we already have, including that in the sea. Therefore, I want to ask Magnus Oscarsson: Do the Christian Democrats want to stop the large-scale industrial fishing of herring in the Baltic Sea? Yes or no?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the questions.

The Chairman raised a question that is very important. We talk a lot about Sweden's food supply, and the blue industry is a resource that exists and that we actually need in a potential crisis or war situation.

The Speaker asked me if the Christian Democrats want to stop the large trawlers right now. We know that a lot has happened and that this government has done many things. The Minister for Rural Affairs has been in meetings where he has been able to negotiate and ensure that it has not become as bad as it could have become.

We mean that there are things that we can do even better, but one must also see the whole picture. Naturally, it is a problem that trawlers vacuum our waters, but there are also concerns that the member did not mention, for example, seals and cormorants. A huge responsibility must be taken to ensure this. Sweden's neighboring countries, for example Finland, have a completely different situation. They hunt seals and ensure that the cormorant population is kept down.

I mean that we must look at the whole and, for example, ensure that one does not fish with trawlers in the same way as today. Above all, however, it is a matter of seeing the whole. There is not just one concern, but it is several concerns that make it so that we have the sea we have today.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Oscarsson for his attempt at an answer. However, I did not hear any concrete answer to my question. The Member rather avoided answering my question by talking around everything.

It is not enough to sit in meetings down in Brussels. The crisis for the herring is here and now.

I asked a simple question that I want an answer to. Do the Christian Democrats want to stop the large-scale industrial fishing of herring in the Baltic Sea? Yes or no?

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, absolutely, that was what I was trying to answer the member's question. But I must be clear that it is not I who decides, but the government. I also tried to tell the member that there are more problems here.

The chairman only points out that it is certain boats that are vacuuming the Baltic Sea. But the Baltic Sea is no longer an inland sea for Sweden, and today, masses of countries fish there. Sweden is in the EU, and what would happen if we decided that no Swedish boats are allowed to trawl in the Baltic Sea? Well, then other boats will come in and take that fish instead.

Our minister is active in fishing issues, he does not back down and he tries to influence as much as he can from the prevailing premises. But he also sees the bigger picture when it comes to the Baltic Sea.

Finland is a good example of a country that has good access to herring, and we believe that it must be because one is active with sale hunting, scoter hunting, and egg spotting.

It is not sufficient as it is today. It is important to see the whole, and that was what I tried to tell the member.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is difficult not to continue on the path of the fishing issue in the previous exchange. But I will try to move on to the forest and the wolves. No chamber debate without wolves!

Since the member belongs to the same party as the minister for rural affairs responsible for wolves, I address the question to him. The member pointed out that the government has decided to reduce the wolf population to 170 individuals. The EU Commission has, however, requested an answer on how Sweden intends to proceed since this is not compatible with a favorable conservation status and other matters.

Since today's debate is about the budget, I think we should look at it. Both MP Oscarsson and the MP from Moderaterna said that money is being invested in this – something we will debate on Tuesday. It concerns more than 300 million over three years, of which 83 million is next year. Much of this money comes from the expenditure area we are discussing today, expenditure area 23. The government writes that it will take 20 million from measures for forestry, 10 million from compensation for wildlife damage, 4 million from the promotion of reindeer husbandry, and 20 million from support measures for fishing and aquaculture. From these areas, 53 million of the 83 million the government invests next year in reducing the wolf population are therefore taken.

But this is not an investment, but a redistribution and relocation of money. It is not new money, but the government is taking from other areas. How does it benefit, for example, fishing and aquaculture that there are fewer wolves in the forest? What are these funds going to be used for?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Emma Nohrén for the questions.

Just as the member is correct, the wolf population must finally be reduced. The Riksdag has decided that the number shall be 170 individuals, and now the government has looked at how we are to reach that. In the first instance, it shall be reduced to 270 individuals during the next year.

Yes, it is a redistribution in the budget because this will obviously cost money. The government redistributes the money in the way it deems appropriate and then secures the funds so that one can actually get down to business and reduce the number of wolves in Sweden.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I can informatively state that the compensation for wildlife damage in Sweden is 57 million, and next year alone it will be more than a third just for shooting wolves. We know that the population is in poor genetic condition. There are few individuals already today, and it is not possible to achieve a favorable conservation status with 170 wolves. Nevertheless, the government thinks it is worth taking money from the reindeer husbandry, fishing and aquaculture, wildlife damage compensation and measures for forestry in order to eventually reduce the wolf population to 170 individuals. The government has also opened up for the possibility that it may be necessary to move individuals from other populations.

Is this worth all this money, including that which happens in the areas that receive reduced funds, to make this symbolic issue so big? Furthermore, the EU Commission seems to have strong opinions on this and argues that Sweden probably is not allowed to do this.

How do you justify that it is worth 83 million next year and over 300 million over three years, which is partially taken from other areas, to reduce the wolf population?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén again for the questions, and I shall try to answer them.

Is it worth it? Yes, that is the short answer. The Riksdag's decision is now being followed up by the government.

The members of the committee also raise the questions from the EU, and we shall answer them. We are, however, convinced that our answers will make the EU understand why we consider this to be so important.

It is an election in a few months, and the member's party has intended to join Magdalena Andersson's government alternative. Now the member cannot answer, so we will have to take this another time. But it is interesting to consider how a party with major objections to the Riksdag's decision on a reduced wolf population can cooperate with a party that was involved in deciding this. But as I said, we will have to take that another time.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! With one year left until the election, we can state that the government is playing a cynical election game. After three years on a starvation diet with the Tidö parties, the government is emptying the state treasury and letting the welfare system foot the bill. By having refrained from investing for a long period, the government, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, has cemented the recession. Half a million people are unemployed today, and many households are struggling with money for both rent and food.

Madam Speaker! Economic inequality is increasing exponentially with the Tidö parties at the helm. In terms of wealth concentration, Sweden, with its 542 billionaires, is one of the world's most unequal countries. Sweden's 82 dollar billionaires own together as much as half of our country's gross national product. At the same time, according to Statistics Sweden, almost 700,000 people live in social and material poverty in Sweden.

And what does the government do then? Well, they continue to lower taxes, by a total of 110 billion kronor during the mandate period, which means that the room to invest in households and welfare is constantly decreasing. For next year, the government proposes further tax cuts of over 50 billion kronor. It should not have to be like this in a wealthy country like Sweden, Madam Speaker.

I am glad that we in the Left Party's budget alternative take a completely different direction. Instead of lowering taxes mostly for those with high incomes, we tax the banks' excess profits, raise capital taxes, and convert today's rotavdrag into a green rotavdrag to facilitate the green transition.

We use the money to strengthen welfare, with a special focus on healthcare. We allocate significant resources to climate investments and strengthen household finances, among other things through increased child allowance. In that way, we promote the green transition while simultaneously lowering unemployment. In that way, we build Sweden stronger while simultaneously leveling the gaps.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's countryside and its resources – we who live there – play a completely decisive role in being able to carry out the so important green transition that we face. Increasing our self-sufficiency is absolutely necessary given the global situation and the climate and nature crisis we find ourselves in.

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.

We in Vänsterpartiet want to see attempts with regional centers for fossil-free produced emergency food. We propose that a pilot study should be carried out, where agricultural high schools test producing emergency food continuously in a sustainable way based on local cycles.

A fossil- and toxin-free food production based on domestic production of inputs would dramatically reduce import dependency and thereby increase our resilience against disruptions.

Madam Speaker! Today, the grazing land compensation covers only a part of the additional costs it entails for a farmer to have grazing land in tenure. At the same time, grazing lands continue to grow over. It is a great loss for biodiversity but also for a living countryside, and it worsens Sweden's food production.

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet view positively that the government is now strengthening the compensation for dairy cows on pasture, but we believe that the compensation level in Sweden's strategic plan should be expanded so that full cost coverage can be provided to the farmer and that hay meadows are also included.

Madam Speaker! The forest is one of our most important resources. As someone who lives in Dalarna, I truly know how significant it is. The forest, and for that matter the entire countryside, was an important reason why I took the step over 35 years ago and moved from Stockholm to Dalarna. The forest is a habitat for a multitude of different species and generates ecosystem services such as water purification, berries, mushrooms, and so on, and this makes it, beyond storing carbon and producing raw materials.

We in Vänsterpartiet do not consider Swedish forestry as a whole to be sufficiently sustainable today to achieve our climate ambitions and preserve necessary, high biodiversity. Our position is that production goals must be subordinate to environmental and climate considerations.

To achieve sustainable forestry, the supply of raw materials cannot be the governing factor for how our forests are managed. Nature's limits, with preserved ecosystems and biodiversity, must be the framework for how the forests are utilized. Within these frameworks, sustainable management should provide us with raw materials and energy that can, among other things, replace fossil energy and raw materials with a large climate impact.

That we use our forest resources in a sustainable way is crucial for us to meet both the climate crisis and the depletion of biodiversity. We must solve these crises together.

Madam Speaker! The environmental considerations in forestry continue to be deficient, and the development is unfortunately negative. Here, the Swedish Forest Agency needs more resources in order to be able to conduct more physical inspections of logging notifications.

Madam Speaker! Smaller forest areas with high nature values are not suitable as nature reserves, but it is important that the state can provide landowners with compensation to formally protect these areas in the long term. Even here, the Swedish Forest Agency needs significantly more funds so that forest owners can enter into nature conservation agreements and establish biotope protection areas.

Madam Speaker! The preventive work to reduce the risks of attacks on domestic animals from predators is extremely important. Attacks from predators cause great suffering for those affected and affect the economic conditions for the individual to keep domestic animals. Strengthened preventive work against predator attacks also improves the acceptance of our predators, which are of great importance for the function of ecosystems. In the long run, it improves our conditions to produce food locally.

Currently, it is possible to receive compensation for the material costs of predator-deterrent fencing, but we in Vänsterpartiet propose that state support should also be introduced for the labor costs when installing predator-deterrent fencing.

We also propose increased economic resources for compensation for the loss of domestic animals due to predator attacks as well as compensation for other wildlife damages. A lack of preventive work against wildlife damages can lead to more and more extensive damages with economic impact on businesses in rural areas. Food security can also be threatened to a greater extent if farmers cannot feel secure in being able to receive sufficient support for wildlife damages.

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet also share the Sami Parliament's and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's assessment that there are insufficient funds to pay out compensation for the prevention of predator damage to the samebys, and we therefore propose an increase in the appropriation.

Madam Speaker! There is a great need to reduce the number of animal experiments in Sweden. Hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to experiments in Sweden every year, and far too many of the experiments are painful. Sweden's 3R-center functions as a gathering arena to reduce the number of animal experiments.

The EU's goal, which Sweden is working towards, is that all animal testing shall be replaced when this is scientifically possible. Now, the government no longer has earmarked funds for this initiative, which has meant that the activity has been dismantled in significant parts. We in Vänsterpartiet want, instead, that the activity should be further developed. Therefore, we want to see a significantly increased investment in 3R centers to reduce animal testing.

Madam Speaker! Otherwise, I refer to our special statement. I would also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I just wanted to ask the member a question regarding the food supply. We are quite in agreement that it needs to increase. Both the member and I pointed out that it looks very tough in various ways.

My question to the member is how the Left views this. It would be interesting to hear the answer. We probably have different views on this, so I wonder how the member's party envisions how one should increase the number of agricultural enterprises in our country.

In my speech, I stated that over ten years, 1,685 dairy farms have been closed down. In Norrbotten, for example, 4 out of 5 dairy farms have disappeared since the turn of the millennium. The question then is: How do the members of Vänsterpartiet intend for this to be tackled? How is the development to be reversed? How is one to get more people to want to invest? How is one to get young people to want to take over? That is my simple question.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for a very interesting question. It is not entirely simple, however.

We also want Sweden to increase production and become more self-sufficient. We want to reach 80 percent, and we have had a policy for that since several years back.

Regarding the young people, we have submitted a proposal in an agricultural motion to introduce a support for generational transition. It was, if I remember correctly, a support that LRF Ungdom had proposed and which we thought was very good. In a similar way to student loans, one could borrow from the state when taking over or when young. This would then be within Sweden. Then we know, of course, that a new CAP is coming, where support for generational transition is also proposed. I think that those proposals combined might be a good part.

We want to increase support for producing sustainably, for example bio-premiums and support for greenhouse cultivation. We also want to strengthen the transition and conversion to organic production. We believe that this has a very great significance. It is good for the soil, but it is also good because it reduces the need for inputs. We believe that that production could increase much more. It is also something that small and medium-sized farms could benefit from. There we see far too little.

I will continue then.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Kajsa Fredholm, for the answer! It is positive that she can continue for one more minute.

What I am thinking about and trying to highlight is the crisis that we have seen in our society. It has been a downward trend, and a number of dairy farms have been shut down. We heard Member of Parliament John Widegren talk about the serious situation for grain farmers and meat farmers with several. It is very tough in our country.

It is still fantastic, I think, that we have an increased number of cows in our country. We have, therefore, broken this trend after 15 years. But we actually need to have 40 percent more cows in our country if we are to become self-sufficient in dairy products, as the member himself said before.

We have a trade deficit. We sell and buy food, and it is a trade deficit of approximately 90 billion. That is quite a lot of money. We could eat more Swedish and produce more of Swedish food products.

I received a direct question from the member earlier. I also intend to ask a direct question to the member. What does the Left Party say? Does one want more cows in the country? Is it positive?

I mean that our country can produce much, much, much more food than today. The fact is that every night in our world, 900 million people go to bed hungry. Then my question is: Is it good that we increase the number of cows?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I will first answer whether we want more cows in the country.

We want more grazing animals because grazing animals need land to graze on and we need more land to be grazed, for many different reasons. We also get food from those animals, so I answer yes to that.

Then I would like to point out that the fact that things are going poorly for food producers and farmers today also has much to do with the fact that they are not being paid enough for their products. It has to do with the food chain – we have problems with three large wholesalers who take the profit instead of increasing the share of the food crown to the producers.

There are proposals there. There is also EU legislation there that we can move forward with more sharply, I think. But I will stop there.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I intended to keep it brief and speak quickly. This is an area where one could talk about the wolf, species protection, the forest, and the need for increased food supply, as well as the important educational initiatives that are now being made within the green sector. These are included in expenditure area 23. But I intended to focus on what I consider from my point of view to be the most important initiative in this part of the government's budget, and that is the animal welfare compensation for dairy cows on pasture.

Madam Speaker! When the grazing requirement was introduced in 1988, life for the Swedish dairy cows changed drastically. Suddenly, all dairy cows were given access to green pasture for at least six hours per day during the summer. Mules created to graze sheep now do just that.

It was an important reform then. It is still important today. The grazing requirement is important for the cows' welfare, for biodiversity and for the consumers.

That is why the Liberals have clearly said no to proceeding with the proposal to abolish grazing requirements that was presented in Elisabeth Nilsson's investigation on strengthened competitiveness one and a half years ago.

Those who want to see a scrapped grazing requirement argue that the current order will eventually lead to there being no Swedish cows left and that we will then have no Swedish dairy products left to choose from in the refrigerated display. They claim that the grazing requirement is a clear competitive disadvantage for Swedish farmers on the international market.

We Liberals believe on the contrary that if we had removed the grazing requirement, we would have worsened the Swedish competitiveness for these goods. For consumers, knowing that we have a high level of animal welfare in Sweden is one of the strongest reasons to choose specifically Swedish. At the same time, one cannot ignore that the grazing requirement entails additional costs for Swedish farmers.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals have for decades pursued policies both for strong animal welfare and for fair competition conditions. We are very proud that the grazing requirement remains and that we have found a solution where the dairy farmers will soon receive compensation for this.

The cows' outdoor stay is mandated precisely because we must set a minimum standard for how livestock in Sweden live their lives, and we can only guarantee that the dairy cows get an outlet for their natural behaviors by maintaining the grazing requirement. It is a decency that we owe the animals.

Swedish animal welfare also gives the products a unique quality stamp, which in itself is a competitive advantage.

The ambitious Swedish animal welfare rules do entail higher production costs, but it is a price that must be paid. The question has been who should bear that cost. There is no justice or reasonableness in forcing Swedish agriculture to price itself out against competitors in other countries. We have therefore long campaigned to tighten EU's animal welfare legislation so that the minimum level within the common internal market becomes more similar to the Swedish. This is a long-term and in many parts difficult task.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the cows' right to graze, the EU regulatory framework has until now prohibited Sweden from compensating agriculture for increased costs. There, we were forced to choose between the cows' right to pasture and the cost structure of agriculture. We chose the animals, because it is so important that they are allowed to continue going out.

Within the government cooperation, there have been different opinions on the issue. We stand somewhat in different positions. However, we are constructive and have now found a solution, and I am very happy about that. Thanks to the intensive lobbying towards the EU Commission that the Swedish government, with several others, has carried out, Swedish farmers will now be able to be compensated. The formal decision at the EU level will be made first during next year, but already in the budget bill for 2026, an important support for grazing cattle is included.

Swedish cows shall therefore also continue to graze outdoors, and now we can also compensate the farmers for that cost. This is important, because when we humans take the right to raise animals, we also take on a great responsibility. The legislation must guarantee that the animals have a very good life. The grazing legislation does that, and now we compensate the agriculture for the increased costs.

This is a great victory for us liberals. We have worked long and hard for this issue in our government cooperation and are very pleased with and grateful for the constructive discussions that have been held. The greatest victory, however, can be proclaimed by the cows, who continue to be allowed out on green pasture.

(cont. § 8)

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