Expanded collection and disclosure of animal health data and agricultural policy

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Friends! Now we are here debating tractors again!

Now it is once again time for the agricultural policy debate, which we usually have before the summer every year. It is an important debate. Many things that will be said here today have been said before – I promise you. There are several of us who will say things that we have said before. But nevertheless, these are important issues.

Madam Speaker! We have a situation in the world that is very serious. We all know that. We have concerns regarding the mobility of food supplies both out of and into war-torn areas. This is a major problem. At the same time, we in Sweden unfortunately continue to reduce our food production, something that has been ongoing for a long time, while government after government has said that we need to strengthen Swedish agriculture and increase food production. But we are unfortunately standing still and even reducing production in many parts of agriculture.

This is concerning, and therefore I am very glad to belong to a government base that has seriously addressed the issues during this mandate period. These are, however, trends that will be very difficult to reverse. We see how the number of cows and sheep is decreasing, and we see that Swedish milk production is stagnating – parts of Swedish livestock production, the world's best livestock production, which operates under perhaps the world's strictest environmental and animal welfare rules.

For many, it has unfortunately gone too far, and they choose to shut the door and cease their production. Unfortunately, it is mostly the producers of just-in-time products who are choosing to cease production right now. This is partly due to declining profitability, and partly due to our old, much-debated predator policy which is still a major obstacle.

Even though we as a country have tools to protect ourselves against the wolf in the form of license hunting, protection hunting, and § 28, we must make it even easier for the sheep producers. It must become easier with the protection hunting. We have introduced simplifications during this mandate period, but we must also open up § 28 so that it becomes easier to protect their own animals against predators.

Madam Speaker! We are, as said, a government base with a government where the Minister for Rural Affairs has many times during this mandate period said that he wants to increase Swedish food production. A number of investigations have been commissioned, one partly regarding competitiveness, and one regarding agency work and regulatory simplifications, which has been led by my eminent colleague Magnus Oscarsson. I believe it was handed over today at 11:00.

These are important investigations that can make a difference, but it is also important that we now take the next step and really make this difference. We have said so many times that we are going to reduce red tape and make it easier to be a food-producing farmer. But it is not happening. At the same time, one meets organizations like those I met this morning, and the main issues they raise are profitability and red tape.

We have small farms in Sweden. We may think we have large elephants producing food in Sweden, but we have relatively small farms, many times one-man businesses that cannot manage all the administration and all the red tape that we burden them with while they are supposed to manage to produce food for the Swedish supply. It doesn't work!

I wonder what problems are to be solved with all these rules that are being set up, partly here from the chamber, partly from the side of our authorities. What is it that the food-producing farmers are doing so poorly that we must bureaucratize them to death with regulatory complications, costs, authority controls and so on? It is a Swedish disease to behave in that way towards Swedish farmers, and we must move away from that. I hope again that with Magnus Oscarsson's investigation today, we have taken the first steps to look at how we can narrow down the number of authorities that perform controls and so on, because it must become easier to be a farmer in Sweden.

We are soon entering a new CAP period that will start in 2028. There are a number of things that we need to make simpler in that CAP period. Above all, we must ensure that there is flexibility between the member states. We can take the example of the crop rotation requirements. Those requirements can be very important in countries where there are problems with monotonous crop rotations and where they lower the humus content in their soils. But we have no problems with monotonous crop rotations in Sweden. Above all, we increase the humus content in the Swedish arable soils, which means that we increase the fertility without the EU needing to interfere and complicate things.

There must be a flexibility and an increased trust in the farmers ahead of the next CAP period. It is another part of why we need to raise the trust in our producers – not lower it by placing more burdens on them with regulatory complications, bureaucracy, and authorities.

Madam Speaker! We talk a lot about sustainability in Sweden. It is very important. It needs to be long-term. It shall be social, and it shall be economic. But we have a sustainable agriculture in Sweden. What we need to do is to ensure that we maintain this and increase production.

To some extent, we have strengthened competitiveness during this parliamentary term because Swedish farmers today have low fuel costs. That is an important and large part. The government also speaks in a completely new way about strengthened property rights and long-term perspective. Those are important parts.

Swedish farmers conduct sustainable operations and need to adapt to a changed climate in the future. This is best achieved through strengthened profitability. We already see today that the farmers who take the most measures to adapt to the climate are those who have the highest profitability. We will once again return to the fact that profitability in primary production needs to be strengthened.

What climate adaptations are we talking about that need to be made? For the first thing, we need to maintain a high harvest level in Sweden. That is done by finding fertilizers that preferably should be produced in Sweden. A large harvest is a guarantee for a high carbon sequestration.

We also need to manage the water in a better way in the future. We must create better opportunities for irrigation at the farm level. We must continue to have support for tile drainage in order to be able to maintain good life and fertility in the field soils.

Madam Speaker! We must remember that Sweden is a rather small agricultural country. We have small farms and, above all, not particularly much cultivated land. In Sweden, there are approximately one million hectares of arable land where it is possible to produce grain in a good way today. That is quite little. It is like the largest agricultural areas in, for example, Ukraine or Russia. That is our total grain area in Sweden.

We are quite small, and therefore it is important with a policy that goes hand in hand with agriculture and that actually intends to deliver the goals set by the food strategy, because now is the time to increase production. Now is the time to strengthen Sweden's preparedness when it comes to food and to increase our food exports. We have the opportunity, and we can do it. But we must have a policy that works for it and not against it.

(Applause)

In this speech, Erik Ottoson, Magnus Resare and Helena Storckenfeldt (all M) as well as Staffan Eklöf (SD) concurred.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Widegren for the speech! The updated food strategy has finally arrived. We waited a long time, and unfortunately, it was also a disappointment in the area of environment and climate. Many believe that it even takes a step back and completely omits how the environmental and climate goals are to be achieved.

We already see today how agriculture, both in Europe and here in Sweden, is being affected by climate change. At the same time, Swedish food production must increase. We are completely in agreement on that. But emissions from Swedish food production must also decrease. Proposals and concrete measures for that are conspicuously absent in the updated food strategy. We Social Democrats say that these are closely linked. That was also what the member stated in his speech.

Transitioning agriculture is about increasing domestic production of inputs such as biofuels, fertilizers, and so on. In this way, we reduce the dependence on fossil goods that are actually imported today. By transitioning, we strengthen our competitiveness here in Sweden while simultaneously increasing sustainability and food production, and thereby our important preparedness. Therefore, I would like to ask the member how the Moderaterna view the importance of a sustainable food production and reducing the environmental and climate impact from Swedish agriculture.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the question. To begin with, I shall vote in favor of the proposals in the report. I believe they are appropriate.

The problem is that the Social Democrats think that parts linked to environment and climate, emissions, transition and so on are missing in the food strategy. These are parts that are there anyway. But the Social Democrats do not talk about the fact that we completely failed with the strategy that came in 2017, where the primary goal was to increase production. Farmers have since then asked for concrete tools to increase food production. That is what they do not want to talk about from the Social Democrats' side.

The Social Democrats want to talk about how there are now no measures to improve the world's already most climate-smart agriculture. Swedish beef production has, compared to the world average, for example 70 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions. It is clear that we should become even better. But goal number one is to get Swedish farmers to believe that we can actually increase production in the country. That is where we are not right now. We are still reducing food production.

We need to have concrete things, such as lower taxes.

We need to look at whether we need to reintroduce an eco-subsidy, for example, to get more grazing lands grazed and at the same time preserve the biodiversity.

Fewer contacts with authorities must be required. The Commission is looking at a proposal where one should have one contact with an authority per year. It is very interesting. That is exactly where we are headed. Authorities should not make up their own things to check at companies. That is also happening right now. There is no certainty regarding which authority will come and what will be checked. It is about legal certainty.

It is the big parts – not whether we transition agriculture. If we increase production and strengthen profitability, agriculture will also transition. I promise you!

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. We helped each other develop the previous food strategy. It is super important for the long-term perspective. The long-term perspective was something the member highlighted in their speech. We actually managed to reach an agreement on defense policy, and we would need to unite across party lines on several issues to achieve this important long-term perspective. But in the work of updating the food strategy, the government did not think it was necessary for the opposition to participate.

The strategy must have been quite good, because it only required a small update and not a completely new strategy. We have received answers here in the chamber from several different representatives from the government parties. We extended our hand. We wanted to be involved. We wanted to help, precisely because of the importance of long-term perspective in food policy and agricultural policy, so that our farmers know what applies and thus dare to make investments.

At the same time as the updated food strategy was presented, the Climate Policy Council submitted its report, which contained an in-depth analysis of agriculture's climate impact and recommendations. That report shows that it is fully possible to reduce agriculture's emissions while simultaneously increasing food production. That is what we see as incredibly important. It is not about doing one or the other, but about these being linked. It is possible to transition while simultaneously increasing production. The farmers themselves highlight this when I am out on visits.

It is important to focus on profitability but also on transition. What both we and the council observe is that the strategy lacks a clear direction on how increased food production shall be reconciled with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2045. Agriculture is an important sector. How are the goals to be reached?

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the further reasoning.

We are not quite on the same page when we talk here; that is what I feel time and again. More and more climate-smart initiatives are being made in Swedish agriculture, but everything depends on high production and profitability.

Regarding the opinions of the Climate Policy Council in the agricultural debate, there were parts that I did not find consistent at all. I am completely clear that it is not the Climate Policy Council that will strengthen Swedish food production and lift Swedish agriculture. They need to get rules of the game from here, and they need to be given the opportunity to undergo generational change – those are issues we need to address. They need to have a low tax burden that is comparable to the tax burden in countries that Sweden is to compete with. They need to have a strong property right. They would need parts that I mentioned earlier, for example for more grazing animals, which we need to contribute with. They need to have authorities that work promotionally and production-enhancing and that have this in their mandate. The same applies to our Swedish agricultural research.

Somewhere around 30 years ago, agricultural research lost sight of the fact that we should have production-enhancing research. That was when everything started being about sustainability in agriculture. We do have a sustainable agriculture. We are going to become even better, but we have forgotten that we need to increase production. It doesn't matter if we sit here inside or at the Government Offices and assume strategies for increased production and blah blah blah if we do not give them the tools for the whole thing. That is what we are debating here today – agricultural policy and what tools we need to give to Swedish agriculture to increase production.

I say it again: Every day, a farmer nails a nail in the door and leaves Sweden. We cannot afford that. If we do not reverse that trend, it doesn't matter what food strategy we have.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank John Widegren for his speech.

I know that these are issues that John Widegren cares deeply about. He has his own business and works with this every day in parallel with being in this chamber. Still, I couldn't quite reconcile his speech and what he said. First, it sounded as if it was the wolf that was the problem in everything. Then it was new rules, which we decide on in this chamber, where he himself sits in a government-supporting party. We must adapt to the climate, but it is only those with high profitability who can adapt to the climate. We shall do Swedish fertilization and so on.

I sympathize with much of this. However, I do not agree that all rules and regulations are the problem, but rather it is about how we use the different rules and why we have them.

I do not see that the member's policy adds up. He spoke about how it is only those with the highest profitability who can climate-adapt and manage in the future. It is enough to look at how this spring has been. We know that we will need to do even more. There will be lasting droughts and lasting wet periods. Then there must be a support system so that even those who do not have high profitability can transition, achieve high profitability in the future, and not be wiped out.

The leader of the opposition spoke about a nail in the door every day. What I know is that there is no one in this chamber who wants to see it. Then we must see to it that we help them.

Are we going to get production of Swedish fertilizer started? Where are the supports? How is it to be done? I see nothing from the government.

What are you doing regarding the management of water, John Widegren? Nothing. In order to have clean water, we must have better chemical legislation so that we do not get PFAS in the drinking water.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about what we need, but I do not see that anything is being done about this. In the food strategy, which was debated here earlier, all of this is conspicuous by its absence.

How are you going to address these problems, John Widegren? I don't hear that.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! It seems that the member did not hear my entire speech. She is engaging in cherry-picking.

I did not say – and I especially did not mean – that only those with profitability can perform climate adaptation. I say that those who have high profitability today are those who have made the most investments in environment and climate. That is because they have the opportunity to do so. It costs money to do this in the initial stages, even if these funds can come back later thanks to increased production and so on, for example with dams.

What do we do? There is a support to apply for today to build irrigation dams. Some think the support is a bit too small. There is also support to apply for improved drainage. Those parts exist; there is money for this.

These are parts of the climate adaptation. It obviously needs to continue, and it is perhaps here that we are not quite on the same page. This government has commissioned a number of inquiries that have now also been withdrawn, for example the competition inquiry. There are a number of proposals there for things that the industry wants to see us implement, but I wonder if we will dare to implement them. Will we dare to do the things that the industry wants us to do? I am not sure that it will be decided in this chamber.

We have the investigation that Magnus Oscarsson has delivered today, which concerns precisely the work of authorities. These are also parts that are to strengthen production.

Mr. Speaker! I and my colleagues had earlier today a meeting with a number of different industry organizations. What they constantly return to is profitability, rules and administration. That is the foundation. Those are the absolute most difficult reasons why Swedish agriculture is not developing in the right direction. That is where we need to focus our efforts.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If one wants to reduce the administration, one could approve one of the Environment Party's motions regarding a one-stop shop. It is about there being 1 authority contact instead of 15 for an ordinary farmer. It was approximately this that John Widegren spoke about.

I return to the other parts. I do not see that you have the support measures needed to achieve profitability for the smaller and medium-sized users, John Widegren. Those who are doing well manage to make it work and have the possibility to make the adjustments, but how do we ensure that the smaller ones do not have to close again and that they have the possibility to do these things? The forms of support do not exist.

There is also no long-term strategy. In the food strategy 2.0, there is a great focus on export. We are to have an increased food production, and it is about how one should sell these goods. But the farmer themselves and what should be done at the farm level is almost conspicuously absent. If we do not include the farm level and how the individual farmer or the smaller entrepreneurs are to be able to do these things, so that one sees where to increase, how is one then going to have anything to sell at the other end?

I think the food strategy is lacking. Furthermore, it does not aim for the future in that it does not address climate and environmental problems. It is not only the Climate Policy Council that says so, but everyone who reads the strategy sees that it is missing. There is, for example, hardly anything about organic farming.

Where are the pieces? Will you invest in them? Was it a mistake? Will it be included in the new investigations that you spoke about, John Widegren, or is it that you actually just want to see the large farms?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, we do not just want to see the large farms, but the policy that has been pursued for 30–40 years has indeed led to these large farms. As I said in my speech, a sole trader cannot manage all the administrative burden imposed on him and keep track of 600–700 rules every day. He also has to find time to milk his 60 cows and ensure that they get feed and water and are doing well. He does not have time for that. He cannot have his own administrator, but the large farming enterprises can many times have someone who can spend more time on the administrative part.

It is there we have pushed them. Miljöpartiet were involved in pushing them there during the last parliamentary term and the parliamentary term before that. We have made it harder to be a farmer in Sweden.

It is fundamentally not particularly difficult for a farmer to take care of their animals in a good way; that is what we are world-best at in Sweden. But the farmers are perhaps not particularly good at paperwork. We take away valuable time in production for the farmers when they have to devote themselves to things that are often important but very often are absurd. I am a practical farmer, and I promise you that a good deal of the requirements that one must live up to and report on are absurd. What problems are they supposed to solve? That is the question we ask ourselves far too rarely in this chamber.

I do not agree at all that we do not have the farmers in mind. It is for them that we carry out these investigations and create improved competitive conditions, for example through reduced fuel tax. If we give Swedish farmers the opportunity to produce more, Sweden will continue to be the best country when it comes to environment and climate. We shall do a job, absolutely, but do not remove the competitive conditions, do not reduce profitability, and do not make it harder to be a farmer! Now they are stopping, one by one.

Let me also wish the Speaker, the chair and everyone else a lovely summer, for this is my last debate for the spring.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here to debate agricultural policy but also a bill on improved collection of animal health data. Regarding the bill, we all agree, and I think it is good and a step in the right direction that veterinarians now have a clearer obligation to report medicinal use. It provides better conditions for good animal health, reduced antibiotic use, and so on, and strengthened preventive work. It is, therefore, a welcome change.

It is also a piece of a much larger puzzle, namely agricultural policy, which we are also debating now. The government presented its food strategy 2.0 earlier this year. It is intended to be an update of the food strategy that was adopted in the chamber nearly eight years ago, and at that time, all parties were involved. This time, the strategy was developed by the government, and it has not passed the chamber, which means we cannot debate it. But in the report, there are many references to the food strategy, so I think it is in order that we talk about it.

In the strategy, much is written about exports, processing, and market shares, which is good. But surprisingly little is written about those who produce the food, our farmers and agricultural producers. The strategy focuses more on the development of the later stages of the chain than on strengthening primary production and those who are out there working. There are also no direct instruments there to reduce emissions, strengthen resilience, and climate-adapt. Organic farming and biodiversity are mostly footnotes.

It is not only us who are critical, but criticism comes from many different sides. The Climate Policy Council calls in its agriculture report for the food strategy to clarify how food production is to be achieved within the framework of the climate goals. But of this, nothing is seen.

The strategy shall increase robustness. But at the same time, environmental compensations are being dismantled, and requirements are being weakened. For me, robustness means that we can withstand a future climate, reduce emissions, and increase biodiversity. It is about securing our agriculture for the future.

Several companies within the forestry industry, for example Sveaskog, take into account an increase of four degrees Celsius in all their measures. Agriculture should do the same, and the government has a great responsibility to enable this.

Miljöpartiet wants to take a different path than the one taken, and we have many reservations. I naturally stand behind all of them but move for approval of reservation 19 regarding generational shifts.

We must secure the future's farmers. Just as we secure our sustainable agriculture, we must ensure that the next generation takes over. There are many who want to enter the profession, but how is one to do it when one actually stands there?

I am a proud aunt to Beda, who graduated as an agrotechnician the day before yesterday. It was solemn and beautiful. She and her peers have been like children in the house during their studies, and it has been exciting to follow their enthusiasm, from high school, when they did a lot of different things, to them, for example, working on some small farm or with development. But now that they are around 25 and will no longer work for others, they are hitting a brick wall. How is one supposed to afford to take over a farm? If one inherits a farm, how is one supposed to go about buying out the siblings? How can one make the large investments to move forward? The enthusiasm is still there, but they are encountering obstacles. We must do more here.

This year we had a major agricultural motion on how to promote the next generation of farmers. It concerns establishment loans and advice, and we believe that the possibility of partial ownership should be investigated without it affecting the land acquisition laws. There should also be investments for young people who want to take over farms or want to start up something new.

At the same time, today's generation must receive support to cope with climate change, increased costs, and the prevailing uncertainty. Therefore, we propose advisory vouchers – there are good examples from other countries – competence packages and increased resources for advisors across the entire spectrum throughout the country.

We cannot have a food production that is concentrated in only certain parts of the country, especially not in the time we live in now. We can no longer rely on someone else's production when a ship is stuck sideways in the Suez Canal or when the masters in the east arm themselves. We must take our own responsibility and increase our robustness, and this applies to both the land and the people who cultivate it.

The Green Party views with concern that large-scale rationalization of Swedish agriculture is still ongoing. This has been happening for many years and is largely about how the EU subsidies are constructed. Therefore, it is important that Sweden fights in the upcoming CAP negotiations so that we can have agriculture and food production throughout the entire country and so that the support systems are not directed towards the large ones who already have. After all, 29 percent of the EU's budget goes to agriculture. Sweden must take the fight, but the Green Party does not quite see that it is being done. As we heard in the Moderates' speech, profitability comes first, but one must also be able to receive support to increase profitability, not the other way around.

Swedish agriculture must also become more self-sufficient in input goods. We need to increase the domestic processing of vegetable protein and reduce the dependence on artificial fertilizer. Production must increase for both climate reasons and security reasons. We must produce our own fuels and our own fertilizer in Sweden, and we must achieve the circular systems. If we can also grow more protein crops in Sweden, we reduce the imports and the dependence on, for example, soy from Brazil. Here, there must be investments, innovation, and research.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: It is high time that agricultural policy in Sweden and in the EU takes the future into account. Our farmers deserve a policy that supports the transition and does not lock them into yesterday's systems. We believe in an agriculture that is based on interaction with nature, not depletion of it, and that benefits people, the climate, and biodiversity.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the speech.

I can see that our parties stand on some common ground when it comes to the promotion of smaller agricultural enterprises. I do, however, become a bit thoughtful when I read reservation 7, which gives a certain description of how this is to take place.

In reservation 7, it is argued that agricultural policy has for a long time been focused on size rationalization. That is my interpretation. To promote small and medium-sized farms, it states that EU agricultural policy should therefore be directed towards increasing environmental and climate benefits. I would then like to ask: How are higher requirements for environmental and climate benefits to lead to more small farms? It can be good in itself, but how can it, causally, lead to more small farms and to the small farms doing better in that way?

It is about limitations, even if it is for a good cause, and it is about a greater administrative burden and increased uncertainty. The more that is built into rules, the less certain one can be that they have done the right thing. One might lose some of their support if they have made a mistake.

How are these requirements for increased environmental and climate benefits supposed to lead to it becoming easier for the small and medium-sized farms?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that increased administration is not something that benefits sole traders, but here it is rather about the fact that if you are paid for the climate and environmental benefit you provide, you also get profitability in other parts of your farming and forestry. Small and medium-sized enterprises often have the opportunity to make such contributions. They may be in such regions that they, along with the animals, can claim land. This would be an additional way for them to receive support for the various parts they perform.

At home on the West Coast, for example, there is a farmer who manages both nature conservation and biodiversity on many of our islands with only a few animals of each kind. They are goats, sheep, and cows. They cannot get all of this back in food production, but they also contribute other benefits. However, they are paid very little for this compared to what it would cost society if it grew over again. Such climate and environmental benefits should be compensated for. Overall, we must steer the entire agriculture towards becoming a resilient agriculture with climate and environmental benefits, and the efforts and support measures one receives should not counteract this.

Restoration legislation has now also been adopted, and Sweden will, in one year, submit its plan for how we are to achieve it. That includes restoring many of the agricultural landscapes and recreating environments, and agriculture and farming must also be included there. Then we can get more domestic food while simultaneously achieving environmental and climate benefits.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

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

With my ears, I hear that it is rather about increasing the compensation than about increasing the environmental benefit itself. Payment should be given for what one does and what one wants to do that benefits the environment. It does not sound different from the restoration support, which we increased in the budget currently in effect, or the increased investments in biogas, manure gas, and such that already exist. I agree that the compensation levels are not fully cost-compensating in some situations. In those cases, one could raise the compensations, and that is also something we are discussing.

I believe that demanding greater requirements for increasing environmental and climate benefits lies in the direction of the Miljöpartiet, even though I might be wrong, but that in itself would not lead to increased profitability but rather to being paid for requirements that are already being set.

Those who have several different types of animals, as in the example, are suddenly met with more rules. The more varied a farm is, the more rules one must take into account. I believe that we should rather reduce the red tape – I believe that is very important – and increase profitability overall. Our analysis is that size rationalizations have been driven by a lack of profitability and a great deal of complexity. That is what we want to remedy.

I have no specific question, but Emma Nohrén might be able to comment on our conclusions.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if we will resolve this in an exchange of remarks, but I am happy to continue the discussions.

What we see is that when we have, for example, area-based support, such as the one we have now which is based on size, it creates lock-in effects. The vast majority of farmers today, from the smaller agricultural enterprises, usually lease more land than they own – they rent. The one who owns the land receives, for example, a subsidy per hectare, regardless of what condition the land is in.

What I have gathered is that it can be difficult to achieve good water drainage and land in good condition. Either you get money from the EU or from someone who leases, which means you have a fixed price. The minimum is what you get in EU support. If it were instead based on what environmental and climate benefit you contribute or the condition of the land, then you would get incentives to improve the land, the drainage, and such things.

There are, therefore, many locking effects with the support system we have today. Instead, we could have a support system or an agricultural policy that focuses on making improvements all the time. Yes, it can result in more checkpoints, but it can also mean that we get increased production on land that is well-managed.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I assume the member used "you" referring to a third person.)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating in this chamber the report on animal health data and agricultural policy. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

A few weeks ago, I had a visit from two dairy farmers. It was a very interesting conversation about how they themselves were young and wanted to invest in Swedish milk. I listened to both dairy farmers – one from the Hälsinge region and one from Skaraborg – and heard them tell. They said: You know, Magnus, now in our time when we discuss in the industry, we believe in the future. It feels like there is a drive in the agricultural sector.

That is what I think we should take to heart. I am, in any case, very happy to hear that. It is enormously important signals that young farmers express joy and belief that there is money to be made in Swedish agriculture.

About three months ago, I was at another meeting with many farmers in Nässjö. When I was about to go to the station, Mr. Speaker, a farmer ran up to me and said: Can you understand – your reduction of the diesel price has given 450,000 to my farm. When did I get that last time? You really must tell others that I can now invest here at the farm.

That is interesting to hear. When I was at a fair in Norway, the Norwegians said: We are looking a lot at Sweden right now, because it seems something has happened in agricultural policy.

Mr. Speaker! It is a new era in our country. We have a government and a Minister for Rural Affairs who are working to ensure that more food is produced throughout the country. The absolutely most important issue, I believe, is that we produce more food, from south to north.

We have had a great concern in our country – it must be said. We have not been self-sufficient in so much more than wheat flour, carrots, sugar, and eggs. In fact, if we look at our pantry we see that it is half-empty, or half-full, depending on how one looks at the matter. We cannot continue to have it this way. We need to get more production and more speed in our country's cultivation. We have all the opportunities.

We heard my colleague John describe how things are and what many think and feel. We believe that with the policy we are now pursuing, it will be a new era. The fact is that we can talk a lot about what is happening, but all around our world, approximately 800 million people go to bed hungry every night, without having had food for the day.

Is there anything we can do? We can produce more food so that we can fill our pantry until it overflows, and we can deliver food to other people who really need it. I believe that is incredibly important.

We heard at the beginning here that we have adopted a food strategy. Well, we have adopted it before, so actually it is just updated. But I think that is very positive.

We adopted this food strategy in 2017. It was very positive. There, much is said about increased food production and more profitability in agriculture, and about strengthening competitiveness and increasing Sweden's food supply. But just as my colleague John said, many have not noticed it. I, at least, have not noticed it. Many of the farmers say that they noticed a huge difference. But we mean that this update is very important because there, they talk about more Swedish food on the store shelves and on the plate to strengthen competitiveness and increase profitability for our Swedish farmers. Sweden shall be better equipped. We shall strengthen our food supply.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a completely decisive issue for our country, for if we do not have food to put forward in the event of a crisis or war, we are in a bad position. And with the conditions we have in Sweden to produce more food, we can truly make a difference.

We have talked about this before. I think I will take it anyway, because I find it so interesting. In our neighboring country Finland, they have a completely different policy. I have said it before but can say it again, because there is surely someone watching this on TV right now. In Finland, they were never part of shutting everything down and thinking that food production is just something on the side. In Finland, they said: No, we never know what the future will be. Maybe we must have a production worth the name.

In Finland, they actually have a self-sufficiency rate, a food self-sufficiency rate, of 80 percent. In Sweden, it is under 50 percent. In Finland, they say that they do not need to import food, for example, barley, or anything. They are now able to supply their own population for over nine months. In Sweden, the sum is actually only a few weeks before our shelves are empty, so those we can really learn from are our Finnish friends. That is what we have also done, and I am, as I said, very happy that we are now taking real steps forward for this.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot just talk about this, it must also yield results. That is what this government has shown. I mean that we need to have 125,000 more cows in our country. We need more milk production and more meat production.

We hear when we listen that it is a different time now. We believe in the future for Swedish food production. With what we have now done and are about to do in our country, we are convinced that we will see a difference, and it is absolutely crucial.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are getting somewhat different pictures here from the government parties. From MP Widegren earlier, there was a somewhat different sound in the tone than from MP Oscarsson now.

The Swedish bourgeois government, with KD at the helm, has decided that Sweden's agriculture shall be covered by the emissions trading system ETS 2, despite the fact that the EU does not require it.

Mr. Speaker! What Magnus Oscarsson and his government are engaged in here is a Swedish over-implementation of EU rules. That is not what our farmers need. Oscarsson himself has, in debates here in the chamber, highlighted the importance of us having the same conditions for our farmers as for farmers in the countries they compete with. But now, it seems the opposite is being done from the government's side.

Even the party leader of MP Oscarsson has promised that the government will return with proposals on how agriculture and forestry shall be compensated for the cost increases that our Swedish farmers will be affected by. But the question is what the compensation will look like and when it will be presented. Would the compensation mean lower fuel prices or a reimbursement linked to consumption? What, in that case, is the whole point of this reform and of bringing agriculture into the ETS?

I think that MP Oscarsson, who is anyway the Christian Democrats' spokesperson on agricultural policy, is the right person to answer this. Why do the Christian Democrats choose to over-implement these EU rules, and how is the agriculture to be compensated?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Larsson, for the question!

The fact is that certain issues, such as this one, are for another person in my party to speak about. Just as you in your party, we have divided it among different spokespersons. But I will try to answer as well as I can.

I know that the exact question the member is asking is on the government's desk. It is looking at how one can compensate for this. But the question is very elegantly posed, I think.

I can say this. My colleague John Widegren pointed out that we have just submitted a proposal to the government on how we can achieve simpler competition for our Swedish companies. Given how things look in our country today and the changes that must be made, it is truly high time that we do something about this. A great deal lies in the competitiveness that we actually ensure that our companies are able to compete on the same terms throughout our country, regardless of whether it is in the north or in the south.

I absolutely think this is a question to ask now, but one can still listen. We have many proposals in the works. I think that these are important signals for all of Sweden's farmers.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Oscarsson for the attempt at an answer, but I can state that the Member is still in arrears with the answer. It was no answer to the question; instead, the government and Member Oscarsson are acting contrary to what one advocates in this chamber.

I also want to take the opportunity to bring up the updated food strategy. In the end, it did arrive, after a long wait. A lot of time was taken. Unfortunately, it was a disappointment in several areas.

Even within the Kristdemokraternas eget bondeförbund, there was disappointment and criticism was directed at the fact that the updated food strategy lacks clear and measurable goals. Just as the chairman of Kristdemokratiska Bondeförbundet writes, concrete and measurable goals were precisely one of the greatest expectations for the updated food strategy.

That we have measurable goals is important to see if the development is heading in the right direction. It is a tool that shows the importance of the goals and also that one follows the development. For me, it is truly difficult to understand that it has been chosen not to include these clear and measurable goals in the food strategy 2.0, so my question to Member Oscarsson is: Why is it not included?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Larsson, for the follow-up questions!

I can put it like this. When we adopted a food strategy in 2017, there were very many farmers all around Sweden who thought that it was very important and very good. Someone even said: Now I can finally invest, because you seem to believe in the future. A few years later they said: Wait a minute, I haven't noticed anything from this.

I think it is quite bold of the member to complain about this food strategy, which is part of the old one, and to think that it is as bad as the member says.

We mean the opposite, that this is something that we are now really highlighting – Swedish food and how we should increase supply in the event of a crisis or war, and with consideration for the profitability of Swedish food production and the farming community. Certainly, there has been criticism of this, but some have also said: How wonderful that this has come and is truly being highlighted with very good proposals!

As Member Larsson knows, it can be sometimes wine, sometimes water to sit in government. But with this strategy, which we have now updated, we truly show, as I tried to explain in my speech, things and investigations that are made to shed light and make a difference for the farmer.

I believe that this is absolutely crucial. And as I mentioned before, there are many who are very happy because it feels like a new era for agriculture in our country.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my support for the Social Democrats' reservation number 30.

In the report we are debating today, we address both agricultural policy and the bill An expanded collection and submission of animal health data. Animal disease data is an important source of information to be able to contribute to the work on animal health and also antibiotic resistance.

We Social Democrats want to see a fossil-free and competitive agriculture, and we want to see both conventional and organic farming increase across the entire country. It is an agricultural policy for more green jobs, increased food production, and raised ambitions within the environmental and climate areas.

Mr. Speaker! In recent weeks, our social media feeds have been filled with images from cattle releases all over the country. It is happy cows, full of spring feelings, running out onto green pastures. The cattle release has become a dear tradition, where we get to go out to the farms, meet the animals and get to know a small part of the agriculture that supports our society.

Happy cows on green fodder out in the fresh air is something the Swedish people want to see, and therefore it was pleasing that the Social Democrats' reservation to preserve the grazing requirement was voted through here in the chamber two months ago.

Animals grazing are not just a beautiful image in our landscape. They are also a reminder of the hard, vital work that takes place every day, all year round, in agriculture. From early mornings to late evenings, Swedish farmers produce high-quality food, with high requirements for animal welfare, environment, and food safety.

But Swedish agriculture is so much more than food on our plates. It is the basis for our self-sufficiency, for biodiversity, and for living rural areas across the entire country. That is why we Social Democrats clearly say that we must invest in a fossil-free and competitive agriculture that keeps the whole country alive.

Mr. Speaker! After weeks of concern over extreme drought conditions in large parts of the country, the rain that many had been waiting for finally arrived. It has been very dry in both forest and land during this spring. This is something we have learned to live with: the result of the climate changes that are becoming increasingly clear in our global environment but also here in Sweden. New heat records are being broken all the time, and severe drought in Europe means that both agriculture and the water supply are being pressured hard.

The climate transition is underway, and agriculture has a central role. It is here, on the farms, in the stables and in the fields, that the future's sustainable society is being built. Agriculture's transition is crucial for our capacity to provide for ourselves. We must focus on creating an agriculture that is both sustainable, profitable and resilient, in order to be able to provide for ourselves now but also for future generations.

As Social Democrats, we also see great opportunities in the use of biofuels in our agriculture. It is not only about producing renewable energy and fuels but also about ensuring a more sustainable agriculture and reducing the dependence on fossil fuels.

For us, it is clear that the agricultural sector should be given the right tools and resources to take advantage of these opportunities. The bioeconomy can contribute to strengthening our countryside, creating new jobs, and at the same time protecting the climate. Therefore, we see it as our task to support this transition. Agriculture should have tools to reduce its emissions and contribute to the climate transition and not be punished for doing so. Through bioeconomy, Klimatklivet, and smarter policy instruments, we can make a real transition.

Mr. Speaker! We need a Swedish agriculture that is strong but also fair, where young people want to and dare to take over. We want the generational transition to be facilitated and that we secure the supply of competence. We also want to see more relevant education and more research and innovation that is anchored in the farmers' everyday lives – and which yields real results at the farm level.

This is also about technology, plant breeding and modern genetic technology, which can help us meet both climate and food challenges. We welcome the European Commission's proposal to simplify rules for certain NGT crops. Sweden must be at the forefront here – we cannot fall behind.

The green industries and our farmers are necessary to both manage the climate transition and strengthen Sweden's food security. Therefore, we Social Democrats also want to increase the Norrland support by 60 million, so that we have food production and preparedness throughout the country.

Our supply capacity must be strengthened, both in peacetime and in crisis. We need to increase the cultivation of plant-based proteins, both for human consumption and for use as feed. By combining animal husbandry with cultivation, robust and circular systems are created where Swedish raw materials are at the center.

The choices we make play a major role. When we choose Swedish food in stores, at restaurants, and in public kitchens, we invest in our common preparedness. Therefore, we want public procurement to be steered towards Swedish, sustainable, and local to a greater extent.

Another small question that is however important for biological diversity is small-scale sheep farming, which is also a part of our cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker! The common agricultural policy within the EU, which we call CAP, is a tool that Sweden should use to its full extent. In times of unrest and increased uncertainty in the world around us, it is more important than ever that we create long-term and predictable conditions for agriculture. We have the opportunity to do this, jointly and together, with support, structure, and direction. But it also requires that we in Sweden do our part. It requires that we place agriculture high on the political agenda and that we give the industry confidence in the future.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats see Swedish agriculture as a key to the future. It is a sector full of opportunities, if we choose to invest, cooperate, and trust the strength of our farmers. Swedish agriculture plays a central role in producing high-quality and nutritious food, but agriculture also creates job opportunities and open, living landscapes throughout the country. From the joy of the cattle release to the seriousness of climate adaptation – all the way, we build Sweden strong together.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (both S) concurred.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Malin Larsson for the speech!

There were many requests in the Social Democrats' speech, and that is good. That line can also be seen in reservation number 8, which I have looked at. You also stand behind that even if you did not motion for its approval. It says the following: "We would, however, like to emphasize that the food strategy needs to be updated based on a longer time horizon with investments in new areas that truly address the needs of the agricultural and food sectors."

There was a lack of some concretization, both in the presentation and in the desire for investments in new areas – investments that are not already being made and are included in the various documents, including the food strategy, and also in others. What is it that is desired? There are two criteria, based on what can be discerned here, that such proposals should fulfill:

It should not already be done inside or outside the food strategy.

It must be things that truly address the needs of the agricultural and food sectors.

Then I wonder what Malin Larsson is thinking. I can think of one thing myself – I can help with that. We are now discussing for the future how we are to approach this regarding the generational transition. It is not concrete in the food strategy. But there are many pieces – even in the food strategy and in other documents – that could help when it comes to generational transitions.

Which concrete areas is Malin Larsson thinking of?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions! I shall see if I managed to perceive them correctly.

The food strategy is an incredibly important tool that we have in order to reach our goals, which we are highlighting here. We want an increased Swedish food supply but also an increased supply capacity, where we can produce our own input goods and make ourselves independent of rogue countries that deliver oil to us, such as Russia, among others.

Here we have agriculture as an incredible enabler, which can actually produce biofuels itself. Sweden was previously at the forefront. Now we are exporting these goods, and the development has unfortunately stalled with the SD-led government.

Then I mentioned several things that we are missing in the food strategy. We are missing the environmental and climate measures. We are missing clear goals. Here, the government is still answerable. How are we to know how it is going? Is the development heading in the right direction? Are we following the goals and so on? Are we reaching what we want? We are not doing that now when there are no goals and tools that show if we are heading in the right direction. Why are there no clear and measurable goals?

Member of Parliament Eklöf lacked concreteness, he said. I think I was very concrete and clear, for example when it came to the investments in Norrlandsstödet. But briefly, I can summarize it like this: We Social Democrats want to see more Swedish in the thought, more Swedish food on our tables and an increased sustainable food production and thus a better preparedness.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Most of what we heard were objectives. It was measures we talked about – and new areas that truly address the needs of the agricultural and food sectors.

I noted that Malin Larsson raised environmental and climate measures. There, we actually have measures. But the measures that truly benefit the sector are increased water management – check that in the food strategy – and plant breeding to cope with drier and wetter weather and so on – check that in the food strategy. It is also check on the rest of the work that we are doing.

So they pretend that it is not included, even though it is included.

When it comes to the Norrland support, we have contributed. It is a question of levels. Now there was too little money – I can agree with that. But it can be repaired in the future.

It is still just level differences we are talking about, so I think it is still a bit meager. From that perspective, reservation number 8 feels a bit separate. But there might be more areas that Malin Larsson wants to bring up, which provide support for reservation 8.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Eklöf for more questions!

It is not only we Social Democrats who think that a number of important parts are missing in the new, updated food strategy, but so does, for example, the Climate Policy Council. These are incredibly important issues that are simply connected to the future and competitiveness of Swedish agriculture.

Do you want to cling to the past and continue to use oil and be completely dependent on rogue states, as the Sverigedemokraterna want? If so, you will have to bear that. We stand for a completely different policy and completely different investments.

We are investing in the Norrland support, as I said. It is incredibly important. Sweden is an elongated country where there are completely different conditions. In the north, we have long distances. And in the winters, there are large amounts of snow, which places completely different demands on the construction of buildings and so on.

It is also required that we have a food preparedness moving forward. That is another area where we have investments in our budget.

Politics is interconnected. It is not only agricultural policy that we are discussing here today. This is connected to many other parts. It is about our municipalities and regions having the economy they need, so that they can afford to buy good food that they can serve to our elderly and children. It is also connected to the cost increases, which are pressing ordinary people. The cost increases have been driven forward by the SD-led government to an incredible extent. Many households, especially households with single mothers, are having it incredibly tough. They are struggling to even put food on the table. With the SD-led government's budget, one cannot afford to buy high-quality, nutritious, and Swedish-produced food.

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I just want to clarify – we have listeners in the room – that we have a Moderate-led government and nothing else.

The chairman is very passionate about the cattle release and speaks about the importance of grazing cattle and so on in our Swedish landscape. Yes, absolutely, it is very important.

It is however the case that dairy cows mostly graze on pasture lands around our Swedish dairy farms. The big problem we face right now concerns the amount of natural grazing land, which is too small. The animals that graze on Swedish natural grazing lands are for the most part beef cattle and sheep. We have some dairy heifers that graze even on natural grazing lands, but those grazing lands are usually too lean for it to be possible for these heifers to become full-grown dairy cows at a later stage. In that case, we need to provide supplementary feed, and we would preferably not do that on our natural grazing lands.

It was a very detailed introduction.

I actually wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the Social Democrats want us to increase the number of grazing animals. Right now, we see that the number of cows has decreased by tens of thousands over the recent years, and they are the main animals that are to graze on natural pasture lands.

I also spoke in my speech earlier about how the number of sheep has decreased – in many ways in the areas where we have a strong predator population. How do the Social Democrats want us to increase the number of grazing animals in our natural grazing lands?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Widegren for an important question!

Yes, I say the SD government because SD is the largest party in the government base. Unfortunately, it is not the Moderates who are the largest party in the government base. Then it is a Moderate prime minister.

When it comes to natural grazing lands and grazing animals, it is an incredibly important issue that the member of Parliament raises. It is of course something we also want to see. It keeps our landscapes open. Grazing lands are incredibly important for biodiversity but also for food security, I would like to say.

It is important that we constantly have breeding, that we produce new animals and that we keep the breeding animals. As the number of cattle now decreases, we see that this takes a long time. They usually only get one calf. It is rarely the case that there are more. The sheep usually get more than one lamb. It goes faster to increase the herds there.

Part of this is that there have been and still are problems with predators. Therefore, we need to reduce the wolf population but also ensure that we have a functional protection hunt. One should be able to quickly get help in the event of predator attacks.

In the food preparedness that we want to invest in, the animals and also the Norrland support are important parts. We shall, of course, have grazing animals in our entire country.

I strongly believe in the sheep farms. I believe it is faster to increase the numbers, because it goes faster there. But we clearly need to increase the number of grazing animals in the country. I would also like to see more forest grazing, which we had significantly more of in the past.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! We shall then once again clarify what the member said about the SD-led government. It is not an SD-led government, but it is a Moderate-led government. So we have clarified that.

I hear the reasoning about the grazing animals. I agree with some things. Cows usually only get one calf. That is lucky, because unfortunately they can usually only count to one. If they get two, they sometimes forget it. And it definitely takes a long time.

Our livestock is decreasing de facto quite rapidly. Would the Social Democrats be open to, for example, a reintroduction of a fodder subsidy, similar to the one we had once in time, to improve the amount of fodder? Could that be a way for the Social Democrats? And if not, why?

Regarding the occurrence of predators and the wolf, the member highlights the importance of protection hunting and fast turnaround times. What is the position of the Social Democrats on opening up § 28 even further and making it even easier to use it already upon suspicion that the predators are a threat to the grazing animals, for example?

Mr. Speaker! In her speech, Malin Larsson also spoke about the importance of generational change. There are parts in the CAP regarding support for young people and so on, but those are far too weak measures. How would the Social Democrats want it to be easier for young people to enter agriculture? It is definitely a matter of destiny. Many stand here in the chamber and say "matter of destiny" here and there in many different parts, but if we cannot have a generational change in Swedish agriculture, we will soon have nothing. What paths do the Social Democrats propose for a generational change in Swedish agriculture?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Widegren, for more questions! There were many. I will try to have time to answer all of them.

I believe tuition support was the first thing the member raised. Of course, we are willing to deliberate on everything. I have also raised that in previous exchanges of remarks here in the chamber today.

Agricultural policy is incredibly important. It is also a matter of trying to have long-term perspective. That is exactly why we Social Democrats wanted to be involved when the food strategy that we had was to be updated, instead of having a new agricultural policy and a new food strategy put in place at every new mandate period.

I clearly believe that long-term perspective in agricultural policy is incredibly important in order for people to dare to invest. It is enormously large investments that our farmers are making. It is about a lot of money.

Then we also touch a bit on this issue of generational shifts. I come from the middle of the country – people usually say the northern parts, even though it is the middle of the country. I live in Norrland, at least. There, forestry is closely linked with agriculture. It is the forest that contains the value. That is where the economic resources are.

It is now threatened. It is difficult to make generational shifts because of the species protection issue, which this government has not solved yet. One is simply stuck when one is not allowed to use one's forest, harvest, and get the money one needs. Furthermore, one receives no compensation. It is incredibly unfortunate. I see it as an absolute priority to solve the species protection issue and the compensation issue linked to it, so that our farmers in the north can make generational shifts.

When it comes to § 28 and the wolf, more may need to be done. We Social Democrats have raised the wolf issue for a long time. On the other hand, it is important that we also continue to have a license hunt.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Agricultural policy is about open landscapes, cultural history, grazing cows, food on our plates, a living countryside, entrepreneurship, the tourism industry, innovation, free trade, geopolitics, red tape, and animal welfare. And it is, to the highest degree, an EU issue.

There are few things a Liberal likes as much as getting the opportunity to talk about precisely the EU. We are, after all, Sweden's most pro-European party. But when it comes to the common agricultural policy, we are sharp critics. The common agricultural policy needs to be reformed fundamentally. When we eventually welcome Ukraine into the EU, we will also have no choice. Extensive reforms will be required.

Mr. Speaker! I take the opportunity to dwell on Ukraine. If we liberals were in charge, all Ukrainian goods imported into the EU would be duty-free. The EU should not take with one hand and give with the other. Complete duty-free status should prevail on all goods from Ukraine. I can quote today's editorial in Svenska Dagbladet: "Reintroducing EU tariffs on Ukrainian foodstuffs will cost us a lot. It results in more expensive food and lost trust."

I will link it to the debate on agricultural policy that we have here today. In these days, the duty-free status that the EU has had for Ukrainian food products is expiring. The duty-free status has been an excellent way to support the Ukrainian economy and thus the country's defense capability. It is a historical scandal that one has not succeeded in negotiating a continuation of this free trade agreement between the EU and Ukraine, which we have had since 2022. It is an enormous disappointment. In a situation where Ukraine is fighting for both its own and Europe's freedom and security, it is a big mistake to significantly worsen the trade relations between the parties.

Mr. Speaker! Since I am on the subject, I want to say that a reform of agricultural support is needed. The majority of all climate-damaging EU subsidies currently go to agriculture. We Liberals want to see significantly reduced expenditures for EU's agricultural policy. We want production subsidies to be restructured and that only support for the transition of agriculture and rural development remains.

Agriculture is important in the green transition, and it is important to secure the food supply in the event of a crisis or war. But we must reduce the support for the fossil parts of agriculture.

Mr. Speaker! Another important issue is research and innovation. It is crucial for managing precisely the green transition, not least within agriculture. And a lot is being done here.

Sweden is pushing forward and can do more regarding the EU's common rules for genetically modified products. GMO is important to be able to achieve a more climate-friendly agriculture. Both GMO and new genomic techniques can accelerate and streamline plant breeding to provide crops that are better climate-adapted, require fewer pesticides, and in other ways contribute to increased sustainability within agriculture and forestry.

Today's legislation is not adapted to the development we are seeing. We want to see liberalized GMO rules in Europe so that we can save the earth's resources and at the same time strengthen agriculture's resilience against climate change.

Mr. Speaker! The policy that is pursued needs to favor high-quality food. Swedish farmers produce food with good animal welfare and great environmental consideration, and they must be able to compete on fair terms. It is also the case that we want to see significant restrictions on long animal transports in the EU.

Mr. Speaker! I return to Sweden. Since I am now on the subject of animal welfare in connection with animal transport, I will take the opportunity to speak a little about the grazing requirement. It has already been raised in the debate here today. The debate on the grazing requirement continues, and we Liberals are working hard to ensure that it remains. Since 1988, all dairy cows in Sweden have been allowed to stay outdoors during the summer. Muzzles that are created for grazing must also be allowed to do so. Abolishing the grazing requirement would be the wrong way to go. Swedish milk is synonymous with grazing cows. Many dairy farmers would continue to let the cows out despite an abolished grazing requirement, but not all. An abolished grazing requirement would mean that certain dairy cows would not be allowed to go out. It is a development we do not want to see. We do what we can to ensure that a grazing requirement continues to exist.

Yes, it is the case that Swedish animal welfare regulations sometimes entail increased production costs. But animal welfare must have a cost. Trying to increase competitiveness by weakening animal welfare is the wrong way to go. My opinion is, furthermore, that a removed grazing requirement would lower the competitiveness for Swedish dairy products.

It is instead the EU legislation that must be tightened. The European minimum standard for animal welfare must be raised and become more like the Swedish one. Then we do not only strengthen the position of Swedish agriculture. We also make life better for very many animals in the rest of Europe. Here, my friends, there is much to be done.

We liberals have for decades worked for stronger animal protection for all animals on European farms. The liberal Member of the European Parliament Marit Paulsen led at one time the work to achieve a common European animal welfare legislation – a legislation for reduced antibiotic use and increased animal welfare. She set a minimum standard for how animals may be treated in Europe, but the work must continue.

We liberals want stronger animal welfare throughout the EU, and we want all cows to have the right to graze outdoors. With a stronger Europe, we get a stronger Sweden.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Elin Nilsson for the speech. It was extra pleasing to hear that the Liberals stand up for the grazing rights. Since governments make collective decisions, we therefore see that the Moderate-led government will stand up for it.

As I pointed out in a previous exchange, the updated food strategy has arrived, heavily delayed. In the area of environment and climate, it was a disappointment. Many believe that a step backward is being taken and that it omits how the environmental and climate goals are to be reached. These are issues that the Liberals have habitually stood up for and which they have championed.

The Climate Policy Council presented its annual report at the same time, with an in-depth look at agriculture's climate impact as well as a series of recommendations. As I said earlier, this report shows that it is entirely possible to reduce agriculture's emissions while food production increases and the level of self-sufficiency is strengthened.

The Climate Policy Council presented 13 recommendations to the government. My question to Member Nilsson is how the government will now approach these 13 recommendations from the Climate Policy Council.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Larsson for the questions and for the cheers regarding the grazing requirement. The issue is currently being negotiated. The investigation's proposal is being negotiated in the Government Offices, so we will have to see where it lands. There, we fight as hard as we can for the grazing requirement.

The Climate Policy Council's report is an important part of the government's work in these matters. I have no current updates on how the recommendations are being implemented, but my impression is that they are currently being handled in the Government Offices. What comes out of that will be a later question that I ask to return to.

I will say something about the environmental and climate goals. Agriculture is one of many important industries whose impact on the environment and climate is important to manage and reduce. An important part is to reform the CAP system. We are pushing for this at the EU level, not least in the European Parliament through the work that our liberal parliamentarian does. It is about reforming the CAP system so that the support that comes through CAP is to a greater extent used to reduce agriculture's environmental and climate impact and focus on transition. I believe that would have a great effect, not only on Swedish agriculture but on the entire EU's agricultural sector.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answers so far.

The liberal Minister for Climate and Environment has said that the transport sector's emissions do not need to decrease, but rather it is the agriculture's emissions that should do so instead. We really have to hope that they stick to the latter but perhaps also reduce the emissions from the transport sector. Now we unfortunately see increased emissions in our country.

The updated food strategy that was presented hadn't even had time to cool down when it came from the printer before there were demands to update it again and add things. It was about reaching the environmental and climate goals, but also about the lack of clear and measurable goals, which I have touched upon in previous exchanges. These are things that many have highlighted from several different sides – it is not just us who are doing it. When I visit farmers and other actors in the food chain, I hear that they want to transition. They are innovative and want to contribute. But unfortunately, this government does not seem to be as innovative and want to contribute as much.

Now we have heard that Member Nilsson is fighting for the grazing requirement, which is very pleasing. But will the Member also fight in these issues? Has the criticism been taken to heart? Will you update the food strategy to get clear and measurable goals and so that the environmental and climate goals are met?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the questions.

Both the transport sector's and agriculture's emissions must decrease. We need to work for reduced emissions in all sectors to reach our environmental and climate goals. Our ambition and what we work for is that the Swedish environmental and climate goals shall be achieved. In that, we work broadly and dedicatedly.

We have just recently received an update of the Food Strategy. There are absolutely no ambitions right now to update it again. Now it is new, so it needs to be implemented. We will have to see what effects it has. It is an ongoing work. My opinion is that it is updated and that what is on the table applies.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The problem when one arrives as number two is that the questions I had intended to ask have already been asked. The member may perhaps see it as an opportunity to develop their policy even further.

Elin Nilsson said in her speech that climate and environment are very important. We have several times during this debate pointed out that quite a lot is largely missing from the food strategy 2.0.

At the same time, we know that a large part of our food policy is governed by the EU and the common agricultural policy, which the member also touched upon in his speech.

The member said that they wanted to reduce it so that only two things remained. How do the member and the Liberals view the proposal to increase environmental compensation and have support for pasture cultivation, meadow cultivation, and those parts?

How does one want to change this? I have to phrase the question so that it doesn't become the same questions all the time. What do you see as the change in CAP, and what are you pushing for there?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

I have no details on how I want the final product to look. But the direction we want to see is that the support is restructured so that it fundamentally prioritizes precisely green transition and climate-promoting and environment-promoting measures. We view support for dryland farming or for performing system services that are good for biodiversity positively.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! That sounds good. But then we return to national policy. What we have there are the various inquiries into regulatory simplifications, which has been spoken about earlier during the debate. Then we have the major flagship that the government has announced with the food strategy 2.0.

It cannot be ignored that precisely those parts are missing there. There is very little climate and environment. There are no measurable goals. It was still included in the old strategy, which many said did not measure up to today's situation and would be updated.

There were also goals for ecological farming, certain climate and environmental measures, and so on. In the new strategy, it is rather that one moves away from the farmer and towards what we are going to do with the foodstuffs and how we are going to ship them further out of the country.

My question is: What are the Liberals fighting for now? How is it seen that the agricultural transition should take place? I believe the member when she says that it is important, but we do not see the measures.

I am very happy that the Liberals are fighting for better animal welfare and that we stand on the same side in the fight to maintain the grazing requirement. But when it comes to the climate and environmental parts of the transition of agriculture and how we are to build resilience against climate change and reduce climate emissions, I see nothing.

I would very much like to know what you are working for and how it is to be implemented.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The transition does not happen here in the chamber. It happens out there among the farmers and among those in the workforce. There is a very strong drive both in the agricultural sector and in the entire business community to transition. It is the business community that is leading the way for the green transition. We will, of course, support it in the ways we can.

An important part of that is precisely rule simplifications. Instead of having to fill out countless forms with the same information, one should instead be able to spend their time working in the operation. It is such an important thing.

Another question that I also highlighted in my speech is something that I believe would have a great effect on climate and environment. It is that one must achieve a better regulatory framework at the EU level for genetically modified products and genomic techniques so that one can develop plants and crops that are more resilient to the climate changes that we are seeing. I believe that would have a great effect.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of reservation 17 regarding the financing of agriculture. This is a debate that, in many ways, is about agricultural policy.

My speech has two parts. First, I want to talk about what the Tidö cooperation does and the Sweden Democrats' visions. Then follows the second part, which specifically concerns reservation 17.

Sweden may have the world's best food production and must increase production. What is required for that? It requires increased profitability, less hassle and management of a number of risks.

Bit by bit, the Tidö comrades are making Swedish agriculture more profitable. We are reducing the overhead costs of agriculture. We are adding more support funds to strategically important areas. We are increasing the demand for Swedish food. We are redirecting the authorities' focus to a more supportive role, and we are enabling the technical progress that Swedish agriculture wants to make.

Step by step, the Tidök comrades are making agriculture freer. We are taking several initiatives to reduce complications and administrative burden. A bit of the simplification work is finished within the food industry and in dealings with authorities. Most of it has not yet reached the farm level, but it is coming.

Furthermore, we work hard to stop or mitigate detailed regulations from Brussels, especially when they are unrealistic. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail, but we are constantly trying. But our track record is much better than that of the previous government. The more decisions that can be made at the farm level, the better.

By removing [the pests], the Tidök comrades reduce the risks for agriculture. We improve the work against new pests in agriculture and gardens. We strengthen plant breeding for agriculture. We work to ensure the availability of plant protection products. We organize new activities to tackle pests in the forest, both those that create problems for biodiversity and those that cause large costs. We facilitate water management in agriculture.

Part is added to the large whole which shall mean that Swedish agriculture leaves a negative spiral and enters a positive spiral. It shall go from low profitability, low wage character, lack of freedom, future pessimism, difficult social situation, stigmatization and recruitment problems to higher profitability, freedom, more opportunities, faith in the future, pride, high demand for education and young forces who boldly take over.

That journey has begun and continues, but it cannot be completed within this mandate period. Am I frustrated? Yes, I would have liked to see it go faster and that we had done more. But the Swedish investigative system must be allowed to proceed at its own pace before decisions are made.

Inflation and the historically large needs within the defense sector and the previously mismanaged crime policy are realities that have made the room for reform small. But several exciting demands already lie ahead of the autumn budget period. I hope that they become a reality.

The Sweden Democrats' vision of Swedish agriculture is a freer, more profitable and more secure agriculture, which proudly carries the nation's food security on its shoulders for the benefit of all citizens.

The road is long, but we on the liberal side of politics have embarked on that path. I turn to you who will vote in the parliamentary election next autumn: Let us fulfill our vision!

I will now speak about our reservation number 17, and I will raise two parts of it.

Today, many testify that it is difficult to carry out generational successions for agricultural properties. Property prices are high, and it is difficult to buy out siblings for the person who wants to take over the family farm. We therefore see that it should be investigated how a state credit guarantee can be designed to facilitate generational successions and also to facilitate for persons without any connection to agriculture to take part in such a guarantee in order to increase Swedish food production and supply capacity.

Being a livestock farmer often involves heavy work every day and every week throughout the year. Many other business owners can close their business for a few weeks and take a vacation, but the one who works with animal production cannot simply leave their animals. To take a vacation, the farmer as a business owner often must personally pay someone to perform daily supervision of the animals.

When the economy is doing well, it is easier to arrange relief, but despite the Tidö parties increasing profitability in the industry, there will always be times with pressured profitability for some. Some solve this by never taking a vacation, which entails a great risk both socially and health-wise and, ultimately, also for the animals that the farmer is responsible for.

Further education can also suffer, which can affect the company's development opportunities in terms of both profitability and environmental friendliness.

Animal keepers must be given better opportunities for substitution. A better functioning system for substitution could also make it easier for animal keepers to combine work with private life. Successions could also be facilitated as a result, as I believe that the young people would like to know that there is a guarantee for a minimum amount of leave.

For all these reasons, we believe that it should be investigated how a state co-financed support for substitution services for livestock producers, aimed at social sustainability, could be designed. Such a support should be able to provide the opportunity for a guaranteed breathing space that is known to occur regardless of how the economy looks. The support should be able to provide increased opportunities for further education and provide help in personal crisis.

I believe that reservation 17 fits well into the vision of a freer, more profitable and safer Swedish agriculture.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Eklöf speaks warmly of his Tidö colleagues. The Tidö colleagues have, with the Sweden Democrats at the forefront as the largest party in the government support, now decided that Sweden's agriculture shall be covered by the emissions trading system ETS 2 despite that the EU does not require this, as I previously said.

The government has, therefore, nevertheless decided on this. The committee members and Member Staffan Eklöf have also not spoken about how the Swedish farmers are to be compensated for the deterioration of competitiveness that this will entail. It does not make our farmers freer or more profitable, which the Member emphasized as very important in his speech.

In a special debate during the spring of 2022 on the economic situation within the green industries, Member of Parliament Eklöf said in a speech: ”We can offer a different opposition to the EU's proposals that harm Sweden, and a conservative government will not over-implement EU rules.”

But, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the Tidö comrades and the Sweden Democrats are doing now. They are over-implementing the EU rules for our Swedish farmers. My simple question is: Why then?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for the question!

When it comes to ETS 2, the Sweden Democrats have – without criticizing others in the Tidö cooperation – clearly stated that our position has consistently been that this shall not affect food production and that farmers shall receive full compensation. So that was said, and that is also how it has become. Consequently, farmers will be harmless in this settlement, and that is the important thing in the matter.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for the brief answer!

The Speaker speaks of the Tidö cooperation in very warm and positive terms, but here you do not seem to have been in agreement. Despite the fact that you speak well of the cooperation, you have very many reservations – I could count at least 16 – in the report. Given the number of reservations, perhaps you are still not that satisfied with the Tidö cooperation.

The emission allowances in ETS 2 will not be free. This is going to be expensive, and we do not know today what the prices will land on. The government promises, just as the member pointed out, that everyone affected will be fully compensated for the increased prices. But it does not appear how the compensation is to be designed and what it is expected to cost the taxpayers.

It seems that one continues in the same old ruts when talking about compensation. What people and companies need when the emissions trading makes fossil fuels more expensive is not compensation or subsidies that will neutralize the higher fuel prices. What is needed is a transition so that we can get out of the fossil dependency as soon as possible.

Why did the SD government choose this path instead of doing the right thing and ensuring that agriculture can transition and get rid of its fossil dependency? Instead, you choose to over-implement some EU rules that you will compensate for fully. I cannot quite make sense of this, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What Malin Larsson is referring to is that they had a good solution, they thought, with a high reduction obligation. She also implies that the reduction of the tax on agricultural diesel would contribute.

I can say that it would have been completely catastrophic for Sweden to stick to that course. It is about extremely high fuel prices. If you live in the city, you can of course choose to leave the car, but for agriculture, it would have meant very negative things both for private individuals and for food production.

Just by reducing the reduction obligation, we significantly lowered the costs for farmers. I have been out to various farms and received figures somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 per farm. It is considered that this is a very good change.

One of these farms runs only on HVO. How does that work? Well, it is about what the Sverigedemokraterna have warned about for many years. High reduction obligations and the blending of HVO and other biofuels create a situation where demand and supply do not meet, and one then gets large price increases on the biofuels.

When we reduced the reduction obligation, the diesel price went down overnight by 4.50, but HVO went down by 6 kronor. It is truly a receipt that the Sverigedemokraterna were right. If one had additionally continued on the curve that was forecasted for the blending of fuels, one would have ended up at completely astronomical prices for biofuels. Sverigedemokraterna saved Swedish agriculture with the reduction obligation reduction.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! In a green and sustainable society, agriculture is central. Swedish agriculture has always been an important part of the Swedish self-image as well as an important factor in societal development. Good harvest years have historically given a prosperous society. So it can be again, and so it needs to be, by ensuring our access to food produced locally, sustainably, and organically. This is part of a green transition that creates jobs throughout the country.

Sweden needs to raise the ambition for its self-sufficiency rate from 50 percent to 80 percent and introduce emergency stockpiles for food.

For us in Vänsterpartiet, it is also important with a stronger ecological agriculture. It has several advantages, as chemical pesticides and artificial fertilizers do not need to be used. It is good for the environment and also good from a preparedness perspective.

We want to provide support for the transition from conventional agriculture to organic. It gives us stronger biodiversity as well as improved animal welfare. The support we want to see is directed both towards the transition and towards production. We also want to see an increase in the grant for support for grazing lands.

Mr. Speaker! A strong agriculture is needed if we are to manage the food supply, just as a strong agriculture within nature's boundaries is needed for us to manage the climate transition. To talk about agriculture's challenges is not to be critical of farming as such, on the contrary. It is, however, de facto that today's agriculture produces large climate emissions, and it drives climate change. We need to do something about this together. If we do not address the problems that exist linked between agriculture, climate, and biodiversity, we will do ourselves a disservice now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Chemical control is still the most common control method against unwanted plants and animals in agriculture. Chemicals from the control have negative effects on biodiversity and can affect human health in both the short and long term. Rich biodiversity is necessary for our food supply and contributes, among other things, to pollination and the control of pests.

The use of chemical pesticides is still too high in conventional agriculture in Sweden. In organic farming, however, very few pesticides are permitted. I will give an example: For every ton of harvested organic potatoes, nature is spared 50 liters of pesticides.

Mr. Speaker! Climate change leads to changed precipitation and an increased frequency of extreme weather. The risk of heavy rainfall is increasing, while longer periods of drought are becoming more common. This will place different demands than before on agriculture's water management, such as ditches, drainage, embankments, and irrigation systems, and also in relation to groundwater, natural watercourses, small bodies of water, and wetlands. Here, strengthened support for agriculture's water management is needed.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Left Party believe that strengthened public support is needed to promote the production and processing of plant-based foods. This could involve the development of new foods or new cultivation methods. We know that a diversity of crops reduces risks and the vulnerability of agriculture.

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

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that the compensation level should be increased so that full cost coverage can be provided to farmers. This is important, not least since the Swedish grazing requirement is currently under threat from parts of the industry and from several political parties. We do not believe that worsened animal welfare is an appropriate way to strengthen Swedish agriculture and therefore also want to maintain the cows' right to pasture.

Mr. Speaker! In order to stimulate more young people to take over small and medium-sized farms, in both cultivation and animal husbandry, instead of these being bought up by larger farms, we believe that measures are required.

LRF Ungdomens exemplary report Many want – but few can highlights both the situation analysis and proposals for measures. In the report, it is stated that 90,000 farms have been decommissioned in Sweden over the last 30 years and that the self-sufficiency rate has fallen from 75 percent to 50 percent. The land continues to be cultivated, but by fewer and significantly larger farms. Barely 2,000 companies today account for half of the total production value of Swedish agriculture.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that several of the proposals in the report should be realized.

Many older farmers who are facing a succession have for a long time operated their farms without profitability. For a younger person to be able to buy or take over such a farm, in addition to the purchase price, money is also required for investments to be able to achieve profitability in the business. In several countries within the EU, the European Investment Bank can provide loan guarantees for half of the loan. Through this, the banks' security becomes greater. Here in Sweden, unfortunately, there is not such a system.

We in Vänsterpartiet consider, in line with LRF Ungdomen, that there are strong reasons to work towards such a system being introduced in Sweden as well, in order to strengthen young people's opportunities for capital acquisition to buy or take over small or medium-sized farms.

Mr. Speaker! Another good proposal from LRF Ungdomen is to investigate how an establishment loan for young people can be designed. Similar to the CSN loan, it would have a subsidized loan part and a grant part, with a greater possibility to borrow larger sums on favorable terms. I move for approval of reservation number 18, which concerns exactly this.

According to LRF Ungdomens survey, in many cases today, smaller farms are being bought up by older farmers who have more capital. This leads to a greater concentration of land ownership and makes it more difficult for young people to start smaller farms. This is something we simply need to change.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving to approve the Centerpartiet's reservation 9 under point 5. Even though I stand behind all of the Centerpartiet's reservations, one must, as you know, for the sake of time, content oneself with moving to approve at least one.

Every other bite we eat is imported. That might not be something one wants to hear, Mr. Speaker, when the world is shaking. However, it is the reality. Sweden is at the bottom of the EU when it comes to food self-sufficiency. In the north, it is even worse. There, we are talking about 25–30 percent self-sufficiency. What we import is dependent on functioning logistics, stable global conditions, and the goodwill of others. It is not an entirely reassuring plan if the crisis or the war were to come.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture has recently presented proposals for emergency grain stocks to be built up in Norrland, which several have raised today. It is perhaps not so strange given how self-sufficiency looks. Good, yes, absolutely! But the cultivation? That should take place in the south, they say, because the growing season in the north is too short.

No, that is not quite right, if one dares to think a bit outside the box. At Agro Park in Öjebyn outside Piteå, test cultivation has been carried out, which has shown that winter wheat of bread wheat quality can actually be grown up there. It results in a good harvest of high quality. Hushållningssällskapet Norrbotten-Västerbotten points out that it is not only the climate that is an obstacle. On the contrary, it is a matter of political will and money.

To get a clearer picture of this, I chose to travel together with a Center colleague to the grain farmer Erik Bäckström in Stöcke outside Umeå. The answer was clear from him as well, namely that it is possible to grow more grain in the north – even winter wheat. It is not the opportunities that are lacking, but it is the determination.

Mr. Speaker! In times when food has become a part of our security policy, it should be obvious that we cultivate where we can, not just where we usually do. I would like to quote the former chairman of LRF in Västerbotten, Arne Lindström. He usually says the following: ”Some countryside somewhere will always provide for us, so why not our own?”

For decades, agriculture has unfortunately become more of a burden than a possible dream for many – all because profitability has fallen to a level where many actually cannot survive on their farms. It is terrible. When more and more people shut down their operations, it undeniably becomes quiet on our fields. It is not a long-term plan that holds up for a country like Sweden, where we more than ever need to take control of our food production. In today's uncertain world, we should not be dependent on others on the other side of the globe to arrange our dinner. Or should we?

Mr. Speaker! How do we make this better? First and foremost, agriculture is not rocket science, it is common sense. If the state provides better conditions and not a regulatory framework that requires a half-doctoral thesis to navigate, we can actually see more farms begin to flourish again. When more small-scale farms get a chance to grow, we can create a decentralized food supply where food is produced close to the consumers, close to you and close to me. Then we get the lush landscapes we all like so much to both live and vacation in.

Yes, we are talking about political priorities. It is time for the state to release the tax and regulatory burden even for our farmers. I know that Magnus Oscarsson has led an investigation that has looked at reducing the regulatory burden for our farmers. That is very good. You presented the investigation today, and I watched the press conference. Excellent! But as always, one can wish for more, and so can I. I wish that we could go one step further. Not least, we need to look at the taxation.

It is actually crazy that farmers who barely have margins are to be seen as tax bases when we should actually see them as one of our most important security resources. It is our farmers who keep society's preparedness under their arms, who ensure that we have something to eat if the situation becomes tough. We cannot have high preparedness in theory and leave the countryside to its fate in practice.

Mr. Speaker! When we give our farmers the right conditions, we are investing in a stronger and more secure future for all of Sweden. In return, we get a countryside that lives, not just survives. Imagine a Sweden where it smells of freshly mown hay in the summer, where we can visit farms and buy fresh produce directly from those who have grown and harvested it. It is a decentralization that I truly want to see. But it also requires measures for increased profitability, even if it means that the state has to take its hand out of the farmers' pockets, seek money elsewhere, or reduce its own spending.

Mr. Speaker! I and the Center Party want a Sweden where we once again see farmers as a common important resource, where we have a food production that is both profitable and sustainable and where our countryside can flourish both literally and figuratively. I have also introduced a motion on this in the Riksdag, but I am a hundred percent sure that the motion will not receive any support, much like approximately 98 percent of all other motions. But the motion is in any case in line with a committee initiative that I and my center colleagues tried to initiate in the Committee on Taxation.

Now I see that there are some people here from the Committee on Taxation, and therefore it is very appropriate that I repeat this. We proposed a review of the state's levies on farmers and for the food chain all the way to the store. There are many taxes and fees from primary production to the store that could be reviewed and lowered. But the interest at that time was very limited, to put it mildly.

But shame on those who give in, Mr. Speaker. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has now invited Anna-Karin Hatt and Centerpartiet to discuss issues concerning improved food production, which we appreciate. We have prepared a wish list of measures within agriculture and food supply, which we are placing on the plate ahead of our party leader's conversation with Ulf Kristersson. If you have not read the list, I will tell you about the points here. Drumroll and hold onto your hats! There are seven points.

New national goal: Produce at least 80 percent of the food that is possible to produce in Sweden.

Quickly identify which fees and costs can be reduced within the food chain.

Lower the tax for companies within agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture through an agricultural deduction.

Halving the number of agricultural controls – which I hope will happen, Magnus Oscarsson – through a review of existing regulations and a reshaping of today's control organization.

Re-establishing emergency stocks for agricultural inputs.

Remove the wage requirement for labor immigration that affects important labor on the farms.

Invest 50 billion in the countryside during the next parliamentary term. Those are some nice billions that you can reflect on.

If Ulf Kristersson and the government are prepared to agree on a food policy in line with the requirements, we in the Centerpartiet are ready to cooperate to increase Sweden's food production.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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