Fisheries policy

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! Fish is a common resource that lives and operates freely from man's established national borders. We know that several stocks today are heavily threatened. In order to work for a more sustainable future for fish, we also need to seek solutions outside of Sweden's borders. The EU's common fisheries policy aims to stop overfishing and depletion, protect consumers, and secure the livelihoods of professional fishers.

The Moderates appear to fundamentally take advantage of the entire country's development power, growth potential, and employment opportunities. People and companies across the country shall be able to grow and develop. Therefore, we want to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish companies and create opportunities for increased food production. This also applies to the fishing industry and blue food.

Scientific recommendations form the basis for the quantities of fish that may be caught each year under the EU's common fisheries policy. Thus, the data underlying these scientific recommendations become very important. One problem is that reliable data on the status of fish stocks are lacking in order to be able to assess the size of more local stocks.

Each member state is thereafter responsible for ensuring that its own decided quotas are not exceeded. It is therefore important to have a well-functioning control system. Unfortunately, however, it is not the case that all member states comply with the existing rules on control. This is naturally not acceptable, and Sweden must therefore work to ensure that the EU's control program for the common fisheries policy is tightened.

Aquaculture, or aquaculture, is the cultivation of all kinds of animals and plants in water and is a growing industry in the Swedish countryside with great potential both for our food production and by reducing problems with eutrophication and overfishing in our seas and lakes. We need to create better conditions for aquaculture in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We need to advocate for the Baltic Sea and the Baltic fish so that many generations after us can enjoy the greatness of the water that surrounds our world-unique archipelago. This we need to do with more and stronger measures.

Measures that give the Baltic Sea the opportunity to recover will also increase the opportunities for an improved and increased food supply for us humans. It is about food production of processed products from Baltic fish that are unique for our professional fishers and producers along the coast.

Madam Speaker! I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The Baltic Sea Plan, the management plan for the Baltic Sea's stocks of cod, herring - or sprat - and sprat, is many years old. It needs to be evaluated and revised. The testimonies are many from fishermen along our coast about nearly wiped-out fish stocks and warning signs of small and thin fish.

The Riksdag has, at the initiative of the Moderaterna, decided that Sweden in the EU shall work to ensure that a review of the current management plan for the Baltic Sea is carried out. The plan shall be based on new, evidence-based knowledge regarding the various fish stocks in the Baltic Sea and their biological interactions. The Moderaterna have also long advocated for the issue that fishing quotas should be based on scientific facts that ensure long-term sustainable stocks.

A sustainable fisheries policy presupposes that there are reliable data on the vitality of fish stocks. However, it is a recurring problem that there is a lack of secure data on the condition of the stocks, including for the cod in the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, there are missing scientific criteria to be able to assess the size even of more local stocks, such as herring and sprat, in the Baltic Sea. The data on which the quotas are based today need to become better and more reliable.

Trawling is an issue of importance for the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea, and it has been discussed for a long time. The Moderates have pushed to move the trawling limit along the Baltic Sea, and during the previous parliamentary term, we gathered seven of the eight parties in the Riksdag to stand behind either a trial move of the trawling limit or a limitation of the fishing allowed inside the trawling limit. The previous government started the work on a small scale in smaller areas. The current government has scaled up the project to cover the entire Baltic coast.

Overall, the Moderates have for a long time actively and purposefully pushed for the issue of better conditions for the Baltic Sea's recovery. During the previous parliamentary term, we gathered a majority in the Riksdag to push the then government with the Social Democrats and the Green Party forward, not only for the relocation of the trawling limit but also for a revised management plan for the Baltic Sea and more reliable data.

Both in the government statement and in the budget bill, the government's high ambitions for the marine and water environment are clear.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is the chair of the EU, and during our presidency, the Council of Ministers is expected to decide on the Commission's communication on the common fisheries policy today and tomorrow. It is a fisheries and ocean pact for sustainable, science-based, innovative and inclusive fisheries management. Sweden thus has a unique opportunity to highlight the Riksdag's clear will for a changed approach for more sustainable fishing in the Baltic Sea within the framework of the EU's common fisheries policy. I look forward to the government's work in moving the issue forward in the EU, where Council conclusions are expected in June.

Madam Speaker! Control and supervision are the foundation for order and tidiness, so also in fishing. The Moderates have long wanted to tighten the control of fishing. It is necessary that the EU's common fisheries policy is followed, and Sweden works to ensure that a follow-up of the EU's control program for the common fisheries policy is tightened. It is important to ensure sustainable fishing but also to give Swedish fishers the opportunity to compete on equal terms.

Madam Speaker! Globally, almost every other fish consumed is farmed. In addition to contributing to food production and creating jobs, sustainable aquaculture can also contribute to reducing problems with eutrophication and overfishing in our seas and lakes. Farmed fish is often linked with our neighboring country Norway, but we need to create better conditions for entrepreneurs in Sweden who farm blue food.

Madam Speaker! It is an eventful half-year for fisheries policy. During the Swedish presidency in the EU, a future direction for the common fisheries policy will probably be decided. The hopes and expectations are many and great. I look forward with confidence to the government's work in the negotiations.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Johanna Hornberger for the speech. In many respects it was good, and I share many of the views. However, I have a couple of questions.

We talk a lot about the situation in the Baltic Sea and how it looks for our various important fish species. One of these is the eel, which has decreased by nearly 95 percent in a fairly short time. We have taken various measures. We have practically banned eel fishing and significantly reduced the number of fishers who still receive licenses for eel fishing. Still, the eel is struggling to recover. We and many experts believe that hydropower kills quite many eels during their migration.

Unfortunately, the government has paused the environmental work regarding hydropower. How long does one intend to pause it? When does one intend to resume the work? Or does one even intend to resume the work with environmental assessment to ensure that the eel and other migratory fish species are given the opportunity to migrate on their own and be able to develop?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Tomas Kronståhl for the question.

There is a broad majority in the Riksdag on how fisheries policy should be handled, and I think that is good precisely from my focus on the Baltic Sea. I believe this also applies to the eel. Sweden is incredibly successful in its management and preservation of the eel. We know this, not least considering the recent negotiations in the EU, where, within the framework of the EU, the protection of eel was increased by extending the fishing ban from three to six months.

Many fantastic initiatives are underway to protect the eel from hydropower, including Ålfonden. It is about releasing eels and helping the eel to live in symbiosis with us humans when we need the energy that hydropower provides, including small-scale hydropower. I look forward to a continuation of the work with small-scale hydropower, and I hope that we can continue to make use of it.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! I received no clear answer as to when the work will be resumed. It would be a most heartening effort if it happens as soon as possible because we see that measures such as the release of eels and other things do not increase the numbers. I believe that we should work hard on this.

It is positive that even this government is testing the relocation of the trawling limit. I believe it is an important measure that needs to be implemented as soon as possible, because it is starting to become urgent for the herring and the sprat in the Baltic Sea. The trial does not need to be investigated much more but should be put into action. Let us ensure that it actually happens, because it can make a big difference.

Johanna Hornberger previously pointed out that there is a lot of research and measures being taken to try to achieve this. We also have predators such as seals, cormorants, and others that live on herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea, and in at least some places, the seals are doing poorly. Can the government consider reconsidering the decision on seal hunting and expanding this hunting to achieve a balance, and also push forward in the EU so that we can begin trading with seal products?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! The member's questions are close to my heart, and we stand close to each other in everything the member raised.

I will start at the end, with the seal and the cormorant. The Moderates have for a longer period advocated that the hunting of both seal and cormorant needs to be expanded, for the reasons the member raised. Hopefully, we will soon make progress, but just as the member mentions, it is necessary that we also achieve change in the EU. When it comes to the trawling limit, the project has been expanded. From the previous government launching it on a smaller scale, this government has now expanded it to the entire Baltic Sea.

The report that was recently released by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management shows exactly what the member says, namely that significant progress has been made in the work and that it is expected to be launched as early as the 2024 fishing season and that it is even - as I understand it is reported - proceeding faster than the schedule.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to adhere to our rules of debate. I apologize if I overstepped last time.

Madam Speaker! I really appreciated Johanna Hornberg's speech. I agree with much of what the member says. These are important issues. In these issues, there has also often been great consensus in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and in the Riksdag, not least when it concerns the major work that the Environmental Goals Commission did when it submitted a report, with all parties in the Swedish Riksdag behind it, to the government two years ago. It has since been on referral and has been well handled.

It shows the totality of the marine issues. What we do on land affects what we do in the sea, what we do on the coast affects the fishing and the fishing in turn affects, and so on. The big move there was ecosystem-based management, i.e., that the sea and climate are connected, that these are such large issues that we would actually need a marine environment law that ensures we need to take these issues into account and that every government should produce a marine environment bill at every new government accession.

This was to become a bill to the Riksdag, and it lay on the table of the S and MP government and was scheduled for last spring. Then it was a Social Democratic government, and it did not submit it during the half-year they sat. And now we have a new government, a bourgeois government, which in its spring revision of the budget said that there will not be one.

My question to the member is: Is this also a temporary pause as with the hydropower, and will we ever see this work become a reality? Will there be any marine environment bill?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Nohrén for the question. We have stood in these speaking chairs earlier and debated the exact same issue, regarding the Environmental Goals Commission and the bill that was prepared.

As I mentioned in my speech, the government has high ambitions when it comes to sea and water. Whether they can be linked to just this bill and when it will or will not arrive, I do not know any more than the member knows, but we will probably have to wait patiently for the government to get through its first year, handle an economic winter with all that it entails, a large and rapid task for the trawling limit and negotiations in the EU regarding the large fisheries package and negotiations on the control regulations within the common fisheries policy.

So, many other large and important advances are being made for the fishing industry and for our seas and waters in other ways. I simply have to return to the question.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Just as the member says, we stood here about half a year ago and had the same debate. At that time, the bill was supposed to eventually be submitted, but now the government has explicitly stated that it will not be submitted – it is explicitly stated in the supplementary budget. Funds have been removed to introduce it. The funds that were in the budget were also intended so that an offensive and good maritime policy could be pursued, which of course would also contribute to better sustainable fishing.

For me, it sounds false when the member now says that the government has high ambitions while one of the low-hanging fruits is not becoming a reality. The question is again: Does the member believe that it will only be pushed into the future because of the great work that the member says the government has, or is it simply a scrapped proposal?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! I will say what I believe, because as I said in my previous contribution, I do not know. Now it stands as it does in our government bill, but it could be that proposals from the Environmental Goals Board are developed in a different way, in a different context. That is why I say that it may be difficult to answer the explicit question that the member poses.

What I know, and what I can say, is that the government has a high ambition regarding seas and waters and that it can be expressed in many different ways. The bill that the member refers to is one part of an important work that has been done in parliament. When it comes, however, to how it is to be launched or if the government considers that another piece of work is more important right here and now, it may be that one has to be a little patient. With those words, I may, once again, perhaps leave the member somewhat without an answer.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here now to debate the fisheries policy. It is an area where many want to see changes but where we see that quite little is happening right now.

It is an immensely important issue: If we fail to manage our fish stocks, it affects the entire ocean's ecosystem. A healthy ocean is the prerequisite for us to also manage our land-based ecosystems and the climate crisis we are in.

I want to say already now that I stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations, but for the sake of time, I only move for approval of reservations 2 and 9.

Madam Speaker! I believe that when many think of lakes and seas, it is something that they have a fairly good memory of - it is something that most people appreciate being by, swimming in and sailing on. To stare out over a still surface of water is one of the most relaxing things one can do. It gives peace to the soul.

But that glittering water surface can also sometimes be a curse. Because it prevents us from seeing what is happening beneath the surface. Had we done that, I believe we would have pulled the emergency brake a long time ago. Because where there used to be a bustling, healthy ecosystem, major changes have occurred. When we do not have these reference points to go back to, or images that can show the entire lake landscape or sea landscape, it is difficult to understand. But we must trust the researchers. And I can say that just during the twenty years that I have dived, major changes have occurred beneath the surface.

When we talk about fishing, it is important to remember that we have fishing in both lakes, rivers, streams, and our seas. Today I will primarily speak about the Baltic Sea, but we must not forget lake fishing and that it is also in a rather vulnerable position, both when it comes to predation and with environmental toxins and other things.

If one were to look out over the Baltic Sea now and look at a picture from further back in time, one would see these major changes. Almost all of our large predatory fish and even larger specimens of fish have disappeared. We see that the cod has collapsed. Pike and perch have almost disappeared, and the herring is missing inside the archipelago. Instead, we have received sprat, a small fish that has increased by almost 50 times.

Such a small shrimp, what harm does it do? Well, it eats the small crustaceans that eat the algae that grow when we have eutrophication. Without the crustaceans, we get algae that live on the eutrophication and which shade out the long-lived algae. With overfishing and removal of large fish, we then get poor conditions even at the coast. It becomes a self-playing piano, while at the same time eutrophication contributes to reduced recruitment of fish.

Unfortunately, we do not learn from history, Madam Speaker. One can look in refuse heaps from America's indigenous people, 400-500 years back, and find ear stones, otoliths, from cod. They are made of the same material as our teeth, so they are quite easy to find even after a long time. One can analyze them, and then it was seen that the average cod they ate was 1.4 meters. The average cod at the Gothenburg fish auction in 1900 was 1.1 meters. Today, the minimum size to be allowed to take the cod is 30-38 centimeters depending on the fishing area. We have thus fished away the large individuals and moved down to the smaller ones.

We have seen this. The research pointed it out. Still, we continued to fish. We did not take the measures we needed, and now we have a cod fishing ban in the Baltic Sea.

The herring is now showing the same tendencies. Inshore near the coast, there are no large individuals. Those who are of the right size for human consumption are gone, and we get a stock where the biomass is still the same but the fish are more numerous and smaller.

This is serious and something that should set off alarm bells in our heads. Instead, we scale back, reduce a little, nibble at the margins - and that is what we did with the cod as well. When the cod disappeared off the coast of Canada over twenty years ago, the emergency brake was pulled. It was believed that there would be a cod fishing ban for two years, but the cod has still not recovered. If we do nothing now, we might not have any herring fishing in the Baltic Sea at all.

I and Miljöpartiet see that this is of the utmost importance. We must take the measures that are needed. It is written in the common fisheries policy that one can have a precautionary approach, a precautionary principle. If one sees tendencies that something is not working, one can pull the emergency brake.

We will also take an ecosystem-based approach and look at all the species together. Therefore, we believe that we must significantly reduce the herring and sprat quotas in the Baltic Sea. It is not possible to simply move the fishing, because if we have the same fishing pressure, that fish will be taken somewhere else.

Of course, we must do this jointly with our colleagues in the EU, and it is incredibly important that we do so. Just as the previous speaker from the Moderaterna said, we must also see what the condition is in the stock, if the fish are doing well, what the genetic version looks like, and so on. One must look at more than just biomass.

We also heard in an exchange of remarks about the experiment of moving the trawling limit out. The committee has agreed that we should move the trawling limit out, but what is currently happening is an experiment where the limit is moved in in some places but not in others. It is to be able to compare data, they say. But the thing is that if we move the trawling limit out, we know that we will get a reduced fishing pressure at the coast, and that is important for the entire ecosystem. We have a precautionary principle which says that we must take the measures we can to preserve this.

We in Miljöpartiet say: Move the trawling limit now! Do not conduct any experiments! We cannot afford three more lost years. And who wants to be a reference area where the trawling limit is near the coast? As long as the quotas remain the same, they will instead experience a higher fishing pressure.

We also want to see a ban on industrial fishing. It is about the large boats that take up large amounts of herring pelagically, of which 90 percent become animal feed and do not go to human consumption. It was forbidden in the Baltic Sea previously but is now permitted. These boats take up incredible amounts. One boat can in a day take up more than what the fishermen on the coast in certain areas do in ten years.

Other measures must also be taken for the marine environment work. The government's cuts to the marine environment work and the environmental monitoring will have devastating consequences. We heard about the importance of looking at the controls, but it is not possible if we do not have the money and cannot manage the permits.

Last but not least, we must take the big picture and ensure that we get a marine environment law where we introduce the proposals from the Environmental Goals Commission. Then we will have a new floor to stand on so that we can move forward.

I want to thank you for the debate we have here today. But this is too important to just do an experiment. We must move the trawling limit and reduce the herring quotas now!

(Applause)

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the presentation! It was very interesting, and I agree with much of it. Especially interesting was the story about the cod that were 1.4 meters long. I agree that it is deeply problematic with the cod fishing that is collapsing in the Baltic Sea.

I did not, however, hear that so much was said about the West Sea. Despite everything, the largest part of Swedish fishing is conducted on the west coast. In an interview with SVT Väst on April 6, MP Nohrén stated that bottom trawling should be banned, it is somewhat unclear if this applies to all bottom trawling and also for human consumption, this following a regrettable incident in Lysekil where a crime was likely committed which led to protected spiny dogfish being found dead.

Because of this, Miljöpartiet now wants to punish an entire profession. Swedish fishing is world-leading in selective fishing and environmental consideration. Even though there is room for improvements, it appears quite ill-considered of Miljöpartiet to propose a total ban on bottom trawling along the west coast.

My question is whether Member of Parliament Emma Nohrén is aware that this would mean the end of Swedish shrimp fishing and that it would hit many coastal communities, such as Smögen and Strömstad, which benefit from the tourism surrounding fresh-caught shrimp, hard.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Beatrice Timgren! I believe it was from an interview from last year when it was discovered at home in Lysekil that there was a large number of spiny dogfish under one of the fishing boats in the fishing harbor. Spiny dogfish is a red-listed species. Only 1-2 percent remain of the former stock. The spiny dogfish was previously one of our most common sharks. It is also one of those that has the longest reproduction time. They do not become sexually mature until they are 24-25 years old, and then they have a gestation period of two years. When they are caught as bycatch, it is a bit like catching elephants, so it is very serious.

It was, however, a legal fishery that had been conducted. On the other hand, it was illegal not to throw them back immediately. So that is how the law looks when it comes to sharks and rays.

From the Green Party's side, we are pushing for a ban on trawling starting in protected areas. Today, trawling is indeed conducted there. But what we are actually saying is a ban on destructive fishing methods. These are words that do not always fall easily on everyone's lips, because what is destructive in one place can work in another. Certain types of trawling, pelagic trawling and such, do not affect the bottom, but it is primarily bottom trawling that we are against. On the other hand, we think it should be prohibited in protected areas such as our national parks - yes.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the answer and the clarification! I agree that this situation with the "pigghajarna" is very tragic. It is wrong, and crimes have been committed. But it is not right to punish an entire professional group.

As said, if one were to ban this along the entire west coast, it would mean that in the future one would have to stop eating Swedish-produced shrimp and need to buy more imported shrimp.

When it comes to Swedish fishing, very selective methods have actually been developed specifically to protect the seabed. Does Member Nohrén believe that we should still be able to eat Swedish-caught shrimp in Sweden?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I really hope that we can continue to eat shrimp.

As I have tried to explain, trawling has become a simplification. It is a destructive fishing method. Trawling in the wrong place results in greater damage than what corresponds to what is caught.

When it comes to shrimp fishing, the trawl workshop at SLU has, among others, developed several different trawls that run on the bottom. Some of them work. And the Swedish trawls are absolutely better than many others.

We had a fantastic crayfish catch before. But it was struck down because of the reduced minimum size for the crayfish. That made it easier to trawl up the crayfish again, which is very unfortunate. But we can see that with certain regulations, one can steer towards better methods.

I believe that the vast majority agree that there is no part of the sea that is completely protected from bottom trawling. If we have a protected area, it should be protected from the bottom upwards. We therefore want to see a ban on trawling in protected areas, and we want to see a ban against and a phasing out of destructive fishing methods. But that does not mean that we are not going to eat certain fish and shellfish, because there are methods and certain new tools being developed that mean we might be able to take them above the bottom. And, just as the member said, some of these tools are already in use.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats are, just like other parties in this chamber, pushing for a sustainable fisheries policy. The aim is that the ocean's resources shall be managed in the long term and that humans shall be able to conduct a sustainable fishery that minimizes the negative impact on the marine environment. At the same time, the interests of professional fishers, recreational fishers, and the coastal population shall be taken into account.

The Christian Democrats want living archipelagos with room for residents, businesses, and tourism. Fish shall primarily be caught to serve as human food. Fishing shall be long-term sustainable, and the marine environment shall be preserved. A fishing yield that is too large benefits no one but results in the long-term extinction of both the fish and the fishing.

Fisheries policy is closely linked to marine environment policy. The seas constitute sensitive ecosystems where the different species have important roles. If a species disappears or decreases significantly, the balance in the seas' sensitive ecosystems is disrupted.

In recent years, there has been a positive development in the stocks of some species, while it remains a problem for others, not least in the Baltic Sea as we have heard here earlier. The work within the EU, where fisheries policy is primarily designed, therefore needs to continue with a holistic focus on the sea and fishing.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish fishing industry is not only subject to a regulatory framework, but it is subject to many different and sometimes even conflicting rules. A highly detailed regulatory framework at the EU level regulates almost everything in fisheries policy. In addition to this comes national legislation and, last but not least, a number of agencies' regulations. The mass of regulations is perceived as extremely burdensome by the industry. In the agricultural sector, many positive things happened during the alliance government when it came to regulatory simplification. But the fishing industry has not experienced this happening in the same way for fishing, neither at the national level nor within the EU. The work with regulatory simplifications must be intensified also for the fishing industry. An important step would be, against the background of the reformed EU policy, to review the Swedish national rules that regulate fishing in detail. The work to reform the food strategy to a version 2.0 also involves fishing, which I assume will be clearly noticeable when the strategy is ready to be launched.

Madam Speaker! Agenda 2030 and the global goals on oceans and marine resources emphasize the importance of ensuring access for small-scale non-industrial fishers to marine resources and markets. For the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, goal 14 is included among the sustainability goals that the agency works with and reports to the government. Through regulations and the processing of cases regarding fishing licenses and special permits, HaV aims to manage the extraction of catch. This primarily occurs through licensing at the national level and at the vessel level. The processing varies across the country, but as a rule, licenses are granted very restrictively and most often with reference to the license quota being full.

For young fishers who have invested in boats and equipment necessary to even be able to apply for a license, is it not frustrating that the already issued licenses are not being used because they are held by very old colleagues who are far beyond retirement age? The average age in the fishing fleet is high. The licensing authority does not lack data on whether the issued licenses are actually active or not. Fishers are required to report to the Centre for Fisheries Control at HaV. Each application is processed over approximately three months and must be made per fish species. And the boat that has been purchased can only serve as a basis for the application for two years. After that, the boat's validity for the application expires.

The restrictive granting of fishing licenses means that the fishing fleet is not being renewed as would be necessary. The refinement and entrepreneurship that otherwise characterize new actors are missing for small-scale non-industrial fishing. In the long run, the professional body is also being eroded as a whole.

The Christian Democrats consider that the authority should particularly take into account and promote the rejuvenation of the fishing fleet. When applying for a fishing license, the pressure of use should also be taken into account, in addition to the number of granted licenses.

Madam Speaker! Commercial fishing activity supported by the right of public access has become a more common phenomenon in areas with free handline fishing. This creates conflicts with individual water owners and reduces incentives for fisheries management measures. Possibilities should therefore be investigated to, for the purpose of developing fish tourism and other small-scale fishing enterprises, establish fisheries management areas in such waters where free handline fishing currently prevails.

Madam Speaker! Trawling in the Baltic Sea is a source of criticism and debate. Statistics from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management show how the trawlers have taken up 370 times more of the fish than the professional fishers of Stockholm combined. The catch has mainly not gone to human consumption but to Danish fishmeal factories.

The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management has been working since last year on a government mandate to carry out trial fishery management measures corresponding to a relocation of the trawl limit. The agency shall carry out a time-limited scientific project corresponding to a relocation of the trawl limit for vessels fishing for pelagic species in the Baltic Sea in order to evaluate the effects on the biomass of herring and sprat stocks as well as their size, stock, and age structure.

The new government has decided to expand the ongoing assignment to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management to take measures equivalent to moving the trawling limit to include the remaining parts of Swedish territorial waters in the Baltic Sea. The change aims to include all relevant management areas for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and entails a holistic approach to the issues involved. This is an ambitious and time-limited scientific project that is expected to result in concrete regulations for pelagic fishing in the Baltic Sea while the effects of this are evaluated. During the period when pelagic fishing is restricted in these areas, other causal relationships shall also be evaluated so that an attempt can be made scientifically to clarify the effects and causal relationships of the many factors that affect the fish stocks and the conduct of fishing.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture is simultaneously working to investigate the reception and fish processing capacity in Sweden. This, together with the availability of a sustainable resource as a raw material, is important in order to be able to increase the production of fish products, strengthen preparedness, and contribute to a growing bioeconomy. In addition to this assignment, the Swedish Board of Agriculture is working on developing a roadmap to promote the raw material supply for the surströmming industry, where coastal fishing is also included.

In the Environmental Goals Commission's partial report *The Sea and Humans*, we included a number of assessments and proposals concerning seals and cormorants. The Commission judged that a holistic view was needed in the management of fish stocks and the stocks of seals and cormorants that takes into account the impact of fishing, seals, and cormorants on the food web. The management of seals and cormorants needs to be carried out to a greater extent regionally, where the county administrative boards have an important coordinating role, but based on national goals and guidelines. Also in this commission, we proposed that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency should update the national management plan for cormorants, which is now underway, and we can say that this assignment was reinforced with an additional decision in this chamber earlier this afternoon.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the speech! I will try to be quick. I know you are busy, Kjell-Arne. But I have a couple of questions. I say as you do: for the sake of the minutes, we need to go through this today.

I have a point regarding what you mentioned about the age structure, not regarding the fish but the fishers, that is to say those who practice this profession. You mentioned, among other things, various descriptions of problems regarding this. That is quite true, but I actually believe that the primary reason is that there is a shortage of fish for human consumption. There is a shortage of cod, herring, eel, and much more - at least in the Baltic Sea. I believe that is the greatest obstacle to achieving a rejuvenation in this group.

Madam Speaker! During our time in government, we had a proposal regarding the relocation of the trawling limit. Now, this government has also worked towards this, which I welcome. However, the Christian Democrats were against a relocation of the trawling limit at that previous occasion. The natural follow-up question then is: Have you changed your opinion, or have you been overridden?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for the question! Regarding the age structure, we perhaps have problems both with the fish and the fishers, that is, both those who live in the sea and those who walk on two legs. So it is probably a more complex problem.

I have been given the great honor of handling the fishing issues for the party from and including this mandate period. I have not worked with fishing issues previously, and I was also not involved in the work that took place during the previous mandate period.

Regarding the relocation of the trawling limit, I know that something mentioned was that Swedish fishermen would then be punished. Fishing boats from other nations have permission to enter and fish. We would thus punish Swedish fishermen, and boats from other countries would enter instead. Is that the right way? I believe that what was the clown in all of this was that we must treat everyone equally.

It is extremely important that in these matters we ensure that we achieve as much common ground as possible at the EU level. Now it is mostly the Baltic Sea. There are very many EU countries surrounding the Baltic Sea. We now unfortunately have a huge challenge, and that is Russia. Russia also has a border with the Baltic Sea and the opportunity to fish in the Baltic Sea. But there we have a cooperation that for obvious reasons - and unfortunately - no longer works at all.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the answer! I interpret it, in any case, as that you are now in favor of a relocation of the trawling limit and that you have not been overridden by other parties.

You were also in your speech regarding increased opportunities for hunting seals. I welcome that. I think that sounds very positive. That requires increased cooperation with the EU and ensuring that one also gets the opportunity for trade with these products.

Another thing you mentioned, though not so much, was aquaculture and fish farming, for which the previous government made a strategy plan and which I believe is very positive in several aspects. Among other things, we can increase our own food production quite powerfully with our own fish farming. It also provides a number of jobs all around our country, not least in the countryside, which I safeguard and think is very important.

I know that our Minister for Rural Affairs Kullgren had an invitation to present a new food strategy - or not new but at least improved or renewed. But what I understand is that the aquaculture industries were not invited. Is that not a priority issue for the Minister for Rural Affairs or for the government base?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for the questions! I believe we are in complete agreement regarding seals and grey seals and the work that must be done there. It is not just a matter of expanding the license hunt. One could fix very much by removing all rigid rules or at least reducing the number of rigid rules regarding protection hunting of seals.

I believe we must use many tools to catch up regarding both the seal and the harbor seal. And there is no doubt about where we stand regarding the ban on trade with seal products. It is completely insane for me as a hunter to shoot an animal and then not be able to use it. An animal should not have died unnecessarily. If we have the opportunity to use it, we shall do so.

I can inform Tomas Kronståhl that as recently as last week, I was at a meeting in the department with representatives from the aquaculture industry. There may have been meetings after that which I am not aware of. But I can assure Tomas Kronståhl that this industry is also welcome at the department and that there has been a meeting there recently. It is, in fact, also extremely important.

As a person from Värmland, I truly look forward to the large project that is underway in my neighboring municipality Säffle, where we look to be able to get a huge and beautiful facility for aquaculture. This too is absolutely included in the food strategy.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for your speech! I was also a bit curious about where the Christian Democrats actually stand regarding the relocation of the trawling limit. It is, after all, a Christian Democrat minister who is in charge of this. At the same time, you were, as we heard, the only party that did not stand behind the parliamentary decision on a relocated trawling limit two years ago. I cannot see that you have changed your mind either. At the same time, it is welcome to see that there are local Christian Democrats on the Gävleborg coast who are now entering the debate on the fishing crisis and the future of the Baltic Sea and who want to see the relocated trawling limit.

Can we trust that this will be carried out? Is it just something that you have to do? Or do you see that this would actually have an impact? If you do it: Why go through with this experiment? Why not see that it is actually now or never we can do this if we are to save the salmon? Why not move the trawl limit once and for all?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question! Just as my colleague Johanna Hornberger said in her speech, or if it was in a reply earlier, there have actually come reports from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management regarding the assignment that has been given. One is ready to proceed, and one is ahead of what was actually the schedule.

Since then, the Minister for Rural Affairs has said this regarding the extra assignment that HaV has received: Use the whole toolbox! He has given clear instructions to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management: Now you may make the decisions required so that we can get started with this as quickly as possible. The Minister for Rural Affairs has pointed with his whole fist and told them that the whole toolbox shall be used. I think it is a very clear assignment that points in the direction we should go.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was pleasing to hear, for what I have seen, Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren has expressed doubts about how effective a ban on, for example, industrial fishing in the Baltic Sea would be. But does this mean that the Christian Democrats and the government are also open to actually banning industrial fishing, which is what takes up the largest amount? Can it then be seen as a combination of measures - both moving the trawling limit and banning industrial fishing - so that we can actually save the small-scale fishers and so that there is fish left for human consumption?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall quote the Minister for Rural Affairs from an interpellation debate he had with the former debater Kronståhl:

"The Government wishes to find appropriate and scientifically well-founded management tools that can restore the stocks of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea. The Government is also prepared to take measures during the execution of the assignment based on the starting point that management must be based on well-founded scientific evidence."

The Minister is clear about what applies. And as he has said, he has told HaV that the entire toolbox is open and that it should be used. How the Minister ultimately acts, I do not know. That must be up to the Minister. But I do know, in any case, that he is truly monitoring the issue so that we get the best decisions possible.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Now there will be more discussion about herring and sill even in my speech, I can promise. I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 27.

In today's debate, I intend to focus quite a bit on the strained situation we see for the herring and the sprat in the Baltic Sea. But I will also speak about the eel and a bit about the management of seals, which feels quite urgent to discuss right now.

Madam Speaker! The situation of the herring in very large parts of the Baltic Sea feels increasingly critical, and in several cases, its continued existence is acutely threatened. The development from the beginning of the 90s until now is an alarming reading.

Several researchers, both Swedish and international, have clearly been able to note the dramatic decline in, among other things, the spawning biomass of herring. It was measured at the beginning of the 90s to be approximately 1.5 million tons, and today's level is at barely 500,000 tons.

This has occurred at the same time as we can observe that the age structure of the herring has changed and that its size, as several have pointed out, has decreased significantly. This means that the small-scale important fishing where one fishes for human consumption is becoming increasingly difficult. In certain areas, one cannot even get a hold of edible herring or herring stocks at all.

The causes of this extremely critical situation for the single most important fish species for the entire Baltic Sea ecosystem are discussed very often and at length by us politicians, industry representatives and others.

Madam Speaker! Of course, there can be and certainly are several conceivable reasons why this critical situation has arisen. It could be a change in the availability of food. There can certainly be links to climate change and also changes in the salinity of our waters. Also, the number of seals and other predators that feed on sprat and herring certainly affect the stocks to some extent.

But, Madam Speaker, one hardly needs to be a researcher or a doctoral student to be able to take part in the facts and investigations that already exist today and which, in my opinion, clarify which cause undoubtedly constitutes the greatest threat to the streaming's survival and development.

Large-scale trawling has resulted in and continues to result in a massive increase in herring fishing, which strongly affects the entire herring stock in the Baltic Sea. During the winter half-year, the herring migrate to deeper waters to overwinter and gather in large schools.

These stocks are very easy to find with today's modern large trawlers, which has meant that at least 75 percent of all herring caught in the Baltic Sea is caught by large trawlers during the winter half-year. Of all the fish caught by these trawlers, 95 percent goes to chicken or animal feed.

Madam Speaker! It is time that we politicians truly prioritize what we consider most important when it comes to commercial fishing and what it is that we wish to get out of this fantastic food source that still exists in our waters and what it should be used for. Should it be for poultry feed, or should we invest in human food?

For me, it feels obvious that we must focus on and ensure the coastal small-scale fishing where one fishes for food production and creates great added value in the form of increased quality of life for everyone, as well as added value for both tourism and the visitor industry.

It looks undeniably very gloomy for this important fish species' future in our waters. But there is hope and also exceptions. In the Baltic Sea, the exception is Rigabukten.

It is only in Estonia and Latvia where herring is fished. There, a joint management of the fishery has been decided, which means significantly stricter regulations. No forms of trawlers are allowed to fish in waters shallower than 20 meters deep. No industrial trawlers at all are allowed to fish there. They have stopped all fishing for one month when the spawning migration occurs.

This agreed co-management has meant that the shad is doing well here and is available in large quantities for both small-scale subsistence fishing and sport fishing, as well as for tourism. It is also noteworthy that the environment and water quality in these waters are significantly better than in the rest of the Baltic Sea. This should be an example and something for us to work towards.

Madam Speaker! Another important fish species that is almost completely disappearing from our waters is unfortunately the eel, which has decreased by a full 95 percent. It is truly struggling to recover in a natural way despite significantly reduced fishing quotas and a significantly reduced number of fishers who are licensed to fish it.

When it comes to the question of the eel, it is, just as I said in my interpellation debate, important that the environmental work at our hydropower plants, which the current government paused, is resumed immediately, this in order to ensure natural fish migration routes that allow the eel and other migratory fish species to have the opportunity to migrate both upstream and downstream in our waters.

This is absolutely crucial for the eel to be given the conditions to, by its own power, achieve a favorable conservation status which, in the long run, can hopefully also lead to us once again having fishing opportunities.

For us Social Democrats, it is extremely important that our important hydropower plants, both the small and the large, succeed in delivering clean fossil-free electricity. One must also be able to take into account a biological diversity where the migrating fish species are an essential and natural part.

Madam Speaker! It can be observed that there are many interests, issues, and obstacles that must be raised, discussed, and addressed if we seriously want to achieve a balanced sea where conditions are provided for both commercial fishing and, for example, the living conditions and opportunity for development of the herring, instead of the ongoing decommissioning that we see.

We also see that we have far too large populations of both seals and cormorants that are also to subsist on herring and sprat. Therefore, we must achieve better management and an expanded hunt that enables a better balance even when it comes to this part of the sea.

It is important here that the government works to get the EU to review and change its decision not to allow trade with seal products. If we hunt seal, we shall of course also take advantage of the food provided and be able to trade with that product.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to advocate for the work that the previous Social Democratic government worked hard on. This concerns the introduction of aquaculture and the investment in aquaculture. It creates great opportunities for increased food fish production, but also for the cultivation of plants and mussels that can contribute to a healthier sea in balance.

Fish farming and other aquaculture also lead to more job opportunities in rural areas. There is great potential here to increase the number of aquaculture facilities and fish farms in our country. This would be very beneficial for both increased food production and more job opportunities in rural areas.

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring (S) agreed.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! Let me begin by saying that you are welcome to support our reservation.

It was interesting to hear the Social Democrats' perspective and to get a small glimpse of what the Social Democrats' position is within fisheries policy. I can say that I agree with much of what was presented here by the member. However, I think the picture emerges that fishing is not a particularly prioritized issue for the Social Democrats. I have, in fact, tried to examine the Social Democrats' fisheries policy and tried to get a slightly better understanding of what the Social Democrats want when it comes to fisheries policy.

I have only found a limited number of motions where fish are even mentioned in the party's various motions. I also note that on the Social Democrats' website, it is mentioned under the heading Marine Environment. There are only a few individual proposals related to fishing and a handful of examples of increased appropriations to authorities. Beyond that, it echoes very empty.

My questions to the Social Democrats are therefore: Why are there so few concrete proposals when it comes to fishing? And is fishing an important issue for the Social Democrats?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Beatrice Timgren, for the question! I still think that we have a fairly clear fisheries policy. Just as you heard in my speech, we value small-scale, coastal fishing very much. That is where people fish for food and sustenance; it is important.

We have commissioned a number of investigations and given a number of assignments to various authorities to research much more regarding the condition of our seas and the condition of our various fish species. Among other things, we have introduced a fishing ban on cod because it was critically endangered, and it is still critically endangered.

We have taken a number of measures regarding the reduction of eel fishing, among others. Now we are taking a number of measures that we decided on in a previous government position regarding further research and moving the trawl limit and other things to ensure that the herring is also saved.

I think, therefore, that our fisheries policy is quite clear; I must say that. We have also taken a number of measures to achieve a balanced sea.

I may possibly ask a counter-question: Do the Sweden Democrats have any fisheries policy that can in some way be implemented in the current government today?

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for the answer! I can refer the members to all our demands in a motion that deals solely with fisheries policy.

Unfortunately, the Social Democrats' fisheries policy seems well hidden, but it is positive to hear that it exists. Upon reviewing the Social Democrats' time in government over the recent years, it is clear that fishing has not been a prioritized issue. I have reviewed previous interpellations, and I see that within the subject, reference is often made to various investigations and strategies. Few seem to have resulted in any concrete measures, but it was positive to hear that there were some nonetheless.

Concrete measures that need to be introduced are still missing. These are measures that would benefit tourism and the coastal communities. But now in opposition, it seems that the Social Democrats have woken up and want to do something for fishing, which is positive.

My question is once again: Why is it so difficult to find the Social Democrats' fisheries policy?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Beatrice Timgren, for the question! I would recommend that you go in and read our parliamentary documents instead, because there we have discussed fisheries policy for many years.

If one is in a government position, it is not so relevant to write motions and interpellations about what we actually implement in a government position. We have taken a number of measures, as I mentioned earlier, to in different ways obtain better research and better facts when it comes to why things look the way they do in different places.

Among other things, it concerns the Riga Gulf, which I mentioned. It is an example of such things that Stockholm University and others have researched and investigated further so that we can obtain the knowledge needed for us to be able to make new decisions. It is very much awaited, and the current government still refers to the fact that we must have more investigations and more facts.

I want to assert that we have received quite a lot. SLU has worked for a long time with the questions. They have conducted test fishing and performed various controls. There is also a lot of science presented. This is what we have done, and we have commissioned investigations during our time as government. Therefore, there are now a lot of answers to these questions so that we can actually implement much of the policy that we desire.

Mr. Speaker! Since I moved for approval of the wrong reservation in my speech, I now move for approval of reservation 13 instead.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for an interesting speech! I must ask you a question, and it concerns how you view what I interpret as a ban on trawling on the large vessels.

Do we not have a system with quotas that one could use to solve this and create a refined system with the research that you yourself cite here, in order to regulate the quotas that way? Does it not become some type of double command when one is to limit the trawling on the large vessels when we simultaneously have the quota system?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anders Karlsson, for the question! We have not issued any ban yet regarding trawling. What we have said, and what we have decided, is that we shall move the trawling limit outward on a trial basis to study what it means for, for example, the herring's possibilities for reproduction so that we can achieve a favorable conservation status again.

Let us look at the example in the Gulf of Riga, where the large industrial trawlers have been banned and trawling has been prohibited in waters shallower than 20 meters. There we have seen a development in the number of sprat, a significantly more vigorous sprat and herring production, and better survival chances than we see in the rest of the Baltic Sea.

It feels urgent that we now truly take to heart the examples we see from various investigations and from research conducted by SLU, Sportfiskarna, and many others. Following that, we can identify the measures that we find most appropriate to preserve the coastal fishery, which gives us so much quality of life, a fine caught food fish, and also a living archipelago and a living countryside. That is where we want to get to.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I, Tomas Kronståhl, fully agree with the part concerning moving the trawling distance out to twelve nautical miles.

But what you said in your speech actually concerned the limitation of trawling at sea during the winter time where very large quantities are taken. I can understand the problem, but at the same time we have a quota system. It must not be that we limit twice in this way. In that case, one can also regulate the quotas so that one gets the effect that you are actually looking for.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! If we are to achieve real success, Anders Karlsson, when it comes to the large industrial trawlers and their fishing opportunities in the entire Baltic Sea, we must cooperate both with our neighboring countries and with the EU. The EU establishes the fishing quotas, just as you say.

What I express in my speech is an ambition and a will regarding what I believe we should work for and against to achieve a greater opportunity for better production and reproduction regarding herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea.

I believe this is a joint effort that we must undertake within the EU. It is not possible to do it solely for the Swedish fishing fleet; it must take place in cooperation with other countries, especially also within the EU.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Fisheries policy is a rather new area for me, but it is of course no news that the situation in the Baltic Sea is critical. The condition must be improved in our inland sea. We must take better care of the Baltic Sea.

Is the situation in the Baltic Sea the only issue within the area we are debating today that deserves to be highlighted? No, but it is probably the most urgent. We want the ecosystem to flourish and for the sea to be healthy.

The Baltic Sea is particularly sensitive both to human impact and to climate change. The work to save the Baltic Sea and the fish stocks requires that we work nationally, together with our neighboring countries and within the EU. Just as we have already heard on a number of occasions here tonight, the situation for the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea is worrying. Fishing must be limited to what the stocks can endure.

What should we do then to improve the situation? I certainly do not have all the answers in any way, but there are a number of questions one can ask oneself in this context.

Is it, for example, unproblematic that trawling occurs? No, it is not. Is trawling by definition always bad? No, we have also heard here tonight that it is not. Does Sweden as a country have a responsibility for what we do with the part of the fishing that we control? Yes, of course, to the highest degree. Are measures required at an international level to achieve real change? Yes, of course.

Is the EU's fisheries policy sound and well-functioning? Well, it probably leaves a lot to be desired in some parts. Am I still convinced that the EU is the right forum to push for change? For me as a liberal, it would be strange to say otherwise. It is only when fishing becomes sustainable at all levels that we can achieve real change.

Is the EU's fisheries policy something that Sweden should work on to improve in the future? Yes, indeed, both in the European Parliament and in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. These are issues that must be highlighted at an international level.

More questions: Is it justifiable and unproblematic to take large amounts of fish out of a sea in imbalance to make animal feed? That question is certainly more complex than I have grasped, but it is difficult to answer yes to it. Is fishing the only thing that affects the balance and the stocks in our inland sea? No. Do we need to continue working to reduce eutrophication? Yes. Do we need to secure free migration routes for the species that migrate up rivers and watercourses? Yes, we need to do that.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, is it not appropriate in this context to mention small-scale local fishing, whose practitioners work hard to keep the business running? Yes, of course. It is in many ways precisely to protect that part of the fishing industry that we need to get the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea in order. Small-scale local fishing is important for the local business community, for our food supply, and for our common preparedness.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: Is the situation in the Baltic Sea an issue that I and my liberal colleagues will continue to keep our eyes on and work to bring about a change in? Unambiguously, yes!

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish fishing is a central part of our culture and our history, but it now faces significant changes. Generation after generation of Swedes have lived close to and been dependent on the riches of the Baltic Sea and the Western Sea, but we have often taken these resources for granted. Even though the seas may seem endless, the fish stocks are not. To ensure that there will also be fish in the future, we must preserve important ecosystems and manage the fishery resources in a responsible and sustainable way.

My parents, who are now in their 70s, have during their lives been able to witness the drastic reduction of the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea. My father, a passionate sailor, says that he remembers the large schools of herring that once existed in Baggensfjärden in the Stockholm archipelago. My mother, who grew up on Gotland during the 50s, says that herring and potatoes constituted a worthwhile and common everyday dish. She and her grandmother used to often visit the fisherman Andersson when he came with his boat, which was then overflowing with herring and large cods.

Unfortunately, the reality is different today. When I speak with coastal fishermen, many tell me that their colleagues have had to shut down due to the lack of herring in the Baltic Sea. Targeted fishing for cod is no longer permitted in the Baltic Sea, as the cod stock has almost collapsed.

Herring is a key species and forms the basis of the food chain for many fish, marine mammals, and seabirds. Unfortunately, the herring stock has decreased in number and size, which is deeply problematic for the entire ecosystem.

The cormorant population, on the other hand, has not decreased, but rather the opposite. Those who have visited the archipelago have surely seen these dead islands, which have increased as a result of the cormorant colonies expanding. Cormorants are skilled fishers and consume large quantities of fish, especially in the coastal areas, which constitutes a significant threat to fish stocks that are important for fishing. Therefore, we believe it is important to increase the hunting of cormorants in Sweden and work to update the EU's Birds Directive, which was adopted in the 70s and has not been updated since the 90s. This currently constitutes a significant obstacle to being able to conduct targeted hunting against the cormorant.

The cormorant is not the only and not even the greatest threat to the fish stocks today. The large-scale industrial fishing in our seas, with fishing vessels that surpass the sizes from a few decades ago, conducts fishing so effectively that it almost empties the coastal waters.

Over 90 percent of all fish caught in the Baltic Sea today goes to fishmeal production, which has been mentioned previously, to farmed fish, mink breeding and chickens. We believe that fish for human consumption should be prioritized to promote more sustainable and coastal fishing, which contributes to living coastal areas.

Swedish fishing is a central part of our cultural heritage. Sweden, with its long coasts and countless lakes, has over time seen communities emerge in and around the traditional fishing ports. In these coastal communities, one finds fishing huts where visitors can be welcomed by the scent of freshly cooked fish and the fresh sea air. It is in these communities that the traditions of fishing have grown and been preserved over generations. Even today, fishing plays an important role in maintaining viable coastal communities and creating jobs.

Sweden's fisheries legislation has been subject to the EU's common fisheries policy since 1995, but national legislation can still supplement it. We are part of the EU, and the fishing quotas are established at the EU level and are based on scientific data.

However, for obvious reasons, it is very difficult to count the fish in the sea, which means great uncertainties regarding the fish stocks. This uncertainty should be taken into greater account in order to avoid overfishing.

I have spoken a lot about the Baltic Sea. But west coast fishing constitutes the largest part of Swedish fishing. Even though the situation is not as serious as in the Baltic Sea, there are significant challenges here as well. Unlike the Baltic Sea, the West Sea is saltier, richer in species, and has comparatively good water turnover. The west coast, which includes Skagerrak and Kattegat, has also been affected by overfishing and environmental impact, but several fish species are in better condition here than in the Baltic Sea.

Fish stocks of different species have shown signs of improvement along the west coast, even though some species, such as cod, still face major challenges. It is also still very small compared to before.

When large predatory fish, such as cod, disappear, it affects the ecosystem. It can have consequences. In the coastal areas of the Skagerrak, it has likely contributed to shallow bays being filled with fine-threaded algae and to the eelgrass disappearing.

To reduce bycatch and improve sustainability in the fishing industry, it is important to continue encouraging fishers to use selective gear, which only catches the desired fish species and sizes. In Sweden, work has been ongoing to increase the use of selective gear and techniques, but there is still room for improvement.

Selective gear can contribute to effectively reducing bycatch, protecting sensitive marine environments and ensuring sustainable fish stocks. I therefore move for approval of reservation 16.

It is also important to reduce discards, that is, fish that are thrown out before landing and thus are not counted towards the quotas. It is prohibited but unfortunately occurs to an all too great extent.

Another thing that threatens the Swedish fishers is the planned expansion of coastal wind power. Experiences from the expansion carried out so far show that much fish disappears, as do the fishing conditions. The construction and maintenance of wind turbines can lead to temporary or permanent changes of the seabed and the marine environment, which can affect the fish's reproduction, foraging, and migration patterns.

Wind turbines generate noise and vibrations that can affect fish and other marine animals. Depending on the noise level and frequency, it can lead to behavioral changes, stress, and in some cases even damage to the fish's hearing organs.

The launching of wind turbines can limit access to certain fishing areas and lead to Swedish fishers losing access to the fishing areas where they have fished for generations.

Mr. Speaker! To secure a sustainable future for our fishing and preserve valuable marine ecosystems, it is of the utmost importance that we support coastal and sustainable fishing and safeguard our unique natural values. It is pleasing that work is now underway to move the trawl limit on a trial basis. It has broad, wide support in the Riksdag.

Let us also cooperate across party lines and with our neighboring countries to create a successful and sustainable fisheries policy that benefits both people and the environment.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Life in our lakes, seas, and rivers is under threat from several different sources. Human exploitation in the form of overfishing, eutrophication, and hydropower has pushed several fish stocks to the brink of ruin. Now, powerful political measures are required to address the problems.

In recent years, we have constantly been reached by new alarms regarding the situation for the herring in the Baltic Sea. Coastal fishers and researchers testify that the amount of large herring has decreased sharply. The herring that remains is so small that it can no longer be used for processing or sale. The safest way to help the stocks recover would be to reduce the fishing quotas and limit large-scale industrial fishing. The greater part of the fish taken by these vessels does not end up on people's plates but becomes feed for farmed salmon and for mink in the fur industry. Anyone can see that something is fundamentally wrong with the fisheries management.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Riksdag voted to move the trawling limit. It was a very welcome decision. The trawling limit was created once to protect spawning and growing stocks near the coast and at the same time to benefit small-scale local fishing. As the stocks of herring in the Baltic Sea have diminished, it has become clear that this protection needs to be strengthened. Unfortunately, the previous government did not take the Riksdag's decision seriously. Nor does the current government, as the trawling ban is only being implemented as a trial in certain areas.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to cod, the situation has been serious for a long time. The Baltic Sea previously had one of the world's largest stocks of cod. But it has now collapsed as a result of decades of overfishing and other environmental problems. Despite the fishing bans of recent years, there is no turnaround in sight. The situation does not look any better in the West Sea. Despite researchers' warnings, overfishing was allowed to continue for a long time. Short-term economic interests were prioritized over long-term sustainability. Let us not continue to make the same mistakes.

Even today, cod is caught in the Baltic Sea as bycatch. The landing obligation means that it is illegal to throw these bycatches back into the sea, but we know that it still happens as a result of lack of fisheries control. It also makes it difficult for researchers to assess the actual size of the stocks.

Mr. Speaker! In the Environmental Goals Commission's report The Sea and the Human from 2020, there are proposals regarding protected marine areas. The proposal is that at least 30 percent of Sweden's territorial waters and economic zone shall be protected by 2030 and that at least 10 percent of the territorial waters and the economic zone shall be strictly protected.

These are very important proposals. Protected areas are something requested by the coastal fishery. They are needed to give the fish stocks the opportunity to grow. Moving the trawl limit and introducing more and larger fish-free areas are some important measures to prevent more fish stocks from collapsing and to give threatened stocks the opportunity to recover.

Mr. Speaker! One of the fish species that has been hit hardest by human activity is the eel, which today stands on the brink of extinction. The stock has been decimated by decades of overfishing, and just as for other species, hydropower prevents the eels from reaching their former habitats. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea prescribes a total fishing ban.

The EU's decision to protect the eel for six months of the year is completely insufficient in this situation. Even worse, and even more incomprehensible, is however Sweden's choice to place the fishing ban during the period when eel fishing is at its lowest. Those who advocate for maintaining eel fishing usually refer to it being a tradition. But a tradition is usually something one envisions being able to continue far into the future. The only reasonable thing would therefore be to do everything we can to strengthen the eel stock now, in order to avoid the eel disappearing completely. Without eels - no eel fishing.

Mr. Speaker! If we continue with overfishing, the fish will run out. If we have no fish to fish, we also have no fishing industry left, neither large-scale nor small-scale. To safeguard Swedish commercial fishing means that we must safeguard the fish stocks and the ecosystems they are a part of. Unfortunately, the government continues the sad tradition of advocating for higher fishing quotas than what is considered sustainable by the researchers.

We have historically been far too slow to act. It has left us with depleted seas, fish stocks in imbalance, and small-scale fishing on the brink of extinction. It is something that we need to take with the utmost seriousness. Therefore, we need to act now to limit industrial fishing, move out the trawl limit, protect endangered species, and establish a management that strives for long-term sustainability and not for short-term economic profit for a few.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a fishing industry that originates from the Swedish coast, where the fish are caught and landed locally, and which contributes to local processing industries and tourism. Such a fishery would be in harmony with nature and the ocean's ecosystems.

I vote in favor of reservation 9.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Environmental and fishing issues are a broad political area with many trade-offs. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 4.

There are different forms of commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and aquaculture. What characterizes them is that they require consideration between different interests that are to coexist. It is something that we have touched upon earlier here in tonight's debate.

I am new to these issues, just as someone else also mentioned that they were, and have had the opportunity to meet industry organizations and sport fishermen. It has been necessary. I personally have a background when it comes to fishing as chairman of a fishing water area and in the Emåförbundet, which takes the various considerations that must be taken regarding watercourses with unique species. The salmon is unique, but the grayling is also very unique.

When it comes to these water systems, it can involve both small-scale water production and embankment projects within agriculture as well as fairly intensive potato and strawberry cultivation that is to be conducted in harmony and balance with the environment.

Mr. Speaker! Fish and shellfish are incredible foods. They are of high quality, contain a lot of protein and many important amino acids, and have a fat quality that is healthy. My perception is that fish as a food has come a bit into the background in the debate. In the discussion on food, we have talked a lot about the self-sufficiency rate, and there I see that fish many times is left completely aside. One can always wonder why it is that way. It can be due to many different things, and I think that fish deserves more attention given what a unique food it is.

There is a problem regarding the environment in many watercourses. There are high heavy metal levels - for example of mercury - and high dioxin levels in some places. I believe that if fish consumption is to increase, we must fight for and work with precisely the environment. The environment has in itself become better, but it is still not good enough in the Baltic Sea. It has become significantly better on the western side, but the Baltic Sea has a problem and should receive strong focus even in the future. That there are smaller amounts of certain species can be due to the fact that the environmental impact is as great as it is in the Baltic Sea specifically.

When I met the industry organizations, they gave a fairly positive picture of the situation for professional fishers. They told how they handle both small and large quota systems in ways that allow one to make a good living. They also described a decent profitability in the industry. It is very important when one is to develop an industry that the profitability is good, and it means that there is something positive to start from.

There are also challenges, and many of them have been raised here tonight. This concerns, among other things, the cormorant issue and the seal issue. There are significantly more seals than what is good for those who are fishermen. It is also about how we manage the seals - and that grey seals are not included in the license hunt. Grey seals are a very big concern, and they should be counted in the seal category so that the problem can be managed in its entirety. It is a matter of using more tools in the toolbox to address that type of problem.

The fishing industry also describes the consequences of Sweden getting significantly more offshore wind power. The mutual consideration will require a dialogue about where the large-scale offshore wind power can be placed. When talking with the fishermen, Mr. Speaker, they describe it here roughly as farmland within an agricultural business. They do not want wind farms to be placed on their best fields, and for me, who has been a farmer for very many years, that analogy is easy to understand. I would also become irritated if someone came and said that there would be wind power on the best fields. At the same time, I actually see no conflict, but I experience that one is in a dialogue phase and that there is room for both.

Trawling is, as we have already discussed here tonight, something that has been refined and improved and that can be made more environmentally friendly. I do not think we should underestimate the principle of using trawling. It is effective. It is rather about how it is done, about mesh size and about the handling of the seabed. If I understand it correctly, seabed handling with modern trawling equipment is not a major problem today in the same way it has been historically. But there is still old equipment.

Centerpartiet is in favor of moving the trawling limit to twelve nautical miles around the entire Swedish coast. It is a way to achieve a more balanced fishing regarding both large-scale fishing far out at sea and small-scale fishing in near-shore areas.

In conclusion, I also want to bring up the aquaculture sector. It has been mentioned that much of the fish today goes to animal feed, and that is the case. It would have been desirable if more could have been used for human consumption. I believe that the future of aquaculture with land-based fish systems could also be an answer and mean that the amount of fish in Sweden could be increased. It is also about systems for processing the fish here in the country. Much of this is performed today in Denmark, and many of the fish farms are in Norway. There is no reason for that, and one could very well handle this in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. It is pleasing to hear that we have much common policy when it comes to fishing. We agree that we shall strengthen the Swedish fishing industry and professional fishing and facilitate things for entrepreneurs. We also want to promote fish tourism. We also agree that large-scale industrial fishing should be restricted and moved away from the coasts.

However, I find it a bit difficult to understand how the Center Party views this issue regarding the expansion of wind farms. I know that the member mentioned this and that both parts could be accommodated. But professional fishers have long warned of the devastating consequences for the fishing industry, the environment, and tourism. They point out, among other things, that small-scale fishing is being pushed out by foreign-owned wind power companies, that cable laying after construction makes fishing impossible in the affected areas, and that the noise from the wind farms negatively affects the fish. What is the Center Party's position on these consequences for fishing?

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Beatrice Timgren raises the question of how we stand regarding environmental considerations. I tried to describe that those who are involved in wind power production must have a dialogue with the fishing industry. I do not see any direct conflict in this. But I believe, for all things, Mr. Speaker, that the sound from a wind turbine is significantly less than the sound from a large fishing vessel. Then, it is also the case that there are other parts that one must be careful with when it comes to the offshore wind farms located near the coasts, for example when it concerns spawning grounds. If one moves the wind farms further out, there is absolutely a possibility to accommodate both parts. I am not so worried about either this or the cable laying, but I am convinced that we will be able to manage those parts.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. The fact that large fishing vessels make noise does not make the wind turbines sound any less. I note that the member is not concerned. But if sufficient consideration has been taken, why then do the fishermen express concern regarding the expansion of coastal wind power?

The Center Party has previously, together with the previous government, been driving the implementation of this expansion. It seems that the fishing industry, despite its importance, has only been given limited attention. Many fishermen can no longer fish in places where their ancestors have fished for generations or will not be able to do so. I wonder how the Center Party believes that Swedish coastal fishing should be protected and safeguarded in light of the rapid expansion that the Center Party wants of wind power.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The environmental assessments that must be conducted when constructing these large parks are extensive, Beatrice Timgren. Then, I have full respect for the fact that the fishing industry is concerned in this situation, when we have not yet seen any such parks in Sweden on any large scale. As I said in my main speech, I believe it is important to be careful about having a dialogue with the industry. Then I believe we will solve this, Mr. Speaker.

Fisheries policy

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 11 May.)

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