Fisheries policy

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Mr. Speaker! I like to eat fish. I like fish in the oceans. I like oceans and small and large harbors. That indicates a vital trade, prosperity, protection of animals and nature, and living cultural heritage. The Moderates advocate for a policy so that we can eat more fish, for healthy fish stocks, and for living oceans and harbors. To reach that, sustainable fishing is required, not only in Sweden.

A policy for sustainable fishing needs to address several parts. The policy needs to be socially sustainable. An important part of Sweden's cultural heritage is the small-scale fishing along our coasts and the communities that have been built up over a very long time and are based on fishing. A fisheries policy therefore needs to safeguard small-scale fishing so that it can continue and is given reasonable conditions. The policy also needs to be economically sustainable by ensuring that professional fishing remains in Sweden and contributes to the Swedish economy, among other things by landing more fish in Sweden, by more fish that are caught ending up on our plates, and by ensuring that small-scale fishing lives on. It is also important for preparedness.

Ecological sustainability, where both the environment and climate are protected in a future fishery through the development and use of selective gear, a growing small-scale fishery, protection of sensitive waters, and more energy-efficient fishing vessels, is important. The three parts of sustainability describe moderate politics for a sustainable fishery and how a sustainable fishery requires that we have several thoughts in our heads at the same time.

Mr. Speaker! Five years after negotiations began, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, under the Swedish presidency at the end of May last year, were able to agree on a renewed regulatory framework for the EU's fisheries control. The previous regulation was insufficient, and a tightening was necessary in order to reach the goal of more sustainable fishing. The agreement updates approximately 70 percent of the existing rules for the control of fishing vessels in order to make EU fishing more sustainable.

We Moderates have long advocated for a tightening of the EU's control program for the common fisheries policy. It is important for the respect for the common fisheries policy but also to give Swedish fishers the opportunity to compete on equal terms. It is therefore pleasing that an agreement could be reached during the Swedish presidency last year and that steps forward are now being taken towards tightened control in fishing within the EU.

It is important to add that most professional fishers work many, long days to comply with all the regulations that exist. Unfortunately, as in many other places and in many other industries, it is a fact that some break the rules and cheat, which means that rules and regulations need to be tightened to protect our fish stocks and for a sustainable fishery for the future.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates see great potential in aquaculture, or farmed fish and seafood. 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. One example is blue mussels, which sustain themselves by filtering out plankton and other small particles from the water. In this way, they fulfill an important water-purifying function.

The fish farmers in Sweden are, however, very worried about the future. Permit processes and tough regulations cloud everyday life. The ten-year duration of environmental permits is an issue that has been raised many times by the industry. It is perceived as far too short to enable relevant investments in new, more sustainable, and improved technology.

We Moderates want to improve the conditions for entrepreneurs within farmed fish and seafood so that hope for the future is ignited again. We have proposed that the shore protection rules be made more permissive and that the granting of permits for aquaculture without environmental impact be made much simpler.

Our goal is that Sweden in the future has a stronger industry for farmed fish and seafood that can contribute to an increased food production and, in the long run, an increased food security to an even greater extent.

Two investigations have recently proposed simplifications for aquaculture, for example, simplified permit procedures, as well as that aquaculture should be exempted from the shore protection. The proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices, and I look forward to them becoming a reality as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden, with its 240 nautical miles of coast, has one of Europe's longest coastlines. Along the coast and near the shoreline, a large part of our biodiversity lives. It is also here that coastal fishing has the opportunity to grow. By strengthening small-scale fishing, the number of jobs in the fishing industry increases while culture is preserved and the archipelago environment is developed.

The Baltic coast is Sweden's longest. The Baltic Sea is not doing well. It is about eutrophication, environmental toxins, marine litter, dead bottoms, and unsustainable fishing. In the current situation, the dead bottoms cover an area larger than Denmark. This, in turn, creates a shortage of oxygen and food for the fish.

The Moderates have long worked for reduced fishing in the Baltic Sea, a moved trawling limit, reduced eutrophication through, among other things, investments in wetlands and advanced treatment at wastewater treatment plants, which also reduces emissions of environmental toxins, pharmaceutical residues, and microplastics. Therefore, it is pleasing that the government in the autumn pushed in the EU for reduced spawning quotas, which were then significantly reduced. It is also pleasing that the government is investing heavily in rewetting wetlands, not only through more resources but also by reviewing how one can actually obtain more wetlands in practice.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates want the Baltic Sea to also in the future provide us with food and swimming in the summer and represent a great biological diversity.

In conclusion, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johanna Hornberger for a speech that is inspiring in many respects, which I can stand behind.

The fact that there is a major crisis for the salmon and the herring in the Baltic Sea and that the fishing pressure there must decrease significantly is something very many agree on. What we see now is that the fishing pressure continues despite this, as it is permitted to fish 40,000 tonnes of herring and 55,000 tonnes of sprat. That is tragic in itself.

But there is a chance now, as I understand it. In the coming days, an opportunity in the southern Baltic Sea will be decided. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management has been instructed by the government to prepare a proposal to enter into an agreement with Finland to carry out the relocation of the trawling limit on a trial basis and establish a protected area around Finngrundet in the southern Baltic Sea.

The proposal has actually been quite solidly developed by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, but according to many sources, only a very small part of the intended protected area remains after the latest negotiations with Finland. If the government mandate is to have the opportunity to actually achieve the effect we want on the local fish stocks, the protected area must be well-dimensioned and cover the herring's migrations throughout the entire year.

It is of the utmost importance that this happens, otherwise it will be said that this is not a valid investigation, and it will therefore be completely wasted investments. Here it is important that Sweden is clear in the negotiations with Finland.

My question then is: Will the government and the Tidö parties prioritize this important negotiation with Finland so that we actually achieve this peaceful area that we so much need?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for an important question regarding a very important and exciting project. As we all know, it has come about both through the previous government and through the Moderate-led government, which has actually expanded this area.

Just as the member says, this project and our ability to reach these negotiations with the other countries is absolutely crucial. These are voluntary negotiations that require us to have a good dialogue and perhaps a common baseline regarding what the Baltic Sea needs and what is required for us to resolve the problems we see with the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea.

We are aware that Finland and Sweden have slightly different views on the Baltic Sea and fishing in the Baltic Sea. I, just like the member, hope that the negotiations that the Marine and Water Authority is having regarding these areas go as well as is possibly possible so that we have an opportunity to carry out this project with the relocation of the trawl limit to something that actually moves us forward together with the other countries around the Baltic Sea. International cooperation and collaboration are absolutely crucial to achieving success.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johanna Hornberger for the answer.

I think that this question is extremely important. It feels a bit like it is the survival of the herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea that is at stake. We have discussed the issue for quite a few years, and we see that the development is going in absolutely the wrong direction. Then it feels like this is the small hope that not least the small-scale coastal fishing has to hold onto.

If we do not manage to carry out this trial in a serious and good way as we truly need, it feels as if the last hope is extinguished for small-scale commercial fishing. Since there continue to be many discussions about whether it is eutrophication or environmental degradation or whatever it is, I believe it is incredibly important that we get this project done.

Our neighboring countries Latvia and Estonia on the other side of the Baltic Sea, in the Gulf of Riga, have not only carried out a test, but they have a co-management of herring and sprat fishing. There we see that it really works. Certain sizes have been prohibited on trawlers. They have created several spawning zones where fishing is not permitted, and they have taken several other measures. There the Baltic Sea is healthy with a very large biological diversity and very much herring and sprat. Even the cod has recovered there. Therefore, I feel that this issue is so incredibly important that it really should be included in the negotiations with Finland with political prioritization.

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member's description of the urgency in achieving solutions in the Baltic Sea. The government's prioritization and the Moderaternas line and drive forward in these issues are well known. That an announcement was made in the Riksdag from the Moderaterna and seven other parties in this Riksdag, who stood behind the problem statement that has led up to this, I think shows how important the issue is for the Moderaterna and the government. There is, therefore, no doubt about the prioritization.

I would like to take the opportunity to say something about the Gulf of Riga. Just as the member says, it is easy to see the Gulf of Riga as a target for the rest of the Baltic Sea. I truly hope that we, with the project, can take steps to get there eventually. That this should happen fully might be hoping for too much, but I hope that in some parts we will end up in line with and move in the right direction with the rest of the Baltic Sea.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Johanna Hornberger, for the speech! We agree with each other quite a lot on these issues, but the implementation perhaps does not always happen so quickly or in the way we want.

I was struck by your engaging speech about aquaculture and the cultivation of organisms. Mussels were one example, but there are also large seaweed farms and other things on the west coast, where one can primarily do such things in Swedish waters.

You spoke about regulatory simplifications, and I am absolutely in favor of that. Two investigations on regulatory simplifications have already been conducted, and I hope for several of the parts contained therein. You also said that the shore protection might be exempted entirely, but then I became a little worried. Some of these things, for example sea cucumber farming, have a fairly large local impact, so they should be subject to a permit process in some way.

I have a question. I was at a water farming conference in Strömstad two weeks ago. Now, we weren't supposed to talk about permits, but it comes up anyway because it is often what is top of mind. What most people were angry about was not the regulatory framework, but that it takes so long for the county administrative boards and the court proceedings. One does not have time.

What is missing are resources. The government and the Tidö coalition have removed resources from the county administrative boards, which has extended processing times. My question, if one now wants to increase aquaculture in Sweden, is: Will you provide funds so that the permit processes and the handling go faster?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

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

Aquaculture and farmed seafood are therefore inspiring and engaging because they provide a sense of faith in the future and because they ignite hope in the otherwise rather gloomy reality that we work with.

I perhaps do not quite share the image of the county administrative boards and that resources are the entire problem when it comes to it taking a long time. I believe there are other drivers within an agency or any organization whatsoever that make it possible for things to be done faster, sometimes actually without requiring more resources. It is about priorities, what one takes on, and that there is a leadership and a direction for what one wants. If one wants to increase aquaculture and prioritize it, I believe there is every possibility to do this.

To go back to permit and rule simplifications, I believe that, despite everything, the responsibility cannot only be placed on the agency and the County Administrative Board, but we must also ease the rules and the assessments so that we get better conditions for aquaculture and farmed seafood in Sweden.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I share your view, Johanna Hornberger. We must do both. The rules that exist today were not written for the aquaculture we see. Just 20 years ago, we did not have the conception that we would be able to cultivate these organisms in Sweden.

In addition to the permits and getting better and simplified regulations in place, it is the processing time that takes time. The member speaks about it being a matter of priorities within the County Administrative Board, but then there must be a political direction. When one has received fewer funds, one must point out what should be removed instead.

We see today that also several of the large investments in the north, such as the steel investment, battery factories and such, and the new methods have long processing times precisely because they are stuck with permit processes. This is therefore something that exists in several different industries, and one of the bottlenecks, besides the regulatory framework, is the resources for the county administrative boards and our various courts.

Again: Will you point out to the County Administrative Board that this is something that is important and should take precedence over other things, or will you provide resources so that we can remove the bottleneck?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Member, for the question! I can only repeat that I actually believe that there are opportunities to prioritize and do things in a better and smarter way, not just at the County Administrative Board but in all types of public activities and organizations. I believe that the opportunity exists.

I also believe it is important to wait and see where the preparation goes, with the two different investigations that have now submitted proposals which together provide aquaculture with much better conditions. This, in turn, I believe can provide a different type of handling that can be simplified and hopefully shortened significantly.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here today to talk about fisheries policy, and I want to move for the approval of the Green Party's reservation 2 right now. I naturally stand behind all our reservations, even those that we have simplified in this year, but I thought I would start by moving for approval because I am going to start with the somewhat larger - the entire ocean.

Two-thirds of the Earth's surface consists of oceans. The average depth of the ocean is almost 4 kilometers. If we spread the mountains over the entire globe, it would just be a blue planet with an average depth of perhaps 2.6 kilometers. If one takes Mount Everest and puts it down in the Mariana Trench where it is deepest, one could stand on the top and have 2 kilometers of water above.

We have 30,000 different fish species in the world, from the smallest which are 8 millimeters long to the whale shark which can become 15 meters long. It is vast and quite incomprehensible. The water surface prevents us from seeing it, but we have affected this entire ocean, Mr. Speaker.

If you go down to the Mariana Trench, which one perhaps cannot do as a human but can with small submarines, you find plastic particles, PFAS and pollutants. We have misused our ocean enormously, and climate change is also a large part of this. Last year, the ocean broke heat records every day, and it has continued this year.

Up here where we live, in the north, the climate changes will be felt most. The Baltic Sea is one of the places on earth that will be hit hardest. If we get one and a half degrees higher temperature on earth, which we have already been over several times, it is 4-6 degrees and perhaps up to 8 degrees in the Baltic Sea's waters. It is of course incredibly stressful for the habitats. Add to that eutrophication, invasive species and overfishing, so we have a very stressed sea from which we are to extract our resource, namely good fish and shellfish that we all want to eat. We have misused the sea so much that our resource does not really work today. We have managed it so poorly, even though we have more knowledge today than we had previously.

When I started in the Swedish Riksdag in 2014, we talked a lot about how we were going to save the cod in the Baltic Sea. There has been a fishing ban on cod since 2019, even though we had the knowledge to stop it in time.

On the west coast, where I live, we are no longer allowed to fish for cod. There are no adult cod. The herring has decreased. The North Sea shrimp has a stock that in recent years has mostly been below what is seen as sustainable.

This is something that we have nevertheless had a great consensus on that we want to do something about. We have had this knowledge, also in the EU where we have received a common fisheries policy. Still, we are where we are today. In that case, we have failed.

During the previous parliamentary term, work was done across party lines with the Environmental Goals Commission. This led to a report with over a hundred proposals that would help the marine environment and which we hope will one day become a reality. The government has said that they will present a marine strategy, but whether it is based on this or not, I do not know.

We also heard previous speakers say that one was even so impatient here in the Riksdag that a declaration was made. All parties agreed on nine measures for the Baltic Sea. It was about moving the trawling limit, conducting a review of the management plans, that we should actively take a role in the various cooperation bodies, and that we should ensure that small-scale fishing could survive, for example by significantly lowering the fishing quotas but maintaining coastal fishing. It was also about seals, cormorants, perch, and other things. There were nine proposals about what we needed to do that we agreed on and that one was tasked to do. But nothing is happening.

We heard earlier here that in order to get the relocation of the trawl limit, one must talk with Finland, who together with Denmark are perhaps those who fish the most in Swedish waters. The bilateral agreement lies outside the common fisheries policy.

Today, the Secretary of State was in the committee. We asked the government about some conversations and received the answer that it is up to HaV, i.e., the agency, to do. If the government is serious, one should probably pick up the phone and call their counterpart.

We heard earlier what quotas we have received for herring and sprat, even though the commission proposed a total fishing ban. Then perhaps it would be in the government's interest to ensure that the quotas go to small-scale fishing and normal consumption. The answer was that it might be so, but that it is up to HaV. It was not a mandate, nothing.

Is the government, which says they are taking this seriously, using the tools they have? We just heard the Moderate representative say that the government and the Moderates have taken it seriously for a long time. I do not think so. That is why I move for approval of reservation 2, because it is precisely about the things we can do nationally and which regulations we can introduce to protect the stocks. Much is EU policy, but we can also do things at home.

I hope that the marine strategy that the government is to present takes into account the knowledge and the joint proposals we have to move forward in this, that it is established that we shall have an ecosystem-based management that encompasses the entire ocean and that the ocean and the climate and how they are interconnected are taken seriously in the measures that are proposed.

Mr. Speaker! The collapse of the cod and the critical state of the herring is a terrible failing for our entire society. We can do better. The Government can do better. It is you who represent us. The seas belong to us all. We must reclaim them.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report. Today I am replacing Kjell-Arne Ottosson in the debate. It will be very inspiring and fun to get to do that.

In my roots, there is also a great deal of fishing heritage and cultural heritage from the islands off Gothenburg. The idea was that I too should join the fishing collective like my ancestors and my brothers. I got to try fishing with my father off the Shetland Islands and in the North Sea, and to take shelter from storms in Egersund, Haugesund, Stavanger, and a few other places. And I often long for the sea, which is that which leaves no traces, as it is called in Moby Dick. Or as Moominpappa says: He wants to get to know the sea, for only then can he also get to know himself.

I am pleased that this government, in a completely different way than the previous one, wants to achieve growth for companies, not least in rural areas and in coastal areas. The government is taking new steps to realize the food strategy, which also includes the blue value chain.

Transferable quotas in the demersal fishery have been discussed for a long time, but not much has happened until now. The Government has tasked the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management to propose a system with transferable fishing rights in the fishery for demersal species. As far as I understand, it is to be reported shortly. We know that the successes of the pelagic fisheries have been built on transferable rights with quotas, so this is the right way forward.

Mr. Speaker! There are positive signs in the sea. We know that the winter storms have provided new oxygen to parts of the Baltic Sea. Unfortunately, the recovery of the fish is expected to be offset by cormorants and seals, which consume enormous amounts of fish.

The licensing of seals is not particularly extensive, perhaps 300 seals per year. It has been said that we need to shoot 3,000 seals, but probably it would need to be 30,000 seals.

There are positive signs on land. Yesterday, a land allocation agreement was signed in Sotenäs municipality on the west coast. It concerns the construction of a 20,000 square meter factory for the reception and processing of herring. But it is not just a herring factory. It is about unloading, processing, and new protein-rich products. It should be seen in a larger context. Today we send the fish to Denmark. Then we buy it back as feed, that is, the feed that is not sent to Norway. This investment in Kungshamn costs 600 million kronor. The municipality is to have its say, but so far everyone involved is positive.

In addition, the fishing industry is investing 50 million to develop Nogersund and also Oxelösund with a number of millions. Today, most of the herring arrives by truck from Norway. This is therefore extremely important for the entire Swedish fishing industry.

We know that fish is an important source of protein. Of the herring, half goes to fillets and half to rendering, which becomes meal and oil. The cod yields around 40 percent fillets and the rest rendering. The pelagics, who are sometimes unfairly called industrial fishers, pull up 150,000 tons of fish in quotas every year. If you put one portion on a plate for a population of 10 million, it provides 3 billion meals.

In the recently presented investigation on a new food preparedness, it states that the goal of the food preparedness shall be to ensure that the entire population over time has access to necessary food in the event of a serious disruption or an imminent risk of a serious disruption in the food supply.

For a population, fishing is absolutely crucial in times of war. It is about protein supply. 3 billion meals of 100 grams provide the Swedish population with food for 300 days. We have survived previous times of war with the help of seafood. We may need to do so again. Therefore, it is unfortunate to sometimes hear – though not until today – a rather negative reasoning regarding commercial fishing.

Mr. Speaker! All our fishing boats are made for consumption. They are aimed at fishing different types based on availability and demand. The modern boats have minimal bycatch. If we do not have the large boats that can go far out to sea, we will also have no small-scale fishing. We get no factories, and where then shall the small-scale fishing's catch be landed and processed?

Based on this reasoning, I would like to conclude by saying that fishing has its designated fishing areas where it has been fished for generations. There are those who want to place wind turbines exactly where fishing is conducted. This must be prevented. It cannot be socio-economically wise to allow offshore wind power on the best fishing grounds for Swedish fishing. The seas are large, and there is room for both offshore wind power and Swedish commercial fishing. We need both fish and energy. The most important fishing grounds must be protected for the benefit of Swedish food production.

We Christian Democrats safeguard small-scale fishing just as much as large-scale fishing, but everything must be put into context. I am pleased that the government shows understanding for the whole and sees professional fishing as a resource both in calm times and perhaps especially during times of uncertainty. The Swede loves their fish. Let us safeguard Swedish fishing and promote it as a large and important resource!

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Roland Utbult, for the speech! It is interesting to see the member back in the fishing debate.

There is a great deal in the speech that I would like to discuss, but I actually pressed the button because the member belongs to the same party as the Minister for Rural Affairs. We are waiting with anticipation to see what the new maritime strategy will contain. We have requested it throughout this entire mandate period, and I thought that Johanna Hornberger would be spared my questions today and I address the Kristdemokraterna instead.

My question is whether the marine strategy will also contain proposals regarding the fishing area and whether it is based on the agreements we have made in other contexts, for example, the Environmental Goals Commission's report. There was a virtually finished marine environment bill on the table when Miljöpartiet left the government in December 2021, and since then nothing has happened. Is it a continuation of that work or a completely new product? Many are waiting with excitement, and wherever I am, the strategy is being requested. An incredibly large number of people have been involved in the preliminary work. What does the marine strategy contain?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to stand here and filibuster and not say anything meaningful. I sit in the Cultural Committee and work with cultural issues, but fishing is also culture. Fishing naturally lies close to my heart.

I have quite a lot of contact with the staff around the Minister for Rural Affairs, and I hear that they have a great commitment to this, but I actually have no information regarding the actual content of the maritime strategy and what it will look like. I stand here today as a substitute for our regular member in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was not my intention to put Roland Utbult on the spot, but I know of the member's great interest in fishing issues and thought that he might be informed. I might be able to provide some additional information?

A climate adaptation strategy was released the other day, and it was not funny. There was a lot of what the government wanted to "work towards" and no sharp decisions, which might be needed. When it was changed from being a marine environment bill to a marine strategy, one becomes a bit suspicious as an opposition politician. Is it once again something that one should "work towards", or will there be some sharp proposals? I understand that the member cannot answer that today, but if there are contacts with the staff, it could be a request from our side - and I also believe it is in the government's interest - that something is produced in this area. Does the member have anything to add?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I promise that I will, in any case, follow up on what we have discussed today. I also want to say that I greatly appreciate Member Nohrén's knowledge when it comes to the sea. I was there when the Member made an excursion at sea at Lysekil and described it for us. I will do what I can to convey what we have discussed here.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats are the party most responsible for Swedish fisheries policy. Unfortunately, we do not have Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren with us here today, so I am therefore directing my question to his party colleague Roland Utbult instead.

The environment in the Baltic Sea is an issue that engages many Swedes, both among the people and in party politics. There is broad agreement that the situation is very serious; I hope that we can also be in agreement on that. Within research, there is agreement that the Baltic Sea is threatened by a number of different environmental problems: eutrophication, climate change, environmental toxins, and overfishing.

Researchers are clear that efforts are required in all these areas, but that fishing is the factor we can act on most quickly. We cannot eliminate eutrophication, global warming, or forever chemicals by next year, but the countries around the Baltic Sea can decide to stop industrial fishing.

I believe that many are asking why action is not being taken to save the herring. Therefore, it also becomes my question to the Christian Democrats here today. Why does the government not act to stop industrial fishing of herring in the Baltic Sea?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I have thought quite a bit about how it is that the expression industrial fishing is used. All the boats are set for consumption, and I do not know what industrial fishing is about. It sounds more like a pejorative. Is it a question of how large the boat is or that one fishes too much? One follows quotas, which means that what one fishes is what one has a permit for. I would rather call it large-scale fishing than industrial fishing. I think that industrial fishing sounds more like a pejorative. But I know that the expression is used frequently.

I agree that the situation in the Baltic Sea is unsatisfactory. There are a number of reasons that the member mentions, for example eutrophication, emissions from ships, seals and cormorants that eat copious amounts, as well as climate change. Warm water causes the stickleback to increase. Stickleback eat eggs from perch, pike and herring. From stickleback, one can make both oil and feed, but the stickleback is harmful. There are big problems here.

I share the view that it is not a satisfactory situation in the Baltic Sea, but it is about fishing based on allocated quotas. Thus, one has permission to fish what one fishes.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish people expect the government to act to save the salmon, but the government and the Christian Democrats are sitting on their hands. As I said, there is a broad consensus within the research that there are a number of different environmental problems threatening the Baltic Sea, but fishing is what we can regulate in the short term.

My question remains: Why does the government not act to stop industrial fishing, or large-scale fishing, if that is what is desired? If you do not wish to do so, what other measures do you intend to take that can prevent the herring stocks in the Baltic Sea from collapsing in the coming years?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Andersson.

As I said, we fish based on allocated quotas, and those are regulated by the EU. When the Minister for Rural Affairs negotiated last time, he still managed to dampen the scope for the quotas. If he hadn't done that, there would have been even higher quotas. There, you have an example of that they are at least trying to regulate the whole thing.

Now the quotas exist, and one fishes based on them. Since this is an EU issue, neither Member Andersson nor I can influence the matter here where we are currently located.

It is important to put the question into a larger perspective. When one speaks about small-scale fishing, the question is how many trawlers are needed to fill up the large-scale quota fishing. If one only uses trawlers, it is about approximately 5,000 trawlers to fill the quotas - that which the large-scale fishing takes up.

I am convinced that the government, with the Minister for Rural Affairs at the helm, is doing what can be done. One sees the concern regarding the Baltic Sea, but one also has to comply with EU rules and EU decisions.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Utbult for his speech.

I too will pose a question regarding the Baltic Sea. It is there that we see the greatest problems at the moment. What we have now seen in the northern part of the Bothnian Bay is that even the salmon stock is shrinking significantly. Now, ICES, in its scientific basis to the EU Commission before the decision on fishing quotas, including for salmon fishing in the Bothnian Bay, included a proposal to stop all salmon fishing at the border with Västerbotten. Thus, all fishing for salmon in that area, 29N and subarea 30, would be stopped in order to protect the heavily threatened salmon stock in Ljungan, which is a natural salmon.

This decision was opposed at the time by the governments of Sweden and Finland, which instead put forward a counter-question to ICES. This is usually called technical consultation. However, ICES has not yet answered this question. But as a result of this question not yet being answered, the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has decided to allow 45 professional fishers to conduct a so-called scientific fishery for salmon in the area. But the scientific basis that the Finnish authority refers to as the basis for the decision is contradicted by several genetic investigations, which instead demonstrate that several different salmon stocks, including the endangered Ljungan salmon, cross over to the Finnish side on their way home and are therefore likely to be caught by these 45 professional fishers.

How do the government and the majority parties intend to handle this situation that has arisen?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Kronståhl.

I must repeat that I do not intend to stand here and filibuster and speak without having anything meaningful to say. The knowledge that Kronståhl possesses, I do not have in this situation, where I am replacing the regular member in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

The only thing I can say is that I have confidence in the Minister for Rural Affairs and his staff, with whom I still have some contact. I am in the Culture Committee, and I drive issues there. In my contacts with Kullgren and the staff, I have understood that one is doing what can be done to regulate the fishing in a way that is satisfactory for Swedish fishers and for the Baltic Sea.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Roland Utbult for his answer. I have great respect for the fact that he, in his role, does not have knowledge of everything. I must say as Emma Nohrén said, namely that I am making a side comment.

The big problem is, besides the fact that we will probably let Finland fish up the salmon we intended to protect, that this means that the small fishing fleet on the Swedish side, four or five professional fishing boats, do not have permission to fish for salmon. It becomes a difficult situation where we fail to protect what we are supposed to protect, but where the Swedish fishermen still are not allowed to practice their profession. It becomes a double blow. It is a message to Member Utbult.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the increased knowledge I have gained from the speeches and previous exchanges of remarks.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is time once again to debate the fisheries policy. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation number 12 and thereby our committee motion.

Today's debate, from my side, will be very much like last year's debate about the current crisis situation for the fish in the Baltic Sea. It is with a bit of a fool's persistence that we discuss the situation.

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by briefly discussing the fact that previous speakers have also raised. It concerns the need for significantly increased energy production in the country to meet tomorrow's and, not least, the green transition's enormous need for cheap electricity. This means that we must enable significantly more offshore wind farms, and then primarily in the southern parts of the country where the need for new electricity production is greatest.

Several offshore wind farms are now fortunately under planning and in the decision-making stage on the west coast and in Bohuslän. But there, quite extensive conflict situations have also arisen with the fishing industry and professional fishers regarding the placement of these wind farms.

The concern comes primarily from the commercial fishers, who argue that the now proposed locations may be the death blow for, among other things, the very important shrimp fishing, which has its best fishing waters within the areas where it has been planned to place these rather large offshore wind farms.

At the same time, the government says it is working on a renewed food strategy, which they call 2.0, where they want to focus more than in previous food strategies also on the blue industries. Not least in times of crisis, these industries can be very important and contribute to an increased food supply.

Despite this fact, it was the Social Democratic government that tasked the Swedish Board of Agriculture and the Swedish Energy Agency, as well as the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, to coordinate and ensure that the fishing industry would be involved in discussing these placements at a very early stage, in order to have as little impact as possible on the fishermen on the west coast.

Mr. Speaker! I mean that the government must take these signals and this concern seriously and listen to the fishing industry to resolve the situation that has arisen. There should be, just as Member Utbult said earlier, room for both energy production and food production in these areas without these conflicts needing to arise.

Mr. Speaker! The EU Council of Ministers reached a decision on 20 November 2023 on how large the quotas for fishing in the Baltic Sea should be during 2024. A decision on the establishment of fishing quotas for, among others, the Baltic Sea is reached every autumn by the EU Council of Ministers to establish the frameworks for how much fish, for example herring, sprat, and sprat, may be caught in the Baltic Sea.

This decision was, in many important respects, impossible to reconcile with the scientific advice that the EU commissions from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES. It went against the proposal for a decision that the EU Commission had prepared on the basis of this scientific advice.

Among other things, the commission had proposed that no targeted fishing and only unavoidable by-catches should be allowed for both the herring and sprat stocks in the central Baltic Sea as well as in the Gulf of Bothnia. Despite this, the council and our current government decided to allow the catch of over 40,000 tonnes of herring and sprat and 55,000 tonnes of sprat.

Mr. Speaker! Let me just remind that the situation for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea is, as everyone knows, acutely threatened. The small-scale coastal commercial fishing that fishes for human consumption gets very little, if any fish, that is large enough for human consumption.

We have practically exterminated the cod and have had a fishing ban since 2019, and we still see no recovery. Now we are also receiving alarming signals that the salmon is decreasing sharply in the Bay of Bothnia, which is naturally another consequence of the fact that there is far too little herring and sprat, and that the situation for these species is becoming increasingly acute.

If we do not want herring and sprat to suffer the same fate as the cod already has, we must act now, and powerfully, before it is too late.

The development of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea since the peak levels in the 70s - which were quite high due to other emissions - is an alarming development that cannot be misinterpreted in any way.

The reduction of herring in the Gulf of Bothnia is 50 percent since the beginning of the 90s, i.e., a halving since the 90s. In the central Baltic Sea, the reduction is 80 percent since the 70s, but - note well - 40 percent during the last four years. In the western Baltic Sea, the reduction is 80 percent since the beginning of the 90s.

Despite these facts, the sitting government nevertheless decided in the EU Council of Ministers to allow continued targeted fishing for herring and sprat of 40,000 tonnes and 55,000 tonnes of spiny dogfish, with a guaranteed amount of herring and sprat as bycatch that does not need to be reported.

Mr. Speaker! This decision means that it will be the large-scale fishing that will catch these quotas, fish that unfortunately will be ground down into animal feed by 95 percent. Once again, it is the local, regional, and small-scale commercial fishing that fishes for human consumption that are the big losers.

The question that I and many others with me are asking is: Have the EU Council of Ministers and the government really acted in accordance with their powers and guidelines? Or have they fallen prey to the economic profit interests of a few large actors? Instead of following the recommendations from science and trying to save the fish population and the environment in the entire Baltic Sea, and perhaps even instead of following the law, one chooses to continue to allow all fishing in the entire threatened Baltic Sea.

Mr. Speaker! The decision on the fishing quotas for herring, sprat, and blue whiting has now been made, contrary to all scientific advice. But the government still has the opportunity, if the will exists, to implement various measures to try to protect our critically low levels of herring and sprat.

After several audits, we can state that the occurrence of incorrect reporting of how much herring and sprat one has taken is almost total. Two-thirds are shown to report more than 10 percent incorrectly. What is worse is that over 10 percent of the audited boats reported over 100 percent incorrectly. This means that the reporting obligation and the landing obligation in Sweden are hardly being complied with at all. This, combined with far too high fishing quotas, makes it quite obvious that fishing in the Baltic Sea is driving the development towards a total collapse for herring and sprat if nothing is done.

Mr. Speaker! I finally want to urge the government and the governing parties to take at least this issue seriously. The least one can do, and it can be done immediately, is to significantly increase the sanction fees for fishing violations so that they truly deter this illegal behavior.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that I was very pleased when I heard Member Kronståhl's position on wind power. It must coexist with the fishing industry, and one should not place the large wind farms on the best fishing grounds that one has around the coasts. I think that was very good.

I have a question; it concerns bottom trawling. The Social Democratic Party decided at its congress a few years ago that they wanted to ban all bottom trawling and also aimed to ban bottom trawling in the entire EU. My question is whether this remains in place.

I see what is decided at party congresses and in such highest decision-making bodies as law in the party - it must simply be realized. But how is it actually going with this decision? Is bottom trawling still something that the Social Democrats want to ban, not just around Sweden's coasts but also in the entire EU?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Utbult, for the question! We can, of course, state that bottom trawling in many respects is very destructive and is not a good way of fishing. It actually destroys the important life that exists on the seabed. There are, of course, certain types of fishing, for example shrimp fishing and others, where it may be more or less necessary with a certain amount of bottom trawling. But in principle, one should find better fishing methods because bottom trawling is so destructive.

I think it is a form of political cleanliness that, if one is pursuing an issue that is largely decided by the EU and the EU Commission, for example fishing issues, it is good not to stay solely within national borders. A political vision must be that if we are to try to improve the seas, we must do so in the entire area we have jurisdiction over.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It was, therefore, not something that needed to be followed but rather a vision or a goal. If a ban on all bottom trawling in Swedish waters and also in the entire EU were to be realized, it is clear that, as the member said, there won't be much shrimp fishing. There will be no langoustine, grayling, cod, whiting, and so on. It would be quite devastating.

I remember having such debates with, among others, the Social Democrat Jan-Olof Larsson, and I do not think he was very satisfied with this decision. I want to remember that both he and the Minister for Rural Affairs at the time, Sven-Erik Bucht, ducked away from the decision that was made.

Carina Svensson, chair of the environment committee in Malmö city, who submitted the motion, even said this: "Many were probably surprised that the proposal actually passed." It was she and her party colleagues in Malmö who were behind the motion regarding the ban on bottom trawling. That explains a bit to me why this passed. It actually surprises me that it passed, but they somehow succeeded in their persuasion.

I actually have confidence that the Social Democrats will take a different path moving forward, which might be a bit less confrontational. If we remove bottom trawling, we will have no Swedish fishing left.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! We can, Member Utbult, hope that technology and development move forward; that can be the case. Quite a lot has happened in very many areas. We support much research on catch-per-unit-effort and other things for the fisheries. At some point, we will hopefully also solve this with bottom trawling, or at least its damaging effects on the seabed. We all know this, and it is very unfortunate.

That was what the party congress wanted to achieve in this case, Mr. Speaker. They wanted to achieve a stop to the destruction of the seabed that occurs during bottom trawling. But we are hoping for technology, and for the time being, we must allow bottom trawling to some extent.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The current situation is serious; I agree with that. But it did not arise yesterday. The current situation in the Baltic Sea did not arise on September 11, 2022, either; we have seen this situation for many years. Now that the Social Democrats are in opposition, we hear many fine words and a great commitment to fishing. Where was that commitment when the Social Democrats were in government?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Beatrice Timgren, for the question, or if it was a statement - I do not know. The fact is, however, that we worked quite actively with fisheries policy even during our time in government. It was actually we who first ensured that we decided on a moved trawl limit to test it and see if it was a solution to save the herring and the sprat. We also worked on several occasions for reduced fishing quotas in the Baltic Sea.

I have been quite careful to point out that what we see in the Baltic Sea is a development that is very critical - alarming in many different ways. I have not at any time said that it is this government's fault, and even less is it the previous government's fault.

What I am saying is that it is a political responsibility to act when one sees that something acute is about to happen. That was exactly what we did in a government position, and I believe that we should continue and strive even more, before it is too late.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the trawling limit, it was a committee initiative that the Sweden Democrats also supported.

Commitment is important. I have tried to look a bit at what the Social Democrats have done. I have, among other things, looked at the Social Democrats' website with the heading Marine Environment. Fish has no own tab. Some proposals are listed where it appears what the Social Democrats have done in a government position, but very few points concern fishing.

I therefore want to ask: How will the Social Democrats act if they were to get the opportunity to govern again? Will the Social Democrats prioritize the fisheries policy more?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Beatrice Timgren, for your interest in the Social Democratic government's policy! I am truly pleased.

We made this relocation of the trawling limit. After that, we have had many discussions, within the party but also with other parties, for example in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. In the latest discussion we had about fishing quotas and other matters, it was our and other parties' proposal that we should follow ICES's recommendations and introduce a total ban on fishing for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea, with an exception for small-scale commercial fishing for human consumption.

Of course, this would be our policy if we were in government.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's coasts and seas are in many ways unique. The coast and the sea are not only synonymous with fantastic nature experiences and vibrant coastal communities with traditions and cultural heritage. The seas also contribute valuable ecosystem services and produce oxygen, biodiversity, and food. It is from there that we obtain many appreciated foods that we gladly put on the table.

The sea has kept the Swedish people alive over the years. But, Mr. Speaker, just as we have heard here tonight, it is difficult to avoid touching upon the situation in the Baltic Sea in a debate such as this, and the situation is not good. We must address the imbalance in the marine ecosystems. The Baltic Sea must become a healthy sea again. It is important for the climate. It is important for the ecosystems, for the Swedish economy and for our food security, to mention just a few things. Unfortunately, as is known, there is no quick fix that quickly changes the situation.

We Liberals would like us to seriously introduce an ecosystem-based ocean management – a management where natural values are preserved and natural resources are utilized in an environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable manner. The goal is to ensure that ecosystems are utilized within their limits.

It is not enough to manage each component individually. We must take the whole into account. If one eliminates a stock of predatory fish, the small fish become too common. If we get too much seal and cormorant, it creates problems. This is how one can go on and count up thing after thing that we must keep track of and ensure are in order.

We must have a more long-term fisheries management that is combined with an offensive ocean policy that heals the Baltic Sea, because it is a broken sea. The Baltic Sea must become a healthy and productive sea again.

Mr. Speaker! We must ensure that there is fish to fish for the very important small-scale and coastal fishing industry. Only through a balanced ocean do we safeguard just this. It is important for the local business life, for the tourism industry, for the coastal areas - yes, for incredibly many things.

Swedish commercial fishing is important, and we have a responsibility to ensure that there is a future for the industry. We need to create confidence in the future, and we must get younger fishers to take over when the older ones stop.

Mr. Speaker! I believe someone has said this before me tonight, but it is easy to become a bit gloomy when discussing fisheries policy. There are, however, glimmers of light. One thing that has already been mentioned tonight is the production of seafood. There is great potential here. There is both hope and faith in the future. Here, we in the government base are also doing a lot to simplify permit processes and speed up the industry, because Sweden needs to increase its food security. We need to do it in a way that is sustainable for the climate. Here, seafood can play an important role.

(Applause)

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but to save time, I move for approval of only reservation 6.

Fishing in the Baltic Sea and in the Western Sea faces great challenges. The Baltic Sea's brackish waters and unique ecosystems are very sensitive to pollution and overfishing. The Baltic Sea's shallow waters and very low water exchange mean that the situation for fishing becomes even more acute. The Western Sea shares many of these challenges, even though the conditions differ in many important ways.

Many fish along our coasts have decreased. One such fish species is cod, which we have discussed here earlier. It has decreased and has not recovered. Let me compare historically: In the 1960s to 1980s, one had catches of several hundred thousand tons in the Skagerrak and the North Sea. That is not how it looks today.

In the Baltic Sea, we have the so-called "slim cod" – thin cod that are often attacked by parasites. We also have reduced herring stocks in the Baltic Sea. That reality looks very bleak, but there are glimmers of light. We see that certain species have actually increased. One of them is coalfish in the North Sea and Skagerrak. We also receive signals that bream and pike and perch in Vänern and Vättern have begun to recover. This gives hope for a better future, because we must believe that it is possible to do something. Otherwise, there is no point in us standing here – then we might as well pack up and go home.

I want to be optimistic. It is important to believe in scientifically based strategies and to carry out a management of the fish stocks in a thoughtful way. We see that reduced eutrophication is slowly but surely starting to yield results. This also applies to the reduction of environmental toxins. Fish in some parts of the Baltic Sea have lower levels of PCB and dioxins.

It is a matter of having the patience to be persistent, because this takes a very long time. We must also continue to work with selective gear to reduce bycatch and also reduce the discards of fish. We must also continue the fight against abandoned fishing gear, because abandoned fishing gear continues to catch fish long after they have been abandoned, and they catch not only fish but also marine mammals.

Then we have the cormorant, which has increased exponentially in many parts of the Baltic Sea, and this is a major problem, not only for Sweden but also for other countries around the Baltic Sea. Here we would like to see a reduction and a strong management of the cormorant population. We Sverigedemokrater want therefore to introduce a compensation to increase the hunting of specifically cormorants. The cormorant eats large amounts of fish and is therefore a problem for the fish stocks and for fishermen. We also want the cormorant to be removed from the EU's birds directive to make the hunting easier.

If we look ahead, we see that there is great potential when it comes to fish farming and aquaculture. In these times with these global circumstances, self-sufficiency is incredibly important, but Sweden lags far behind, especially in contrast to Norway. What is the reason then? Well, it is the permit processes. All actors within aquaculture whom I have spoken with point to the same thing, namely permit processes that lead to administrative burden. The permit processes take time, and it means that actors do not dare to invest in the important blue industry.

That is why I am glad that we now have a new government in place. The previous government has completely disregarded the permit processes. This is not something that arose yesterday, but it has been discussed for a long time. I listened to debates from before I entered the Riksdag. Even then, permit processes were discussed. In addition to everything else that this government must rectify after the previous government, I am glad that the current government takes this seriously. I myself submitted a written question about this and received an answer that active work is being done.

Finally, I want to discuss fishing quotas. Here, the current government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has shown an ability to negotiate favorable terms for Sweden at the EU level, despite other countries wanting higher quotas. Here, Sweden has successfully pushed through a restrictive line that protects both coastal fishers and fish stocks. Thanks to this work, the herring quota in the central Baltic Sea has been drastically reduced.

In 2020, it was just over 153,000 tons, when we had an S-MP government. Today, it has been negotiated down to 40,000 tons. This is a reduction of 70 percent since 2020. This speaks clearly about the current government's efficiency and commitment to sustainable fishing.

The previous government's handling of this issue leaves much to be desired. Its inability to effectively negotiate and prioritize Swedish interests at the EU level became apparent. It was a weakness that we are grateful that we no longer need to witness.

Instead of acting when they had the chance and sat in government, certain parties now choose to abuse political tools, such as KU reports and reports to the European Court of Justice, not because they protect fishing but because they want to win cheap political points. It is nothing other than political theater. This clearly shows that they are not interested in fishing but only in attention.

The current government's actions reflect a deeper understanding and respect for the complex nature of fisheries management at the EU level. It is important to negotiate lower quotas while simultaneously securing the future for coastal fishing and safeguarding fish stocks in a responsible manner.

There is much left to do, but one must start somewhere. We will continue to work to preserve our seas and coastal communities.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Timgren, for your speech! I want to make a point before I come to my question: In the years 2020 and 2021, ICES's recommendation, the scientific advice, was not a total ban on fishing for herring and sprat. That is actually 2024. That is the big difference. It is not pie-in-the-sky and it is not toy politics.

Mr. Speaker! Member Beatrice Timgren enjoys reading Social Democratic congress decisions, and I have begun to take a little interest in what Member Beatrice Timgren does in her role as a politician. Now I have noted that she opposes the EU Commission's proposal for a total ban on eel fishing in the Baltic Sea and that she believes that the eel should be regulated in the water concerned. Member Timgren further argues, which I can understand, that the important eel stocking should be ceased entirely.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the European eel constitutes only a single stock and lives in almost all of Europe. The eel stock and the recruitment of eel have decreased by 90-95 percent over the last 50 years. The eel stock is at very critical levels, far below the levels that would in any way indicate that it is a sustainable stock that can withstand fishing. The eel is assessed as critically endangered and has been listed as an endangered species since 2009.

What does member Timgren mean by that the expulsion of eel should cease and by opposing a fishing ban when the situation for the eel is so acute?

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! Yes, the eel is endangered. On that, we agree. But the Swedish eel fishing is a very small extraction in the grand scheme of things. The Swedish eel fishing accounts for approximately 1 percent of the migrating eel. It is also an important tradition. Therefore, the Sverigedemokraterna want a small and limited eel fishing specifically for the sake of tradition.

However, we see that it is a major problem that large quantities of glass eel are fished down in Europe because a kilo of glass eel down in Europe is many eels. A kilo of eel fished here is one eel. We believe that one can work more efficiently and at the same time preserve the cultural eel fishing, which should be limited and regulated.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Beatrice Timgren, for the somewhat unclear answer! I must say that I also have many traditions that I cherish. One of my more important traditions is actually crayfish fishing. It is a tradition that I cherish very much. But in doing so, I naturally also cherish the catch. I do not have the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of putting in and taking up cages, but it is the catch that I de facto am after.

Member of Parliament Timgren's reasoning implies that the tradition is more important than the content. Here we have a stock that has decreased by over 95 percent. This means that this tradition will soon be extinct if a way is not found to make the eel survive.

Mr. Speaker! In 2009, the EU Commission approved, not lightly, Sweden's national management plan for eel, where we allow some eel fishing. There were four important measures in regard to that approval.

The first thing was about significantly reducing fishing's impact on the stock. Therefore, there are no new licenses. It is the old ones that remain and can be inherited, but no new ones are granted.

The second thing was about reducing the impact from hydropower. It actually affects the salmon very negatively. This was stopped, or in any case paused, by you, Beatrice Timgren. It would have been good if we had been able to start the renovation so that one could have continued to get the salmon out.

The third point concerned the protection of habitats for [species] to enable continued occurrence and growth environments where they no longer exist or where they are disappearing.

The fourth was about increasing control and supervision to avoid a continued decrease or collapse.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, even our eel fishers protect the eel stock. Without eel, our eel fishers would not have been able to continue fishing for eel. I have spoken with eel fishers who have told me that it is of the utmost importance that the eel remains. They simply release the eel back if it is too small.

To ban eel fishing is placard politics because it is an extremely small part. One has small quotas, and it is an extremely small part of the eel that is taken via fishing. It is approximately 1 percent of the migrating silver eel.

We see that there are more effective methods to use. One of them involves looking at how they should not be able to get stuck in turbines. But there, there is a conflict of interest. The member also spoke about that conflict of interest previously, but then it concerned offshore wind power. It is about energy.

In the situation we were in, it was necessary to take a pause in order to be able to investigate how this would affect our energy production in Sweden. But I hope that one will be able to get started and will be able to work to also protect the eel in our waterways.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Beatrice Timgren, for an interesting presentation! When the Member describes what the government has done regarding regulatory changes concerning aquaculture, I actually perceive it as an exaggeration. I want to assert that I see very little improvement when it comes to aquaculture. I would very much like to hear Member Timgren describe how she sees this improvement.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

It has not been that long since the new government took office. I asked a question at the end of last year to the Minister for Rural Affairs and received the answer that one is actively working on the issue and that an inquiry will be launched. We can therefore all look forward to an inquiry. I hope that it will provide answers to the question because this has been a problem for an incredibly long time. It was not a problem that arose yesterday, but it has existed for a very long time.

I have great confidence that this government will succeed in coming up with a proposal that will mean we get shorter lead times and much less administration.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! One can always hope that we get better conditions. But it is about many things. It is not just the detailed rules for the fishing itself. The shoreline protection rules also affect the ability to achieve good functionality in aquaculture. It is the whole that must be addressed if we are to succeed with this part.

If one looks at the aquaculture, it represents a great opportunity to bring in more fish for human consumption. Therefore, this is very important.

I have not yet seen anything of these simplification efforts.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We heard earlier that there is an ongoing simplification process regarding the shore protection and in order to be able to safeguard the water management.

All parties agree that this must be done. Unfortunately, not much has happened. But as I said earlier, this government has not been in power for even two years yet. But I have confidence that the government will present proposals. An investigation is currently underway, and we simply have to have patience. But I have greater confidence in this government than in the previous one. The previous government did not succeed in eight years. Now we simply have to see what the investigation will conclude.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Life in our seas, lakes, 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. Political measures are now required to address the problems.

In recent years, we have been reached by recurring alarms regarding the situation for the herring in the Baltic Sea. Coastal fishers and researchers testify that the amount of herring has decreased sharply. The herring that remains is so small that it can no longer be used for processing or sale. The fastest way to help the stocks recover would be to stop the large-scale industrial fishing. The greater part of the fish taken up by these vessels does not end up on Swedes' plates but becomes feed.

In this acute situation, we should be able to expect the parties in the government base to act with force to stop the devastation in the Baltic Sea. Unfortunately, that is not what we see. When the EU Commission in the autumn, after it had been alerted for several years about the situation of the herring, finally proposed a ban on targeted fishing for herring in the central Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia, the government chose instead to work for industrial fishing to continue, even though they know that for every year this destructive fishing is allowed to continue, we move ever closer to a collapse of the herring stocks.

We have debated this issue on several occasions previously, and the argument that is constantly heard from the right-wing parties is that they had no choice because no other country wanted to stop the fishing. The Swedish government is therefore shrugging its shoulders at our common sea being depleted. But it is not so surprising when one looks at how they handle other environmental issues. Instead of being a pioneering country, Sweden ends up in the rear.

As if the scandalous decision to continue allowing large-scale fishing in defiance of current regulations were not enough, the EU Commission now intends to change the management plan for the Baltic Sea so that the member states' unlawful decisions will henceforth be considered correct and proper. After the matter has been on the table for several months, the government has been unable to do more than say no to it being fast-tracked. But on the substantive issue, they still do not know what they want. They cannot, therefore, decide whether the herring should be protected from collapse or not. Or have they actually decided but do not want to speak out about it?

When we had deliberations in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture a little over a month ago, it appeared from Rural Affairs Minister Kullgren's side that he in any case has no objections to the Commission's proposal to weaken the management plan.

The right-wing parties justify their actions by stating that they want to protect small-scale, coastal fishing from fishing bans. It is a bluff. The most important prerequisite for small-scale fishing to be able to continue is that there are sustainable fish stocks to fish on. For that to become a reality, a ban on industrial fishing is required. Such a ban can be combined without any problems with allowing small-scale fishing to continue.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, herring is not the only fish species that is doing poorly. When it comes to cod, the situation has been serious for a long time. The cod stock in the Baltic Sea 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 Western 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 insufficient fisheries control. It also makes it difficult for researchers to assess the size of the stocks.

Mr. Speaker! 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 government does not seem to take the Riksdag's decision seriously because the trawling ban is only being implemented as a trial in certain areas.

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 same 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 crucial 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, in this situation, completely insufficient. Even worse and even more incomprehensible, however, is Sweden's choice to place the fishing ban during the period when eel fishing is at its lowest. Furthermore, the government wants to stop the phasing out of licenses for eel fishing that exists today.

Those who advocate for maintaining the eel fishery often refer to it as a tradition. But a tradition is usually something that one envisions being able to continue far into the future. The only reasonable thing, therefore, would be to do everything we can to strengthen the eel stock now to avoid the eel disappearing completely. Without eels, no eel fishing.

Mr. Speaker! We have historically been far too slow to act so that fishing becomes sustainable. It has left us with depleted seas and small-scale fishing on the brink of extinction. This is something that we politicians need to take most seriously. Therefore, we must act now to stop industrial fishing, move out the trawling limit, protect endangered species, and establish a management aimed at long-term sustainability and not short-term economic profit for a few large actors.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a fishing industry based on 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 3.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Andrea Andersson for the speech. I received a couple of messages from some colleagues, and I thought I would make a message to Member Andersson.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for the debate. I have, therefore, replaced a sick Kjell-Arne Ottosson, but he will be back soon. Thank you very much for the good content and knowledge from everyone, including from member Andersson!

My contribution is to stop talking about industrial fishing. I do not know why this term is used. The boats are fishing for consumption. One does not just fish one species, but one fishes herring, mackerel and other species for consumption. That is what it is about. Where is the limit for industrial fishing? Is it how large the boat is? Is it how much one can store on board? Is it how much one earns or how well it goes? Some have succeeded, and that is thanks to the transferable quotas. It is true that there are large boats, but they fish for Swedish consumption. My contribution is to stop talking about industrial fishing and instead say large-scale fishing.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the invitation.

We can talk about large-scale fishing or industrial fishing. The important thing is that one understands what we mean, and we mean large boats that catch large quantities of fish that go to fishmeal production. That is primarily what we are talking about.

I have met many actors who work to improve the environment in the Baltic Sea, and what they have in common is that they are all very concerned about the impact of large-scale fishing on the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The fish caught north of Stockholm contains both PCB and dioxin, so it is not suitable to eat. There are restrictions, and those who are pregnant can eat such fish once a year and we others once a week. Other fish are sent to Denmark, where the dioxin is squeezed out and then it is made into feed.

How is small-scale fishing to manage without the large-scale? How is the food strategy to be managed? How are investments in factories to be managed? I had an example of an investment of 600 million in Kungshamn for a new herring factory for processing and production of protein products, for example protein bars. Are the small boats, net boats and others, to go out on the large, open and often violent sea and fish? How is the small-scale to manage without the large-scale, i.e., those who have succeeded through skillful fishing and who are good at approaching fishing as both culture and as art?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! The question I ask myself is rather how small-scale fishing is to survive alongside large-scale fishing, and it is that question I hear asked in unison by small-scale fishers, researchers, and environmental organizations. The fish are disappearing from the sea, and if there is no fish, no one will be able to fish.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Fish is a fantastic food with good nutritional content, protein quality, fatty acid composition, and vitamins. According to the National Food Agency's recommendation, we should eat significantly more fish than we do today. We eat approximately 14 kilos of fish per household per year and a corresponding amount of chicken, but twice as much meat. At Fiskeforum a few weeks ago, the National Food Agency said that we should eat five times as much fish. That might be an exaggeration, but if we were to double the amount of fish we eat, we would be heading in the right direction.

It is also about our self-sufficiency rate. In times of crisis or war, fish would be an excellent source of nutrition. It is surprising that fish is rarely mentioned when we talk about the self-sufficiency rate and the needs in these situations. I personally interpret it as being due to how one is organized. Therefore, it is a matter of having representatives who can highlight fish in these contexts.

Today, most of the fish is caught with trawls, approximately 98 percent. It is necessary to catch the amount of fish that we are going to take. That a part goes to fish meal does not have to be negative considering that a large part of the fish cannot be used for human consumption due to dioxins and heavy metals. A change has occurred in the fish farms. There, no more than 25-30 percent of the feed is fish meal. The rest is vegetable feed.

At Fiskeforum, it was raised that fish meal could be seen as a resource for human consumption. That is, it could be used to make food. It is an exciting development that could contribute to us getting more of important nutrients from fish.

It is also interesting that today people are looking at using processed lucerne and grass as fish feed for fish farming. It is also a project that Rise is working on. Then we could get a better system where we might be able to use more of the important fish for human consumption, and things that we humans cannot eat, we can use for the fish instead.

We in the Center Party are eager to support small-scale fishing, just as has been said in the discussions here tonight. We are pleased with the decision regarding the relocation of the trawling limit to 12 nautical miles. Not only this, but also the protected areas for which we have not yet received a decision are important so that we can protect the stocks, Madam Speaker.

One can discuss how sustainable a sustainable fishery is. But the decisions we have made, which we received decisions on from the EU Commission, we have to live with when we have this quota system. Then one can evaluate it and see how it looks next year and the year after and, if so, adjust it. I share the view that it looks bad and that it unfortunately is going a bit in the wrong direction, but now we have this quota system, and it is actually the best we have in the short term.

What we in the Center Party find interesting is to increase the volume of aquaculture. Therefore, I raise the question of simplifying the regulatory framework here tonight. We could also increase the consumption of fish for human consumption to a completely different level. Therefore, I want to move for approval of reservation 15, Madam Speaker. I also stand behind the other reservations that we in the Center Party have submitted.

A sustainable fishery that I think works better is the one we have in our lakes today. Significant amounts of fish come from our lakes. At Fiskeforum, we heard, among others, Anna, who was the 17th generation in a family that had practiced fishing in Hjälmaren since the 1600s and still does so. There, it is not a quota system but an area that one takes responsibility for. It might be a bit simpler to achieve sustainability in that way of working. That is how it looks in many of our lakes. Therefore, we must not give up, but we must achieve a sustainable fishery even in our seas.

There are many things that affect the problems we have with environmental impact in our seas - the emissions that we have talked a lot about this evening, but also the change in the climate with higher temperatures. A reduced amount of fish is not only due to the fact that we fish too much, but also due to environmental changes. We must see this as a whole. On the other hand, we see that many are pushing to improve the environment. Even His Majesty the King was at Fiskeforum and highlighted the environmental issues and showed a great interest in this. Many are pushing so that we head in the right direction in environmental issues.

Just as Roland Utbult pointed out, we must also accommodate other interests, such as wind power. I think Member Utbult expressed it in a very good way. We are not going to keep trawling in the best waters; we should do that in other places.

The investigations HaV has conducted are good. However, the fishers entered that process a bit too late, and today people are not satisfied with how that process has proceeded. Some improvement is needed for the future so that we can get the fishers on board if we are to succeed in getting significantly more wind power.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 3 April.)

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