Fisheries policy

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! Our coasts, our archipelagos and our waters have for centuries been the cornerstone of the fishing industry, in the vitality of the coastal communities and in our common livelihood. Today, however, we face a situation where the balance between the use and preservation of our marine resources has been disturbed, and it is our duty to rectify it.

Madam Speaker! Overfishing in the Baltic Sea is a concrete and acute problem. It is not an abstract future issue; it is here and now.

For decades, the development has gone in the wrong direction. Cod, once so abundant that it could be pulled up from the pier with just a hook, is today gone in large parts of the Baltic Sea. Sprat and herring, important not only as food fish but also as the basis for the entire marine ecosystem, show alarming signs of collapse.

What we see is the result of a system failure, a system where quotas are negotiated in late-night mangling in Brussels, where scientific recommendations are negotiated away in compromises and where environmental considerations have not weighed heavily enough. It is irresponsible, and it is not sustainable.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates believe that a functioning and sustainable fishery must be based on science, on long-term thinking, and on stewardship. We must see the fish as a resource we borrow from future generations, not as something we can allow short-term interests to exploit to the last drop.

But this is not only an environmental issue but also a question of preparedness and supply. In a time of increased geopolitical unrest, where food supply is moving higher up on the agenda, it is crucial that we ensure Sweden has the capacity to produce more food within the country's borders. That includes food from the sea.

The fishing industry is not only a part of Sweden's culture and history. It is also a part of our future security. In a situation where we are building up a stronger total defense and a broader civil preparedness, food security must be at the center, and there fishing plays a key role.

No food-producing industry can ramp up as quickly as the fishing industry, which has no lead times waiting for seeds to germinate, grow, and become ready for harvest. Provided that the fish are in the sea, they are essentially available to us year-round to be caught and processed into food.

Madam Speaker! We must therefore invest in coastal, small-scale fishing – that which both takes environmental considerations into account and strengthens local supply capacity. There is also great potential in the development of sustainable aquaculture, i.e., fish farms that can complement wild fishing and contribute to both jobs and food production.

Mr. Speaker, we must also be realistic. For fishing to be a resource even in the future, we must sometimes dare to make tough decisions today. We must be prepared to significantly limit fishing when it is necessary, to protect marine areas where the fish are given a chance to spawn, and to tighten controls so that those who cheat do not compete out those who follow the rules.

Here, the EU plays a central role. The Moderates want Sweden to be a strong voice for reforms in the common fisheries policy. We want to see a more adaptive, ecologically based management. We want to see a stop to the overfishing of sensitive stocks, regardless of whether it occurs by boats under the Swedish flag or under our neighboring countries'.

Madam Speaker! During the current mandate period, the Government has begun to take measures. In November 2024, we passed an ambitious marine environment bill here in the chamber, which marks a new direction for Sweden's marine policy, with ecosystem-based fisheries management as a starting point.

The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management is currently working on preparing for a relocation of the trawling limit up to twelve nautical miles along the entire Baltic coast, in order to prevent all-too-large boats from fishing on the coastal stocks. They have also been tasked with significantly reducing or removing the so-called entry areas to protect the fish where they spawn. We have also here in the chamber hammered through a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas and a ban on the discharge of scrubber water.

Another major problem for the herring and sprat stocks is seals and cormorants. Both have increased sharply in recent years, and along with that, their impact on the fish stocks. The seal eats the fish, but no one eats the seal. With the marine environment bill and the ecosystem approach, the hunting of seals and cormorants shall now increase, which is necessary to create the balance required to give the herring and sprat a chance to recover.

Madam Speaker! This is only the beginning. Much more needs to be done. We must continue to work so that a true ecosystem approach is the starting point for the advice on ice, where consideration is also taken of age and size composition.

Sweden needs to continue to be a strong voice for long-term reduced catch quotas, and I hope that we can all here in this chamber work together on that. We Moderates believe in a fishery that unites environmental considerations with growth and that strengthens both our coasts and our country.

The Baltic Sea is a sea that unites but also a responsibility we share. Let us manage it with wisdom, courage, and faith in the future.

(Applause)

In this speech, Helena Storckenfeldt and John Widegren (both M) concurred.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The fishing quotas decided in negotiations between the EU countries every year have received great attention and criticism in the Swedish debate. In recent years, this has particularly concerned the situation for the herring in the Baltic Sea, which is on the brink of collapse. An all too high fishing pressure is a large part of the reason for that.

The Swedish government has been passive in the issue for far too long, but it is good that one now seems to have taken in some of the great outrage that exists among the Swedish people regarding the fact that the herring is threatened. I expect that at this year's and next year's quota negotiations, the tone will be sharpened further and that one will go head-to-head in the negotiations.

But aside from the negotiations on fishing quotas at the EU level, there are actually things that the government itself could do. I think that across party lines we should be able to agree that it is not reasonable for a few individual large vessels to account for such a large share of the fishing in the Baltic Sea while many more smaller boats have to share only a small part of the fishing quotas.

That we have this skewed distribution is also harmful to the Swedish crisis preparedness. Small boats are flexible and can fish both near the coast and on the open sea. They also consume less fuel and can land their catches in all ports. All of this makes it easier for fishing to be redirected in a crisis situation.

Today's system of individual transferable quotas, however, privileges the large actors at the expense of small-scale fishing. The fishing quotas are concentrated among a few large boats. Today, it is only a few large actors who can live very well off their catches.

That the system looks like this is also part of the explanation for why the salmon stock is doing so poorly. Large-scale fishing in certain areas during certain times of the year risks wiping out local stocks.

My question to the Moderates is: Will the government review the quota allocation system to ensure that fishing can become more sustainable?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by reminding the member that this government has, in fact, managed to secure the lowest quotas ever in the negotiations she mentions in the question.

When it comes to the national quota distribution, ITQ, we must nevertheless acknowledge that it may have gone wrong. There was a completely different objective when this system was developed. They wanted the fishing industry to start becoming profitable, and that goal has been achieved – however, at the expense of other things.

We absolutely need to review how the quotas are distributed. This ten-year period is also coming to an end soon, so we have a window to look at what other goals we could have in the quota distribution.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! It is a pleasing announcement that the government is open to looking into this issue. I truly agree that it is high time to overhaul the system, as it is quite obvious that it has not turned out as one had hoped. Even the current Director General of the Swedish Fisheries Agency has said that he regrets being involved in introducing the system, and that says quite a lot. But we have not seen anything concrete in that direction yet. Now, there are rather plans to expand the system to more fish. When will we see a new system in place?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management is responsible for this system. The current period, as mentioned, expires in 2029. There is therefore a window to make changes, but we also need to give that assignment to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. When that will be given, I cannot answer here today, but I and several of my colleagues are working to ensure that it happens.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report 19, which addresses motions from the general motion period. It primarily concerns proposals on sustainable fish stocks, measures to protect the Swedish fishing industry, control and sanctions, but also, for example, recreational fishing and fish tourism.

The committee proposes rejection of all motions. We in the opposition do not agree. We Social Democrats have a number of reservations. We stand behind all of them, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 23. We want to protect the blue industry.

With over 100,000 lakes, tens of thousands of miles of flowing watercourses and a coast stretching over 200 miles, we in Sweden have enormous potential for both the fishing industry and aquaculture. There are great opportunities for recreational fishing and fish tourism. At the same time, we face serious threats from overfishing and eutrophication, which risk wiping out several fish stocks. Measures are required both in the short and in the long term.

We want to safeguard small-scale, coastal fishing, and we want – not least from a preparedness perspective – to see increased fishing for human consumption, but we view the development of the situation with great concern. For small-scale, coastal fishing to function, a functioning infrastructure is required. There also needs to be a market for the catch. It is simply a matter of realizing that the conducted policy has favored large-scale fishing and that small-scale fishing has, in other respects, been squeezed.

As it is now, most of the Baltic herring goes to fishmeal factories in Denmark. The market favors large-scale fishing, which can ship large quantities directly to the factories. No offense was intended, but it is a market consequence of politically made decisions.

When we treat the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea as if they were one and the same, the warnings about levels of dioxin and PCB certainly scare away consumers. Since the fishmeal factories have invested in technology for the purification of dioxins, there is a market logic in that the Baltic Sea herring is sold for fishmeal. With relatively low profit, large quantities are required, which drives large-scale fishing that pushes out small-scale fishing and seems to lead to overfishing. Perhaps we should instead acknowledge that the Baltic Sea herring stocks look different and consider more regionalized management, seek to land more of the Baltic Sea fish locally and regionally, and increase the degree of processing locally with more fish for human consumption.

We want to reverse the development and engage in expanding the infrastructure with ports and processing industries. For that to be possible, there needs to be a demand. People must want to eat fish. It is a difficult balancing act to handle rhetorically. On one hand, we have problems with overfishing. On the other hand, we need to have demand so that small-scale fishing can be saved.

Madam Speaker! It is the Social Democrats' view that the trawling limit should be moved out in favor of small-scale, coastal fishing. Currently, a time-limited scientific project is underway at the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management which, in brief, involves moving the trawling limit along the coast all the way from the Baltic Sea down to the northern tip of Öland. The project was initiated to promote small-scale fishing. But the agency chose not to make any exceptions for small-scale fishing. It now becomes yet another example of how political decisions, at least in the short term, have favored large-scale operations. The Government needs to act to find alternative benefits for small-scale, coastal fishing to give their operations a reasonable chance to survive this project.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to pause the large-scale fishing in the Baltic Sea. Even though a recovery in spawning biomass, improved condition of the fish, and an increased contribution from the younger age classes are demonstrated, the scientific advice also points out uncertainties regarding partial stocks and an unnaturally low proportion of large individuals. From an ecosystem-based perspective, it is pointed out that the size of the herring matters in the big picture.

I have been told that it is only when the herring reaches a size of over 18 centimeters that it eats sprat. That the stock is so small could be an explanation for the sharp increase in sprat, which in turn could be a partial explanation for the decrease in perch and pike, whose roe and fry are eaten by the sprat. The small size of the herring is believed to be a sign of previous overfishing from large-scale fishing.

I realize that for those concerned, it may sound as if I am blaming them, who are sometimes called industrial trawlers in the debate. I do not do that. The fishing quotas are politically decided. The responsibility is ours as a society, just as we now bear responsibility for what should happen in the future.

Madam Speaker! For just over half a year, I have had the privilege of working with these issues in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. It is not easy to navigate. It involves complex legislation, regulations at many levels, numerous actors, a lot of emotions, an infinite number of different descriptions of reality, strong opinions, and heavy goal conflicts.

One thing has struck me. It seems as if not least we within politics have spoken more about the affected and about each other than we have spoken with each other. Now that we seem to be increasingly in agreement across party boundaries, I hope that in the future we can act a bit more down-to-earth and reasonable and that together we can save the Baltic Sea from collapse.

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Malin Larsson (both S) concurred.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! Herring and sprat are not just fish. They are the foundation for the entire Baltic Sea ecosystem. The collapse of cod and the dramatic decline of salmon in rivers such as Torneälven and Råneälven are consequences that we are now forced to handle. It requires political leadership and not symbolic politics.

But what are the Social Democrats doing? They are shouting quite loudly about fishing bans and that the trawl limit must be moved, preferably through international agreements, which they know are difficult to get through. Good. I am also shouting loudly about moved trawl limits. We agree there.

But now that Sweden and Finland have finally managed to agree on a limited responsibility for salmon fishing in the Torne älven, the Social Democrats are putting a spoke in the wheels. Instead of backing up a long-term sustainable decision, for example, S member Ida Karkiainen questions the agreement in the Riksdag. I think that is hypocrisy.

The Social Democrats show time and again that they say one thing in the Riksdag and do something completely different when it starts to cost political points in the home municipality. It reminds me a bit of the wind power debate: gladly wind power, but not here. It is double standards.

My question to Member of Parliament Petersson is quite clear: Are the Social Democrats prepared to take responsibility even when it is difficult, or is it your party line to say what sounds good in the debate and run when things get tough?

(Applause)

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Lewerentz for the question of whether the Social Democrats are prepared to take responsibility. To that question, I answer yes.

I come from a small municipality called Torsås, located in the southeastern corner of Sweden. Regarding the comparison the member made with wind power, I can say that in Torsås, where the Social Democrats and the Moderates govern together, we have a surplus in electricity production. This applies to both wind power and solar power. We in Torsås take responsibility, when needed, for electricity production and for fishing.

In Torsås, we are deeply engaged in the cormorant issue, which the member took up to my great pleasure in his main speech. Social Democrats and Moderates are in complete agreement on the negative impact that the spread of cormorants has in Kalmarsund. Over 70,000 cormorants pick up over 35 tons of fish a day. Fishing otherwise is almost non-existent because of that.

I look forward to seeing examples of the political leadership that the member calls for and will cheer on the government when it tackles the issue of sustainable fishing.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer and look forward to these cheers. They were conspicuous by their absence last autumn.

The single largest factor behind the pressured fish stocks in the Baltic Sea is the quota setting at the EU level. Many here in the chamber have probably seen the Uppdrag granskning documentary "The Fish We Inherited". There, it establishes what many of us already know: the system is broken, and it is the fault of politics, regardless of which side one stands on.

In the documentary, it is highlighted how the quota negotiations take place behind closed doors. Several former ministers who have been responsible for the issues are interviewed. Three of them are Social Democrats. They openly admit that it is more about political maneuvering than about fact-based decisions. If you vote no, you are kicked out of the room, says one of them.

This is what the Social Democrats' fishing policy looks like. Despite the fact that the current government has succeeded for the first time in bringing the quotas down to the lowest level set since the system was introduced, the Social Democrats are shouting about betrayal and that Sweden should have voted no. It is not only dishonest, it is also misleading.

The Social Democrats have contributed to overfishing for years, and now that we are trying to reverse the development, they duck their responsibility and play the opposition. It is as if the Social Democrats have forgotten who was at the helm during the greater part of the time when the Baltic Sea's fish stocks were depleted.

When will the Social Democrats stop pretending that they do not bear a heavy responsibility for today's crisis? What magical alternative way of negotiating, which is to take place outside the negotiating room, are they actually advocating for?

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Madam Speaker! The member asks when we Social Democrats will take responsibility. I believe we do. I believe that in this debate I have been clear that we bear responsibility.

The failed fisheries policy that the member expresses has existed for a long time. Both of our parties bear responsibility for this, I want to assert.

The Chairman spoke about the quota negotiations and gave an account of the TV program where my party friends said that if one votes no, one is kicked out of the room. Perhaps that is an explanation for why the Minister for Rural Affairs did not vote no, which he was, according to the EU Committee, obliged to do. He had received a message from here in the Riksdag to say no, but he did not do so. Perhaps it was due to the risk of being kicked out of the room, who knows.

With a little more courage from both of us, perhaps we can help each other and save the herring stock before it collapses.

Yes, I will cheer on the government in its efforts for sustainable fishing. But I will take the liberty of not just playing the opposition, but actually being it a little bit as well.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Apparently, it is not only the fish that are playing!

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

The list of what the government has done so far is long. A mandate has been given regarding the moved trawling limit for vessels over 24 meters. HaV has been given the opportunity to use almost the entire toolbox. A scientific test area with follow-up research over 40 nautical miles is underway, with a moved trawling limit in the Baltic Sea.

The government has, at a Swedish initiative, introduced trawl-free periods and areas both in 2024 and 2025. A mandate has been given that fisheries management shall be integrated with the management of predators, which is an ecosystem approach.

The government has also given a mandate to review seal protection areas in order to release rocks and screes and in this way facilitate hunting. And a scientific investigation shall be conducted in an area where seal and cormorant populations are removed or minimized to see the effects on fish stocks. The Minister for Rural Affairs also recently sent a letter to the commission regarding the removal of the seal trade ban.

The other Baltic Sea countries' fisheries ministers were invited here for a study visit last year and were given a clear message of caution. Furthermore, the new fisheries commissioner Costas Kadis came and also received a very clear message: We need to give the herring stock the opportunity to recover. ICES' advice needs to take greater account of the ecosystem as a whole.

Thanks to negotiation and staying at the table during the last negotiation, we got a herring quota that was 15,000 tons lower. If one had chosen the more media-friendly image and said no, the quotas would have therefore increased by 15,000 tons. We never had such low quotas at any time during the red-green government's stewardship. We have never been at the ICES minimum level. If we had done that during the S-MP government and if they had ensured that we received it at the negotiations held then, the picture today would have been completely different.

The government has presented a marine environment bill, which the previous government failed to get through during its years.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture has been tasked with developing an action plan for increased landings and increased processing in Sweden of pelagic species from Swedish fishing opportunities. They shall also develop a vision for pelagic fishing.

The list of what the government has done so far can be made even longer, but in the debate it often sounds as if the government and the Minister for Rural Affairs are sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the fisheries debate is also sometimes driven very much by emotions and very little by facts. Just as in the forest debate, there are also different views regarding what is fact and what is fake, and this unfortunately does not make it easier to have a serious debate. The debate would deserve better – even though I will willingly admit that the participants in today's debate here have truly stuck to the facts. It is more in the media that we see that it is different.

Most of the reservations in the report are under the heading Measures for sustainable fish stocks. Many of these reservations can probably be signed off on by all parties more or less, but several of the parts requested in the reservations have been addressed in the marine environment bill that the Riksdag voted through in November last year or through other assignments given by the government. It is therefore about matters that have already been decided. Other parts cannot be pushed through unilaterally as fishing is regulated at the EU level and we also have other bilateral agreements.

In the previously mentioned proposition *Ett levande hav – ökat skydd, minskad övergödning och ett hållbart fiske*, the government presented its proposal for the direction of the marine environment policy. There, the government was clear that the goal of the marine environment policy is that a good environmental status in the marine environment is achieved and maintained while the sea's resources are used sustainably so that marine-linked industries as well as the food supply can be developed. It is, therefore, again about much of what is requested in the reservations.

Madam Speaker! When we read about the common fisheries policy at the EU level and what is stated in the basic regulation, it is once again about texts that surely all parties in here and most in society otherwise support – regardless of whether you are a fisherman, represent a nature conservation organization, or are an ordinary fish consumer, a sport fisherman, or a politician. It sounds great, and with those conditions met, everything should be peaceful and pleasant.

But despite the fact that one has these statutes to lean on when the decisions on the common fisheries policy are to be made, many of the EU countries do not seem to care about them, and other factors weigh more heavily. In that case, it is also not easy, Madam Speaker, to make the right decisions in the fisheries negotiations. If we could persuade the Commission to ask the right questions to ICES, it might perhaps help us somewhat on the way towards more sustainable quotas, because of course one leans on ICES's advice when decisions are to be made. But the advice is based on the questions that are asked by the Commission and not on the questions that perhaps should be asked by the Commission.

Madam Speaker! Much of the debate in the media also concerns large-scale fishing in the Baltic Sea, and in order to truly set the narrative, very strong value words are often used that blacken an entire profession that actually follows the applicable rules. There is no doubt that the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea need recovery, but then it is again a matter of getting lower quotas. The fish do not care whether it dies in a trawl or in a net.

For some of the parties here in the Riksdag, environmental organizations and many media outlets, it sounds so easy – just ban bottom trawling. Yes, within our own waters we can act, which we have done, but otherwise it is a matter of negotiation at the EU level. Then we must get the other countries on board, and that is something one must accept regardless of what one thinks about bottom trawling.

It is also not enough to just protest and say no, but one must work behind the scenes by inviting the responsible fisheries ministers of other countries to give them a better picture so that they gain an understanding of how it actually looks. One must invite the responsible fisheries commissioner to give a very clear picture and send signals about the seriousness. One cannot just vote no because it sounds good in the media and in debates, but one must stay at the negotiating table and negotiate and be workable.

That is exactly how Sweden acts under this government. All possible channels are used to influence and drive the common fisheries policy in the right direction so that the fish stocks will recover – because that is what we all want.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The assignment of the audit recently showed that along the Baltic coast from Skellefteå to Simrishamn, there are only 49 fishermen left who can live on their fishing. Of those, only 29 reach the median wage for a nursing assistant, 29,000 kronor a month before tax. That is fewer than those who reach the same income from fishing in Hjälmaren and Mälaren, which are significantly smaller in area. How have we been able to end up here while all parties, not least the Christian Democrats, say that they want to protect small-scale coastal fishing?

Cod has already collapsed. Herring is heading towards collapse. Salmon stocks are also decreasing significantly, which is linked to the shortage of herring. The Baltic Sea is hit hard by several different environmental problems, but overfishing is unequivocally one of the most important reasons why it looks like this.

The shortage of fish hits small-scale fishers hard. Today's system of individual, transferable quotas rewards the large actors at the expense of small-scale fishing. Fishing quotas are concentrated among a few large boats instead of being spread out among several small ones – large boats that vacuum the sea of fish and risk wiping out local stocks. Once the stocks are wiped out, no herring will come to the coast, and there will be nothing left for the small-scale fishers.

It is obvious that this system does not work, neither for the ecosystem nor for the small-scale fishers whom we want to benefit. This seems to be agreed upon by some parties in the government as well, given the answer I received from Joanna Lewerentz a short while ago. But we were also told that it could take until 2029 before a new system is in place. The question is whether there will be any small-scale fishers left by then or if everyone has been wiped out.

The Christian Democrats are the party that bears the primary responsibility for Swedish fisheries policy. My question to Kjell-Arne Ottosson is therefore: What will the government do in the near term to save small-scale fishing from being completely wiped out?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Andrea Andersson Tay, for the question!

There is no doubt that small-scale coastal fishing is absolutely very important. In order to be able to support it further, the mission I mentioned in my speech is a very important part. What small-scale coastal fishing picks up is for the most part such as goes to human consumption, which the member is calling for. The Swedish Board of Agriculture has been tasked with developing an action plan for increased landings and increased processing in Sweden of the pelagic species. With this mission, when one can act on it, we can ensure that we give them the opportunities they need.

If we can get more for human consumption, that is very good. But we have the challenge that, among others, Björn Petersson mentioned in his speech, namely the dioxin levels. We have dioxin levels and limit values that mean that those who, for example, are young or pregnant or who want to become pregnant cannot eat much of the fish caught in the Baltic Sea more than a few times a year. The demand for that fish does not become large when we have that picture regarding the dioxin level. This is a major challenge. Other industries can, however, remove the dioxins, and that provides food for us in the second place when the fish becomes feed for other animals. This still leads to food on the table.

But I completely agree with Andrea Andersson Tay that the more fish we can get up for human consumption, the better it is. That is why the government has given the mandate for us to move in that direction.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe that quite few people would agree that because of the high dioxin levels in the fish, it is reasonable to instead take the fish for fishmeal production and in that way waste it. I believe that most would think it would be more reasonable to see this as an opportunity to give the fish a break so that it can recover and one can then fish in a more sustainable way in the future.

The large-scale fishing that dominates the Baltic Sea today is not at all designed in such a way that the catch could be for human consumption or landed in Swedish ports. I therefore find it somewhat difficult to see how this can lead to anything in practice.

What would really be needed is significantly reduced fishing quotas in the near term, that we get the large-scale industrial trawlers out of the Baltic Sea, and that we reform the quota allocation system as quickly as possible.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Here comes the black-mailing again, with those value words that I don't really like.

Here we have a fishing fleet, a professional corps that ensures we have food on the table. They work extremely hard. They follow laws and regulations. Still, they are being blacklisted.

If anyone is to be vilified, it is the politicians who are involved in setting the framework for how this professional group shall act. It is not the professional group as such that should be vilified. This is, among other things, something Andrea Andersson Tays' party is very good at doing in the debate.

I concluded my speech by addressing the importance of the fish stocks recovering. That is what we all want, I believe. Just as Andrea called for in her closing remark, we need to give the stocks the opportunity to recover. We achieve that through lower quotas.

Again: For the fish, it doesn't matter whether it dies in a net or in a trawl. It is about lower quotas. In that case, one cannot stand on the sidelines and fight, as Vänsterpartiet likes to do because it looks good in the media, but instead, one must sit at the negotiating table. In that case, one must be negotiable. One must be playable. One must work behind the scenes to get the other countries on board to get a majority.

One cannot just stand on the barricades and shout no, because then one helps no one, least of all the herring and the sprat.

(Applause)

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate can well be called this year's major fishing debate.

We Sweden Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but to gain time, I move for approval only of reservation 25 regarding fishing licenses and generational change.

Sweden is a country rich in water resources, from our clear lakes to the vast coast that surrounds our country. These natural assets have for generations provided us with food, work, and a living countryside. Today, however, we see how the fishing industry and aquaculture are pressured by bureaucratic hurdles, unclear regulations, and an EU policy that all too often does not take our Swedish conditions into account.

The Sweden Democrats believe that it is high time that we restore the possibilities for a sustainable, vigorous and nationally adapted aquaculture and a fisheries policy that benefits Sweden and our coastal and inland municipalities.

Madam Speaker! We want to simplify the regulations. Today, aquaculture operators are faced with a tangled regulatory framework with requirements from several authorities that often clash with one another. This hinders new establishments and development. The Sweden Democrats want to significantly simplify the permit processes and create a unified contact point for all permits regarding aquaculture.

We want to strengthen Swedish influence over fisheries policy. We want to reduce the dependence on the EU's common fisheries policy and regain control over Swedish waters. We believe that Swedish fishing quotas should be set with a focus on our national interests, both ecological and economic. The EU's common fisheries policy has for many years disadvantaged Swedish fishing regarding both quota distribution and the possibility of influence.

We want to protect small-scale fishing. The dominance of large corporations and the negative effects of industrial fishing on the ecosystem must be balanced. We want to promote small-scale, coastal fishing that is both sustainable and socio-economically important. That type of fishing is not only ecologically sustainable but also important for local identity, tourism, and rural development.

We want to invest in research and innovation. A sustainable aquaculture requires modern technology, better feed solutions, and new species for cultivation. We want to increase investments in research that strengthens both environmental and economic sustainability.

We want to reduce the import dependency regarding fish and seafood. Despite our own resources, Sweden imports large quantities of fish. By strengthening domestic aquaculture, we can increase self-sufficiency and simultaneously create jobs, especially in rural areas and in the archipelago. We should investigate how fishing in the Baltic Sea can be prioritized for human consumption over fishing for the production of animal feed.

Madam Speaker! A sustainable aquaculture and responsible fishing are not just an environmental issue – it is a national issue of the future. It is about food security, jobs, traditions and security.

The Sweden Democrats stand for a policy that puts Sweden first, where our own resources are managed wisely and in the long term. We shall not let excessive bureaucracy and supranational decisions stifle an industry with such great potential. We can and must create better conditions for those who want to cultivate our waters with respect and responsibility.

This is fundamentally about more than just fish and aquaculture. It is about a living countryside and archipelago and about the possibility of living and working in the entire country. When aquaculture operators and fishers are pushed out by complicated regulations and a lack of support, the communities around them also die.

The rules for the transfer of fishing rights must also be simplified and the time limits for fishing quotas made more flexible. We want a policy where the fisherman, the producer, and the entrepreneur are not seen as a problem but as part of the solution for the future of Sweden.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is easy to become dystopian when listening to a debate like this when we debate marine environments and fishing issues, and especially when the Baltic Sea comes up, because there is much that should have been done a long time ago.

Sweden's seas are not doing well. There are several fish stocks that are far too weak. The cod has already collapsed. The work against eutrophication needs to be developed. One can simply state that far too little has been done for far too long. More needs to be done to reverse the development.

We have during this mandate period taken important steps for healthier seas. At the end of last year, perhaps the most important step for a more sustainable marine environment policy was taken. When we adopted the marine environment bill, we charted a new direction – a direction where we take the entire ecosystem into account. It is a step that charts the way to where we want to reach.

When the marine environment bill was debated here in the chamber, I was clear that this was to be seen as just a first step and that more was to come. And more has happened since then.

We have a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. We decided that here in the chamber not all that long ago. The marine environment bill also includes a ban on bottom trawling in these areas, work with a moved-out trawl limit, coordination of measures against eutrophication, and an important piece of work for expanded opportunities for hunting seals and cormorants. All these parts are important for healthy, living seas and for sustainable fish stocks.

Madam Speaker! We are all painfully aware that the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea are in very poor condition. We in the government cooperation are therefore working intensively to implement the marine environment policy, and in this, we focus particularly on three parts. It concerns the work for increased protection for marine areas, the work to counteract eutrophication, and the work for sustainable fishing.

Madam Speaker! The environment in several important sea areas needs to be protected to a much greater extent than is currently happening. Much positive is happening here. During the past year, the government has designated three new marine Natura 2000 areas. A bit further ahead in our time, we will make a decision on a new national park at sea. It will become Sweden's first marine national park in the Baltic Sea, and that is important.

Madam Speaker! We cannot escape the fact that the Baltic Sea is in the condition it is in and that it is largely due to human activity. It is not only fishing but also pollution, shipping and climate change that lie behind this.

The marine environment is being subjected to major changes that, from an ecological perspective, are occurring too quickly for the ecosystems to be able to adapt. To counteract this, the marine protected areas are important. They are protected from disturbances. For that very reason, the decision on a ban on bottom trawling in these areas was so important.

We Liberals want the fishing methods that seriously damage marine life and marine biotopes to be banned at the EU level. It is an issue that we have pushed for a long time. When we here in the chamber decided on the ban on bottom trawling in the protected marine areas, we came a bit of the way.

Mr. Speaker! I am well aware that this is not a marine environment debate but a debate on fisheries policy. But these two areas are closely linked.

We have already seen several fish stocks collapse. The situation for others is acute. The development must be reversed. The fishing we conduct must be – must be – compatible with a sustainable management of the ecosystems. Fisheries management needs to be complemented with the management of seals and cormorants in order to link fisheries management with marine environment work.

In the negotiations on fishing quotas, which take place within the EU, Sweden works purposefully and strategically with a focus on strengthening fish stocks. Most recently, Sweden pushed the most restrictive line of all countries. At the same time, one absolutely cannot be satisfied with the quotas that were set. In order for the fish stocks to recover, we need significantly lower quotas.

Sweden's influence work to convince other countries of our view on fishing in the Baltic Sea needs to continue with full force. It is hardly surprising that I, as a liberal, stand at the forefront to advocate for EU cooperation, but when it comes to fisheries policy, there is very much to have views on.

Good fisheries management and the marine environment are linked. It is a major concern that the fishing pressure in the Baltic Sea is too high. This means that several stocks cannot recover to a sufficient extent.

We all here need to take our responsibility and push forward in the various channels and forums we are in – we personally and our parties – nationally and at the EU level. We all need to take responsibility for this.

Mr. Speaker! We Liberals have for a long time fought for a more sustainable management of the oceans – for obvious reasons, this particularly concerns a more sustainable management of the Baltic Sea. We will continue to do so, nationally and at the EU level.

With the policy that we have pursued during this mandate period – it is actually a reorganization of the policy that was previously pursued – our Swedish seas will soon be in better condition than they have been for several decades.

(Applause)

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. The majority of fish stocks are not being utilized in a sustainable way. Now, political measures are required to address the problems.

Today, approximately 95 percent of Sweden's total catches in the Baltic Sea are taken by the 20 largest boats. Their catches go towards the production of animal feed. At the same time, small-scale fishers testify to difficulties in securing sufficiently large catches. In Uppdrag granskning, we recently saw how a large part of the small-scale fishers along the Baltic coast have been wiped out. Similar trends with reduced catches exist along the entire Swedish coast. Every year, the status of many stocks deteriorates.

When it comes to a long-term sustainable management of the fish stocks, we must make the right priorities. Do we want large-scale fishing with a few boats, or do we want a viable local fishing that promotes living coastal communities? Do we want the fish resource we collectively dispose of to go towards feed for farmed fish and chicken, or do we want it to go towards human consumption?

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, we have heard 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 large-scale industrial fishing. If we do not do that, the herring may be heading towards collapse. If that happens, the entire ecosystem risks being changed radically.

In the upcoming negotiations on fishing quotas, it is central that Sweden works for a ban on large-scale industrial fishing for herring in the Baltic Sea so that the stocks can get a chance to recover. Small-scale coastal fishing does not have the same impact on the stocks and should therefore not be included in the ban. The Government has until now not wanted to pursue that line in the negotiations, but now it is time for Sweden to act as a leading country to protect the Baltic Sea's ecosystem.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden does not own the issue of fishing alone, but it is important not to use the EU as an excuse for inaction. We have the space to adopt national fishing rules ourselves in the territorial sea, even in areas where other states have access.

It is not reasonable that some individual vessels account for a large share of the fishing while the majority have to share a significantly smaller part of the stock. Viable fish stocks and a living small-scale fishery would also be beneficial for the national food security in the event of a crisis. Smaller boats that can fish both near the coast and on the open sea make it easier to reorient the fishing. Smaller boats require less energy, and large ships cannot land the catch in all ports.

Vänsterpartiet considers that today's system of individual transferable quotas is not sustainable. The system is based on individual quotas given to each boat. The quotas can then be sold or traded between the boats. It is a system that causes the quotas to accumulate with a few boats. The purpose when it was introduced was to reduce the number of boats, which has resulted in that today only a few large boats can live very well on their catches.

Large-scale fishing in certain areas and during certain times of the year risks wiping out locally spawning stocks. The follow-on effects are both reduced availability of fish for small-scale coastal fishing and large-scale ecosystem changes. Furthermore, fishing for human consumption has decreased since the introduction of the quota system, as has the profitability for small-scale fishing. Therefore, we believe that this is a system that must be redesigned with completely different goals in focus. We want to see regional quotas where a larger part of the catch ends up on people's plates, within the framework of an ecosystem-based fishing. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 27.

Mr. Speaker! The trawling limit was once created 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.

The government has announced that they want to move the trawling limit in the Baltic Sea. Vänsterpartiet argues that it is not enough and that the trawling limit should be moved out along the entire Swedish coast. We also think that a general fishing ban needs to be introduced in marine protected areas.

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! The shortage of herring in the Baltic Sea has negative effects on the entire ecosystem and affects a number of species that are dependent on herring. One of them is salmon. The Swedish salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea have previously had a positive development, but in recent years they have decreased sharply. The reason seems primarily to be that fewer salmon survive their time in the Baltic Sea, partly due to a lack of food. To save the salmon, we should stop the transfer of fishing quotas on salmon from one year to another and make it possible to quickly limit commercial fishing when the stock is in poor condition.

Mr. Speaker! One of the species that has been hit hardest by human activity is the eel, which today stands on the brink of extinction. Since the 1950s, the number of eels at Europe's coasts has decreased by more than 99 percent. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advocates a total fishing ban. The EU's decision to protect the eel for six months a year is, in this situation, completely insufficient. It is also incomprehensible that the government has opened up to stopping the phasing out of licenses for eel fishing that exists today.

Those who advocate for maintaining the eel fishing usually refer to it as a tradition. But a tradition is usually something one envisions far into the future. The only reasonable thing would therefore be to stop the eel fishing now to avoid the eel disappearing completely. Without eels – no eel fishing.

Mr. Speaker! To achieve sustainable fishing, effective fisheries controls are required. This benefits the fishers who follow the regulations. Several audits show very large problems with fraud within Swedish fishing. This involves, among other things, that one species is reported as another species and that the vessels report smaller catches than what is actually taken. The biggest problems are linked to industrial fishing. Reported catches provide the basis for the Swedish Marine Environment Research Council Ices when they issue advice on fishing quotas, which means that misreporting has serious consequences when the size of the stocks is overestimated and the following year's fishing quotas are set too high.

Vänsterpartiet has proposed more resources for fisheries controls. Today, the sanction fees for misreporting of catches are also very low and are not in proportion to the value of the catch. A common fine amount for misreporting is 2,000 kronor, while the value of a catch can be several million kronor. We believe that the sanction fees need to be raised to a level that creates incentives for fishing vessels to follow the rules and that becomes tangible for the vessels that break the rules.

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 we politicians need to take most seriously. Therefore, we must act now to stop industrial fishing, reform the quota system, 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 fishery that originates from the Swedish coast, where the fish is 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.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Andrea for the speech.

I requested the floor to give Andrea Andersson Tay even more speaking time if there was something I did not hear in the presentation. In the reservations in the report, it is referred to that many laws and rules shall become stricter, not least to favor small-scale coastal fishing – which was taken up in the previous exchange of remarks.

One thing that the Left Party does not mention in its motions, nor from the rostrum, which really matters for the ecosystem in the Baltic Sea, is the cormorant and the seal. If they were heard, we heard nothing in Andrea Andersson Tays's speech.

Does the Left Party consider that the great cormorant and the seal in any way pose a danger to the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have met fishermen who engage in small-scale fishing, and what they primarily highlight as a problem for them is the large-scale industrial fishing in the Baltic Sea, which they believe takes an all-too-large share of the fish and results in not much fish left for them to fish.

Locally, seals and cormorants can pose a problem in certain places. Vänsterpartiet has no objections to using protective hunting in those cases. But it is unscientific to claim that seals and cormorants would be a greater problem for the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea than fishing is. Fishing takes significantly larger quantities of fish than seals and cormorants do.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I did not exactly state that säl and skarv would constitute a greater threat, but I asked Andrea Andersson Tay if Vänsterpartiet considered them to be a threat.

A grey seal takes approximately 2,500 kilos of fish per year. In the Baltic Sea alone, the grey seal population takes approximately 100,000 tons. The cormorant takes just as much. Cormorants and seals eat as much as small-scale fishing takes in the Baltic Sea.

In order to get some kind of penalty for this, the Left Party wants to allow trophy hunting only in certain areas. Is that how I should interpret the member?

The government has facilitated our ability to increase the hunt for both seals and cormorants. If there is something that the professional fishermen really complain about when I meet them, it is when they pull up their nets and they are filled with half-eaten fish. Only the remains after seals and cormorants are left. They see them as a huge threat to small-scale fishing in coastal areas. It is also significantly easier for both the cormorant and the seal to hunt there.

I interpret the Left Party's and Andrea Andersson Tays' speech as that the seal and the cormorant are actually not a problem. In that case, one should cheer when concessions are given to hunt seal and cormorant. We are working to remove the seal trade ban, and we are working to change the status for cormorant at the EU level. In this way, we are to have control over our own stocks of seal and cormorant, but the Left Party does not seem to be interested in that.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to follow the development of the Christian Democrats' rhetoric on fishing issues in recent years. Two years ago, the EU Commission proposed a zero quota for herring fishing in the Baltic Sea. The Swedish government was against it, even though they had the opportunity to join the Commission's proposal, which had entered the quota negotiations at the EU level. The arguments used then were that it was not fishing that was the major problem for the fish stocks, but rather a number of other environmental problems. They spoke gladly about seals and cormorants.

Since then, there has been a major debate in Sweden, and it seems that the Christian Democrats have taken note of this and realized that fishing might also be part of the problem. Instead, it has been argued that there are other reasons why one cannot advocate for zero quotas in the fishing negotiations, such as not being given a seat at the table and so on.

But Kjell-Arne Ottosson nevertheless carries on the proud tradition of wanting to continue talking about other problems than the main problem, namely overfishing.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report MJU19 Fisheries Policy.

Fish is a fantastic food. It is underestimated in many contexts. We have discussed the level of self-sufficiency and preparedness in the country. In these contexts, fish is marginalized. If there is currently a self-sufficiency level of 50 percent on food, we could achieve 80 percent just by increasing the amount of fish, given that as much as goes to the industry today could go to human consumption.

Mr. Speaker! The technology we use to handle industrial fish is activated carbon, which would work very well even for human consumption of fish.

More fish on the table! I would like to say roughly what Ronja Rövardotter says to her friend: Not salmon again today!

We could increase the level significantly when it comes to fish, not only because fish has a good amino acid composition and is a good food product. It would also be cheaper than taking many other measures to raise food preparedness in these times. The efforts to handle specifically more fish are limited if one compares them with many other things to manage a food situation in a crisis. More fish is therefore interesting.

In the question regarding sustainable fishing, we nevertheless have a fair amount of problems. This concerns how the structure and the quota system look. Quotas that are linked to our boats can be discussed. The lake systems, whose fish take management is more in relation to an area, are simpler to manage. But we must be realistic. These are international agreements. One must therefore take one step at a time.

One step at a time, we are now at the relocation of the trawling limit. There, I want to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 9, regarding the relocation of the trawling limit. It is, as I see it, a first step towards achieving sustainable fishing with today's system.

I heard Member Joanna say that it is in the works, but I want to assert that it is already in full effect. It was implemented on February 1. But the unfortunate thing is that the regulatory framework was not in place, nor was the compensation for existing small-scale fishers. Many of them have today switched to trawling, largely depending on what we have discussed here tonight. There is so much seal and common eider that they have felt forced to switch to that form. Even the small-scale fishing is thus there.

It means that the small boats have difficulty managing to fish at all. They simply do not have the possibility to go out that far. The small-scale fishing fleet is therefore standing still for large parts of the day. It is a waste of resources, Mr. Speaker, especially when we today want precisely that small-scale fishing. But we are actually doing exactly the opposite.

At the same time, we have not finished negotiating the regulatory framework that we are introducing with the relocation of the trawl limit. This means that the regulatory framework applies to Swedish fishers but not to international fishers, who can enter down to four nautical miles today. Both of those things should have been completed before we introduced the relocation of the trawl limit, which Centerpartiet is fundamentally in favor of as part of a sustainable fishery.

When it comes to ICES' advice, it is the advice we must rely on and the science that exists. In the advice we have, we are at an absolute minimum level. That allows us to manage to have a viable stock. ICES states in the same recommendation that they want a safety margin of 30–40 percent. Those parts do not become binding. We will not enter a situation where they become reality, but it becomes more of a recommendation. I would like to see that we could negotiate so that those recommendations would also become governing. Then we would get around much of the problems we are talking about in the Baltic Sea.

Fishing, however, does not only concern the Baltic Sea and our seas, even though they are important. We also have our large lakes, which are significant. In Vättern alone, which belongs to my area Jönköpings län, we have 18 full-time fishermen, even though many are there for crayfish.

We also have the opportunity to introduce more fish farms. The fish farmers experience today that there are far too many obstacles for them to be able to expand. It concerns both obtaining permits for new farms and expanding existing operations.

Fish farms are very important in a transitional phase, when we are actually forced to use a good deal of the fish from the sea for industrial purposes, because they are not quite fully suitable for human consumption. When the technology is not quite finished, we must rely on the blue industry with fish farms, which work very well.

Even new parts, such as oyster farming, could be very exciting. One might think it is a developed-country problem in a way, but it could be a large, contributing income for those entrepreneurs who could have the opportunity for this.

It is important that we do the right thing here and now and take the right measures. It is easy to see that we have a problem regarding how we are to negotiate with the EU. We have the opportunity to negotiate with Finland, which is central and important for Sweden, not least northern Sweden. When it comes to both the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia, it could lead to significant improvements. It is perhaps there that we have the greatest problems with overfishing.

If we could reach an agreement with Finland, one should start with Finland and put effort into it. There are unilateral agreements with Finland regarding how one fishes in the mouths of our rivers. That could be an excellent point of pressure in such a discussion.

Fish has great opportunities. We shall exploit that. We want to see more of this and not, as our minister Kullgren says, that it will come later. We want it here and now.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anders Karlsson, for the speech!

This is perhaps not so much a reply in the usual sense, but rather it is about me wanting to understand a bit more. At the end of the speech, Anders Karlsson mentioned Finland. It was that which made me choose to press the button to request a reply, even though the hour is late. I apologize to my colleagues in the committee for that and to the others here in the chamber who must work this late evening.

The challenge regarding Finland specifically is that Swedish researchers show a picture of the situation in the Baltic Sea and Finnish research shows a different picture of the situation in the Baltic Sea. It is clear that when Sweden and Finland are to try to negotiate on fishing issues, Sweden leans on the Swedish research and Finland leans on the Finnish research. And they are therefore pointing in diametrically different directions. That makes the negotiations very difficult.

How does the Center Party and Anders Karlsson believe we should move forward in such negotiations when we once again, as I raised in my speech, have different pictures of what is fact? It is, as I mentioned, a major challenge in fisheries policy, not only in this chamber or in Sweden but also between countries.

How shall we move forward? If Anders Karlsson has the answer to that, I would gladly accept it.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker and Member Kjell-Arne Ottosson! We have the same type of science, from Ices, fundamentally. Much is a matter of interpretation. I do not actually see that we have different pictures of the very fundamentals in that science.

We have much to learn from Finland. I believe that Kjell-Arne Ottosson should also have a discussion with Finland about how to build up a small-scale fishing industry to achieve sustainable small-scale fishing.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! There is absolutely much that Kjell-Arne Ottosson can learn. There is very much here in the world that he does not know. He admits it directly.

Regarding small-scale fishing, I can mention that we were in Helsinki when the Environmental Goals Commission worked on what became the report *The Sea and the Human*. We traveled there to learn from Finland. I won't say that I learned, but we were served roach. In my world, that is cat food. But there, they even processed the roach. So I have learned the "hard way" as well, let's say.

Yes, of course, it is largely based on ICES. But then it is still national research. When one talks to Finns about fishing, it is clear that they have a completely different picture. I note that even some Swedish fishers lean more towards the Finnish research than towards the Swedish. Then we get the problem that we do not get through. We hear that even at a political level. One can discuss the vast majority of issues between Sweden and Finland without any problems. But when it comes to fishing, it becomes a tough struggle, because we have such different pictures.

Cooperation with Finland was one of Anders Karlsson's solutions. Yes, gladly! But then I must still ask the question: How?

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member's party is part of the government, and the responsibility rests heavily on the member to have that contact with Finland, because Finland may be the most important party we have right now. Then Finland has much that Sweden does not have. They have a very large mink industry, where even the fish is an important raw material. The member's minister has been good at finding solutions – we have wiped out our mink industry today. That part is gone.

Everything is not the same in Finland and Sweden. Much is similar, but when it comes to building up a small-scale industry, we have much to learn from Finland. A daily dialogue with Finland, or at least a monthly dialogue with Finland, is something the government should consider, even if it is difficult. We shall not refrain from everything that is difficult.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the other members of the committee for their interesting contributions. The Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture is traveling, and therefore I have had the opportunity to participate in this debate. I intend to dwell a little on our reservations in the report and will also make a small effort to draw attention to the situation in Kattegat and Skagerrak, that is, on the west coast north of the Öresund.

Initially, I want to say that the marine ecosystems are under severe pressure. Fishing plays a completely central role. We in Miljöpartiet therefore believe that it is the ecosystems in the oceans that should set the limits for how much fish may be caught and that an ecosystem-based ocean management must be introduced.

It means that questions regarding the sustainable management of fisheries resources must be integrated with the management of the marine environment as a whole. It is also required that the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management's instructions be changed so that it appears that the agency shall apply an ecosystem approach and that this sustainable management of fisheries resources shall be integrated with the marine environment work.

We also mean that the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management's instructions must be clarified so that it appears that the agency, within its area of responsibility, is responsible for a coordinated implementation of all of the EU's environmental legislation, including the EU's common fisheries policy, with regard to such as environmental quality standards, advice and implementation of measures as well as monitoring and evaluation.

Mr. Speaker! Other members have been involved with ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, a well-regarded organization that, with 6,000 researchers from hundreds of institutes in 20 countries, compiles knowledge and data and provides advice on the conditions for fishing, including to the EU Commission. But unfortunately, the annual advice that the Commission orders from ICES is precisely what was ordered, that is to say, advice that does not stem from an ecosystem approach or from the idea that fishing quotas should contribute to achieving a good overall environmental status.

Active work is required from the government's side, preferably with a starting point in the Miljömålsberedning's report from 2020 on ecosystem-based management with environmentally, socially and economically sustainable use of the sea's resources. Significant groundwork is also required within Baltfish Forum, a regional organization for the Baltic Sea, and within the Scheveningen Group, another regional organization, which among other things drives issues of importance for fishing in the Atlantic and – of particular interest in our case – in Skagerrak and Kattegat, i.e., along the Swedish west coast from the cliffs of Koster to Laholmsbukten.

Mr. Speaker! Fishing, similar to agriculture, has traditionally had access to subsidies and forms of support for various purposes. There have naturally been good both food policy and labor market policy reasons for this. But there are also harmful subsidies, Mr. Speaker, subsidies that have been well-intentioned but resulted in overcapacity and overfishing, subsidies that have made the good the enemy of the best.

When the cod in the Baltic Sea is practically exhausted, we must rethink together with fishers, nature conservation organizations, researchers and consumers, so that we can reach a consensus and a common understanding that we must work together to get the fish back in the Baltic Sea – and along the west coast; I will return to that.

I am well aware that there are different opinions about which catch quotas can be assumed to be sustainable with any certainty, as well as the differences that exist between different areas in the Baltic Sea. But we in Miljöpartiet are convinced that the harmful subsidies that lead to overfishing must be phased out – like immediately.

Mr. Speaker! If overfishing continues, the stocks will collapse. It happened at Grand Banks off the coast of Canada in the 1990s, about 30 years ago. The fishing there has not yet fully recovered. Predatory fish, high up in the food chain, were particularly affected.

In the Baltic Sea, it is the herring that has been pointed out as supporting large parts of the system. Without herring, the entire ecosystem risks collapsing. And not only that – without herring, the local and coastal fisheries are affected. It is, in many ways, a race against time. In Miljöpartiet, we believe that the government should task the responsible authority with using the opportunities that exist within the EU's common fisheries policy to protect species in Swedish territorial waters.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the fishing itself, we mean that the fishing industry must intensify the work to eliminate by-catch and develop gear that does not damage the bottom with its plant and animal life.

We must also become much better at protecting the eel. It is threatened with extinction. Of the eel stock that once existed, only a small remnant remains. 99 percent of the European eel has disappeared since the 1950s. The eel's complicated life cycle and long journeys across large parts of the world make it extra vulnerable. The protection for the eel must become significantly stricter in Sweden and in the entire EU. It is about both ensuring that there are free water passages and reducing the fishing pressure.

The ongoing but currently paused work to environmentally adapt hydropower will provide more free water passages for eel and other migratory fish. But it will take time. Therefore, it is extremely important that the precautionary principle is fully applied and that we take all measures we can here and now, including a total fishing ban. For an acutely endangered species, every individual is important. My party and I believe that all fishing of eel in Sweden and the EU should cease until the eel has achieved a good conservation status.

Mr. Speaker! Just over 15 years ago, a system with transferable fishing quotas was introduced. This means that the right to fish a certain amount can be sold and bought. It has led to a certain concentration of ownership and larger vessels, which for the most part are or can be better from an environmental point of view, as well as to fewer active fishers and difficulties in entering the fishing industry for those who want to. From Miljöpartiets side, we would like to see an evaluation of the over 15-year-old system before it is potentially expanded to also include fishing of species that live on the bottom, such as cod, pollock, saithe, and plaice.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the fishing from the Öresund to northern Bohuslän. The problems and challenges that exist in the Baltic Sea also exist to a large extent on the west coast. I do not want to set the two seas against each other – it benefits neither of them. I nevertheless want to point out that fishing in the Skagerrak and Kattegat is essentially limited to trawling for shrimp and langoustines. It is far from what it has been. There are, of course, very good reasons to also include the west coast in the discussions on ecosystem-based management and catch quotas, and on strategies for sustainable coastal and small-scale fishing.

Furthermore, it is a matter of us taking better care of the beautiful rivers in Halland. They are the ones everyone knows – Viskan, Ätran, Nissan and Lagan – where, admittedly, some efforts are being made, but where there is more to be addressed in order to recreate the opportunities for not least salmon and eel.

With that said, I would like to move for approval of reservation number 2.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 May.)

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