Fisheries policy

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Eel fishing in Sweden is not just an industry; it is a cultural heritage. It is a living tradition that stretches back hundreds of years, and in some parts of the country, likely thousands of years. There is archaeological and historical evidence that eel fishing probably occurred as early as the Bronze Age.

Along our coasts, not least in Skåne, in Blekinge and on Öland, the eel has been a natural part of local life. It has provided food on the table, income for families, and identity for entire regions. Today, Skåne and Västra Götaland together account for over half of Sweden's primary production of food and are rightly often called our country's pantry. But the eel fishery stands at a crossroads.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the European eel is under severe pressure. The stocks have decreased significantly since the 1980s. Therefore, Sweden, like the rest of the EU, has introduced strict rules. Today, eel fishing is heavily restricted and requires a permit. The licenses are few, the season is short, and the control is extensive. This is a reality we must abide by.

Mr. Speaker! But regulation does not mean that the tradition lacks value, on the contrary. Precisely because fishing today is so strictly regulated, it is primarily carried out by a few professional fishers with great knowledge, long experience, and a strong sense of responsibility. They are not proponents of predatory exploitation, but they are stewards of a tradition and a craft that has been passed down through generations.

Eel fishing is more than the catch itself. It is about knowledge of coastal currents, weather, gear, and smoking methods. It is about eel huts, local holidays, and food culture. It is part of the intangible cultural heritage that gives Sweden depth and continuity. If we let eel fishing die out, we risk losing not only an industry but also a part of our history.

At the same time, there is a serious problem: the generational shift. Today, the average age among the licensed eel fishers is high, and many are approaching retirement. But young people do not dare to take over because the future is perceived as uncertain. The regulations are changing, and the permits are personal and difficult to transfer.

Mr. Speaker! Investments in equipment and facilities become risky when no one knows if the fishing will remain in five or ten years. The result is that the knowledge that has been built up over decades risks being lost overnight.

This is a political responsibility. We must manage two things simultaneously: to safeguard the recovery of the eel and to safeguard small-scale traditional fishing. They are not opposites. It is a matter of balance.

If the eel fishing is already strictly limited and controlled today, we must ask ourselves whether it is really the small-scale coastal fishing that is the decisive cause of the eel's problems. Or is it to a greater extent about migration barriers, hydropower, environmental toxins, and international factors throughout the eel's entire life cycle from the Sargasso Sea to the Baltic Sea?

Serious politics must take a holistic approach. This means that we continue to work for free migration routes, better environmental measures, and international responsibility. But it also means that we create reasonable and long-term conditions for the few professional fishers who still engage in eel fishing. Clear and predictable rules are needed, and solutions that enable generational shifts are needed. We also need to recognize eel fishing as a cultural heritage, not treat it as a remnant from the past.

Mr. Speaker! A society that severs the ties to its traditions risks losing its anchoring. Eel fishing is a reminder of the Sweden that was built by coastal residents, fishermen, and small business owners. It is small-scale, local, and deeply anchored in responsibility. We shall not romanticize, but we shall also not reflexively phase it out. Let us instead unite environmental responsibility with respect for tradition. Let us give the next generation the opportunity to take over in sustainable forms. Let us show that Sweden can both preserve and manage, not just prohibit and phase out. Eel fishing is a part of our heritage, and it is worth taking responsibility for.

In conclusion: Remember that if we do not protect our fishermen in peacetime, we will also have no fishermen in times of unrest.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Victoria Tiblom for an engaged and good speech, and when it comes to the importance of eel fishing, I share the member's view 100 percent. I am in almost constant contact with many of the eel fishers in, among other places, Blekinge, and their problems are difficult. The eel has indeed decreased significantly, and we have great problems with the recovery. The eel is crisis-stricken. It is exposed to fishing already as a small glass eel, so when it reaches our waters and is to be fished by our fishers, it is in short supply. Therefore, we have been quite restrictive and stopped eel fishing as far as is possible. No new licenses for eel fishing are granted either, but one can possibly inherit a license.

The absolute biggest threat to the eel is, however, that there are no free migration routes past the hydroelectric power plants. The Sweden Democrats have been very fortunate in the Tidö agreement when it comes to getting their policies through. If this really is your policy, will migration routes past the hydroelectric power plants then become a reality?

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

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

Here in the Riksdag, we have had the privilege of participating in several different seminars on eel fishing and other types of fishing. I have also had the opportunity to travel to Österlen and meet eel fishers. A sad figure we have been made aware of is that of the 1,600 hydropower plants in Sweden, less than 4 percent have free migration routes for fish. We also received a concrete example: For one of the hydropower plants, it had taken eleven years to get through the process of building a migration route for fish at its own expense. There, one of the major opponents was the environmental court.

So, changes are necessary, and I believe this engages across party lines because it is important for all of us.

In the Tidö cooperation, there is not that much agricultural policy or fisheries policy. We must therefore continue that work outside of the Tidö cooperation. I believe there are many things that we can agree on, not least when it comes to fisheries.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that there is a fairly strong and large political majority in Sweden's Riksdag to implement the measures required for hydropower.

What has happened is that the government has chosen to postpone and stop the modernization of hydropower that we began already during the previous mandate period. At that time, we allocated funds to establish important migration routes for fish, at least at the hydropower plants that cause the most damage. There are more fish species than the eel that would benefit from this. Both salmon, trout, and other migratory fish would greatly benefit from such migration routes.

I can help the member with some arguments, if these arguments are not enough. When it comes to property rights, we have had many discussions about forests and other things. There, property rights have been very important, Mr. Speaker, from the perspective that we should not step in and curtail the possibility of developing one's forest farm or agricultural farm.

When it comes to the ownership of water, for example the water that is near hydroelectric power plants, there are certainly people who have fishing rights in these waters, but no fish come there. There is therefore no possibility to utilize the ownership right there because the fish simply cannot get past the hydroelectric power plants. It is a good argument that the member can use so that we can achieve free hiking paths at our hydroelectric power plants.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe there are many common paths forward here. Something we must do together is to simplify the regulations. We hear this from both farmers, farmers and fishermen. It concerns the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Swedish Board of Agriculture and to some extent also the County Administrative Boards. It is difficult to know who takes responsibility and where one should turn.

The eel fishermen told me that in the Baltic Sea, the eel must be 70 centimeters long, but in the Öresund it only needs to be 45 centimeters. The eels that are thrown back here are therefore caught again in the Öresund. Likewise, the time window for fishing eel has become so short that one is not allowed to fish when it is actually the best time to do so, namely a bit later in the autumn.

We do one thing with one hand, and then we do something else with the other hand. There, I believe we need to unite and move forward if we are to be able to preserve not only the eel fishing but also our other fishing.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the contribution! I was somewhat surprised as it developed into a defense of the eel fishing.

I am of the diametrically opposite opinion that the only way we can save the eel is by not fishing it and thus not eating it for a period. There is a small remnant left, which some estimate to be about 1 percent of the amount of eel we have had previously and which has been able to employ the eel fishermen who exist in the Baltic Sea and for all intents and purposes also on the west coast.

I wonder what the Sweden Democrats and Member of Parliament Tiblom's position is on this. Would it not be better to completely stop fishing, selling, and eating eel for a period? That is how it has been done in other parts of the world with other fish – they have stopped it completely. As far as I understand, there is an EU agreement on a ban on eel fishing for a longer period in all member countries, so that the eel can get a chance to recover.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice to meet the member here – we sat in the Committee on the Constitution together earlier.

Before the eel becomes the eel that we want to catch and eat, it is a glass eel. There is a major problem there, namely that the EU primarily allows France, which is a dominant country in the EU, to fish incredibly much glass eel in the Atlantic. This means that the eels do not have time to grow. There are discussions here, but the EU will never let go of it. France has too much to say.

The eel fishers I have spoken with have been responsible for stocking eels. According to their calculations, they have over the years stocked more eels than they have caught.

Just as Member Kronståhl mentioned earlier, it is more fish that are affected by the power plants. We saw quite shocking images in SVT's documentary of the poor fish jumping towards the edge over and over again in a desperate attempt to get upstream.

I do not believe that a total ban on Swedish eel fishing is what benefits us best, because as I said, a very strong tradition here would disappear. It is probably better to try to influence the EU more when it comes to the glass eel.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I have a great understanding of the cultural heritage discussion and am somewhat involved in what is happening regarding fishing in the Öresund and my home regions Kattegatt and Skagerrak.

Large parts of the fishing culture that existed when I was little no longer remain. Back then, one could go and buy a number of different types of fish directly from the boat. I am not saying that one must be nostalgic and want everything to be as it was before, but I am still of the opinion that we must make a sacrifice for a period to be completely sure that we will get the eel back. I am not sure that the period will be so long that all knowledge about eel fishing and the preparation of eel will be lost in the meantime.

When it comes to the power plants, we have a great task ahead of us. I was looking at Hertingforsen in Falkenberg not so long ago. It is a very beautiful place where they have managed to remove dams. They have closed one of two power plants in central Falkenberg, and they have created migration routes. They got the ingenious idea to set the grate at a 45-degree angle instead of across, so that the fish that are headed downstream can be guided out in a fairly painless and smooth way.

We must use all means. We must take the power plants seriously. We must try to find solutions to this so that more can achieve it. In the laws, we have the opposite problem. There, they do not want anything to be done from the power plants' side. We must find a way to preserve the cultural heritage without eating eel for a period.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If there is anything we must safeguard, it is the blue industry. Just as the member said, the entire coasts and our fishing have been depleted over the years. At the same time, we face the challenge of increasing our self-sufficiency. That is where fishing is important.

It is a matter of finding a way forward where we can have sustainable fishing while also retaining the blue industry, the fishing, and our fish. It is not an easy path, but I hope that together we can move forward and also simplify the regulations for the fishers.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the fisheries policy. I want to begin by moving for the approval of our motion number 3, which concerns pausing the large-scale trawling in the Baltic Sea.

This will be my last fishing debate in this chamber. I must begin by stating that I think these debates have been both interesting and educational. In my opinion, they have focused on the problems and difficulties we face.

I also think that the debates in recent years have been more results-oriented than before, with a greater willingness to actually solve the fundamental problems in today's fisheries policy.

In this debate as well, I will in very large parts dwell on the acute and sensitive situation that we have in the Baltic Sea.

Mr. Speaker! The Baltic Sea is one of the world's most sensitive seas. Eutrophication, climate change, and an all too heavy fishing pressure have together pushed our most important fish stocks to critically endangered in practically the entire Baltic Sea. When important key species such as cod, herring, and sprat are threatened to their very existence, the entire sea's food chain is actually disrupted. Herring and sprat constitute important food for very many predatory fish species, which, in the absence of this food, find it very difficult to maintain their own existence but perhaps above all to grow and become viable.

The acute situation for the fish in the Baltic Sea will, if we do nothing, have consequences that extend beyond commercial fishing and fishing. A sea without life would be a complete failure for everyone involved, not least for us in politics who can actually influence and do something about this situation. We are obligated to take the warning signals we receive seriously. We must be guided by both facts and science and not allow short-term profit interests to, year after year, knock out a long-term sustainable management, which in this case is completely crucial for everyone involved – both for those who wish to continue fishing and for those who safeguard a living sea.

How we act now will be completely decisive for whether our beloved Baltic Sea in the future will be a living sea or a warning example of what happens if responsibility and actions are constantly postponed to the future.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, has for a series of years warned of a total collapse for several of the stocks. Despite the knowledge of this fact, the large-scale pelagic fishing for animal feed has been allowed to continue.

Mr. Speaker! I feel an ever-growing support and interest, not only from the general public, to take decisive action and implement real measures to do what is required to save our fish stocks for the future. There is also an ever-growing support to shift the focus of fisheries management, which today is, to the very greatest extent, about fishing for animal feed with large pelagic trawlers that catch almost 90 percent of all fish in the Baltic Sea. These large trawlers would not even, if the will existed, have the possibility of leaving their catch in any Swedish ports in the Baltic Sea.

We Social Democrats want to take action against this insane fishing for animal feed and transition to a significantly more small-scale and sustainable fishing with a clear focus on human consumption, i.e., food on the plate. We therefore propose, among other things, a total ban and a pause for fishing with the large pelagic trawlers until a clear recovery of both cod and herring and other endangered species has occurred and we clearly see a viable and manageable population of these vital species.

Mr. Speaker! Future fisheries management shall, we Social Democrats believe, in all Swedish waters primarily be focused on fishing for human consumption. The future fishing fleet in the Baltic Sea must, we are convinced, consist of small and medium-sized fishing vessels that land their catch in Swedish ports, and the catch must for the very most part go to human consumption.

To achieve a long-term sustainable fishery where the focus lies on this, a number of measures are naturally required which we in politics not only have an opportunity to implement but also, as I see it, an obligation to implement.

Quite a lot has actually been done to clarify the situation. Not least, the government and Sweden voted no to the EU's fishing quota decision for 2026 because these quotas were, once again, set far too high. It was very good, in my opinion, and a clear stance that shows that we have hopefully seriously begun the work of transitioning the fisheries policy in the Baltic Sea. Unfortunately, the argumentation was not sufficient to convince and/or change the decision on quota distribution. Therefore, national action is now required to mitigate the effects of an excessively large extraction, which otherwise accelerates the already acute situation.

In the short term, we must completely stop large-scale pelagic fishing to achieve a rapid recovery of herring and sprat in favor of the now-threatened small-scale coastal fishing. Our catch reporting must become better and more secure. Today, Sweden is all too often criticized for misreporting. It is a simple measure to introduce camera surveillance to guarantee reliable reporting.

We must also introduce a fishing ban during the time the fish spawn and reproduce. It must occur when it suits the fish species in question, not when it suits someone else.

A significantly better and more intensive management of both herring and sprat is necessary, not least for small-scale demersal fishing.

In the slightly longer term, we must reform today's fishing quota system to ensure a better balance between the conditions in the different seas as well as today's fishing methods.

Today's quota system MSY, maximum sustainable yield, is demonstrably not a functioning model since the sustainability itself seems to have very little significance. An alternative would be to introduce a preparedness quota of perhaps 10–20 percent to ensure the size of the stocks so that the fish can be utilized as an important food source in the event of war or crisis.

In order to achieve a long-term sustainable fishing fleet in the Baltic Sea in the long run, it is crucial that we in different ways promote investments in the reconstruction of landing opportunities, reception, and processing in several Swedish ports along the Baltic coast – this is to enable and ensure a food production that in the future can also be profitable, both here at home and as an export product.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: If the government and the Riksdag make the decisions that are necessary to save our fish stocks in the Baltic Sea and give the fisheries management a new direction – which means moving from fishing for animal feed to using the fishing in all our waters for human consumption and successively building up a domestic reception and processing – it is my and our conviction that the fishing and the fish head towards a significantly brighter future.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe Member Kronståhl has only himself to blame when he says that it is the last time he will have a fisheries policy debate. In that case, one must take the opportunity.

I thought I would talk a bit about seals and cormorants. Locally, the impact from seals and cormorants can have a very negative effect on many fish stocks and not least on the large predatory fish that the member mentioned in his speech. It also affects small-scale fishers. Their gear and their catch are negatively affected by precisely the predation pressure.

For the Moderates and the government, it has been a self-evident matter that environmental management must be built on a holistic approach and not just on point interventions against one problem at a time. One must look at the whole. We are pushing for expanded hunting of both seals and cormorants precisely so that local fish stocks can recover and survive.

Therefore, I want to ask Member Kronståhl how the Social Democrats stand on the issue of hunting seals and cormorants as a measure to maintain a certain balance in the ecosystem.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joanna, for a very important and essential question!

I have also, as a hunting politician, discussed both seals and cormorants on many occasions, and as a resident of the coast, I have been out on several occasions and personally seen what seals and cormorants can achieve. I have close contact with a fisherman in the area who, to truly guarantee that I would see the truth, took me out by boat. I have seen what is being done with the gear but also how the fishing itself is going, which is actually being affected very acutely.

When one reads about this, one might think that the seal and the cormorant do not affect the amount of fish that much, but I believe that these predators, when fish stocks have decreased significantly, actually seek out areas quite close to the coast and catch the easiest fish. This causes quite a lot of damage for the small-scale coastal fishers who fish near land. Therefore, it is very important that we increase the hunting of both seal and cormorant. We are completely in favor of this.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! There were clear messages from the Social Democrats. That is always welcomed.

The Social Democrats, however, stand here in a very difficult position. Member Kronståhl wants to signal in the chamber a capacity for action and a desire to act in the direction of more hunting of seals and cormorants, but in the event of a change of government, one will be dependent on other parties. These other parties risk – perhaps I may say – being the Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. These are parties that consistently downplay the impact of seals and cormorants on the stocks. It is a line that, in practice, would mean that the hunting is not expanded but rather restricted.

I can actually agree with everyone who feels critical of expanding this hunt and thinks it is not specifically the fault of the marten and the corvid that we have ended up in the situation we are in now. I think, however, that we also need to be pragmatic and face reality. When the balance in the ecosystem has been disturbed, we must do what we can to restore it, regardless of whose fault it is. This perhaps applies especially if it is due to human impact.

My question to the member is: How do the Social Democrats intend to reconcile increased hunting pressure on seals and cormorants with the Green Party's and the Left Party's position on these issues?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is one thing that is tempting in this. We were on almost the same point when we discussed the forest, and even at that time I urged Joanna to cast a vote for the Social Democrats, so that we get over the magical threshold and get the policy that both you and I want. But perhaps it is not so likely.

Jokes aside, I would still like to say that for over 20 years I have held various roles. I previously sat in the wildlife management board – as it was called – in Kalmar län. It was probably one of the first counties that had major problems with the cormorant. Initially, it was not about the concern regarding attacks on fishing gear and on the fish, but it was more that the cormorant destroyed quite a lot in nature and became quite poorly regarded.

I have since then fought for us to have a significantly larger hunt on cormorants. I believe that Joanna is from the county where we are now. I can state that it was only when the cormorant reached the Stockholm archipelago – where it actually didn't cause any major damage other than being in the vicinity of very many more people, Mr. Speaker – that the County Administrative Board in Stockholm decided that the population should be halved. It has not gone so well for any of us others.

I can guarantee that I will continue to fight so that we hunt both cormorants and seals.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Kronståhl, for the speech! Good luck ahead, now that there won't be any more fishing debates for the Member!

I am reflecting on one thing. The member mentioned that he wants to put a stop to the large trawlers and trawling in the Baltic Sea. But the fact that these large trawlers even have the opportunity to be here and fish is due to the Social Democrats choosing in 2019 to extend the quota system – the ITQ system – that was introduced by Reinfeldt and the bourgeois government in 2009. This quota system has resulted in a much higher concentration of fishing rights and a trade with fishing rights that did not exist before.

If the Social Democrats had chosen to stop this quota system in 2019, we might not have seen these large trawlers.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Victoria Tiblom, for the question! It is very important.

I was quite careful in my speech to say that this is a concern and that this has been going on for far too long. I never blamed any government, but I stated that the errors were committed at previous occasions. I do not believe that this was done out of pure negativity or malice, but rather that people acted to the best of their ability at those times, and we have not changed that.

We already observed during the previous parliamentary term a clear decline of the important species herring, sprat, and cod. What we then proposed from our side was that we should move out the trawl limit and pause the fishing on a trial basis. We can state that the government has continued that policy – but I have not blamed this government either, I have only stated that unfortunately it continues to go in the wrong direction.

In this case, it is from my and our side, so no political debate in that sense, but the intention is to try to save the fish in the Baltic Sea and, above all, to save the coastal fishing and those who actually live off it and fish for human consumption and food on the plate.

I think that we now must tackle this issue together to truly ensure that we have a living Baltic Sea and living fish in the future.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that it is this government that has moved the trawling boundaries. Just as Member Kronståhl mentions, it is something that the previous government discussed but did not reach a conclusion on.

I mean that there were very many opportunities for the previous government to do something about this, but not so much happened. On the other hand, the current government has done very much to save the fishing in our Swedish waters.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot thank Victoria Tiblom for what she says, it is simply not possible, but I can state that we actually got down to business. Just as this government has done, we gave assignments to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and others to carry out, but it sometimes takes time.

I could, for example, mention wolf hunting or other things where this government has high ambitions but where it is not going so well either. One cannot do more as a politician than to decide matters and try to give assignments to different agencies to get them implemented. If nothing then happens, one actually has to make sure to revisit the issues.

What I can promise Member Victoria Tiblom is that we, if we are given the chance again, will guaranteed ensure that predatory fishing for animal feed is stopped – for several reasons. Partly to save the stocks in the Baltic Sea, partly because there is such poor economics in this predatory fishing.

Today, these trawlers receive 4 kronor per kilogram for the herring that goes to animal feed. If we can succeed in transforming the fisheries policy in this country and take advantage of the resource that actually exists in the Baltic Sea and land, process, manage, and take care of the fish, we get 144 kronor per kilogram.

For the Social Democrats – who truly are a growth party because we do not just want to serve ourselves but create a welfare society for so many more – this is a completely insane policy that we must change.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Tomas Kronståhl, for an interesting presentation!

I see exactly as the member does the possibility of taking out the sledgehammer and banning large-scale fishing when it cannot be achieved in any other way. But I mean that there is another way.

The members of the board underestimated the science. Ices recommends a 30–40 percent safety margin. Would it not have been reasonable to see it as a possibility before starting to talk about stopping large-scale fishing?

There is a reason why fishing is large-scale today, and it is the working environment. There is an issue regarding moving the trawl limit. The small trawlers do not have the possibility to go particularly far out. The large trawlers have a better working environment and more acceptable social conditions for fishers. It is rarely raised in the debate. It is possible that we should conduct that debate elsewhere, but at the same time, I am interested in hearing what the Social Democratic member Tomas Kronståhl thinks about precisely the working environment when it comes to conducting fishing.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

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

The working environment is naturally extremely important. However, I have visited these trawlers. In the future, large-scale industrial trawlers shall be paused in the Baltic Sea – that is, the large-scale pelagic trawlers that primarily fish for animal feed. They are needed, but they are not needed here, but in other waters. The Baltic Sea is too small a sea for these large boats.

Mr. Speaker! I am thinking, among other things, about the Riga Gulf. There is an agreement between two countries there. One has tried to manage its fish in a wise manner. One is still very interested in it going to human consumption. Therefore, the very largest boats have been banned. One has small and medium-sized boats. One also has fishing bans during spawning periods to maintain the stock.

I will return to the working environment in my next turn, but I can state that in this case we must try to create a fishery that is sustainable over time and that we can actually benefit from, both we as a country when it comes to better revenues and those who are to fish and live off the fish.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Tomas Kronståhl for this answer. It will be interesting to hear what the member concludes regarding the working environment.

Another thing is the environmental aspect. We are to have more human consumption, but we have a problem in the Baltic Sea. The Swedish Food Agency's recommendation is that women of childbearing age and also young people should be very careful with the consumption of fish. But we could eat significantly more fish, because it is an excellent food. I did not hear the member mention that problem at any point in their speech. Should we have more landing opportunities and eat more fish? Does the member have any idea how the problem, which nevertheless exists, should be handled?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! There were two more questions.

When it comes to the working environment, I have been able to observe during visits to both small and medium-sized fishing boats that if profitability is achieved, it is possible to build very good such boats with a good working environment. That is obviously important. Therefore, it is also important to fish for a fish that one can get 144 for instead of 4 kronor per kilogram, which is actually what it is sold for today.

We must work on the recommendations from WWF and others together. We can observe that the fish caught today and which are tested almost always lie below the limit values by a large margin. Our neighboring country Finland, for example, has completely different recommendations and sees the utility as significantly more important than the potential risk of eating fish from the Baltic Sea. I believe that we in politics, together with the industry, should obviously work to market this raw material so that it becomes accepted in a completely different way.

Then we must, of course, also ensure together that we gradually build up a market where municipalities, public activities and others purchase the raw material so that the market gets started in earnest and can benefit the growth of fish for the plate, i.e., human consumption.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's history is inextricably intertwined with the sea. Long before railways and roads connected the country, the sea was our primary link to the outside world and one of the most important sources of food, trade, livelihood, and development. Generation after generation, people along our coasts have lived off and with the sea. Fishing shaped communities, provided work, laid the foundation for Swedish food supply, and created cultures that still characterize our coastal regions and food traditions.

The sea has carried our security and our prosperity as a trade route, as a natural resource, and as a life rhythm for entire coastal regions. But over time, the pressures have also increased. The Baltic Sea has become one of the world's most burdened seas. Fish stocks that were once a self-evident part of our food supply have been pushed back.

Small-scale fishing, which for centuries was a central part of the coastal community's vitality, has seen its conditions deteriorate. At the same time, the ecological crisis has deepened. Eutrophication, environmental toxins, climate change, incorrect management decisions, and decades of excessively high quotas in the EU have together created a situation where both nature and the industry are threatened.

Mr. Speaker! In this context, I also want to highlight lake fishing, which sometimes falls a bit into the shadow of the discussion about the seas but plays an important role both ecologically and culturally. Our lakes and watercourses carry a long tradition of small-scale fishing – often for human consumption – in close interaction with both nature and local communities. The challenges of coastal fishing are also recognized here. It is about stocks that need to be managed carefully and aquatic environments that have been affected by eutrophication and migration barriers.

For the Moderaterna, it is clear that even lake fishing must be protected as part of our food security and blue economy. Fisheries policy therefore does not only concern coastal issues. These are national issues. It is about biodiversity, about food security, about economic development, and about our responsibility to leave behind healthier seas, lakes, and watercourses for future generations. When we talk about fishing today, we are not just talking about an industry but about a heritage, an identity, and a strategic future issue for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, the government has taken several decisive steps to reverse the development in the world's most burdened seas. We have moved from words to action with concrete measures that strengthen both the marine environment and the fish stocks that for a long time have been subjected to heavy pressure.

When the EU's Agriculture and Fisheries Council negotiated the fishing opportunities for 2026, Sweden once again chose to take the most restrictive position of all member states. We worked consistently to ensure that the quotas were pushed down as low as possible – again. We stood firm when other countries pushed for significantly higher extractions – again. The result was, once again, that the quotas for herring and sprat became significantly lower than if Sweden had not sat at the negotiating table. We would gladly have gone further, but there is no doubt that we made a difference and have done so throughout this entire mandate period. That we voted no this time is also a clear signal that we no longer accept a continued depletion of our sea.

During the mandate period, the government has also presented one of the most extensive marine environment policy propositions in many years. The proposition strengthens the protection of marine areas and develops Sweden's work with ecosystem-based management, including, among other things, increased hunting of seals and cormorants. We have also moved out the trawling limit in the central Baltic Sea, and work is underway for a permanent relocation along the entire coast.

Mr. Speaker! I and the Moderates are very pleased with the progress that has been made in fishing and marine environment issues, but we are not satisfied. In this work, we must also speak plainly about what is perhaps the most absurd part of today's situation. That such a large part of the fish caught in our own waters does not end up on Swedish plates, or on any plates at all, but is ground down into fish meal is not just a waste of resources. It is an expression of a system that has lost its balance.

That up to 90 percent of the herring and sprat practically goes to the feed industry while we import fish for consumption is completely unreasonable. Furthermore, great potential values are lost, and coastal communities see long-lived traditions go into the grave. It is not compatible with either food security, environmental responsibility, or common sense.

Sweden needs a fishery that fishes for people's food, for our own preparedness needs, and to strengthen local industries. We do not need a fishery that feeds a feed industry at the expense of our ecosystems and our coastal fishers' future.

It is about letting nature recover without pulling the rug out from under the fishermen who fish for the food on our plates. It is about having the courage to say no to short-term exploitation and at the same time building long-term sustainable communities along our entire coast.

That is why the Moderaterna want to see a stop to large-scale trawling for the feed industry and that a new quota system for the Swedish pelagic fishery be investigated and introduced. The goals for the quota system shall be to create conditions for a varied fishing fleet, that more Swedish-caught fish becomes food, and that the fish stocks are given a chance to recover. This is needed so that we can also in the future be able to benefit from the resources the sea has to offer both in times of peace and in times of crisis.

For the Moderaterna, the line is clear: Fish caught in Swedish waters should primarily be used as food, not as feed. It is a line that strengthens food security. It is also a line in line with what the coastal communities demand.

Mr. Speaker! Much remains to be done. More stocks are still far from recovered, and the marine environment remains under severe pressure. But for the first time in a long time, the policy is moving in the right direction. We have pushed through the lowest quotas since negotiations began according to today's procedure. We have moved the trawling limit, strengthened the marine protected areas, and shown leadership towards our neighboring countries.

Sweden cannot save the Baltic Sea alone, but Sweden can lead. That is exactly what this government has done and will continue to do, with science as the basis and with the marine environment and fish stocks at the center.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joanna Lewerentz, for a very good speech! It is almost as if it were copied.

We have together organized many seminars on fishing, for which I also want to say thank you. We may have built on each other's knowledge of fisheries management and how fishing works in Swedish waters. We have acquired knowledge about the future of, not least, fishing in the Baltic Sea and see that current fisheries management, from both an ecological and economic point of view, is almost pure madness. I am prepared to take national measures to change today's situation.

Skillinge Fisk-Impex in Simrishamn is one of the few companies in Sweden that continues to land, process, and refine fish. They process approximately 5 percent of the catch that we take out of the Baltic Sea today. For that, they have about 50 employees plus 20 extra employees in the summer. Say that we had 80 percent of all fish in the Baltic Sea as household consumption or food fish. Then we would get at least 800 new jobs in this country. Is that not the right way to go and to go it together?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Kronståhl, for a rather simple question!

Yes, it is clearly the right way to go. That is why the Moderaterna also made such decisions at their work meeting last autumn. We want to see a larger fishing industry for human consumption than what Sweden has today. I and the Moderaterna believe that a good start would be to review what we can do at home to achieve a better balance in the fishing fleet and loosen the strong concentration we see right now.

Coastal fishing plays a very important role. Something I did not mention in my speech is that we want to review how we can utilize and develop the regional quota better than we do today. If we do that, we may eventually end up in what the member is fishing for. It requires that there is a demand, which has also come up in previous exchanges of remarks.

Something that has not been mentioned so far is that there is actually a demand, even if not from us Swedes, here at home. But in the rest of the world, people pay a lot for such products that could be produced from Swedish-caught fish. Until we start eating more fish from the Baltic Sea here in Sweden, I hope that we can at least be able to utilize the market that exists on the global level.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joanna Lewerentz, for the answer!

It feels like we are at a turning point in Swedish fisheries policy, perhaps especially when it comes to the management of the Baltic Sea. I believe it will take time, as it is a gradual process. But we must work together to build up the interest in eating Swedish fish and ensure that the processing facilities that exist in Sweden are fully utilized. In that way, we can make use of the resource that exists in the Baltic Sea, and the companies will get a full boost. We need to sell our fish both here and as an export product in the future. It could become an enormous revenue for Sweden.

I have another concrete question for Member of Parliament Lewerentz. On Tuesday, I intend to submit a proposal for a committee initiative. I want the government to appoint an inquiry into a new quota system, and I want it to be done now, because time is starting to run out. By 2029, we must have a new quota system. If we do not get a sensible inquiry now that provides a direction for what such a quota system should look like, it will be too late. Then the misery will continue for many years to come.

For such an investigation, I believe we should make some important additions. I have four points, Mr. Speaker.

We must create value for Sweden.

The quotas shall primarily be for human consumption, but we shall, of course, utilize the byproduct of the fishing.

The entire value chain shall be in Sweden. Both the landing sites and the fish shall be here.

We must create a preparedness quota to ensure the stocks so that they can be utilized in the event of war or crisis.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds like we have been at the same seminar this week.

The Moderates also see that some type of investigation is needed to see how we should manage our fishing. I look forward to reading the committee initiative; there is surely something I can take away from there. So we will simply see how it develops in this issue.

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. 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 obtaining sufficiently large catches, and a large part of the small-scale fishers along the Baltic coast have been wiped out. Similar trends of reduced catches exist along the entire Swedish coast. Every year, the status of many stocks deteriorates.

For 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 resources we collectively dispose of to go to feed for farmed fish and chicken, or do we want the fish to go to 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 significantly. 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 the salmon. The Swedish salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea have previously had a positive development, but in recent years they have decreased significantly. The reason seems primarily to be that fewer salmon survive their time in the Baltic Sea, partly due to a lack of food.

The fastest way to help the herring stocks recover would be to stop large-scale industrial fishing. If we do not do that, the herring may be heading towards collapse. If this 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. Sweden must act as a pioneer 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 room to adopt national fishing rules ourselves in the territorial sea, even in areas where other states have access. It is not reasonable that a few individual vessels account for such a large share of the fishing while the majority have to share a significantly smaller part of the stock.

Vibrant 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 also require less energy, and large ships cannot land their 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 means that today it is only a few large boats that 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 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 argue that this is a system that must be redesigned with completely different goals in focus. We want to see regional quotas, where a larger share of the catch ends up on people's plates within the framework of an ecosystem-adapted fishery.

To achieve sustainable fishing, effective fisheries controls are also required. This benefits the fishers who follow the regulations. Several audits show very large problems with fraud within the Swedish fishery. This involves, among other things, that one species is reported as another species and that the vessels report smaller catches than those that are 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.

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 phase-out of licenses for eel fishing that is occurring today.

Those who advocate for maintaining the eel fishery often refer to it as a tradition, but a tradition is usually something one envisions being able to continue far into the future. The only reasonable thing would therefore be to stop the eel fishery now to avoid the eel disappearing completely – without eels, no eel fishing.

Mr. Speaker! Over 90 percent of the commercial fish stocks in the world are fully exploited or overexploited. Partly as a colonial legacy, European fishing fleets harvest fish from the waters of, among others, African countries. Unfortunately, many of these countries have fish stocks that are already overfished, and in West Africa, for example, a large part of the coastal fishery has been completely wiped out. Vänsterpartiet therefore believes that Sweden should actively pursue the issue of countering overfishing in West Africa bilaterally and through the EU and the UN.

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, reform the quota system, protect endangered species, and establish a management that aims for 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 fishing industry would be in harmony with nature and the ocean's ecosystems.

I vote in favor of reservation 4.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

I cannot help but wonder if the member knows anything about eel fishing, because the member in their speech said it is a pity that eel fishing is only prohibited for six months. Today, eel fishing is permitted for six months, between March 15 and September 15. But one does not fish any eel in March, April, or May. One might perhaps start in July. In reality, eel fishing is therefore possible in barely two months, if at all. Had the eel fishers themselves been allowed to decide, one would have been allowed to fish eel even in October and perhaps into November.

A reduction has been made by moving the date from October 1 to September 15. Last year, there were also discussions about moving it all the way to September 1 – that the eel fishing would end then. At that point, there is practically no eel fishing left. Already today, the eel fishing is therefore very limited.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was good that I also got the opportunity to discuss the issue of the eel with the Sweden Democrats in this debate.

The Left Party's view is that eel fishing should not be allowed at all. Regardless of how many months of the year one fishes for eel today, it is therefore too much. I do not think we should eat endangered animals, whether it concerns giant pandas, rhinoceroses or eels. The eel is an acutely endangered species.

Some of the eel caught by Swedish fishermen is exported today to other EU countries. Therefore, I find it a bit interesting to listen to those who advocate that eel fishing should be allowed to continue. It is usually talked about as part of the cultural heritage, but the export to other EU countries can hardly be part of the Swedish cultural heritage.

This summer, I participated in a panel discussion in Almedalen. I believe all parties in the Swedish Riksdag were present. Then we received a question about whether we could imagine a ban on sturgeon fishing but with a cultural heritage quota. I want to remember that all representatives for the parties in the government base said no to that proposal. They cannot imagine stopping the sturgeon fishing even if there is a reserved cultural heritage quota. I find it a bit difficult to understand based on the reasoning that Victoria Tiblom presented in her speech.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I was not in Almedalen last year, and I do not even know if anyone from our side participated in the debate that the member is speaking about, so I cannot really comment on this.

If one wants to get this right with the eel, which is endangered, it is primarily about the glass eel and the EU. That is where one must begin to exert influence.

My question to the member is: What does Vänsterpartiet do in the EU regarding this? That is where one must start. A large part of the eels that are in the Baltic Sea have been stocked by the Swedish eel fishers, as I mentioned.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party advocates for a total ban on eel fishing. This applies to all developmental stages, which means also glass eels.

The experts I have spoken with nevertheless mean that the Swedish eel fishing, in the way it is conducted, is a greater threat to the species than fishing for glass eels. Glass eels are, in fact, very young eels, and there is still high mortality in that life stage. The eels that are caught in the Swedish fishing are, on the other hand, eels that are on their way to swim back to the Sargasso Sea to breed. Catching and killing them has a much greater impact on the eel stock.

It is a bit strange that the member refers to the fact that eels are being stocked. There is no breeding of eels in captivity; rather, the eels that are stocked by Swedish fishermen are glass eels that have been caught somewhere else. This therefore does not contribute to strengthening the conditions for the species.

I also noted that the member previously spoke about how it is important to address the hydropower to strengthen the conditions for the eel. I completely agree with that. But with this in mind, it is strange that this government, where the Sverigedemokraterna are part of the government base, has stopped the reassessment of the hydropower, which would have led to better conditions for fish such as the eel to pass. It is something that goes completely against what the member himself has stated in this debate.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal and the rejection of all reservations. I have previously stated from this rostrum, and I maintain it, that the fishing debate in society is a debate that is most often driven more by emotions than by facts, which sometimes makes it a bit difficult to debate. One does not stand on the same foundation of facts and also falls very easily to just emotions. Regardless of this, we shall handle tonight's debate in a good way.

The oceans are an invaluable resource – a source of enterprise, recreation, food, and culture. But for a long time, the oceans have been subjected to significant environmental pressures, and particularly affected is our own inland sea, the Baltic Sea, whose situation is complicated not least by irregular variations in saltwater inflow and slow water turnover. These are characteristics that make the living conditions for species more unstable and the emissions more long-lived.

We bear a responsibility towards future generations to break the negative trend and restore the health of the oceans. The problem is complex as the factors of influence are many. A stronger ecosystem approach, that is, taking into account how the parts of the ecosystem are interconnected, must therefore gain traction in decisions concerning the ocean. In that regard, the previously decided marine environment bill is a very important piece of the puzzle.

Both national and international measures are required for the seas to improve. All Swedish sea areas, with the exception of the Skagerrak, are affected by eutrophication. This leads to extensive algal blooms, oxygen deficiency, and dead bottoms. When the ecosystem's balance is disturbed, both fish stocks and biodiversity are threatened. The primary sources of phosphorus and nitrogen emissions are industries, treatment plants, traffic, and agriculture.

Sweden has for several years actively worked to limit the supply of nutrients to our seas and watercourses, among other things through advanced treatment plants and agricultural methods. Not least the project Greppa näringen, where farmers are given the opportunity for consultation, has been a success factor.

Emissions are significantly lower today than at the peak in the 1980s. But the effects of previous emissions linger. It is crucial that eutrophication continues to decrease while Sweden's competitiveness is protected. Economic support measures should also in the future be directed towards agriculture to promote measures that reduce the supply of nutrients to watercourses and seas. This includes, among other things, support for precision farming, catch crops, and cover cropping, which also benefit the agriculture's productivity.

The so-called Kväveklivet aims to strengthen the agricultural sector's investment opportunities regarding technical solutions and equipment that reduce ammonia emissions from manure or contribute to more efficient utilization of nitrogen. The Christian Democrats consider Kväveklivet to be an important tool to prioritize.

Municipalities and non-profit organizations can, after some co-financing, receive grants for local water conservation efforts, so-called LOVA projects. They shall promote a good ecological status, for example by reducing eutrophication and emissions of harmful substances. That which is concrete and close in people's everyday lives often evokes stronger drivers, and this shall be utilized. Kristdemokraterna therefore want to double the appropriations to LOVA and strengthen the follow-up.

The EU's common fisheries policy needs to be tightened in a more sustainable direction. Despite the fact that fishing quotas for more than ten years have been set within the range prescribed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea based on the Baltic Sea Action Plan, several stocks are at unacceptably low levels. It is time to strengthen the precautionary approach and develop the regulatory framework.

Greater consideration shall be taken of the fish's role in the ecosystem, the water's environmental status, predators, and the need for a sustainable composition regarding age, quality, and size when decisions on fishing opportunities are prepared and made. Increased protection against overfishing of local stocks must also be applied.

Several coastal fishermen testify to better sprat fishing during 2025. This indicates that Sweden's restrictive stance may have made a difference, but it is far too early to celebrate. The situation for the sprat and several other species is still pressured.

It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to ensure a stable and lasting recovery. The Christian Democrats therefore believe that a multi-year growth plan should be established for the weak fish stocks in the Baltic Sea. The plan shall take into account more factors than today, as I mentioned earlier in the speech. It shall also tighten the management of the quota decisions. Only quotas that contribute to the growth of the stocks with a margin shall be permitted to be set. It also has advantages from a preparedness point of view, as it creates room to increase fishing in the event of a crisis and, ultimately, war. The plan shall also contain protective measures that can be quickly implemented.

The fish's opportunity to spawn is of importance for the recovery. Therefore, large-scale fishing should be regulated with consideration taken of sensitive periods and areas based on scientific assessments of what promotes the stocks in a purposeful manner.

During the Swedish EU Presidency, a stricter control regulation for fishing within the EU was adopted, which is now to be implemented. In order to avoid distorted competition for Swedish fishers, it is important that the regulation is implemented in a similar manner in all member states.

To curb rule violations, we want to strengthen fisheries control. Rule violations do not only affect the marine environment negatively – they are also an injustice to everyone who actually behaves correctly. Caught fish must be landed, reported, and tracked through the entire chain from sea to consumer. This counters waste, reduces the risk of illegal fishing, and strengthens consumer confidence. The EU must therefore ensure that the landing obligation works in practice and that traceability systems are developed. The rules should be designed so that they are simple for companies to follow while at the same time the control is good.

Mr. Speaker! During the 2000s, the number of seals and cormorants has increased sharply, while several fish stocks have been weakened. We know that these predators eat large amounts of fish. The imbalance between seals, cormorants, and fish must be addressed to help the fish's recovery.

That scar colonies leave behind destroyed vegetation and skeleton islands is another reason to act.

We want to remove obstacles for hunting of cormorants and seals with the aim of, in a first step, halving the populations as soon as possible, with a subsequent evaluation.

The EU's Birds Directive shall be amended so that general hunting of cormorants can be introduced in Sweden. In the meantime, protection hunting of cormorants, as the rules permit, shall be utilized to the maximum, which also includes destroying eggs.

In order to strengthen the incentives for seal hunting, the EU ban on trade with seal products shall be lifted. Furthermore, the state shall, in dialogue with the hunters' association, hire special hunting teams with the mission to support local hunting teams in the practical work and to convey knowledge about effective methods, as this type of hunting places very high demands.

In order to regulate the populations of seals and grey seals in a long-term, effective and sustainable way, it is important to strengthen research and to have an open and recurring follow-up of various management measures.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! The fishing quotas decided in negotiations between the EU countries every year have received great attention and criticism in the Swedish debate. But alongside the negotiations on fishing quotas at the EU level, there are actually things that Sweden 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 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.

The amount of herring and sprat for human consumption has decreased over the last decade, as has the number of small-scale coastal fishers. Instead, large-scale fishing now dominates, whose catches go to the production of fish meal and fish oil.

It is clear that one of the central problems is the current quota allocation system, ITQ, which was introduced in 2009. It causes the fishing quotas to be concentrated among a few large boats. That the system looks like this is also part of the explanation for why things are going so poorly for the sprat. Large-scale fishing in certain areas during certain times of the year risks wiping out local stocks.

In the year 2029, the current fishing rights will expire. If a new system is not presented before then, we risk having another ten years with a system that causes enormous problems. A reorganization of the system is long-awaited by many.

A concrete proposal for an investigation was sent in recent days to the Minister for Rural Affairs from Marint centrum in Simrishamn, Baltic Waters, and Sportfiskarna. They write that a reform of the ITQ system is necessary to meet today's ecological and societal demands.

Last summer, I asked the Minister for Rural Affairs if he intended to appoint an inquiry into the ITQ system. He replied then that the government will look into the need for further evaluations of the system.

My question to the Christian Democrats is: When will the decision regarding an investigation into the ITQ system be announced? It is actually starting to become urgent now.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Andrea Andersson Tay, for the question!

Unfortunately, I cannot give Andersson Tay a specific date because I am not in the government and am not involved in those negotiations. What I do know is that this is an issue that is being discussed. It concerns how it should be evaluated and how it should proceed. Just as the member mentioned, this system expires in 2029. I do not think anyone actually wants to extend it in its current form; instead, changes must be made. But I do not know when that will happen or if an inquiry or similar will be appointed.

I will probably have to ask Andrea Andersson Tay to pose a question about that to the Minister for Rural Affairs, who handles the issue. I do not do that.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have done just that. That is what I said. I have asked a question to the Minister for Rural Affairs, and he answered that the government will look into the need. Then I wonder: When is it going to happen? The parliamentary term is almost over. How long can we actually say that the issue is being discussed, as Kjell-Arne Ottosson said?

There are only three years left until 2029. I imagine that such a review and investigation will still take some time if all relevant factors are to be highlighted. We must have a finished proposal for a system well before 2029 in order for us to be able to introduce a new system then. I therefore expect that a decision will come quite soon from the government on this issue.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Andrea Andersson Tay may ask one further question to the Minister for Rural Affairs because she did not receive an answer to her first question. The work is carried out at the Government Offices when it comes to negotiations and how investigations should be conducted, so I unfortunately do not have the answer to the question.

But I know, as I said, that work is ongoing regarding the ITQ system and how it should be handled further. There are three years left. Whether it is much or little, we can discuss. But we see, in any case, that there are opportunities to have time to evaluate the system and see what needs to be changed. The system came about for a reason. It fulfilled a function. Then not all parts became good, and that is where one must make adjustments.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report MJU11, Fisheries Policy. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 14, The role of the fishing and aquaculture industry for food supply and food security, point 6.

Fish has an important role as food. We have had a food strategy 2.0. In that, it has received a very sidelined role. One has to search to find anything in this strategy. What one can find is, among other things, that Jordbruksverket has been given a mandate to, from 2026–2030, develop a strategy for more seafood from professional fishing, aquaculture, and the entire blue value chain.

When one analyzes this a bit more, it cannot be seen as an increase in ambition but rather more as a description of the current situation. That is how I see it. The Center Party wanted to see more earmarked funds regarding access to sustainable feed for aquaculture and simplification processes when it comes to permits for aquaculture. Aquaculture will become, and is, an important part.

Mr. Speaker! The committee has visited these new aquaculture systems, even on land, which will be able to contribute significantly, especially since we still have an environmental problem in the Baltic Sea but also in our lakes. Our lakes are good in many ways. They have good management, but the environmental impact is increasing in these as well. We can take Vättern as an example. There, the PFAS levels are extremely high at the moment. It is the dioxin levels that make it so that the well-known Vättern char is hardly served in restaurants today. Much of this is linked to environmental destruction, and it is incredibly sad.

I and with the fact that the environment should be in focus, one was a bit surprised when we were visited by the Minister for Defence in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. It was about the permits that the defense side had received to continue with exercises in Vättern. Given that it takes a long time for the water to turn over just in Vättern – I believe it is 60 years – it is devastating with additional pressure.

We would like to see more research on the environmental side but also on the sampling side. This evening we have discussed the sampling of fish. There is fish in the Baltic Sea that could very well meet the requirements to be edible. But there is a lack of sampling. We cannot, with today's system, take samples of every single fish. A smarter sampling system would be needed, and resources would need to be allocated to NIR methods and similar to ensure that we can be certain that the fish we get on the table meets the Swedish Food Agency's recommendations. We must base ourselves on the Swedish Food Agency's recommendations in the consumption of fish. Otherwise, the risk is that we do not perceive fish as a safe food, and that would be devastating. We could scale up and significantly increase the sale of fish if we had safe fish. But as a transition and as a complement, aquaculture is interesting. We have aquaculture on land, but we have aquaculture in rivers and lakes in Central Sweden that are becoming more environmentally smart.

Something that we have also discussed tonight and that we would like to see from the C side is another management system and a regional quota system where more consideration can be taken for small-scale fishers, which would automatically result in more human consumption since most of it goes to human consumption. We would also like to have a revised management plan, sharpened scientific advice, and that we use ICES's recommendations with a safety margin and that they become governing. They are not governing today, and they are voted down by our ministers as soon as they reach the EU. The wise proposals that the Commission has presented many times do not become reality, so we must get a different order in place.

If one fails to get these things in order, I am also not opposed to being restrictive and introducing bans on large-scale fishing in the Baltic Sea. This can be both geographically limited and time-limited where necessary. This is a way forward to achieve a better balance in the Baltic Sea, which we must have.

If we look at the climate issues, unfortunately, far too many treatment plants today do not have sufficiently good nitrogen removal. Not even new treatment plants take the highest possible resources to achieve good nitrogen removal, and that should be an absolute requirement. More resources should be allocated from the state here instead of to a lot of other projects. This would be low-hanging fruit.

In a management system, we would also have full authority where Sweden and Finland have their own area, i.e., in the Bothnian Sea and the northern part of Sweden. There, we could absolutely take a much greater responsibility to get a fishery into balance. For this year, the ministers in the EU did say yes to a more restrictive stance, but the Bothnian Sea is already down for the count. It is the toughest one we have right now, and this we must monitor.

Stock size must also become more governing for the recommendations we have. It is not just the amount of fish but also the size of the fish, so a good deal of this we must get right now. This is important from a preparedness perspective. We must have a safety margin even when it comes to the volume of fish in the Baltic Sea; it could be used in a crisis. Therefore, this is perhaps more important than ever.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate; it is not my usual comfort zone. In ordinary cases, it is the Committee on the Constitution, but environmentalists are united by a great interest in both land and water and the life that exists in both places. Here, we feel at home.

With that said, there are also certain things that I react to almost instinctively. I am thinking of the situation when very many people know that something really needs to be done, but it is nevertheless delayed because some investigation is ongoing or, as in my previous work, where more research was always needed. When I read the report, it hit me from time to time. We know that the fish stocks are threatened, we know that it would be good to reduce fishing for a period to let the stocks recover and that we can thereafter work according to a more sustainable plan.

Mr. Speaker! We naturally welcome the creation of a maritime pact within the EU as a major step towards sustainable fishing in the European seas. The committee considers, however – in connection with what I just said – that with the maritime pact in place, we can let go a little and let things take their course. We – in the sense of Emma Nohrén, myself and Miljöpartiet – believe that the government should rather push for the EU to adopt a recovery plan to quickly rebuild fish stocks both in the short and long term in the union's seas, including the Swedish ones. The recovery plan must be legally binding and long-term.

In the same way, it is with the trawling boundaries. I want to remember that we had a discussion about this in KU as well a year ago, and we were of the opinion that a policy proposal is not quite the same as a decision. What sounded so good was not quite that.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has the opportunity to nationally protect fish stocks within twelve nautical miles from the baseline, where the EU has delegated the decision-making power. Through Article 20 in combination with Article 8 of the basic regulation on the common fisheries policy, Sweden can regulate fishing in territorial waters, for example, through gear restrictions in spawning and nursery areas or by moving the trawl limit. We can also use the quota allocation instrument to benefit fishers who use gentle methods.

To protect herring and sprat, my party and I believe that the trawling limit should be moved out immediately to twelve nautical miles along the entire coast, without exception. At the same time, we must abolish the so-called relocation areas where extensive fishing is still conducted. During 2025, the trawling limit was moved out in large parts of the east coast, which is welcome but not sufficient because it can now be seen that the fishing instead moves to other parts of the coast. We believe that the government should perhaps reformulate the mandate to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management so that it becomes a permanent relocation of the trawling limit along the entire east coast.

The large industrial trawlers have for a long time taken enormous amounts of herring and sprat from the sea. Up to 95 percent of the catch is not used as food but becomes animal feed. We must reduce the fishing pressure and stop this trawling. Before we joined the EU, large-scale trawling for industrial purposes, such as fishmeal production, was forbidden in the Baltic Sea. We in Miljöpartiet believe that the government may have to work to reintroduce the ban on industrial trawling in the Baltic Sea and instead prioritize small-scale fishing where the catch goes to human consumption. Several others have said this here.

It is true that other countries around the Baltic Sea also need to take steps forward, but it is not the case that our Swedish government cannot do more than it already does within fisheries policy. The toolbox is not empty, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the current legislation gives Sweden many and extensive opportunities to act here and now to reverse the development in the Baltic Sea. For environmental reasons, the government can decide that the Swedish quota shall only go to small-scale coastal fishing and to those who fish for food on our plates.

We have talked about the eel. It might not be right to say that the discussion has become polarized, but at least one minister and one state secretary have been in various forms of uproar regarding the fishing and consumption of eel. On the other side, we have the science and fishmongers like Susanna in Ljungskile who simply refused to take in and sell eel and had to debate this on TV with the Minister for Rural Affairs. I thought she won!

The eel is acutely threatened with extinction – 99 percent of the European eel has disappeared since the 1950s. The stock is today a remnant, and the species' complicated life cycle makes it particularly vulnerable. A parasite, a disease, or a warmer ocean can be enough to break the stock below recovery levels. The protection for the eel must therefore become significantly stricter, both in Sweden and in the EU.

The ongoing work to environmentally adapt hydropower can, in the long run, create more free migration routes, but it takes time. The precautionary principle must therefore be applied fully, and all possible measures must now be taken, including a total fishing ban. For a species in acute crisis, every individual is important. Emma Nohrén, I and Miljöpartiet therefore demand that all salmon fishing in Sweden and the EU be paused until the species has achieved a good conservation status.

I would like to add that there are solutions worth looking into more closely. In Falkenberg, they succeeded in opening up Hertingforsen and were thus able to close one of the two power plants in central Falkenberg, in favor of recreating a very popular recreation area. At the same time, new solutions were created for the fish's opportunities to migrate both upwards and downwards in the Ätran, and the number of fish upstream of the new old waterfall has actually doubled.

This is a solution that can be implemented in other places as well. For example, there is a strong opinion in Laholm to reopen a part of the Lagan upstream from the town. It could generate very large values for sport fishing.

Mr. Speaker! Reviews have time and again shown extensive misreporting of catches and systematic cheating within the EU's fishing fleet. This undermines the stock assessments that ICES's advice is based on and threatens both ecosystems and fish stocks. Despite the fact that the EU has introduced discard bans, i.e., requirements that all caught fish must be landed and reported, the rules are not being followed.

The EU has decided on stricter rules for fisheries control. These must be quickly implemented in Sweden as well, and the control must be expanded, with associated funding. My party and I demand that the deficiencies in reporting be addressed, that compliance is secured, and that the government allocates sufficient resources for the purpose. It must be ensured that the discard ban is followed, for example through fully documented fishing with cameras.

Mr. Speaker! In a committee motion from Miljöpartiet, a proposal is submitted to tighten the technical regulation of fishing gear so that the best possible technology is used in fishing to eliminate bycatch and counteract bottom impact. This is, in itself, work that is being carried out in various ways, but we believe that Sweden should take a more active role in driving the work on this issue within the EU and, where necessary, introduce stricter technical regulations to minimize both bycatch and damage to the seabed.

During 2025, Sweden changed the legislation so that it is possible to prohibit fishing in marine protected areas even if it encroaches on fishing. Now, implementation must occur more expeditiously. I and my party want to see a total ban on bottom trawling in protected areas and that exceptions are only granted for strictly scientific purposes.

Mr. Speaker! The attentive listener may have noted that I have spoken about the Baltic Sea, which is of course because it is an important matter, but also given examples from Bohuslän and Halland – or Skagerrak and Kattegat, if one so wishes. The problems and the challenges are the same. It is probably also the solutions, at least in large part. It is important to remember that.

With that said, I wish to move for approval of reservation number 1 under point 1.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 4.)

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