Improved conditions for a sustainable aquaculture
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD welcomes the government's proposal to simplify the regulatory framework for aquaculture by letting the Environmental Code alone assess the environmental impact 1. S considers the simplifications to be good and that sustainable fish farming can create jobs in rural areas 2. SD welcomes the legislative changes to adapt the regulatory framework to the EU and increase self-sufficiency of food 3. V views sustainable aquaculture positively but argues that the proposal to remove cultivation permits according to the Fisheries Act increases the risks of disease spread and environmental damage 4. C welcomes the bill but wants to see competence-enhancing measures for municipalities and investigations into small-scale operations 5. MP shares the concern that environmental protection will be weakened and wants clearer guidance for phasing out open cultivation cages 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report and the rejection of all reservations.
The previous government decided in June 2022 to task a special investigator to, among other things, review how the provisions on aquaculture can be simplified to promote a more competitive and sustainable aquaculture. The investigation adopted the name the Fish and Aquaculture Inquiry. In October 2023, the partial report Simplified conditions for a sustainable aquaculture was submitted. In the bill that this resulted in and which we are discussing today, the partial report's legislative proposal is handled, while other parts of the partial report are being further prepared within the Government Offices.
The proposition points out that the growth of the aquaculture industry is relatively weak despite the geographically favorable conditions for aquaculture in Sweden. One contributing cause to the weak growth may be that the regulatory framework for aquaculture is complex and involves assessments according to different legislations and by different authorities. The Government therefore considers that the regulatory framework for aquaculture needs to be simplified.
Therefore, the government's proposal for legislative changes, which mean that the environmental impact of aquaculture shall be assessed solely according to the Environmental Code's rules on environmentally hazardous activities, is welcome. The proposed changes mean that aquaculture activities will be assessed according to one and the same regulatory framework, regardless of what is bred or farmed. The new regulatory framework will create better conditions to increase aquaculture production in Sweden in a sustainable way. The government's starting point is thus that an aquaculture's environmental impact shall be examined based on a regulatory framework before the activity can be initiated.
In the budget bill for 2025, the government emphasizes that it wants Swedish companies to be able to develop along the entire blue value chain, from fishing and aquaculture through the processing industry and all processing steps to market and consumer.
Within the framework of the food strategy 2.0, the government has decided on a number of agency assignments. The Swedish Board of Agriculture has been tasked with taking a number of measures during the period 2025–2030, including strengthening seafood production from commercial fishing, aquaculture, and the blue value chain in Sweden. The work shall be carried out through interventions that can increase both aquaculture production and the processing of fish.
This is, Madam Speaker, important from several aspects, but not least from a preparedness perspective given how the world looks now. All food production we can bring home within Sweden's borders is only positive from many perspectives.
Björn Petersson (S)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating issues regarding aquaculture, primarily based on the government's bill Improved conditions for a sustainable aquaculture and additionally some motions from the general motion period.
Briefly summarized, amendments are proposed to the Fisheries Act and the Environmental Code which will mean that the environmental impact of aquaculture shall only be assessed according to the Environmental Code's rules on environmentally hazardous activities. The requirement for permits etc. under the Fisheries Act for farming fish, aquatic molluscs, and aquatic crustaceans is removed. Aquaculture facilities are exempted from the requirement for permits for water activities in the Environmental Code. At the same time, the government is authorized under the Environmental Code to issue regulations on environmental considerations in aquaculture.
The importance of simplifying the regulatory framework for aquaculture and making it more purposeful was the focus for my party colleague, the then Minister for Rural Affairs Anna-Caren Sätherberg, when she commissioned the investigation that forms the basis for the changes. We are pleased that we are now moving forward.
There is an enormous growth potential for aquaculture, and Sweden can be a role model within a circular blue economy. Sustainable fish farming with high environmental requirements can protect wild fish stocks and simultaneously create jobs in rural areas.
Madam Speaker! I therefore move for approval of reservation 6 and agree with the previous speaker that this is a good thing.
Martin Kinnunen (SD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation 7.
The subject for today is aquaculture, and we have to discuss the government's bill Improved conditions for a sustainable aquaculture as well as motions from the general motion period.
From the Sweden Democrats' side, we welcome the proposed legislative changes, which are introduced against the background of the need to adapt the regulatory framework to the EU's regulatory framework but also aim to simplify for the industry without risk of negative environmental impact.
Madam Speaker! Swedish aquaculture contributes to Swedish food production but has the potential to contribute much more than it does today. The majority of the fish farmed in Sweden is unfortunately exported, while the absolute majority of the fish we eat in Sweden is imported. So, naturally, we should not have it that way.
There are good conditions for freshwater fish production, especially in the northern parts of the country, where there are nutrient-rich regulated reservoirs. Freshwater fish production can provide positive regional policy effects, increase self-sufficiency of food, and create jobs in rural areas.
To increase the self-sufficiency rate regarding domestically farmed fish and the number of people employed in aquaculture, good coordination between different policy areas is required, but also increased cooperation between the industry and trade. It is not reasonable that it should be so difficult to find farmed Swedish food fish and that such a large part of the 10,000 tons of fish farmed in Sweden is exported.
Madam Speaker! It should also be mentioned in this context that aquaculture is included in the updated food strategy, which the government has developed in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats. Also, the work to simplify the environmental permit processes that the Tidö parties are undertaking will, in the long run, improve the conditions also for aquaculture.
In conclusion, I also want to mention in this context that the new coastal protection rules that apply from July 1 this year will entail significant simplifications for Swedish aquaculture by the fact that the exemptions for land-based industries from that date onwards will also include aquaculture.
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! In its proposition, the Government proposes amendments to the Fisheries Act and the Environmental Code. The amendments to the Fisheries Act mean, among other things, that the authorization to issue regulations on requirements for permits and conditions for farming fish and other aquatic animals is removed. In the Environmental Code, an amendment is proposed which means that all construction of facilities for aquaculture is exempted from the requirement for a permit for water activity.
Vänsterpartiet views a sustainable aquaculture that is operated on a circular basis, increases the possibilities for sport fishing and tourist fishing activities, and contributes to food security positively. But this must happen without simultaneously endangering the environment and biodiversity. Simplifications of regulations are only good as long as they do not lead to the protection of the environment becoming weaker.
Aquaculture in open systems, where fish are raised in bags in lakes or seas, contributes to eutrophication. It is also common for fish to escape or spread infection to the surroundings. Closed systems on land are significantly safer, and those are the ones we should encourage.
Unfortunately, the government's proposal to remove the requirement for cultivation permits under the fisheries legislation entails increased risks.
The assessment of aquaculture that is carried out according to the fisheries legislation today will not find any equivalent in the environmental legislation. According to the Fisheries Act, the County Administrative Board can set requirements on operators, and permits can be more easily revoked if the operation is mismanaged.
When cultivation permits are removed while fish farms with less than 40 tons of feed consumption only become reportable and do not require a permit, it entails a risk of spreading infection or the spread of unwanted fish species or fish stocks from smaller farms. Even smaller aquaculture facilities can cause great damage to the environment. This criticism has been presented in referral responses from several county administrative boards.
Several referral bodies also point out the risks that the county administrative boards' competence regarding aquaculture will not be maintained to the same extent as before if cultivation permits are replaced with a notification. Instead, the responsibility for setting conditions and exercising supervision will fall on the municipalities, which will have difficulty maintaining the correct competence for the assignment. This means we risk ending up in a situation where similar activities in different municipalities are assessed completely differently. Therefore, I and my party want the Riksdag to reject the bill in the part concerning changes to the Fisheries Act.
Anders Ådahl (C)
Madam Speaker! The Centre Party is the party of the countryside and entrepreneurship. Above all, we always stand on the side of small business owners.
Simplification of regulations for companies is a recurring theme for us. Today during Järvaveckan, we presented a report titled 101 hurdles for companies' growth and job creation. The report is based on a survey revealing that the biggest hurdles for companies to be able to grow are complicated rules and bureaucracy.
The issue of aquaculture and the government bill that forms the basis for this debate becomes, in a sense, central to the Center Party's ambitions in the broadest sense. We welcome the government's bill on improved conditions for sustainable aquaculture, but we also see that it would have been possible to go further and show greater consideration for small businesses.
Sweden is a large and sparsely populated country with a long coastline and many lakes. We, by the way, have the most islands in the entire world. We have excellent conditions to conduct a sustainable aquaculture that creates jobs in all parts of the country and substantially contributes to the Swedish food supply. But red tape often stands in the way.
Madam Speaker! Along with the proposal in the bill, we want to see competence-enhancing measures for the municipalities. Otherwise, the legislative changes risk getting stuck in weak management. This is also pointed out by several referral bodies, and it is also proposed by the investigation that forms the basis for the bill.
Furthermore, we note that for some small-scale operations, the legislative changes do not imply any obvious improvement. They are judged to have the same or potentially somewhat increased costs under the new order. It is an unfortunate consequence, and we believe it needs to be investigated whether such small-scale operations can be exempted from requirements for notification of environmentally hazardous activities and how such an exemption should be designed in that case.
Camilla Hansén (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is welcome that the government is proceeding with the partial report to attempt to facilitate and promote aquaculture and simultaneously counteract the inconsistent management of aquaculture that we see with the current system. We in Miljöpartiet, however, have a number of views on the government's proposal.
The investigation finds that double assessment of issues can sometimes occur within the framework of assessments of cultivation permits according to the fisheries legislation and assessments made according to the Environmental Code. Therefore, it is proposed that the regulation of cultivation permits and associated provisions should be removed from the fisheries legislation and that the impact on free-living fish, aquatic crustaceans, aquatic mollusks, and the surrounding environment should instead only be considered within the environmental legislation. Consequently, all aquaculture will primarily be assessed according to the same legislation.
The Government also proposes, in accordance with the commission's proposal, that the requirement for cultivation permits under the fisheries legislation shall be removed. I and my party share the concern expressed by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and the County Administrative Board's expert in the commission in their referral responses, namely that protection for nature and the environment risks falling between the cracks with the proposed new design of the legislation. This concerns, for example, questions regarding consequences for surrounding ecosystems, where the County Administrative Boards' competence risks not being taken into account.
Furthermore, it is a fact that even smaller cultivations in water areas can cause extensive negative consequences if the right conditions are not established for the activity. Fish farming in open systems can, for example, lead to nutrient leakage. There is a great risk of escape and the spread of diseases.
We therefore consider that it must be ensured that the environmental protection, which today is linked to the cultivation permit, is transferred to the new regulations and ordinances within the environmental legislation, so that the result is not that the environmental protection is lowered.
Even in the government's consistency review, it appears that the protection of the environment in matters that have been included in the assessment of cultivation permits can be worsened if the cultivation permit is removed. This applies, for example, to the impact on other free-living fish, aquatic crustaceans and mollusks, but also to the environment at large.
The Government refers to the importance of education and guidance measures for the municipalities. But they are, of course, entirely dependent on the Government allocating sufficient financial resources. And, just as the county administrative boards write, it will take time for 290 municipalities to build up the competence required.
There is, therefore, a risk of continued problems with inconsistencies in the treatment of aquaculture. Therefore, it is very important that the areas that are currently covered by the county administrative boards' developed competence in fishing and ecosystem issues are taken into account. We believe that there should be requirements for the county administrative boards to comment when it concerns notification cases to the municipalities.
We would also have liked to see clearer guidance from the government regarding environmental considerations in aquaculture. For example, it needs to be clarified at the regulatory level that the best possible technology shall be used with regard to both environmental considerations and animal welfare, and that other consideration requirements in the Environmental Code apply. Here, we would, for example, like to see sharper steering to phase out open cultivation bags and instead steer towards closed or land-based systems with minimal environmental impact.
With this said, I would like to move for approval of the Green Party's reservation 5.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.