(cont. from § 6) Agriculture, rural areas and food (cont. MJU2)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! After two years in power, the priorities of the government and the Sweden Democrats are clear: instead of making things easier for households, healthcare, schools, and elderly care, they are investing in tax cuts for the rich.

Vänsterpartiet notes that the government, point by point, fails to handle the serious societal problems we are currently facing. Large groups seem invisible to the government base when they completely ignore the problems affecting those who find it difficult to make their everyday finances work. With the government's and Sverigedemokraternas budget, inequality increases, the growing unemployment is left without measures, and the climate transition is put on hold. Furthermore, the cuts within the welfare sector continue.

The Left Party's budget proposal stands for a policy that truly addresses social problems and protects those in the worst positions. To create room for, among other things, a prioritized increase in resources to the welfare sector, an accelerated climate transition, lower costs in public transport, a high-cost protection in dental care, as well as higher compensations in the unemployment insurance and the social insurances, people with higher incomes must contribute more.

Mr. Speaker! In expenditure area 23 Agriculture, rural areas and food, Vänsterpartiet allocates a total of 3 billion kronor more than the government. I intend to state here in which areas we believe the government does not provide enough.

More physical supervision is needed for logging notifications. Environmental supervision in forestry continues to be deficient, and the development is negative. To strengthen physical supervision, Vänsterpartiet increases the appropriation to Skogsstyrelsen by 40 million kronor more than the government for the year 2025.

Smaller forest areas with high nature values are not suitable as nature reserves, but it is important that the state can provide compensation to landowners to formally protect these areas in the long term. The Swedish Forest Agency can, in these cases, establish nature conservation agreements and biotope protection areas, and it is particularly important that there are resources for forest owners with smaller forest holdings where the proportion of nature values is large.

We must also protect our mountain areas, which are completely unique in Europe. There is a great need for management of compensation to the mountain-adjacent forests and compensation due to species protection in accordance with the Environmental Code and the Species Protection Ordinance. Here we propose an increase of 1.1 billion kronor more than the government.

We also allocate 50 million kronor more than the government to resume the national key biotope inventory.

Mr. Speaker! The completely dominant forestry method in Sweden is clear-cutting, also called clear-cut forestry. That method has a major impact on, among other things, biodiversity.

The climate crisis requires urgent measures to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Vänsterpartiet wants to strengthen carbon sequestration and increase biodiversity by protecting forests to a greater extent and increasing areas with no-cut forestry methods, but economic incentives are needed for private forest owners to let the forest grow older before it is harvested and to adapt thinnings for increased carbon sequestration. This would benefit both the countryside, the climate benefit, and biodiversity.

To stimulate the possibility of cultivating an increased area with clear-cut-free forestry methods, we want to introduce a transition support for the landowner because the transition can involve increased costs during the transition. Therefore, we propose an increase of the appropriation for this by 50 million kronor more than the government.

Mr. Speaker! The preventive work to reduce the risks of attacks on domestic animals from predators is important. Currently, it is possible to receive compensation for the material costs of predator-deterring fences. Here, we propose that state support should also be introduced for the labor costs, as well as that the compensation for the loss of domestic animals due to predator attacks should be increased. We increase the appropriation by 40 million kronor more than the government.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet proposes an increased investment in 3R centers to reduce animal testing. The Government no longer has earmarked funds for this investment, which has meant that the activity has been dismantled in significant parts. We see a need for the activity to instead be further developed so that the proportion of animal-free tests can increase. Here, Vänsterpartiet proposes an increase in the grant for 3R centers by 40 million kronor more than the Government.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has good conditions to develop a sustainable agriculture that in the future both contributes to the global food supply and strengthens our national self-sufficiency of food. In order to achieve an ecologically sustainable and fossil-free agriculture, support and steering instruments must be designed within the agricultural sector so that they contribute to us reaching our environmental and climate goals and the global sustainability goals.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see attempts with regional centers for fossil-free produced emergency food. We also propose that a pilot study should be carried out where agricultural high schools test the continuous production of emergency food in a sustainable way based on local cycles.

Mr. Speaker! An increased self-sufficiency rate would make us better prepared for crises and extreme weather as well as reduce our import dependency. It would also give us the conditions to strengthen both the production and consumption of sustainable food, that is, food that is to a greater extent plant-based, locally produced, organic and, in the long run, fossil-free. We believe that Sweden should adopt a national target for a self-sufficiency rate of food at the level of Finland's, that is, approximately 80 percent.

Mr. Speaker! For the national co-financing of the common agricultural policy, Vänsterpartiet is investing 1.5 billion kronor more than the government. We strengthen the support for environmental compensation for meadow cultivation. Further measures are required to reduce eutrophication, and we want to strengthen the support for agriculture to use manure more effectively in crop production and thereby reduce the need to import artificial fertilizer.

Organic farming has great environmental advantages as chemical pesticides and artificial fertilizers are not used. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes an increase in support for organic production and conversion to organic production. It strengthens our national production of organic food and promotes a sustainable agriculture with preserved biodiversity, strengthened animal welfare, and reduced spread of chemicals.

We also need to improve access to local slaughterhouses and propose an increase in the appropriation. We also think it is important to increase the appropriation for blooming plains.

A bio-premium should be introduced to support those who convert work machines and vehicles to fossil-free fuels, which are currently generally more expensive than fossil fuels, as one should not be economically disadvantaged by such a transition. The bio-premium should be designed as a subsidy per liter of fuel.

Increased costs for agricultural water management are a consequence of a changed climate. Today's water facilities within agriculture are often built according to previously prevailing climatic conditions. We therefore want to introduce a state subsidy for investments and measures within agriculture that strengthen agricultural water management in a changed climate and can thus strengthen our self-sufficiency rate regarding food.

We are also investing in the production and processing of plant-based foods. This can be achieved through the development of new foods and new cultivation methods, as well as strengthened production support for plant-based foods.

We also provide more funds than the government to establish and maintain wetlands.

Mr. Speaker! Today, the grazing land compensation covers only a part of the additional costs it entails for farmers to have grazing land in tenure. At the same time, grazing lands continue to grow over. It is a great loss for biodiversity and for a living countryside, and it worsens Sweden's food production.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the compensation level in Sweden's strategic plan should be increased, so that full cost coverage can be provided to the farmer.

For us, the budget is a whole. This also means that we refrain from taking a position and instead have a special statement within the expenditure area.

With this, I thank you for this period and wish you a Merry Christmas.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the speech!

First, it did not sound like it was about expenditure area 23. There was quite a lot of criticism against the current government for the economic policy being pursued. Let me just say very briefly that we both lower taxes and strengthen the welfare. The tax cut concerning the abolished tapering of the job tax credit is self-financing by virtue of increasing growth. I just want this to be said.

Now I come to expenditure area 23. A considerable amount of the speech concerned continuous-cover forestry. It is an interesting area, and we are also cautiously positive towards it. But our position is that it really must be optional for the forest owners. That is something we do not want to compromise on.

Clear-cut-free forestry has some problems. It is not certain that it benefits carbon storage. Most studies show lower growth. When it comes to biodiversity, it is also somewhat complicated. First and foremost, it is difficult to achieve clear-cut-free status. One should preferably have a fully stratified forest to begin with, i.e., that there are representatives for all age classes evenly distributed. Then, it is not certain that it supports biodiversity in the way one has imagined because one must have shade-tolerant trees. In that case, it is spruce that applies in larger parts of Sweden, except in the southernmost parts. The cost at the transition should be compensated, but we have seen that it becomes less profitable over time.

My first question is: Can we trust that Vänsterpartiet will not force forest owners into no-cut forestry? Should freedom of choice apply, so that there is no compromise on that?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for the question! As the member may have heard, we had a number of proposals to be able to implement clear-cut-free methods more on a voluntary basis. To force forest owners, we have never spoken about, as far as I know.

We can therefore strike that question here and now.

(STAFFAN EKLÖF (SD): Good.)

Now I come to the economic policy. The government and the Sweden Democrats had the room of 60 billion, and they use a very large part of it to lower taxes for high-income earners in our income group, i.e., people who have 70,000 or more per month. We consider that to be a waste of tax money. That money would have been needed for, for example, healthcare, which is not fully funded, schools, or elderly care. Municipalities and especially regions are crying out for help because they cannot manage their finances.

I think it is a bit absurd of the member to claim that one provides enough money for the welfare system, because one does not. One does not even provide half of what is needed.

I listened to the member's speech earlier. The member said that regarding expenditure area 23, one had not included everything, but one was a little bit on the way. This is what the member said, and I would very much like to know what those are for investments where one did not get to include everything one wanted. The member expressed it that way in the budget debate.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite recognize that. We got through quite a lot. We have decided on 20 things, and then more will come. Inflation has limited us previously, just like the large investments in defense and the justice system. But we take it step by step.

Tax cut for high-income earners, says the member. It is about the abolished tapering of the job tax credit. It provides greater growth. It will therefore be a larger cake to distribute. One can note that when the tapering was introduced, it gave no net addition to the state treasury.

But now we are talking about continuous cover forestry. It is very good to have a promise from Vänsterpartiet that one will not compromise on the forest owners' freedom to choose continuous cover or not. It is a very good announcement. We take that with us.

But let me problematize this regarding continuous cover forestry. It may turn out that carbon storage is poorer in continuous cover forestry than in clear-cutting, and it may turn out that precisely the biodiversity one wants to preserve is not preserved with continuous cover forestry – one must use spruce, and biologically speaking we actually have too much spruce in our forests because it no longer burns. It is also a very small area where it is possible to practice continuous cover forestry. I believe it is 3 percent today, and it perhaps can be increased a little. Other measures in the forest would likely be more significant for biodiversity, not least in southern Sweden.

If it turns out that it is not better for either carbon storage or biodiversity and, furthermore, continued economic problems occur not only during the transition period, will Vänsterpartiet still be positive, or is one prepared to reconsider their view on no-cut?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Apologies that I was unclear with my question. The member said that they had wanted to get more out but that they were at least satisfied with having had these proposals passed. Then I wondered a bit what the member had wanted to get more of. Which proposals were the heart of the proposals in the budget?

Regarding the cut-free [forestry], I do not intend to make any "if-then" comments. It feels completely pointless.

Something that is very important in this context is that there is not enough money to handle all the compensations that forest owners have. They are in a queue for compensations, and the government does not allocate enough money to handle this. It has very great significance for both the climate and for biodiversity.

The compensations for the forests near the mountains are not sufficient. Here we have budgeted more than 1 billion kronor to be able to manage this. They shall also be able to be used by the county administrative boards to increase and improve the management.

I would rather find out why the government cannot increase the money, so that the forest owners do not have to wait but can get an answer early and also receive compensation early.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by saying that the Centre Party abstains from a position here, as we have our own shadow budget. We refer to our considerations in a separate statement.

Investing more in the Armed Forces is good. I think we all agree on that. However, our preparedness stands on a fragile foundation when the food industry largely seems to be built on imports and emergency stocks rather than a larger and more decentralized agriculture.

Mr. Speaker! Over the last two years, we have had an increased focus on Sweden's civil preparedness in the event of war or crisis. That is good, but the debate has primarily been about households' needs for crank radios, dry goods, and water containers and to some extent also about preparedness stocks, stores' inventory management, and the import logistics chains. All of this is, of course, relevant. At the same time, the important conversation about the elephant in the room is being avoided: Sweden's insufficient food production.

The interest in touching upon this issue has historically been low, as it would mean that domestic politics would be forced to wade through a mire of naivety and a world-detached hope in the global just-in-time economy.

In recent years, however, it has been shown that pandemics, wars, and disruptions in important delivery routes have a very tangible ability to create disruptions. This constitutes a tangible risk for a country like Sweden, where every other bite of food is imported. In a war situation, for example, it will not hold up.

We simply need more farmers and a more decentralized production that can more efficiently supply the country with food. Furthermore, this is something that would be desirable even in peacetime, as it can promote rural development, local growth, and jobs.

Mr. Speaker! The development in Sweden has unfortunately been the opposite over a long period. The number of farmers has decreased, not least in northern Sweden. The small farms have been wiped out in favor of individual larger producers, and our import dependency has increased.

This is not a law of nature but an active choice that we in Sweden have made. By stacking fee-based bureaucracy and taxes in every link of the food chain - all the way from farm to table - the profitability of the farmers has been thinned out. One could actually say that the state has treated agriculture like a dairy cow. Through the state's eagerness to squeeze out the last drop, it has created an increasingly emaciated and malnourished sector with each passing year. This has been a mistake, Mr. Speaker, and it makes the Swedish people vulnerable in a way that is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, it also appears that we have a long way to go towards improvement. Not too long ago – I believe it was just over half a year ago, when I sat in the Committee on Taxation – we in the Centerpartiet submitted a proposal for a committee initiative. The purpose was to investigate the state's obligations in all links of the food chain and propose reforms that increase profitability in agriculture and strengthen our Swedish farmers' competitiveness.

I have mentioned this before in this speaker's chair, but I mention it again: Today, 10 öre of every food krona makes its way back to the farmer - 10 öre! The state itself takes an average of 11 öre just in VAT on the final sale, this aside from all other taxes and fees that are taken at every stage when the food is produced, transported, and processed. It is a not insignificant explanation for why agriculture is in decline. These are conditions that politicians have created, and we also have the opportunity to turn back the clock if we want to.

Unfortunately, six of the eight parties in the Committee on Taxation voted no to this initiative proposal. It was very disappointing, but I hope that new opportunities can arise and a wiser Committee on Environment and Agriculture. Unfortunately, this does, however, mean that there is currently no light on the horizon for Swedish food supply and that the Swedish people are exposed to significant risks in the event of war or crisis. The biggest problem remains unsolved while the Swedes are urged to buy themselves a crank radio.

Mr. Speaker! I would also like to mention a appropriation that distinguishes the Center Party's proposal from the government's. Otherwise, they are quite similar, at least when it comes to the framework, but we have allocated slightly differently. The appropriation concerns national co-financing for the common agricultural policy, and we want to increase it by 250 million kronor in comparison with the government's proposal. The reason is that we want to make this investment to strengthen farmers' competitiveness across the country by significantly increasing the compensation payment to the support areas.

Why do we want to do this then? Well, as many know, things are not going so well for Norrmejerier. It is a very fine and farmer-owned cooperative that works with farmers in northern Sweden. The problem is that one simply cannot compete with, for example, Arla. I am very happy for all the Arla farmers who now receive better pay for their milk, but the challenge for Norrmejerier is that they cannot pay their dairy farmers the same price. I believe it is about more than a 1 krona difference per kilo of milk. It becomes a huge amount over a year.

Right now, very many dairy farmers in northern Sweden are closing down their operations. They are the backbone for all other agriculture, because they affect other surrounding activities such as veterinarians, companies linked to the agricultural sector and, of course, farmers with other specializations. This is a huge problem, because today northern Sweden is self-sufficient by 25-30 percent while more and more, not least dairy farmers, are closing down. We cannot have it this way.

What shall we do then? Well, our farmers need to earn more money, and therefore, the Center Party and I do not think the state can be down with its big hand in the tax pockets of dairy farmers and other farmers. If we see this as just a way for the state to earn money, we are probably in the wrong. If one is to see Swedish farmers as part of the total defense, I think it is important that one does not see farmers as just any tax base, but one perhaps needs to lower taxes and fees so that more can survive.

Mr. Speaker! The state allows you to shoot black grouse, but if you, on the other hand, want to utilize highly restricted parts of your own forest and have previously, of your own free will, taken the bird into consideration, the state can put you in financial ruin. Is that reasonable?

This affected Kristofer Stigen in Bollebygd, whom I and my colleague Stina Larsson visited some time ago. He owns approximately 145 hectares of well-managed forest and has had black grouse on his land, which he has tried to take into account through a lower-intensity forestry with, among other things, selective logging. Some years ago, he applied to fell approximately 20 hectares. This is just under 14 percent of his holdings. This met with resistance from the Swedish Forest Agency, which decided on quite extensive restrictions regarding how the area he applied for was to be felled.

Mr. Speaker! The forest owner chose to adapt to the authority's decision but lost in one instance 1.5 million kronor in revenue from cultivation. It also turned out that the forest lost 3 million kronor in value in one instance, because the presence of black grouse and the decision from the Swedish Forest Agency reduced his disposal over the property.

Since we in Sweden are to have ownership and usage rights to our property, at least on paper, there are also expectations of compensation when the state, through its agencies, makes restrictions on these. Therefore, Kristofer Stigen sued the state and wanted compensation for the infringement of his ownership and usage rights. The answer was, in practice: You can forget about it!

Since Kristofer had previously taken the bird into account of his own accord, the Land and Environment Court in Vänersborg awarded him exactly 0 SEK in compensation. Instead, he was burdened with the state's bill for legal counsel, which amounts to an additional nearly a quarter of a million to add to previous losses.

I honestly think that it is completely deplorable, outrageous and scandalous. It is crystal clear that it has never been the legislator's intention that we should have it in this way.

When species protection results in people's lives being shattered by an almost boundless state consideration for a bird that is permitted to be hunted periodically, hardly more evidence is required that something is seriously wrong and causes reality-detached legal interpretations.

Mr. Speaker! Increased clarity and significant tightening linked to ownership and usufruct rights interventions from the state's side are required. Today, many forest owners are forced to be involved in legal processes simply because they want control over the forest they own themselves or compensation because the state has prohibited them from harvesting their forest.

Therefore, in conclusion, the species protection investigation that is on the Minister for the Environment's desk and which is to propose changes in species protection and review the compensation issue is more than welcome. But I want to point out something. I had a debate with the Minister for the Environment on Friday. I am becoming a little worried. As I understand it, the species protection investigation does not seem to cover regulatory easing regarding common birds, but only compensation. If that is how this legal circus will continue, then common birds will also put a stop to logging for ordinary people, and that is something we cannot accept.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party, the Social Democrats, the Green Party and the Left Party invest significantly more than the government in this expenditure area - rural industries, the countryside and food. It is something that I think is good as the government and the Sweden Democrats, in my opinion, do not do enough in the area.

I also think that it bodes well for a cooperation after the next parliamentary election. But it has become very unclear where the Center Party stands on the government issue. Everyone perceived that the member's party leader, Demirok, had chosen Magdalena Andersson as the Center Party's prime ministerial candidate. I want to ask a very straightforward question to member Lindahl because of the uncertainty that has arisen regarding this: Is Magdalena Andersson the Center Party's prime ministerial candidate, and does such a decision exist?

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind Member Fredholm that the subject of the debate is the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report number 2 on rural industries, countryside and food.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I was quite certain that Member Kajsa Fredholm would ask something about the compensation to the forest owners who are not allowed to log or something similar - or perhaps about the mountain forest, where we also have very different opinions.

But when the member took the trouble to ask his question, I can answer as follows:

Every party probably wants its own party leader to become Prime Minister. That is the answer I will give, even though the Center Party sees that there are some obstacles and that it is a rather long way forward to such a day. Of course, every party wants its own party leader to be Prime Minister.

Furthermore, discussions are ongoing throughout our movement regarding the Center Party's future. What kind of Center Party is it that people want to see?

I don't really understand why there is such a great curiosity specifically towards Centerpartiet right now. There are plenty of other parties that also haven't said exactly who they will cooperate with after the next election. A lot can also happen in that time. It is two years until the next election.

Since then, we have all different wishes and so on. The Centre Party has not taken a stand on the issue. Some members think one way. Some perhaps think it would be tasteful to work with one side. Those like me perhaps think it would be tasteful to work more with the bourgeois side. But the answer to the question is that we have not decided anything.

The challenge for us in Centerpartiet now is probably more about building our own policy than building our policy on a Prime Minister who will not be able to help Centerpartiet with better figures, which we need today. It is about, for example, getting back the rural voters that we lost in the last election. Everything else is uninteresting to me right now.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I then assume that both members will return to the budget debate.)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the honest answer.

I apologize in advance to the Speaker, as I would like to continue for a little bit. It will not take long.

I interpret the member's answer as that there is no such decision. The Center Party has therefore not chosen a prime ministerial candidate. I then wonder: Should it be interpreted as that the Center Party very well can choose another prime ministerial candidate than Magdalena Andersson after the election?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Even in this entry, there was very little budget.)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can really only answer the member exactly as I answered earlier. The Centre Party wants to become a larger party, and we would eventually like to have the Prime Minister's post ourselves. This is something I believe every party that tries to work with its issues should strive for. That is, therefore, my answer to that question.

I can only conclude by appealing to several members of the Left Party to perhaps consider how we are to increase food supply in practice in this country. There are very many sweeping words and very nice talk about how we are to increase self-sufficiency. But farmers are giving up, not least in the part of the country I come from. They say that they cannot make plus and minus add up.

Our Swedish farmers need to earn more money. Then we must consider what we should do so that they can earn this money. One proposal is actually that the state should review the tax burden and other fees imposed through the public sector regarding our Swedish farmers. We could very well do that if we think it is important to increase the self-sufficiency rate in this country and to avoid importing much more food.

I would very much like to have a special debate on this at some point. Now I know that the member does not have to answer this. I also know that the Left Party's best branch might not be wanting to lower state taxes. But I can still appeal to the member and also some others in this chamber to actually consider whether it would not be wise to simply powerfully lower the taxes for our Swedish farmers so that we can get more farmers and an increased self-sufficiency in the country.

Agriculture, rural areas and food

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 December.)

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