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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by referring to the Centre Party's special statement. We do have our own shadow budget that we would preferably like to have implemented, but that is not possible right now. A special statement we can at least have.

In recent years, it has been shown that pandemics, wars, and disruptions in important delivery routines have a very tangible ability to create disruptions. This constitutes a major risk for a country like Sweden, because we import a great deal of food; every other bite, as it is often said. In a war situation, this will not be sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! We simply need more farmers, which several of my colleagues have touched upon today. We also need a more decentralized production that can more efficiently supply the country with food. Furthermore, it would be desirable even in peacetime, as it can promote rural development, local growth, and jobs.

The development in Sweden has unfortunately been the opposite for a long time. The number of farmers has decreased. The small farms have been eliminated in favor of individual larger producers, and our import dependency has increased. This, Mr. Speaker, is not a law of nature. It is an active choice that Sweden has made.

By stacking fee-based bureaucracy and taxes in all parts of the food chain, all the way from farm to table, the profitability of the farmers has been thinned out. One could say that the state has treated agriculture like a dairy cow, which, through the state's eagerness to squeeze out the last drop, has created an increasingly emaciated and malnourished sector with each passing year. This has been a major mistake, and it makes the Swedish people vulnerable in a way that is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, we seem to have a long way to go toward improvement. Representatives for the Center Party have stood in this speaker's chair before. I have also tried in committee to submit proposals on behalf of the Center Party that we should investigate the state's obligations, taxes, and fees in all links of the food chain.

We have proposed reforms that increase profitability in agriculture and strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. Unfortunately, they have been voted down every time, but I know that in politics, one has to persist and return many times. Perhaps it can gain traction. We recently had a meeting with a milk producer here at home who thought this was a good proposal. I then said: Then you are welcome to take it into politics so that it does not come solely from the Center Party.

But I honestly think it is strange that the state should milk the farmer at every stage up to the store and even when you pay for your food. For every krona or every hundred kronor that you shop for at the store, it is the farmer who gets the smallest piece of the cake. The state VAT on food brings in more money than the farmer does. Then there is something wrong.

That farmers are paid too little is an important explanation for why agriculture is now in a downward spiral. These are conditions that politicians have created, and we also have the opportunity to turn back the clock – if we want to.

Earlier, someone raised the point that agriculture should be a special interest. I believe it was my colleague Magnus Oscarsson. Swedish defense capability has been described as such. The trials of reality have caused that decision to age very poorly. But unfortunately, Swedish rural policy has for decades, Mr. Speaker, also been regarded as a special interest for individual forest owners, for dairy farmers, and for LRF, even though the industries employ hundreds of thousands of people and contribute strongly to prosperity. Furthermore, they are absolutely crucial for how Sweden functions today, but even more in the future.

In my opinion, Sweden has made a political misprioritization that is cast in the same naive form as the defense policy. If one tries to look around the corner, one realizes relatively quickly that it risks having far-reaching consequences.

Mr. Speaker! The profitability of Swedish agriculture has long been low. For decades, we have seen a phase-out of local farms, not least in northern Sweden, where I myself come from. There, the self-sufficiency rate is 25–30 percent. The number of farms in Norrmejerier's constituency has decreased by 40 percent over the last 15 years. This is to expose oneself to risk in times of crisis or war. We agree that we need a higher self-sufficiency rate, but to be able to meet crises, we also need more farms and more local value chains that are less dependent on transport.

You know that the EU has very high climate ambitions. We in Sweden would like to take the lead when we receive various proposals from there. In other words, we are to build, refuel, and consume more renewables. For this to work, an extensive production of renewable raw materials is required. I believe that everyone needs to agree on that.

With the right political changes, competitiveness can be strengthened. Profitability can increase and agriculture can grow. They are fundamental pillars in strengthening Swedish defense capability through better self-sufficiency. In the same way, it is a basic prerequisite for renewable production. But then the green industries must be re-evaluated and regarded as socially important functions. It can certainly be seen as a challenge, but it is just as well to see it as an unrealized future potential.

But how are we to get there? There are some ways there, and I intended to list them.

One way is to strengthen the right of ownership. We have addressed that question many times in the chamber, and there are investigations that are now out for consultation. Some are in progress, which is good.

But the state has still not for a long time taken responsibility for building a relationship between the responsible authority and the owner of property where freedom under responsibility is the starting point. Today, the forest owner is in many cases forced to comply with the agendas of completely outside actors, forced legal processes, and all the costs that come with these.

Another way is the delivery of, among other things, the Artskyddsutredningen, which we have been waiting for for a long time. I thought the plot would come with it last year, and we can hope that the plot might bring something with it this time.

This is probably the single most important issue right now for forest owners in Sweden. The investigation has dragged on. It is somewhat clear in the broad sense, but while the rest of us are stressed, I do not perceive that the Minister feels any immediate urgency to act. But I hope that I have misunderstood and that the investigation is presented as soon as possible.

Another way, which I have touched upon previously, is that the government could investigate reducing the state cost burdens throughout the entire food chain. One cannot view agriculture as just a tax base in quantity – not according to the Center Party's view.

We need to dare to raise our ambitions. Sweden would need to have clear goals for the production of renewable raw materials from both forestry and agriculture. What do I mean by that? We are happy to say that we want more biofuels, want to phase out plastic, and so on. But without a map, it is meaningless. We say all the time that we have a lot of fine goals, but how are we going to get there? One thing is that one can streamline forestry. We simply need to extract more forest raw material to achieve the changes and fulfill the goals we desire. Everything else means, in the name of honesty – for example, with clear-cutting, which some in the chamber have touched upon earlier – fewer jobs in the countryside, a deterioration for the climate, and not a benefit for Sweden as an exporting country. I believe that the proposers have not thought about this. Instead, we will have to import more fossil, and instead, we will have to use plastic, metal, and glass.

Sweden can make the green industries a central hub for green transition, renewable production, and economic value creation for our rural areas. It is not a law of nature that agriculture should perform poorly, that forest ownership should be uncertain, vulnerable, and bureaucratic, and that industry should be worried about which renewable multi-billion investments one even dares to make. It is rather a side effect of Swedish politics having long regarded the basis for our crisis preparedness and the engine for all renewable production as special interests.

Mr. Speaker! The good news is that we can actually change this. By upgrading the rural green industries, we make ourselves safer, wealthier, and a global asset in a world that demands more renewable products. A bonus is that future generations of politicians will not have to stand with their hats in their hands and say: We have been naive.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 December.)

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