Agricultural policy

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Dear friends! The time is twenty past nine. It has been over twelve hours since the debate began in this chamber today. At that time, the debate was about Sweden's entry into Nato - a very important security issue. We are concluding the evening with the debate on agricultural policy - a very important security issue. I will, of course, not say that this is even more important than what was debated this morning, but it is truly important, Mr. Speaker. We have clearly seen, already during the pandemic, how markets and other things falter a bit when it comes to supplying each other with products, spare parts, and so on.

Agricultural policy

Since the war in Europe broke out a little over a year ago, we have faced an even more difficult situation regarding the supply of, above all, food around the world. Even regarding inputs linked to food production, we have seen how shortages have arisen. Some problems have been solved, but we still face a significantly reduced supply, particularly of wheat from Ukraine.

In Sweden, we have for a longer period, Mr. Speaker, reduced our production in agriculture. At the beginning of the 90s, we had a self-sufficiency of about 75 percent. Today we talk, as we usually say in this chamber, about approximately every other bite being imported. For some foods we have a higher supply while we have a lower supply for others.

We are currently seeing that we are losing self-sufficiency, primarily on the livestock side. Actually, it should be exactly the opposite, because what we could increase in Sweden is precisely livestock production. We know that we have a rather tightly pressed crop cultivation. There we probably don't have much more to gain since we have just over 1 million hectares of arable land that we can have grain cultivation on in Sweden. We have barely 1.5 million hectares that we can principally only produce grass on in Sweden. It is grass that we best refine through our animals.

Mr. Speaker! A food strategy was adopted here in the chamber in 2017. It had clearly set goals: We were to increase our production, we were to increase our self-sufficiency, and we were to increase our exports. None of these goals have we managed to reach, and soon we are approaching 2030 when we were supposed to have reached them. What is the reason for this? Is it because our farmers are not good enough? No, absolutely not. Our farmers are in absolute world-class when it comes to production. Our farmers deliver some of the world's highest production results both within the animal sector and within plant cultivation.

Still, Mr. Speaker, we have one of Europe's lowest profitabilities when it comes to agriculture. What is that due to? Well, it is partly due to the fact that we have chosen to have a high tax burden. We have chosen to regulate, complicate, and have difficult regulatory frameworks that press down on Swedish agriculture instead of lifting up and rewarding it. It is a very strange attitude that has existed in Sweden for a long time.

In the 80s, we decided that Swedish agriculture would become the world's cleanest. Several of us have today been at a seminar and seen how skilled we are in Sweden when it comes to the use of antibiotics within Swedish animal production. This was what Sweden decided. We were to adapt our systems to the animals, while the rest of the EU for the most part are still trying to adapt their animals to the systems. We in Sweden know that this does not work.

Swedish agriculture is in absolute world-class, not only when it comes to the use of antibiotics but also when it comes to plant protection. A large part of the plant protection products used in the Swedish consumed food come from imported food. For insecticides, the percentage is even over 80 percent from imported food.

Swedish agriculture has been incredibly innovative when it comes to technological development. We use and have for a long time used GPS equipment and yield mapping. We map the fields, and we fertilize exactly what the crop, the season, and the soil want. Therefore, we achieve high production results in Swedish agriculture.

We have a fantastically skilled farming community that is at the forefront, and yet we have parties in this chamber that want to continue to regulate, control, complicate, and increase the administration for Swedish agriculture and who cheer on bad proposals coming from, for example, the EU. They also show a mistrust towards Swedish agriculture and want an increased administration.

It will not work. Swedish agriculture will benefit most from an increased degree of freedom. Furthermore, it will lead to Swedish farmers feeling better. I have an editorial here, Mr. Speaker, from the newspaper ATL, with the headline Unsustainable food production if we ourselves do not feel well. A research report also came out some time ago pointing out that the working environment and occupational health within agriculture is poor and is getting worse.

The self-sufficiency rate should go from 50 percent up to preferably 100 or perhaps even over 100 percent so that we can export more, but the farming community is not doing well. This is due not only to the fact that one might work more than twice as much as most in this building do today, but also to a very limited profitability, as I said earlier. It is also due to the fact that there are activists who think it is fair game to harass the farmers' farms, animal pens and so on, and that we have an all too strong and growing predator population in Sweden.

All these things mean that Swedish farmers are not doing so well. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is now time for action. I know that the Social Democrats have expressed their frustration several times regarding the food strategy that came in 2017 and which was a very good initiative.

Everything has not been a catastrophe, absolutely not, but we have not succeeded in turning the trend when it comes to production. That is why the government is now taking a new approach to the food strategy and launching food strategy 2.0. Now we are doing it once more, because now it needs to be visible all the way out to the farms. Now farmers themselves need to feel that they have Sweden and the politics with them. Now we are going to increase our food production. I promise you all in here, my friends, that Sweden's farmers have the skill and the will, and we will give them the tools.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Warm thanks, Member Widegren! I consider the member's commitment in these matters to be exemplary.

I intend to dwell on the difficulties we are facing. Last year was incredibly tough in many ways for primary producers and entrepreneurs. We are well aware that there have been very few preliminary assessments, and also the investment work and reinvestment work have fallen behind.

If one draws the line forward, now that it has nevertheless been fairly positive for a few months in certain parts and activities, one sees that the forecast points significantly downwards again for agriculture during the first quarter. When it comes to the need for reinvestments and new investments ahead to be able to not only maintain the level we have today but also reach the targets that we have previously agreed upon in the food strategy, we risk not meeting it. There will be enormous consequences of not investing sufficiently in Swedish agriculture.

I have a question for the representatives of the Moderates on these issues. Member Widegren says that it is time for workshop, and I agree that it is extremely high time for that. Will John Widegren mention some concrete new measures that the government intends to take here and now to get momentum on this?

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

John Widegren (M)

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

I believe, just like the member, that it is a very uncertain time right now. We saw that several business sectors had an all-time high in terms of results last year, while others had it significantly tougher.

We are actually entering 2023 with this uncertainty. Depending on what will happen in Ukraine and what will happen weather-wise for Swedish agriculture this year, it can swing enormously back and forth regarding where our operations will end up.

I am absolutely convinced that the government is also following this with the greatest uncertainty. We may need to take measures to support Swedish agriculture, which we also did last year when it looked at the beginning of the year like it would become a much worse situation than it actually did. The Member was himself involved and was driving these issues, just as I and several others here in the chamber. We must not close these doors.

But at the same time, we have begun the work on the new food strategy, which is intended to ensure that we hopefully will not have to stand here in the future and talk about crisis packages in Swedish agriculture. That is what we want to move away from.

We saw that large parts of Europe did not have any crisis packages for their agriculture last year, because they did not need them. They had stored better in the barns. It is therefore this that we want to move away from.

I am also very concerned. We saw that the number of pre-examinations decreased, just as the member said. Less has been invested, and especially in the animal sector where more should be invested.

The food strategy is now out with all stakeholders until the autumn, and we hope to receive a number of different concrete proposals on how we strengthen Swedish agriculture in both the short and long term. And we must be alert if extra measures are required in the meantime.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! I certainly share the view that Swedish agricultural policy is a part of our Swedish security policy. And the more representatives here, but also in society, who understand this connection, the better it is for the pressure to achieve the development.

I believe that the Moderaterna already know roughly what will be needed. And I believe that the government also knows roughly what will be needed. We have heard this in recent years here in the speaker's chair when the Moderaterna were active in opposition together with other colleagues in other parties. Therefore, I do not quite understand why reference is made to a long-term strategic work when it actually, to the highest degree, is about taking measures here and now. The chance was already there in the budget work, and soon a spring amendment budget process will come.

Swedish agriculture needs measures so that we not only maintain the level but also have the goal of increasing production and also achieving security of supply. I expect all parties on the government side to show a strong commitment and return to the Riksdag with very sharp proposals that, in the short term, give clear signals that measures also have an effect on the development of Swedish agriculture. Because there is a lot at stake. If we lose even more production now in this extremely serious security policy situation - we are already import-dependent, and we have the economic situation with interest rate hikes and other things that pressure the companies - then I do not really know how the final result will be. I will, of course, follow the development and hope that it does not just become the government's strategy but that it becomes a strategy that has broad anchoring when it comes to the continued work. So far, we have not seen signals of this or what the government intends before this is presented.

We must continue to follow this together.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for their commitment to these issues. Just as the member says, there has probably been spoken a bit too little about food safety for preparedness purposes for a longer period. It has, in any case, concerned me for a very long time.

When I submitted a motion on a food strategy as far back as 2007 in my own party, they looked at me a bit as if I were an idiot. What is it supposed to be good for? The Moderates have, just like other parties here, been far too naive in these issues. That may be the case when there is peace, everything rolls along, and production and the market move forward.

But now we have seen two crises in recent years - first a pandemic and then a war. Then we see that it is cracking. And it is then we are reminded that we in Sweden have scaled back our production.

The Speaker says that I probably know many measures that need to be taken. Yes, I do. A number of investigations are underway, and some are already in progress. The Food Strategy 2.0 is underway. These works must be allowed to continue.

What we also need to do is to give the farmers a belief that we actually want to change and make it better in this situation. They want long-term rules of the game - a strong ownership right, an administrative work that actually functions, authorities that they feel are working with them and not against them. We need to review certain complicating measures. We have pushed forward a size rationalization in Swedish agriculture. We have large machines today. Suddenly, they rhyme quite poorly with certain parts in, for example, the Environmental Code. The Environmental Code needs to be reviewed to rhyme with Swedish, modern food production. There are a number of measures. Some are underway, and more will be initiated.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Member John Widegren for his speech. The Member is a skilled debater and an experienced farmer.

The economic situation is extremely tough, both for the farmers and for our citizens. The government's Minister for Finance, Elisabeth Svantesson, has urged households to help dampen inflation by choosing cheaper goods in the stores. Her tip to households was also to compare different stores with one another and choose the cheaper one. But what the government would do to alleviate the crisis for the families with children, pensioners, and single parents who are currently turning over every single krona to be able to put food on the table and let their children eat their fill, she did not want to answer.

Therefore, I want to ask Member John Widegren if he can answer this. What do the Moderaterna intend to do so that our families with children, pensioners, and single parents can continue to be able to buy nutritious Swedish food produced by our Swedish farmers?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for an interesting question from the member. I will not say that I am the absolute best to answer on the purely economic side regarding what the people who are most vulnerable in society right now should do to make their daily lives work. I believe that Elisabeth Svantesson will answer that better than I do.

But I can say something connected to food issues and so on as we are debating here. One important thing that is actually made to strengthen individual people - not everyone has benefited from it, but very many - is the large electricity support that has been paid out. It has provided extra cash to very many people. Certain things within different systems were accounted for at New Year. It has also given some people a little more money to move with.

When it comes to food and the importance of buying what is Swedish, I naturally agree with the member. Today has been a slightly extra interesting day. It started with a very small small-business owner going out and saying that they intended to lower their prices on food. Then, one of our food chains came out during the afternoon with the announcement that they are lowering the prices on 100 common goods. So, hopefully, perhaps we will soon turn this negative trend and the soaring inflation.

The government's most important task right now is, in fact, to tackle inflation. The faster we can tackle inflation, the faster we can create more economic opportunities, lower taxes, and introduce economic reforms that lead to a better society for everyone. The main task right now is, therefore, to press down inflation.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

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

We Social Democrats have presented a number of proposals to support those who are having it the toughest. I think the member, just like the Minister for Finance, is dodging their responsibility a bit here. When there is a crisis and people cannot even afford food, politics must step in and take responsibility.

Member of the Government John Widegren was on the topic of the electricity support, and that was the second issue I intended to come to. I have previously debated the electricity support with the Minister for Enterprise here in the chamber. It is an electricity support that the government parties, together with the Sweden Democrats, have decided that our agricultural companies and other companies in the north shall not receive a share of, and it shall furthermore be kept secret.

It has now turned out, however, that electricity support that was supposed to go to private individuals in southern Sweden has gone to agricultural companies, which actually belong to a completely different sector governed by the EU's agricultural policy. Furthermore, it might constitute improper state aid, so this complicates things quite a bit.

I really do not envy the farmers the electricity support, but I think that even the farmers in northern Sweden should get a share of it. Therefore, I now want to ask Member Widegren if the farmers in southern Sweden are now to pay back the support – and how does one solve that in that case if the payments are kept secret? Or will the farmers in northern Sweden also receive electricity support via the support that was actually supposed to go to ordinary households?

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

John Widegren (M)

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

The questions regarding electricity support do not really lie on our table in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. It is quite clear that electricity support has been issued to farmers with sole proprietorships; we have seen that. We have also seen that Försäkringskassan has stated today that it should not be paid back, as these are companies that would be entitled to this support during the summer when other supports are to be paid out to companies.

Regarding the discussion about north and south in this, I do not quite feel that I am sufficiently well-informed to take it. We have had discussions regarding this before, that is to say that electricity prices for a longer period have been higher in the south. That has been one of the motives. But if one wants to go deeper into the question, I will probably have to admit defeat and instead refer to someone within the Committee on Industry or to a government minister who works with electricity support issues.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The hour is late as we debate agricultural policy here today, but it is an all too important issue for us to hurry.

Rarely has a global situation more clearly shown the importance of a robust agricultural sector and farming. When Russia invaded Ukraine and started its horrific war just over a year ago, it had repercussions all over the world. Increased fuel prices drove up the price of transport. It became a problem for farmers when transport routes were cut off. We even had problems regarding those who are starving and need support via UN programs, because the seed - wheat - from Ukraine could not get out. It was a blockade.

Agriculture and having food on the table are among the absolute most important things that exist. In addition to food, agriculture produces materials and energy and is the absolute most important engine in the transition to a fossil-free economy. The green industries are the key to the part of the economy that will ensure the transition takes place - and at the same time a decisive part for us to have a living countryside.

The past year has truly been a stress test. We see that the high cost level for many of agriculture's important inputs has caused great difficulties for Swedish farming. Therefore, we must build up this resilience and ensure that we have proper self-sufficiency and security of supply. We in Miljöpartiet want to increase the self-sufficiency of Swedish-produced staple foods - vegetables, fruit, and tubers - but also ensure that we have a domestic production of other inputs and seeds.

Now we have started with the big picture, Mr. Speaker, and I think that agricultural issues go from the big picture - geopolitics - all the way out to the capillaries at the very end.

At the same time as we must support agriculture and ensure that it survives, as well as ensure that we have good security of supply, it must also be part of and contribute to the rapid transition. Unfortunately, it is the case that agriculture today accounts for a large part of Sweden's total climate emissions. Therefore, the agricultural sector needs its own climate goals and action plans for how they are to be achieved.

The consumption of fossil fuels is, of course, a significant part, especially in the production of artificial fertilizer. In order to transition agriculture, the energy in machines and transport must come from renewable sources, such as biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet want to see that a bio-premium is introduced for agriculture, which was proposed in the investigation The Way towards Fossil Independent Agriculture, which was submitted a couple of years ago. There we also see proposals concerning precisely fuels, fertilizer, and feed.

It is not only when it comes to the fossil-free and reducing climate emissions that we must transition. In this transition, we must namely ensure that the other environmental measures also keep pace. Extensive environmental measures within agriculture are required, a strengthened biodiversity, and that we can increase carbon storage and the soil's fertility. An expanded view of what the land should produce per hectare, beyond food, is needed. There, various ecosystem services, such as clean water, fertile soils, and species diversity, need to be included.

In recent years - over a rather long period, I should say - the focus has been on size rationalization. We have prioritized large-scale operations over small-scale ones. But in order to have a living agriculture and diversity, and in order to create all these different benefits, we must view this from a broader perspective. We in Miljöpartiet want both large and small companies within the green industries to be stimulated, receive support, and be able to use sustainable methods that strengthen biodiversity and other ecosystem services.

At the same time, they are of course to produce good and nutritious food and other raw materials. One part in getting there is organic farming, which is somewhat of a spearhead when it comes to the issues of increased sustainability. We see that that type of farming has an increased share of ecosystem services. It uses no non-native pesticides and reduces the burden of chemicals and toxins on soil and drinking water.

Right now we see that food prices have risen overall, even for organic products - and unfortunately many are choosing to opt out of those products. The farmers who have transitioned and led the way and who produce these are having great problems. There we must take responsibility and ensure that these farmers do not go under or that all the work they have put in does not disappear. The public sector has a special responsibility to uphold the purchasing targets that exist. We must also ensure that we reward this within the EU, when we talk about the new CAP and so on.

There are many different environmental goals that must be achieved at the same time as we have this production. We have nature grazing lands, which has been mentioned before – grazed lands, which provide increased biodiversity and of course also good animal welfare for many of the animals that are out. They also create a cultural landscape, which we want and have as a goal to preserve. There are, however, problems here.

Last Monday, I was at the outermost part of the coastal belt on the west coast, where I live, and visited farmers on Lyr. As is so often the case when it comes to the green industries, one does not just have one foot to stand on, but many. One must have several different activities running. Just these farmers have between 22 and 24 activities – ranging from managing snow removal to having animals that graze the mosaic lands out on the islands.

Often, the management of valuable nature is something that is administered via the County Administrative Board. There may be no profitability; one does not get the money back when the animals are slaughtered, instead, extra funds must be provided so that these efforts for ecological diversity and the cultural landscape can be carried out.

Here, however, the new government has withdrawn money. Given the words we heard from the member from M earlier, I don't know if the government knows what it has done, I was about to say. There was warm talk about agriculture and so on.

From last year, Västkuststiftelsen, which is one of the large ones that administer this, had 140,000 kronor per reserve. That does not sound like much, but this year it is even less. It is barely 40,000 - it is 38,000.

For that, one does not get many liters of diesel to drive out to your animals and fetch them back again. It is only enough for 190 meters of fencing if you want to fence in your animals so that they do not escape. That is, a square of barely 50 by 50 meters. It is enough for seven benches with tables if you want to have tourists there. It is enough for twelve cows on pasture for six months. But cows live all year round, as we know, and if you want to buy winter feed for them, you can only afford three and a half cows. Yes, you understand yourselves.

The work that has been done over such a long period is what defines the cultural landscape, and it promotes animal welfare and biodiversity.

I wonder if you from the government parties and the coalition parties know how this affects the small-scale farmers who live in these lands.

I also want to move for approval of reservation 29, which concerns precisely grazing lands, moorlands and hay meadows.

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

John Widegren (M)

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

I hear a number of things that I have a bit of difficulty reconciling, but we will not have time to discuss all of them. For example, I have a bit of difficulty reconciling how we are to increase our self-sufficiency while simultaneously significantly increasing ecological production. But that is not what I intend to ask about.

There is talk here about money that has disappeared, and it was previously spoken of the extremely difficult economic situation that we find ourselves in. I believe we are highly aware of that.

The Green Party and the Left Party do not seem to be quite as aware of it. If you look at their budget proposals, you see a number of hundreds of millions extra that do not exist and are money that must be fetched, borrowed. By that, I mean the total budgets, not the expenditure area budgets. These are items that would drive up inflation significantly in a situation where we need to push down inflation.

The members of the committee know, just as I do, that budget work is about priorities. It is very unfortunate if small-scale farmers get caught in the crossfire in this, absolutely, and it is something that should be looked at. But isn't this about something else?

The committee members highlight farmers who have many different activities. I do not believe they have them just because they think it is fun to work 16-18 hours a day during certain periods. They have them to make it work financially.

Is it not better to look at the basic economic conditions for agriculture, especially the somewhat smaller farms that may be sole proprietorships or small companies? They have been burdened with so much administration that they would all need to have their own administrator to keep their business running and live up to all the requirements for bookkeeping and other things that are required. Is it not better to address the business operations?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, we should not have unnecessary administration. We all agree on that. We want simplifications of rules, but it must not come at the expense of animal welfare or other parts. We must have certain regulations and be able to follow them. But if there are too many rules and they do not serve any purpose, they should, of course, be removed. We have agreed on that in this chamber many times.

The Speaker said in a previous exchange of remarks that we should leave the economic issues to the Minister for Finance. I can still comment that in our big budget – the real budget, I was about to say – we are borrowing money. That is quite true. We are borrowing 100 billion. We also went into the plus in this country with 180 billion last year, so there is money. But the reason why we consider it worth borrowing money now is how the situation looks regarding climate change and the loss of biodiversity.

The IPCC report came out on Monday. It shows that we must do things here and now. I believe that we will get off cheaper, or we know that we will get off cheaper, if we borrow money and make efforts now than if we do it later.

We also know that the measures I spoke about from the rostrum are more expensive to carry out now than they were before, precisely because of climate change. For example, small short-lived plants, herbs, are harder to survive now because the moss can grow year-round. Then you must have animals that are there and trample them down, because when these plants have disappeared, they are gone.

We see that invasive species are increasing. It is a problem for both farmers and everything else, so these measures are not wrong. It is about making the right priorities.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answers.

I do not think we need to have an economic discussion either, but I received a question from the rostrum about precisely economics. Therefore, I had to take it.

I understand Miljöpartiet's entry into this. It is linked to biodiversity, the climate, and so on. But the fact remains that the absolute biggest problem we have here right now is the skyrocketing inflation. It must come first when it comes to the economic work, absolutely.

Then one can take the step into the next question. Does the member think we have major problems when it comes to climate work, for example in Swedish agriculture? I know that people will talk about fossil fuels and so on. But we also know that Sweden has a production that is far much better than the vast majority when it comes to climate. Our big challenge is that we need to increase production significantly in Sweden.

We have big problems with biodiversity, absolutely, but it is primarily linked to the semi-natural grasslands and nowhere else. Not nowhere else, but it is primarily in our semi-natural grasslands that we have these problems.

Then we come back unexpectedly to the basic prerequisites for being a farmer. It is there that we have the great challenges. It is that which makes more and more farmers choose to close down.

It is said here that we have had an all-too-hardly driven size rationalization. Yes, but that is because nothing else has worked due to the tax situation, due to regulatory complications, and due to administration. If we do not completely reverse that entire development, it will continue in precisely this way. It will become larger and larger units.

Then we must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the large units also produce a lot of food. That is where we produce the food.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think John Widegren is speaking to me as if I have never seen a farm.

I live in the countryside. I have many friends who are farmers. I have farmers in my family. Several of them are actually environmentalists. That is because they want to live with nature and live off nature, but in a sustainable way.

However, I believe that my and John Widegren's views on what biodiversity is can differ quite a bit.

We heard from the rostrum that predators are a huge problem for our farmers. Yes, wolves are a problem for some when it comes to, for example, sheep farming. But there are other measures than just shooting everything away. Protective hunting we can have, but there is also a value in having biodiversity that functions where we have predators.

We need to have our rare species when it comes to plants and so on. This is a functioning system. We humans are of course involved and tinkering in it, but this is something we need to do. And when we see that we have a climate crisis and a crisis for biodiversity - we are actually supposed to protect 30 percent; we have agreed on that globally because it is depletion - we must all pull our weight.

There, agriculture, forestry and the green industries will have an incredibly important role. It is not about them shutting down, but it is about us having a production and a way to manage our lands and produce that actually contributes to increasing biodiversity and capturing carbon dioxide while simultaneously producing food. It can be done, and I hope we can agree that we shall do so.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has good conditions to develop a sustainable agriculture that in the future will both contribute to the global food supply and strengthen our own national self-sufficiency of food.

In a green and sustainable society, agriculture is central. Swedish agriculture has always been an important part of the Swedish self-image as well as an important factor in societal development. Good harvest years have historically resulted in a prosperous society. So it can be again, and so it needs to be, by ensuring our supply of food produced locally, sustainably, and organically. It will be a green transition that creates jobs across the entire country.

Vänsterpartiet has in previous motions proposed that Sweden should raise the ambition for our self-sufficiency rate from 50 to 80 percent and that we should introduce a preparedness stockpile for food. Sweden has had it before, and we will need it again.

Sweden also needs to build up its resilience. Therefore, in a previous motion, we submitted a proposal to begin a pilot study where nature-based vocational high schools test the continuous production of emergency food. It would reduce our import dependency and increase our resilience against disruptions – a proposal with many benefits for both the environment and the sustainable development of agriculture.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is also important with a stronger organic agriculture. It has several advantages, as chemical pesticides and artificial fertilizers do not need to be used. We want to provide support for the transition from conventional agriculture to organic. It gives us a stronger biodiversity as well as an enhanced animal welfare.

The support we want to see is directed towards both the transition and the production. We also want to see an increase in the grant for support for grazing lands. To promote the possibility of small-scale operations and increase animal welfare, we have also previously proposed an investment grant for mobile slaughterhouses. The number of slaughterhouses is decreasing, and there are too many long distances, which is not good from an animal welfare perspective.

The pressure to keep prices down due to the import of cheap meat and competition from large slaughterhouses are some of the factors behind this, but it is also about a shortage of trained staff. By improving access to local slaughterhouses, we can reduce the need for long animal transports but also strengthen the conditions for local production and an improved national self-sufficiency rate. It also provides increased opportunities for small-scale and locally produced food.

Mr. Speaker! A strong agriculture is needed if we are to manage the food supply, just as a strong agriculture within nature's boundaries is needed for us to manage the climate.

To talk about the challenges of agriculture is not to be critical of farming as such, but on the contrary. It is de facto that today's agriculture produces large climate emissions, and it drives climate change. This is what we need to do something about together. If we do not address the problems that are linked between agriculture, climate, and biodiversity, we will do ourselves a disservice. The blame does not lie with individual farmers. The blame lies with us together – we who have been part of creating a system for agriculture that is not ecologically sustainable in the long run.

We need an agriculture and a viable food supply; there is no question about that. But what we need is an agriculture within nature's limits. We are now only seeing the beginning of what happens when we do not stay within nature's limits and frameworks, and none of us want to be part of experiencing what a significant increase in the earth's average temperature would mean.

We must work with what we have, and we must do the best we can.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report MJU11, which concerns agricultural policy. I want to begin by moving for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservations 14 and 45.

The economic situation is acute for many, and the cost-of-living crisis is hitting families with children, pensioners, and single-person households hard right now. Crisis packages are being launched in country after country, but not in Sweden. We know from previous recessions that those at risk of being hit hardest are those who already have it toughest. Inflation is high, and the price increases on food even higher.

The municipalities testify that children are eating more of the school meals because they cannot eat enough to get full at home. Civil society is sounding the alarm that the number of families with children seeking help has exploded. For many, it is tougher than it has been in a very long time.

We Social Democrats have presented a number of proposals, extended a hand to the government and demanded crisis talks regarding household finances. But to all of this, the Sweden Democrats and the government have said no.

What does this have to do with agricultural policy? Well, when our families with children, retirees and single-person households cannot afford to buy good and nutritious food and when our municipalities and regions do not receive sufficient resources, it affects our Swedish farmers and our smaller rural shops. When the money is not enough, one chooses cheaper food and cheaper shops, one opts out of Swedish food and one opts out of organic and locally produced food.

For Swedish agriculture, it is extremely important that Swedish consumers and the public kitchen continue to choose Swedish products in their food purchases. A continued good demand for Swedish food products is particularly important in times like these.

Mr. Speaker! Last Thursday, this year's Agricultural Barometer was presented, which measures the farmers' view on how agriculture is doing. The increased prices on electricity, feed, and inputs are putting pressure on farmers. The faith in the future among farmers is currently low despite high milk prices, and it is worrying for the future.

But there are also positive parts. All four major production branches are experiencing improved profitability compared to a year ago. 98 percent of farmers state that they enjoy their profession. That is good, because we need more and not fewer farmers!

A competitive Swedish agriculture is important in many aspects. It creates good and healthy food, jobs, and open landscapes all over the country. The green industries are needed more than ever to manage the climate transition and to strengthen Sweden's food supply and preparedness.

The EU's new common agricultural policy focuses on the environment and sustainability and on ensuring that we have competitive companies that can ensure we have Swedish food on the plate.

The Social Democratic government made a decision on the proposal for Sweden's strategic plan for agricultural policy for the period 2023-2027. The plan covers a total of just over 60 billion kronor, of which 15 billion kronor is Swedish funding. It concerns, among other things, support for young farmers to facilitate the generational change and bring forward new Swedish agricultural companies, improved animal welfare, and the transition of agriculture.

Agriculture and food production have great opportunities to contribute to the transition, not only by reducing their own climate footprint but also by contributing to the transition of society as a whole. The grazing lands and other parts of agriculture make important contributions to favor biodiversity and the natural environment. It is important to continue the work with the transition.

Mr. Speaker! Through the food strategy, which was launched in 2017, and its resources, we have for the first time a unified strategy to increase profitability throughout the entire food chain. The latest evaluation of the strategy shows several positive trends. Among other things, profitability increased in three of the food chain's four links before the pandemic hit. At the same time, it is evident that the world is changing and that new research and new innovations are coming.

The food strategy needs to be updated to also be relevant in the security policy situation in which we find ourselves. Agriculture has been hit by large cost increases since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. To secure food production there and then, the Social Democratic government made decisions on a number of important measures. But more is needed.

Research and innovation are very important for developing the agricultural sector's production of new sustainable and healthy foods, animal feed, energy raw materials, fertilizer and materials. I also want to highlight that perhaps the most important thing here is that the research is close to the farm level and that it can be translated into solutions there.

Plant breeding and modern plant biotechnology will be an important piece of the puzzle in the EU's and Sweden's agriculture moving forward. New techniques such as CRISPR/Cas9 enable the development of crops for a sustainable food production and promote the development of a sustainable agriculture.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a small but important part of Swedish high-quality food production that only we Social Democrats are raising in the report, namely reindeer husbandry. A viable reindeer husbandry is a fundamental prerequisite for a living Sami culture. Reindeer husbandry is also important for Sweden to reach the environmental quality goal Great Mountain Environment. Reindeer husbandry contributes to our supply capacity with a good, climate-smart and exclusive meat that is appreciated by many.

When we are on the topic of meat, I can say that we Social Democrats have long pushed for requirements for labeling the origin of meat in restaurants. The Social Democratic government made a notification to the EU Commission last autumn regarding national regulations concerning origin information for meat in restaurants. The Minister for Rural Affairs has withdrawn the notification because the EU Commission has indicated that it may expand the regulations on mandatory origin labeling. It would then be resolved anyway, so to speak. The Minister promised in an interpellation debate this week that the proposal would arrive in March. We have not seen it yet, so the question is when the proposal will arrive and how the government will then act.

Swedish agriculture has great opportunities to contribute to the production of biofuels and bioenergy. In government position, we Social Democrats have introduced support for biogas production and a climate bonus for agricultural machinery. An inquiry has also been commissioned to produce proposals for a bioeconomy strategy. Sweden needs to produce more biofuels and use raw materials more efficiently so as not to waste the potential that exists.

Finally, we Social Democrats want to see more Swedish in the thought, more Swedish food on the plate and an increased sustainable food production and with that a better preparedness.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Sofia Skönnbrink and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating the report on agricultural policy. I first wish to express my approval of the committee's proposal.

I have had the privilege of visiting very many farmers around Sweden. What is always brought up is that the profitability is too poor and the food strategy.

The history of the food strategy is this: The then Minister for Rural Affairs, Sven-Erik Bucht, developed a strategy together with other parties in the Riksdag. It was adopted in the Riksdag in 2017. At that time, we agreed on increased food production, on greater profitability for agriculture, on strengthening competitiveness, and on increasing Sweden's food supply.

Mr. Speaker! It was a very important decision, and in Jordbrukssverige many said: Finally!

I remember a farmer who said in an interview: Now I dare to invest. Previously, the politics wanted to phase out Swedish agriculture. Now, the politics are in agreement about wanting to develop our green industry.

It was 2017. Much water has flowed under the bridges since then. When we look in the rearview mirror, we see that very little, a frighteningly little, has happened with the beautiful words in the strategy. Investigations that have been conducted show that farmers lack visible effects. Even the food industry is skeptical about the benefit.

The red tape and the sluggish administration persist. The number of regulations has increased. And especially the self-monitoring for the farmers is perceived as a hindrance. A small, tiny clerical error - a single syllable that is wrong - can cost thousands of kronor in deductions.

I will never forget the dairy farmer I met at a farmers' breakfast a few years ago. He said: Listen, Magnus, every morning when I wake up, I wonder which rule I am going to break today.

Food supply has not increased, but it is still at bottom levels. We heard Member of Parliament John Widegren speak about it earlier. Every other bite we eat does not come from Sweden but from another country.

What does it look like in Sweden? Do we have more farmers today with the strategy than when we adopted the strategy six years ago? The statistics, Mr. Speaker, show that is not the case. They show, for example, the number of dairy farms that remain. In 2015, we had 4,169 dairy farms. That has decreased to 2,795 during 2022. During the same period, there have been a total of 40,000 fewer cows.

Mr. Speaker! When I started in the Riksdag in 2014, I gave a speech here in the chamber about our low food security and about how we as a country must actively work to increase our food security. After my speech, a member said to me: Magnus, you don't need to worry. It will work out – it will sort itself out, as we say in Ödeshög. We have the EU, after all.

Today, hardly anyone says that, but rather we have understood that we must have our own strong food production in our country. In nine years, nothing has happened. We are still at bottom levels when it comes to our food supply.

We usually talk about how we are self-sufficient in wheat, sugar, and carrots, and that is roughly true. So it is. Finland, Mr. Speaker, is a very good example of a country that understood that the outside world can unfortunately change – we see that right now with Russia's war against Ukraine. Finland has a food preparedness of six months. Now they are taking an additional step and increasing the preparedness to eight and a half months – during that time they do not need to import a single grain of wheat. Sweden has a preparedness for ten days. Then the pantry is completely empty.

Mr. Speaker! I am so grateful that we now have a government that has understood the seriousness and is actively working on preparedness issues. The government has recently launched the food strategy 2.0, and one is now moving from talk to the famous workshop. Furthermore, an inquiry has been commissioned to strengthen the competitiveness of Sweden's food producers while Sweden's high standards for animal welfare are maintained.

It is an incredibly important signal to the country's farmers. The government wants a change where it shall once again become profitable to be a farmer in Sweden, and confidence for the green industry shall be created across the entire country.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I hear the member trying to argue that nothing has happened, but at the same time, it sounds as if the government representatives here know exactly what needs to be done. But if one knows what needs to be done, why is it not delivered immediately? Why are investigations started and so on? And why is there nothing included in the budget? I have read the Tidö Agreement, or the Palace Agreement as it is called, and the word "agriculture" is mentioned only once, I can inform you.

I and member Oscarsson have often debated the food strategy, and it was indeed a Social Democratic-led government that succeeded in developing Sweden's first food strategy. We Social Democrats delivered. Much has happened since then, and we need to update the existing food strategy. There is a broad political consensus on that. But very much has actually happened, and it shows at the farm level. It does, at least, on the farms I visit. Profitability had increased in three of the four links in the food chain before the pandemic hit, so things have certainly happened!

When Sven-Erik Bucht presented the first food strategy, he was careful to gather all politicians from the blocs and also ensured that the strategy would hold over time. I can unfortunately state that none of us from the opposition, nor any representative from the blue industries, were invited to the kickoff that the Minister for Rural Affairs invited to.

I asked a question about this to the Minister for Rural Affairs, and now I wonder how Member Oscarsson views it. Why has it been chosen to exclude the blue industries, which are advancing to produce sustainable food?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for your questions here on the evening's agenda!

I can only state that the government took office in October, and today is March 22. It hasn't been that long, if one is to be truly honest.

So, a few months have passed, and now the member says, "Why haven't you done anything?" I can say that we will do things – trust me on that! During these few months, we have appointed an investigator for competitiveness. We have also addressed the food strategy 2.0, which I think is really good. More is in the works; I can truly promise that here in the chamber tonight!

I and the member have had a discussion about the farms that we visit. We seem to be getting different information, and I would so much like that we go to the same farms from now on. It would be so interesting, because I am truly telling the truth that they say the profitability is too poor. This is not enough, they say, Magnus. We are on our knees. We are running on the rims!

It is very interesting that the representative for the previous government does not hear this. But the direct messages I receive are about the profitability and about the unfulfilled promises from the food strategy.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that Member Oscarsson chooses not to answer my questions.

(MAGNUS OSCARSSON (KD): It will!)

Why was the opposition not invited? Does one intend to keep this in a narrow circle and not look long-term at the important food strategy so that it becomes sustainable over time? Why are the blue nutrients being excluded?

The government representatives have been in office for a few months, says the member. But despite that, a Tidö agreement has been negotiated, and a budget has been presented. Not everything that the member raises in the rostrum is visible there, and you would have had full opportunity to do that already then.

I also want to take the opportunity to highlight another part, which is sustainability, which is an important part of the food strategy, and that agriculture is given the conditions to transition. Not least, the current report that the UN's climate panel has just released shows how serious the situation is and that it will require large, rapid, and permanent emission reductions.

The Christian Democrats are pursuing a policy where they are positive about increasing organic farming and that new organic methods can be adopted within conventional agriculture, something that can be read on the Christian Democrats' website. I see in the texts that the Christian Democrats think that organic farming plays an important role, which I think is good, but how will we see that in the updated food strategy?

Do not forget either the questions about the blue nutrients and how the cooperation will take place! I think it is important that we have a food strategy that holds over time, which we Social Democrats were very careful about.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! How good that I have two minutes left to try to answer the questions that the member asked me!

I will take it pedagogically from the beginning. Why was the opposition not part of the kickoff? The answer I get from the government is that this is the food strategy 2.0. The strategy therefore already exists. Just as I myself pointed out, the then Minister for Rural Affairs Bucht developed it together with us, and subsequent ministers have worked on it.

The government is saying, then, that this is not something new. We have developed a strategy, and now we are going to try to move from the discussion stage to the workshop. That is actually what it is. It is not much more new than trying to produce the different tools and make a workshop out of it. That is the answer to that question.

When it comes to the blue nutrients, I think it was a mistake that they were not included. They should have been included, because they are incredibly important for our country. I therefore hope that they are included next time it is time to gather.

The chairman also points out that "agriculture" is not stated in the Tidö Agreement. There is a lot, I can say, that is not in the Tidö Agreement that perhaps should have been there. But on the other hand, it is not based on that we work, but we work to develop a robust and living rural policy for all of Sweden.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Magnus Oscarsson and I are rarely in agreement on substantive issues. However, we share the commitment, and when it comes to agricultural issues and the countryside, he is usually a strong champion for the whole country to live and for everyone to be able to conduct their activities where they are.

Therefore, I would like to link to what I took up earlier in an exchange of remarks, and that is that the policy you are pursuing now undermines those farmers and agricultural producers who are at the periphery of the system. They ensure that the cultural landscape with open vistas is preserved. It is a matter of grazing those incredibly important landscapes and showing the best of Sweden.

I previously raised a calculation example, namely that the money currently held by Västkuststiftelsen is sufficient for three and a half cows in a reserve – if they are to have winter feed. The cows can manage to graze approximately 7 hectares. One of the most popular reserves, and the one that is best managed, is Ramsvikslandet at 1,200 hectares. The three and a half cows will not be able to do their job. This means that there will be a scrub encroachment, a depleted biodiversity, and reduced conditions for tourism and farmers who cannot keep their animals.

What were you thinking when you did this, and will you do anything about it?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the questions.

I can also give praise to the member. I truly think the member has a feel for the countryside. The member lives in the countryside herself and knows very well what she is talking about – in her own way, of course. We look at these issues in slightly different ways.

One thing that I really agree with the member on is that we need more grazing animals. Just as the member himself pointed out in his speech, we have seen that much of the meadows and pastures have grown over. I traveled around with LRF in Jönköping a few years ago, and it was shown there that it happens fast. Where there were previously unique meadows and pastures, there is today forest or, in the worst case, scrub. It is important that there are more grazing animals, that there is more animal production in our country and that we in that way get more momentum in our country. Large parts of our country are perfect for these grazing animals. That is why it is so incredibly important that we do so.

Then it was the question of what we should do. We think, and Member Widegren was on this earlier, generally speaking, that it is more important that profitability increases for the country's farmers. It must be more important than that there are subsidies. We believe that it is important that there is a profitability for agriculture in our country.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we all agree that it should be profitable to be a farmer within the green industries. Sometimes what is worth something is not just the meat an animal produces, but also the ecosystem services the animal performs. Somewhere they must be paid. There we have a collective responsibility to ensure that the funds are available for the benefits, for example when it concerns the management of valuable nature or in other ways. It is also included in the rural development programme.

But we have also pushed a number of things through our county administrative boards and regions so that we can have the open landscapes. Those who work there have an incredible knowledge. Those I visited have had these farms for several generations, and they know exactly what time of year they should let out the goats, what time of year it is time to take the horses out on the islands, whether it should be sheep or what type of animal it should be depending on how the landscape should be grazed and what has happened during the year. They clear and manage.

If we were to pay for every single man-hour for such knowledge - yes, there is no one who can [provide it] except those who live there. The ecosystem service provided in the form of biodiversity and open landscapes is actually priceless. When it disappears, if it can even be recreated, it takes much longer to start over from the beginning.

Can you not rethink and ensure that the work receives funding? I believe it is in all of our interests to have open landscapes, biodiversity, and farmers who retain the knowledge.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the question.

I do not know exactly what it is about, which islands we are talking about. It is clear that there are things that can be heart-wrenching. The general answer is nevertheless that there are EU compensations to apply for - many farmers around the country do this - for grazing lands and pastures. Most apply for these compensations. If it is a question of specific quality and species richness, there are particularly high EU compensations for this.

It is difficult to say exactly, but I can say that we must hope that it is possible to apply for EU compensations and continue to use the grazing sheep and goats that do such a fine job.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for his speech.

We entered the Riksdag as regular members in the same year, 2014, and we have followed the issues in different ways in different contexts in the Riksdag's work.

With the lessons learned from those years back, we can reflect on how this mandate period will turn out, now that the Christian Democrats have an enormous responsibility with representation and leadership on the rural side in rural minister Peter Kullgren.

One can continue to travel around and listen to the industry and hear the same problem formulation as in the last eight years. One can continue the dialogue with different actors and appoint inquiries, which can work for a large part of the mandate period. But the problems only increase in scope.

I am concerned that the insight in the government is not what it should be - nor is the commitment - regarding how serious the situation is for Swedish agriculture. This applies partly from the security situation, and partly from the clear signals we can observe during our visits and when we summarize the whole. This must be put into relation to what has been agreed upon in the Tidö Agreement and presented in the budget for this year.

Actually, the representatives for the government know what it looks like. It is about moving forward and presenting and taking the measures. In the work that the government has begun, how will the government and the Christian Democrats ensure that there is an anchoring of the updated food strategy in the Riksdag? Or will there not be an anchoring with decisions in the Riksdag?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Daniel Bäckström for the very important questions.

I can honestly say that just as the member tells about all the visits, which surely everyone here in the chamber does, one becomes humble before the task. It is not the case that it was a set table that the government came to. It is a matter of taking in many things and trying to change the course. It is exactly what the government is trying to do, that is to say, change the course.

We believe that we need to launch some things, for example the food strategy 2.0. Then we move from just talking to getting workshop. We have also appointed an investigator to strengthen the competitiveness for Sweden's food producers.

These are important steps and important signals to our farmers out in the country. We do not take the issue lightly, and no one has said that it will be easy. But we will do what we can to try to achieve a change.

We have now talked for many years about the fact that profitability must increase, and we mean what we say - otherwise it is completely insane.

When we mean that we want to strengthen competitiveness, we do want that; that is the whole point of this. Now we have received this opportunity, and we are incredibly grateful for it. But we are also humble, because we understand that it is not simple.

There is a lot of talk about the world around us. It is clear that there will be tough challenges in different ways, but we will do what we can to achieve a changed perspective and to get momentum in Swedish agriculture.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! It remains to be seen. Soon, a spring budget amendment and a proposition on how the spring's challenges shall be handled and on the continuation of the year will be presented. We will be able to see whether the government puts forward any sharp proposals beyond the initiatives to initiate a food strategy process.

I am extremely concerned about whether the government will take action and whether the government will come with concrete measures that yield practical results and ensure that we reach the objective that the current food strategy so clearly speaks of, and which we agree upon, namely to increase production. Not least, I am concerned given what Magnus Oscarsson himself has said in this motion and based on what has happened during the last eight years.

Enormous action packages are needed. I have read the article that the Minister for Rural Affairs, who is a party colleague of Magnus Oscarsson, presented in connection with the launch of a new food strategy, or food strategy 2.0. The Minister wrote, also as a representative of the Kristdemokraterna, that a viable country with good self-sufficiency needs farmers.

My question is: What is good self-sufficiency according to the Christian Democrats? And what does the government mean by good self-sufficiency? This is a very interesting perspective to follow up on point by point during the coming years of the mandate period to see where the government is aiming. What type of self-sufficiency are we to reach? What levels are we talking about?

It is also about the measures that are to be taken during the coming years so that results can be achieved before the mandate period is over. It will go very fast, based on the work that you in the government have laid out.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Daniel Bäckström for these very important questions. It feels like I will not have time to answer all the questions in two minutes.

The Speaker is concerned about the government. This is not strange in itself; the opposition is usually concerned about those who represent the government. I know—I have been there myself.

As I said earlier to another member: We have only just begun. One could say that we have been at it since October and that we should have known better and known more. However, it was not just a matter of sitting down and driving. There is a lot that is required for a new government.

The government has nevertheless done what it has done. One also actually has a Minister for Civil Defence, which is an important signal that this is being taken most seriously.

I believe the member asked what our self-sufficiency rate should be. The Christian Democrats want it to be up to 75 percent. At the beginning of the 90s, it was around 80 percent in our country, and we should reach that again. I would like to ask the member the same, but I cannot do that because time is up.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost eleven in the evening, and we are debating agricultural policy.

The Sweden Democrats have 22 reservations, which is half of all of them. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 12 regarding simplified rules for agriculture and legal certainty in the exercise of authority. This is also the area that I intend to focus on in my speech.

Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund has shown that a beef producer who is also a crop grower has 450 rules to follow. Simplification for agriculture is very important, and the sooner, the better. The Government has already launched an investigation that can act in that direction and is also planning for a broad simplification investigation. That is good. I know that this is in the works from the Government's side soon or a bit further ahead.

I move for approval of reservation 12 because we Sverigedemokrater believe that it is urgent and because our reservation contains substantial parts that should be included in a simplification study.

One might wonder why we have complicated rules. Every rule has surely been added in a process where there were good intentions, but many rules were decided when it was believed that there would never be war in Europe again. The sum of all rules and all good intentions has pushed the regulatory burden for Swedish agriculture to its limit. Something new must be done that has not been tried before.

I have previously worked at the Swedish Board of Agriculture under both red and blue governments. These have given the agency a mandate to simplify regulations. It has become a bit simpler, but the result is still quite meager. One reason for this is that the mandate to the agency covered the simplification of the agency's rules – not the underlying political decisions and intentions.

As said, something new must be done that has not been tested before. In order to achieve real and lasting simplification, the political decisions and intentions underlying the authorities' rules must be scrutinized and simplified. Some must be abolished. This should be done by the authorities every year. In this way, one can discover outdated rules, unnecessary over-implementations, and things that are nice to have but not necessary.

The central authorities should therefore be given a mandate every year to propose a repealed rule - or a set of repealed rules - at the national level or EU level. They shall submit their proposals to the Government and the Riksdag, which shall take a position on the proposals and move them forward if deemed appropriate.

The authority shall, before its investigation, consult the industry regarding which rules cause difficulties and are perceived as less necessary. The authority's proposal to the government and the Riksdag shall be accompanied by an analysis of the consequences for all relevant values if a certain rule is abolished and if it is not abolished.

Rules that are being scrapped may relate to purely Swedish rules, Swedish over-implementation, or EU rules. In the latter case, the process will of course become long and difficult, but all the more important then that we start at once.

According to the council conclusions to be discussed tomorrow in Brussels, and which the Swedish government has influenced, a so-called competitive check of new rules shall be carried out in the future, i.e., a check of how they affect competitiveness. This would be an important step in the right direction. It would also open up for problems with EU rules that we identify here in Sweden to be addressed eventually.

This otherwise exemplifies the importance for the EU work of the change of government that Sweden has made. The EU becomes as you vote - never forget that!

A problem that is just as important as the bureaucratic red tape is the situation where farmers do not have their legal certainty satisfied. It should first be said that the vast majority of agency decisions and supervisory visits go well and enable a good development of society. However, there is much to be done for legal certainty. It could involve ensuring that the competence of agencies and agency personnel, such as an understanding of the conditions for business activities, is secured through an environmental assessment authority that is specialized in agricultural issues. With this fulfilled, assessments can be made for agriculture based on agriculture's conditions. It will become a secured grounding in reality.

It can also be about the Animal Welfare Act's purpose to prevent animal suffering. The law should be reviewed so that animal owners are not hit with sanctions for animal suffering that would never have occurred. One should, after all, be innocent until one has actually committed a crime. The possibility of a second opinion or greater opportunities for appeal and rectification in animal welfare cases should also be considered.

To a large extent, it is about authorities applying the good rules that already exist in the Administrative Procedure Act, not least the principle of proportionality in decision-making. The principle states that a decision may not be harsher than what is necessary to rectify that which is to be rectified, and that the restrictions for the citizen or the company shall be in proportion to the size of the problem.

For agriculture, where conditions differ for different entrepreneurs, the authority must maintain a functioning dialogue to know which decisions are proportionate. This does not always happen. If there is another and less burdensome way for the farmer to solve, for example, an environmental problem, the authority should not demand a more burdensome way. We want requirements for the authorities to follow the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act more closely. Annual reports from the authorities on what they do to follow the Administrative Procedure Act as closely as possible would also be a good tool for that purpose.

All this can you get if you vote correctly in the chamber tomorrow. It is about freedom reforms for agriculture.

What you cannot get tomorrow, however, are the budget initiatives that the Sverigedemokraterna will put forward in the budget negotiations in August. But I can tell you that they will be ambitious. We believe that the government has pushed down inflation for next year so that a higher pace of reform will be possible.

Finally, I want to once again raise the issue of subsidized replacement services. Sweden's decision-makers must address the social situation that agriculture has today. The difficulties are, after all, a consequence of political decisions. One of the issues concerns the social unsustainability of never being able to take time off.

We believe that the state could guarantee a minimum leave and provide relief during personal crises. We believe that this would have many positive effects. It would save crisis situations, reduce the risk of animal welfare problems, reduce the number of closures, improve skills development, facilitate new recruitment and perhaps enable more women to become farmers - not to mention the personal gains.

Sufficient profitability and social sustainability are also important pieces in the freedom reform for agriculture.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Staffan Eklöf for the presentation.

I thought we had a consensus on the issue of the important work against invasive species. In their committee motion, the Sverigedemokraterna write that early interventions are important, that invasive species are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, and that certain species can also hinder agriculture.

However, these seem to be empty words when we look at the budget. The work to combat invasive, alien species on state land had a budget of 55 million kronor in 2022. The government's budget means that this funding will disappear completely. This means that the invasive species risk spreading freely in large parts of the country. All the work that has been put in will then be in vain.

These species risk spreading to important agricultural land, and the owners may become liable to remove the invasive species at their own expense. It will be expensive.

What reasons underlie the removed funding, and what is the purpose of removing the work against invasive species? It will affect the farmers. What is the plan?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for an interesting question.

We have prioritized the work against invasive species for many years, long before other parties noticed this. The issue only has a small point of contact with agriculture, but we take it anyway.

There is no reduction in the budget of a direct item for the work against invasive species. It must therefore be a matter of prioritization by an authority that has reduced the appropriation in favor of something else. This micro-management does not exist in the government's management.

This is unfortunate, and the authority should instead prioritize something else.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Eklöf for the answer.

The government is prioritizing away the work against invasive species. The Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the government base, and previously, Member Eklöf has stood in the rostrum and spoken about everything in the agricultural area that the Sweden Democrats want to invest in. But what happened with this when one is forced to take some responsibility as the largest party in the government base?

In the so-called palace agreement, agriculture is mentioned only once, and in the budget, none of the major investments that Member Eklöf previously promised are present. Back then, the explanation was a lack of time, so now I ask Member Eklöf why the promised investments have been missing this time as well. Should we see it as yet another broken campaign promise to add to the enormous pile of broken campaign promises that the Sverigedemokraterna have built up?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! To be heading into a recession and at the same time have high inflation is an unusual phenomenon, but that is what it has become for us due to the previous government's failures plus the war that arose in Ukraine.

The previous government made the electricity system vulnerable so that it proved not to function fully upon first load. Furthermore, an electricity trading regulation has been signed which means that much of the electricity must be exported south in Europe, which causes price effects to spread to Sweden.

In such a situation, the priority is to combat inflation. If that is not done, all reforms are eaten up, and one gets interest and price increases that eat up the citizens' resources. Therefore, the government made a restrained first budget and provided support to those people who would be most affected by worsened living conditions.

But in the next budget, we believe there will be room to make the reforms that inflation did not allow in the first budget.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! With nearly twelve hours left until the morning coffee, it is extremely stimulating to conclude this long day of debate, where we have made a historic decision on NATO membership and now can also continue with questions concerning the total defense.

Centerpartiet has 16 different reservations in this report on agricultural policy. It concerns economic leakage, the direction of the food strategy, competitiveness, research issues, the horse industry, production of fertilizer, mulching rights, biodiversity, grazing lands, hay meadows, and so on.

Among all these reservations, Mr. Speaker, I move for the sake of time for approval only of reservation 1 regarding security of supply, as that is the focus of our work moving forward when it comes to our agricultural policy and our cooperation with other EU countries to strengthen our security of supply in all areas.

We, the different party representatives, but also we in the Riksdag, are in great agreement about what it is about when it comes to these issues. It is serious, and it is a sharp situation. Many have spoken about the global situation, we have made the decisions that frame how the threat picture has drastically changed in recent years and we have followed this over time. Then it is extremely important that we now focus on what is most important to address. But we do not have time to sit and investigate the different issues for too long, instead we must move forward so that it becomes concrete workshop, which several have touched upon. It is not just a greeting to the government.

I would have wished that the Minister for Rural Affairs had been present tonight when we debate the agricultural policy for Sweden. We hope to see him in upcoming debates on agricultural policy, as these are important issues linked to where we stand in relation to the global situation.

We all bear a common responsibility, but not least does the government bear a great responsibility when it comes to taking the right initiatives now and prioritizing the measures. We can do very much when it comes to increasing the production of domestic input goods. Several important initiatives have been taken in the industry within various areas. It is incredibly inspiring to see what potential exists when it comes to producing fertilizer and extracting cadmium and fossil-free phosphorus from ore by-products, and we can take more examples of what is happening. It is extremely urgent that this comes to fruition and that it becomes production in the coming years as soon as possible so that we can supply ourselves at home but also help other countries with the needs based on what we have lived with for conditions over the past year.

Mr. Speaker! In order to reach the high-level goals in the food strategy that is currently in place, it is a matter of truly strengthening competitiveness throughout the entire food chain. And it is concerning. Crises are succeeding one another, and we now see how further pressure on interest rates and other factors are reducing the margins. It will be very important to follow up on where we are at the end of this year and see what has happened and, above all, to prevent and foresee what we need to do now so that it becomes as favorable as possible.

Many those active in the green industries are small business owners with small margins and pressured liquidity. For them, it is crucial, for example, that the authorities' actions are predictable. We have debated the work on regulatory simplifications a lot in recent years, and now it is high time that the work is intensified and that the administrative burden on the farmers' shoulders is reduced. Representatives of the current government have had other assignments previously, and we have heard several speak precisely about regulatory simplifications. I therefore have high expectations that it will be real workshop and that one summarizes year by year how many regulatory simplifications have actually been implemented. It will be important what is done in practice and that one does not have this mantra where one says one thing before the election and then does something else, which was the preamble for the cooperation parties of the Tidö Agreement. It must not be in that way. We must live up to what is required, and the government must live up to the great challenges that are to be handled. Growing bureaucratic hurdles and long processing times hinder the development power in the food chain.

Centerpartiet wants to highlight the importance of fallow land and the risks if fallow cultivation decreases. It has consequences for land structure and carbon storage, it leads to increased nutrient leaching, it probably increases the occurrence of weeds, and it affects the crop rotation.

We have often spoken about the need to lower costs for companies, and it is well worth going through LRF's latest green business index and seeing which forecast applies to all sectors. It is a record-low interest in building livestock housing. If this persists, we will lose even more in Swedish production. This must not happen.

The investment grants are important to work on. I have followed it over the past year and seen how milk producers who want to build new milk stalls or barns did not receive investment grants in the first round. Now it has arrived, and it has an enormous significance. The investment grants need to be replenished and the appropriations increased. This also applies to the start-up grants and not least the grants for young farmers and generational shifts.

Then it is concerning regarding the government's direction for the skills supply. There will be consequences when it concerns labor immigration. The investigation to be carried out will have an effect first in 2025, but it is clear that it affects already this summer if one does not get the right skills or does not get hold of labor in their operations.

Another area that can be highlighted, linked to sustainability, transition, and the goal of being able to produce much of the energy ourselves, is that a dream is that as many agricultural entrepreneurs as possible should be able to produce both electricity and other energy beyond what they need at home on the farm, both for robustness and to reduce vulnerability, but above all to strengthen the economy and get a return on what they manage and develop.

The ten-year tax exemption for biogas that was approved by the EU Commission in the summer of 2020 was overturned following a new ruling in the EU Court of Justice. This means an increase of 20 percent when it comes to the price of the fuel and approximately 1,000 kronor extra for a full truck tank. Now a lot has happened, and here is an opportunity for the government to make a notification to the EU Commission in order to be able to get tax-exempt biogas again so that it benefits development and business in the countryside.

My minutes have expired, but I had to raise a few perspectives. As I began by saying, agricultural policy is a part of Swedish security policy and Swedish total defense work. I and the Center Party now have high expectations but also demands that concrete measures be taken that truly strengthen our production of food in the country.

I wish everyone a good night and a good continuation ahead of a new working day.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on March 23.)

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