Agricultural policy

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Now we stand here again. It is late spring, and we are debating agricultural policy in the chamber of the Riksdag.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in report MJU16.

The agricultural year 2024 had a rather tough start, one could say, for Swedish farmers. What we did not know when we stood here last time and debated the agricultural policy, last spring, was how extremely challenging and difficult the harvest year 2023 would become. There were poor harvests, poor qualities, rising costs in the form of interest rates and expensive inputs, which were actually at an all-time high when they were purchased for the growing year 2023.

It gave Swedish farmers an incredibly tough end to the year 2023. This was what we took with us into the growing season 2024. The growing season 2024 also started tough for Swedish farmers with a late spring work and a long and cold spring. The late spring work has since transitioned into a very warm late spring. And here we stand today. The autumn crops look quite good in many areas, but now they are beginning to suffer from the drought. The grass harvest has been underway for some time. People are harvesting fodder in full in Sweden, at least in the southern parts, and it looks quite good.

Above all, Madam Speaker, the hopes of Sveriges bönder look good. Sveriges bönder had a tough 2023 and a tough start to 2024 but are nevertheless going full steam ahead into the 2024 growing season and are investing and believing - just as they always have done, because that is what Swedish farmers do. They take responsibility. They take responsibility for producing and for delivering food and natural values, biodiversity, and a preparedness for Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We are heading towards an EU election. There is just over a week left until the election results are to be presented. It is an EU election that is incredibly important for Sweden's farmers and for Europe's farmers. The period that has passed has been challenging for all farmers in the EU due to Russia's unjust war of aggression against Ukraine.

But that also depends on the increased micro-management that has come from the EU. It is a micro-management that wants to take away freedom from the farmers. It is a micro-management that believes that officials and politicians know better how to produce, all the way down to the individual farm level.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates do not believe in increased micro-management from the EU. We want to see, instead, an increased degree of freedom, exactly what the EU is for fundamentally; trade, freedom, and order and clarity on various issues, but not micro-management.

In the EU work, we Moderates want to reduce red tape and administrative burdens. We want to increase animal welfare in the union so that it approaches the fantastic animal welfare that Sweden's farmers live and work under. We want to use new plant breeding methods. There is no doubt that the growing season looks different now. The climate has shifted in a challenging way when it comes to the cultivation of our crops. Then we shall, of course, utilize the new techniques that exist to develop seeds that better withstand drought, insects, fungal attacks, and so on. If there is technology that can produce such seeds, we shall, of course, not be afraid to use it. We Moderates are pro-technology.

When we are to begin the work with the new CAP period, we must look at the raw material supply in a completely different way. What we have seen of the war in Europe is that the preparedness is not as good as it should be. Disruptions have arisen not only with getting grain and other products out of Ukraine, but we have also seen disruptions in the domestic food logistics chain. This happens because of fear that it will go badly for domestic agriculture in different countries, and it also happens because prices fall when there are uneven trade chains around Europe. One must understand that the farmers become worried, but it is this type of worry that the EU should handle. The EU as an organization, as a union, shall handle the issues in the context of trade. It will be incredibly important for the EU to handle these parts during the next period.

The protests we have seen from European farmers over the past year are due to the fact that they are worried about the supply chains, and they are worried about increased regulatory requirements down to the level of detail that have come from the EU. Many times, these are unnecessary regulatory requirements. We have seen the percentages that have been presented in Farm to Fork and the biodiversity strategy. There are percentages there that govern the amount of plant protection products, plant nutrients, organically farmed area, and so on. But why should percentages be set? Give the farmers the freedom to decide what suits them best.

We have even gone down so deep into the details that we are looking at crop rotation requirements. How can someone sitting in Brussels know better than a farmer in Östergötland, on the fertile clay, in which crop rotation they should produce their crops? He knows best himself. We assume that he does it in a way that can deliver a high yield. That is what he lives on – not to reach a quantity of complicated regulations that are presented time and again.

Madam Speaker! Increase the freedom for the farmers, and then they will deliver on the environmental and climate requirements that we set from this house. It is not through finger-pointing that one delivers. It is increased freedom and increased profitability that leads to this.

The farmers who have sown this spring do so with a rising optimism. That optimism is not rising only because interest rates are heading down, but because they notice that the government is working for them. The government is in the process of developing a new food strategy, has corrected the problems with slaughter fees, and strengthened competitiveness with the help of lowered fuel prices. The government has actively voted against strange and bad proposals from the EU, for example the Nature Restoration Law. Furthermore, the government has appointed a number of new inquiries to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture and increase the production of Swedish agriculture. That is what must be done in this situation.

Swedish agriculture is in a vulnerable position, and we need a strong preparedness. That is what this government is delivering policy on.

Madam Speaker! It is not possible to have a debate in the chamber about green farming without talking about the problems with predators. We are still there. Now we can see the predator populations growing in southern Sweden. The problems that have existed for many years in central Sweden are now increasing sharply in southern Sweden. There are more grazing animals there.

We can repeatedly see how Swedish lamb production does not go hand in hand with Swedish predator management at all. There is a major problem to solve, and it is a problem that the government takes seriously. The problem must be addressed in the near future. Soon we will have to ask ourselves what constitutes a favorable conservation status for a Swedish sheep farmer.

Madam Speaker! I am coming down for landing. I intend to thank my colleagues for this year because this is my last debate in the chamber for this parliamentary year. Thank you for good cooperation! I wish the Speaker, the Presidium and the staff a happy, beautiful and moderately warm and rainy summer.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Widegren for the speech.

I truly agree with how it is to be a farmer, to ensure that food reaches our tables, that the landscape is kept open and that many species can survive.

But our agriculture is also a large emitter. Therefore, it is important that our farmers can transition. The farmers I meet truly cherish our environment, and they want to transition. But several of them were affected in connection with a regulatory change and they were supposed to apply for funds from the climate premium instead of Klimatklivet. This applies, for example, when they apply for funds to replace a work machine. They spent a lot of precious time on their applications to Klimatklivet in the autumn, and then they were rejected.

In March, I was contacted by one of the affected farmers. Three days after the change, they received a rejection, and it was not possible to appeal. The farmers were simply caught in a bind. Why were there no transitional rules? How does the member believe we should support our farmers in the transition?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions. They are absolutely relevant and important.

When one transitions to new systems, unfortunately, there is always someone who falls through the cracks. We rarely get away from those problems. It is very unfortunate. I also know that there is a great will to transition, and there is a great will to make climate-smart investments at the farm level.

The farms that do the best environmental and climate work today are the most profitable farms. The government is now placing the primary pressure on strengthening the profitability in primary production. That is the basis for conducting good environmental and climate work at the farm level.

It is good that there are opportunities for investments even in money that comes from CAP. Farmers should be able to use those funds to make smart investments. But we maintain that the absolutely most important factor is to strengthen profitability and to increase production. When we increase production in Sweden, we also know that it is good for the environment and the climate, and when we increase Swedish food production, it is also good for the environment and the climate. Strengthened profitability leading to increased production is number one.

Then I regret that one ends up caught in the middle in connection with a partition. It is unfortunate.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

Klimatklivet has been successful, and it has facilitated for our farmers to accelerate the transition. They have been able to make the large investments that it often is about, precisely in order to achieve profitability in agriculture.

With Klimatklivet, the farmer could have the support paid out and then buy their work machine, but the climate premium is given after the purchase. That may sound good, but it presupposes that funds are available.

This is what it says on the Swedish Energy Agency's website regarding the climate premium for environmental work machines - I checked just before I came here to the debate: "Currently, there are long processing times. Once the application has been received by us, you can proceed and order your vehicle. Applications are handled as they come in. Grants are provided after purchase, if funds are available."

The farmer I have been in contact with now chooses to keep the machines that run on diesel instead of investing in electric farm machinery.

How are our farmers supposed to dare to make these investments to transition when they do not even know if they will receive subsidies for their purchase?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

Short answer: I do not believe that Swedish agriculture just depends on whether there is money in subsidies and similar, or investment support. Swedish agriculture and Swedish primary production are about there being a long-term thought with long-term rules of the game that generate profitability at the farm level, not about whether there is money in some system somewhere to be brought home upon an application.

It is not there that Swedish agriculture stands or falls. If that were what it depended on, I am completely convinced that the Social Democrats, who are a subsidy-friendly party and like to throw out subsidies here and there, during their eight years in power would have solved agriculture's problems with a lot of subsidies.

I believe rather that agriculture needs strengthened competitive conditions, lower tax pressure, long-term property rights, lower predator pressure, and simplifications in the EU's agricultural system. It is those parts that will lead to strengthened profitability at the farm level, and then one can also make these investments that are good in terms of environment and climate.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the previous speakers for the debate and the exchange of remarks. I was eager to jump in, but as you can perhaps hear, my voice is not quite in sync. I will save myself for the really heated debates later. We have more today, after all.

Mr. Speaker! We are here to talk about agricultural policy. We have already heard in the first speech here from John Widegren about the conditions for agriculture. I agree with much of what he says about them, but not about how we should proceed.

Mr. Speaker! We know that agriculture and food security have been enormously affected in recent years by all the different developments in the world, not least the aftermath of the pandemic and extreme weather as a result of climate change. Conflicts in the world have caused every country to start looking more and more at its own preparedness and self-sufficiency. This is happening in Sweden and in Europe, but also outside of Europe.

Where I live, in little Brastad, there is a small shop that sells goods from Thailand. They usually have lots of good fresh fruit. I was there this week and asked if they had received anything. They said: No, it is no use buying anymore. The weather is upside down in Thailand too. It is too expensive.

That is actually how it looks in many places in the world. Food production and agriculture are perhaps the most weather-dependent and climate-dependent things we have. We need to have steady weather, we need to have rain, and we need to have predictability so that we know how we are to cultivate. But we also need to have ecosystem services in the form of pollinators. We must have good soils that retain water and that provide nutrients and so on.

At the same time, we see that modern agriculture sometimes bites its own tail. We use, for example, artificial fertilizer that depletes the soils. We use pesticides that kill off biodiversity. It has become a self-playing piano, and it is going in the wrong direction.

Even when it comes to fossil energy, it is agriculture that would truly need a transition. In the entire global food chain, from the production and distribution of plant nutrients and pesticides to freezing processes for storing food, transport, and the cultivation itself, enormous amounts of fossil energy are consumed. According to the IPCC report, the entire global food system accounts for between 21 and 37 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

There we must transition and do right. We in Miljöpartiet want to see a system where it actually pays to work with nature and with biodiversity rather than fighting against it. We must ensure that those who work in these operations also receive payment for ecosystem services and for transitioning to a climate-smart agriculture.

Today we see that one is rather moving towards larger production units. Of the EU's agricultural budget, 80 percent goes to the 20 largest percent. We would like it to be the opposite. We need to have a diversity of smaller companies that also operate closer to nature.

We also see that economists are looking at agricultural production and the transition there. For example, Mistra Food Futures, which is a research program with several different branches, says that increased production is not always the same as increased profitability. Here, I believe one automatically thinks that it cannot be true. But it is actually the case that just because you get an extra kilo or a liter of something, it does not mean that you get increased profitability. It depends on what you do with the product and in what way you do it. This is something we must see.

We all want competition on equal terms. But for us in Miljöpartiet, that does not mean lowering the requirements to the others' level. We are trying to raise them.

Recently, we have seen proposals to abolish the grazing requirement for cattle. It is, in itself, an ongoing investigation, so we do not know what the final proposal will look like. But when we are out in the world and selling, that is indeed Sweden's USP. We have good animal welfare. We have pigs with their tails intact. We have cows that graze. Then we cannot cut off the branch we are sitting on. Above all, it is bad for the animals and animal welfare. No, rather we should ensure that when one trades with Sweden, the conditions shall be the same. It should not pay to cheat with these things, and within the EU we shall work to ensure that everyone has the same animal welfare rules as Sweden and reduce the number of animal transports.

Mr. Speaker! I see by the clock that I am speaking for a bit too long, but these are major issues.

When it comes to the report itself and the various reservations we have, I naturally stand behind them all, just as I do behind those that were simplified this year because they were up last year. But I move for approval of reservation number 9.

I would also have liked to move for approval of reservation number 7, but for the sake of time, I choose not to do so. I still want to speak a little bit about number 7, because it concerns the promotion of a plant-based agricultural sector.

Sometimes we are accused of thinking that one should not eat meat and so on. It is clear that there is room to eat meat, good meat and grass-fed meat. But we must eat less meat, we must eat less imported meat, and we must increase the plant-based alternatives.

Today we import a great deal of this. Furthermore, the protein feed that we give to our animals is also imported.

We in Miljöpartiet want to see increased production of plant-based protein crops that can go directly to humans but also to animals. We see that 17 other EU countries have a strategy for this and provide money to increase these parts. But we do not do that in Sweden, even though investigations have shown that we have the possibility for it. We have the area, but we have no one who can receive it if one does this. I believe that one must step in from the political side and show that one wants this so that it pays off to invest in it. It is also a part of raising the self-sufficiency rate in this uneasy situation. We cannot be dependent on imported soy from, for example, South America.

Reservation 9, which I move for approval of, is about our desire to see a living agriculture in all of Sweden that secures a high degree of self-sufficiency of food but also feed, energy, and raw materials.

Agriculture is the key to the transition. We must produce more of our own inputs. It is about agriculture, but it is also about something that we will talk about in the next debate: circular economy. How are we to reclaim more of these things? How are we to be able to manufacture our own fuel, our own inputs, and our own nutrients?

We must address this and act in Sweden. We must increase the self-sufficiency rate, and we must ensure that the entire country can live. It cannot be that we centralize and reduce the number of farmers and agricultural producers. We must rather increase them. If anything, it is about preparing for the future. In an uneasy future, more will need to pitch in, and it is in the green industries that we will need manpower.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I had first intended to let the member's voice rest, but there were still some things that I felt we need to discuss further.

The first thing was what was said about the use of mineral fertilizer would deplete our soils. I would say exactly the opposite – it has probably been a long time since our soils were as fertile as they are today. We also have a rising humus content in our arable soils in Sweden today. This means that Sweden's farmers with Swedish crop rotations are actually making good efforts to preserve the arable soils. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning surrounding that.

Then there are surely problems in other places around the world with monocultures and incorrect use of plant nutrients and so on.

Mr. Speaker! I also think that one should remember how it was before we started using mineral fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture and how much food we produced on the area we had then: We had more area than we have today, but we produced far less food on the same area. It has indeed been a revolution that we can extract nitrogen from the air and use it as a fertilizer.

Mr. Speaker! People are talking about the right to graze being removed. I do not believe that anyone has talked about the right to graze, and neither does the investigation talk about the right to graze. It is about finding a more flexible grazing legislation at the farm level. That is what we must discuss, not the right for animals to graze.

We absolutely think that the right to graze should remain, but there are probably situations where the farmers perhaps should not have to let out a high-yielding cow. A heifer, on the other hand, or a low-yielding cow or the young animals need to get out to pasture, but not high-yielding cows today.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I was perhaps a bit sweeping. It is not certain that it is specifically mineral fertilizer that causes the soils to be depleted. I also said "pesticides" in that sense, but perhaps it did not come across.

We see that intensive agriculture often depletes the soils. In Sweden, we are perhaps in many parts much better at utilizing it – we have crop rotations, we have other crops, and we have started using cover crops when it is that time of year. However, not everyone does it.

What we do see, however, is that when we can close the system, the cycle, and actually use manure or something from one's own field, we also get a different composition in the soil and a different humus content because organic material is introduced in a different way.

What primarily depletes the soils is, well, certain plant protection products that result in a much smaller flora on the fields. Right must be right! But research shows that where one has a circular system with animals and plants on the same farm, one gets a different structure in the soil.

Then it was a question of grazing rights - as the member expressed it. I said "grazing requirements". I believe that just by talking about this, discussing this, one scares consumers and reduces trust in agriculture and animal husbandry.

If everyone wants to see requirements for grazing and wants to keep them, why do these things then? There may be individual cases, but as it sounds now and in the proposal that has been, it is much more far-reaching than what the member said.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the Moderates, it is about seeing a more flexible grazing legislation than the one we have today. It also provides an opportunity for the farmer to get paid for this, just as it is in our competing countries around us, and where we do not have the opportunity to get paid today.

We know that Swedish milk is being used less and less. We import more and more cheese and so on. We need to strengthen the competitiveness for Swedish milk production. We also know that the modern dairy farms today, with fans and open systems, look very different from the dairy farms we had when this legislation was introduced.

We believe, just as I spoke about in my speech, that when we can give the farmer a freedom to decide which animals are best suited to be released onto pasture, the farmer shall be allowed to decide that.

Just yesterday, one could read in the media about what concerns there are down in Östergötland, in my area, with the grazing animals and the severe midge attacks. Animals go out to pasture and collapse and die due to very severe attacks by insects. It is not given that it is always the best alternative when one has the conditions to use these new modern barns.

I said it before as well: The extremely high-yielding cows are so on the edge all the time that they do not feel particularly good about going out to pasture during the time they are most high-yielding, but other animals - absolutely. That is why we are talking about a flexible grazing legislation where the farmer themselves are given the opportunity to decide.

I agree that increased production does not always lead to increased profitability, but we also have a responsibility to increase food production in Sweden. We therefore need to find tools to increase production, not just in Sweden but in all of Europe. Regardless of whether it leads to increased profitability at the farm level or not, we have a responsibility, because it is in Northern Europe where the future of food production lies.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we need to increase the production of food in Sweden, but not of everything and not in all parts. I believe that sometimes this banner is used to say that one should increase the production of everything.

If we go back to the grazing requirement, we also see that the high-yielding cows we have today are extremely high-yielding. Just last week I saw that there are cows that can deliver 60 kilos - that is just completely crazy! It was admittedly after a calving, but around 40 kilos is not uncommon today.

In the Environment and Agriculture Committee's session hall, we have a cow that was awarded a prize in 1908 or 1910 for best milking cow - it yielded 8 kilos.

We have streamlined this. The question is whether we can have such a high production from the animals that they are unable to go out. I do not see that. I believe that animals should be out and grazing. If we breed them so much that they are not suitable for grazing, I believe we have gotten a problem on our hands that I do not want to see.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Emma Nohrén is raising an exception here, I think. Regardless of whether it concerns milk or grain, in the vast majority of cases, one can draw a parallel between increased yield and increased profitability.

I think it is a bit misleading to talk about exceptions. It is, in itself, a decreasing excess return on grain, but specifically on milk production, it is a large body that just needs to be kept alive. If you increase production there, it gives a very increased return far up.

Certainly, a lot has happened. Then, I don't think there is anything wrong with the breeding. It is not designed in such a way that the cows do not work for grazing operations.

My second point is that we need adjusted grazing requirements precisely because we have such large herds. With herds of 500 cows and more, it is difficult to achieve a well-functioning grazing operation. It is not good for biodiversity, if one happens to have meadow grazing, to release that type of cattle there. It also does not work well, so there are several reasons to review this in order to succeed in achieving balance among the animals.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

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

I must repeat again that I and Miljöpartiet do not see that it can be a sustainable agriculture or a sustainable business if one has to lower animal welfare requirements because, for example, one has too many animals or because the land cannot sustain it. Then, something is wrong.

What we must do is to ensure that one gets paid for the climate and environmental benefit one provides and that it simultaneously becomes profitable to keep the correct number of animals or have grazing land that also contributes to both carbon sinks and other parts.

Then I also know that there is natural forage, grazing on meadows or whatever it may be, and that it makes a very different amount of use, but for the cows that are out it makes an incredibly big difference. It is clear that the cows yield less milk in the beginning when they are out because they walk further, but that is probably just good if we get animals that actually move around.

Then I understand that it might not be so fun when the computer says that the cow has decreased by a few kilos, but one must also see that one gets good and sustainable animals for the future. I had hoped that more animals and more animal species would be allowed to go out, such as pigs, chickens and so on.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Member equates animal welfare with grazing. It does not have to be that way at all.

Animals that are in milk production today are mostly kept in loose housing. There, they move practically all the time, and they should, of course, have the opportunity to be outdoors. The question is whether it needs to be on a trampled-down pasture when it is rainy. That is where it goes wrong, member of Parliament. One also faces problems with increased veterinary costs.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Again: I cannot see that we should let more competitive production and higher profitability come at the expense of animal welfare. Cows are grazing animals. They need to go out. They chew the cud and walk around and tinker. Then there are always lazy individuals in a herd; I know that too. You have to nudge them out, and they don't think it's very fun at all. But perhaps it is precisely those who need to go out the most, if we are to go down to the individual level.

I want to see a high level of animal welfare. I believe that the grazing requirement is a large part of this, and I do not think we should compromise on it.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Today we are debating the report on Agricultural Policy. Sometimes I think about what different decisions have meant for the agricultural industry. For example, it was the former Minister for Agriculture Eskil Erlandsson who commissioned a competitiveness study, and it was the former Minister for Rural Affairs Sven-Erik Bucht who took up the idea of a food strategy and pushed it through.

We adopted the food strategy here in the chamber almost exactly seven years ago, and it was very important. When people spoke with farmers around the country at that time and they heard that we were talking about increased food production, greater profitability within agriculture, strengthened competitiveness and increased food supply in Sweden, many said: We haven't heard this before - it is incredibly important.

It was a farmer who said to me: Now, Magnus, I want to invest, because now the politics are in agreement. The problem was only that as the years passed, one realized that it was just a lot of talk. We can look at the results. Has Sweden received increased food production? No, unfortunately not, is the answer. Do we have profitability in agriculture? No, we do not. Have we strengthened competitiveness during these years? No, we have not done that either. Have we increased Sweden's food supply? No, not that either.

When one speaks with farmers, they say: We do not see at the farm level that the strategy that was adopted has yielded results. Even the food industry is skeptical about the benefits, and the red tape and the sluggishness in the administration remain. That was why, Mr. Speaker, the new government and Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren took on this and tried to do something. It became a food strategy 2.0.

What happened? Well, the minister took the initiative for a storming where hundreds or almost 1,000 new proposals for changes came in - things that people believe the government should have done during the years and which they now think should be done. It is very fun. I am happy that we now have a government that has understood this. They show time and again, together with the coalition parties, that they are trying to look at how we should handle things and how we can develop Swedish agriculture.

For example, we need a competitive food chain where the total food production increases. We need to increase the food supply with measurable goals. I find that interesting. We received an investigation that arrived in February, if I remember correctly. It is exciting, I think. In the food strategy that we adopted in 2017, it was included that we should have food supply, but it took seven years before we got an investigation on the table that showed how bad it actually is in Sweden.

The investigation also pointed out that we have a fantastically good example of a country that has not backed down, namely Finland. Finland has done a fantastic job. I must say that. When we in Sweden crashed straight through and decided that we wouldn't even think about it anymore, they said: No, we are not going to do that in Finland, instead here we shall continue to have a food supply of at least 80 percent.

Finland has had the rule that they should manage for six months without having to import a single grain of wheat, but now they have said that it is not enough and raised it to nine months. In Sweden, we manage for a full seven to fourteen days - then the shelves are empty here. This shows how incredibly concerning it is in our country and that we must now do this.

I have said it before. In the first debate I had here in the chamber, I spoke about exactly this, that we must increase our food supply. Then it was a woman from another party who said to me: Magnus, stop talking about it! We have the EU. No one needs to worry anymore.

I think it is fun and interesting, because there are not many who say so anymore. All parties actually say that we need to have a production worthy of the name in our own country.

What else does the government want to do moving forward? There are more things we are talking about. There is a major focus on the work of simplifying regulations. Rules must be purposeful from a business perspective, and the basis is that profitability must increase.

Sometimes I get different questions, for example, how we are to get more young people to commit and make them believe in the future. The simple answer is that we must have a profitability worthy of the name. That is when you know it. I know that one has to fight hard and toil every single day to earn money. It is important for young people to see this, and we in Sweden must ensure that our farmers earn money.

What I also think is good is that we have actually done things. We have commissioned inquiries, for example, an inquiry that is to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish food production. It is Elisabeth Nilsson who is to work on that. A bit has come up regarding the grazing requirement. We have no idea – it is not out yet – but it seems like they are talking about it. We will have to see what it means when the inquiry arrives.

I too have actually received a mandate to try to reduce the regulatory burden within agriculture. The guiding principle is that companies' regulatory burdens and administrative costs must be limited. It will be a very large and important task, I feel myself.

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that we now have the government that has worked for two years. Much has been done, and much will be done, for Swedish agriculture. But I am also glad that we now have a government that works for the green industry in our country.

You can notice that. We have, for example, talked quite a bit about the reduction obligation. I am very happy that we not only had this promise in the election campaign but actually were also able to keep it. Now the price has nevertheless been lowered by between 8 and 10 kronor, partly due to the reduction obligation but also because we lowered the diesel tax. We did something, and that did very much for Swedish farmers. It was directly to try to make Swedish agriculture more competitive.

Mr. Speaker! There are also, I want to conclude by saying, some terrible threats. My capable colleague John Widegren has already mentioned the wolf threat. Just a few days ago, we had a case down in Motala, where we live and work. All around in our country, we hear about animals that have been attacked by the wolf. It has become a hostage for our country.

I am glad, in all this misery, that we now have a minister who travels down to ministerial meetings in Brussels and truly wants to try to change this. We know that it will take time, but we do not give up. With new rules, which we are trying to work on, we will see a change.

When we talk to people whose animals have been attacked, we hear how incredibly tough it is. Sometimes it can feel like one is talking a bit from above - "it's not that bad," roughly. But when you talk to people who have experienced this, people whose own sheep, cattle, or other animals have been attacked, it is not like that. This is terrible!

You who have not visited these farms, do so to gain insight into how concerning this is! These farmers and livestock owners are very concerned about their animals, and to see their animals being attacked - some are killed, some are left lying there and must be euthanized - is something absolutely terrible. It is very important that we take this and do something important with it for change.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Magnus Oscarsson!

I listened carefully and heard the member begin by pointing out that it is good when the politics are in agreement. In another sentence, he spoke about Kullgren's meeting. I can then remind the member that the politics were not invited, at least not we from the opposition parties. I do, however, agree that it is good when we are in agreement, especially in the long-term perspective.

I will return to why I requested the floor. We have recently received the government's proposition on the EU's new emissions trading system for fossil fuels. In the proposition, the government has also included agriculture and forestry, sectors that are not mandatory components. Therefore, I want to ask Member Oscarsson how you in the governing parties have planned regarding the inclusion of agriculture and what impact assessment you have conducted. How will it affect our Swedish farmers?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Larsson, for your questions!

Let me start with the food strategy. I know that for a while at the beginning there was a lot of friction: Why aren't we involved? The thing was that the government had inherited the food strategy from the previous government. I know that it was discussed: We feel that we must start with full force. We know what the previous government pushed, and we need to get input from the industry. It actually wasn't strange at all that one just said: Now we go for it!

Then I know that all parties will get a chance moving forward. In a couple of weeks, we are to meet at the ministry, and the Minister for Rural Affairs will explain what is in the works.

The most important thing, I feel myself, is still to get this started, that we get work worthy of the name and that farmers feel - as I spoke about - that there is actually a difference being made now. That must be the important thing in this, I think.

Then it concerned what it should look like with the fuel and that part, something that will affect very much going forward. Just as the member is aware, this is a major issue. At the same time as we have the requirement to change, we know that Swedish agriculture is needed to produce more food than ever. Food security is more important than in many years. We have talked about the Cold War, when we had a lot of momentum in Swedish production.

I see now, however, that my speaking time is running out, so I will hand over to the next question.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I listened very carefully again, and I can state that the member is speaking about the minister inviting all parties to "tell". Telling about something is absolutely not the same as cooperating. But perhaps it is easiest to cooperate with oneself. Maybe one gets the best answers then.

I return to the question that Member Oscarsson did not have time to answer: How have the government parties thought about the fact that agriculture should also be included? What consequence analysis have you conducted? How will it affect or impact our Swedish farmers?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! But, Member Larsson, how long did the previous government sit? It sat for eight years and worked with a food strategy for eight years - furthermore, as I remember, under two ministers after Sven-Erik Bucht. But when were we invited, Malin Larsson, to talk to the government about how it intended to work with the food strategy? I actually think it is a bit sour, said the fox.

It is very good that the member brings this up, but I still want to answer in that way. The member accuses us here of being something like autocrats. It is completely crazy to think that way.

Now we are working at full speed. The industry has had its say, and now we are working at full throttle to try to achieve a change. The Government is now also inviting [them] to tell about what is being done. Surely then the different parties will get to tell and give input on what they think should be done and not done.

So to the last point. The analysis is clear that this is a matter of concern. As I said, we need to have more food production, while at the same time we have this requirement. It is clear that we need to run more on electricity and biofuels and that whole part, but it is also infinitely important that we now have a production worthy of the name.

I am glad that we can now actually see that the competitiveness is becoming better and better. There will surely come proposals from the investigator on how we can make it even better, but it is clear that we need more production. The time is such in our country that it is a matter of concern. We need more Swedish food on the table.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Magnus Oscarsson points out that there is a lot going on with the food strategy 2.0. I was at the information meeting at the launch of the food strategy 2.0, and it was very thin. Given all the input that had come in at that time, I must admit that I was disappointed so far. I hope that I do not need to be disappointed when we find out a bit more - actually, we haven't found out anything so far.

When it comes to Swedish agriculture, one can always discuss profitability. What can be said about Swedish profitability generally regarding agriculture is that the range is enormously large between those who have good profitability and those who have poor profitability. It is something we rarely raise, but it is the reality. Far from everyone complains.

It is true that Finland has a higher self-sufficiency rate compared to Sweden; it stands at 80 percent. Profitability can always be discussed, and a strategy that we rarely raise in this assembly but that we perhaps should talk more about - I will return to that later, Mr. Speaker - is that it is a game of who owns the processing industry. Who takes it home? When it comes to Finland, we have just taken back the slaughtering to Sweden, bought out by the Finns. We have also taken over bakery operations that strengthen Swedish agriculture and create a stronger agricultural industry in Sweden.

There is, therefore, a lot on the plus side even when it comes to Sweden, and it is something that has been worked on for a long time. It is, in itself, something that Swedish agriculture and the farmers themselves have achieved.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anders Karlsson, for what I believe was a question! I did not catch the last part, but the member may well explain that in the next reply.

I am thinking about exactly this with the strategy. I hear poorly, and at first I thought the member said that it was heavy. Then I became happy! Then I understood that the member meant that it was thin, and then I became more sad. I experience, in fact, that so much has happened that I wonder: If we summarize these two years, is there any government that has done as much? It is point by point, so one has, so to speak, not sat on their hands and said "We'll just have to see." I mean that this is something that shows that the government means business.

What still exists, what is underway and what is important is the investigation. Even the member knows that one must investigate certain things to produce proposals and see how one can improve. I think that this really shows that the government does not intend to give up. On the other hand, I believe that two more years is too little time – we need at least one more mandate period to improve and change in order to turn the ocean liner when it comes to Swedish agricultural policy. That is what I hope for, but we shall see.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am afraid we do not have that time, that is to say, several parliamentary terms. More must happen, it must happen now and it must happen quickly. Many of the ideas that are being put forward here are also not new ideas, so I must tell the member that much of this could have been done quite immediately when one entered government position. Not everything must be preceded by extensive investigations.

The fish part is also very important to include. I see very little when it comes to the fish part, which is large. We eat as much fish as chicken, and we would eat significantly more fish if Livsmedelsverket were allowed to decide how we manage our habits. It is therefore a matter of including all parts in the food strategy, if one is to call it a food strategy, and I saw quite little of that.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Anders Karlsson, for your follow-up questions!

I think it was surely the case that we were at the same meeting, that is to say, when the government had a meeting on the food strategy. In the speech on fishing, it was actually the case that the blue industry was present, and they said they were happy about this. I think, therefore, that they are involved in all of this. As the member is pointing out, this is an incredibly important resource that has been of great benefit to us historically, that is to say, that we have had so much fishing and that we have been able to fish in different ways and fill many stomachs. It is, therefore, an important part, just as you say, Anders Karlsson.

Then I must still say, regarding the fact that we hear complaints that it has gone too slowly, that I think we have two years left of the mandate period. Much will happen. But we can look back: the Member's party was still part of and supported the previous government for four years, and even though I am not going to go into polemics about it right now, I still think that one perhaps should be a bit self-critical there. What results were obtained that were so fantastic for Swedish agriculture? I do not know.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Oscarsson, for a passionate speech for Swedish food production! It is wonderful to hear engaged contributions in the chamber.

I intended to focus a bit on what the member said about the wolf. It is a subject that has appeared in two previous debates here in our chamber, but it is constantly relevant. I share the view that it is concerning that livestock farmers are affected to such a high degree by predator attacks. It is particularly relevant now when we see that the wolf is moving south in Sweden, to areas where there is a lot of livestock, and that it entails major problems. Here, it is important to have an active and sustainable management with a well-balanced license hunt and an effective protection hunt, and there we also see that the government is working dedicatedly to establish a good system.

The Christian Democrats often advocate for reducing the wolf population, that is, reducing the number of wolves, but at the same time, they want a viable population. We in the Liberals think it is important that we have wolves in Sweden, but it must function in a sustainable way. Therefore, my question to the member is whether the member sees it as an alternative to move wolves here from other parts of the world to increase the genetic variation and in that way be able to keep the number of individuals down but still have a viable wolf population.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for a very, very good question!

I must nevertheless say that there is a deep seriousness in what the member is raising - I concluded with that as well - because this has become a hostage situation for livestock owners. What the member is referring to is that the government agrees on what still became an announcement in the Swedish Riksdag, namely that the number of wolves shall be reduced. We are talking about going down to 170-270. That is the range we are talking about, and I know that the government is looking at this - the government that the Liberals are also part of and which cooperates with the Sweden Democrats. We see, in fact, that this is no longer sufficient. People who are farmers and livestock owners experience that they are not protected. The animals are being attacked. It is very concerning.

In response to your direct question, Elin Nilsson, about whether we can reduce the population by trying to get wolves here from other countries: I think that is something that is being looked at now. The government has given various assignments to try to obtain a basis, and one knows – the announcement from the Riksdag is clear – that the number of wolves is to be reduced.

We know that it is important. That is primarily how it will be. How exactly it will go about, I cannot answer. We will have to ask the minister when he arrives and speaks with us.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I think the member still spoke a bit around the question and avoids answering. But I still appreciate that the member does not close the door completely.

For me, an important aspect of the wolf issue is to achieve increased coexistence regarding people, wolves, farmers, and hunters. Many doors must be kept open to achieve that coexistence. If we are to have wolves, we need to lower the conflict level regarding wolves. We also need to strengthen agriculture.

For me and the Liberals, a relocation of wolves here would be a wise path, and it is important to keep that door open. Then one can obtain increased genetic variation with fewer individuals and a viable wolf population. The member may be welcome to say something more on the matter.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the follow-up questions!

I will try to get straight to the point, as the member wants. One hears what people say. It concerns those who live in Örebro, in Östergötland, in Jönköping, in Skåne, or whatever we are talking about, and here we are talking about Jönköpings län. They live in wolf territories. I do not believe they say: The most important thing now is that we get wolves here from somewhere else.

The most important primary goal must naturally be that we now reduce the stock from what it has become. It was as if we set a floor but we did not set a ceiling. Suddenly, there are very many wolves all around in the forests in our country.

We must care about this within politics. Exactly how it should look and if anything is needed, that can be figured out. But that is not primarily the most important thing now. The most important thing now is that we can reduce the number of wolves.

In the announcement to the government, it was about 170-270. There must absolutely be 170 wolves. It is a matter of seeing what is required to maintain a conservation status. The factual basis can be compiled. But that we are going there is very clear.

The government will not back down for a second on that. We are going to take action on this.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservation number 5.

We Social Democrats want to see an agricultural policy for more green jobs, increased food production and raised ambitions within the environmental and climate area.

Our farmers are the very heart that ensures the country pulses, that we get food on our tables, but they also contribute to jobs throughout Sweden and keep Swedish meadows and grazing lands alive.

Furthermore, our farmers in the countryside are always there when they are needed. They always step up to teach our children about the food we eat, where it comes from, and also about how we take care of our animals here in Sweden.

Our farmers always step up when the forest is burning. They arrive quickly on the scene with their tractors and spreaders to fight forest fires, most recently last week near the railway in western Medelpad.

Mr. Speaker! We must work long-term to strengthen the profitability and competitiveness within Swedish agriculture in line with the Swedish food strategy and through the common agricultural policy.

The importance of Swedish agriculture has become even clearer against the background of the green industries' role in the climate transition and Sweden's need to secure the food supply.

With the serious security policy situation we are currently in, and with Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call, it is clear that we must have the capacity to secure a robust supply capability, especially in times of crisis and war.

Converting agriculture to a fossil-free system is a top priority. Swedish agriculture has the potential not only to reduce dependence on fossil inputs but also to become a major producer of biofuels and bioenergy. Under the Social Democrats' leadership, support for biogas production, climate bonuses for agricultural machinery, and an investigation into a bioeconomy strategy have been introduced.

To truly see a sustainable transition within agriculture, the industry needs the right conditions. Challenges with generational shifts and a necessity for increased profitability to attract young farmers still stand before us. Cooperation, investments, and commitment are keywords to make this shift.

Mr. Speaker! An incredibly joyful piece of news for our supply capacity and the green transition of agriculture came from home in Västernorrland now at the beginning of May. The company Cinis Fertilizer, which I have previously visited, has now started the production of the mineral fertilizer potassium sulfate at its first production facility in Örnsköldsvik.

With a fossil-free production method, they will be the first in the world to produce an environmentally friendly potassium sulfate with a low carbon footprint by innovatively recycling waste products from the pulp industry and the electric car battery industry. With this production, they will contribute to reducing agriculture's carbon footprint as early as this year. That makes me, as a person from Västerbotten, a little extra proud.

During this spring, I also visited Erik at Skaraslätten, who, in his family business, is involved in the industries of crop cultivation, horses, and poultry. I was given an insight into how they work and what routines they have for raising their chickens through good animal welfare. They are also important for ensuring a Swedish food supply during crisis and war.

We also spoke about how the Swedish chicken industry in recent years has made a significant transition to reduce its climate impact in order to create a sustainable and climate-efficient poultry production.

What was also enjoyable about the visit was to take part in Erik's knowledge and interest in developing and transitioning his operations. In addition to animal welfare, we talked about both energy solutions, the work environment, and soil improvement.

Among other things, he sparked my curiosity about biochar, which he had conducted his own trial with. It was first mixed into the litter for the chickens, to later be used as a soil improver.

Production and use of biochar is a way to create negative emissions. But it is also about reduced use of fossil fuels and achieving better harvests.

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 also 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. But unfortunately, the proposal regarding new genomic techniques has stalled at the EU level, and there is now silence from our government on the issue.

As Social Democrats, we also see great opportunities in the use of biogas in our agriculture. It is not just about producing renewable energy, but also about ensuring a more sustainable agriculture and reducing the dependence on fossil fuels.

For us, it is clear that the agricultural sector should be given the right tools and resources to take advantage of these opportunities. Biogas production can contribute to strengthening our countryside, create new jobs, and at the same time protect the climate. Therefore, we see it as our task to support this transition.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to take the opportunity to highlight a small but unique part of high-quality Swedish food production, namely reindeer husbandry. The Sami Parliament has held its plenary in the Riksdag building this week, and we in the committee had the opportunity to meet the Sami Parliament's reindeer husbandry board for an interesting dialogue about predators and reindeer husbandry. A viable reindeer husbandry and other Sami livelihoods are also a fundamental prerequisite for a living Sami culture.

Finally, I also want to highlight the importance of agriculture for biodiversity. Ensuring biodiversity in Sweden is closely linked to maintaining an active, living agriculture throughout the country. The grazing pastures, together with a vital and environmentally sustainable agriculture, are crucial for preserving the open landscape and benefiting biodiversity and the natural environment. When agriculture ceases, these open landscapes tend to grow over, which threatens biodiversity. The importance of a Swedish grazing requirement cannot be overemphasized because grazing animals play a crucial role in maintaining these landscapes and thereby supporting biodiversity.

We Social Democrats want to see more Swedish in the thought, more Swedish food on the plate, an increased sustainable food production and thus a better preparedness.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for the speech! Much of what Malin Larsson takes up can be agreed with, but I miss the concrete measures. I also miss them in the Social Democrats' position paper. What concrete measures do the Social Democrats envision to increase the competitiveness in Swedish agriculture? I mean new measures, because what has been done is already done. We have quite low competitiveness today, so one must do something more, I think.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Eklöf, for the question! I think I raised quite a few parts in my speech. Strengthening profitability is very important. I raised, for example, the food strategy and the common agricultural policy.

Now, it is Staffan Eklöf's party that is the largest in the government base, and I believe that even they need to work with the proposals to benefit our farmers and strengthen profitability. It is they who hold the power and have the opportunity, but we have not received a single proposition from the government to our committee – nothing. So what is actually happening?

I raised in a previous exchange of remarks how one changes Klimatklivet and shifts it over to other measures that do not work for our farmers. They cannot transition. They do not receive the support they are entitled to, if funds are available. How are they supposed to dare to transition and invest then?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have still not heard a single concrete proposal on how competitiveness is to be increased. At the same time, I suspect that the reductions in the diesel tax and the reduction obligation that we have made are not something the Social Democrats like. They have at least said that previously.

When I have visited farms, I have been told that the reduction obligation has had a very great significance for profitability. For example, for a chicken farm that used a little less diesel, it amounted to around 100,000. For a somewhat larger crop production farm that used HVO, where 75,000 liters of fuel were used that became 6 kronor cheaper per liter, it became 450,000 kronor in a year. These are substantial amounts of money.

If one plays with the idea that the Social Democrats, if you were to decide, increased the reduction obligation again, these funds would disappear. This means that you must take even more concrete measures, and so far I have not heard of any concrete measure - except for a reference to a legal space that does not seem to be so relevant because none of the rest of us have heard of it.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Member, for the questions! What we Social Democrats have primarily pushed for is that Sweden as a country shall become a major producer of biofuels and bioenergy. That is where the future lies - not in a continued dependence on oil and diesel from rogue states like Russia. That is not the future.

Our farmers want to transition, and we will support them through research, innovation, and new solutions. Here, we Social Democrats want to sit in the driver's seat and drive the train while Member Staffan Eklöf's party stands on the platform.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Agricultural policy is open landscapes, grazing cows, food on the plate, preparedness, a living countryside, entrepreneurship, tourism, innovation, free trade, geopolitics, red tape, animal welfare and, appropriately in the middle of this election campaign, to the highest degree an EU issue. And there are few things that make a liberal so satisfied as to get to talk EU policy. We are, after all, Sweden's most pro-European party.

But when it comes to the common agricultural policy, we are sharp critics. The common agricultural policy needs to be reformed fundamentally. When we, hopefully sooner rather than later, welcome Ukraine into the European community, we will have no choice; reforms will be required.

Mr. Speaker! I take the opportunity to dwell somewhat on Ukraine. If we liberals were in charge – and this is what we are pushing for in the European Parliament – all Ukrainian goods imported into the EU would be duty-free. The EU should not give with one hand and take with the other. Full duty-free status should prevail for all goods from Ukraine. The quotas that have been introduced for Ukrainian food exports should be removed – that is my firm opinion.

Since I am already on a topic that causes concern, I may as well continue to the next one. We want to see significantly reduced expenditures for the EU's agricultural policy. And we want the subsidies that are paid out to go only towards the transition of agriculture and rural development. Agricultural policy should enable the green transition and be part of securing the food supply in the event of crisis or war, but it must not prop up the fossil economy.

Mr. Speaker! I will move on to another area. Research and innovation are an important part of agricultural policy and are also crucial for us to manage the green transition, not least within agriculture.

We want to see new EU-wide rules for GMO and NGT. In this way, we can achieve a more climate-friendly agriculture. With modern technology, yields can increase while land use and the use of pesticides can decrease. We want to see liberalized rules in Europe so that we can save the earth's resources and at the same time strengthen agriculture's resilience, especially against climate change. Today's restrictive stance disadvantages researchers in the EU compared to other parts of the world, and that is problematic.

Mr. Speaker! The policy that is pursued needs to favor high-quality food. Swedish farmers produce exactly that—high-quality food, with good animal welfare. They show great environmental consideration, and Swedish farmers must be able to compete on fairer terms.

We also want to see significant restrictions on long-distance animal transport in the EU. This is an area where the European Parliament really needs to deliver during the next term, and the Commission needs to step up and ensure that the pace of animal welfare work is increased. Here, delivery has not been achieved during the years that have passed, and it is very regrettable.

We also want the EU's veterinary authority to function as a food and labeling FBI. They need resources and sanction possibilities to ensure that all EU countries follow rules regarding animal welfare, food safety, and the ban on antibiotics for healthy animals. It is something that would strengthen the position of Swedish farmers if farmers in other countries need to live up to stricter requirements.

Mr. Speaker! Now that I am on the subject of animal welfare, I cannot help but bring up the grazing rights, an issue that has already been raised here this evening. Now, thoughts are being presented once again about abolishing the grazing requirement, that is, removing the cows' right to graze. The arguments concern making livestock farming more profitable.

Since 1988, all dairy cows in Sweden have been allowed to stay outdoors and graze green grass during the summers. Cows that are bred for grazing must also be allowed to do so. A revoked grazing right would be completely the wrong way to go. All Swedish cows shall be allowed to be out and graze green grass in a natural environment. It is a quality stamp for Swedish agriculture. Swedish milk is synonymous with grazing cows.

Mr. Speaker! Yes, Swedish animal welfare rules entail increased production costs in some cases. But animal welfare must have a cost. Trying to increase competitiveness by weakening animal welfare is completely the wrong way to go. Here, we must be the voice of the animals.

It is instead the EU legislation that must be tightened. The European minimum standard for animal welfare must be raised and become more like the Swedish one. Then we do not only strengthen the position of Swedish agriculture – we also make life better for the animals in the rest of Europe. Here, my friends, there is much to be done.

The Liberals have for decades worked for stronger animal protection for all animals on European farms. The Liberal MEP Marit Paulsen led at one time the work to achieve a European animal welfare law for reduced antibiotic use and increased animal welfare. She set a minimum standard for how animals may be treated in Europe. It has made a big difference, but the work must continue.

We Liberals want strong animal welfare in the EU. We want all cows to be allowed to graze outdoors.

In conclusion: With a stronger Europe, we get a stronger Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 1, regarding impact assessments. It reads as follows: "The Government should work to ensure that impact assessments are always carried out before objectives are adopted at EU level." Is that not so, one might ask.

The background is that many binding percentage targets have been proposed by the European Commission and in practice adopted at the strategy level. The strategy level can be said to be the first step for new legislation that the European Commission proposes. It is a time when impact assessments are missing. Effects on, for example, the economy, social values, cultural values, the environment, and the conditions for rural areas have not been assessed at that stage. Nevertheless, the binding targets are adopted in practice, as they are not changed after that stage. It is therefore about unilateral targets, for example, to reduce the use of plant protection products by 50 percent or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent.

Measures to achieve a goal for one value often lead to consequences for other values. We all know that. But it seems the EU does not understand, nor does it understand that if you set a binding goal for a single value, you make it impossible to make trade-offs against other values. Then one cannot handle the goal conflicts that may arise. This procedure is actually crazy.

A speaking example is the strategy From farm to fork, or as it is also called, Farm to fork, which is part of the green deal. There, several binding percentage targets were set that would affect the use of fertilizers and plant protection products as well as other production-limiting targets. High ambitions for the environment are naturally good, but the Sverigedemokraterna said no to the targets being binding, because we feared large reductions in food production. Work is already underway in Sweden, in accordance with what is possible, to reduce the use of plant protection products and fertilizers. There, one can point to the power of voluntary measures.

We wanted to at least see a consequence analysis before binding goals were adopted, but we did not get that.

Thankfully, there are others who share our view of reality. For example, the US Department of Agriculture, USDA, realized that there could be problems, and they conducted the impact analysis that we requested. They looked at From Farm to Fork and the so-called biodiversity strategy. After a careful analysis, the USDA concluded that food production would decrease and food prices would increase if what the European Commission had proposed were implemented. In the least serious of three scenarios, it would lead to the food supply of 22 million people being threatened, primarily in Africa. It can get that bad. And that it would reduce our own preparedness in times of crisis and war is, of course, obvious.

Many countries, similar to the Sweden Democrats, are critical of From Farm to Fork. Therefore, it did not pass when the Council was to handle it. The EU Parliament, on the other hand, has too many utopians, so it passed there. Both instances must, however, say yes for the proposal to be adopted. The EU Commission has now put the proposal in its filing cabinet and is lobbying to get the member states to change their minds.

We must change the EU Commission, and we must change the EU parliamentarians. Therefore, go and vote in the EU election!

A minimum requirement for adopting percentage targets at the EU level is, we believe, that before adoption, at least a consequence analysis is conducted regarding effects on other values such as economic, environmental, social and cultural values, as well as the conditions for rural areas. It is the reasonable requirement that now everyone in the Riksdag can stand behind with my motion. But that is not really enough. The target must also be able to be changed if it turns out to have very undesirable effects for some or other values. Popular support and realism are truly important. This requires that one can be prepared to renegotiate adopted targets when reality turns out not to match the map. This is what the Sverigedemokraterna are working for now and in the future.

Cooperation is fundamentally good, but we must not be naive. The EU does not understand the production conditions in our agriculture. The EU also does not understand our forests but wants to use them as a tool for biodiversity. The EU wants our minerals.

The EU wants Sweden to pay more - most recently it concerned the climate adaptation under the eighth environmental action plan, and previously it has concerned, among other things, the COVID fund and the sustainability fund. And you know which party says no.

The EU wants our electricity because German politicians have shut down their nuclear power. And the EU wants to store coal in our forests because they themselves have neglected the climate work.

It is not that strange, actually, from an EU perspective. Sweden is, after all, the EU's easy way out in many issues. But the result is deeply unfair. For the Swedes, these are very bad news.

We Sweden Democrats represent the Swedes' perspective, and we must not be passive. We Sweden Democrats are not passive.

The EU, therefore, does not understand our reality. They want our natural resources, which we have inherited and refined ourselves, and we get a little back. If we are not careful, Sweden will become the EU's Norrland.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are in the middle of a wonderful time of year. Spring has turned into early summer. The sun is shining, and the grass is growing. We are receiving invitations for cattle turn-outs all over the country. Our fine cows are to be turned out onto green pasture, and many are those who want to be part of and experience it.

But with Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren at the helm, the SD-led government has appointed an inquiry with the aim of investigating whether the grazing requirement should be removed. We have touched upon the grazing requirement in the debate here tonight. Sweden is the only country in the EU where dairy cows have a statutory right to graze outdoors during the summer. Research has also shown that cows thrive from grazing outdoors. Biological diversity also benefits from the grazing pastures.

My question is what MP Eklöf and the Sverigedemokraterna, which is the largest party in the government support, think about the grazing requirement and the investigation that has been commissioned.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for the question! The investigation that Malin Larsson refers to is part of the Tidö Agreement - this is something that the Sverigedemokraterna got through. It is an investigation concerning increased competitiveness with maintained animal welfare.

What does it say? It says two things. The investigation should come forward with proposals that increase competitiveness. But it must not worsen animal welfare.

In the previous exchange, we heard that the Social Democrats did not have a single concrete proposal to improve the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture, which is essential. It is completely central for the agriculture's survival and continued expansion and growth, and for being able to produce environmentally friendly products with very good animal welfare.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have ensured that an investigation will come forward with, presumably, several proposals. We do not know yet what they will propose, as they are not finished. They will be finished on June 30. Only then can we carefully examine the investigation's proposals. Then we can have a debate on grazing requirements and on other things that - one must be honest - affect the competitiveness of large dairy farms.

The public discussion in Sweden is often very poor, even in this case. Here, people are rushing and assuming that the requirement for a designated area will be abolished. No one has proposed that, as far as I know. We have to see what the investigation proposes. Then, it is not the investigation that decides. We have to look at all the proposals that the investigation comes up with – it is probably a plethora of proposals. The politicians have to choose from among them.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer! Through the investigation, we can also understand that the SD-led government only proposes increased animal welfare at the EU level. It feels as if the national responsibility is being pushed away and that this is being used a bit as a cover to remove the grazing requirement.

We see this instead as a self-evident part of Swedish animal welfare. As I mentioned earlier, the research also shows that the animals benefit from this. Furthermore, it is a natural behavior for our cows.

In a survey presented on July 6, 2022, a full 63 percent of the surveyed Sweden Democrat members of parliament thought that the grazing requirement should remain. Now, in the exchange of replies, MP Eklöf stated somewhat proudly that it was SD that got this through. I wonder then: Have the Sweden Democrats completely changed their stance regarding the grazing requirement and the self-evident part of our Swedish animal welfare?

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, now we must have some order in the debate. There is nothing that says it is limited to the EU level, and there is nothing that says the labeling requirement shall be removed.

One variant that we have pushed for a long time is a grazing compensation that one could receive if one has cows on pasture. That is not possible today. EU rules must, in fact, be changed in order for one to be able to receive this. We tried to change this during the previous mandate period. Not least together with the Kristdemokraterna, we pressured the government so that they began to negotiate on a possibility to provide support for the grazing requirement that we have – this so that we would not be disadvantaged economically but could still be able to keep it. It went quite well. Then it was such that the EU Parliament could support Sweden's position. At that point, the government turned completely. Why then? Well, it was claimed that the counter-requirement was that one should be able to do the same in the environmental area. At that point, the Social Democratic government turned completely without explaining in detail why. Malin Larsson might be able to explain. No, she has no reply left. But it would be very interesting at another time to hear why the Socialdemokraterna turned completely and why one did not really want to tell why one turned.

That is why we unfortunately do not have the possibility of grazing compensation today - because of the previous government. I know that our current government is working for opportunities to provide support to grazing animals. We will have to see if it can succeed better.

In other respects, one must naturally await the results of the investigation. I guess there will be plenty of exciting proposals for increased competitiveness with maintained animal welfare.

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 given a prosperous society. It can be that way again - and it needs to be - by ensuring our supply of food produced locally, sustainably, and organically. It is about 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.

Mr. Speaker! For the Left Party, it is also important with a stronger ecological 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 stronger biodiversity as well as enhanced animal welfare. The support we want to see is directed both towards the transition and towards production. We also want to see an increase in the grant for support for grazing lands.

To promote the possibility of small-scale production and increase animal welfare, we have also previously proposed an investment grant for mobile slaughterhouses. The number of slaughterhouses is decreasing, and there are long distances for many, which is not good from an animal welfare perspective.

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 transition.

Talking about the challenges of agriculture is not to be critical of agriculture as such, but actually the opposite. It is de facto that today's agriculture produces large climate emissions, and it drives climate change. We need to do something about that together. If we do not address the problems that are linked between agriculture, climate, and biodiversity, we will do ourselves a disservice.

The debt does not lie with individual farmers. The debt lies with us together – we who have been involved in creating a system for agriculture that, in the long run, is not ecologically sustainable.

We need an agriculture and a viable food supply; it is not something to trifle with. But what we need is an agriculture within nature's limits. We now see 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.

Mr. Speaker! Chemical control is still the most common control method against unwanted plants and animals in agriculture. Chemicals from the control have negative effects on biodiversity and can affect human health in both the short and long term. Rich biodiversity is necessary for our food supply and contributes, among other things, to pollination and the control of pests.

The use of chemical pesticides is still too high in conventional agriculture in Sweden. In organic farming, however, very few pesticides are permitted. The Swedish Chemicals Agency has found that while conventional agriculture is becoming more intensive, an increase in the risk of negative effects on aquatic organisms is observed.

In the Swedish environmental monitoring program, the presence of pesticides in watercourses in the agricultural landscape is regularly observed. The authority considers that fundamental changes are required to move away from the chemical dependency that food production currently suffers from, which presupposes measures to develop and introduce alternatives to chemical control.

I and my party believe that Sweden, in like manner with France and Denmark, must use national regulation and national steering measures to a greater extent to reduce the use of pesticides. We want an action plan to be adopted with this purpose. I believe that Sweden should adopt an action plan to phase out the use of harmful chemical pesticides.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 19.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have an agricultural policy debate on MJU16. I move for the approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation 3 under point 2, which concerns Sweden's strategic plan for common agricultural policy 2023-2027.

We must increase Swedish food production to reduce our dependence on others in the event of a crisis; it is something we have heard and which is important in the situation we find ourselves in. To succeed with this, good profitability is the keyword. Good profitability is required to be able to take the right steps and make the right choices to become less dependent on inputs that come from outside. It could be about commercial fertilizer or diesel. There are opportunities with, for example, biogas, where one can both achieve greater independence from diesel and reduce the dependence on commercial fertilizer.

New threats are emerging in the sky, and Europe finds itself at war. When we see risks that we could end up facing, Mr. Speaker, with radioactive emissions, I can personally feel that this will become a tough issue when it comes to agriculture in general. Things that are completely enormous could happen regarding all of Europe's food production, and it is difficult to account for this. But we must consider the possibility.

There are also other risks, and it is something I think the government is dodging. For the foreseeable future, we will live under the pressure of a climate threat. We saw it in 2018, when we had extremely small harvests due to the drought, which certainly was largely due to the climate. We will see more extreme weather. If we do nothing about the climate, we will also reduce the possibility of increased profitability in Swedish agriculture. They are connected, some in the short term and some in the long term.

This also means that in order to strengthen profitability and counter the negative effects of a changing climate, we must invest more in irrigation opportunities. We must invest more in opportunities for drainage to cope with floods. It is something that has worked in the past.

New wolves are appearing, and it is difficult not to mention the wolf issue. One might think it shouldn't be a big issue, but it is a big issue, not least within milk production. It is also about the scare effect. And if we are to have increased lamb production, a reduction of the wolf population is enormously important.

We must also not forget the wild boar. We have had problems with them for a while. It goes up and down a bit, but it is still a major issue, not least when it comes to meadowland. It is difficult, and sometimes more or less impossible, to restore a meadowland where wild boar have rooted up.

The profitability of our farms today varies greatly. We have areas where people build their farms on pure crop cultivation or on large-scale milk production, but many of the companies we have are built on a combination of forestry and milk production. We have a way today of calculating the CO2 emissions. If one were to look at these farms together, they would have a more balanced emission share. But today we choose not to look at the CO2 emissions in that way, but instead we take the revenues for the CO2 emissions somewhere else on the forestry side.

Future opportunities to strengthen our companies are on the energy side. We have mentioned biogas. It is also, absolutely, about solar parks. There is also a good deal that have invested in wind power systems. The combinations make these companies much stronger and are an important part of a whole.

Then we must stop for a moment and look at where we are headed. For a long time, agriculture has become larger and larger. This leads, to some extent, to an increased burden in the form of longer and longer transports. But the system has not moved in another direction, and in some other countries this is clearly visible. Admittedly, there are countries with larger production units than in Sweden. The Danes' units are about twice as large. But on the other hand, among the Finns, they are half as large as in Sweden. There we must almost put our foot down because this is moving in different directions - today we are steering a bit in that part.

Sometimes it sounds like we can influence a large part of the profitability. We can influence and facilitate a part in terms of regulatory changes and fewer rules, but we are in an open market where competition exists and prices are set in completely different places than in Sweden. Milk prices are set on a milk exchange in New Zealand. Grain prices are set on exchanges in Europe. World events such as the war in Ukraine and not least that Egypt has not been able to afford to buy grain have resulted in a surplus on the grain market and thus a lower price. This happens all the time. We have, in itself, learned to manage the parts, but they do a lot for the total economy.

Mr. Speaker! As a conclusion, I wanted to highlight what is a great strength for Swedish agriculture and an opportunity for the future. It is easy to forget. Swedish agriculture has been good at building up its own facilities to receive products and purchase supplies. Furthermore, it has been a matter of cooperation. Machinery rings are such an example. It has meant that expensive environmentally friendly technology could be used even on smaller farms thanks to cooperation.

Just a strong cooperation in a movement that one owns does not only strengthen farmers, it strengthens all of Sweden. One example that has been mentioned earlier is that Lantmännen has been able to buy back the entire slaughter part in Sweden from the Finnish HK Scan. It is a huge strength in these times.

The same companies own a large part of the food industry in Europe, where the profit invariably flows back to the Swedish farms and strengthens the companies. This happens regardless of whether it is about selling contracting machinery in Germany and the Baltics or selling frozen bread products in Europe. With the help of cleverness and ingenuity that has been built up over a long period, this has become possible.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on June 12.)

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