Agricultural policy

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

Now it is time for the annual agriculture debate.

In the budget debate on December 11, I listed everything that the Sweden Democrats and the government had done for the agrarian industries in the two most recent budgets. It amounted to 32 points, and then, of course, we have done much more outside the budget context. In this way, the voters could evaluate a part of our efforts during the past parliamentary period. Those who have not seen the speech can look it up on the Riksdag's website under the heading "Webb-tv".

Now I thought I would focus on what we are aiming for in the future in the area of agriculture. First, I want to say something about the government's work in the short term.

The negotiations on the common agricultural rules within the EU are ongoing, and the government is working for profitability, competitiveness, and simplification. It is also important with flexibility and that space is given for Sweden as a member state to adapt regulations to the conditions prevailing in different parts of Sweden. The government wants detailed rules to be limited to only what is truly necessary. Robust production and preparedness for crisis and war is another priority. This is, in short, the government's position.

The negotiations on agricultural policy in the EU are so clearly different for us Sweden Democrats during this mandate period when the Tidö government is in power compared to how it was during the previous mandate period. During the previous mandate period, we had many views on the government's positions. Now we have few. The government thinks the same way as we do.

In this context, I would like to highlight that the Sweden Democrats, in the negotiations on the common agricultural rules, are pushing a proposal that the first error a farmer makes regarding the subsidy regulations should not result in any sanction. That is, there should be no deduction from the subsidy – once is not twice. Why are we doing this? Well, many farmers experience an anxiety about missing one of all the detailed commitments required to receive EU support and that it should be discovered during an inspection. It creates a stress that is so strong for some farmers that they choose not to hand over the farm to their children. So we cannot have that – or can we, Tidökamrater?

Otherwise, the government is proceeding with, among other things, the following in the near future:

introduction of a farming support, i.e., a new support that promotes livestock farming, carbon sequestration, and healthy watercourses

strengthening of the investment support for competitiveness

strengthening of the startup support for those young people who want to begin their career as farmers.

Applications have already been submitted to the EU Commission for these three changes, and we are waiting for a response.

An investigation is also being conducted regarding the introduction of a calf support. This could lead to an increase in the number of calves. Beef production is currently limited by the fact that there are too few calves. A proposal for such a support will be submitted by Jordbruksverket on March 1.

Work is also ongoing which I hope will eventually result in an expansion of conditional medicine use, the so-called Vila. Then farmers do not need to call a veterinarian for certain medical conditions but can instead treat the animal themselves. This would reduce the veterinarian shortage as well as improve the economy and animal welfare, because the animal receives treatment faster.

It was a bit of everything that is going on with the government.

I want to conclude with the Sweden Democrats' thoughts on the near future. Sweden has very good conditions to produce much more food. It would lead to more jobs, a living countryside and climate benefits, and above all, it would increase our preparedness.

In order to not only maintain Swedish production but actually increase it, we want to see a number of large initiatives in agriculture that can make a real difference. We Sverigedemokrater have thrown ourselves into finding solutions to, among other things, the following problems.

The issue of grazing compensation has been driven by SD for many years, even before I entered national politics in 2018. It is therefore very pleasing that it has now been permitted by the EU and has been introduced in Sweden. But I can think it is a bit difficult that we have to go to the EU with our hats in our hands and ask for permission.

The agreement came quickly and surprisingly, and quite late in the budget period. We had, however, envisioned a somewhat larger settlement, where there would also be relaxations in the grazing requirements for those holdings that have good animal welfare but face particular difficulties in meeting today's grazing requirements. Therefore, we continue to work for relaxations for these farms.

The objective of the somewhat more long-term work is that Swedish animal producers shall not have a worse economic competitive situation than producers in other EU countries have. That objective applies to all animal species and all specific requirements for the sake of animal welfare.

Today it is expensive to hire in Sweden. We want it to become cheaper to hire within primary production, and we are probing what is possible for the time being.

The EU's emissions trading system ETS 2 could in Sweden lead to requirements for agriculture and higher fuel prices. We want to maintain fuel prices as low as possible and ensure that agriculture is fully compensated for the requirements that follow from ETS 2. The latter is a promise that we have received.

In Norrland, the conditions for food production are worse today than they were yesterday. Therefore, that production has decreased. Norrland received a supplement of 120 million kronor in the autumn budget for a couple of years. But we want to ensure that Norrland gets better conditions permanently. It can actually be said to be to bridge a difficult period until the conditions change, thanks to the climate changes that make food production in Norrland both easier and more important for Sweden.

On small farms, it can be very difficult for farmers to be off at all. We are continuing to work on a state-subsidized relief service, which shall offer a breathing space for animal keepers and relief during crises. Farmers must also be given a minimum social security, a safety net, even during years when the calculations do not add up. Perhaps it is most important just then. And it is certainly more likely that a young person decides to devote their life to farming if they know that there is a safety system.

Sweden has no own production of synthetic fertilizer, at least not on a commercial scale. We want to facilitate domestic alternatives more than what is done today.

It is very good that we today have a knowledge hub for animal husbandry, digitalization, and entrepreneurship. This is something that SD has desired for a long time. It facilitates the dissemination of research's new knowledge to the practical users and ensures that information from the practical users reaches the researchers regarding which questions are important for the industry and which answers are needed. We are working to ensure that the last piece of the puzzle, a knowledge hub for crop cultivation, is put in place.

It can be difficult for farmers to get loans for necessary investments on good terms. We also want to try to improve that.

The veterinary coverage must be ensured, and the district veterinarians should be able to be used more in the preparedness work.

Small slaughterhouses and fur management facilities may also need attention and support.

We are working with concrete proposals to try to solve these problems and more. This can be solved under two conditions:

that the conservative side wins the election

that the Sweden Democrats take a place in the government.

If the red-green side wins, the main focus will lie on other things, and far-reaching, not to say unrealistic, demands from the EU will be welcomed instead of being slowed down. It must not happen. It depends on you as a voter to ensure that it does not become so.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Eklöf, for the speech!

The member referred in his introduction to both investigations and ongoing work. But while the debate is ongoing here in the chamber, the reality outside this house shows that Swedish food production has not turned upwards, despite previous big words from the comrades in Tidögänget, as the member himself says.

At the same time as we talk about self-sufficiency, there are reports of shortages of beef in Sweden's stores. The shelf is empty when the minced meat for Friday's tacos is to be purchased. It is a concrete consequence of the developments in primary production. The number of cattle in Sweden is the lowest in 160 years – the lowest in 160 years.

Why has nothing happened earlier if the Sweden Democrats really mean business with the investigations and the work that is ongoing? Why have we not seen any clear turnaround regarding self-sufficiency during this mandate period? SD is the largest party in this friend group and also has the greatest influence.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Malin Larsson! I suspect, however, that it was found before my speech, because she claims that nothing has happened even though I have now described that we have taken 32 measures in just the two latest budgets for the profitability of the agrarian industries. It does not quite add up.

It is difficult times for agriculture in many ways. It has many causes. Increased costs for inputs is a well-known one. Fertilizers have become very expensive.

Amounts of rules and obligations, which often have their origin in the EU and are often advocated by the red-green side, systematically create obstacles. This has made the situation for farmers difficult and the profitability has been low for a very long time. The shortage of beef is precisely because it has previously been far too unprofitable to conduct milk production. It has led to the shortage of calves.

I still think we see some improvements in the figures. We have presented and turned many proposals into reality. They are taking effect one by one. Now, a cost support will probably also be introduced, which hits exactly the issue that Malin Larsson raises.

The problem when it comes to calves is that a cow normally gets one calf. Other animals can perhaps have many more offspring. Therefore, there are easily delays in the beef industry. If one has a bad situation for a long time, it also takes a long time to turn it around.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! What we are seeing right now is not a warning signal. It is a failure. The member raised 32 measures, which have led to us having the lowest number of cows in the country in 160 years. And one seems to be satisfied.

Sweden is today self-sufficient in about 45 percent of the beef. For us in Norrland, the consequences become extra serious when the number of cows decreases and production is wiped out in rural areas. Then it is not only food that disappears, but then preparedness disappears. If the grazing pastures disappear, the open fields and the biological diversity also disappear.

The Norrland support is something that we Social Democrats introduced and have stood behind for a long time, and which the government has, thank goodness, also adopted now. But in the member's statement, it sounded as if this were to be temporary from the Sverigedemokraternas side until climate change has solved the problem, if I understood the member correctly.

It is a bit difficult for me to understand, Madam Speaker, how the Sweden Democrats can be satisfied with the 32 measures when the result of the policy they have pursued and stood behind during this mandate period is that the number of cows in Sweden is the lowest in over 160 years. Which of the 32 points specifically does the party mean has functioned?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! On our side, we believe that the task of politics is to create good conditions for the entrepreneurs who create value. In this regard, it is necessary to work on many fronts, which we have done. The cost level has been lowered. One can work with strategic support. One should work long-term and create conditions for technological development and technology dissemination, not least variety development. We have improved all of this during our time in government. Improving the softer, social aspects is also important in the long term for recruitment and for it to be sustainable.

The Chairman mentioned the Norrland support. I can remind you that the government has added an extra 120 million kronor to it to improve the situation in Norrland. It is a fairly large supplement.

We have a large battery of measures underway, partly in the government and partly within the Sweden Democrats. We are sketching out and designing concrete solutions to the problems that still remain.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are in the chamber to debate agricultural policy. It affects everyone every day, even if one doesn't think about it. I saw when people were preparing here in the benches before the debate – it is quite late in the evening – that many were stocking up on food and other things to survive this. That is what we do – eat. Hopefully, we do it every day.

Access to food is one of our most fundamental needs. Yet, we produce much less food in Sweden than we could. There is a rather worn-out cliché in this context that says we have a self-sufficiency rate of approximately 50 percent. I usually find that figure difficult to use, Madam Speaker. It depends on whether one means calories or money. There is, for example, Swedish saffron production with a high value. But I can at least state that we could produce much more food in Sweden.

We live in an uncertain world. Climate change is already here. This year we have seen that the winter has shrunk and become more intense. We have had severe weather. It may apply to individual years, but if we look at the trends we see it all the time. We get a longer growing season in Sweden, while at the same time, as a result of the changes, we may get diseases, infections, and other things we are not used to.

We stand in a time of change. We have war in our immediate vicinity. We have seen trade conflicts and tariff wars close at hand. We see more and more extreme weather events. It is a vulnerability for our entire food system that we must not turn a blind eye to.

I believe we all remember the beginning of the pandemic and also how it was during the pandemic. When people were uncertain, they stockpiled food. It was not out of greed, but it was precisely out of uncertainty. That crisis awareness should have been a wake-up call. If we cannot have a stable food production in peacetime, we stand extremely poorly equipped for the next war or crisis.

Madam Speaker! One of the Green Party's reservations concerns crisis preparedness and that there should be an action plan, so that we Swedes actually know what to do when it hits and are prepared instead of being reactive.

Swedish farmers are the hub of our food supply and food preparedness. If there are no people who want to work with this, we also have neither preparedness, food supply, nor living rural areas. We need the farmers, and we must ensure that it works to be a farmer.

In the preamble and in the responses to the various motions raised, there is a great deal from the government parties' side about measures being underway and investigations being conducted. There is very little about what is happening here and now. Miljöpartiet believes that measures must be taken now. Farmers' conditions must be improved both economically and socially so that they are equipped for the long term for the future. They are under heavy pressure. The costs are high, the workload is heavy, and the future is unpredictable.

A report from the Swedish Board of Agriculture shows that every fourth farmer has not been able to take any vacation in the last year. People talk about mental ill-health, stress, red tape, economic problems, and a lack of recovery. Such things take a toll on people. It naturally affects the operations as well. It is not sustainable. Miljöpartiet wants to see that farmers are granted the right to relief services so that they can take a vacation. That point is, fortunately, included in the proposal for CAP. We will have to see if it goes through.

We also want there to be an opportunity to take over a farm and that young farmers can receive support. The European investment banks should contribute so that young farmers who want to take over can actually do so. We also want there to be support for those in the middle of their lives so that they can renovate their farms.

Much of this is about the common agricultural policy, the CAP. I hope it turns out well, but I will say that I have very little insight. From here at the rostrum, I would like to call for more cooperation with the sitting government in that work. Earlier during the different programming periods, we, and all parties, were involved in the work much more closely than now. There have been a few information meetings, but not at the same time.

What we see as starting values in the negotiations on the new CAP is the need for investments that strengthen profitability, improve working conditions, and facilitate the climate transition. There must be prepared crisis support for extreme weather. We must ensure that there are results-based compensations that provide high environmental and climate benefits. A competition-neutral EU must not lead to worsened environmental requirements and worsened competitive conditions for Swedish farmers, who today are known for their good animal welfare and low use of pesticides, for example. That must not happen. We must ensure that the Swedish way becomes the standard, build upon it, and also ensure that what we do is good for both profitability and climate and environment.

Sweden has, during this mandate period after a long wait, received a food strategy 2.0. With that, it was roughly the same; we were not included in that work either, which meant we had little insight. When it arrived, it was a disappointment, I would like to say. It is full of fine words, but in the area of climate and environment, the ambitions have been lowered. The goal for ecological production has been scrapped. There is no connection to public health. There is no connection to consumption and what it should look like. There is nothing about water management.

The strategy lacks concrete and measurable goals. Therefore, Madam Speaker, we have a reservation that we want to review and renew it, preferably in cooperation with other parties so that everyone feels ownership. A food strategy is needed that takes reality seriously and which strengthens the self-sufficiency rate, prepares agriculture for a deteriorating climate, and gives farmers reasonable conditions to invest and transition.

Madam Speaker! Yesterday was a rather large agricultural day for many of us who sit in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. We had the Swedish Board of Agriculture visiting the committee to hear them tell us about how they work to increase food supply and with food supply in general. In the afternoon, many of us were invited to the premiere of the TV program Svenska bönder, where one can follow farmers in Sweden. It will soon be shown on TV.

It was interesting and a bit exciting to see these things on the same day. What we could see was that the Swedish Board of Agriculture is now trying to build up preparedness to ensure that there are possibilities in the event of crisis and war. They have, however, still not gotten down to business and have not received many assignments when it comes to strengthening domestic production – that which makes the farmers also manufacture what is needed for production.

Today we import inputs, and what we are going to do is buy them from somewhere else and put them in emergency stocks. The work of seeing how one can make it Swedish needs to be started. We need protein crops, fuel and so on. This is what we want to see happen now. The best preparedness is that we can provide the entire chain ourselves.

Madam Speaker! I see that I have exceeded my speaking time, but I want to return to the TV program. It was very pleasant to be able to follow farmers in their everyday lives. Afterwards, there was a panel discussion where two participants from the program and two politicians were present, one from the Social Democrats and one from the Moderates.

The question that one of the participating farmers asked the politicians was how profitability can be improved through the employer contributions, since it is so expensive to hire. No real answer was given from either of the two parties, but I would like to raise my hand and tell what we want. We want to halve the employer contribution within the agricultural and food sector. We believe that it is a much better way to reduce costs for the person shopping in the store and increase profitability for the person who produces. It is much better than having a temporarily lowered food VAT. We want to see this throughout the entire chain; then we get profitability. We also want establishment loans for young people and better conditions for generational transition.

Madam Speaker! There is much more I would like to say on this subject, but I see that my speaking time is over. I therefore say as is customary: I naturally stand behind all our reservations, even those that are presented in simplified form, but I move for approval only to our reservation number 14.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! On Friday, I met Mikael, Lars, Helene, Ola, and Lennart – five committed farmers from Halland. We gathered around a subject that all five raised with great frustration: red tape, bureaucracy, and that feeling that the state does not see their work, but only their paperwork.

It quickly became clear that this is an issue that farmers have carried for decades but which politics has treated neglectfully for far too long. We are not talking about something new, but about a systemic error that has grown larger every year, where farmers spend hours and sometimes entire workdays on documentation instead of on what they actually want to do: produce food, take care of the animals, and manage the land we all depend on.

For every liter of milk and every kilo of potatoes, documentation is required today regarding fertilizer management, plant protection, animal welfare, transport, water use, and environmental considerations. It is not uncommon for five different authorities to knock on the barn door – all with their own control schedules and requirements. This is not sustainable. We must dare to admit that we have made it too difficult to be a farmer in Sweden.

The Moderates have a clear focus on simplifying rules, and this must happen at all levels where the regulatory burden arises. At the EU level, we have taken concrete steps forward that I am very proud of. Thanks to a Moderate initiative in the European Parliament, the EU Commission has introduced the "one in, one out" principle. This means that every time a new requirement is introduced that entails a cost for farmers, it must be offset by an equally large cost reduction somewhere else in the operation.

And we have not stopped there. In a second step, we have had the European Parliament stand behind the principle of one in, two out. This means that every new cost burden shall be followed by the removal of double that amount. It is a paradigm shift in the EU's agricultural policy that the Moderaterna have been driving.

At the national level, Sweden must stop constantly trying to be the best in class, i.e., that we place extra requirements on top of the EU's rules. If the EU requires one control, Sweden should not require two. The government has already started to clear things up here, but much still needs to be done.

Furthermore, we need to modernize the entire control system. Through digitalization and better coordination, a farmer should be able to report data once, not three times. Controls from authorities must be able to be coordinated. A farm does not need five inspections from five different sources. This is not about compromising on important requirements, but about using common sense and not making our entrepreneurs suspicious.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's farmers operate in a global market but under Swedish conditions. It requires that we provide them with rules of the game that enable competition on equal terms so that they can measure up against colleagues in other countries without simultaneously having to fight uphill.

Today, the reality is different. We see a food production that is decreasing, not increasing. It is nothing new but a development that has been ongoing for a long time. Government after government has spoken about the importance of increasing self-sufficiency, but despite all good ambitions, we are standing still. In several parts of agriculture, the decline even continues. It is not sustainable.

Swedish food production is not just a matter of jobs, entrepreneurship, and growth, but it is a matter of national security. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have reminded us of how quickly access to food, inputs, and transport can be disrupted. Being able to produce one's own food is not just desirable, it is a strategic necessity.

If we want to reverse this development and seriously increase Sweden's self-sufficiency, we must create real conditions. It must become more profitable to cultivate and raise. We need more farmers who dare to invest, more hectares in production, less red tape, and rules of the game that span generations of hard-working people.

We must also realize what happens when Swedish farmers are constantly pressured harder than their competitors, for that is exactly what is happening today. When taxes, fees and regulatory requirements, all of this, are piled on top of each other, it reduces not only profitability but also the willingness to invest. In an industry where every investment is long-term, we must create security and predictability. Those who run farms in Sweden should not have to hesitate regarding the future. They should know that the politics stands behind them.

Last but not least, Madam Speaker, I must mention the wolf.

When more and more poultry producers choose to shut down, we must dare to talk about one of their biggest obstacles: the predator policy, or rather the implementation of it.

The wolf is today a real threat to pasture-based production. Even though we in Sweden have tools such as license hunting, protection hunting, and paragraph 28, it is not enough. The rules must become more practically usable, the protection hunting must be simplified, and paragraph 28 needs to be opened up so that more dare to continue their operations, because the reality is that many have already given up. They bolt the barn door, not because they want to, but because the fear of the next attack has become too great.

Madam Speaker! It would be a shame if one is forced to give up the world's best animal welfare because politics has not had the courage to act in time.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Helena Storckenfeldt for the speech!

There was much that I can agree with. But right now, researchers are warning more and more clearly that we are approaching an ecosystem collapse where biodiversity, functional soils, pollination, and water regulation are threatened. These are not just abstract environmental issues, but they are the very foundation for a functioning agriculture and also for our future food supply.

At the same time as we read in the media about the researchers' warning signs, the Swedish National Audit Office notes in its report *State efforts for the agricultural climate transition* that the government's management is fragmented, unclear, and poorly followed up. The efforts do not hang together, and there is a lack of a clear direction for how agriculture should transition while production can increase at the same time.

My question to the member is therefore: How do the Moderaterna intend for us to avoid serious risks to the ecosystems and thus for future food production when the government, according to the National Audit Office, lacks a coordinated and long-term policy for the transition of agriculture?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! If I do not remember entirely incorrectly, this was a review not only of this government but rather of a longer management of food production and agricultural policy.

First and foremost, it is incredibly important that we continue to contribute with good measures for biodiversity. Here we see a systemic error in itself: We continue to protect that which we actually do not need to protect more of in Sweden, namely forest. It is a problem based on the fact that we continue to protect the forest much because we know how it should be protected. It is easy to continue protecting it.

What is actually needed for biodiversity is rather regulatory simplification and increased profitability in agriculture, in farming, so that it becomes more profitable to have more grazing animals. That is the foundation. What is needed is actually not that we choose to protect more areas, but rather that it becomes more profitable to be an animal keeper in Sweden today.

Here we firmly believe that it is rule simplifications, tax cuts and reduced bureaucracy that are the basis for succeeding in increasing production and ensuring that more people choose just this industry – which also must be a future industry, because we must not forget that. This must continue to be an interesting industry worth investing in, and then one must also see a future in it.

I want to add that we in the Moderaterna have long pushed for a grazing subsidy because we believe it is very important, not least for biodiversity, to have more grazing animals. If I have understood it correctly, it is being investigated now, so there is a lot in motion.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, but I did not hear much about the transition of agriculture itself – leaving the fossil for the renewable.

The member of parliament mentions the forest and that we do not need to protect more there. At the same time, the member of parliament and the government recently had a press conference about allocating more money to compensate forest owners who are not allowed to use their forest, so they are contradicting themselves a bit there.

At the same time as researchers warn of serious risks to the ecosystem and at the same time as the Swedish National Audit Office notes that the government's management of the agricultural transition is fragmented and unclear, the government chooses to focus on subsidizing fossil diesel. But the support for renewable solutions such as biofuels is lacking, and the transition out on the farms is insufficient.

The problem with this government, which has become stuck in the oil mire: There is nothing today that drives towards reducing the fossil [fuels] in agriculture, even though all modern tractors can run on other, renewable fuels. Why does the government not pick these low-hanging fruits so that an actual transition can occur in our Swedish agriculture?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! There was a lot going on at once there.

We choose to review the species protection and to actually compensate the landowner when the state intervenes and infringes. We think that is quite obvious. It does not mean that we want to protect more forest. Rather, it is part of increasing legal certainty for Sweden's landowners and strengthening property rights, something that I know the Social Democrats have a bit of difficulty with sometimes.

Unfortunately, it does not pay off to be a farmer today. I met someone who chose to transition and make large investments in his farm. He received increased costs, extra regulations, and extra controls, while the neighbor who ran a pig farm had exactly the same rules and permits as in the 60s and did not receive any increased costs at all.

I ask a question that becomes rhetorical and is rather addressed to the voters. Do you believe it is the Social Democrats or the Moderates who have the best conditions to reduce red tape, to make the largest regulatory simplifications, to implement the largest tax cuts, and to reduce the bureaucracy? Which party is it that is best at doing that, and what is it that we are seeing the result of now?

Madam Speaker! I am quite sure what the answer will be.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservation number 4.

Agricultural policy is not just about the food on our plates. It is about jobs across the entire country, about a living countryside, about the climate transition and, ultimately, about Sweden's self-sufficiency and preparedness in a restless time. The world has changed rapidly, the security situation is serious, and climate change is already here. In that situation, Swedish agricultural policy should be characterized by long-term thinking, decisiveness, and faith in the future.

Madam Speaker! We agree on the goal that Sweden should produce more food, but that requires politics that actually makes it possible. It is not enough to investigate and talk about the importance of production. Farmers need predictable conditions, functioning food chains, and tools that hold up over time. This applies to the whole country.

The food supply in northern Sweden is insufficient today, and it is deeply serious. Preparedness is not built by fine formulations in hindsight, but it is built with living farms, with functioning dairies and slaughterhouses and with processing throughout the country. Therefore, the Norrland support is absolutely crucial. It is not a special interest but preparedness policy, regional policy and industrial policy all in one.

If one wants food production in all of Sweden, the subsidies must be sufficient, long-term, and adapted to the actual conditions in the north. To strengthen agriculture in the north and at the same time contribute to a functioning preparedness, we already proposed several years ago the support for dairy farmers in northern Sweden. We also want to review the possibility of broadening the support to include, for example, sheep and lamb production so that we get more living farms and more Swedish food on the plate.

Madam Speaker! The transition of agriculture is necessary, but it must be possible. The climate transition cannot be built on leaving farmers alone with increased costs and unclear steering signals. On the contrary, the transition must strengthen competitiveness, reduce import dependency, and increase our preparedness.

This is not our picture either. In its report State's efforts for the agriculture's climate transition, the Swedish National Audit Office states that the efforts that exist are important but that they collectively are not sufficient for agriculture to contribute to reaching the climate goals. The Swedish National Audit Office calls for, among other things, clearer governance, better planning, and measures for emissions that currently completely lack steering instruments.

The report also shows that the supports are not sufficiently designed to provide farmers with long-term and predictable conditions. When the follow-up is weak and the distribution of responsibility is unclear, there is a risk that the policy will provide exactly what the farmers do not demand: short-term projects instead of stable tools for investments, transition, and generational shifts. This confirms our starting point: It is possible to combine increased food production with reduced climate impact, but that requires clearer political responsibility, better coordination, and that the governance actually works in practice.

Madam Speaker! That is also why the input goods are so important. Swedish agriculture is today dependent on imported fuels, fertilizers, and protein feed. This makes us vulnerable. The transition must therefore be about the entire system and not just about the final product on the plate.

We need to increase the production of domestic protein crops such as peas, field beans, and rapeseed both for human consumption and as feed for animals. It strengthens self-sufficiency, reduces dependence on imported soy, and gives farmers more ground to stand on. More plant-based production is good for the climate, for preparedness, and for profitability – especially when it occurs on Swedish farms with short transport distances.

Madam Speaker! In this context, research and innovation also become absolutely crucial. Sweden currently invests relatively little in agricultural and food research compared to other industries, despite there being great needs. We need research that leads to better plant breeding, more efficient feed, healthier animals, smarter fertilizer use, and technology that makes a real difference at the farm level.

Research must, however, be connected to practice. Farmers' experiences must be included from the beginning. When academia, consultancy, and the farm level are linked, we get solutions that simultaneously both increase production and reduce climate impact.

A clear example that I particularly want to highlight here today is new genomic techniques. With modern and more precise plant breeding, we can develop crops that are more resistant to drought and diseases, which require fewer pesticides and provide more stable harvests in a changing climate.

On the same day that we are now debating agricultural policy here in the chamber, the European Parliament has actually voted for the proposal on NGT. This is an important and welcome turning point for Europe's agriculture. For us Social Democrats, it is self-evident that policy should rest on science. Sweden must be at the forefront and push for a swift and responsible implementation so that Swedish farmers, plant breeders, and researchers do not fall behind.

The common agricultural policy is also one of our most important tools for providing agriculture with stable and long-term conditions. For Swedish conditions, a CAP is required that provides flexibility, reduces unnecessary administration, and strengthens both production, environmental benefits, and profitability across the entire country.

Madam Speaker! The agriculture of the future is not about either/or. It is not about either production or climate, and not about either animal husbandry or crop cultivation. It is about both: a robust, competitive, and sustainable food system that functions in both everyday life and in crisis.

We Social Democrats want more Swedish food from both fields and pastures on the plate. We want to strengthen profitability, facilitate generational changes, and invest in research, innovation, and domestic inputs. We want to build preparedness throughout the country and not just talk about it. That is how we strengthen Sweden now and for the future.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Today we are debating agricultural policy. We have discussed the food strategy many times over the years. It is not strange, because this strategy, which was adopted by a unanimous Riksdag in 2017, was unique in the sense that we were actually in agreement that we should have certain cornerstones to achieve a different agricultural policy in our country. I thanked the then Minister for Rural Affairs and I thank him even today, for it was a very good initiative he took.

What we were to do, Madam Speaker, was to increase food production. We were to have more profitability in agriculture, we were to strengthen competitiveness and we were to increase Sweden's food production. When we look back at this and see how it has subsequently become, it turns out however that we actually have not done any of what we thought and said we would do. None of it happened. We did not increase food production, it did not become more profitable, we did not strengthen competitiveness and we did not increase the food supply either.

This is very serious, which one understands when summarizing it and seeing how it turned out. After this, farmers said that they saw no visible effects. The food industry was also skeptical, and the red tape and the heavy administration remain. Many said that this just became a paper product, Madam Speaker.

Looking at the statistics, it is not very exciting, but I think we still have to talk about it. In 2015, we had 4,169 dairy farms in Sweden. By the end of 2025, we were down to 2,484 dairy farms. The number of cows has not increased either – we heard that before. In 2015, there were approximately 338,000 cows, and in 2024 there were 289,400. I would, however, like to inform my friends that the number of dairy cows in 2025 finally increased by 3,500. That was actually something positive.

During today's discussion, some have spoken about seeing a shortage when looking in the grocery store, and that is true. However, this did not start now, but it started some years ago. Those of us who have been around have seen, for example, that there was a drought in 2018, which made many think that they had to slaughter a number of cattle. There were then fewer cattle, and with poor profitability as well, this has been a bad combination. Now there is actually better profitability in beef production. Consequently, people are investing in their cattle, and that will also be noticed. But this combination is clearly something negative.

This, Madam Speaker, shows the vulnerability we have in our country. We are still at bottom levels – 50 percent of our food supply. However, we have a trade deficit of over 80 billion. We trade and buy, and when we draw a line, we notice that we have a trade deficit. This is something that we think must change. We want to be able to eat, for example, more Swedish cheese and more Swedish meat.

Sweden is actually only self-sufficient in wheat flour, carrots, sugar and eggs. The carrot cake that we have talked so much about is therefore what we can eat in times of crisis. Jokes aside – this is very serious and something that the government is actively working to change.

A striking example of a country that did not intend to scale back as we did in Sweden is Finland, Madam Speaker. There, they thought: Despite the fact that there is peace and things look great ahead, we do not dare, because we have an uneasy neighbor in the east. We must have at least 80 percent self-sufficiency of food.

Previously, Finland managed six months, and the fact is that they now manage nine months without importing a single grain of wheat. In Sweden, we manage a full ten to twelve days, and then the shelves in our grocery stores are empty. This is, of course, very serious, and the government has truly taken decisive action to change it. We see, for example, that Finland, which had a completely different policy, unfortunately was right. It is sad to say it, but that is how it is.

We have talked a bit about the Food Strategy 2.0. It is clear that there is some criticism; one might wonder why they weren't allowed to be part of the discussion. But the fact is that Food Strategy 2.0 emerged from the first Food Strategy.

The government's focus has been on a strong and robust food production. That is the foundation. We can talk very well about various grants here and there, but it doesn't help because the most important thing – and everyone here who has been out and spoken with farmers knows this – is that we have a production that is profitable and competitive. That is the foundation for everything. It is important to have Norrlandsstöd and other supports, Madam Speaker, but regardless of that, it is important to establish this – at least I think so. The government and we in the Tidö parties have also shown how important it is to continue on that path.

One thing that happened was that Elisabeth Nilsson, who was tasked with looking at competitiveness, looked at this and put forward proposals that have now become support. We have talked a lot about virtual fences and the grazing requirement here in the chamber, and there it became 1,000 kronor per dairy cow. We Kristdemokrater however want that there should be an exception in the grazing legislation. We think it is important that it is included given how it looks on the farms.

What we see when we are out and discussing with people – my colleague Helena, for example, said clearly that she has been out and talked with her friends in Halland – is that they say everywhere that the number of rules is too large. The regulatory framework is sagging, and it is pounding on. We talked about that we actually have over 862 rules today. Perhaps a new rule was added yesterday or today; we will have to see. This is very serious, and therefore the government wanted to invest in this.

I actually received that assignment, which I can say I am very grateful for. What did we come to? The work is finished, and the government will present proposals moving forward. It concerns several measures. Among other things, we think the number of agencies should be reduced from today's 270 to 2. We also think the position of livestock owners should be strengthened – that is very important – and that various fees should be removed. The agencies shall also work more to support and advise the agricultural enterprises. There are also other proposals, and they will come here moving forward.

The important thing is to establish that we are not finished as a government. My colleague Staffan spoke about it. We have much left to do, and we need at least four more years to achieve even more of what we are aiming for. We want, in fact, for the farmers to notice a difference. In response to that, one might hear a rhetorical "Oh, yes, you say that now," but the fact is that I meet very many farmers who say that we have made a difference. In just three years, the farmers have noticed that we have made a difference.

I will never forget the farmer who ran up to me in Nässjö. He said: Listen, Magnus, before you go – you in the government have lowered the cost of diesel in my farming by 450,000 kronor. Take that with you to your friends in Tidögänget and the entire Riksdag! For me, you have made a difference.

I think we should take that with us.

I will also read a few words from the new food strategy. It says: "If we do not produce the food we need ourselves, we are forced to import food from countries with lower climate and animal welfare ambitions." This is exactly what it is about, Madam Speaker. We Christian Democrats are not satisfied. We want the number of cattle to increase by 100,000 – we think that is very important – and that Sweden should become self-sufficient in dairy products and meat.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: Sweden has the best conditions to produce food, but today our pantry is half-empty. We must be able to produce more food in the country. The pantry should bulge with food so that we can both provide for our population and help others in need.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for a wonderful speech. There is much I would like to ask questions about.

Last year, I asked a clear question to the member of parliament regarding the government's decision to include agriculture in ETS 2 despite the fact that the EU does not require it, and about how Swedish farmers would be compensated for the increased costs this entails. I received the answer that the question was on the government's desk and that the proposal was underway.

It has now been almost a year, and the decision on ETS 2 is finalized. The cost increases are known, but there is still no information on what the compensation will look like, when it will arrive, and when it will be presented. It is unclear how farmers are to be able to plan while waiting for the compensation. My question to Member Oscarsson is therefore: When does the government intend to fulfill this promise to the farming sector, and can the Member today account for what type of compensation is actually on the way?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for your question! It is very important that you ask it again.

I can say this to the member: I unfortunately cannot say exactly what is going on other than that one continues to review how to be able to solve this in the best way. I know that the member may want a clearer answer, but I unfortunately cannot give any more answer than that.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that it is not only I who want this answer, but above all the farmers. It is they who are waiting for the answer, but none of us receive an answer today.

I also want to raise some questions based on the member's speech. The member often says that Sweden's low self-sufficiency rate can be summarized with the carrot cake, and we heard that even in today's speech. Even the farmer who runs alongside the member is often spoken of. I wonder if it is the same farmer or different farmers who run alongside the member.

What we see in reality, however, is fewer cows and fewer sheep – simply fewer grazing animals, which are so important. This causes grazing lands to grow over. We also see fewer dairies; here in Norrland, two large dairies have closed again during this parliamentary term. Slaughterhouses are also closing again. Furthermore, the government has removed the support for the 39 rural municipalities where many of our farmers operate.

Despite the fact that the government, and especially Member Oscarsson, has had a very high profile in agricultural issues and harshly criticized previous governments, we see no results after the government's nearly four years in power. Magnus Oscarsson has previously spoken about the need for 125,000 more cows. Today, he had lowered that ambition to 100,000 more cows. In reality, however, we have the lowest number of cows in 160 years.

Why has the government failed, and why is so little actually happening at the farm level?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I wish I had five minutes to answer everything, because Malin Larsson's questions were very good. I will try to answer them as well as I can.

I will begin with the question regarding the fact that the number of cows has decreased. This has occurred over a very long period. I have sat on the Committee on Environment and Agriculture for quite a long time and was there during the crisis we called the milk crisis. I had many debates with the ministers at the time, but I never said it was the government's fault that the milk price was so poor. The entire world's milk is connected in some way. I never said it was the government's fault that the milk price was 2.30 when it was at its lowest. On the other hand, one can of course act so that it becomes better, and I think it is important that one does so.

What has the government done then? I like to tell about the farmer who ran to me. He really wanted to tell me. Wait! I want to hear what you say!

People sometimes call me and say: How great that you have done something that makes me notice a difference at the farm level! When did I get this money before?

This is what is so important. Regardless of what we come to, it is about having profitability in agriculture and strengthening competitiveness. It becomes fundamental, regardless of whether one lives in the north or in the south and regardless of whether one lives in Sweden or not. That is the most important thing we have to do.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for the speech.

When I listened to Magnus Oscarsson, I heard someone who is not satisfied with the development in Swedish agricultural policy. It has not gone fast enough. We could do it better, and we could do more.

At the same time, the member wants a mandate for another four years. Does Oscarsson believe that this is really what the voters want?

The market price of diesel has gone down significantly. I hope that the member told the person who called that the market price of diesel has gone down very significantly and that profitability has therefore moved in the right direction on that point. That is the case with very much within agriculture – we are very dependent on world market prices and cannot control so much.

Some things we can, however, actually influence ourselves. The predator policy, which Helena Storckenfeldt raised here, is an important example. The responsible minister belongs to the member's party. Today we have 355 wolves. The target that has been decided in the chamber is 170 wolves. That is a significant difference, and it is decisive for whether we will get a lamb producer who starts production.

What can you do better, Magnus Oscarsson, if you now want a mandate for four more years?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anders Karlsson, for very relevant questions!

It would be very presumptuous of me to say that we are satisfied, that everything has gone perfectly, that we have done everything we said we would do and that everything has turned out exactly as we thought from the beginning. Because that is not the case. It is clear that we have seen that it takes time.

We received the government mandate, opened it, and began. From day one, we have had as a clear starting point that we are going to make a change. I know that Anders Karlsson, like me, knows many farmers. We shall look out for the farmer who wants to see a difference at the farm level.

When farmers call, I tell them that the government has done a lot. It fluctuates up and down with the world market price, but the fact is that this government has made a difference. We have addressed the diesel tax. We have ensured to change other parts to make it so that the diesel price at the pump becomes lower. When farmers are happy about it, you can't tell them to calm down, and then, of course, you become happy and enthusiastic yourself.

We have a lot to do until the election and, hopefully, after it. One must see this as an ocean liner. It takes time to turn this. Now, the point is to try to get it done. It will take at least four years to change it properly so that the farmer feels even more that it makes a difference at the farm level.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The member said that a lot will be done. We had a debate about the euro here earlier this week. Despite the fact that the member's party, Kristdemokraterna, has a parliamentary decision that the euro should be investigated, the member's colleague Hans Eklind from the Finance Committee was very negative towards it.

This is an issue that could lead to better profitability for farmers. All EU compensations are in euros. These are such large amounts that they must be hedged, and if one does not do that, it is also a decision. Those who deliver their milk to Arla actually have the compensation paid out in euros by virtue of the payment being made in Danish kroner. The Danish krone is directly linked to the euro.

There is a very significant effect of currency changes here. Right now, we see a strengthening of the Swedish krona, and then the milk price falls. In the two years prior, we had a good milk price.

Is the member prepared to work for a new currency for Sweden, or at least an investigation?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anders, for your question!

I do not want to enter into the euro debate. I have a very skilled colleague who is taking that debate. I am, however, thinking about how those in Finland say that they are not so very enthusiastic about the euro. It perhaps did not turn out as well as they had hoped, and we have to live with that.

I spoke about trying to reverse this and likened it to turning an ocean liner. To put it into context, I can mention that some time ago I spoke with an older man from Småland who told me that he became a farmer in the 60s. He went to the bank and said that he wanted to borrow money because he was going to take over the farm. Then the bank official said: But little boy – you shouldn't become a farmer! Haven't you understood that we in Sweden are not supposed to have it that way? We are going to buy food from other countries and produce something else.

Already in the 60s, this was something that was instilled in our farmers, or in our society. It will, of course, take time for this government to change something that has existed since the 60s.

We must have more food production. We must ensure that our pantry is not half-full but actually bursting with food. We can produce more food and ensure that there is a supply for the entire country.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! A strong agriculture is needed if we are to manage food security, just as a strong agriculture within nature's boundaries is needed for us to manage the climate transition. To talk about agriculture's challenges 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.

Madam Speaker! We need to do something about this together. If we do not address the problems that exist between agriculture, climate, and biodiversity, we will do ourselves a disservice. The blame does not lie with individual farmers, but the blame lies with us together, we who have been involved in creating a system for agriculture that is not ecologically sustainable in the long run.

Madam Speaker! That we need an agriculture and a viable food supply is nothing 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. Last year was the warmest year ever recorded globally and the first year that passed 1.5 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels. In northern Sweden, it was record warm during the month of July, and extreme weather hits us more often, with both drought and heavy downpours. Therefore, it is so important that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also cultivate the soil in a sustainable way so that we achieve robustness in the ecosystem.

We in Vänsterpartiet have previously presented a number of proposals to reduce emissions from agriculture. Among others, we want to increase state support for a fossil-independent agriculture through, for example, bio-premiums to increase the proportion of biofuels within agriculture. We have also proposed increasing the grant to Klimatklivet to provide room for investments in electricity from biogas production, conversion of grain dryers, production of biochar, and electrification of work vehicles and facilities.

Madam Speaker! A strategy for the agriculture's climate transition needs to be developed together with all involved parties. In the Climate Policy Council's annual report 2025, it is stated that there is potential to reduce agriculture's climate impact, but that the existing policy does not take advantage of this potential so that agriculture can contribute to the climate goals. From the Council's evaluation of the agricultural policy, it appears that there is a lack of both direction and a clear vision for reducing agriculture's climate impact.

Probably this has contributed to the fact that the policy to address the problem is so underdeveloped.

If agriculture contributes to the climate goals to a greater extent, the competitiveness of and for agriculture will be strengthened in the long run, according to the advice.

Higher requirements will be placed on climate-friendly food production, and in order to reach the climate goals for the EU and Sweden by 2040, 2045 and 2050, emissions need to be reduced within the agricultural sector as well.

Madam Speaker! By implementing climate measures in the short term, Swedish food production is secured in the long term.

The Climate Policy Council notes that Denmark, Finland and France have adopted quantified emission targets to reduce agriculture's total climate impact. The Council recommends that Sweden also develops a target and strategy that is as concrete and clear as possible and which, to the greatest extent possible, describes how agriculture shall contribute to achieving the short- and long-term climate goals.

Madam Speaker! The strategy should describe both how the work towards the goal shall be steered and which main steering instruments shall be used to ensure that the goal is reached. An important lesson from other countries is the importance of anchoring through broad cooperation with many different actors.

The Council further notes in the report that there is a clear goal in the government's food strategy that food production should increase, but that it is not specified how this is to be achieved. It states that an increased food production must, however, be compatible with decided climate and environmental goals.

The Climate Policy Council has shown in a previous analysis that it is possible to reconcile food production with reduced climate impact without compromising other environmental goals. A target vision for agriculture should therefore rest on consistency between production goals, climate goals, and environmental goals in order to reduce emissions.

We in Vänsterpartiet share the criticism presented by the Climate Policy Council and believe that the government should promptly follow the council's recommendations. We want the government to produce proposals on a target vision and strategy for the agriculture's climate transition and do so in close cooperation with farmers and actors from the entire food chain, civil society, researchers, and authorities.

Finally, I move for approval of reservation number 13.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report 18 Agricultural Policy.

We agree that profitability has not developed sufficiently well. Sweden has, however, had a very good milk price, and the price of Swedish meat is at a record high. One would then think that production should increase, but other factors are at play. Climate change and what happened in 2018 leave marks on the decisions being made today. Conflicts in the world affect farmers to the highest degree, just like Trump's trade policy and the currency market, which we have touched upon.

We are in a completely open market with free market forces, and that is how we want it. However, it is very sensitive, and small changes can cause prices to increase and the supply on the market to decrease.

Decisions govern the result, and if the agricultural enterprises decide not to invest, expand, and be offensive, the products from agriculture will not increase. One of the concerns is that there are too many uncertain factors. Politics should therefore remove as many uncertain factors and disturbances as possible. We have touched upon some, for example, currency trading and how one manages a currency.

The EU's common agricultural policy, CAP, is now up for renegotiation. The signals are that the support from the EU will decrease in total and that each country will need to contribute a much larger share of co-financing. Therefore, all parties that want to see more food production should be clear that they see what is being negotiated and are prepared to make up the difference so that Sweden achieves a competitiveness similar to that of other farmers in Europe. Those signals would be worth their weight in gold in this situation, even if the agreement is not yet fully negotiated.

We must have a robust agriculture and production throughout the country. That is exactly what we have discussed here. The Norrland support is incredibly important. This also applies to the hay support, which hits Norrland and some disadvantaged areas for production in a very clear and good way.

There are other parts of CAP that can also affect what future agriculture looks like in terms of size rationalization and other matters. From a Swedish perspective, we have not managed this historically, other than it having moved in one direction.

We have the largest size rationalization in all of Europe. There are opportunities here to do something else, if one were to want to do so. I am not saying that one needs to do it, but we can achieve that effect with CAP.

When it comes to the total food supply, we must also not forget the blue economy. It is incredibly important. When we talk about the robustness of food, it is all too rarely questioned. We divide those things.

If one looks at what happened during the first and second world wars, one sees that fish was incredibly important for the food supply. That part should absolutely be included when looking at robust food sources for Sweden.

The advantage is that we do not have any expensive production resources without actually having a pantry here. Land-based fish farming could also be very interesting in this situation.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of motion 2 under point 1, which concerns these matters.

The resilience that we have built up in Sweden is often due to the fact that we have had a very high production on our farms. We have a high milk production, and we have a high grain yield. We also have a combination of different orientations with agriculture and forestry. That makes it so that we have stable companies that are super interesting to build upon for the future.

Here, many creative farmers have tried to build up an additional leg, and it is an energy leg. It has not been that simple. Where politics can make a difference is through simplifications of how the regulatory framework looks for energy production from wind power, solar parks, and biogas. We have a jerkiness in the government's policy for biogas so that it stands out clearly. I am not sure that we ourselves can account for what applies to it. This constitutes an uncertainty. These are large investments. If farmers are to choose these legs in order to have robust farms, they must have stable rules.

I can agree that it is not really going in the right direction with the change. It is as it is described: It takes a long time.

Much of what is stated in the food strategy 2.0 can certainly also be supported by us in the opposition, but we want to see results. Now is the time to deliver an action plan and clear the obstacles that are limiting us from obtaining more food. The self-sufficiency rate must go up. I want to assert that we are so capable that we could produce more and export food if we handle the cards in the right way.

There is also support. We have climate support to build dams to meet the climate changes. There have been discussions about why nothing is happening and why the money in the supports is not being used. That is precisely due to the uncertainties. If you do not know roughly where the price development will end up, perhaps you do not even make the investment decisions for irrigation systems, dams, and so on.

Uncertainty is too large a part. Then one makes other types of decisions. We must analyze why decisions are made in this way, correct, reinforce, or come up with other measures to build up robustness.

Madam Speaker! With this, I conclude.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 4 February.)

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