Food policy

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report 18 Food Policy. I immediately feel that I want to raise the issue of the chamber's decoration. In the flower vases next to me here, there are very beautiful flowers. But there are also a number of stalks, sand-blasted. It is one of our biggest problem weeds in Swedish agriculture and is yield-reducing. It simply reduces food production in Sweden. That was a parenthesis, but I could not help but notice it.

Madam Speaker! When one speaks of food policy and food production, one quite quickly thinks of the weather we have. Many think it is fantastic with sunshine and warm days with the possibility of swimming and other things. But Swedish farmers are currently in an extremely difficult situation. Not only for our farmers but also for our grazing animals - grazers - this is increasingly beginning to resemble the summer of 2018. The year 2018 left its mark on Swedish agriculture and Swedish food production for a very long time. Some of the farmers have not recovered yet, and this was five years ago. And now we see that we are heading into a similar situation. Some farmers say that it is already worse than 2018.

The grass has now been harvested for the first time in many parts of Sweden, that is, the winter fodder for our food-producing animals, and the harvest has been extremely poor. In some places, the harvest has been down to 25 percent of the normal harvest.

What happens then, asks a friend of order. Yes, if one does not have fodder for the winter, one must ensure that the number of animals is reduced. And we have already received signals that the slaughter queues at our slaughterhouses are beginning to grow. This can many times mean that farmers have to send animals for slaughter that are not slaughter-ready, not ready to be food-producing, quite simply. This also gives a worse price to the farmer. We also see that the trade reacts in this situation and see that there are slaughter queues. That causes them to push down the prices, and the price to the farmer then becomes lower.

In line with rising interest rates, farmers may also receive lower payments for their livestock. At the same time, during this year, 2023, farmers have put in costs far above what they normally put into production. The fertilizers have been very expensive, the fuels have been expensive, and the seeds have had a higher price. It is therefore blowing up into a bit of a perfect storm for Swedish agriculture that is to produce the food in this country.

Madam Speaker! It is not without a great sense of worry and a large lump in one's stomach. I am a farmer myself with grazing animals and I feel this and am trying to gather winter fodder for my animals. But I also see how colleagues in the industry are truly feeling very poorly right now.

Then some start to raise their voices and talk about crisis support for agriculture. And then we are standing there again - crisis support for Swedish agriculture. We have talked about crisis support so many times. But we must reverse this development so that Swedish agriculture instead feels that one can take a worse year at regular intervals without the politics providing crisis support.

Then there are a number of things that we need to carry out and that this government has begun to carry out. I mentioned the slaughterhouse earlier, and we have, for example, the meat inspection fees. There we are still wrong compared to our competing countries. We need to rectify that. We also need to rectify that which we always usually talk about in our debates here, namely red tape, administration, the authorities' work versus our food-producing companies.

There are a number of things that need to be corrected, but a number of inquiries have already been commissioned. It concerns competitiveness in relation to our animal welfare and the environmental conditions for food companies. And the government is currently working on a major task linked to the food strategy - an update of the strategy that we all here have been very much in agreement on, but which actually has not fulfilled its purpose by us increasing production.

Now, they are trying to establish a food strategy 2.0, and it is to take its starting point out at the individual farmer. That is where it begins. If we do not get an increased production out at the individual farmer, we cannot fulfill the food strategy's goals either, and that is something we all here, as I said, agree on. We need, in fact, to produce more food. We usually say that approximately 50 percent of Swedish food is imported. This year, that figure will probably be raised quite alarmingly if this drought continues. As the situation looks right now, we can probably see reductions in the harvest on the grain side of at least 30 percent straight across. But if this drought continues, we will soon be down to half harvest.

We obviously need to do a number of additional things, and we need to send signals from the public sector to Swedish agriculture that we consider Swedish food and Swedish agriculture to be important, for example when it comes to the issue of public procurement. It is a fairly low percentage of the publicly procured food consumed in Sweden that is Swedish. It is somewhere around 10 percent of the consumed food. But it is an incredibly important signal that we from the public sector show that old and young – those who actually eat the procured food and cannot choose – get to eat the best food, and the best food is, as we know, produced in Sweden. The food produced in Sweden has an environmental and climate impact that is among the lowest in the world, and the antibiotic use in the production of food is also among the lowest in the world. We need to procure more Swedish. It also means that we get a completely different security when it comes to preparedness, security of supply, and so on.

Madam Speaker! Food will therefore become world politics in the coming years. The proposals in Farm to Fork, the EU's food strategy, will fundamentally lead to a reduced food production. Trends that exist in some European countries right now - for example in Germany, where they are converting a part - may perhaps lead to a reduced food production, which will lead to a smaller export. In the Netherlands and in Denmark, discussions are beginning about reducing the export of food. These are large exporters of food. And when these countries begin to reduce their export, while we simultaneously have Putin's unjust war of aggression in Ukraine, it begins to become worrying in terms of food.

In the same way, when we see dry summers time and again, even around the world, it means that the production of food will decrease. This will also lead to food becoming more expensive. I believe this is incredibly important to keep in mind in this discussion, i.e., that food will not be cheap but will become more expensive, especially if one is to have good food.

Madam Speaker! In this situation, if we are not to jump straight to the idea of crisis support, there are a number of things that need to be done. We need to remove all restrictions that are linked to CAP, so that we can harvest as much as possible and also on areas that we normally would not harvest but have taken out of production. We need to make it possible for farmers in our municipalities to harvest on areas that are normally not harvested.

I saw yesterday that Linköping Municipality set a good example when they went out and told the farmers: Please, you may harvest grass and fodder on these areas that are normally not agricultural areas. We need to ensure that the issue of water – the possibility of taking water in such situations – is not as difficult as it is today.

There are, therefore, a number of different things we need to raise now, because the situation is acute. Now we need to save this year's food production. But the food strategy 2.0 shall lead to us also saving future food production in Sweden - and increasing it.

I therefore move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report and wish a good and pleasant summer to both the Speaker and the entire Speaker's Presidium as well as all employees - and above all to my colleagues in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your speech! There was much in it that I agree with, for example that we must think long-term when it comes to Swedish primary production.

However, it does not change the situation we have right now. The long-term forecast has for a long time spoken of that we face a summer with extreme heat - with heat. We Social Democrats went out last week with some proposals to the government on how one should think, because even though one should think long-term, it is bone-dry in the fields here and now. We can dance a rain dance, but it doesn't seem like anything is happening.

The previous drought in Sweden, in 2018, cost Swedish agriculture 6-10 billion according to calculations, and one has hardly recovered since then. The member spoke about that things must be done here and now, but one of my questions to the member is precisely what the government is doing. So far, at least I have not heard anything, but the government has said that the municipalities shall increase their preparedness when it comes to elderly care. We know, of course, that both fires and drought can hit forestry and agriculture hard.

My second question, linked to preparedness this summer, concerns the water supply. In order to take water from lakes and watercourses to irrigate crops, a notification of water activity to the County Administrative Board or a permit from the Land and Environment Court is required. Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the member if the government has any plan for how these processes can be accelerated in a situation where more and more farmers will become dependent on increased irrigation.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Social Democrats for the questions.

As it was initiated with, I believe we agree on many parts here. We see similar problems and problem pictures, and I also believe we see quite similar solutions to many of them.

What I think is a big difference compared to 2018 is that there has been a slightly better preparedness in the industry. We have already seen how people are getting started and finding solutions in the form of moving feed and so on. Sometimes there is a lot of concern regarding the feed that might eventually be imported in this situation, because that causes us to get, among other things, the type of problem weeds I mentioned earlier.

The question was asked regarding what the government is doing. I know that there has been a press conference today with the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Civil Defence regarding measures in connection with the drought. I have not personally witnessed it and what may have come out there – I will have to read that afterwards – so I do not know exactly what the government is planning right now.

What I know is that assignments have already been initiated through the Swedish Board of Agriculture regarding the ability to harvest tree-grass even in compensation support areas, as well as in buffer zones - different types of environmental areas, quite simply. It is about being able to save the grass that potentially still exists and is not burnt down.

I also think the water issue is very important. We know that it is complicated, and we actually saw that as early as 2018. We have a fairly good supply of fresh water that we could use in food production, especially in relation to other countries, but there are still a lot of obstacles to using it. As I said, I do not know if the government has presented anything regarding that today, but we must find solutions there that make it go quickly. Perhaps only a simple notification to an authority is needed, so that it does not become an administrative nightmare that drags on when the water needs to be used.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Nor have I seen what the government has come up with today, but it stated in the press release that they would present a situational overview. So it does not sound like there will be that many measures. But perhaps one should have a little more confidence and hope that one measure or another is presented and not just a situational overview, which I believe is well known.

The chairman also said in his speech that in public procurement, one must think Swedish. I truly share that opinion. We Social Democrats, for example, have pushed for it to be easier to choose to buy Swedish in connection with procurement. We have also pushed for labeling of origin for meat, which the government unfortunately removed.

My question, however, is not about that. When one speaks with the chairman of the municipal executive board in Kalmar municipality, one is informed that they have looked at how much more food was consumed during a quarter in 2023 compared to the same quarter in 2022. It is approximately the same number of students, but food consumption has increased by 38 tons. This is naturally due to the fact that not everyone receives the porridge in the mornings that we hear about in the debate, which is because it actually looks very difficult financially for too many. The students then eat much more school meals.

John Widegren is part of the support for a government that is not really investing in municipalities and regions right now. That economy does not look so good. My question is: How are the municipalities going to be able to afford to purchase what both Widegren and I want, namely Swedish food for school meals?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! We would have needed much more speaking time, I feel!

I also hope that measures will come quickly. I had a meeting with the State Secretary myself yesterday, so I hope that measures are underway. I do know, however, that there are certain things that are already in progress via the Swedish Board of Agriculture and so on.

We believe that the procurement of food continues to be a very important issue. Both I and member Magnus Oscarsson have nagged about that issue in our home municipality; I almost feel sorry for the officials in Ödeshögs municipality who have had to work with me and Magnus as municipal politicians. There, we are true pioneers and have been for a long time, so we have actually never really understood the obstacles that were supposed to have existed for procuring more locally and locally produced. We have, in fact, done it for 15 years or something similar - I look inquiringly at Magnus Oscarsson.

I believe that quite a few of us share the opinion on the issue of the labeling of meat. I still do not think I have received a really clear answer as to why we did not proceed, but we are, of course, waiting for some kind of EU outcome there.

When it comes to the budget issue and money for the municipalities, the counter-question must be how much more money for the municipalities the Social Democrats had in their spring budget proposal. It was very little, I believe.

I am also concerned that food consumption in the schools is increasing quite significantly. It is a very worrying situation. The greatest economic difficulty is still the continued inflation, and we need to press that down. It must be our main task when it comes to the economy, because it is only when we have succeeded in countering inflation in an effective way that we can begin to make investments again. That room does not exist in the budget right now.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. I also agree with much of what John Widegren is talking about.

It is with a mixture of fear and delight that we look at the weather right now and at the long-term forecasts - I check every day to see if there will be any rain. In my garden and my hobby cultivation at home, the leaves are wilting, and on the areas outside the garden that the farmer has mown, it is now brown. It is never usually like that for us on the west coast.

John Widegren spoke quite a lot about the fact that things must be done here and now. Measures must be taken, and rules must be removed so that one can be everywhere. A good deal of these things must be done, and we can certainly stand behind them. But what long-term investments in agriculture and food production does the government want to make so that we do not end up here again?

Climate change is here. We cannot say that this particular summer is due to them, but we see the trend of rising temperatures. We know that agriculture globally accounts for a third of the emissions - in Sweden it is 14 percent. We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and also from other food-producing sectors, but we must also adapt our agriculture to the new climate so that we do not have to resort to panic measures. What measures does the government want to see to prevent this?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions. These are very interesting questions that we would need much more time for. I am happy to elaborate on the text regarding what is required for the future.

Swedish agriculture and forestry do emit a certain amount, but there are also no industries that bind as much as our farmers and foresters do. For them to be able to continue doing so, good profitability is required, which has been lacking in Swedish agriculture for a longer period. I often return to this: Swedish farmers' production results are among the world's best both when it comes to cultivation and when it comes to animal production, but the profitability is among the worst.

We have a system error somewhere. It is not due to this government or to the previous government - it is due a bit more to the previous government, of course. It is not due to any of a number of governments over a long period, for this - that it should not be possible to make money in Swedish food production - perhaps is a system error that has built up over 30, 40 or 50 years.

Some may think it is good that we put in solar cells on farmland and produce energy. Others do not think it is as good. My first thought is: How can it be so incredibly much more profitable to conduct solar cell production on good farmland than to produce food? It is very strange. It is of course because we have pressured agriculture and had a strong size rationalization, which I in many ways think is good.

The long-term rules shall now be included in the food strategy 2.0. A very large number of organizations - I believe it is 60 or 70 - have submitted proposals for the food strategy. This is to begin being processed during the autumn, and then the government shall come forward with finished proposals. The potential legislative proposals required in order to be able to make changes will appear here.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if John Widegren misunderstood, but he did not quite answer my question.

If we are to be able to conduct agriculture and forestry, and above all food production, in a changed climate, other methods are required. This requires that we cultivate our lands in a different way and that we ensure we keep the water in our lands. Perhaps we should also look at other crops and other cultivation systems, so that we do not end up here again.

In 2018, the organic farmers had fewer damages than the conventional ones. It turned out to be advantageous to have animal and feed production on the same farm; they did not have nearly as large problems. Of different crops, there may be some that tolerate heat better than others and so on.

How is the government going to ensure that we climate-adapt and future-proof this and not just desperately try to grow exactly what we do now or have the animal husbandry we have now? It is about us not having to resort to emergency measures. It is a matter of us trying to reduce emissions from all sectors, but unfortunately, we must also adapt to what is already here and what will become even worse.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the members for the questions and the discussion.

Emma Nohrén spoke about cultivating other crops, changing our animal husbandry and so on. I am completely convinced that the industry will ensure that this is done if it is needed. I believe that the industry knows very well what works.

I return to the question of size rationalization. I know, for example, that the Social Democrats, perhaps last week, were out on a farm visit and met a very large agricultural enterprise. It is they who create the transition opportunities, because it is they who can find profitability in doing so. It is ultimately so that profitability is needed in order to dare to make these parts.

Smart systems have been found for, for example, irrigation and climate adaptation. I believe that there is a biogas plant that one uses. One is a large agricultural company. These opportunities exist for the large ones.

Emma Nohrén was suggesting that organic fared better than conventional during 2018. I can take myself as an example. I am a livestock farmer and conventional, and I also fared very well. It was probably more about the farms that had animals and so on. We see that these farms quite often have a higher humus content in their soils. In a year like this, a very large difference has been seen; I have seen it clearly when I have harvested grass at home on the fields. The clay soils - the good soils - fare relatively well anyway, but the soils that have received more manure also have a higher humus content and fare very well.

It is this that we must work with, and then we shall not reduce our livestock production but rather increase it. I believe that this is the solution to many of the future problems. Plant cultivation, we have where we have it. An increased livestock production will mean good things for the climate. We can have more natural pasture lands, which bind more carbon dioxide. We can also raise the humus content in the field soils.

These were some proposals.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The debate is already underway. We are here to debate food and foodstuffs. The motions concern much about public consumption, labeling and information about food, storage of food, and so on. For the sake of time, I would like to move for the approval of reservation 2 already now. I do, however, stand behind all of the Miljöpartiets reservations.

It is difficult not to touch upon agricultural and forestry policy and fisheries when we talk about food, because that is the foundation. I will, however, try to stick to the food and what concerns production.

The events of recent years – war in the surrounding area, the panic regarding the drought that we already feel and that is building up, rising prices and debates in the newspapers – have truly put their finger on something that we here in Sweden have taken for granted, namely access to good and healthy food and access to drinking water. In connection with the horrific events in Ukraine and the explosion of the dam, it is not only people's homes that have disappeared. The land is also destroyed for a long time to come, and the drinking water supply is gone for a large number of people.

I return to the food. If we do not have primary production, we have no food. Something that all these events point to is that we cannot continue as before. We must also talk about the food of the future and the food supply of the future. To meet the challenges, we need to look at how we produce and consume food as well as what kind of food it is. It will probably change fundamentally.

The day before yesterday, we had a seminar with Mistra Food Futures, which is looking at exactly these issues in order to make contributions to the food strategy. Their points were to put sustainability at the center of the food strategy, to use broad, clear and measurable goals, and to increase the production of the food of the future – not just food. Perhaps some things that are done today should be changed.

We must also create the conditions for sustainable and healthy consumption. We must implement and future-proof the technology. We must let the sustainability transition and increased preparedness go hand in hand.

The most important thing of all is perhaps to gather around a vision of good food. Just because it is a different kind of food or the food of the future, it does not have to be worse. I believe we all eat much better now than people did in the 50s. It is enough to look at Historieätarna; one is not very envious of those who lived in the past, when people were paid in barrels of herring and other things. The future will also contain a lot of good food, but perhaps not exactly the same food as we eat today.

Madam Speaker! The reservation I moved for approval concerns the fact that the public sector must come first. Since that is where we have our common money, we must drive development there and steer towards sustainable food production and sustainable procurement. We want to see an increased procurement of organic food in the public sector, also because it has been shown to mean that more climate-smart and healthy food is served. We see larger portions of legumes and more vegetarian days on the menus. This is precisely what research shows we need to do when we are to transition what we eat. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to raise the public consumption of organic food to 80 percent.

Madam Speaker! A couple of weeks ago, I was invited to Ekomatcentrum's graduation ceremony, Ekomatsligan. Here, meal actors from across the country and the entire organic industry gathered and celebrated the efforts the industry makes in the public sector. A ranking also showed which municipalities and regions had made the most organic purchases. With its 70 percent organic raw materials, Örebro municipality won for the second year in a row. The best region was Jönköping with 61 percent.

I spoke with some from Tullängsgymnasiet in Örebro who said that it is difficult because it has become more expensive, but that the creative chefs get to cook according to the situation. For example, they baked bread daily but could not afford to serve butter with the bread every day because the butter had become more expensive and they have to stick to the budget. They told the children that they would get home-baked bread and butter every other day, but the children wanted bread every day. Then it was suggested to use spreads of leftover vegetables and other things on the bread, and the children agreed to that. Now they get organic home-baked bread every day, which is fantastic. That is how it continued, and when I saw pictures of what was served, it was like at a three-star restaurant.

There was also talk about the good meal, that is, using the meal as a pedagogical tool. It is when we are small that we develop our taste buds and future habits. If one is used to eating good and healthy food when one is young, it stays with you throughout life. It is often said that Sweden did not start sorting waste until Tippen was shown on TV, because that was when the children began teaching their parents to sort waste. It is somewhat the same here - if the children come home and say that they want such food and such side dishes, it is only for the parents to prepare and serve it.

This year, a meal pedagogy prize was also awarded. It went to Norlandiaförskolan Pärlan in Vårby, which has worked long-term and purposefully with cooperation, communication, and pedagogy in sustainable learning. Here, they work on giving the children good habits from the start.

These examples show that despite price increases, it was possible to stay within the budget frameworks thanks to good creativity and demands from politics for a high proportion of organic and locally produced products. It was absolutely fantastic to be able to take part in this. I wish it had been so in my school when I attended, but that was not quite the case.

Madam Speaker! Public procurement is incredibly important. But it is also important to know what one is eating. Therefore, we want to see origin labeling at restaurants, something that has been raised earlier in the debate. It is completely crazy that buyers and restaurant guests cannot know where the meat comes from. We members want to stand up for the Swedish values, which we are proud of and always highlight, and then it is strange that we do not dare to implement this so that everyone can make an active choice.

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the debate and wish you a happy summer.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Emma Nohrén for an interesting speech.

Yesterday, an interesting seminar on sustainable agriculture was held, and we soon realized that we have somewhat different views on this. Member John Widegren is skilled at the difference between organic and conventional agriculture, and I mean that Sweden needs conventional agriculture to increase the quantity. Our world needs more food, not less.

Does the member of Parliament think that Sweden should have only organic farming, or does the member of Parliament see that we need both?

With only organic farming, the harvests will become smaller, but the Christian Democrats argue that Sweden's pantry should be so full that we can also export food to people who need food. Sweden is, after all, a perfect country to do that from.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for the question, which gives me the opportunity to clarify our position.

Our reservation concerns 80 percent organic in the public sector. The government's national target is 60 percent, and we therefore want to increase that. We also have a target of 30 percent organic area by 2030, and we stand behind that but want to increase it thereafter. However, we do not have a target of 100 percent, because there are parts where one cannot switch to organic production or where it is not advantageous.

The important thing is that all agriculture becomes as good as possible, and there are fantastic conventional farms that do great ecological good. There is a great breadth, and the most important thing is that everyone moves towards fossil-free and that we get a sustainable agriculture and a good food production.

With the eco-label, however, there are certain requirements regarding animal welfare and pesticides, and we consider these requirements to be important to achieve.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the answer.

The EU is now pushing for us to go down to 30 percent, which is a compromise. But the fact is that Sweden is incredibly skilled already today. Our agriculture is sustainable, and plant protection is used in a good way.

France, and potentially Germany, want to ban glyphosate. We must therefore tell them how we use glyphosate in Sweden. At the Agriculture Day a few years ago, one of the owners of Väderstad AB was there, and he argued that we must keep glyphosate because it is absolutely crucial for good agriculture. However, how one uses it is extremely important. He told that in France, they apply a final dose a couple of weeks before harvest, and then it is understandable that there are trace elements left in the harvest. We must teach them to do as in Sweden: Be very restrictive, but use it in a good way so that you get rid of the worst parts of the damage out in the fields.

I just wanted to ask the member: Are you in Miljöpartiet also on the line that one should ban glyphosate in Swedish agriculture?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for the question.

Yes, we want to ban glyphosate. The question is under investigation in the EU. There is a temporary authorization, or an extension, for glyphosate which is to be investigated during this year. A conclusion is hopefully expected before the turn of the year regarding how glyphosate should be phased out. Several different research reports have been made - Efsa has also been involved - to obtain a basis to assess whether it would be worth it. One might be able to apply for exemptions for certain things, but we are absolutely for a general glyphosate ban.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating here in the chamber the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report on food policy. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

Sweden is a fantastic agricultural country. We have enormous opportunities to produce even more food than is produced today. But there are some obstacles in the way. Some of the obstacles we as a country have caused ourselves, and some of the obstacles are difficult to influence. A serious obstacle that my colleague John Widegren raised in his speech is the drought that we are currently in the middle of. Principally, all farmers from Mälardalen and southwards are affected by the drought. Many are desperate over having received such a poor first harvest of fodder, and the cereals are really not doing well in the drought. The situation is very serious, and many farmers have already reported their animals to the slaughterhouses. The number of cows has increased significantly during the last few weeks.

What can we and the government do in this situation? We know that the issue is a top priority for the government. There are daily meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture so that they are up to speed and have readiness following the lessons from the drought in 2018, so that we can do it again if it should be needed.

Madam Speaker! We are at historically low levels when it comes to the country's food preparedness. That is how it has been for a long time. I have had countless debates and submitted interpellations to the previous government's representatives regarding these incredibly important issues for the country. Who takes the responsibility if our barns of food are empty? Is it Ica or Axfood and their central warehouses? No, of course not. It is clearly our political responsibility to ensure that there are foodstuffs to buy even in crisis or war situations.

Despite the fact that I and others for many years warned that the grocery stores would stand empty after seven days if a war situation were to occur, it seemed as if hardly anyone in the previous government took it seriously.

I must say that the previous government could not be accused of being in a hurry. Despite the fact that we in this chamber in 2017 made a decision on a food strategy where one of the main cornerstones was to increase the country's food preparedness, nothing happened until April 30, 2022, Madam Speaker. Then an investigator was appointed to investigate how Sweden's food preparedness would be improved. The investigation will be finished in December this year.

In Finland, they are ahead of us. There, they can manage a war situation for over six months. Now they have made a new decision to increase this to nine months without having to import a single grain of wheat to the country. It is truly a country that we can follow.

Madam Speaker! I am truly pleased that we have a government that is actively working on the food strategy, which now has the name 2.0. Because when I and others were out meeting farmers, we noticed that the food strategy was almost like a joke among them. They said to me: Don't come here and talk about the food strategy - nothing is happening, and we see nothing at the farm level.

We need a new start, and it has certainly become so with many meetings around the country and proposals for measures to improve food policy in Sweden. It is the most important question we have politically – to make agriculture more profitable and to ensure that our farmers can compete on the same terms as the other farmers in the EU. It was also one of the fundamental cornerstones we had when we adopted the food strategy in 2017.

Madam Speaker! Another major obstacle to increasing food production is the large number of wolves in the country. I have met people who are trying to live and work in the middle of a wolf territory. They are trying to produce food, but it is almost impossible. It is killed, injured, or fleeing animals. It cannot continue like this. We must reduce the number of wolves. The wolves are now spreading down to southern Sweden. We truly see how bad it is.

I was at a gathering in Valdemarsvik a while ago with Östgötalamm. The by far largest and most important issue for them was the wolf. They are afraid. They ask themselves when the wolf will come to their pastures. This issue is so important. We also know that there is a large majority in the chamber to reduce the number of wolves. I know that this government will work actively to get this done.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member. It is mostly a bit of empty barrels rattling. But we can perhaps go into those empty barrels, which the member highlighted in his speech.

I would like to start with the labeling of origin. The previous Minister for Rural Affairs sent an application to the EU so that we could be able to label origin at restaurants already now. The current Kristdemokraterna Minister for Rural Affairs withdrew that application directly when he took office. It is incredibly strange. Why did they do that? Then it was claimed that it was so that the EU would implement common rules. The Minister has several times in this chamber answered interpellations from me and said that this is coming. But nothing is coming. How does the Presidency, where the Kristdemokraterna Minister for Rural Affairs leads the Council, prioritize this issue?

I would also like to say something about the food strategy. I think it is very good that it is being updated. I have met the member many times in this chamber when he has explained to me how important it is that we do it together. It is important, because when the change of government comes, this must hold. The member has also said that this is actually nothing more than a small, easy revision and that we therefore do not need to produce this together. That contradicts itself.

The Board also knows very well that the evaluation made of the previous food strategy before the pandemic showed that profitability had increased at all levels. Despite that, I am completely in favor of us having an updated food strategy.

Regarding the drought and the extreme heat that awaits this summer, I have read that the government is following the situation closely, but I see no measures.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for very interesting questions! I will try to answer them now, but otherwise, I have two minutes left.

The previous Minister for Rural Affairs was the member himself. We have learned that the EU said a flat no because they did not think it was entirely according to the rules of the game. The member, who was minister at the time, should have known about this.

I have understood that the government and the Minister for Rural Affairs will work on the issue now. It is incredibly important for the government, let alone that. But getting beaten at once by not getting it through in the EU is perhaps not the best solution either.

Admittedly, it can sometimes be good to have poster politics, but if you say something, it is also good to get it implemented. That is what the government will try to do. As the member knows, a lot of work is required in the EU to get such a proposal through. Therefore, I believe that the government will work actively with this moving forward.

Then it was a question of profitability, which has been very poor. We have had some debates about this, the member and I. But now my speaking time ended.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I can repeat that a question concerned the food strategy and participation from the remaining parties, which can surely be answered quite quickly. I also asked a question about profitability, which the member began to answer. It turned out that it had increased along with the food strategy.

In a previous exchange, the Christian Democrats raised the issue of organic farming, and that is where I am surprised. Every time the Christian Democrats raise that question, it is as if they do not want to see more organic, but then I wonder why the following is on the Christian Democrats' website: "Organic farming plays an important role in developing new sustainable cultivation methods. The Christian Democrats are positive about organic cultivation increasing and that new organic methods can be adopted within conventional farming."

Still, the member almost always stands here and says something else. What is the Christian Democrats' view on ecological agriculture? Is it what we can all read on the Christian Democrats' website, or is it what member Magnus Oscarsson refers to in his own statements?

I believe the member must understand that the government has now governed for eight months. One can no longer blame everything on the previous government, and things must happen this summer given the extreme heat and drought. This is what this government must now take responsibility for. The origin labeling must be something this government now takes responsibility for. When it comes to the food strategy, they apparently do not want to involve anyone else, so that must also be taken responsibility for.

Now it is time to stop not taking responsibility. Now it is time to step up, the member.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the questions I received!

That is exactly how it is. The government has worked for eight months, but the previous government, which the member himself was a part of, sat for eight years. Of course, one can demand that the government now provide answers to various questions, and it does so. But it is difficult to get results at once.

As the member knows very well, everything must be investigated before a change can be achieved. Some investigations were carried out by the previous government, and those can be utilized. Other investigations must be commissioned, and then we will have a food strategy that we can call 2.0. Just as the member has been given an answer, we have adopted the cornerstones that I raised in my speech.

It is interesting that the member has heard that everything has become much better under the food strategy, because I have at least not received that signal. I have said before to the member's colleagues that it would be interesting to go out to the farms together and hear what they say about the food strategy. The message I get from them every time is that it is just talk and that they do not see anything at the farm level.

It is this that we want to move away from - that people just talk. Instead, we want to do something about the whole thing. It is incredibly important. We have had eight months, and we have a few months left of the mandate period. It will be very exciting to work with this and to show our Swedish farmers that this government will make a difference.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 19.

What we choose to put on our plates may differ, but what is common to all of us is that we are dependent on food and water to survive. Therefore, this debate feels extremely important right now, not least in the tough economic situation we find ourselves in.

Families with children, pensioners and single-person households are being pressured right now in a way that we have not seen in decades. Food is record-expensive, prices continue to rise and we find ourselves in a situation where more and more people are turning over every krona to make their private finances work.

This is noticeable, not least in our Swedish schools. The chairman of the municipal executive board in Kalmar municipality reports that the schoolchildren eat more on Mondays and Fridays, and he is not the only one saying that. He also says that food consumption increased by 38 tons in the first quarter of 2023 compared to the first quarter of 2022. An increase of 38 tons in one quarter – take in that figure!

Of course children can eat porridge every day, as suggested in the debate, when the government's budget priorities are not directed towards school, healthcare and elderly care or ordinary people, but instead towards tax cuts for high-income earners.

In this situation, the Finance Minister is urging people to choose the cheapest option on the store shelves, which unfortunately is often not the Swedish one. The deteriorating purchasing power among consumers in combination with increased prices affects the profitability of food producers. The ultimate risk here is bankruptcy, which is a tragedy not only for the individual entrepreneur but also for our country's capacity for self-sufficiency.

At the same time, Russia's invasion of Ukraine shows the importance of high readiness in our country, not least when it comes to food and water. Sweden must be able to supply its inhabitants with food and clean water in all situations, and therefore we need to see more Swedish on the plates and in the glasses, not less.

Madam Speaker! We have all noticed that it costs more at the grocery store, but it has not only become more expensive to buy food but also to produce it. Our Swedish food producers have been hit by large cost increases since the war in Ukraine began. We see this when it comes to inputs such as fertilizer, feed, electricity, and fuel, and now it is also wavering for the biogas that Swedish farmers produce.

Another threat that has a major impact on our farmers and Swedish food production is climate change and global warming. It is a reality we live in here and now. We all remember the hot, extreme summer of 2018 and the forest fires that raged, the problems with the harvests and the irrigation bans. Long-term forecasts now indicate that we are facing a similar summer with high temperatures and far too little precipitation.

We Social Democrats have requested an action plan from the government regarding in what way they intend to handle the effects of upcoming heatwaves. It is extremely important to have a plan, so that one is prepared for the possible extreme heat and drought that has already hit parts of Sweden. I also want to remind the chamber that it is not only the regions south of Mälardalen that the drought and heat have already hit, but that it also applies to other places further north.

Madam Speaker! We need to join forces so that our Swedish food producers can survive through this strained situation and, in the long run, be able to strengthen their competitiveness. One way to increase that robustness and the domestic production of food is the Swedish food strategy. When it was adopted in 2017, there was a broad consensus in the Swedish Riksdag. In the review that is now being carried out, there seems to be no interest from the government's side to invite the opposition to joint talks. It is regrettable because it is good to have a broad, common policy so that the strategy holds over time and even as we now soon see a change of government.

The members of the current government parties thought this was very important before the election, but then the election came and in this case, they apparently changed their opinion. We Social Democrats stand firm that it is important for moving forward on the path that conversations are held across party lines, just as we did with the then opposition when we developed Sweden's first food strategy.

Madam Speaker! Much of what I have raised in my speech concerns challenges and problems, which perhaps is not so strange since we find ourselves in a critical situation. It is about the hot, dry summer, the wars in our vicinity, the buildup of our preparedness, the dependence we have on countries we should not be dependent on for input goods, and not least the economy of ordinary people. But we must not forget that there are also very great opportunities.

Food production in Sweden has all the prerequisites to contribute to increased employment and growth. It creates jobs in rural areas, and food of good quality is produced with high environmental and animal welfare requirements. There is an enormous will and an enormous commitment among our Swedish food producers, whether it concerns pig farmers, grain growers, goat cheese producers or algae farmers. We also have a very good and knowledgeable food industry that is eager to develop its operations according to the market's demands.

Last year, I had the privilege of inaugurating Sweden's first protein factory in Bjuv, which will offer fully Swedish proteins from legumes that have been grown, processed, and packaged in Sweden. All peas shall be included, not sorted out! On Monday, I visited several Ogesta farms, which is one of Sweden's largest farms and which works strategically with climate adaptation in its vulnerable location with recurring droughts. We also see the aquaculture emerging, often in synergy with other food production.

Madam Speaker! There is, in other words, an enormous potential in the Swedish food chain with the food and production of the future, sustainability, job creation and competitiveness from farm to fork and to export.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. We had a good debate earlier, so I thought I would continue.

It is interesting that the member brings up the food strategy specifically. I actually believe I am the only one here in the assembly today who was there at that time and sat with the then minister Sven-Erik Bucht and negotiated the food strategy. No, Emma Nohrén was also there. So there are two of us.

The fact is that it is partly as the member was pointing out, namely that we negotiated proposals on how to facilitate things for our Swedish farmers. It was a piece of work that was important, just as the member also pointed out. I believe it is absolutely crucial to have a food strategy, and Swedish farmers must know that it will endure over time. It is important that the food strategy endures over time and is not just finished after one parliamentary term.

The cornerstones were greater profitability and increased competitiveness for the farmers and also higher food security in the country. This was in June 2017. Then very little happened, which I also spoke about in my speech. Later a proposal came - I believe it was 2022 or 2021 - that an investigation would be initiated and that it would be finished this year. My question is whether the member thinks that it was acted upon quickly.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Just as the member says, we Social Democrats work in a slightly different way by even including the member in the question and thinking that he, along with several others, might also be able to contribute.

We are working across party lines because we believe that food and food production - the entire chain - is so important. We believe it is important because it creates jobs throughout Sweden and in Sweden's rural areas. We believe it is important because we need that type of supply capacity in Sweden. Many parts here are both job-creating and food-creating, and we think that is incredibly important. Therefore, we also thought it was equally important to ensure that all parties were included. We believe, in fact, that if one listens to several, it can become better.

I want to remind the member that as the member said, the food strategy was adopted in 2017, and today we have many times mentioned in the debate what happened in 2018: the drought. They calculated the costs for Sweden's farmers to be 6-10 billion. That is also why we Social Democrats stand here today and wonder what the government intends to do about the drought. In the press release that we have read, it only says that they intend to monitor the situation. It says nothing about measures for Swedish agriculture – on the other hand, it says a little about measures for Swedish forestry.

In the history of the food strategy that applied from farm to export, one must also look at what happened during the time when reality bit us. The drought, which we should have been working to prepare the country for at all times. The climate adaptation strategy and other things we developed would have helped.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! This is interesting, because we maintain that the work which was done in 2017 and before that laid the foundation, and the foundation was that one should increase competitiveness, achieve more profitability for agriculture and raise food security. I hope that the member can answer my question as to what it is that has changed in that part up until today.

The chairman mentions the drought. So it was absolutely so, and that is what we agree on, but one does not need to talk about it in that way. I think it is very important that the government now takes the food strategy from the time it originated and actually tries to kick-start it again and make some difference.

I will return to the question that I find so interesting. You meet farmers all around the country.

I meet quite a few, and they always say the same thing to me: "Magnus! Don't talk about that food strategy! It's just a lot of talk." They notice nothing at the farm level.

I now understand that the member and her party colleagues are not hearing the same thing. Therefore, I would like to accompany someone sometime to a meeting where they say they have noticed such a difference and that they have achieved much better profitability and competitiveness thanks to the food strategy. I have not heard this so far.

The answer to the question is therefore: We want to move from talk to action, and I also hope that we will do so during the mandate period.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament has now had many opportunities to answer why the opposition is not allowed to participate in the food strategy 2.0, which is supposed to go from strategy to action or whatever it was he said. Why are large parts of Sweden's Riksdag excluded from participating in this? He has not been able to answer that. I believe that strategies such as this always fare much better when one knows that they hold steady through changes of government.

I will respond to what I hear when I am out. People are not highlighting the food strategy, but rather the drought and the problems they had then have been brought up. That is what Swedish farmers want to talk about. They also want to talk about the invasion of Ukraine which created high prices for electricity, fuel, fertilizer and feed because we in Sweden could not handle this ourselves. This is what Swedish farmers talk to me about, with concern.

Just as the Moderate member previously pointed out, they also do not want support, but they simply want an economy so that they can manage on their own.

Due to inflation, we know that people do not have the finances to shop for food in the same way as before. I am therefore very worried about how it will go for Swedish agriculture. In the economic situation that prevails, ordinary people are not prioritized. Nor are the schools prioritized so that they can procure this food as school meals. We are therefore not supporting Swedish farmers in this way. That makes me worried.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats want to see food production that works in all of Sweden. We want to see research and development that leads to new products that can also be exported.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Food is culture and tradition. It is closely linked with business and entrepreneurship, the tourism industry, and a living countryside. It is also linked with high environmental values, animal welfare, and bustling meadows.

I guess there are more than I who have many fine memories linked to a particular meal: the herring at Midsummer, the ham at the Christmas table, and the piece of meat on the grill. Sweden is a food nation, and the meal plays a major role in our lives. Many of us choose raw materials with care, and many gladly choose organic and locally produced.

Madam Speaker! Our agriculture produces important products for both our domestic market and the international market. Swedish food is climate-smart. It is produced with a high degree of animal welfare and environmental consideration. It is a competitive advantage that we need to safeguard. Good animal welfare also leads to less antibiotics being used.

Some point out that organic farming must be promoted for the sake of health and the environment. Others argue that conventional agriculture is more efficient and climate-smart and allows us to produce much more food, which is needed to feed the world's population. I would like to see organic food and often choose it myself, but I think that from a political standpoint we should be a bit careful about directing what people should put in their shopping baskets at the store. It is the consumers' demand that should guide it.

In this context, it can be added that I would most preferably eat the potatoes from my own field. There is no potato that tastes as good as those.

Madam Speaker! In these times, one cannot speak of food and food security without speaking of peace - or rather, the lack of peace in Europe. If one looks up, the single most important measure to secure a sustainable food supply is to end Russia's heinous war of aggression against Ukraine.

The war has far-reaching effects on the global food supply, and it will have a significant and lasting impact on the global market for a long time. Ukraine has, as we all know, been a leading exporter of grain. The country's exports have, however, decreased drastically as a consequence of the war.

As has already been pointed out here in the chamber today, food is world politics. The war has led to major problems for the food supply for millions of people around the world. The war must come to an end. Russia must leave Ukraine.

One must however keep in mind that the reconstruction will take a very long time, and it will take a very long time for agriculture to recover. The situation became much worse when the hydroelectric dam was blown up last week. The road back to a fully functioning agriculture is very long. One will probably never reach the same level again.

Madam Speaker! We Liberals attach great importance to being able to both export and import food, especially between the member states in the EU. I, like my party, am a great supporter of free trade. We see that it is necessary to work so that the EU does not fold when the crisis comes. Free trade, not protectionism, is the way forward.

At the same time, the current situation and other crises we have managed in recent years point to how important domestic food production is for our preparedness. It is therefore very pleasing that the sitting government, with its coalition partners, is investing resources to strengthen the preparedness.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to speak a little about our most important food source, namely water. The water supply and the preparedness for it has been neglected for a long time. Access to secure food and clean water is a society-critical function in both peacetime and wartime. Without food and water, we cannot survive for long. After the security policy developments in the area, we know that we need to increase our supply preparedness. Therefore, it is pleasing that the government and the coalition party have invested in this.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight the unifying power of food. It feels important to conclude on a positive note during the committee's final debate before the summer.

I come from a small community in the countryside. There, it is a matter of honor to keep local traditions alive, care for culturally and historically important buildings, and work together to create a living community.

In this small community, there is a small, old mill, whose stones are driven by a waterwheel. The mill has been in use for centuries. For a long time, it supplied the area with all the flour it needed. Now, it only spins for a few weeks a year. Every year, wheat and rye are ground with the help of volunteer efforts and great enthusiasm. The grain that is ground comes from local, organic growers, and the flour is then sold in the small shop located in the mill. The proceeds go to the local community life.

This is an example of how locally produced food contributes to keeping old crafts alive, caring for culturally and historically important buildings, creating a sense of community, and contributing resources to the local civil society. The food simply contributes to a better society.

I wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and also wish everyone a happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! We Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 4, which concerns the labeling of origin of meat and other main ingredients, such as dairy products.

During the pandemic, we saw an upswing for Swedish food products. They were bought and consumed more than before. This probably has its greatest explanation in that people ate less at restaurants and more at home. As we know, it is easy to choose Swedish in the store, because it is visible what is Swedish. But it is difficult to choose Swedish at the restaurant. It is very unfortunate, because there are very good added values in Swedish food products. It is also something that people think. People want to buy Swedish food products precisely because these fine added values exist. Therefore, this must also be visible when one goes to a restaurant. We want the government to come to the point with national rules for this and not wait for animal welfare labeling that is to be negotiated in the future in Brussels.

I should complain a bit, I want the government to get to the point even regarding the wild boar. Hunters must be given the opportunity to sell to the end customer, furthermore more than ten plus ten carcasses, which are now being discussed. This is needed now. As it is now, Sweden benefits from many idealistic efforts from the hunters' side. But now the complaining is over, because this is the best government we have had in a very long time.

In the committee's work, which preceded the Chamber's handling, we, thanks to the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals, got through a wording that is now thus the committee's wording. It concerns that stocks shall be established for basic necessities and for agriculture's input goods. We want to clarify that we do not believe in a solution that only includes the companies' own supply chains. One can get quite far through cooperation with the business sector, but not all the way. This is shown, not least by the company Mackleans' analysis, where Finland's functioning food preparedness is compared with the Swedish one. We can learn a lot from Finland, and we shall do so, but there is a greater sense of national feeling in the business sector in Finland. This means that we will not get all the way in Sweden. There, see yet another effect of a one-sided embrace of globalization and internationalism in Sweden!

Madam Speaker! The writing also concerns functional plant breeding for Swedish conditions. This ensures that we get crops adapted to our growing and climate conditions, and it also facilitates the storage of seed in the country. It also concerns a requirement for the municipalities to have a plan for how they can provide schools and care activities with food in the event of a crisis. These are citizens who are vulnerable during a crisis, and the municipalities have the responsibility for them. This must be formalized.

It is also about an action plan to ensure necessary feed resources in the event of a serious shortage and during a crisis. This was motioned for in the autumn, and it bears on the fact that operational readiness should exist for future such crises. Now, it has been made relevant directly this year due to the drought. I know that the government is doing a lot of work and making preparations to be able to alleviate the situation for agriculture if the drought continues this year, and I think that is very good. I hope, however, that the announced rain comes to Sweden and that it spreads across the entire country.

I am very pleased that the committee was able to include our submissions. As the attentive [member] has already noted, what I have spoken about is mainly about Sweden being able to produce more food both in peacetime and in crisis. But why is it important at all? We can surely buy food on the international market? No, the aftermath of the pandemic and Russia's war in Ukraine have shown that every nation is its own closest ally. It is actually nothing strange, as a government has its primary duty toward its own citizens. Whoever wants to question that must answer a number of follow-up questions. Sweden's government must ensure that Swedish citizens receive food during crisis and war.

This would have been important even if Swedish food production had not been one of the world's best. But the fact that it is precisely that when it comes to animal welfare, antibiotic use, environmental consideration, climate impact, and even actual efficiency makes it even more important that it is we, and not those who produce worse, who deliver to our plates. No other nation's food production can also preserve the Swedish cultural values.

Madam Speaker and all others! Food production shall therefore take place in Sweden to the greatest extent possible. For that to happen, everyone must keep that in mind in all contexts, regardless of whether it concerns diesel taxes, reduction obligations, plant protection products, restoration of nature, genetically modified crops, or anything else that can affect food production – every time the government, authorities, and MEPs travel to Brussels, every time the EU Commission comes forward with unrealistic proposals, and every time you face a choice in your store. Come on now, Sweden! We will solve this together. Everyone has a task.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! We find ourselves in a restless time, with a galloping climate crisis and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, which brings great human suffering but also a great impact on the global food supply. The climate crisis, high energy prices, high food prices, and high inflation are affecting Swedish farmers and our food production negatively. Now the drought is hitting hard in southern and central Sweden, with diminishing harvests and planned emergency slaughter, and the summer has barely begun.

One can ask how this is going to end. We remember the summer of 2018, as previous speakers have also mentioned, with heatwaves, drought, and large forest fires. Will we get the same situation again this year in Sweden? That is the big question. Out in Europe, the same thing is happening. There is acute drought in southern France and in the Netherlands, and in Germany, they are warning of both heat and upcoming drought. What is happening out in Europe and the world affects us in Sweden, not least regarding the production and supply of food.

Sweden has good conditions to develop a sustainable agriculture that in the future both contributes to the global food supply and strengthens our national self-sufficiency of food. The cycles must be protected, and a small-scale and diverse agricultural landscape needs to be stimulated on a larger scale.

Vänsterpartiet considers it concerning that Sweden has a self-sufficiency rate of only about 50 percent when it comes to food. An increased self-sufficiency rate would make us better prepared for crises and extreme weather, and also reduce our import dependency. This is becoming increasingly important in the multi-crisis we are currently in. Food preparedness needs to be strengthened. We need to strengthen the production of sustainable food as well. We believe that Sweden should adopt a national goal for a food self-sufficiency rate at the level of Finland's, at approximately 80 percent. If Finland has the possibility of having such a food self-sufficiency rate, it should be fully possible for us in Sweden as well.

Madam Speaker! It is also important that we do not abandon organic food production. It is worrying that many farmers now have to shut down their organic farms and their organic food production due to the crisis we are in, including high food prices and fewer resources for municipalities and regions. Municipalities and regions are now forced to opt out of organic products to a greater extent in their procurements due to a lack of economic resources from the state.

We need to continue to support ecologically sustainable and fossil-free agriculture with support and steering instruments designed in such a way that we can reach our environmental and climate goals, the global sustainability goals, and a living countryside. Safeguarding the cycles and stimulating a small-scale and diverse agricultural landscape is important. That is where the future lies.

I also want to point out that Vänsterpartiet in our budget proposal has proposed increased support for agriculture by over 1.5 billion more compared to the government. Those supports include, among other things, increased grants for row cropping, organic farming, grazing lands, plant-based food, and investment support for agriculture's water management in a changing climate.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: With the right conditions for the countryside, we can manage to increase our self-sufficiency rate for food, which also strengthens our preparedness. I move for approval of reservation 19, which concerns the preparedness work within the food chain.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 21, which concerns the preparedness in the food chain. I think it is incredibly important.

Preparedness in the food chain begins on the farm. Many have highlighted how important the self-sufficiency rate is and how low it is in Sweden. We are around 50 percent on average. We manage the grain crops at 100 percent, but on the other hand, we are very low on lamb production, and there we could be significantly better. It is also linked to the issue with the wolf, as I see it. We have too high a wolf pressure today, so when we are to increase the self-sufficiency rate, we must play with all those cards.

Something that I think we are bad at highlighting when it comes to the self-sufficiency rate is seeing fish as a food item. It always comes along a bit skewed, whether it is because the industry organizations are not syncing together or what it is, but fish is also an incredibly important food item that we monitor. Being able to get a Swedish fish on the table, without dioxins and PCB, is enormously important.

I actually see that we should move towards 100 percent self-sufficiency for food. It should not be impossible. I will return to how I see how we could achieve this.

Right now, however, we are seeing a tough situation. As many have pointed out, it is an extreme drought. This drought is, as I see it, the toughest in living memory. That it is extra tough now is also because we are coming from a fairly dry year last year. The farmer can build up stocks and robustness to meet a dry year, but because we had a dry year even last year, it means that the stocks are already empty, Madam Speaker, and some have already started harvesting the fodder for the animals now.

We now see how the slaughter wagons are starting to roll. This is serious and a clear, early signal, and it also makes many farmers feel unwell. In the industry organization, one is good at supporting one's colleagues, but these are nevertheless two important signals.

It is now required for signals from the government that we have a consensus. I hear that we have a consensus in this assembly about where we stand, but a signal is also needed out regarding what we are doing about it.

That is why I become a bit confounded, Madam Speaker, when I hear from the government and from Johan Widegren that one would preferably not have any direct support at the moment - now when we see the most serious consequence of the drought since time immemorial. At the same time, we hear Magnus Oscarsson speak about that we should have a preparedness for this drought similar to 2018.

I am quite surprised by these messages from two of the government parties. How is this to be interpreted by the business sector? Who should one listen to? I believe we have spread a rather great amount of confusion as we leave this debate today. Possibly it can become something better before we leave this chamber.

If it is then organic or conventional production, it is actually the consumer who decides. Right now, consumers are steering this in a direction towards lower prices on food and less organic. This has the consequence that organic production decreases, and that is often in tougher times.

At the same time, we are in a globalized market, and the price models we see now have, so to speak, no direct effect when it comes to the drought in Sweden. We see now, for example, that milk prices are being lowered towards the producer, which will also generate lower prices in the store. And that is good. That is how the market works.

We are quite dependent on what happens in New Zealand and what the milk market looks like there. Last year, when it was so dry across all of Europe, was an exception. Then the price broke through, and we were up at nearly 7 kronor per kilo of milk to the producer. Now we are down to 4.50, and we see that an even lower price is on the way. This is worrying.

The robustness of the food supply is important, and here we can do a lot. I welcome a new food strategy 2.0 that can increase robustness. The strategy includes, among other things, that we could use more domestically produced commercial fertilizer - great. The important thing is then that if the commercial fertilizer becomes more expensive, which it very well can because we are actually constantly buying commercial fertilizer on a surplus market, it must not affect the farmer, because then we reduce competitiveness.

We could grow more protein. We could do a lot for resilience, and resilience also depends on what our surrounding world looks like. Joining Nato could stabilize our resilience.

In Ukraine, nuclear power is now being used as a weapon in the war. The effect of a nuclear accident would be catastrophic not only for Swedish but also for European agriculture. Our most important food is water, and even that is something for which one should have an even clearer plan in the event of a major failure.

While we are looking at robustness, the government is very clearly planning more nuclear power in Sweden. I believe that one should think through the security aspects of food supply and robustness one more time and consider what it should look like for us to be able to manage these parts.

As a conclusion, I shall address the regulatory changes. It is very good that progress is being made on the regulatory change part regarding agriculture. Just do not get too bogged down in the number of rules, but instead look at the time we spend on our regulatory work! Many of the rules have become quite simple to handle; one just ticks a box in a digital system and can move on.

What is today a time-thief for agriculture is actually the self-monitoring of their own milk companies—the ones that they produce milk for. Sometimes they spend more time on this than on the actual EU support application. A dialogue with the industry is probably also required if we are to get this right. But we do not need to solve everything in this chamber; the industry must also be able to handle some of this themselves.

Madam Speaker! Despite everything, I view Swedish food supply positively, and I believe that this can become really good.

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Anders Karlsson! I believe we are in complete agreement on quite a few things. I felt addressed, even though I was called Johan Widegren. My name is John Widegren, but I have said that many times in this chamber.

That I would be an opponent of crisis support is more of a feeling. I am not saying that we should not have crisis support if it is absolutely needed. But we end up time and again in the discussion that we must pull out crisis support for Swedish agriculture, and I see it as a major failure for those of us sitting in here that we end up there every single time. The last time it was about crisis support, it was the Moderaterna and Centerpartiet who together pushed on the issue, even though Centerpartiet then went and settled with the Socialdemokraterna and left the Moderaterna behind.

I also hear another thing that I actually believe we are completely in agreement on. It concerns the wolf and the problems with it in Swedish food production, especially in lamb production. I believe we are down to a self-sufficiency of somewhere around 25 percent in Swedish lamb production today. Lambs could graze on many of our natural pasture lands, which instead are overgrowing. That does not rhyme at all with what we have talked about earlier today, the Nature Restoration Law.

But the Center Party, then? They say they want fewer wolves. But who did they intend to anchor that with? Is it the new friends on the left wing? Even if some of those parties would gladly see a smaller wolf population, that is not enough. It would have been interesting to hear, because the Center Party rarely comes and talks with its old friends – explicitly stated – when it comes to the wolf policy. How did they intend to anchor this?

Madam Speaker! I have more questions, which I will take later.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! John Widegren raised how he views crisis support. I can basically share that view in an ideal situation, where we would have had stability in Swedish agriculture and where we would have had a good economy. But now we are not there.

You actually continue to speak in a way that makes it not very clear that you want to see a crisis support. I would like to know if you want to see such a thing. Speak, if so, about wanting to see a crisis support if the drought continues! I believe that clarity would be quite good, because it would be good if it became a signal from the chamber and this group today.

Madam Speaker! John Widegren also raises the wolf issue. When that question comes up, we will have to see if we get a majority in the chamber at all; we will see how such a question lands. I am not actually so worried about the wolf issue when I hear the debate and how it has developed.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Just as I said earlier, I believe that a crisis support will be needed if the situation continues to worsen in this way. Even if a financial crisis support does not help to provide food, it helps to strengthen short-term liquidity. Then it can be needed.

But when I had a meeting with LRF's chairman Palle Borgström recently the day before yesterday, he did not think that financial crisis support at this moment stood particularly high on the list of what they wanted to see. It was a number of other measures that they wanted to see in the first instance. The industry itself is also tired of these crisis supports. It was a short answer to the question.

Nuclear power was also raised in the speech. Nuclear power is one of the most important parts of our climate transition, because the energy issue is an incredibly important climate issue. Therefore, it concerns me when the Center Party highlights nuclear power as a threat instead of an opportunity. Hydroelectric power is a regulating power and a base power that we have, just like nuclear power. Then we can also invest a lot in other types of energy - solar power, wind power and so on - but we need to have the large and heavy electricity production at the bottom. It is that which secures new establishments of companies, which secures that the dairy farms have electricity every day of the year and so on.

What would C want instead as a substantial base power in the background, if one does not want nuclear power?

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The member asks what we want to see instead. My thought was not to start an energy debate, but I was thinking about the risk of not being able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time. If one highlights nuclear power, one must also see the risks associated with it, both regarding final disposal and what could happen in a war situation. There is a reason why Sweden wants to join Nato, and it is that we can see a war here as well. Then we must be able to handle the situation with nuclear power.

Then there are many different ways. In Svenskt Näringsliv's analysis of the energy situation, the first 15 years are highlighted. There, large-scale wind power is the answer for a lot of energy in a short time, even though nuclear power is also highlighted further ahead. I share the analysis that we can take different paths forward.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 June.)

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