The National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts for the agriculture's climate transition

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation number 1.

Agriculture is completely central to Sweden's food supply and for living and strong rural areas. Farmers all over the country work every day to produce high-quality food, develop their businesses, and contribute to sustainability and transition. At the same time, we know that agriculture faces great challenges, both regarding the climate and regarding the economy.

This is what they do in a time of increased uncertainty. The war in Ukraine affects Europe's food supply. Conflicts in the Middle East drive up energy prices and input costs, and we clearly see how vulnerable we are when we are dependent on imported fossil fuels and global supply chains. One thing is very clear: This is not just about climate, it is about preparedness, self-sufficiency, and security in the entire country.

The National Audit Office highlights in its report that the state's governance is deficient in several areas. Important emission sources lack management measures, the follow-up is insufficient, and farmers face uncertainty regarding support and long-term perspective. This risks complicating the transition in a sector that already has small margins.

At the same time, we know that Sweden is a country with strong farmers – people who get up early every day, who work with weather, land, and animals all year round, and who ensure that we have food on the table. But today they stand in the middle of a double challenge: They must produce more food while simultaneously transitioning for the climate. It is here that politics must step forward.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office is clear and states three things fundamentally. For the first: The management measures are often well-designed. For the second: They only cover a small part of the emissions. For the third, and most seriously: The Government's management has not led to agriculture contributing to the climate goals in an effective way. It is therefore not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of direction.

This is not just a climate issue but also a question of preparedness and security. We live in a time where the global situation has changed fundamentally. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shown how vulnerable our food systems are. The conflicts in the Middle East affect energy prices and trade flows. And what do we see then? Yes, that we are still deeply dependent on fossil raw materials – diesel in agriculture, artificial fertilizer linked to fossil gas, and transport driven by oil.

This makes us vulnerable, not only to climate change but also to crises. Precisely because of that, Sweden should go in the opposite direction. We need to increase our self-sufficiency, reduce our fossil dependency, and strengthen our agriculture. Preparedness is not built with imported fossil fuels but with own production. But that requires a long-term policy – a policy that holds together.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats stand by our reservations in the report. I would particularly like to highlight two crucial parts.

Firstly: Sweden needs a clear plan. Today, there is no unified plan for how agriculture should contribute to the climate goals, which is also the Swedish National Audit Office's clear criticism. This has consequences: uncertainty, inconsistency, and investments that do not materialize.

We mean that the government must develop a national plan for the agriculture's climate transition, a plan that is developed together with farmers and the entire food chain, which is based on research and proven experience, which handles goal conflicts between production, climate, and biodiversity, and which provides long-term rules of the game. Without long-term perspective, there will be no investments, and without investments, there will be no transition.

Secondly: We need more and better instruments. The National Audit Office clearly points out that large parts of the emissions lack instruments. That is not sufficient. We need tools that work in reality. It is about compensating farmers for measures that increase carbon storage in the soil, strengthening the production of biogas and biofuels, enabling investments in fossil-free machinery, and creating stable conditions for climate investments. These are investments in Sweden's future.

Swedish farmers want to transition. They are often at the forefront, but they cannot do it alone. They need stable rules of the game, reasonable conditions, and a policy that holds over time.

Here is my criticism of the government: Instead of building long-term perspective, they have increased uncertainty. Instead of reducing the dependence on fossil inputs, they risk getting stuck in it. And instead of showing direction, they have left the sector without a clear plan. It is not possible to meet the competition of the future with the fuels of yesterday.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want something else. We want to strengthen Swedish food production, increase competitiveness, reduce emissions, and make Sweden less vulnerable. We want to create conditions for an agriculture that can both grow and transition. We know it can be done, but it requires political leadership. At its core, it is about something larger: Who shall produce the food in the future, under what conditions, and with what security?

We cannot choose between climate and profitability. We must achieve both. We know it is possible, but then the politics must do its job.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Swedish agriculture is in a critical situation. Many farmers are being pressured by high costs, complicated regulations, uncertain profitability, and a growing feeling that politics makes decisions further and further away from their everyday lives. They also do not act in a vacuum but are directly affected by an increasingly uncertain global situation.

The situation in the Middle East is pushing up energy prices, disrupting global trade flows, and driving up costs for inputs such as diesel and fertilizer and for transport. For the farmer in Sweden, this becomes very concrete. Margins are shrinking, and risks are increasing. It is a bad equation, not only for individual companies but also for our food supply and our preparedness. Therefore, we need to do what we can to support those who produce the food we put on the table.

Swedish agriculture is among the most environmentally and climate-smart in the world. Our farmers produce food with low emissions, high animal welfare, low antibiotic use, and high environmental requirements. When food is produced in Sweden, it is usually done in a much better way than in many other places in the world. But if Swedish production is pushed out and replaced by imports from other countries with higher emissions, we do not reduce global emissions. We only move them – and feed our population with food of probably lower quality. This benefits neither the climate, the environment, nor our population. On the contrary, we risk weakening both our food security and our ability to contribute to a sustainable global development.

That is why agricultural policy is also climate policy. If we are to reduce global emissions, it is not enough to only look at what happens within Sweden's borders. We must also protect and strengthen the production that is actually more climate-smart than the alternatives.

Madam Speaker! 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 farm door, all with their own inspection schedules and requirements. It is not sustainable. We must dare to admit that we have made it too difficult to be a farmer in Sweden today.

The Moderates have a clear focus on simplifying rules, and it must happen at all levels where the regulatory burden arises.

At the EU level, we have taken concrete steps forward. Thanks to a moderate initiative in the European Parliament, the European Commission has introduced the "one in, one out" principle. This means that every time a new requirement is introduced that entails an additional cost for a farmer, it shall be offset by an equally large cost reduction elsewhere.

We have not stopped there – in a second step, we have also had the European Parliament back "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 and something that the Moderaterna have been driving.

At the national level, Sweden must stop constantly trying to be the best in class, i.e., placing 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 more needs to be done. I understand that this is not yet felt at the farm level, which must be the ultimate goal, but these are important steps in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! There are a number of clearly prioritized areas that we need to address.

Firstly, the right of ownership must be strengthened for real. Those who own and use land must be able to rely on the fact that the state does not intervene arbitrarily. If society restricts the use of land, compensation shall be provided. No individual landowner shall alone bear the cost for decisions made in the name of the public.

Secondly, we must reduce red tape even here at home in Sweden. Far too many farmers are today met with forms, long processing times, and unclear instructions. Those who want to invest, expand, or develop their business should be met with opportunities and an extended hand, not by bureaucracy. We need faster processes, simpler rules, and greater respect for the farmers' time and work.

For the third, we need much more trust in those who work the land. Many farmers have managed land and forest for several generations. They know their lands much better than the bureaucrats in Stockholm and Brussels. Policy should be built on cooperation and incentives, not mistrust and micro-management. I am convinced that the countryside would benefit from a little more freedom and far fewer lectures.

Madam Speaker! Swedish farmers do not only produce food. They produce open landscapes, jobs, biodiversity, preparedness and faith in the future. If we are serious about the climate, about preparedness and about Sweden's self-sufficiency, we must also be serious about the conditions for Swedish agriculture.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I took some pleasure in looking at what the Moderaterna promised in the 2022 election campaign.

One of the things that the Moderaterna spoke about at the time was a green fuel subsidy to bridge the cost between the fossil and the renewable in the agricultural sector – HVO, for example, which would work in today's machines. We in Centerpartiet usually call this a bio-premium. But nothing has happened on this theme during this mandate period. My simple question is: Why not? It would have been great. The cost difference is also something highlighted by, for example, the Climate Policy Council.

Another thing that is often brought up is the agricultural deduction that would replace the tax reduction on fossil fuels that currently exists. It is a proposal that has been investigated, which gives exactly as much back to the green industries and which has also been embraced by the industry itself – perhaps also because the investigator was a former chairman of the industry itself. Nothing has happened there either.

Actually, my question is to Helena Storckenfeldt: Why have we not received a green fuel support and an agricultural deduction, despite knowing that these are things demanded by the industry itself and that would help with the cost burden and at the same time lower emissions?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The simple answer to that question is that it is not a Moderate minister who is in charge of the Ministry of Rural Affairs.

These are continued priorities for the Moderaterna and something that we continue to push for. I believe that a green fuel support can be a good complement to what we are now doing on the diesel side for those who remain dependent on fossil fuels moving forward. But it should be complemented by a support that makes it more neutral and also makes it worthwhile to invest in green fuels.

We also believe that the agricultural deduction could be interesting. However, I know that we have not taken a position on a concrete proposal on that specific point. It is something that we discuss in our MJU circles, those of us who work with these issues, but as said, it is not something that we have taken a position on in a party-political program yet.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Even though it is not the Moderates who run the Ministry of Rural Affairs, it is the Moderates who run the Ministry of Finance. That is where the budget is presented, and that is what this is about. These are budget investments. And the agricultural deduction is definitely something that lies with the Moderate Finance Minister, given that it is a deduction and a tax reduction. The main responsibility lies there as well.

We have a finished proposal. We have an investigated proposal. Does this mean that the government has not taken a position on the proposal that is investigated and finished and which the industry itself wants? I think, in that case, it is a bit weak of the government to not be able to make decisions on important investigations.

My question then is this: Is this something that the Moderaterna will prioritize moving forward? It has obviously not been prioritized enough, since it hasn't been implemented. It would have been a prime example of such things that the industry wants, which reduces emissions and lowers the cost burden for the green industries.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! It has been an intense mandate period, to say the least. There have been many things to deal with at the same time. We have tried to balance the needs for defense with the historical infrastructure investment that was recently presented and which covers the entire country, and with pushing down inflation and ensuring that we support our households and our companies. At the same time, there has been an incredibly uncertain international situation.

I can say that the priorities at the Ministry of Finance have been well-balanced. After all, it is a single purse of money that we all have to manage, and there we have to make different trade-offs. I believe that very many parties here in the Swedish Riksdag continue to prioritize large investments in defense and in infrastructure. We also have the entire gang crime that we have simultaneously had to manage.

Madam Speaker! As has been said, there has been much to prioritize at the same time, but I can tell Rickard Nordin that we continue to stand by the proposals that we have taken a party-political stance on. We will continue to push them forward.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! According to the Swedish National Audit Office, the SD-government today lacks both a clear plan for and sufficient governance of how agriculture shall contribute to Sweden's climate goals. The National Audit Office's report also shows that there is potential for several measures that could contribute to the goals being reached in a cost-effective manner but which the government has chosen not to take advantage of. I am thinking particularly of the Bioeconomy Investigation.

Transitioning agriculture from fossil to renewable is necessary both for the climate and for the economy of agriculture, and with the new emissions trading system in the EU, fossil fuels will certainly also become more expensive. This requires a rapid transition, and biogas and biofuels are important keys in all of this.

So I wonder: What happened to the Bioeconomy Inquiry? Whose desk did it actually end up in?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I must simply point out to Malin Larsson from the Social Democrats that it is, in fact, a Moderate-led government that is governing right now and, thank goodness, not a Social Democratic government.

We have a focus on ensuring that we do not reduce food production. That is the absolute most important thing regarding our priorities within the agricultural sector, which is what we are discussing here today.

We have made several different initiatives to try to support agriculture in a cost-effective way when it comes to transitioning, while at the same time we must not risk reducing food production. Rather, we must succeed in the feat of increasing food production while we have a very tough global situation with increased prices on almost all fronts and a very tough situation for our farmers.

The bioeconomy investigation is, however, still interesting. This is still something that I believe will play a decisive role going forward when it comes to how we are to handle the transition of the green industries.

It is a question that I believe will continue to be important, but which I have no better answer to here today.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answers! It is however disappointing that after these four years in government, one only sees that the Bioeconomy Inquiry is "still interesting." There are, in fact, a number of good proposals in it that would have needed to become reality. I truly regret that this government has not taken advantage of those opportunities, but we will ensure that is resolved in the coming mandate period.

I also want to highlight the situation we see now: The world is upside down, and the escalating situation we see in the Middle East creates great uncertainty. The Member of Parliament just highlighted the priority area for the government.

I would also like to ask how the government is working with agriculture in the current situation, which is a particularly vulnerable sector. What are you doing in the governing parties to counteract the high oil and gas prices leading to reduced production and eventually also finding their way into food prices?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! One of the absolutely most important things for farmers in Sweden today is that we simplify the regulatory framework. We have built up a system that today is far too cumbersome and complicated. As I said in my speech, it is not uncommon for five different authorities to be involved in one and the same decision, which complicates things very much for a farmer.

I believe that the basic conditions for the countryside and for agriculture are the most important. If we put this in the context of the tough global situation we find ourselves in, with high prices on almost everything for our farmers, it is indeed lowered taxes that are important to facilitate for farmers in Sweden today.

I also want to add, Madam Speaker, that this government has had record speed when it comes to the number of reforms we have presented. The bioeconomy investigation has therefore not been put in any bureau drawer, but it has been about the fact that we – as I mentioned in the previous exchange of remarks – have had a very intensive mandate period. There have been very many high-priority matters simultaneously that have had to be balanced to move forward in the order of government bills.

As we now move towards the end of this parliamentary term and want to try to implement as much as possible, we have also ensured that the Riksdag has one additional opportunity to vote on various propositions that are coming forward now. I know that the Social Democrats have been against this and that they have not wanted to interrupt their holidays in order to be able to implement these propositions, so I think it is regrettable that people say that this government cannot prioritize or does not have enough focus on the reforms; it has rather been the exact opposite.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts for the agriculture's climate transition. The Audit Office's overall conclusion is that existing instruments only cover a small part of agriculture's total greenhouse gas emissions.

The authority assesses that the government's governance has not led to agriculture contributing to the climate goals in an effective way, and it is considered that there is a lack of a plan for how agriculture should contribute to reaching the long-term goal. It also notes that there are measures that could contribute to the climate goals being reached in a cost-effective way, but that there are currently no steering instruments for this.

Madam Speaker! The climate transition in agriculture cannot wait. Emissions in 2023 amounted to approximately 11.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents and affect both our national climate goal and Sweden's commitments within the ESR sector and the LULUCF sector to reach the EU's climate goals. Greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture are decreasing more slowly than in other sectors in Sweden.

We in Vänsterpartiet are critical of the government's passive stance towards the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations in the letter, even if this is not surprising given the palpable lack of climate measures that characterizes the policy pursued so far during the mandate period.

Madam Speaker! The focus of the Government and the Sweden Democrats has instead been on measures that increase greenhouse gas emissions and thus leave Sweden in a continued fossil dependency. This locks people into an everyday life with fossil dependency, and it risks hitting many hard with the rising prices on fossil fuels and fuels that are to be expected in the coming years. For Sweden as a nation, being dependent on the import of fossil fuels makes us weaker and more vulnerable in times of crisis. It hits our agriculture and our food supply in particular.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office proposes in its first recommendation to the government that it should produce and present a plan for how agriculture should contribute to Sweden reaching its long-term climate goal and its EU commitments. We in Vänsterpartiet share the National Audit Office's assessment and do not consider the government's reference to its climate action plan, Sweden's strategic plan for the implementation of the common agricultural policy and the EU's policy, to be sufficient.

The government's climate action plan lacks an account of how agriculture shall contribute through measures to ensure that we reach precisely the national climate goals and our EU commitments. We want the government to return with a proposal for a plan for how agriculture shall contribute to Sweden reaching the long-term climate goal and the EU's commitments.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office proposes in its second recommendation that the government should introduce cost-effective climate measures in agriculture. In connection with this recommendation, the government refers in the communication to the fact that in the budget bill for 2026 there is an initiative on the rewetting of agricultural land.

We in Vänsterpartiet welcome this initiative but believe that significantly more measures are needed. This could, for example, be policy instruments that compensate landowners for measures that strengthen carbon sequestration or that promote a sustainable use of agricultural land. We also believe that the government needs to introduce policy instruments for cost-effective climate measures in agriculture.

Madam Speaker! In its third recommendation to the Government, the Swedish National Audit Office proposes that the tax reductions on diesel for work machines and vessels within the agriculture, forestry, and water industries should be replaced with another form of competition support that does not subsidize fossil fuels.

In the communication, the government responds that it is following the developments and notes that there may be reason to investigate the possibility of replacing the tax reduction with alternative supports. Unfortunately, the government's assessment shows that it lacks the capacity for action and political will to take measures in the near term to implement the climate transition and strengthen the work for a fossil-free agriculture.

The Swedish National Audit Office notes that today's diesel tractors could be powered by pure biofuels, but that this is more expensive and that there is a lack of incentives to switch fuels. Furthermore, the Climate Policy Council as well as several inquiries and authorities have suggested that the reduction of the carbon tax on diesel used in work machinery should be replaced with another form of competition support that does not subsidize fossil fuels.

The government needs to replace the tax reduction on diesel for work machines and vessels within the agriculture, forestry, and water industries with another competition support.

Finally, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that an implementation of the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations to the government would contribute to building a stronger, safer and more sustainable Sweden, and that the recommendations are in line with adopted national climate goals and EU commitments.

I move for approval of reservation 2 in the report.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts for the agricultural climate transition. I want to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision. We welcome the Swedish National Audit Office's report, which is an important document for the government's work moving forward.

Madam Speaker! We live in a very restless world – in fact, just 100 miles from here, a terrible war is being waged. Russia's full-scale war of invasion against Ukraine has now been ongoing since February 24, 2022, that is, for over four years.

Madam Speaker! We have lived in an incredibly secure place here in Sweden. Here in the Riksdag, it was established during the 90s that there would be no more wars. It was glasnost and perestrojka. We immediately began the dismantling of the Swedish defense and our food security, and it went incredibly fast. Since then, unfortunately, a dramatic development has occurred with a major threat from an aggressive Russia.

Madam Speaker! I have participated in many debates here in the chamber and spoken about the importance of increasing Sweden's food supply. On one occasion, a member came up to me and said: "Magnus, you don't need to be worried – we have the EU, so you can stop talking about this issue." I understand that this was how so many thought – we even had a Prime Minister who said that agriculture was a special interest.

Madam Speaker! At the beginning of the 90s, we here in Sweden had a food preparedness of about 80 percent, and today the figure is down below 50 percent. We can compare ourselves with our neighboring country Finland, which has a self-sufficiency rate of 80 percent and food for its population for nine months without having to import a single grain of wheat. In Sweden, it is ten to twelve days that applies; after that, the grocery store is empty.

Madam Speaker! This is therefore no longer a non-issue, but Sweden's food supply is once again a very important and central issue for our government. It is of very great importance that we do not decrease but increase Swedish food production. During 2025, the number of cattle increased by 5,500, and it was the first time in 20 years that the number increased. It is a super important signal, but we are not satisfied. We shall increase the number of cattle and become more self-sufficient in both dairy products and meat.

I can state, Madam Speaker, that the government in its response writes that agriculture has a crucial function in ensuring the food supply. It also writes that agriculture also produces other raw materials that can replace fossil-based alternatives and contributes with important ecosystem functions such as biodiversity. Furthermore, it is written that agriculture has an important role in contributing to entrepreneurship and employment throughout the country and to increased preparedness.

From the time the food strategy was decided here in the chamber in 2017 to today's version 2.0, increased Swedish food production and strengthened preparedness have been a main issue. Therefore, competitive conditions and increased profitability for Sweden's farmers are required. Otherwise, there will be no food, and the achievement of the goals will be lost.

Madam Speaker! It can be noted that during the time that the National Audit Office's review has been ongoing, the government has made several decisions that are in line with the National Audit Office's recommendations. This concerns the resources for the county administrative boards' work with the assessment of wetland measures to enable more rewetting projects, and a new compensation is introduced for the rewetting of decommissioned agricultural land. Klimatklivet's appropriation is increased for the years 2026–2030, and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's authorization for 2026 increases to 8 billion kronor. The government also intends to review the regulatory framework for water activities and land drainage.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's climate policy must be both credible and strategic. It must reduce emissions, strengthen competitiveness, and at the same time build resilience in a time characterized by geopolitical unrest, an energy crisis, and increased demands for national preparedness. It is therefore deeply problematic that the Swedish National Audit Office has directed sharp criticism toward the government's climate policy governance.

The criticism is not just about individual measures but about a lack of long-term perspective, insufficient underlying data, and the absence of a coherent strategy to actually reach Sweden's climate goals. When central decisions are made based on flawed calculations and over-optimistic assumptions, the entire transition risks being weakened. This is particularly clear in agricultural policy, and it has serious consequences for Swedish farming.

Agriculture is not just a business among others; it is a cornerstone for Swedish food security, energy preparedness, and the rural economy. At the same time, agriculture today is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, fossil-imported inputs such as mineral fertilizers, and global value chains that make the sector vulnerable to price increases, conflicts, and disruptions. It is a vulnerability that Sweden cannot afford.

The industry has repeatedly emphasized the need for long-term rules of the game that make it possible to invest in fossil-free technology, biofuels, biogas, electrification, and domestic production of strategic input goods. Swedish farmers are ready to be a central part of the climate transition, but this requires policy that strengthens their conditions and does not increase uncertainty.

When the government dismantles or weakens important policy instruments without clear replacements, it sends the wrong signals to a sector that needs to invest for decades ahead. When agriculture's biogas is removed from Klimatklivet, then reintroduced and simultaneously hindered by rigid environmental permit restrictions, it is not strange that investments are hampered.

The Center Party sees the transition of agriculture as a key issue, not only for the climate but also for Sweden's security and self-sufficiency. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1.

We need a plan for the transition. We need to reduce the dependence on fossil diesel, imported mineral fertilizer, fossil inputs, and insecure global supply chains. This is about making farms more self-sufficient in energy, creating better conditions for investments in local energy production, and giving the green industries the opportunity to be as decisive in the transition as they actually can be. They hold the solutions for the entire country's needs – they just need to be given the chance.

There is an enormous potential here. Everything that can be done with fossil oil can also be done with Swedish soil and forest. One can produce food, energy and biofuels and provide a climate benefit, but then the state must create stable and credible rules of the game.

The National Audit Office's criticism clearly shows that today's policy is not sufficient. The government's communication has often been more optimistic than reality justified, while at the same time several decisions have increased the uncertainty surrounding the investments that are required. Important steering instruments are also actually missing entirely, such as a bio-premium to cover the costs between renewable and fossil, or the fully investigated agricultural deduction that the industry has requested instead of subsidies for fossil diesel.

Centerpartiet knows that Sweden needs a policy that unites climate goals, security of supply, and the competitiveness of agriculture. We want to see a transition where Swedish farmers get better opportunities to increase their food production, convert their machinery, and invest.

The transition of agriculture is not a cost but an investment in security, competitiveness, and sustainability. We need less short-term volatility and more strategic confidence in the future. Sweden needs a climate policy that is grounded in reality, economically sustainable, and security-politically wise.

Centerpartiet stands for exactly that. We stand for a green transition where agriculture is not a problem but an opportunity and a decisive part of the solution. We know that Sweden can do more.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that even this review is welcome. It constitutes an important contribution to developing the governance and efficiency of the state's efforts.

Agriculture's climate work must be seen in a larger context. It is about weighing climate goals against other important goals, such as food security, competitiveness, employment, preparedness, and property rights – this important liberal basic principle.

Agriculture has a crucial role. It produces food, contributes to entrepreneurship throughout the country, and delivers important ecosystem services. It is important for biodiversity, and at the same time, agriculture can both reduce emissions and contribute to carbon storage.

Agriculture, however, differs somewhat from other sectors, Madam Speaker. The emissions are largely biogenic and linked to the production of food itself. This means that it is more difficult to eliminate the emissions without affecting food production. I share the government's assessment that the emission reductions in agriculture are occurring at a slower pace than in other sectors and that this is a reasonable starting point.

Madam Speaker! Clarity is needed regarding how agriculture should contribute to the climate goals and to the EU's commitments. At the same time, there are many important goal conflicts to manage. The starting point shall be climate efficiency and competitiveness. Both are important, and both must be prioritized.

The measures we take must not risk leading to so-called leakage and to emissions occurring in other countries instead, which is in the direction of danger if we do not increase food production. Policy instruments shall be cost-effective and contribute to several goals simultaneously. Measures that increase productivity and resource efficiency can contribute to reduced emissions while simultaneously strengthening profitability in agriculture.

Several measures in this direction have been taken, and further measures are planned. This includes, among other things, investments in rewetting of land, reinforcements of Klimatklivet, and support for innovation and development within agriculture.

I can state that the tax reduction on diesel is justified given the special circumstances that agriculture has faced in recent years and also faces now – this is highly relevant in the situation we find ourselves in. At the same time, there are reasons to follow the development and analyze possible alternative supports.

In summary, Madam Speaker, this is largely about combining several goals. It is about reducing the climate impact but also ensuring a strong and competitive agriculture that produces food and contributes to Swedish preparedness. It is in that totality that we take our starting point.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I hear the Tidö representatives talking about everything that agriculture is supposed to contribute, but I hear very little about what we are going to contribute to the transition of agriculture.

Swedish agriculture is absolutely crucial for Sweden, not only for food security and preparedness but also for the climate and biodiversity, as well as for ensuring that there are living landscapes throughout the country. At the same time, it is clear that agriculture today is not managed in a way that makes it part of the work to reach the national climate goals or our climate commitments within the EU. This is the Swedish National Audit Office's main conclusion. It is also something that not only I but also others, not least the Climate Policy Council, agree with. This is therefore not a surprising report.

The Swedish National Audit Office sees that the policy instruments aimed at agriculture, for example Klimatklivet, biogas support and advice, in many cases are relatively well-designed. The problem is that they cover a too small part of agriculture's actual emissions. Approximately 13 percent of Sweden's climate emissions come from agriculture, but existing policy instruments only hit a limited proportion of them.

The result is that Swedish agriculture as a whole does not contribute to the climate transition at the rate required, but also that agriculture itself is affected by an overly sluggish transition. This is, of course, not due to a failure or a lack of willingness on the part of the farmers. On the contrary, there is today both technology, knowledge, and willingness among many farmers. It is clearly the political steering that is lacking.

Already last year, the Climate Policy Council presented a targeted report on the climate impact of Swedish agriculture and the climate policy surrounding it, where it was emphasized that there was much more to be done. Among the Council's most important recommendations to the government was the appeal to, in close cooperation with farmers, actors from the entire food chain, civil society, researchers and authorities, develop a target vision and a strategy for the agriculture's climate transition and design a strategy that can provide long-term conditions for the agricultural sector.

The Swedish National Audit Office also highlights this as one of the most serious observations in the report. The Government lacks a unified plan for how agriculture can contribute to the long-term climate goal. Without goals, without a clear roadmap, and without follow-up, it is not possible to expect results.

This is one of the fundamental problems with the Tidö government's policy. They rely on voluntariness and point interventions when what was actually needed was a strategic and long-term governance with a holistic view. This is something that the government is dodging.

In this case, the government should have taken the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations much more seriously. Instead, one chooses to file the letter in the records without concrete demands for change. This is another missed chance to reduce emissions and a missed chance to increase the security of supply for Swedish agriculture. Here, the government had a chance to strengthen the governance in a direction that would make agriculture less dependent on fossil fuels and less insecure given the global situation that is currently being created for everyone who needs gasoline and diesel. One could therefore protect agriculture against future price shocks.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office also points out something that the Green Party has long criticized: that the state continues to subsidize the use of fossil fuels in agriculture, among other things through tax reductions on diesel. At the same time, steering mechanisms are lacking for several cost-effective climate investments. It is, of course, completely backwards. As long as fossil emissions are made cheaper and climate measures are made expensive and complicated, the transition will proceed slowly, regardless of how many information campaigns the government launches.

Agriculture's fossil subsidies must be phased out and replaced by other supports that seriously lead to reduced emissions. This involves, for example, electrification of agricultural machinery, increased biogas production from manure, and measures that reduce nitrous oxide emissions. It is better for the climate, better for agriculture's competitiveness, and better for Sweden's path towards net-zero emissions.

Another important part of the report concerns follow-up and evaluation. The Swedish National Audit Office notes that the state today does not have sufficient knowledge about which supports provide the most climate benefit per tax krona. This applies in particular to the supports for biogas; their combined effect has never been properly analyzed. Miljöpartiet considers this to be remarkable. When billions are invested in the climate transition, we must know what works and what does not.

Madam Speaker! For us, the climate transition in agriculture is also a question of justice and faith in the future. Agriculture already faces challenges today with profitability, generational changes, and increased costs. If politics does not provide stable and long-term rules of the game, we risk both knockouts and increased imports of food from countries with poorer climate and environmental requirements. For that very reason, I believe that the climate transition must go hand in hand with a strengthened Swedish agriculture. With the right policy instruments, farmers can become winners in the transition and not losers. But that also requires political courage and measures.

Miljöpartiet wants to see a clear national plan for how agriculture shall contribute to the climate goals, sharp and secure policy instruments that cover the entire emission picture and, of course, an abolition of fossil subsidies in combination with green investment supports, for example a bio-premium that can be used for something other than just paying for fossil diesel. We also need a systematic follow-up of which measures provide the greatest climate benefit. This is entirely in line with the National Audit Office's recommendations but goes much further than the policy that the government has presented so far.

Madam Speaker! The climate crisis does not wait. Every year without clear steering makes the transition more expensive and more difficult. The risk is also that, in the long run, it is the farmers who will be hit hardest through increased climate change, price shocks on fuels and raw materials, and an acute need for investments and transition. Agriculture can and wants to be part of the solution, but then the state must also take its responsibility and support a methodical and orderly transition. I would therefore like to urge the government to take the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism more seriously than is being done today. Furthermore, I would like to move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Chris Dahlqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's countryside is absolutely fantastic. It is also about all the people who live and work in the countryside, but what is primarily the subject of today's debate are the green industries that are active in the countryside. These fantastic industries provide thousands of jobs and contribute to a living countryside. For this to work, the conditions for a good economy are extremely important.

Right now, the spring work is in full swing out in Sweden. Many people are out there operating their machinery. But already now, we see that it may become difficult economically due to the far too high prices on mineral fertilizer and diesel. It is these kinds of conditions that must be addressed so that it can be attractive and sustainable to operate within the green industries in the countryside.

The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have done very well to tackle the various problems that exist, but much more remains to be done. A highlight of what we have pushed through together is that we have lowered fuel prices, which will also be lowered further, and implemented major regulatory simplifications in the countryside linked to Swedish agriculture.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office has reviewed the state's efforts for the agricultural climate transition and considers in its report that the transition is proceeding too slowly. It considers that the state's efforts are too limited and that the government lacks a clear plan. The National Audit Office also requests steering measures concerning emissions from land and feed melting. In short, the National Audit Office thinks that too little is being done and that the focus may be somewhat misplaced regarding the food strategy, which today focuses on increased food production.

Madam Speaker! A fundamental problem with an inquiry that only concerns a social interest is that the utility of the inquiry becomes limited. One cannot ignore the competitiveness of agriculture when discussing policy measures to reduce emissions from the sector. One also cannot ignore the global perspective and the emissions caused by the import of food.

To zoom out a bit: We are in a situation where half of all the food eaten by Swedes is produced abroad. The climate emissions resulting from food consumption are therefore accounted for largely in other countries, as the climate emissions are significantly lower for food from Sweden than for food from other countries.

Increasing Swedish food production is thus a fundamental interest in order to strengthen Swedish food preparedness, the Swedish labor market and the Swedish economy, as well as Swedish biodiversity through more grazing animals and so on. It should be easy to do the right thing. We from Sverigedemokraterna naturally also want it to be fun to be a farmer in Sweden.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 29 April.)

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