Special debate on the cost development in agriculture

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to hold this special debate on the cost situation in agriculture today!

Swedish farmers are in a very pressured situation. Since the outbreak of war in the Middle East in February, the prices of diesel, nitrogen, and soy have increased sharply. These are completely crucial input goods, things that are needed every day to keep production going. These are cost increases that hit the result directly, the bottom line, the profitability, and Sweden's food security. Collectively, the costs for these input goods increased by over 1.6 billion kronor between February and May 2026.

The challenges do not only exist here and now. In the longer term, investments are required that strengthen the profitability of farmers and increase both our own production of inputs and Sweden's self-sufficiency. Therefore, today's debate is both necessary and welcome.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to thank the Center Party, which has taken the initiative for this debate.

In my assignment, I have the privilege of quite often traveling around the country to meet and talk with our farmers. Anyone who does so quickly realizes how skilled the Swedish farmers are in their craft, while at the same time they have an ability to meet global shifts in a very industrious and persistent way. It is important to keep in mind as background now when the farmers testify to how tough the recent global situation has actually hit their operations.

The conflict in the Middle East has driven up prices for energy, fuels, and not least fertilizer. They have reached levels that mean that for many agricultural companies, it is not a question of whether one can make the calculation work for an upcoming investment, but whether there is a basis for the next season at all.

As a country, it is not possible to see this as an isolated problem for the farmers, something that they have to solve on their own. The production of food is in the interest of the entire society. We, at least most of those I know, need food every day. That means our agricultural industry is not just any industry. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every responsible government to ensure that Sweden's farmers have sensible conditions for production.

Madam Speaker! This government has restructured the agricultural policy so that the focus now lies even more clearly on increasing Swedish production. In the short perspective, we have listened to the industry and acted on the global situation.

Due to the current cost crisis, we presented a comprehensive budget package for Swedish primary production. Approximately 1.6 billion shall be spent on targeted support with a focus on crop cultivation, which is the part hit hardest. But support also goes to, among other things, commercial fishing and aquaculture. In this way, we contribute to ensuring that production can continue, that the autumn sowing takes place, and that next year's harvests are not jeopardized.

But in the government's work during this mandate period, there is also, as said, a longer perspective to increase competitiveness. For far too long under different governments, this sector has been deprioritized. We have seen the result in impaired competitiveness, weaker profitability, and reduced production. It is this development that the government is now breaking.

In the food strategy 2.0, we have established a new direction with a focus that actually determines whether it is possible to run businesses in rural areas. It is about profitability, competitiveness, and robustness.

When we took office, Sweden had Europe's highest diesel prices, which hit the entire country hard but hardest against those who are dependent on tractors, combine harvesters, and long transports to make the business viable. Since then, we have lowered the reduction obligation, and we have prioritized extending the temporary tax reduction on agricultural diesel every year – precisely to keep down the costs in Swedish agriculture.

Another example is that we, unlike the previous government, ensured that the inflow of money, almost three-quarters of a billion at an adjusted exchange rate, goes to the farmers where it belongs. We have introduced a special support for robustness-enhancing measures, so that our farms can stand stronger. We also see that the regulatory framework is often a hostage and have therefore given a long series of agency mandates, simplified the basic conditions, and established a structure to combat regulatory complexity through the Simplification Council and the Implementation Council. But much more remains to be done.

It is, however, in this direction we must go: increased profitability, less red tape, and a policy that does not see Sweden's farmers as a special interest but recognizes that food production is a national matter.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Without Swedish farmers, we have no secure food supply, no open landscapes, and no preparedness when the world is shaken by crises.

What is now happening in the Middle East is driving up the costs of fuels, fertilizers and other inputs and hits Swedish farmers directly and, in the long run, Swedish households. Here and now, it is necessary for the government to act with crisis support to support agriculture through this sudden cost shock. On this, we are in agreement.

But fundamentally, Swedish agriculture must be strengthened in the long term, so that we move away from the vulnerability to fluctuations on the world market and the need for acute crisis support. This means that agriculture must be given the conditions to grow, increase profitability, and at the same time become less dependent on fossil fuels and more resilient.

Madam Speaker! We need a stronger and more self-sufficient agriculture. We Social Democrats want to see more Swedish on the plate, more Swedish in the glass, and more Swedish in thought. Therefore, we want to see more Swedish production of biofuels, more biogas, and a stronger bioeconomy.

We want to see stable and long-term funding for Klimatklivet. We want to move away from the lock-in regarding fossil fuels that today's tax reduction entails for agriculture, even if it is needed right now. We want to see more innovation and realistic research that can benefit agriculture.

We want to establish a food strategy that also strengthens the production of domestic input goods, so that food production can continue during a crisis. Everyone knows that stockpiling food only lasts for a while. But then it is also necessary to have the possibility to continue production. That is definitely lacking in today's food strategy.

The food strategy must also be complemented with measures that create a profitable climate transition for agriculture. It is important for the climate, but it is also important for our preparedness.

Food prices must be pressed down, but not at the farmers' expense. Therefore, we have long demanded increased transparency in the food chain and a competition authority with more and more powerful tools in the toolbox.

Swedish farmers demand long-term rules of the game, profitability and faith in the future. Swedish agriculture needs a government that builds preparedness before the crisis hits. We Social Democrats take it seriously. If we get the voters' trust, we will ensure that Sweden and Sweden's farmers transition and are better equipped for the next crisis.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Centre Party for having requested this debate on the cost situation in agriculture. It is important that agriculture issues are brought onto the Swedish political agenda. Not least, it is important that the conditions for Swedish agriculture are discussed. A functioning Swedish agriculture is an affair for every Swede.

The debate is prompted by the conflict in the Middle East, which is driving up prices for energy, fuels, and fertilizers, while uncertainty surrounding important trade routes creates new risks for the entire food chain. Therefore, our government has launched a powerful support package to strengthen Swedish primary production, secure the food supply, and counteract increased food prices. We do this with an area-based support targeted at crop cultivation. It is designed based on costs for nitrogen fertilizer and fuels, for that is where the problem is greatest.

The high cost level has always been a very important issue, at least for decades. Here we find a large part of the explanation for the Swedish agriculture's struggle. The cost level has reduced profitability for long periods. That is why we Sverigedemokrater have long been grappling with the cost level. It is one of several areas that are significant for the agriculture's profitability. Other areas that are significant for profitability and that we work a lot with are conditions such as variety development, measures against pests, technological development and technology dissemination, as well as demand for Swedish food as well as strategic support that provides both production benefit and environmental benefit at the same time; that one must not forget.

When it comes to the overhead costs of agriculture, our starting point is pragmatic. If we can lower the overhead costs, other things can take a backseat. The Tidö government has kept the diesel tax as low as possible and continues to do so. We have lowered the reduction obligation. We have lowered the slaughter fees. Since full compensation for ETS 2 now seems difficult, we believe that agriculture should be removed from ETS 2. We have compensated for Swedish additional costs that farmers in no other country have. Today, for dairy cows that graze, one receives a grazing compensation that compensates for, on average, approximately half of the additional cost.

We follow what is happening, and we act. The long-term ambition is to increase the profitability and the degrees of freedom for the industry so much that it can handle all crises entirely on its own. The goal is that crisis support should not be needed in the future. We will, of course, still always follow the situation.

A couple of weeks ago, we at Sverigedemokrater released our agriculture program, with over 30 measures that continue Sverigedemokraternas ongoing work for a Swedish agriculture with very good conditions. It includes, among other things, increased national funding where the EU scales back, protection of farmland against municipal exploitation, permanentized and doubled animal welfare compensation, simplified grazing rules, and a reduced wolf population. We want to introduce state credit guarantees during generational shifts and lower employment costs. Read the agriculture program yourself! You can find it on my Facebook page.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by directing my thanks to Helena Lindahl personally and not to the Center Party. I want to thank you for all your years in the Swedish Parliament and for everything you have done for Swedish agriculture, for the countryside and for Norrland, which I know our hearts beat most for. A big thank you for all of that!

I am, however, very sorry about the Center Party's turn to the left. They now want to cooperate with three left-wing parties instead of with the bourgeois ones. I truly regret this. It also makes today's debate a bit difficult, Madam Speaker, because I will agree with Helena Lindahl on very much of what she says. The problem is just that it is no longer the Center Party's policy. The Center Party's policy is now to cooperate with the Green Party, the Left Party, and the Social Democrats. That results in more bureaucracy, more red tape, and higher taxes. It will not be good for Swedish agriculture, Madam Speaker.

This should be put into relation to parties that want to go in the other direction – conservative parties that instead want to facilitate Swedish agriculture. We Moderates will work as much as we can so that Swedish agriculture has good competitive conditions. We will ensure that there are fewer regulations, less bureaucracy and lower taxes. Then Swedish agriculture will be able to stand strong.

What is happening right now means that we need crisis support on the spot. In the long term, Swedish agriculture needs better rules of the game, so that one can compete on equal terms. The objective, Madam Speaker, is more Swedish food on the plate. That is good for Swedish preparedness and for the tax revenues that build our welfare society. It also keeps the countryside open. Those of us who grew up or live there know how important open landscapes are, and that is what Swedish agriculture contributes to.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's agriculture faces many challenges. We need to increase our self-sufficiency and our preparedness, while we must not reduce biodiversity. We also need to transition for the sake of the climate.

The ongoing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz does not make matters better in the short term. Prices are rising for farmers, food producers, and consumers. We see how dependent we still are on fossil fuels, both for fuel and for, for example, mineral fertilizers. Compensation is needed for vulnerable sectors such as agriculture, as well as for the people who are exposed to high prices. It is important that we can address the challenges of agriculture in both the short and long term.

Madam Speaker! I think the Tidö parties have been somewhat too inactive on the important issue of making Sweden more independent from the fossil – from the oil, which, besides making our world inhospitable, often comes from rogue states and is now also making things difficult for many within the agricultural sector. Why have they not already, from the beginning of the mandate period, accelerated measures that could protect more farmers? Agriculture would become more robust if it became more independent from the fossil.

Why, for example, has it been left undone to produce a proposal for an agricultural deduction, a green tax shift, which could have been used for a phasing out of the fossil in agriculture? There are question marks as to whether precisely that proposal could conflict with the EU's state aid rules, but I think that the government actually could have worked with it and found a suitable solution. That is my thought.

We in Vänsterpartiet take the issue seriously. In the autumn budget, we budgeted 1.2 billion more than the government for measures to secure agriculture. We do not oppose the extra investment that the government is now making on agriculture in its extra supplementary budget.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to thank Edward Riedl very much for his kind words. It is always a bit special when one finds oneself at the final stretch. One remembers one's first day, and one also remembers one's last.

The crisis support is very welcome. Thank you, the government, for providing those funds! But what I am calling for is that one has two balls in the air. We also need to have a long-term plan, not just a short-term plan for the crisis. We must produce more of the food we ourselves need. It is not just about economics, but as you all know, it is also about preparedness and security. The pandemic showed how quickly global supply chains can be broken. The war in Ukraine showed the vulnerability of being dependent on imports. Still, one has not fully acted with the force that the situation requires, I would like to say.

The Centre Party has a clear goal: Sweden shall reach a self-sufficiency rate of 80 percent when it comes to basic foodstuffs. We are far from that today. It makes us vulnerable in a way that is not acceptable in a more uncertain global situation. A profitable agriculture is not a special interest – it is a national security issue. In that case, the conditions must also be reasonable.

Madam Speaker! Today, farmers are being pressured by high costs, extensive regulations, and uncertainty regarding the future. Many lack the opportunity to invest, develop, and carry the business forward.

Centerpartiet therefore proposes a permanent agricultural deduction to strengthen profitability, increased investments in fossil-free fuels and biogas, simpler ownership transfers to secure the next generation of farmers, and that the public sector should demand Swedish locally grown food to a greater extent.

Sweden needs a long-term policy to strengthen food production. There are some shortcomings in the government's work here, even though some good things have also been done. Let me point out two things, where I hope to get answers to my questions today.

The updated food strategy was presented as a major reform. Then the Minister for Rural Affairs tasked the Swedish Board of Agriculture with developing measurable goals. The government has chosen not to proceed with those goals. What happens to them?

The investigation into a more competitive animal production has also not led to any concrete results. Why not?

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: I know that the government and Minister Kullgren have good intentions. But if we are to increase the country's self-sufficiency and get more farmers in Sweden, more must happen. Above all, Swedish farmers must be able to earn more money. I will return to that specific point.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for this debate!

Just when it comes to agriculture, I believe that all of us in this chamber, regardless of party, want to see more Swedish agriculture and more Swedish food. We see now that we have a cost crisis in agriculture. It is not a crisis that only depends on high prices. It is a crisis that is rooted in dependency.

As long as Swedish agriculture is dependent on fossil diesel and imported mineral fertilizer, and as long as there is a shaky global energy market, the cost crisis will return. The past policy has put Sweden's agriculture in a very pressured position.

We must have respect for the acute situation. Support was needed, and we have the cost shocks. But it is also the task of politics to ensure that one does not need to step in every time there is a crisis. It is a matter of building a robust system, a food chain, that holds even in a crisis.

The problem is not the price, but the dependency. When the diesel price rises, the price for cultivating the land as the system is today also rises. When the natural gas price rises, the price of mineral fertilizer also rises. We are dependent on it today.

The unrest in the world – it is actually an understatement to call what is happening unrest; it is horrific events – affects fossil flows, and then Swedish food production is directly affected. In that case, it does not help to just lower the food VAT.

We need to have a robust food chain. For Miljöpartiet, it is clear that we must reduce the vulnerability. We must strengthen the chain. We want to see an agricultural deduction, just as has been raised here in the debate.

There have been proposals on the government's desk since 2021, when the investigation Vägen towards fossil-independent agriculture was submitted. It was ready on the table when Peter Kullgren and colleagues came in. Why has more not happened? There are certain ambiguities regarding state aid rules and other matters, but investigate those instead of dismissing them!

The steering committee's investigation recently came up with the same proposal. That investigation, they didn't even want to receive publicly. The Climate Policy Council submitted a report last year where they had an in-depth analysis of the fossil fuel dependency in agriculture. That one has also not been taken to heart. The National Audit Office conducted a review, but it was dismissed. LRF, which is the largest organization for agriculture, says the same thing. Still, nothing has happened.

Miljöpartiet argues that it is incredibly important that we achieve a fossil-independent agriculture. We want to ensure that agriculture becomes more energy-supplying with more biofuels, electrification, energy storage, and fossil-free machinery. We want to ensure that we become less dependent on imported mineral fertilizer and that we increase Swedish production. I will return to this later.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! We are all painfully aware of the restless times we live in. Just as many have said here before me today, it affects, in particular, agriculture, which is being pressured hard by the conflict in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine. We see increased costs for fuel, energy, and fertilizer, and great uncertainties regarding important trade routes.

In such a situation, it is important to have decisiveness. Therefore, the Liberals and our coalition parties have presented a strong support package to specifically strengthen primary production, secure the food supply, and dampen food prices. It is important not to stand idly by while agriculture takes the hit from international crises.

Madam Speaker! We are in agreement in this chamber that we need to increase the Swedish food supply. More food needs to be produced in Sweden. A country that cannot produce enough food in peacetime faces major problems in war and crisis.

To achieve that, we have taken a long series of measures during the mandate period. We must continue the work of reducing red tape, simplifying permit processes, and increasing freedom for Swedish agricultural companies.

We simply need to strengthen the profitability, competitiveness, and robustness of the entire food chain. The goal must be, just as someone here before me said, that agriculture is so strong that crisis support will not be needed. We have come some way here, but more remains to be done.

(Applause)

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Those who speak with farmers across Sweden meet entrepreneurs who are used to handling uncertainties. It is weather, market, and the global situation. This has always been a part of everyday life.

One also encounters a frustration that politics for far too long has made it harder to produce food in Sweden. For far too many years, Swedish farmers have been told that they must use less land, follow more rules, and bear ever-increasing costs. The results of that policy have been reduced production, diminished competitiveness, and a growing import dependency.

That is exactly why we have tried to change course. We have lowered the reduction obligation, pushed down the tax on agricultural diesel and paid out refunds from the agricultural support to the farmers. We have taken steps to reduce red tape. We have developed an updated food strategy with a clear focus on profitability, competitiveness and increased production. We believe that Sweden needs more production and not less.

Madam Speaker! It is therefore somewhat remarkable that the Center Party is now seeking cooperation with two parties that are fundamentally based on a different view. The Left Party does indeed speak of self-sufficiency, but at the same time, meat production is to be significantly reduced. Production is to be redirected away from animals. Production is to be significantly increased and regulated towards a larger share of organic area. They want to limit larger companies and give the state greater influence over how the land is used.

Miljöpartiet is going in exactly the same direction. Even there, the starting point is that agriculture should be steered towards more conditions, more environmental requirements, and more politically determined production methods. The focus is not primarily on producing more food but on using agriculture as a tool for other political goals.

This is, of course, a completely legitimate political view, but then one must also be honest about the consequences. I have absolutely nothing against ecological production, but if one is to politically steer production and reduce animal production to the extreme extent that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want and thereby increase the regulatory burden, it will become more difficult to increase Swedish food production.

Madam Speaker! The difference between us is ultimately about the view on agriculture. The Government will continue to prioritize profitability, competitiveness, and robustness, because when Swedish food production grows, Sweden becomes stronger, safer, and more resilient.

(Applause)

(Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed with this speech.)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! We have four lost years behind us when it comes to the climate transition in agriculture.

Despite the fact that many farmers truly want to transition and take personal responsibility to do so, a clear direction for the policy is lacking. The National Audit Office has therefore criticized the government's policy for the agriculture's climate transition, and Sweden is now also more dependent on fossil imports than we were before the government took office. It has increased Sweden's vulnerability.

My question is, of course: What is the government doing now, in these last months in office, to reduce agriculture's dependence on imported fuels, imported fertilizers and other inputs so that Swedish farming can stand stronger in the next crisis?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am not a farmer, but I know how irritated farmers become by precisely this political rhetoric from the red side in Sweden.

Sweden has one of the most climate-smart agricultures in the world. Sweden is the country that takes the greatest consideration for our animals, which has the consequence that we have, in principle, the lowest antibiotic use in the world. At the same time, we have transitioned through, among other things, Klimatklivet, where enormous sums are sent out. Those who have been out there, especially on grain farms, see what transition the agriculture and the farmers have made. There is hardly an oil boiler left that dries our grain in Sweden.

Sweden is far ahead, and yet farmers and agricultural producers in this country are constantly being criticized for doing too little. Show me the money that will manage this transition! You do not have it in your budget, and you do not have it in concrete policy. It is only rhetoric.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! It was somewhat distasteful of Peter Kullgren to hide behind Sweden's farmers. They have made enormous efforts without sufficient support from just Peter Kullgren. I asked what Peter Kullgren intends to do to help them transition further.

I will ask another question instead, which might yield a clearer answer. One part of increasing the profitability and resilience of agriculture is to reduce the costs of wildlife damage. In Sweden, we have today approximately 300,000 wild boar, which cause enormous damage to our farmers but also to many villa owners. Sweden's neighboring countries have, as a comparison, only a couple thousand wild boar.

Does the government share the Social Democrats' objective to significantly reduce wildlife damage and thereby also the Swedish wild boar population?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I absolutely do! We need to reduce the stem significantly.

That is also why the government has presented concrete measures for how it could proceed. The regulatory framework surrounding wild boar hunting has actually also been changed under previous governments, and we have clearly continued in that direction. More technical aids are possible, protective hunting rules have become even more permissive, and so on.

To go in and say that we shall have a tenth remaining of the stock will, however, mean that one treads over the line of what property rights entail. A landowner who has wild boar on their land and has a handle on their stock must, of course, be able to manage it according to their own judgment. With the Social Democrats' – again – rhetoric without concrete policy, one will inevitably go in and govern over the landowner's will to have certain game on their land.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Agriculture, for the speech!

I have a question about the EU's agricultural budget, CAP. As the Minister knows, it is being flagged from Brussels that it is to be cut in the coming mandate period, and it is not good for Swedish farmers if that were to happen.

Representatives from the government, including from the Minister for Rural Affairs' party, have said that this should not have consequences for farmers. But at the same time, you point out agricultural policy as an area where you are prepared to cut more because you want to reduce the EU's budget. At least, that is what I have read, but the Minister for Rural Affairs can correct me if I am wrong.

I now come to my question. If this happens, it will mean that Swedish farmers will be poorly off and will have even less money to move with. I wonder: Will the government, if you get the opportunity in the next mandate period, be able to fully compensate for this with national funds?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Since Sweden is one of the countries that sends more money into the EU system and receives less back, many parties in this chamber have been quite budget-restrictive.

The common agricultural policy is a large part of the EU's budget. Previously, many have probably thought that we could reduce it to keep more of the money ourselves and prioritize these funds as we wish. Now the situation is different in the entire EU budget work with the next long-term budget. A budget reduction on the agricultural side would not go back to Sweden again, but it should go to other EU expenditures.

Then one needs to think both once and twice in a country that also wants reasonable prices on food. The farmers will not stop producing food if these subsidies do not come, but they will instead need to set even higher prices. It will therefore be the consumer who pays for a reduction of CAP.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would say that it is both. Prices will become higher, but it will of course also affect the farmers because there will be less money for investments. I also believe that people, because of their wallets, will buy less Swedish food, so it is clear that this will also strike back at the farmer.

That is why the Centre Party considers it reasonable that a sitting government compensates for a potential reduction of the agricultural budget with national funds. We in the Centre Party are prepared to make such a compensation.

My questions to the Minister are therefore: Can the Minister here and now give the same statement? And can the Minister promise that you will fully compensate for a reduced CAP support if the government is re-elected?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! No, no minister can stand in the chamber and promise that long before the budget processes are complete. It would not be honest.

However, I can say what the Christian Democrats' direction is: We will definitely safeguard the support for our farmers precisely because we need to increase food production, not decrease it.

I also think that the government, through its actions, has proven that it is prepared to invest more in agriculture than the previous, Center Party-supported, government was.

When we changed the currency regulation last time, we received a considerable sum more. The government at that time, supported by the Centre Party, however, chose not to send those funds to the farmers but instead sent them to other holes in the state budget.

In this round, 746 million arrived. We naturally ensured that they landed with the farmers and did not go to other state expenditures.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren, for your speech!

It was interesting that the minister placed such great emphasis on telling what our policy is, while at the same time he also praised our policy. He seemed to think that Klimatklivet is a fantastic invention, and it actually did come from Miljöpartiet from the beginning. I believe, however, that Peter Kullgren should read our farmers' motion a bit more carefully to actually see what we think in these issues.

I want to go back to the same question that Åsa Westlund previously asked, because I do not think the minister gave any satisfactory answer. It concerns the path to a fossil-independent agriculture. Does the minister think it is desirable that we move towards a fossil-independent agriculture and move away from fossil dependency, and what does the government do in that case for this? What I see is only emergency support and reduced fuel taxes, instead of switching over and trying to get out of this.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! What the government is doing is to protect one of the world's most climate-smart food productions in a way that best affects that production. Right now, there are one or possibly two tractor brands that have biogas tractors. It is not the case that electric tractors are being produced that can immediately replace the fossil-fueled ones.

Is it a desired direction that we reduce our fossil dependency? Definitely! But I have also not seen in the Green Party's budget the full cost it would entail to produce the production we need. It becomes a lot of rhetoric.

We have focused on safeguarding a climate-smart and environmentally sustainable production in Sweden instead of increasing the import of food. We have done this through what has hit best. Right now, it is support that hits production best – like it or not – the fuel support, i.e., a low diesel tax.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

I agree: In the situation we are in right now, that is probably the support that provides the best accuracy. But it is also because we have not seen any other measures to get out of the fossil dependency during the four-year period.

As I said in my speech, there has been an investigation on the minister's desk for some time, The Way towards Fossil-Independent Agriculture. We have the steering measures investigation that arrived the other day. The Climate Policy Council has produced a report. LRF has its own proposals. The National Audit Office's review has pointed out several proposals on how to move forward and what constitutes market failure.

Again: Why hasn't the government taken this on board and tried to get out of here? Does the government, for example, reject the agricultural deduction entirely? It is still something that many advocate for. Should we not have a bio-premium? Should we continue with diesel, or what is the way there?

One must have incentives to create demand for something else and for it to be profitable to transition. Then we cannot have lock-in effects.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the agricultural deduction has not been written off. On the other hand, we can state – and that is also the reason why we have this debate – that it has been an extremely strained situation. And it is not just about the latest situation. Already the drought in 2018 caused significant problems for agriculture. Following that came the pandemic. Following that we got war on our continent. Then we got a president in the USA who tweets and turns the entire global market situation for several important input commodities upside down, and now also the war in Iran and the situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The focus has not been on new ideas with uncertain effects on production. In serious situations, it is a matter of concentrating one's actions on what is actually most important. Right now, it has been to not jeopardize Swedish production. That would not be to any benefit, neither for our food production nor for the climate.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the Sweden Democrats and the government, after four years in power, have not strengthened the long-term resilience of agriculture. They have not presented any credible plan to reduce agriculture's dependence on imported fuels, imported fertilizer, or other inputs. They have also not contributed to increasing the demand for Swedish meat by demanding proper origin labeling of meat in restaurants.

They have not acted sufficiently against wildlife damage, not least from wild boar, which causes enormous losses for Sweden's farmers. They have not proceeded with the bioeconomy investigation, and they have done too little to strengthen competition in the food chain. Today, farmers receive too little pay, while prices in stores are often high. They have dragged out the issue of food preparedness. Even today, emergency stocks have only started in northern Sweden.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats have simultaneously said no to our proposals regarding Sverigebränsle, that is to say, domestic production of biofuels to both meet climate goals and reduce our oil dependency. They have done too little to increase the production of biogas and thus also biofertilizer, which is an important way to increase the return of nutrients to the soil.

Instead of starting the climate transition of agriculture, the Sweden Democrats and the government have chosen to include agriculture in the EU's emissions trading system for fuels from 2028 onwards. When we requested a consequence analysis of this, we were met with a total dismissal. Now the government's own investigation says that it is inappropriate to do just this, but the government's policy remains fixed.

It could not be any clearer. The result of this government is four lost years – four lost years that will make the transition of agriculture more difficult and more expensive than it otherwise would have been, four lost years when it comes to Sweden's long-term and stable food supply.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! The debate here concerns matters that stand in conflict with profitability and competitiveness. Some measures stand in such conflict, while others can result in synergy.

The Nature Restoration Regulation passed with the smallest possible margin in Brussels and in a democratically questionable manner. The Social Democrats voted for the regulation in the EU Parliament. Now that the authorities have proposed how the regulation should be implemented, it is clear that food production will decrease upon implementation.

If we include the forest, the implementation could also cost the state 20 billion kronor annually in direct costs, according to the authorities. The indirect effects include, among other things, the decommissioning of large areas of forest, which would affect many communities. 11,000 jobs will disappear, and it concerns regions where there are few other jobs.

My question to the Social Democrats is: Are the Social Democrats satisfied with the regulation that they have voted for?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! A great deal of work remains regarding biodiversity. We know that the climate crisis is a real threat. We also know that biodiversity is under threat. We know that security services in, for example, the United Kingdom see this as one of the major security threats ahead.

Swedish agriculture has a very important role here. I believe that we can achieve very many collaborations in Sweden that increase food production and at the same time strengthen both the entire society's and agriculture's resilience against climate change and the threats that ecosystem collapses entail.

Now the ball is in the government's court when it comes to preparing this implementation in the best way possible. I believe that it is going to be very tough. I also believe that it is extremely important that we take Swedish conditions into account when we do it and that we ensure to have a local cooperation regarding all the measures that need to be taken.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Our side in politics considers that it will not be reasonable with the current requirements. Further negative consequences are reduced animal husbandry and reduced profitability in agriculture, which means that the world's best agriculture will produce less. There will be less from agriculture.

We want to act to obtain reasonable requirements and new conditions for Swedish agriculture and forestry in both Brussels and Sweden. Judging by Åsa Westlund's answer, the Social Democrats will not do that, but instead sacrifice large parts of Norrland and thus the so important increase in Swedish food production.

Even if the Social Democrats were to come up with better ideas, the Green Party and the Left Party will constitute an obstacle.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! It was a long series of untrue allegations.

This is a great challenge. Both the climate issue and biodiversity are a great challenge. Swedish agriculture has a central role in managing the transition, and we must ensure that agriculture is not harmed by the climate change we see and which we ourselves cause, and that it is also not hit by system collapses because biodiversity disappears. We all know what enormous damage it would do if the pollinators disappeared.

I note that the Sweden Democrats never care about the climate transition or biodiversity. They do not present any proposals in the area, which Swedish agriculture is dependent on.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Swedish farmers are, in comparison, extremely skilled at animal husbandry and have taken various climate measures. We are truly at the forefront.

Regarding the use of pesticides, we are extremely skilled. Technological development is moving forward, and there is a strong desire to use as little plant protection products as possible. On the fertilizer side, there is an eagerness for precision fertilization and to not spread more fertilizer than is needed.

Still, I can state that much of Åsa Westlund's speeches still concern the fact that Swedish agriculture should do more and more in the area. I believe that is what is wanted, and I believe that it will come in time, not least with profitable companies as a foundation.

Are the Social Democrats prepared to place more burdens on Swedish farmers with the risk of reduced production in Sweden? Does that come first?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! No, that is not the case. Once again, the Minister is mistaken about Sweden's farmers. I criticize the Minister for doing too little to support the farmers in their climate transition, in their work to do exactly what has made Swedish agriculture so successful, namely to actually do what the Minister says – managing pesticides and fertilizer in the most successful way possible.

The farmers need more support than the government is delivering. It is the government that must take the criticism for this, not Sweden's farmers.

I believe that the Minister is doing himself a disservice by believing that he is the representative of Sweden's farmers in all respects. When I criticize the Minister, it is the Minister who bears the responsibility, not Sweden's farmers. They would have needed a different policy than the one the Minister has offered.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! What Sweden's farmers are requesting is a simpler regulatory framework, fair taxation, great freedom under responsibility, and reasonable requirements that harmonize with other EU countries' requirements, because they are competitors in the same market.

The problem with social democrat-led governments is that they have constantly acted as if Sweden is not a part of the European Union and functions in the same market. They have piled burden upon burden on Sweden's farmers that have not landed on European farmers in a corresponding way. That is the fundamental reason for poor profitability in Swedish agriculture and a diminished competitiveness.

I hear nothing that indicates that a new Social Democratic-led government would not continue in the same direction, especially considering who they intend to form a government with.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! A concrete thing that this government has not done to support Swedish agriculture and especially animal production in Sweden is to introduce origin labeling of meat in all restaurants. That would have meant that the willingness to pay that already exists among Swedish consumers, that is, to pay a little more for the fantastic animal husbandry in Sweden, could have come to greater expression. It would have strengthened Swedish agriculture. Peter Kullgren has not delivered that.

The government has also talked a lot about regulatory simplification. In practice, the result is meager. I believe few farmers experience having fewer rules to comply with today than when the government took over.

There is an incredible amount to be done to support agriculture moving forward. Ensure that there is a long-term perspective in Klimatklivet so that the volatility can be avoided, and support those farmers who want to take further steps to move away from the fossil and simultaneously deliver a higher security in Swedish food production!

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now it is time for the elephant in the room regarding the cost increase, that is to say all the misguided, poorly adapted, and non-consequence-analyzed strategies and regulations from the EU Commission.

Farmers shall measure and count, shall register and report, must rewet peatland, may not cut down forest, may not use plant protection products, must do one thing and may not do the other.

The states must create incentives and punitive sanctions for everything between heaven and earth, which affects the farmer in the form of red tape, support deductions, and penalties.

The current government has nevertheless been historically successful in stopping, holding back, and mitigating crazy proposals. Finally, the EU Commission and other member states know that Sweden can say no. We have stopped the forest monitoring and stopped the restoration regulation, even though it was resurrected by the Austrian environment minister being pressured to vote yes and thereby go against his own government. The restoration regulation is thus probably the EU regulation that has the least democratic legitimacy.

We have mitigated the deforestation regulation and other provisions. We have created national flexibility for support rules and other provisions.

The point is that political decisions and intentions from previous years remain. It is very difficult to tear up such things that rosy-cheeked politicians have hailed before any consequence analysis has been made, even when their cheeks have later faded when the consequence analysis is finally made or the misery is to be implemented. Then they realize what they have done.

My tip to you who are watching this debate is therefore: Choose realistic politicians to speak for you in Brussels. That is the single most important thing for Swedish agriculture.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Sweden Democrats the same question that I previously asked Minister Kullgren.

Part of increasing the profitability and resilience of agriculture is to reduce the costs for game damage. A large part of the costs today come from the fact that Sweden has an extremely large wild boar population. This means costs for agriculture and large costs in the form of damages for Sweden's villa owners.

Our neighboring countries may have a couple of thousand wild boar for comparison, while Sweden has approximately 300,000 – and they continue to spread around throughout Sweden.

Do the Sweden Democrats agree with the Social Democrats' goal to significantly reduce the Swedish wild boar population?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Åsa Westlund for the question.

The government has taken several measures to increase the culling of wild boar, and we have succeeded in making the populations decrease. Now they have increased again, and the populations are now too large for it to be optimal.

The difficulty is that the wild boar is simultaneously a resource and a problem. The other complication is that the relationship between resource and problem looks different in different parts of the country. The solution is that an agreement must be reached in each locality on how to proceed. Landowners and hunters must reach an agreement, and that is often the case. But when it does not work, we have concrete proposals for how they should be forced to sit down and reach an agreement.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe very few agree that the large wild boar population that Sweden has is an important resource. Most are probably truly furious about the damage that the wild boars cause to Sweden's farmers but also to Sweden's villa owners. Many also feel a rather great fear when they encounter them out in the evening.

It only becomes a resource if one actually uses it as a resource. Are there any concrete plans from Sverigedemokraterna to support municipalities and others so that more wild boar meat is demanded in the future so that it becomes a resource?

I repeat my previous question: Do the Sweden Democrats share the Social Democrats' view that we must significantly reduce the Swedish wild boar population? Or is it an important resource, as the member from the Sweden Democrats said from the rostrum?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! The difference is that we are trying to see the whole. One must see the whole. That one does not do so is precisely the red-greens' Achilles' heel.

Regarding the municipalities' procurement, there are initiatives in many municipalities to purchase more game meat, and more of it will certainly come. But it is a municipal matter primarily – and naturally a regional one for the procurements that the regions make.

We have no plans to micro-manage the municipalities' purchases in that way. They must resolve that themselves, in accordance with municipal self-government.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! The Center Party has almost nagged itself to death about a certain issue: increasing the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. One opportunity we have proposed is a rapid investigation to review the state levies – taxes and fees – in the entire food chain, not least in primary production. But every time we have brought this up, we have been outvoted.

We proposed a committee initiative in the Committee on Taxation, and then it was just, lo and behold, Miljöpartiet that supported it – no one else. Since then, it has been the same.

I cannot understand why it would hurt so much to lower state taxes and costs for our farmers. I wonder why the Sweden Democrats do not support such an initiative.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Helena Lindahl for the question and for the commitment to the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture. I see that as a genuine commitment, and it is a commitment that we share. The question is relevant.

We have already lowered taxes and fees in several places, so we are already on our way in this. But it absolutely does not have to be enough. We want to continue.

In the Tidö Agreement, we pushed through one thing in the area of agriculture, namely an investigation into increased competitiveness for maintained animal welfare. It has been completed and resulted in certain things. But we do not say no to any future initiatives, as long as they have the right profile and do not involve, in detail, being negative in any way.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe, if I am to be honest, that there is anything wrong at all with lowering state taxes and levies for anyone, especially not for our farmers. Furthermore, to conduct an investigation into that and what it could do for the farmers' wallets, I would see as something positive. It is nothing that is negative, and one does not need to be afraid of it.

That is why I and my party colleagues have been so surprised that the support has not come from parties that normally consider agriculture to be important and that farmers are necessary for Sweden.

To strengthen their competitiveness, it is a must that the state withdraws its fingers from the farmers' wallets. I cannot understand why this creeping socialism of maintaining state obligations should be so important. I do not think this question should actually be so difficult to answer.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, reduced taxes and levies are important. Sometimes it is spoken of steering measures, that is to say, one wants to steer with the economy and make certain things more expensive and certain things cheaper. I believe that is a dangerous path to take. Much of that is proposed by other parties.

I believe that increased freedom of action is the most important thing, and that could be achieved if one removes taxes and levies. Furthermore, one cannot continue to engage too much in climate steering and other steering of the money.

With this said, we are generally positive about this, but we want to see a good profile for such an investigation. It must tackle all the problems that I mentioned, not just some of them. We will look at each initiative specifically and decide what we think.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! When I listen to the debate, I realize that I am provoked by the same things as 16 years ago when I entered the chamber after the people of Västerbotten had chosen that I should represent them in the Riksdag. It concerns above all one specific thing, namely left-wing parties that want to impose new burdens and taxes on Swedish farmers.

When you have once done it and made the Swedish food production more difficult and more expensive, you say no to the food when you are sitting and governing in municipalities and regions. When food is to be procured for schools, hospitals, and elderly care homes, you opt out of the Swedish food that you yourself have helped to make more expensive.

That, Madam Speaker, I have never understood. Why does one make this a black mark for Swedish agriculture and Swedish farmers? Then one does not want to procure food that is more climate-smart and produced in a way that makes it contain fewer dangerous substances for humans. This one does not want to procure, and I cannot understand that.

I want to express a big thank you to all of Sweden's farmers who keep our landscapes open and who struggle. We who grew up in the countryside know how hard one works in Swedish agriculture. You work every day of the week, because the animals must be cared for regardless of whether it is Saturday or Sunday or if there is football on TV, something many of us will be watching in the future. A big thank you to all the farmers who toil and put food on the table!

We in politics shall do our part. We shall ensure that you get good conditions. We have worked on this for four years in the cooperation that we have. We try to reduce red tape and ensure that there is less bureaucracy, lower taxes and better conditions.

We obviously need to do more, not least if we are to manage the Swedish preparedness. The pandemic showed us something, namely that when a crisis occurs, we must have our own food production. One cannot rely on the deliveries always arriving.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I meet many Swedish farmers who think it is strange that society's support for them requires that they continue to fuel with fossil fuels and that they are not supported in doing more to transition to renewable ways of managing transport.

The government has left this issue untouched throughout this entire mandate period. What has been done instead is that fuels for agricultural machinery have been included in EU ETS2, which means that costs for fossil fuels in agricultural machinery will be significantly increased moving forward.

When the government presented this proposal, the Social Democrats requested a clear impact assessment and were concerned about what this would mean. But the government stands firm – it will become more expensive for farmers to refuel with fossil fuels in the future. The government bears the blame for being locked into this way of managing transport.

Why, Madam Speaker, have the members accepted that agriculture is being left in the lurch in this manner?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that those listening to the debate understand what this is. The four coalition parties that now constitute the government and the government base have ensured that the highest diesel prices in the world have become the lowest in Western Europe. The highest diesel prices prevailed under Social Democratic rule.

I believe that few farmers think that this government has done too little to ensure that diesel does not become too expensive. We have lowered the world's highest diesel prices. We have, in practice, tax-exempted the Swedish agriculture's diesel. We have done so much to lower the costs.

Parts of Åsa Westlund's government base, Madam Speaker, have voted against every single reduction in the price of diesel. They have voted against every single reduction in the agricultural costs for diesel. So that does not hold – I am sorry.

We will ensure that it remains affordable for Swedish motorists, Swedish agriculture, and the transport industry. We obviously need to transition in the long term, but these things do not stand in opposition to each other.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that the government's policy is thus fixed. It shall be made more expensive for Swedish farmers to refuel with fossil fuels in the future, and at the same time, all farmers are locked into refueling with fossil fuels; otherwise, they cannot receive society's support.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask another question, regarding the labeling of origin for meat in restaurants. One way for Swedish farmers to earn more money is for Swedish consumers to pay a little more for the meat and for the well-being that the animals in Swedish agriculture enjoy, in contrast to the animals in many other countries. This is already done to a large extent by Swedish consumers in the grocery store today, even though one would wish it were to an even greater extent. But in restaurants, there is currently no clear labeling of origin for meat. Why do the government and the Moderaterna not want to introduce such a labeling of origin, which would strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture?

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by pointing out that Åsa Westlund's statement is, of course, incorrect. Just as I described, no government has ever lowered diesel prices as much as this government has – for Swedish farmers, the Swedish transport industry, and Swedish motorists. I believe few will fall for a bluff to make it appear to be in some other way.

Åsa Westlund's own government basis has time and again voted no to every reduction of petrol and diesel prices and to the reduction obligation, which has made it significantly cheaper. This is good for Swedish motorists, Swedish farmers and the Swedish transport industry. It will not be possible to get anyone out there, outside this chamber, to believe that the Social Democrats care about lowering prices or that there are parties that would truly want to do so together with the Social Democrats. They have time and again shown that they do not want to.

When it comes to Swedish meat production, I have to come back to it.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Riedl, for a very good speech! I cannot but agree that Sweden's farmers should be praised; it felt very warm in the heart. My father was a pig farmer, and I think very much of him and others with worn-out bodies. Those who work day and night, all year round, and hardly get to have time off deserve to be praised.

My question is actually about Sveaskog. The Centre Party recently put forward a proposal to sell off a large part of Sveaskog's production forests, which lack high nature values, in order to invest in the green transition in agriculture. We simply need to increase competitiveness and, in the long run, produce more biodiesel. We may perhaps need to have our own production of artificial fertilizer and so on.

I know that the Moderates were also interested in selling parts of Sveaskog, so my question is: Do the Moderates support the Center Party's proposal, and are the Moderates still interested in selling parts of Sveaskog?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost: As I said, we of course share the commitment both for the countryside and for Norrland – and for the Swedish farmers. Therefore, I regret that Helena Lindahl, who is one of the last C members with that orientation, is now leaving the Riksdag and is not standing for re-election. It is bad for Sweden, for Swedish farmers and for Norrland, so I am sorry for that.

Property rights is one of the most important issues for me and my party Moderaterna. When it comes to Sveaskog, I would like to see us divest state-owned forest. If I had the say, I would most preferably want us to do it in small portions so that we get more landowners in Sweden and more people, both out in the countryside and in the cities, get the opportunity to buy a plot out in the forest for hunting or recreation, but also of course to be able to manage the forest. We know that nature values and good things for the future are created when people manage their own forest. I therefore absolutely see it in the future that we can divest parts of Sveaskog.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

We see selling as a good way to simply get the enormous amounts of money needed for the green transition – the farmers cannot bear it themselves – and so that we can have greater self-sufficiency in Sweden and not be dependent on all the volatile fluctuations in the Middle East and other parts of the world. It becomes so enormously expensive with both artificial fertilizer and diesel and so on.

My question then is: When could such a sale be expected to take place? I know that the Moderaterna were involved in this during the previous parliamentary term, and during this parliamentary term it has not happened much when it comes to Sveaskog. Therefore, I wonder if the member can possibly answer how far away such a plan lies.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I can say this: If the Center Party returned to the bourgeois family, a question where I believe we share the same view, I believe it would be both easier and faster to carry out those types of reforms – above all, to replace parts of Sveaskog so that we get more landowners, many small landowners. It would be good for Sweden and the Swedish forest, and it would probably be good for getting more people to understand the value of the forest that we have in this country. It would be welcome. I therefore welcome the old Center Party members to come and engage in this, because I believe it would be good.

Then I forgot the second question.

(HELENA LINDAHL (C): Yes, I almost did that myself; I was so absorbed in what the member said. The question was whether the member agrees with the Centre Party regarding the ambition in the matter of the transition.)

No, I do not think we will completely share that view. We need to make a transition, but we shall do it in a wise and economically reasonable way.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Edward Riedl, for your speech! It is very exciting to discuss agricultural issues with people from committees other than the one we usually deal with. Edward Riedl is the chairman of the Finance Committee, and I therefore intend to ask a little bit about money and so on.

I heard in a previous exchange of remarks that the member was very proud that we now have the lowest diesel price, that this is what has been achieved and that it strengthens Swedish agriculture. But for me, it is a bit wrong. If one is to shift – the Moderaterna still want, I believe, a powerful climate policy and consider that we should move away from fossil dependency – why then has one not worked on other parts so that we actually move away from fossil dependency? A reduction of a price without any other measures locks the entire system into a fossil dependency.

Is this, purely economically, a good way to move away from fossil fuel dependency, or should we keep it? Does the member want us to be stuck in fossil fuel dependency?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the great difference in Swedish politics becomes quite clear for those listening to the debate.

I and the Moderaterna do not believe that the solution regarding the climate transition is to torment Swedish farmers, to torment everyone who every day is dependent on the car to get to and from work, or to torment the Swedish transport industry and Swedish industry which is dependent on transport. We do not believe that it is the solution. We believe that one can achieve a climate transition with positive incentives through research, innovation, and development – not by tormenting our citizens. Here the great difference arises between the Swedish right and the Swedish left.

Therefore, I truly regret – the Centre Party has traditionally been a rural-friendly party – that one now wants to implement that policy with parties that believe the solution is mandates, so that people cannot bear the current solution. I believe on the contrary that a good climate transition is achieved when the renewable and climate-smart is also economically reasonable.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

I still do not think I received a proper answer. If we are to steer away from the fossil, we must have incentives to do so. Then there must be other parts that make it profitable to steer towards electric drive or biogas and so on. There are proposals such as agricultural deductions, bio-premiums, domestic production of mineral fertilizer and so on, but we have not seen any initiatives on this. The only thing we have seen is a lock-in effect, which for an economist should be completely crazy.

While I have the floor, I would like to ask another question. We are talking about agriculture here, but it is about the entire food production, so I hope the Speaker is okay with my question.

There is a lot of talk about the crisis support, and the crisis support also includes that the fishing industry should receive money. The last time crisis support was distributed, in 2022, it was seen that the money for fishing went to the large industrial trawlers while the coastal fishing was left out. Will the government ensure that the crisis support, with the design it has now, actually is directed towards the small-scale? I believe that we all here in the Swedish Riksdag agree that is where it should be directed.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying to the listener that even though the member from Miljöpartiet did not perceive that she received a proper answer, she actually did. It was just that she did not agree. We therefore do not agree on the direction that Sweden needs to take.

I tried to describe that I do not believe we should torment the citizens to get them to transition. I believe instead in positive incentives, that is to say, ensuring that what is environmentally friendly and climate-smart also becomes economically correct and reasonable. Then, I believe that one can make a reasonable climate transition. I also believe that this was what the citizens said four years ago. They said that they did not want more burdens. They wanted instead that the climate transition and the environmentally friendly should occur on other and better terms.

So, I gave an answer. We simply do not agree with each other. This autumn, the voters will decide whether they want higher fuel prices, more levies and more bureaucracy on the Swedish countryside and Swedish farmers, or if they want less of such. It is up to the voters to decide.

I unfortunately cannot give the member an answer to the second question here and now, but I will give it to her afterwards. My knowledge of the negotiation does not extend so far that I know exactly how it turned out with the fisheries part. But she will, of course, receive an answer.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! A strong agriculture is needed if we are to manage the food supply, just as a strong agriculture within nature's boundaries is needed for us to manage the climate transition. We agree on supporting agriculture in the crisis that the USA has now caused in the Strait of Hormuz. But we also need a policy for a long-term sustainable agriculture.

That is why we in Vänsterpartiet invested 1.2 billion more than the government in the autumn budget. We want to see an increased transition to organic farming where chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers are not used. To reduce the need for imported fertilizer, we want to increase support for using more manure more effectively in crop cultivation. We also need to invest in Swedish production of green mineral fertilizer, but that requires large investments and production of green hydrogen.

We need to invest even more in agriculture's own production of biofuels but also in other fossil-free fuels. For the transition to work, the price of the fossil-free also needs to be lower than the price of the fossil. To increase our self-sufficiency, we need to support more production and processing of plant-based foods.

Madam Speaker! In these changing weather conditions with recurring periods of drought and flooding, agriculture faces increased costs for, among other things, water management. Even there, powerful support is needed.

In conclusion, I want to say that we all depend on a long-term and sustainably functioning agriculture, but today the farmer is left standing alone with the risks. Therefore, it is important for us in Vänsterpartiet that the collective is involved in financing the transition that is now required.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the speech! I requested the floor because I think the political dividing lines between left and right became so clear here. It was when Kajsa Fredriksson spoke about the country's fertilizer supply and about making us independent of fossil fertilizer. That is a good objective. We agree with that. But we do not agree with the solution.

The solution is therefore, according to Kajsa Fredholm, to increase the use of manure through support. I believe that manure is used very effectively today, and if it is not, it will certainly become so when the price of artificial fertilizer goes up. Then the price of manure also goes up. It becomes more of a resource.

The second point concerns fertilizer production with hydrogen. That politics should decide that hydrogen shall be used here is dangerous. The market has already solved it. But an innovation has emerged: fossil-free fertilizer without hydrogen production. It will be profitable within a short time. This is what we Sverigedemokrater want to give an extra boost in the next budget, so that it can be established on a larger scale.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! We differ in our opinions, naturally. That is the intention.

This matter of using stable manure more efficiently is something we have seen a need for. I do not intend to go into it further. But we have, therefore, budgeted for it in our budget proposal.

Then we have this with green mineral fertilizer. It is very interesting that the member now tells us that there are other ways than to use green hydrogen. The member is welcome to elaborate on this a bit more. I would like to hear more about that.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have spoken about fossil dependency. The small dependency is the propellant. That is easy to switch. The large dependency is the artificial fertilizer, and that is what we must solve.

But the market will solve this after the government has invested extra much in research in innovation. I do not know if there is any causal connection, but that is how we have completely done it. We believe in research and innovation. One can now, with the help of plasma technology – I cannot explain it quite – produce fertilizer. They have had nitrogen and oxygen molecules meet when they heated it to 4,000 degrees or something similar. Unfortunately, I cannot [provide] the details.

I think, however, that this clearly shows that the policy should be cautious when it comes to pointing out that one should make a specific hydrogen initiative, because it can become very expensive. Instead, one should let research and the market take their course. Then one can see where to put in the final push to get the whole thing started.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for the information! I will have to dig further into this.

Production of green hydrogen is also needed for other things in the green transition, so there we are perhaps not quite in agreement.

But I would like to ask an overarching question. My perception is that the Sweden Democrats are not interested in a climate transition at all and that the state, so to speak, contributes financially to make it easier for people to transition. This naturally also applies to agriculture. My question then becomes: How many degrees of warming of our planet does the Sweden Democrats consider acceptable?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet wants to significantly increase the proportion of organic farming. You want at least 30 percent of the agricultural area to be organic. At least 60 percent of public consumption shall be organic, and the subsidies for organic production shall increase significantly.

You also say that we should reduce the consumption and thus the production of meat by at least 25 percent by 2030.

Everyone who knows their agriculture knows that organic production is enormously dependent on the existence of animals, because it is the manure that is used to grow the crops. Firstly, I would like to hear how Vänsterpartiet reasons regarding the link between animals and organic production. Secondly, I wonder: How is Vänsterpartiet going to reduce meat consumption by at least 25 percent by the year 2030?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

The Minister raised exactly this in his speech. We want to reduce the consumption of meat. We want, therefore, that we should eat less meat – for climate reasons. But the production of meat in Sweden is not affected by that, because we eat quite large amounts of imported meat. We want people to eat Swedish meat. That is the solution to this. That is the simple answer.

If we are to transition agriculture, become less vulnerable regarding the fossil [economy] and not have a need for inputs as well as preserve the environment, we actually need to increase the production of organic, we believe.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Here, the ignorance and the reason why the Left Party's policy does not add up is exposed somewhere. We are already at 70–75 percent self-sufficiency in terms of meat. A reduction of 25 percent would mean that 100 percent of what we consume would be Swedish. It is perhaps a bit utopian to believe that. We will inevitably reach the situation where we also reduce production.

If one is to increase the proportion of organic [products] so extremely much, the line should be, if one has a serious policy, that one should increase domestic animal production in order to be able to meet the need that one has. That is where your policy does not add up.

You also want to phase out the EU's support for large-scale animal production. In that case, I want to ask you: What does Vänsterpartiet define as large-scale animal production?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! That question alone is a good question, for which I simply do not have an answer.

But we have different opinions on agriculture and how it should be designed in the future. We believe that we must take into account the nature crisis that we actually find ourselves in. I am thinking of reports and warnings about ecosystem collapses and other things – especially in our area and in the boreal forests, which are in Sweden. I believe that many farmers are also very keen to do this. But that requires a powerful policy that makes it easier to transition, I think.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I must just make a few comments, not least regarding the EU's upcoming agricultural budget and the announced reduction of it.

Minister Kullgren answered me that one cannot say, from the government's or the Christian Democrats' side, whether one could compensate the Swedish farmers for such a loss on a national level, as that would be irresponsible. I and the Centre Party do not think it is irresponsible. We would like to promise it, because this is an enormously important issue for Sweden's preparedness. Having food on the table is one of the major defense issues in Sweden. To then say that one should not compensate for this on a national level and to pull the rug out from under our farmers, I think is irresponsible.

When it comes to lowering state taxes and fees in the food chain, I hope and believe that a little extra nagging will pay off. That question is indeed important. Our farmers need to earn more money. They must be able to become more competitive. There are enormously many surcharges from the state – for the farmers themselves, for the slaughterhouses, for the food processing industries, for the transports and finally for the store, even though the VAT is temporarily lowered. There is, therefore, a whole lake to pour from, and in that case, I actually think that one should be open to doing so.

In conclusion: Selling parts of Sveaskog's forest land that lack high natural values is a very good idea, according to the Center Party, in order to transition agriculture. It also strengthens family farming and contributes to a more vibrant countryside and more local ownership. It is great, not least for property rights in Sweden.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

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

The small problem in a climate context is whether Sweden's agriculture meets the climate goals. The big problem is that the management model for reducing climate emissions in agriculture disadvantages Swedish agriculture. It becomes difficult to increase Swedish food production because the agriculture's total emissions must decrease – despite the fact that Swedish agriculture is much more climate-friendly than other countries'.

A management model that disadvantages the growth of the Union's most climate-friendly agriculture is also counterproductive when it comes to the reduction of climate emissions from EU agriculture.

Is the Centre Party on board with renegotiating the requirements regarding climate emissions for agriculture in the EU, so that it is not about the total emissions from Swedish agriculture but about the relationship to the size of production, for example emissions per kilo of product? It would be good for Swedish food production. It would facilitate Sweden's fulfillment of the climate goals. And it would reduce climate emissions from EU's food production because climate-friendly agriculture would grow at the expense of climate-burdening agriculture.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member, for the question!

This touches slightly on the action plan that we also need to negotiate in Brussels. It is not just about negotiating crowns and cents in the upcoming agricultural budget, as such. It is also about the direction when it comes to the agricultural budget.

Centerpartiet thinks that what is important is that we try to get other countries in the EU to take greater responsibility for the climate and for the green transition. We are already doing that in Sweden; Swedish farmers are doing it. This would benefit our agriculture and make it more competitive. If we do not do this – that is, if others were only to focus on increased production and not on any changed climate policy – it will disadvantage us.

I hope and believe that this government and future governments see that this is an important issue to negotiate for Swedish agriculture.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Helena Lindahl! I am pleased to hear that. In that regard, we agree.

How the EU rules become and how they are introduced is probably the most important thing for Swedish agriculture, not least in the long run. From that perspective, I want to ask: Is the member aware of how dangerous it is for Swedish agriculture that the Center Party has now decided to cooperate with the left-wing bloc?

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

It was a question that I was quite sure I would get in this debate – and it is certainly something that the minister will also ask about, I don't know – it was precisely this question.

I think like this: What is important today is to prioritize the substantive politics and not the game politics. We will be able to engage in the game politics throughout the entire election campaign. It has indeed already started, but that opportunity will recur so many times.

The Center Party is a dancing party. We like to dance. I really like to dance. But when the one who asks for a dance does it with the elbow and then, once you are actually dancing, constantly steps on your feet, then it is not so much fun to continue dancing.

That is my answer to that question.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! First of all, Helena Lindahl must look at what I said regarding CAP and so on. Then she can assess whether it was a misinterpretation of what she said in the rostrum or not.

Now, the situation is that the Centerpartiet has chosen a side, and it is a side with proposals such as a new fee on logging, more forest out of production, and an increased tax on agricultural diesel. Next year, a final version of the nature restoration plan must also be submitted, which is a consequence of an EU law that all of the Centerpartiet's comrades like and which, if mishandled, will take people's land out of production and cost the taxpayers many, many billions.

My question is quite simple: Why are you doing this? When there is already a storm brewing around our farmers, why is the gate being thrown wide open for a full environmentalist storm?

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! As I expressed earlier, this was the most anticipated question of the day!

I can say as I said in the previous exchange: I think today's debate should focus on the substantive policy. I cannot for my life understand why this issue must constantly be repeated. If I am to be honest with the Minister, this is the answer I have received to my debate articles in Land Lantbruk and ATL, just as when we have debated at LRF.

Farmers watching this debate want to know what they should do with crisis support, what the EU's agricultural budget will look like, and what future plans we have for Swedish agriculture. I think that just discussing power politics takes the edge off the important debate. I wish that we focused on the substantive policy instead.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party's agricultural and forestry policy resembles that of the Christian Democrats, the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, and the Liberals significantly more than the policies of the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party in this area.

This is important in substance, because what will be the result of a new government? What will you have to compromise on?

One thing is certain: If you are in government, you must be in agreement. How are you going to reach an agreement on forestry policy with the Green Party and on meat consumption in Sweden with the Left Party? How are the ownership rights issues to be resolved with the Social Democrats at the helm?

It is not a non-issue. It is merely rhetoric to claim that this is not about substance, because it is exactly what it is. What substantive policy becomes actual decisions if one casts their vote for Centerpartiet? That is a relevant question.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Perhaps I would have thought the question was relevant if it were the first time the Minister had asked it. But the Minister has consistently answered the Center Party's policy questions with just that rhetoric, and that is what I am finally starting to think is unserious.

The last question I received concerned the translation of the birds directive. Now there is no explanatory text there, and the problem is that the judges cannot make decisions because they do not know what the legislator's intention has been. Then you send it back to the Swedish Forest Agency, and already now, at once, it has become a problem.

When I ask that type of question, I only get answers like "and what about you" and "what about you, who are going to work with them and them," and not answers to substantive political questions that affect people in their everyday lives. For my life, I cannot understand why it must be that way.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now the debate is beginning to draw to a close, and after having listened to the debate, I would rather than speak about game theory want to return to the core issue: How do we strengthen Swedish agriculture?

What I hear here is that there is no real plan for how we are going to move forward. People are talking about emergency support, but no business owner, regardless of industry, wants a pat on the head and a little support. They want investments. They want to know that there is a belief in the future and what is going to be done.

If we go back to the cost increases that we have now and which prompted LRF's petition to the government, we see that they are due to fuel prices, fertilizer prices and the dependence on fossil energy. Everything has its root in our fossil dependence and dependence on other states. We must increase self-sufficiency, and we must ensure that we do it here at home. In that regard, the government is unresponsive.

In LRF's submission, we see that a third of those who have responded to the survey say that they will reduce their cultivation. Half of the farmers will postpone investments. A third will make cost savings. Seven out of ten think that this affects their view of the future.

Then it is not enough to say that one is lowering the price of petrol or diesel here and now. How are we to get to the other side? There, the government must take decisive action and ensure that there actually is another way to go. We must move away from the fossil and ensure that there is an agricultural deduction and a bio-premium. We must have a crisis preparedness and increase the domestic production of mineral fertilizer. That is where Miljöpartiet has policy.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! There must be a bit more pace in this contribution!

I intended to dwell a bit on free trade and protectionism. When one talks about domestic food production, it is indeed important not to fall into the ditch of protectionism. That is what some people sometimes do. One sees imports as something negative. But in parallel with strengthening food security and increasing production, we need to continue to safeguard international trade and strengthen our position as an exporting country.

Trade has always been important for Sweden, and how important international trade is for a country in crisis or war is seen most clearly when one looks at Ukraine. Let us learn from that.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank Helena Lindahl and Centerpartiet for this opportunity to talk about free trade when discussing agricultural policy – it might annoy some Center Party member somewhere!

I also want to take the opportunity to extend a big thank you to Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren for a very good cooperation during the parliamentary term, not least in forest issues and the issues linked to property rights. There, we have stood side by side at the front and actually delivered, and during the next week, we will make incredibly important decisions for Sweden's forest owners. That is something I am incredibly happy and proud of.

We have done very much well during these four years. We have cooperated and constructively arrived at solutions in issues where we sometimes stood quite far apart at the beginning, but still landed on results that we are very satisfied with. I hope for four new years for the Tidö parties. Many thanks!

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! I asked essentially the same questions to the other two government parties, but I do not think I have received any answer. Therefore, I also ask the Liberals, who also hold the Minister for Climate and Environment post. Are there any thoughts on how we are to move away from fossil dependency within agriculture? We have touched upon this several times in this debate. I and the MP consider that a reduction cannot always be the way out. One must also ensure a transition to something else. There are proposals about, for example, agricultural deductions and bio-premiums. These come, among others, from the State Inquiry on Fossil-Independent Agriculture and the Inquiry on Policy Instruments for a Fossil-Free Society. What is the Liberals' answer to this?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks, Emma Nohrén, for the question! It has been asked here by you earlier today, several times. I do not know if I have listened poorly, but I actually do not believe that anyone has mentioned nuclear power. It is the way forward even for agriculture, in the long run. For increased production of electricity from fossil-free sources, nuclear power is absolutely crucial. There we are now catching up on many lost years. During next week, we take important steps for new nuclear power. It is important even for the agriculture's transition.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the answer! It was actually one of the first truly concrete answers that I have received during this debate. Even though I do not agree, I am grateful that one dares to say what one thinks.

If one looks ahead at nuclear power, it is still many, many years away. We have previously heard in the debate from the Minister for Rural Affairs that there are no electric tractors, even though they are starting to appear on the market. But we do have the opportunity to produce biofuels. We have the opportunity to create political incentives so that one can get back the price difference between the fossil and the fossil-free fuel via agricultural deductions and biofuel premiums. That would lead to a shift.

One can use the same machines as today but refuel fossil-free. We must invest in producing fuel. There must be investments in biogas. There must also be conversion possibilities. We must ensure that it is profitable to make this shift, otherwise no demand will be created. Is it on the table?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not have full insight into exactly what is on the table. But again: Access to sufficient fossil-free electricity is crucial for the transition.

Another question concerns the fact that the transition is being carried out by companies that can afford to make the transition. We share that view. Therefore, we need to increase profitability and reduce red tape. That is also something we do, a great deal.

It is not only nuclear power that is the answer to this. Many eggs must be in the basket. We are therefore excluding nothing. I have no more concrete answers to give, but I think I was very concrete when it comes to nuclear power.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to all participants in this debate for good discussions!

Sweden faces a crossroads regarding agricultural and forestry policy. Either we continue on the path already taken, which leads to better profitability, less red tape, and more confidence in Swedish agriculture and Swedish forest production, or we choose a path with more regulations, poorer profitability, and more demands on our farmers, which will inevitably lead to reduced food production.

There is much to be proud of regarding Swedish agriculture, which has been mentioned in this debate. The faith in the future is greater than it has been in a long time. We see this, not least, through the investments that are now announced. Arla is making its largest investment ever in the company's history in Sweden. Lantmännen is developing vegetable protein factories and more in Sweden. Pågen is building new bakeries, and Scan is to invest in slaughterhouses in the north. There is faith in the future and good momentum in Swedish food production. Let that path continue! Thank you for the debate!

(Applause)

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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