Response to interpellation 2022/23:283 on the revision of the food strategy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD wants to further develop the food strategy to create a robust food chain and increase production through economic, social, and environmental sustainability 1 2. KD emphasizes the importance of regulatory simplification, increased exports, innovation, and skills development to strengthen Swedish competitiveness 1 3. KD believes that the blue industries have a clear place in the strategy 1 2 and that the strategy should lead to more growing companies for jobs and growth in rural areas 2. KD emphasizes strengthened profitability 2 and argues that Swedish food production must not have higher costs than in the rest of Europe 4. KD agrees that the reduction obligation should be lowered 4. S believes that the updated strategy should have broad political support 5 and that the blue industries are an important part of sustainable food production 5 6. S wants to see climate-smart production systems where organic farming plays an important role 6. S believes that research, innovation, robustness, and investments in local, sustainable food production are important 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Malin Larsson has asked me how I intend to act to ensure that the new, updated food strategy has long-term political goals that hold over both time and changes of government, how I view sustainability linked to increased Swedish food production, if I intend to take any measures based on my view on the issue, and whether I intend to act so that blue nutrients are part of the food strategy.
The food strategy is a proposition from 2017 that has been adopted by the Riksdag, and it is established. The Government is now working on further developing the implementation of the food strategy. Since the food strategy was launched in 2017, a number of global factors that have a clear impact on the food chain have changed. In 2018, agriculture was hit hard by drought. After that came the corona pandemic, which affected supply chains and consumption patterns. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has also affected the cost situation and had a negative impact on the global food market as well as a negative security policy development.
I regularly meet with representatives from different political parties. There is a consensus across the party blocks that these changes have clarified the need for a more robust food chain and that food preparedness should also be included in the further work on the food strategy. My intention is to inform the Committee on Environment and Agriculture as the work on updating the food strategy progresses.
The Government has just begun the work of further developing the implementation of the food strategy. The starting point took place with a kickoff in February this year. Part of the ongoing work is to listen to what the business sector demands. The Government will include representatives from the entire food chain in the work – companies and organizations representing primary production, including the blue industries, the processing sector, trade, and the restaurant sector will be given the opportunity to submit their views. Representatives for the blue industries were thus invited and participated in the kickoff for food strategy 2.0 which was held at the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure in February.
The Government has high ambitions regarding all sustainability perspectives - economic, social and environmental sustainability are required to achieve a competitive food chain. The Government also wants to see a clear production increase that creates jobs across the country and that strengthens Swedish security of supply.
The economic dimension is therefore important in order to be able to increase production. Companies will produce where profitability exists and invest where the calculation adds up. The government and authorities can contribute by developing simple and long-term rules of the game, which is one of the most important parts of an updated food strategy.
I also want to highlight four areas where the government is continuing its work within the framework of the food strategy to ensure Swedish competitiveness. These areas are increased food exports, increased innovative power, strengthened skills development, and increased regulatory simplification and reduced administrative costs.
Madam Speaker! Today, many discussions both at the EU level and in Sweden revolve around the choice between increased production and sustainable production. It is not about choosing one or the other; rather, a sustainable food production is a prerequisite for increased production and increased profitability, as well as for securing the food supply in the long term. To continue a successful work, the actors in the value chain need to share a holistic view of how competitiveness can be achieved while simultaneously safeguarding animal health, animal welfare, and public health.
Swedish food is delicious, has a low climate and environmental impact, and creates jobs throughout the country. Sweden needs a strong food chain.
Malin Larsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking the Minister for Rural Affairs for the answers.
I have often debated the food strategy here in the chamber. It is an issue that engages many. We must all eat, and preferably the food should be as delicious and healthy as it is sustainable and locally produced.
The national food strategy aiming towards 2030 was adopted by the Riksdag in June 2017 with an overall goal of increased sustainable food production. It was a Social Democratic-led government that then launched Sweden's first food strategy. Much has happened since then, just as the minister pointed out. I am thinking of the drought, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but also of the climate changes.
There is a broad political consensus that we need to update our existing food strategy. The then Social Democratic Minister for Rural Affairs, Sven-Erik Bucht, gathered both the industry and politicians from both of the then political blocs so that everyone would be involved in the work, so that there would be long-term perspective in the policy and so that the strategy would be sustainable over time. It was important to gather both the entire chain and the entire politics.
I can unfortunately state that it does not seem important to bring us together in politics now when a new, updated strategy is to be developed. No one from the opposition was either invited to the kickoff that the Minister for Rural Affairs invited to.
I previously submitted a written question to the Minister regarding how the development will take place and have received the same answer in this interpellation debate, namely that the Minister intends to inform the Committee on Environment and Agriculture as the work progresses. But information is one thing—to be able to participate in the process is something else entirely.
I asked the same question to the minister's party colleague Magnus Oscarsson during the agricultural debate here in the chamber and was given the answer that the strategy already exists and that it is not much more new than that one should try to produce the different tools and make a workshop of the whole thing. Therefore, we from politics did not need to gather again.
We from the opposition were not invited to the kickoff for the food strategy. I can also unfortunately state that the Minister for Rural Affairs does not see the value of inviting us moving forward and that this right-wing government does not see the value of achieving a broad political consensus on certain particularly important issues.
Now it was not only we who were a bit miffed, but also the representatives for the blue industries were disappointed that they were not invited.
Based on this, I would like the Minister to elaborate on how he views the importance of the new, updated food strategy receiving broad support in the Riksdag.
The Minister calls this a new, updated food strategy, or food strategy 2.0, but at the same time, it is nothing new that is to be added. Is that correct?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! We must be aware that it has been five years since the Riksdag decided on a national food strategy. It was an announcement that pleased many. It created confidence in the industry, and now many of us are impatient and want to see more results. I will elaborate a little on how the government will strengthen the Swedish food chain.
The food strategy contains three strategic areas, which are fixed. In the area of rules and conditions, rule simplification was needed that provides a real and perceived simplification in the companies. The food companies are, as everyone knows, subject to a number of different laws and rules that should be able to be analyzed and tested in this context, both regarding content and application and regarding the authorities' response.
Sweden's food security and a robust, adaptable food chain in relation to the rest of the world is also important to develop. Within the area of consumer and market, the government wants to focus on ways to increase Swedish food exports and increase the global market share to strengthen the competitiveness and profitability in the food industry. This is a prerequisite for the goals of the food strategy to be achieved. Profiling of Swedish added values, such as sustainability on the domestic market as a basis for strengthened competitiveness and profitability, is also an important area.
In the area of knowledge and innovation, clear proposals are required to simplify and facilitate innovation in food companies, both at the national and regional level. Measures also need to be taken to facilitate for food companies to identify and recruit the critical skills needed for the companies to be able to develop and for profitability to be strengthened there as well. Food research must continue to be strengthened.
I note that there is a great deal of commitment in the issues concerning Swedish food production and that the government has already received many interesting proposals and input from the actors in the food chain. We also welcome more.
I myself feel a sense of impatience. We now want to create momentum and clear, concrete improvements for the Swedish food chain. However, it is too early to say exactly which proposals we will move forward with, as the work begins by us primarily talking to those it affects. All actors - yes, anyone - can come forward with proposals if they see that something affects their operations in a negative way and where changes can be proposed.
This is what we will do during the first half-year, which is beginning to come to an end. After that, the political process will, of course, take over in the areas where the actors themselves have stated that they want to see changes. But yes, we have started by focusing on those who are truly affected – those who are out in the fields and those who stand in the food companies' facilities and process what the farmers have produced – and on the grocery trade in this first stage.
Malin Larsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Rural Affairs again for the answers. There is a great consensus in much.
I want to bring up the blue economy again, and in that case, I am not only thinking of the large fishing industry producer organizations but also of the food producers who account for the rest of the seafood. They have themselves stated that they were not invited to the kickoff, but that they, of course, hope to be invited in the process moving forward.
Seafood such as mussels, algae, oysters and sea cucumbers are on a strong march forward, and in any case, we Social Democrats see it as an important part of our future sustainable food production. That is why the previous Social Democratic government made a decision on the aquaculture program, in order to strengthen the blue industries in Sweden. They are important in a double sense: They produce some of the most resource-efficient proteins we have, and the species contribute to healthier seas by filtering and eating up phosphorus and nitrogen from activities on land. They thus remove the fertilizing substances. It is not for nothing that they are called the ocean's purification plants.
I am also thinking about the importance of the fish we have in our lakes and seas as well as all food production within the blue industries that we now see emerging across the country. Here in Ånge municipality, a large land-based fish farm is being planned, in resource cooperation with other companies in the industrial area that is to be developed in Alby. It is an industrial symbiosis between aquaculture and industry - fantastic, I think.
Thanks to our long coastline and also our many lakes and watercourses in Sweden, we have very good conditions to develop both production and processing of seafood. Aquaculture is a future industry that can contribute to jobs and growth throughout the country. Will the Minister, in the process forward, invite more from the blue industries, so that even producers of seafood such as mussels, algae, etc. are represented?
Sustainability, which I also raised, is another very important part of the food strategy. Agriculture needs to be given the conditions to transition. Recently, the UN's climate panel released its latest report, which shows the serious situation and that large, rapid, and permanent emission reductions are required. We must reduce emissions and have climate-smart production systems.
The Christian Democrats pursue a policy where they are positive about ecological farming increasing and also about new ecological methods being adopted within conventional agriculture. This can be read on the party's website. I also see in the texts that the Christian Democrats believe that ecological farming plays an important role, which I agree with. But how will we see it in the updated food strategy?
Finally, I must raise another extremely important issue, namely the reduction obligation. A lowered reduction obligation, which the parties in the Tidö government are pushing for, must be compensated in other sectors. Agriculture is seen by many debaters as an important sector to introduce climate-compensated measures in if the reduction obligation is lowered. How does the Minister view this? I want him to elaborate on this regarding the risk of a lowered reduction obligation.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Swedish agricultural and food production is among the most climate-smart in the world, so I joyfully urge everyone to choose Swedish food when they shop or visit a restaurant.
The government has, as stated, high ambitions regarding all sustainability perspectives. It should concern the economic, social, and environmental sustainability throughout the entire chain. But we also want to see a clear production increase that creates more jobs and strengthens our security of supply. This is nothing that will happen by itself, and the economic dimension is important for us to be able to increase production because we operate in an open market economy with competition not only within the country but also within Europe and globally.
As I said earlier, the blue nutrients obviously have a clear place in the food strategy. Fishing and the entire processing industry that follows fishing are important parts that need to be strengthened, as well as fish farming and new innovation. Innovative seafood has an important role in future food production. Land-based fish farming in Sweden is relatively new but very interesting, and I know that there are many initiatives in the area.
Right now, however, the situation is challenging for many companies within the food chain. Even though the profitability for the agricultural sector generally has been relatively good during 2021 and 2022, the variation between sectors and individual farms is very large. At the same time, the profitability is generally far too low to provide the conditions for increased production. The uncertainty is also great for the coming years; interest costs continue to increase, as do the prices of several input goods, while the prices of agricultural products have fallen.
The food strategy shall, as mentioned, lead to more and growing companies across our entire country, not just in the larger cities. The food strategy is about jobs and growth in all of Sweden. It is also important for a living countryside because much, yes, almost all, food production takes place just there. The focus will be on strengthened profitability and increased production with a maintained high level of ambition in the environmental and climate areas.
Malin Larsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister Kullgren again. However, I can state that I have not received answers to my questions.
The question I really want an answer to, which is both extremely important and burning here and now, concerns the reduction obligation. A lowered reduction obligation must be compensated in other sectors, and agriculture is seen by many debaters as an important sector to introduce climate-compensating measures in if the reduction obligation is lowered. This is serious, and we risk reducing our food production and not reaching the incredibly important goals in the food strategy. I therefore wish that the minister, in their concluding remarks, takes the time to answer this question.
We may disagree on some issues, but I am pleased that we seem to agree on the importance of research, innovation, and resilience in the food chain, as well as the need for more investments in local, sustainable food production, which also entails great opportunities for development, growth, and employment across the entire country.
I had, however, hoped for a different answer regarding cooperation across party lines in issues that are so important for the future and sustainability over time.
In conclusion, I wish the Speaker, the Minister, and others in the chamber a pleasant weekend and repeat my request for an answer to the question regarding the reduction obligation.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Swedish farmers, Swedish food companies and Swedish trade operate in the EU's internal market, and there is free movement for these products. Therefore, we cannot have legislation, rules and obligations on Swedish food production that do not exist in the same way in the rest of Europe.
The members of the House are welcome to submit interpellations regarding the reduction obligation to the ministers who primarily handle it, but I will address it from this perspective. Swedish farmers cannot have higher costs than European ones, because then they will not be competitive. Within the government support, we agree that the reduction obligation should be lowered, partly to increase the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture.
The Government unfortunately cannot answer, so we may have to have a special debate on it. At what level do the Social Democrats think the reduction obligation should be? Do they see no consequences with it being much more expensive to fuel the tractor in Sweden than in most other European countries? This has direct consequences. I believe that most farmers feel relieved to now have a government that is not governed by the Green Party, which has an unknown height regarding the percentage concerning the reduction obligation.
It is important that Sweden, in times of crisis and war, has a robust food chain with good profitability, and it starts with a vital primary production. It is important to work with large-scale production and efficiency, but it is also important that there are small-scale food producers of high quality in Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.