Response to interpellation 2023/24:164 on small-scale coastal fishing

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! [The speaker] has asked me if I believe that reduced quotas will save the herring and sprat as well as small-scale coastal fishing and, if not, what measures I am prepared to take, if I and the government will address the extensive fraud in reporting the amount of fish in the cargo that we have received several alarm reports about, what I and the government consider are important catches to prioritize – fish for human consumption or fishing for animal feed – and if I will take any initiatives based on this.

The government's overall objective is that management measures shall be decided in line with the common fisheries policy's goals and principles. The government considers, therefore, that fishing and aquaculture activities shall be environmentally and long-term sustainable and managed in a way that is compatible with the goals of achieving benefits in economic, social, and employment terms. In addition, they shall contribute to securing food security while the competitiveness of sustainable fisheries is protected.

The European Commission's proposal for fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea for 2024 involved a ban on targeted fishing for herring and sprat in all waters where Sweden fishes. At the same time, the Commission proposed that all exemptions for small-scale fishing for herring in the western Baltic Sea with passive gear should be removed, and that exemptions for fishing for herring during the cod closure periods were not included in the Commission's proposal. Therefore, it was assessed that the negative effects of the proposal would be tangible for local coastal fishing and for the production of herring for human consumption.

With a proposal for a ban on targeted herring fishing, only by-catches of herring caught when fishing for other species could be landed, for example, herring catches in pelagic fishing for sprat or coalfish. In practice, the Commission's proposal meant for the Swedish part that only fishing for sprat, which today mainly goes to industrial purposes, would be allowed while coastal fishing would not be allowed, which thereby affects the processing for human consumption that is dependent on herring and sprat.

The Government thus acted at the EU's fisheries council on 23-24 October for cautiously set fishing opportunities, so that the fish stocks are given the opportunity to recover in accordance with the multiannual plan. This also included the consideration of catch opportunities for spiny dogfish. The Government also acted to have the proposal adjusted in parts so that the final result is purposefully based on scientific advice and does not disproportionately affect the Swedish local coastal fishery and the raw material supply to the Swedish processing industry which aims to deliver products for human consumption - this in order to long-term enable sustainable fishing for human consumption and safeguard the Baltic Sea's ecological balance through viable fish stocks.

Our assessment is that the agreement is in line with the common fisheries policy's goals and principles. The decided quotas fall within the intervals presented by the biological advice from the Marine Research Council, ICES. The agreement entails measures and significant reductions of fishing opportunities as well as closures during certain periods for trawling in order to recover fish stocks that today do not have a good stock status.

A holistic approach and more measures are required to recover fish stocks as there are many factors that affect fishing and our fish stocks. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management is working on a government mandate to carry out fishery management measures on a trial basis that correspond to a relocation of the trawl limit. The Government is closely monitoring the implementation of the mandate to find appropriate and scientifically well-founded management tools that can recover the stocks of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and improve the long-term sustainable management of these stocks. The environmental conditions also need to be improved, and the Government believes that restoration of our seas should be prioritized to maintain or recreate valuable environments, for example to strengthen fish stocks. The Government is therefore making a special investment in the 2024 budget for the restoration of aquatic environments.

When it comes to control and compliance, the Government considers regulatory compliance to be an important element to ensure sustainable fishing and that equal conditions are provided for the fishing actors by ensuring that control requirements are met in an equivalent manner in the Member States. The Government therefore considers it urgent that the Member States rectify the cases of deficient regulatory compliance that are encountered and supports that the Member States, together with the Commission and EFCA, continue their work with the aim of achieving sustainable fishing. Nationally, continuous work is ongoing to strengthen control, and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management shall report on which measures the agency has implemented to improve and streamline the Swedish fisheries control.

I and the government have been clear that we prioritize Swedish local coastal fishing and the supply of raw materials to the Swedish processing industry, which aims to deliver products for human consumption. This is in line with the mandate that the government gave the Swedish Board of Agriculture this summer regarding the development of an action plan with proposals for a long-term vision for the blue value chain in Sweden. The mandate covers the entire chain from ship to consumer regarding species such as herring and sprat. The purpose is in line with the government's policy that more of the catches should be able to be landed in Swedish ports and processed in Sweden.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister Kullgren, for the answer! The reason I submitted this interpellation is that I feel a deep concern for the situation of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea.

The government actually had the opportunity at the EU's fisheries council on October 23-24 to follow ICES' and the Commission's recommendations and completely stop the large-scale fishing for herring and sprat in the entire Baltic Sea.

The situation for several fish species in the Baltic Sea is acute. We see, for example, the situation for the cod. We introduced fishing bans in the Baltic Sea already in 2019, but the cod has not recovered. The risk now is that we let herring and sprat meet the same fate. That will be the definitive death blow for small-scale coastal fishing for food fish.

As early as 1974, the first scientific estimate of the amount of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea was made. Since then, more than 77 percent of herring and sprat have disappeared from the Baltic Sea. Several researchers claim that, if nothing radical is done, we are on our way to ending up in the same situation as for cod, where a full 90 percent has disappeared from the Baltic Sea. Despite the fishing ban since 2019, no recovery is yet visible.

Madam Speaker! The Baltic Sea's ecosystem faces an uncertain future. Fish stocks are at alarmingly low levels. And the European Commission's proposal for a total ban on fishing in the area is a powerful reminder of the serious situation.

Now the government had the opportunity to act decisively by introducing stricter controls for large-scale trawling, through an investment in a better marine environment, and by striving for a fishing ban for large-scale trawling fishing before the autumn negotiations in the EU on the fishing quotas. This is not only a matter of protecting our nature but also a matter of safeguarding our cultural heritage and the communities that are dependent on fishing.

But the government and the minister chose to go against the EU Commission's recommendation for a fishing ban on herring and sprat and instead opted for reduced quotas. Reduced fishing quotas may seem like a step in the right direction. But unfortunately, it means that it is still all clear for the large industrial trawlers to both fish up the quotas for herring and sprat as well as continue to fish for saithe, likely with large by-catches of herring and sprat that are never reported.

This also means, Madam Speaker, that the government's decision on reduced quotas to, as they themselves claim, save small-scale coastal fishing can be the exact opposite. It can instead be a total elimination of small-scale coastal food fishing.

My follow-up question to the Minister is therefore: Does Minister Kullgren not see the great risks that exist for the herring and the sprat if continued large-scale industrial trawling continues in the Baltic Sea?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I understand that Member Tomas Kronståhl does not read Gefle Dagblad particularly often. But I welcome the Social Democrats' newly awakened commitment to the power grid. This is an issue that we Moderates and other bourgeois parties have worked on for many years, not least, Madam Speaker, during the last eight years with a Social Democrat-led government. Had Tomas Kronståhl read Gefle Dagblad, he would likely have been considerably more humble. He might even have thanked the Minister for Rural Affairs and the government for finally taking action on the power grid issue.

In 2021, the headline in Gefle Dagblad was "Despair among coastal fishers - new quotas feel futile". The text continued: "Coastal fishing is bleeding. An abrupt end to the livelihood occurred during the summer. - I have reported zero catch in August and September, says Norrsundet fisherman Dennis Bergman."

Who then is Dennis Bergman? Well, Madam Speaker, he is a fisherman in the seventh generation. Understand the time perspective in that! Go back seven generations – they have experienced World War II, they have experienced World War I, and they have experienced the famine of the 1800s. But Bergmans Fisk could not withstand eight years of a Social Democratic government, a government that did not care significantly about the migration. This has had enormous consequences, not least regarding the negotiations that took place during the Social Democratic government. An exception was then made for the Baltic Sea north of the Dalälven, where the quota for the migration fishing was increased by 71 percent. The price for that, Madam Speaker, was paid by Bergmans Fisk and other coastal fishermen. The price for that is paid by those who are currently hunting for the highly sought-after cans of surströmming.

It is exactly as the minister said: This requires long-term perspective and that many countries around the Baltic Sea cooperate.

I also believe that one must weigh in the seal and the seal's habitat in this issue. It may be that one must start allowing trade with seal skins. One of the few seal hunters who exists along the coast in Gävleborg says that the seals have never been this thin. She even says in a segment on SVT Gävleborg that it is almost animal cruelty that it is allowed. I think that is very good.

I also want to say that the coastal fishers are somewhat divided on the issue. My coastal fishers in Gävleborg say that they want zero. They do not want any sprat fishing at all, while other coastal fishers say that you cannot do that, because then you destroy our livelihood.

I think it is a very clear and distinct answer from the government that one is now to prioritize the Swedish local coastal fishing and raw material supply to the Swedish processing industry aimed at products for human consumption. It is a clear and distinct message from the government and the minister.

I would still like to ask Tomas Kronståhl: Why did you not act during the eight years that you held government power and had the chance to influence this? Now it is as with all other issues - now the government must solve even this issue, after eight years of passivity from your side.

I am very pleased that we now have a government that takes this issue seriously and actually takes action.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let us first remember that fishing opportunities are set through negotiations and decisions by qualified majority in the EU's Council of Ministers. Sweden can therefore not alone make decisions on the outcome, but, and it is important to emphasize, Sweden influenced the outcome in a positive direction with regard both to the herring's serious situation and for the opportunities of small-scale fishing.

Let me underline some parts. For the first: Sweden pursued the most restrictive line among the countries concerned. Without Sweden's efforts, the reductions would not have been nearly as extensive. The quotas are now being reduced by 31 percent for Baltic herring, 43 percent for herring in the central Baltic Sea and 10 percent for sprat. This does not mean that we are fully satisfied. But it means that we made a difference.

Secondly: For the first time, trawling bans are being introduced in certain areas during certain periods. That too is a result of Sweden's participation in negotiations. This is a new measure that provides better protection for the herring's spawning and migration to spawning areas.

Thirdly: We protected small-scale fishing. The EU Commission's proposal was, in fact, that herring should only be caught as bycatch. In practice, this would have meant that herring could only have been taken by the large trawlers, while small-scale fishing would have been prevented from fishing.

I am quite certain that if we had supported the European Commission's proposal, the discussion here tonight would have been about why we decided to only allow large-scale pelagic fishing for sprat in the Baltic Sea. If that had been the case, I can state that the negative consequences for our coastal communities, for surströmming production, and for Swedish food fish would have been very large.

In the interpellation from Tomas Kronståhl, it sounds as if the Social Democrats would have preferred that Sweden had clearly voted yes to the commission's proposal, which would have had little impact since we would have been quite alone in doing so in such a case.

I would like to have a clarification: Is it the case that the Socialdemokratern would rather have seen that the only fishing permitted in Swedish waters in the Baltic Sea had been the large-scale pelagic fishing? I would like to have an answer to that question.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for this answer, even though I think it is somewhat of a non-answer. The Minister is, from the committee negotiations, very well acquainted with our proposal regarding what we should take with us to these fisheries negotiations.

Our proposal was therefore that we should try to safeguard small-scale coastal fishing and completely stop industrial trawling, and that we would also significantly tighten the fishing for spiny dogfish, since the bycatch in that fishing is usually herring and sprat. It is a mixed fishery, so it still disrupts the fishing.

Madam Speaker! I would like to continue this discussion by problematizing a bit the fact that large-scale industrial fishing with its large trawlers in the Baltic Sea in several different ways is not only a threat to herring and sprat but, if it continues in the same way, is the absolute biggest reason why the herring and sprat could come to be completely wiped out in the Baltic Sea's waters in exactly the same way as the cod was affected. It has, as I said earlier, to this day not recovered.

Madam Speaker! If we are to have a long-term fishery in the Baltic Sea, we must seriously take into account the natural size structure of the fish populations, where we should have many large, vigorous fish and fish stocks that exist in their natural environments. We must ensure that conditions are created so that a significantly larger proportion of the catch goes to human consumption and not to animal feed as it is today.

If we are to succeed in achieving a long-term and viable fishing industry with a focus on food production, powerful measures are required here and now, before it is too late.

The researchers working at Ices - several of them are Swedish researchers - produce estimates every year based on submitted reports and controls on the size of the various fish stocks and subsequently provide advice on which fishing quotas are possible and can be permitted for the coming year's fishing.

The advice for 2024 involved a reduction of the fishing quotas by 39 and 45 percent respectively for herring in the Gulf of Bothnia and the central Baltic Sea. At the same time, it is stated in their own publication, where the advice is presented, that even with a complete ban on fishing for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea, it is not certain that the stocks will recover from the current very critically low level.

These are alarming reports, and therefore actions are required from us elected politicians here and now and not finger-pointing. It is high time that the conditions for fishing quotas and fisheries management are changed. We must reduce the quotas and stop maximizing the extraction of certain fish species. We must ensure that misreporting of catches is not only curbed but stopped and that fisheries controls are increased. We cannot continue to allow large by-catches of herring and sprat when fishing for, for example, sprat. Therefore, we believe that a fishing ban or a sharp reduction in fishing for sprat is necessary to save the important human consumption fishery for herring and sprat.

Does the Minister share my concern for or assessment of the acute situation that the herring and sprat are in right now? Is the Minister prepared to take any additional measures other than reduced quotas, which will certainly be caught by the large-scale pelagic fishery and unfortunately go to animal feed?

Then I also want to mention for the other member that we did quite a lot during our time in government regarding reducing fishing. We were the first to give a mandate to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management to move the trawl limit out on a trial basis. That it has then taken far too long is something I am the first to admit.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, Tomas Kronståhl, you did do things. That was exactly what I said in my previous contribution.

You increased the quota by 76 percent. I understand that Tomas Kronståhl does not read Gefle Dagblad, but I will remind you of what was written there: Four county administrative boards, including Gävleborg, have called for urgent protective measures for the salmon in the southern parts of the Bothnian Sea.

In that situation, Madam Speaker, the Social Democrats pushed hard in the negotiations to increase the quota. The consequences are borne by the fishers, for example Bergmans Fisk. Headline in Gefle Dagblad: "Sotare struck from the menu". Those who live in Gävle know what that means, that is, the classic fine dish sotare. It is almost a catastrophe. So Tomas Kronståhl stands here and calls for measures from this government. It is this government that is actually acting now after eight lost years.

Those who are affected acutely are naturally the coastal fishers, but the great concern is what happens in, for example, a situation of unrest. It is exactly as I said, namely that we had a first world war and then a second world war. It was almost a national right in Gävleborg to eat potatoes and herring. In a situation of unrest, food production is naturally extremely important, that is to say the coastal fishing - just as the minister said.

I would like to ask Tomas Kronståhl if there is anything you regret from your eight years. Was there anything you Social Democrats actually did wrong, which meant that Bergmans Fisk and others ended up in this situation?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Before it is too late, the interpellor said. Yes, it is a serious situation in the Baltic Sea. There is no doubt about that. The causal links are probably many. One thing the government has done is to expand the attempt that the interpellor raised here, namely a corresponding relocation of the trawling limit in the entire Baltic Sea.

But we will not be satisfied with that, instead we need to review the marine environments, and we need to review other predators. Seals and cormorants eat a lot of herring and so on, and those are important parts.

But one thing that the interpellor does not mention, rather the opposite, is the sharp-hided herring's impact on herring and sprat. The sharp-hided herring stock is not exposed in the same way at all as the stocks for herring and sprat. It has displacement effects in terms of food for the herring and the sprat. Completely removing the sharp-hided herring fishery would definitely have a counterproductive effect on the herring and the sprat.

How do you then fish large quantities of spiny dogfish? Well, primarily through trawling because they usually go further out. The volumes of spiny dogfish that would need to be taken cannot be taken with other gear in a proper way.

What we are de facto doing, which has not happened before, is that from the Swedish side in negotiations with all other EU member states, we have succeeded in getting in precision-targeted trawl closures that we ourselves can control when we assess that the spawning period is starting, when the currents and the herring move to their spawning areas. Then we can say that we shall not trawl here at that specific time, and then we minimize the risks of unnecessary and unwelcome bycatch. It is a very good measure that Sweden succeeded in getting into the negotiations.

The interpellants asked questions about control and regulatory compliance. The Government considers them to be very important elements to ensure sustainable fishing on equal terms. During the council meeting, we tried to push for a joint statement on the control of pelagic fishing. However, we did not get all the relevant Member States on board. That does not mean we are dropping the issue, but we will return with how we will take that work further. But processes are already ongoing today.

During the Swedish presidency this spring, and five years after negotiations began, Parliament and the Council of Ministers agreed on May 31 on a renewed framework for the EU's fisheries control. The purpose of the control system is, among other things, that we should modernize and simplify the rules for the control of fishing and that we ensure compliance with the fisheries policy.

In addition to this, work is ongoing at the authorities. Both the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and the Coast Guard have strengthened their control activities in recent years, and in addition to normal activity, more targeted control operations are being carried out during 2023. For 2024, the authorities plan to expand the activities further.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Kullgren for the answers.

It is a bit strange that the Minister, one moment claims that one protects small-scale fishing and the next moment is satisfied with Sweden's agreement in the Council of Ministers which enables continued industrial trawling.

Madam Speaker! I still think I hear a common thread from both Lars Beckman and Minister Kullgren that there is an ambition to try to strengthen small-scale coastal fishing. Let us then not engage in mud-slinging about who has done what in the past. I know, for example, that when we proposed to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management that the trawl limits should be moved out, there were several bourgeois parties that did not support the proposal.

But let us now see to it that we can actually help Dennis Bergman and his friends in Gävle and try to save the vital small-scale coastal fishing for human consumption, which we all seem to safeguard.

Then we must somehow see where the problem is. Both we in government and now this government have asserted that we should have scientific evidence and as much research and other things as we can in this area.

I have taken note of SLU's reports, Madam Speaker, and those of Stockholm University, the Sportfiskare, and others. I can see that the decline in herring and sprat quite clearly follows the development of industrial trawling and pelagic trawling. When it increases, sprat and herring decrease. Therefore, I believe we must counteract it in different ways. Of course, we should have fishing for sharp-headed herring, but we must have stricter controls and introduce camera surveillance and other monitoring of the catches.

I have only a couple of questions left, Madam Speaker.

What happens if herring and sill for human consumption are red-listed and can no longer be sold in our stores because they are red-listed? How can the government stop this?

And will it still be possible to move unused fishing quotas from this year to next year? In that case, reduced fishing quotas do not help.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! As with all compromises, few are completely satisfied when they emerge from the negotiation, but one must nevertheless be able to state which victories have been won.

There are parts of Sweden's participation in the fisheries negotiations that I am very satisfied with. I have mentioned most of them here today. But I have also noted that we are, of course, not completely satisfied. We could have imagined lower quotas on most stocks in most parts of the Baltic Sea, but this was what we managed to reach this time. The work will continue.

We need to take a holistic approach to achieve the goals we have. Therefore, this government is carrying out parallel and complementary measures.

At the same time, we must see that the Baltic Sea and its ecosystems are affected not only by fishing but by a number of different factors. It is eutrophication, it is salinity, it is the presence of competing species to herring, and not least the presence of predators such as seals, cormorants, and other fish.

In conclusion: This year's quota negotiation was mine and this government's first. I have no ambition to throw pies, but it goes both ways. I must nevertheless state that for the last eight years, the Social Democrats have been responsible for these negotiations.

We got the quotas down. We protected the local fishing. We got a trawling ban during certain periods to protect the herring's spawning, and we are accelerating so that the control system will become better.

Is there more to do? Of course, absolutely! But one thing is just as certain: I have no problem at all with being compared to previous governments and their successes.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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