Response to interpellation 2023/24:240 on Sweden's rural areas in the European Commission's vision

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Daniel Bäckström has asked me what measures I intend to take in order, for Sweden's sake, to strive towards the objectives expressed in the European Commission's vision and whether I consider the European Commission's vision to be sufficient or whether I and the government intend to implement further reforms to strengthen the vitality of Sweden's rural areas.

In a 2021 communication, the European Commission presented a vision for stronger, more connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040. At the Council meeting with the Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries on 20 November 2023, conclusions were adopted on the European Commission's rural vision.

The Government welcomes the rural vision and the council's conclusions on the vision. Sweden contributes to the implementation of the EU's rural vision, among other things, by being active in collaborations and working groups at the EU level that are to contribute to realizing the rural vision.

To mention some examples, Sweden has been represented both in the thematic working group on rural revitalisation and in the thematic working group on rural proofing. In Sweden, a conference on Rural Pact was also organized during the Swedish presidency.

Sweden also contributes to the implementation of the EU's rural vision through the efforts made to strengthen rural areas in Sweden, funded both with and without EU funds.

There are a number of examples of measures the government is taking to promote the development of rural areas. Fuel prices are at record highs. Therefore, the government is lowering the tax on gasoline and diesel, corresponding to 5.76 billion kronor during 2024. During 2023, a temporarily increased tax reduction applies for so-called agricultural diesel. The government is allocating an additional 0.72 billion kronor so that the temporarily increased tax reduction for agricultural diesel shall also apply for 2024.

The maintenance of the road network is overdue. Already in the government's first budget, we prioritized funds for strengthened road maintenance with 1 billion kronor. In the budget bill for 2024, we are strengthening this with an additional 300 million kronor per year for 2024 and 2025 to reduce the overdue maintenance. Additionally, 100 million kronor per year for 2024 and 2025 is invested in strengthened maintenance of the local road network.

The government allocates funds annually to maintain commercial services in rural areas. During 2023, this amount amounted to 162 million kronor, and for 2024, the corresponding sum is expected to be distributed.

The Government supports the development towards a close and accessible healthcare with a focus on primary care. To specifically strengthen healthcare in rural areas, the Government is investing 300 million kronor annually during the years 2023-2025.

To strengthen local development in rural areas, initiatives within the framework of Leader are carried out within the common agricultural policy amounting to 1.7 billion kronor.

The development of the countryside is crucial for the success of the whole of Sweden. The whole of Sweden must be given the conditions to live. I agree with Daniel Bäckström that there are a number of challenges for the countryside, but there are also many opportunities.

The Government argues that the conditions for being able to live, work, and operate in the entire country must be improved. Good development in rural areas is important, not least for Sweden's resilience. The Government has therefore begun a review of rural policy. The objective is to submit a rural policy proposition in the spring of 2026 and to raise awareness about conditions in different types of rural areas. The EU's rural vision is an important basis in the development of rural policy.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren, for the answer to the interpellation!

One might think that 2040, which is the starting point in the EU's work regarding rural areas, lies far in the future, but one can go back 17 years and see how different measures have yielded results in many regions.

I can start from my own context at home. Just over 15 years ago, we began our large broadband project in the municipality to build fiber in every area. When we look back at what has happened over the last few years, we can see that we can now reap the fruits of this investment.

A positive rural development in both the short and long term is important to focus on. In that regard, it is very interesting to take note of the Minister's answer which relates to the current budget year but also to the decisions that the Chamber has just made for next year, starting from, among other things, infrastructure but also healthcare. The announcement from the Government is that they are planning for a proposition and a renewal and review of the rural policy with a view towards the spring of 2026.

It is important now to take into account the many different policy areas involved. My and the Center Party's starting point is that a positive and vital rural policy should involve all policy areas but also have a strong and fundamental commitment within each policy area.

One of the major challenges that many regions face is the supply of skills - the need for labor. We encounter this regardless of where in the country we move and independent of which activities - private or public - it concerns. It is extremely important, and one thing is to follow up on what consequences the government's policy has for activities in the countryside, both public and private, linked to labor immigration.

It is also about strengthening the business climate and working towards a more equitable tax policy, given that many municipalities with major challenges also often have a high tax burden relative to the growth areas.

It is also about achieving a coastal protection reform that has an effect. In that case, the government's parties could have been part of the decision that was submitted to the Riksdag during the previous term but which was voted down. Now, they have returned with the announcement that they are, in practice, taking the same proposal.

We are to have interconnected, resilient and prosperous regions in the country. These are three important concepts from the EU's vision, which we have also backed in our work. Interconnected refers to communication and infrastructure, and resilient refers to resilience in a security-politically challenging time. This touches upon the work that the government is doing, but also the work that has been done previously linked to food supply and the conditions for primary production.

An immensely large issue is the veterinary issue and how the government will return to it. Linked to health and well-being and cultural issues, there are also large issues that need to be handled in a timely manner in the coming years.

When it comes to the question of whether this is sufficient, I would like to hear the Minister elaborate further on what else needs to be addressed in order for it to become truly resilient, interconnected, and well-functioning.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister Kullgren, for the answer to very important questions linked to the development of Sweden's rural areas from the European perspective but obviously above all from the Swedish perspective in that context.

The Minister raised a considerable amount that is linked to infrastructure, which gave me great reason to take the opportunity to participate in the debate. The Minister pointed to maintenance and the need to increase this and also described how the current Tidö Government has allocated increased resources to maintaining roads, not least individual roads.

I would like to ask the Minister something further connected to this. In a report that Svenskt Näringsliv has produced, it is spoken of how the maintenance debt for Sweden's roads and railways affects the business sector. In the report, which was presented in March this year, it is highlighted that the standard of a high percentage of the roads in the Swedish road network is declining.

One would need to spend 10 billion kronor per year on roads and railways to pay off the maintenance debt, and in that context, 300-400 million is not particularly much. For this reason, I would like to ask the minister how he views the possibility of truly working with the maintenance debt in future work so that it is paid off in a good way. It is also about ensuring that commuters and freight can get through. This has been highlighted by the government and the minister's department on many different occasions. Among others, the trucking industry sees very large problems regarding how they are to get the freight through. And it is incredibly important for our Swedish rural areas, because much of the production in Swedish rural areas is there because people want it to be there. It is therefore incredibly important that we take the political responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure functions in such a way that it becomes possible to continue developing competitiveness.

It surprises me that the Minister for Rural Affairs answers that no rural affairs bill will be submitted until 2026. It was only a few years ago that the Rural Affairs Committee submitted 75 points that were agreed upon as what Sweden's rural areas needed. Can the Minister for Rural Affairs not see that certain issues would still need to be launched a bit earlier, for the sake of the rural areas and for the sake of competitiveness, than to be launched before an election year?

The Minister highlighted the road potholes and even the individual roads where it is pointed out that 100 million in extra support is being provided.

Then there are a number of other parts of the government's policy that become counterproductive, not least, for example, the proposal for an increased mining tax. One can wonder about this. Many of our individual roads are gravel roads. In what way does the minister believe it can promote development in our rural areas that one gives with one hand but then takes back with the other hand?

Above all, I wonder how we can pay off the maintenance debt, and why one should wait until 2026 when the countryside needs so much more in a significantly shorter timeframe for it to function even better for the competitiveness of the whole of Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is very pleasant to be here and debate the countryside with the Minister for Rural Affairs. I know that we share many opinions on how it should be possible to develop the countryside.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to raise the issue of snow removal on private roads. I have, together with several colleagues, spoken about this during the last two parliamentary terms. But unfortunately, not much has happened. This is due to the fact that Trafikverket – which most here may perhaps remember – introduced new rules for subcontractors that they should have GPS in their vehicles. If they exceeded the time, they also risked a fine. The consequence of this was that many subcontractors refrained from plowing the private roads that they passed by when they had plowed the state road. What becomes a problem as a result of this is that the joint property owners, not least in my own home county of Västerbotten which is very large in area, must book contractors specifically for snow removal of the private roads. Then the subcontractors drive with the plow empty for several miles. And then the advance fee alone is thousands of kronor, which digs enormous holes in the budget for these small and poor joint properties.

This was pointed out so many times during the previous government's time. But nothing happened. And it is the same way today.

I spoke a few years ago with a woman who lives in a village outside Vilhelmina. She said that it was not enough that the pre-clearance fee is very high. The problem is also getting hold of subcontractors. She said that they had booked one who could only come on Thursdays. But everyone in here knows that it snows in Vilhelmina not only on Thursdays. So this becomes completely impossible.

I would like to take the opportunity to bring up another matter, which I hope the government might be able to agree on, because I know there may be different opinions regarding the property tax for wind power. An investigation was carried out this spring, and precisely in the final stage of it, there were additional directives from the government that one should not be allowed to change state taxes when it came to providing funds to the local community for wind power establishments. The problem with that is that then nothing will happen.

We who come from northern Sweden know what happened with the hydropower. In the end, there were almost no jobs left. The property tax went back into the big black hole in the state's budget. And there we stood.

Mr. Speaker! I must apologize for perhaps expressing myself a bit carelessly now. But many among me feel that we have been exploited once already when it comes to hydropower, and we do not intend to be exploited once again when it comes to wind power.

In my own home municipality, 70-140 offshore wind turbines are now being planned. I will never say yes to that, not because I don't think it is good, but because I think a small municipality that can hardly afford to pay for the street lighting in the municipality should not say yes to anything that does not give anything back to the local community.

Therefore, I have two questions. How does the Minister for Rural Affairs and the government want to facilitate that which I raised first, namely snow removal on private roads? It is a huge problem. And will the countryside and the local community get to share in the property tax for wind power?

I hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs has the opportunity to answer these questions.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren for the answer.

I will start by praising the Minister for Rural Affairs for the ambition to strengthen the green industry. The Minister often highlights this, and it is very good. It is exactly what we need.

At the same time, there are limited opportunities to influence both revenues and costs in rural areas for those operating green industries, as they are very much governed by world market prices. But there are things that can be influenced. One such thing is communication through what most people can use today - fiber. 85 percent of Swedes today have access to fiber and fiber connection. The 15 percent that remain are largely people in rural areas. In terms of cost, in rounded figures, half of the costs remain for these 15 percent. It is therefore a very expensive expansion of what remains.

But if Sweden is to be able to compete with the rest of Europe, it is important that this investment is made to ensure good functionality in the countryside, both for our green companies and for the service industry that belongs to it.

My question is: Can the Minister for Rural Affairs, like the Center Party, be involved and in the future invest more money specifically in the infrastructure to achieve a fully expanded fiber infrastructure?

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would start by speaking about what Magnus Nilsson has said. It is he who has done much of the background work for the government's investigation on the climate goals that John Hassler presented. Magnus Nilsson has written:

"If Sweden is to have a chance to meet the requirements for emission reductions by 2030 that are in the new EU legislation, the government and the Riksdag must quickly make decisions that, by 2025 at the latest, begin to significantly press down emissions."

If it takes any longer, measures of a character approaching what can at all be judged as feasible and reasonable in a democratic society will be required.

It concerns the requirements for Member States to reduce all types of emissions outside the emissions trading system (usually called ESR emissions). In practice, however, it is almost exclusively about rapidly pushing down the use of fossil fuels in transport and in work machinery.

Of the Swedish ESR emissions, a small quarter consists of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture.

Given what Magnus Nilsson says, it becomes a bit special when the government has signaled decisions on a significantly increased use of fossil fuels. But there are three ways to compensate for this.

Firstly, one can significantly reduce emissions from the agricultural sector, which in practice means a significantly reduced agricultural production. One can also significantly increase carbon storage in the forest, i.e., stop the logging. The third possibility is to buy emission space from other member states. There may also be a fourth way, namely hefty EU fines. That bill is likely to tick up quickly and, according to assessments, would land on tens of billions of the taxpayers' money. In that case, it is a substantial tax increase, without getting anything back.

The third way, to buy emission space, is with great probability impossible as there are few countries, if any, that have any larger volumes to sell, while at the same time it would mean that we would have to pay twice - first to buy emission space from someone else, then to reduce our own emissions. It would therefore be bad for Swedish competitiveness and the Swedish taxpayers.

So, what remains is significantly reduced production in agriculture and forestry. This runs counter to the development that we in Centerpartiet want to see, with increased production of Swedish food - I know the Minister has also stated this - and strengthened competitiveness among the primary producers.

Clearing large amounts of forest also goes against the development that we in the Center Party want to see, with a developed bioeconomy. We also know from the investigation that has been presented but not yet sent for consultation that it is possible to produce large amounts of cheap, green fuel, which can lower both pump prices and emissions.

My question to Peter Kullgren is therefore: Can Peter Kullgren guarantee that the increased emissions that the government has now both signaled and decided upon will not result in us receiving measures within agriculture and forestry that force them to reduce their production? I would also like to know how he and the government will ensure that is not the case. Words like nuclear power and electrification are not enough, regardless of what one thinks personally, according to all the scenarios that the government's own agencies have developed. How does the government intend to ensure that it is not agriculture and forestry that pays when one now chooses to radically increase fossil use?

(Applause)

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for all the input in this interpellation debate! It is impossible to underestimate the commitment in these types of issues. I am happy to share this commitment with the members from Centerpartiet who are participating in this interpellation debate.

I would like to start there where Daniel Bäckström was and give some praise for how he, as municipal councilor in Säffle, as well as the predecessor Halvar Pettersson, the successor Dag Rogne, and now another Bäckström, have worked with rural development in a municipality that has served as an example for the slightly larger municipality, Karlstad, where I was a municipal councilor, partly at the same time as Daniel Bäckström. You did a fantastic job there, not least with your project Fiber till byn, which truly was a pioneer. So more municipalities and municipal councilors should work to be active in their municipality's rural development. Very good!

As I mentioned initially, the government has initiated work to conduct this comprehensive review. The beginning of this discussion shows how broad rural policy is. It cannot be delimited to my department, which now, admittedly, handles both rural issues, agriculture and forestry and everything included therein, and also infrastructure issues, but it spans the entire government's work and certainly more. I believe therefore that this comprehensive review is an important part. But it will also take time; that needs to be respected.

The objective is to submit a unified rural policy proposition but also to raise awareness about the conditions in Sweden's various rural areas. In this proposition, we, from the government's side, want to both, of course, summarize what we have achieved during the mandate period, and also present new proposals for the Riksdag and point out the continued direction for the policy. In this work, we will naturally also incorporate thoughts and ideas from the EU's rural vision.

With this said, it is important to point out that we have announced that we will prepare a rural policy proposition, but that it will not arrive until 2026. I would like to work faster, but as everyone in this chamber knows, this takes some time.

But that does not mean that everything else will stand still on the way there. We will, of course, take part in the investigations that we have already commissioned, which in many different parts concern the development of the countryside in Sweden, and try to make this a reality in the meantime. We will therefore not wait until 2026 before we take action on such things as we see need to be addressed.

I would also like to say that another starting point in the EU's rural vision is that rural areas look different and have different conditions. I believe we need to acknowledge that there is a great variation when it comes to both social, economic, and environmental conditions in different areas across our elongated country. Therefore, the measures we take, during the work on the bill but also before, must be adapted to the differences that actually exist.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Peter Kullgren, for a fine feedback to my home region! We will continue to work in a broad spirit. It is often about this: to start from each region's prerequisites and also the local commitment. Local development groups, association life and passionate individuals but also various business owners do an enormous amount of work to create opportunities all over the country. As the Minister for Rural Affairs says, we have many rural areas, with very varied prerequisites.

In these times when we are to regionalize, create labor markets that become interconnected both within the realm and also with our neighboring countries and Europe, it is clear that investments in communication and infrastructure are required. This takes time, but it is an issue that it is obviously extremely important to follow up on here and now.

When I wrote the interpellation, I thought: What does a prosperous countryside mean, both from a national perspective and if we look at country by country throughout the European Union? What does prosperous countryside mean in 2040? This is something to stop and reflect upon so that one obtains a concrete target image. Where is it that we should strive? And where is it that our common policy should strive?

It is extremely important that sharp proposals are included in the upcoming government bills and also in connection with the rural area bill, which deliver results. That the government and Sverigedemokraterna choose to now announce that a bill will be submitted in the spring of 2026, at the end of this parliamentary period, raises some questions for those of us who have been involved in the parliamentary work for several periods. It could be very late, and it could be too little. It could also be dependent on how the government and the fiscal policy handle the priorities. Somewhere in this, there must be a clarity in the government's priorities. It cannot just be about ambitions and hopes expressed in words to make a difference.

This is a question for the Minister for Rural Affairs: How does the Minister for Rural Affairs ensure that this becomes a clear priority for all these four parties, with a view to making a difference during this mandate period so that one does not wait for a bill that can take effect after the mandate period? And how will this manifest when it comes to economic conditions?

We in the Center Party adopted a new rural policy program at our latest party congress, with a focus on eight different areas. The first starting point is a proper reforming of the tax policy and the economic conditions in order to strengthen the local foundation for financing public activities and also with regard to household finances.

It is also about leveling the differences between municipalities that have a high tax burden but struggle every day to be able to deliver services to their residents, where residents also feel a frustration and many times a dissatisfaction with what they get for their tax money. At the same time, we must be able to have a long-term perspective so that we also provide economic conditions, as close to the individual as possible, to ensure that growth becomes local.

I would like the Minister for Rural Affairs to pause at what is actually needed and how to ensure that measures are taken in the near term across several areas of activity to achieve an effect by 2040.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! There was obviously no possibility to answer all the questions we asked in four minutes. I would like to return to some of the questions.

Roads and railways would need 10 billion kronor per year. Does the Minister see opportunities to at least approach paying off the maintenance debt, or will it continue to grow?

The Minister pointed out that a broad rural policy will be needed and that it will come in 2026. How, then, can one dismantle the opportunities for the countryside in the years leading up to that? I want to mention an incredibly painful example from the budget that the government presented during the autumn, namely that they cut a number of hundred million from public education.

The Minister herself mentioned the word countryside and that it looks different in Sweden's countryside. This requires a policy that can meet these differences. We know that education has meant very much for decades, for example, for preparedness and in different parts of agriculture. Among other things, Studieförbundet Vuxenskolan, together with LRF, has large knowledge-building circles and work around them to strengthen agriculture's resilience and robustness and so that the environmental goals that must be achieved are achieved.

I cannot understand how this government - not least the Christian Democrats, who I know have an enthusiasm for popular education in many different ways - can stand behind dismantling the countryside's opportunities for a number of years in order to potentially put back something small in 2026.

I have high expectations, but I fear that it will not amount to much. I would very much like to hear comments on this.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also understand that the Minister cannot answer the battery of questions that have arisen in a few minutes, but if the Minister has the opportunity, I would very much like to know a little more about snow removal on private roads and what the Minister for Rural Affairs is considering regarding this in order to facilitate things for the people who live in the affected areas. I wonder how the road associations are to afford this and if one could perhaps do something with Trafikverket. It seems to have been a long way off for the previous Minister to try to get anything done on that front.

I also have a question about the local community. Will one be able to receive a share of the property tax for wind power?

A month ago, a debate was held in Agenda where several government parties were represented. The host asked whether the property tax on wind power should be returned to the local community. At that time, no one had anything against this; instead, everyone thought it was a good idea that should be looked into.

In the name of honesty, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was about to burn up while sitting there on the sofa. I know that at the final stage of the investigation that was to look at exactly this issue, supplementary directives were added concerning facilitating the placement and establishment of wind power. One of those parts was that the property tax on wind power would be rolled back. That rug was pulled out from under the investigation, because they did not want the state tax to be rolled back.

I was very surprised. Not so many months had passed between what happened in the spring, with the investigation and the supplementary directives, and the debate in Agenda. Perhaps it is the case that the parties in this government, just as in other governments, have different opinions, but right there and then—in that debate—everyone seemed to be in agreement. The Minister is very welcome to clarify how the local community is to receive more money if it is the intention to establish more wind power.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is an important question how we can strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture. A good example that I highlight is the fiber construction in Sweden. If we are to be part of the match, we should finish this. We have been working on expanding fiber for about 15 years, and there is about 15 percent left. What remains is largely in the countryside. This requires a concerted effort for us to finish. Not until we are finished can we also fully utilize this technology in welfare services and so on for those who live in the countryside, so it would be a win-win arrangement to allocate more resources to finish this.

I did not hear much about this in the Minister for Rural Affairs' response. We will, in any case, get more opportunities to discuss this, but it would be interesting to hear if he is on this line or if he sees other ways forward to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It is always pleasant to receive praise for the Center Party in general and for Daniel Bäckström in particular, but unfortunately, it did not make me or particularly many listeners much calmer. So far, I have at least not heard that this government can guarantee that agriculture and forestry will not suffer significant production reductions as a result of the policy the government has pursued to increase the fossil share of the fuel mix.

The Swedish Confederation for Economic Research (Konjunkturinstitutet) released a report as recently as a few weeks ago where they compared different political policy options. They looked at the government's choice, with a low degree of involvement of renewable fuels but a high degree of electrification, and at what the fuels need to cost for us to reach the goals. If we do not reduce in agriculture and forestry, the fuel prices around 2030 will be somewhere between 40 and 45 kronor. With the Center Party's policy, with a large share of renewables and with tax exemption for the renewable share, the fuel prices will instead be between 20 and 25 kronor.

The government's policy, as it looks now, is grossly harmful. It is good for the time being but will cost very much, either for those who want to drive a car in the future or for agriculture and forestry.

My question remains. From the perspective of the Konjunkturinstitutet, it is very clear that fuel prices will need to increase significantly with a strong electrification, as this will not be sufficient all the way. I would like to have an answer from Peter Kullgren. Can he and the government guarantee that it is not agriculture and forestry that will suffer significant production reductions due to the policy the government pursues?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall answer as well as I can to some of the questions that have been asked.

We have a maintenance debt. We have a backlog of maintenance on our roads. This is nothing that has arisen in the last twelve months, which the Center Party knows.

We are trying. We have increased the appropriations - we did it the first time and the second time. I cannot promise anything about how it will look in the future, but this is an important issue for the government.

I promise to take the questions about snow removal, wind power, and property tax with me. As Helena Lindahl described, it sometimes sounds incredibly bureaucratic; we have seen many examples of that all around our elongated country. It might be a bit of a rural way of thinking to solve things together – how hard can it be?

I am taking this issue with me, which partly belongs to my department. It does not concern property tax for wind power, but this is, as has been said, an active discussion.

Regarding broadband, the government has invested more money. It remains a priority for us that Sweden should be digitized. I also believe, like Member Karlsson, that this is an important part of strengthening competitiveness and increasing opportunities in rural areas, not least for business in rural areas.

Rickard Nordin mentions the Bioeconomy Inquiry. I received the final report from the investigator Lena Ek a few weeks ago. It was received in a sunny Karlstad. There was a lot of focus on forestry and on the potential moving forward. Previously, we have received the partial reports which concern fuel more. Those parts will be sent out for consultation. I look forward to the continued work with it.

Of course, if we can produce an environmentally friendly fuel in Sweden, we shall do so. It is clear that we should try to keep that in mind as much as possible. What the government and my party have turned against is that it unnecessarily increases already high fuel prices, which is not positive for either agricultural enterprises or the countryside as a whole.

I can understand Daniel Bäckström's concern that it is too little and too late. There is much that I would have liked to have seen being underway during the recent parliamentary terms. But it is as it is. Now we are going to start our work, and we have started it.

I understand the political aspect of saying that we should not do anything until 2026. I want to be clear to any potential listeners that the government is not sitting still and does not intend to wait until 2026 before taking action. I will mention some things that we have already done.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture has been tasked with reporting on which rules and conditions counteract increased production and how they can be addressed. We have financed uniform slaughter fees to simplify the regulatory framework and primarily benefit animal production. We have more funds for plant breeding for increased future competitiveness.

We have said thank you but no thank you to very vague new business recommendations from the Nordic Council which could have hit very hard, especially against animal production.

We are conducting a very cautious - with all the necessary precautions - review of the land acquisition laws to see if it can in some way contribute to facilitating investments and capitalization, particularly in animal production.

I have a long list of things, but I don't have time for them now.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is very interesting to get to hear the Minister for Rural Affairs' answers to many different questions. I think it well describes how rural issues are taken seriously in the debate. They touch upon policy area after policy area. It concerns infrastructure, climate transition, energy issues, broadband, fiber connection, and the labor market's conditions to be able to function moving forward.

Part of what is included in the Minister's response is the connection to resilience, resilience, and preparedness. We in Centerpartiet have, through our defense policy spokesperson Mikael Larsson, been strongly driving during the autumn in the negotiations on civil defense.

Yesterday, the Defence Preparation Board presented a new report. In it, there are clear passages regarding primary production and the conditions for agriculture. But it also states that it should be much clearer as a part of the planning of the civil defense.

It will be very interesting to follow how the government handles the recommendations that the Defence Preparedness Board emphasizes and also how the minister intends to implement it in the updated food strategy.

It is important that primary production and the entire food chain are given very good conditions in the short term to strengthen the production of food throughout the country. This applies not least in view of the extremely serious security situation in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Speaker! We have received many different messages. Now it is the Minister for Rural Affairs, together with the other ministers in the government, who bear the collective responsibility for how rural policy is shaped in the coming years.

We will continue to follow up on how the work is progressing and what concrete effects we will be able to see from that work. For now, I would like to wish both the Speaker and Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren a Merry Christmas.

During my parental leave, which will continue until May 31, I also wish the Riksdag all the best in the continued work for a positive rural development. Thank you for a productive debate.

(Applause)

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I certainly feel the responsibility that rests on my shoulders. I am very pleased to be able to state that we now have a government that I believe is one of the most rural-friendly governments that we have had in any case for a relatively long time. I will continue a bit with my list.

We have also requested that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency stop over-implementing EU decisions and develop new comparable reference areas. We are pushing forward with missions to halve the wolf population. As of today, we can state that our work and the work of other member states has had an effect, as the Commission is now opening up for and taking the next step in changing the protection status at the European level.

We also agree on a reform of the coastal protection. We voted no to the EU's LULUCF regulation. We will vote no to the Nature Restoration Law. We ensured protection for bioenergy in RED III.

We do not, of course, simply say no. We always work to create alliances in EU policy at an early stage. Not least, I believe very much in the recent forestry cooperation that I signed together with France.

The government has already delivered a number of reforms that will strengthen the countryside and, not least, agriculture and forestry, and we have only just begun. For the first time in a long time, Swedish farmers and forest owners can rest assured that they have a government that will stand up for them.

The Center Party is a party that for a very long time has stood up for and worked hard for, not least for farmers and foresters and the Swedish countryside. But it is also a matter of surrounding oneself with friends who think somewhat similarly so that one can move forward.

With that, I also wish to join in the Christmas greetings. I wish Daniel Bäckström, all other members, and also the Speaker a Merry Christmas.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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