Response to interpellation 2024/25:10 on sustainable fishing

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sanne Lennström has asked me how I and the government intend to act regarding the quotas to benefit the Baltic Sea and its fish stocks.

The sea constitutes an indispensable resource that provides many benefits for humanity and society. The situation for the Baltic Sea's ecosystem is strained and serious, which is primarily manifested through poor stock status for important fish stocks and that the size distribution for several stocks is shifted towards small individuals. The government's overall objective is that management measures shall be decided in line with the common fisheries policy's goals and principles. Included among these goals and principles are both the ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach.

The Government considers that fishing and aquaculture activities shall be environmentally sustainable in the long term and managed in a way that is consistent with the goals of achieving benefits in economic, social, and employment terms. Furthermore, the activities shall contribute to securing the food supply as part of a long-term sustainable food system, while the competitiveness of sustainable small-scale fishing, which is dependent on viable stocks, is protected in the long term.

The Government further considers that the management of fish and its predators as well as fishing shall be governed by all three dimensions of sustainability – the environmental, the economic and the social – but that it is central that short-term management is designed to be able to enable long-term sustainability. The Government also considers that there are reasons to strengthen the work to implement an ecosystem approach in fisheries management.

Madam Speaker! In view of the Commission's proposal for a regulation on fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea 2025, the Government has submitted a fact memorandum to the Riksdag. In line with the above-mentioned positions, the Government preliminarily supports the overall direction in the Commission's proposal. However, the Government considers that there is a need, in specific cases, to advocate for a more cautious approach than the overall direction in the Commission's proposal. Particularly regarding herring and sprat in the central Baltic Sea, the Government's starting point is that the quotas should not increase but decrease compared to currently applicable quotas. The quotas should therefore be set more restrictively than what the Commission proposes.

The Government further considers that the proposal should be adjusted in parts in order to mitigate the negative effects for the Swedish local coastal fishery, which is dependent on viable stocks. The Government considers that the size of the by-catch quota should take into account the current stock situation for associated species and be adapted in accordance with an ecosystem approach in the mixed fishery. The Swedish position shall be determined by the Riksdag.

The marine environment bill specifies the government's direction for marine environment policy. In the bill, the government announces several measures to increase fish stocks in the Baltic Sea, including by moving the trawl limit out to 12 nautical miles and prohibiting bottom trawling in protected marine areas. The government also introduces a new interim target to reduce eutrophication.

The Government also wants Sweden to expand and strengthen the protection of marine areas in order to contribute to reaching the international goal of 30 percent of marine areas by 2030, according to Sweden's commitment to the UN and the EU. The measures resulting from the marine environment bill on sustainable fisheries management with complementary management of predators shall, together with announced permanent regulations regarding pelagic trawling within the entire area up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline in the Baltic Sea, be able to contribute to a stronger integration into and an interaction with the marine environment work.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Minister Kullgren for being here today to discuss the future of the Baltic Sea and our fish stocks, because the situation is urgent.

If the right measures are not taken, there is a risk that the salmon will disappear completely from our seas. During the last 30 years, we have seen that not only the stocks but also the size of the fish have decreased. The fish are becoming smaller and thinner.

A collapse would be extremely serious, not least because we live in a restless world. Fish is an important food that should end up on Swedish consumers' tables. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case today.

A collapse would also be a death blow to sustainable coastal fishing. I come from Östhammar, a small municipality in northern Roslagen, where fishermen such as Tom Sundell go out with their small boats and then sell their fish in local shops. It becomes fresh and high-quality raw materials that have not been transported long distances. It is this small-scale and sustainable fishing that we should reward and protect. It benefits Sweden to keep people like Tom and his colleagues.

What we see today is overfishing. Large-scale industrial trawling accounts for the absolute majority of the fishing in the Baltic Sea. A large part of the herring and sprat caught off the coast of Sweden is sent down to Denmark and becomes fish meal. Then it is shipped further to Norway, where they feed salmon with it. Instead, the fish could have, for example, become a sprat burger for a family in Öregrund. In this way, we are wiping out small-scale fishing.

What is required now are strong measures from the government. A relocation of the trawling limit is required and negotiations with other affected countries are needed. In the budget bill for 2025, the government also unfortunately reduces the total appropriation for measures for the marine and water environment by 40 million.

We need to pause the large-scale pelagic fishing of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea until the stocks have recovered. We also need to review the Swedish quota system. For national quotas, there is the possibility to transfer these, which leads to distortions. It should be possible to distribute quotas in a more equitable way and make the sale of these more difficult.

Quotas are furthermore ineffective if we do not tighten the controls. Today, only a few percent of the fish catches are controlled. That is not sufficient. More controls are needed so that we can detect incorrect reporting, and higher penalties are also needed for such instances. No one should be able to vacuum our seas and get away with it. Digital tools could help here.

Now it is time for quota setting for the upcoming fishing year. In several cases, the EU Commission proposes much too high quotas for 2025. This does not protect the Baltic Sea or small-scale and sustainable fishing. The Minister says in his response to me in today's debate that the proposal needs to be adjusted somewhat and that the quotas should be set more restrictively than what the Commission proposes. The Minister says that coastal fishing shall be protected. This is good.

I understand that the Riksdag has to make decisions, but I am not getting any concrete figures that reassure either me or the coastal fishermen. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister: Will he vote for a quota setting that will protect our fish stocks and secure the survival of the coastal fishermen?

The Minister also mentions that 30 percent shall be marine areas. Are these protected areas or strictly protected areas? I wonder because there is a significant difference.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! We will fight for quotas set as low as possible, just as Sweden has done for quite many years.

What is interesting when discussing fishing policy with the Social Democrats in opposition is that they prefer to avoid talking about how the quotas are set. They do not mention that it is a tug-of-war between different countries, that a qualified majority is required for decisions, and that other countries do not have as restrictive a view as Sweden.

We are working with strength and determination to steer the negotiations in the right direction. But if we make ourselves irrelevant in the negotiations, it leads to only one thing: higher quotas based on how the situation looks today. Those who are serious must give their answers to the voters based on real conditions. Otherwise, it just becomes poster politics that risks worsening the situation for the stocks, and here I must state that the Social Democrats are solely responsible.

To get anywhere, it is diplomacy and dialogue that is completely central. It was precisely for that reason that I invited other fisheries ministers from the Baltic countries to a meeting here in Sweden on September 17. There, they were able to directly experience the situation of small-scale Swedish fishers, and we had a discussion that I hope can facilitate the upcoming negotiations later in October. I can state that the Social Democrats, for my sake, never took any such initiative.

The situation in the Baltic Sea is palpably strained. In order to manage the fish responsibly, we must improve the marine environment. Fishing needs to take place responsibly while other influencing factors, such as the presence of predators, seals, and cormorants, must be addressed in a different way than today.

I have negotiated quotas for Sweden once, and at that time we pursued the most restrictive line of all countries. We did not get what we wanted fully, but thanks to our participation in the negotiations, the quotas were lowered more than they otherwise would have. At the same time, small-scale fishing, which, just as the member says, is a lifeline for many coastal areas, could be protected. For the first time, special closures for trawling were also introduced during the period when the herring spawn. Now ICES, that is, the science, indicates a certain recovery of the sprat in the central Baltic Sea and the Bothnian Sea.

One thing is crystal clear: It is of the utmost importance that we hold on to this and that we negotiate in a restrictive direction even now in October. The trout needs more recovery.

Fishing affects the herring in the Baltic Sea. So do factors such as competition for food, climate change, and predation from seals and cormorants. There are still some knowledge gaps here. In the recently presented marine environment bill, the first since 2009, several of these issues are addressed, such as hunting of seals and cormorants and fishing regulations. Among these are measures such as permanent regulations regarding pelagic trawling up to 12 nautical miles.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! What other countries are doing regarding fisheries policy, I as a member cannot influence or take responsibility for. I am here today and have called for this debate because I want to hear the government's and the minister's ambitions regarding the quota setting and how we are to save the fish stocks and the Baltic Sea. There are many here who desire clear statements.

I have accounted for some measures that my colleagues in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture have worked on in the committee. But as the Minister mentions, it is also worth listening to our coastal fishermen. It is good that the Minister does so when the opportunity arises. He is warmly welcome to Östhammar and will receive an invitation to such a meeting shortly.

When I first met fishermen from Öregrund to listen to their experiences, I learned the 1-2-3 of the fishing measures:

Number 1 is to move the trawling limit further out. This must naturally be done in cooperation with other affected countries, as the Minister mentions, but it is also an important accompaniment not to have a mass of exceptions that destroy the purpose of the trawling limit. Small-scale sustainable fishing should instead, as previously mentioned, be prioritized.

Number 2 is the seal. A grey seal can eat up to eight kilos of fish per day. This is herring, sprat, and cod that otherwise could have become fine fillets on a plate.

Number 3 is the cormorant. In March and April, we who live along the coast see how these birds take over our archipelago. If one has 6,000 cormorants nesting, they eat three tons of fish per day, according to Danderyd's wildlife warden. Furthermore, the birds create cormorant colonies that transform our archipelago islands into white, foul-smelling places that everyone prefers to avoid.

I am entering into that question because the Minister mentioned predators in his answer to me. That trawling has effects, we seem to be able to agree on here in the chamber, so measures can be taken as soon as possible. But we also need to have answers to the question of how great an impact the seal and the cormorant actually have on the fishing.

It is most reasonable here to look at the results of the research. Stockholm University and SLU have conducted a study where it is written as follows:

Overall, seals and birds (especially cormorants) eat approximately the same amount of fish each per year. But it is the small-scale coastal fishing that is most affected by the competition from seals and birds. In that fishery, perch, pike, pikeperch, sea trout, salmon, whitefish, and vendace are the most important species. And of these coastal species, the seals and cormorants eat approximately as much as humans catch (both commercial and recreational fishing).

In a press release, the researchers behind the study conclude that the negative effects of seals and common seals on fish stocks are so significant that these should be taken into account in fisheries management.

We Social Democrats want an ecosystem-based and ethical management of seals and cormorants. The goal should be to significantly reduce the number of cormorants in our country to protect small-scale fishing and fish stocks.

My question to the Minister is therefore: How great a threat does the Minister consider the seal and the cormorant to pose to viable fish stocks, and what can the government do about this threat?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! The member mentioned the 1-2-3 of fishing. We can tick off the trawling limit. We can tick off the seal. We can tick off the cormorant. Here, it feels like the member and I are in complete agreement.

Predators are discussed far too little in the Swedish fishing debate. Some experts say that they eat as much as the total quotas are right now. That must be kept in the back of one's mind.

My ambition is to already have an any other business, an AOB, at the October Council, together with other countries where we are just addressing these problems. We are very clear in the marine environment bill that the government wants to take more measures regarding and reduce the pressure of seals and cormorants. The cormorant also causes a great deal of damage to islands and so on, but above all, it is about the fact that they are hard predators on not least herring and sprat. Here we seem to be in agreement.

There is a consensus among several of the Baltic Sea members that this is a problem that we need to address. But here we also have a certain issue with the birds directive. We also have a ban on trade with seal products, which I am completely convinced affects hunters' willingness to hunt seals. It is in many hunters' DNA that they want to have the best possible outlet for the game they harvest. They want to take care of it out of respect for the hunt they perform. That we then have a ban within the EU against trading these products, I believe is counterproductive if we want to reduce the seal's impact.

Here the government - and even the previous one, it should be said - has been clear that we want to change this regulatory framework. That and other matters we will take up at the next Council of Ministers, if we have time. We are working on that and hope to receive broad support from several EU countries.

Regarding the quotas – it is in order to regulate fish mortality that we talk about how much fish we can take – I just want to remind that the quotas are by far the most effective means when it comes to influencing fishing and its impact in total. I also want to remind that decisions are made by the Council of Ministers with a qualified majority and as a package. Decisions are therefore not made species by species or issue by issue. That is why it is so important that we are involved and are listened to in the negotiations.

We are nevertheless entering a restrictive level. At the Environment and Agriculture Committee's meeting yesterday, it was noted from several sides that this position is significantly clearer than it has been previously. It is clear that the government wants to move in a restrictive direction but at the same time balance it so that we have a relatively broad mandate.

Seventhly and lastly, I think it is much better that we get as low quotas as possible than that we lock ourselves into a position that will be impossible to implement in reality. In that case, it is A and O that we are listened to in the negotiations and that we get as much weight as possible.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, the quotas are important. That is why we are standing here and having this debate today. They have a great impact, because it is between the countries that the fish stocks can be affected, just as the Minister mentions. Therefore, I hope that the government also gets the Sweden Democrats on board, this because they recently abstained from a vote on the emergency brake.

I understand that regardless of the government, it is difficult to follow scientific recommendations for fishing. These can vary significantly from year to year, which complicates the possibility of a long-term fishing policy. The Minister mentioned ICES. Today, ICES focuses on measuring spawning biomass, but what we should do is work harder for a Swedish line where the fish's age and size should also be included in the calculation. So far, that has not happened.

This is a joint submission to the minister in his work at a higher level to create better conditions for a reasonable fisheries policy around the Baltic Sea. We therefore want to see more drive towards a sustainable fisheries policy and better quotas. Otherwise, the Baltic Sea and the fish stocks simply face a very serious collapse.

Naturally, I also hope that the Minister accepts the invitation from Gräsö-Öregrund Fiskareförening and Gräsö skärgårdsråd to come and visit them in November or December to hear more about the experiences of coastal fishers who live with the effects of the government's and the EU's decisions every day.

Thank you very much for the debate!

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Sanne Lennström for the interpellation and for the debate. I appreciate that the debate was broadened so that we also got to talk a bit about the predators, which I think receive too little attention when the stock situation in the Baltic Sea is discussed.

Regarding ICES, no system is perfect. What is supposed to be the basis according to the common fisheries policy is the best available research. Despite shortcomings in ICES, I can state that it is the best available research and also that which is accepted by the vast majority. This is the starting point, and I can see a danger in weaving in other research. There is also research in different countries that points in other directions, and I do not believe that is where we should end up. It is a matter of us safeguarding ICES.

At the same time, we now have ongoing work with various indicators within Ices, where age structure and size structure are what I know to be important, among other things, for Swedish researchers who are part of Ices.

We will, as said, judging by everything, be the country that pushes for the most restrictive quotas, and we will stand guard over the possibilities for small-scale fishing.

Many thanks for the debate!

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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