Response to interpellation 2024/25:622 on the food strategy 2.0
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that the food strategy 2.0 is a growth strategy for increased production where sustainability is a prerequisite for profitability and robustness 1. KD argues that the government has high ambitions for environmental sustainability 1 and that the strategy does not mean that climate goals are being abandoned 1. KD emphasizes that increased Swedish production is a way to take environmental responsibility and avoid carbon leakage from imports 2. KD argues that the strategy should strengthen the food chain's competitiveness and increase the production of Swedish food 3. S argues that the strategy lacks concrete, measurable goals and omits how environmental and climate goals are to be achieved 4 5 6.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Malin Larsson has asked me if I consider it important to have a sustainable food production and that we must reduce emissions from Swedish food production, why neither steering instruments nor proposals for measures to reduce emissions of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants are included in the Food Strategy 2.0, as well as how and when I intend to act based on the recommendations from the Climate Policy Council.
The recently presented food strategy 2.0 is a growth strategy for increased Swedish food production. In it, the government describes what must be done to reach the goal of increased food production that the Riksdag decided on in 2017. The strategy implies a more focused work to strengthen profitability and competitiveness and increase the robustness in the food chain. That being said, I want to be clear that food strategy 2.0 falls within the scope of previous propositions and parliamentary decisions.
That we have now sharpened and further concretized the strategy through, among other things, new focus areas and new measures does not mean that the government, as Malin Larsson claims, is letting go of questions on how the environmental and climate goals are to be reached. On the contrary, the government has high ambitions within all sustainability perspectives – economic, social, and environmental sustainability – throughout the entire chain.
Extensive work is underway to establish the necessary conditions so that the long-term 2045 goal can be achieved. In order for the emission reductions to become a reality, it is required, among other things, that electricity is available where it is needed, that permit processes are shortened, that the workforce has the necessary competence, and a growing bioeconomy. I welcome that the Climate Policy Council highlights the government's active work in these issues.
Malin Larsson argues that the food strategy 2.0 lacks steering instruments or proposals for measures to reduce emissions of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants. The food strategy 2.0 is more than a product; it is also a process to strengthen Swedish food production in the long term.
In that work, the government had already, even before the food strategy 2.0 was decided, taken several important measures. As an example, I can mention that the government just a few weeks ago submitted a request to the EU Commission to, for climate reasons, reintroduce the wall compensation that the previous government abolished. This is just one example of the type of measures that Malin Larsson is requesting.
The discussions tend to revolve around the choice between increased production and sustainable production. It is not about choosing one or the other, but 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.
The geopolitical situation and the crises of recent years have focused attention on the importance of a robust food supply. The government's starting point is that entrepreneurs within agriculture need better conditions to increase their production through strengthened competitiveness and profitability.
Competitiveness and profitability are fundamental for agriculture to be able to invest in the climate transition and to meet the environmental and climate challenges that exist. This applies in particular to adaptations to a changed climate.
Malin Larsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The national food strategy aiming towards 2030 was adopted here in the chamber already in 2017. The overall goal was an increased sustainable production of food. It was a Social Democratic Minister for Rural Affairs who then gathered the entire chain, but also the entire policy, in the work to then be able to launch Sweden's first food strategy, which everyone stood behind.
The crises of recent years, with both the corona pandemic, increased geopolitical tensions, and climate change, have shown how vulnerable our food system can be. An updated strategy is therefore necessary for Sweden to be able to meet both current and, above all, future challenges.
This government promised an update early on, and we raised our hands and said that we would gladly help. But it was not needed, the minister considered then, because it was only about an update. Much was promised, but we had to wait for the result. The updated strategy was significantly delayed. But finally, the long-promised update of the food strategy arrived. Expectations were high, not least because the government had taken so much time for the update.
And what happened? Well, the updated strategy drew extensive criticism from several sides, from industry organizations, the research community, and civil society organizations. Some of the criticism concerned the strategy's lack of concrete, clear, and measurable goals.
Unfortunately, the update was a disappointment even in the area of environment and climate. Many consider that the new food strategy is a step backward and that it completely omits how the environmental and climate goals are to be reached. The Minister said in his statement, Mr. Speaker, that they have sharpened and concretized. But they do not focus on the area of environment and climate, rather they refrain from supplementing and developing this.
Both LRF and the Climate Policy Council have, in their respective ways, concluded that with the right measures, it is possible to reduce agriculture's climate impact while maintaining a continued strong Swedish food production.
Therefore, I want to ask the Minister here today: What does the Minister consider is required to transition agriculture and reduce agriculture's climate impact? And why has the government chosen not to include clear and measurable goals in the food strategy 2.0?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! In 2017, the food strategy was adopted. It may be important to point out that food strategy 2.0 does not replace the strategy from 2017. It focuses on parts that have become more relevant due to world events since 2017. The hope is that the strategy, combined with the other measures that the government has announced or already implemented, will also result in a greater difference at the farm level.
When the food strategy was presented by the then Minister for Rural Affairs, it was received with cheers and applause. Finally, we had stood our ground and wanted to increase food production in Sweden! Since then, it has only gone in the other direction. That is what has been the problem with the previous strategy, and that is what we will now try to change.
Then one also needs other measures than those that are strategies on a piece of paper. That is why we are working hard with regulatory changes. That is why we, unlike previous governments, use the space we can obtain through the common agricultural policy and send it back to the farmers, which is the idea of the common agricultural policy. We do not put it into the treasury, as the Social Democratic-led government did.
This makes a difference with almost three billion kronor in Swedish agriculture. The farmers can devote themselves to their animals, their fields, their tractors, and what they want instead of an often constantly increasing administration. This is central. That we restore the fodder support is also central.
Malin Larsson mentions the goals. There were no clear goals in the previous food strategy. It only stated that we should increase food production. The Government has now announced that we want to change this. It is described on three pages in the strategy what the goals could be. But in accordance with how it works in the state apparatus, the Government wants to ensure this with the expert agencies that we have. We have asked them to give us proposals and verify that the goals are correct. That work has already been initiated.
I mentioned that the food strategy is to be seen as more than a product. The government has, as stated, already taken a long series of measures even before the strategy was decided. Production is affected by a multitude of political decisions, and everything cannot be mentioned in a strategic product that is intended to last over time.
I would like to state, however, that since the food strategy 2.0 does not replace the previous strategy, it means that the provisions regarding the environment and climate that are in the strategy from 2017 remain in place. Malin Larsson does not need to worry about that.
Malin Larsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for the answers so far!
I want to continue to highlight the lack of ambition from both the minister and the entire government in the field of climate and environment. At the same time, we are talking more and more about the importance of preparedness and increasing our supply capacity. These things are connected, and we probably all agree that we must increase both supply capacity and preparedness.
It is closely linked to the fact that we are also reducing our emissions and that we are helping each other to transition agriculture to reduce our dependence on other countries, especially rogue states like Russia. We have fantastic opportunities within the country's borders to manufacture renewable fuels and important input goods such as artificial fertilizer. Furthermore, we have a large electricity production and the opportunity to expand it in the near term via both wind and solar.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, as the government presented the new updated food strategy 2.0, the Climate Policy Council presented its annual report with an in-depth look at agriculture's climate impact as well as recommendations. The report shows that it is fully possible to reduce agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions while food production increases and the self-sufficiency rate is strengthened.
In the report, the Climate Policy Council presents 13 recommendations to the government in the area of agriculture. These are summarized in three points.
Firstly: Establish a common goal and strategy for the agriculture's climate transition. Secondly: Develop national and European instruments for cost-effective climate measures. Thirdly: Strengthen knowledge building through improved measurement methods, increased analysis capacity, and advice to farmers.
The new, updated food strategy 2.0 had not even had time to cool on its way from the printer before the call to develop the new strategy came – this is so that the goals for increased food production can be reconciled with the climate goals.
The Climate Policy Council also sent a letter to the Minister for Rural Affairs with an appeal to develop the food strategy 2.0 in accordance with Sweden's climate goals.
The government's updated food strategy prioritizes, as we have heard, increased production, robustness in the food supply, and export-promoting measures. This is also important, but what both we and the council note is that the strategy lacks a clear direction for how increased food production is to be reconciled with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2045.
The farmers and other actors in the food chain that I visit want to transition. They are innovative, and they want to contribute. But unfortunately, the government does not seem to be as innovative and want to contribute as much.
What has the Minister for Rural Affairs answered in the letter from the Climate Policy Council, and how does the Minister for Rural Affairs intend to approach the 13 recommendations?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Swedish food production is exemplary in many respects, for example regarding good animal welfare, low antibiotic use, and low environmental and climate impact.
If we do not produce the food ourselves, we are forced to import food and thereby export the environmental and climate impact. I see no benefit whatsoever in choosing not to produce here and instead import when we know that in many cases it leads to an emission leakage. Since we do it better than others, I see no reason at all in importing, for example, lamb from the other side of the world. Sweden has fantastic conditions for such production.
This is also an important part of the will to increase production. For me and the government, an increased Swedish food production is not just a matter of high-quality food, employment, and increased food exports. It is also a way for Sweden to take its environmental and climate responsibility.
We previously received a number of recommendations in our Climate Policy Council's report, and we are now analyzing them. The Government will continue to develop both environmental and climate policy and agricultural policy both at the EU level and in Sweden. The Government is determined that Sweden shall fulfill its commitment linked to reductions of climate emissions. Therefore, the Government proposed a new and higher reduction obligation in the latest budget bill. The Government is also investing in a strengthening and an extension of Klimatklivet and in a new support for the production of biogas in agriculture. Also, certain measures within the national support Kväveklivet, which the Government introduces in 2025, can, in addition to the environmental benefit, have a positive climate effect.
Malin Larsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the debate.
We have for several years seen how agriculture is affected by climate change. It is drought, heavy rainfall, and so on. Sweden is also one of the countries that has the highest climate footprint from what we eat because we import a lot of food. The food we eat accounts for a quarter of households' greenhouse gas emissions. That is as much as transport.
We must increase our Swedish food production and at the same time reduce emissions from the same, which is fully possible. But proposals and concrete measures for this are conspicuously absent in the updated food strategy 2.0.
The Minister listed a number of self-evident points that we can all agree on, and it is good that the government has come to its senses and is raising the reduction obligation. We have debated this previously in the chamber.
But Sweden now has an SD government that governs the country with a policy that increases emissions instead of focusing on reducing the dependence on Russia and other rogue states and getting started on an increased sustainable production of important input goods.
In an interpellation debate two years ago, the Minister for Rural Affairs said that the government has high ambitions regarding all sustainability perspectives and that economic, social, and environmental sustainability is required to achieve a competitive food chain. But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister for Rural Affairs' and the SD-led government's high ambitions in the area of environment and climate seem instead to have been reduced.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! After eight years of an environmentalist or leftist government – to use the same way of describing the order of things as the member – we can state that Swedish food production has definitely not increased. The question is how much more climate emissions it has led to that environmentalists and leftists, eagerly encouraged by a good number of Social Democrats at both the EU level and national level, have been allowed to only reduce and reduce food production. They have neither supported the farmers nor changed the regulatory framework so that they can engage in what they most want to do, namely deliver food to us who do not produce food. It would be interesting to calculate that.
The further developed food strategy is a starting point for a more focused and ambitious work to strengthen the competitiveness of the food chain, improve profitability, and increase the production of Swedish food. One of the strategy's focus areas is to increase the robustness of the food chain. The strategy shall contribute to increased resilience among the companies so that the food supply can be secured even during pressures. The foundation for a robust food chain and a sustainable food production is profitable companies. Here there may be an ideological difference between a bourgeois and a socialist government, but it is profitable companies that can invest and do more.
I conclude by stating: What we cannot produce in peacetime, we will never be able to produce in times of crisis or extreme war, and we will also not be able to meet the environmental and climate challenges that the member raised.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.