Response to interpellations 2024/25:137, 145 and 156 on the herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic Sea

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sofia Skönnbrink has asked me how I intend to act to ensure that Sweden's ambition for sustainable fishing in the Baltic Sea is not undermined by the decisions made at the EU level, and what I am doing here and now to avoid a total collapse of the herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic Sea.

Anna-Caren Sätherberg has asked me what I intend to do for sustainable fishing in the Baltic Sea and how I intend to act in the near term so that the Baltic Sea's herring and sprat stocks do not suffer a total collapse.

Malin Larsson has asked me how I intend to act moving forward towards the EU and other countries around the Baltic Sea to gain support for the measures required for a healthy sea and long-term sustainable fishing quotas, as well as which of the measures that Sweden itself controls I intend to work with to reverse the development for the herring in the Bothnian Bay, the Sea of Bothnia, and the central Baltic Sea.

I choose to answer the three interpellations in a single context.

Madam Speaker! The result from the council meeting on 22 October means that the quotas are set to the lowest level in the range provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, for both the central and the Bothnian spawning stocks. ICES assesses that both stocks lie within safe biological limits, and even though the government would have liked to see more restrictive quotas to accelerate the recovery, ICES estimates that the decided catch levels should lead to an increase in biomass of 19 percent in the central Baltic Sea.

Since we had desired even lower quotas, we are not satisfied, but had we stood aside, the quotas would have been significantly higher than they now became. Sweden pushed the most restrictive position in the negotiation and was alone in advocating for quota levels for herring during the Ices interval.

The Government's view is that the application of the precautionary approach should be strengthened when there are warning signs of unclear causal links between different factors affecting the marine environment and the risk of significant ecosystem effects from ongoing activities. In the bill A living sea - increased protection, reduced eutrophication and a sustainable fishery (prop. 2023/24:156), the Government has therefore announced several measures to increase fish stocks in the Baltic Sea and also introduces a new milestone for reducing 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 the announced relocation of the trawling limit to 12 nautical miles from the baseline in the Baltic Sea, be able to contribute to a stronger integration into and an interaction with marine environment work.

Within the EU's common fisheries policy, one of the goals is to ensure that the use of living marine biological resources occurs in such a way that populations are restored to and maintained above levels that ensure a maximum sustainable yield, MSY. The Government intends to work towards ensuring that the EU Commission, in its mandate to ICES, to a greater extent includes ecosystem effects of fishing as well as how human activities and natural mortality from, for example, predators such as seals and cormorants affect the fish stocks. The Government further assesses that Sweden should continue to work for and increase acceptance among other Member States so that the precautionary approach shall form the basis for the application of technical regulations and conservation measures within the common fisheries policy.

In September this year, a meeting was held near Gävle at the initiative of the government, to which the other Baltic states were invited to discuss challenges in the current situation.

A prerequisite for the Baltic Sea's future is good and effective cooperation with other Baltic Sea countries, which is a priority issue for the government - this primarily against the background that many of the challenges regarding the stock situation in the Baltic Sea are transboundary and thus can only be moved forward through close dialogue and cooperation between the countries concerned.

The government is thus actively working on several fronts to best manage the Baltic Sea's stock situation, while the government also sees the added value of long-term preventive measures.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. The feeling of hopelessness and resignation is very dangerous. But it is not strange that it washes over us sometimes, especially considering how the global situation looks. We have Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, which is now heading into its third winter. We see how innocent children continue to be bombed to death down in the Middle East. We see how climate change is warming up our planet and creating floods, not least in Spain, and we have Trump as the newly elected president in the USA.

Madam Speaker! As the icing on the cake, we received a notification of a doubling of the fishing quotas for herring and sprat in the central Baltic Sea during the coming years. This is a decision that can have devastating consequences for an already sensitive stock that is well on its way to collapsing. It could be a pure death blow for the Baltic Sea that risks wiping out the entire food chain in an incredibly important marine ecosystem.

Madam Speaker! The question is what actually happened during the negotiations down in Luxembourg. The Minister went down to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council with a mandate to push for reduced fishing quotas for herring and sprat in the central Baltic Sea as well as the Bothnian Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia for the year 2025.

Even though it sounds good with reduced quotas, we Social Democrats have been very clear that we do not think it is sufficient when the situation is as acute as it actually is. Therefore, we proposed that instead, one should push for a recovery break for herring and sprat, but unfortunately, we did not get any traction for that from the government and the Minister for Rural Affairs because they thought it was better to push the line of reduced quotas to get more member countries to stand behind the proposal.

That plan failed, to say the least, because the minister came home with the announcement that the quota in the central Baltic Sea would increase by 108 percent and that the quota in the Bothnian Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia would increase by 21 percent. One can ask how it could go so badly.

Madam Speaker! As a trained biologist, it is with very great concern that I follow the developments. We have long known how acute and serious the situation is in the Baltic Sea, not only linked to the high fishing pressure but also as a result of climate change, pollution, and eutrophication.

We have seen clear signs of depletion of the stocks of herring and sprat over the last decades. The size of the catches has decreased, and it has also been observed that the population increasingly consists of smaller and younger individuals. This hits our small-scale coastal fishers hard because they use nets and smaller trawlers to catch larger fish that can be used as food fish. We have already seen a development where small-scale fishers are increasingly choosing to wind down their operations because there will soon be no more fish to catch.

If it continues in this direction, there is a risk that we will soon only see large industrial trawlers out in our Swedish waters. In the long run, it will lead to important local jobs disappearing and our beautiful coastal communities losing their soul. From a rural and preparedness perspective, it would be devastating if we continue to allow a few large boats to take up the small amount of herring and sprat that remains in the Baltic Sea, the Bothnian Sea, and the Gulf of Bothnia.

Madam Speaker! My first question to the Minister for Rural Affairs is therefore: Why did the Minister choose to stand behind this decision when the outcome of the negotiations became so poor? Would it not have been better to signal the seriousness of the situation by voting against the proposal, especially considering the major consequences it will have for our small-scale fishers, Sweden's food supply, and our preparedness?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Rural Affairs for the answer.

The situation for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea is truly acute. The alarms from researchers, organizations, and small-scale coastal fishers testify not only to poorer catches but also to the fact that the sprat is getting younger and smaller in size. The fish stocks are near a collapse, and there is a great need for immediate measures.

We Social Democrats have presented many proposals to address the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea. I will mention a few. We want to pause the large-scale industrial fishing of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea until the stocks have clearly recovered. We want to ban bottom trawling in all protected marine areas. We have pushed for the issue of a better, ecosystem-based and ethical management of seals and cormorants.

It is also not reasonable, Madam Speaker, that only about 3 percent of the fish catches are controlled. Sweden has also received criticism for this from the EU audit. We propose more and stricter controls, opportunities to use digital tools, monitoring systems and data analysis, as well as increased penalties for intentional misreporting.

We continue to push the issue of moving the trawling limit to twelve nautical miles in the entire Baltic Sea without exception. We also unfortunately know that the Christian Democrats are the only party in Sweden's Riksdag that has reserved itself against a relocation of the trawling limit.

We also want a review of the Swedish quota system. For the national quotas, Madam Speaker, we want to see how we can improve the quota system by distributing the quotas more fairly and making it more difficult for them to be sold or redistributed. Last week, a notification came from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management that large parts of the quotas that small-scale coastal fishing currently has are now being distributed to large-scale industrial fishing. For herring in the Baltic Sea, 700,000 kilos are distributed, in the northern Baltic Sea 900,000 kilos. For sprat in the Baltic Sea, 700,000 kilos of the quota are distributed to fishers with pelagic fishing rights. It is actually not reasonable, Minister for Rural Affairs!

The government's position on this issue is incomprehensible. If there is no stock for the small-scale coastal fishery to fish, will the quota then go to the large industrial trawlers? Is "all fish must be up" the new melody?

My question in the interpellation may be elaborated upon by the Minister for Rural Affairs. How does the Minister intend to act in the near term to ensure that the Baltic Sea's herring and sprat stocks do not suffer a total collapse? My hope in today's debate is that we see some decisive action. The Minister is welcome to state which meetings are to take place with other ministers who are responsible for fishing around the Baltic Sea.

I have received a brochure from the Moderaterna in Stockholm where it stated that the government has already moved the trawling limit. That hasn't actually happened yet, but when is it going to happen? The Moderaterna in Stockholm perhaps should take note of the issue and take back the brochures.

Does the EU Minister and the Minister for Rural Affairs intend to raise the issue in their contacts? Does the Minister intend to give any new rapid assignments to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, for example regarding the unreasonable nature of the small-scale coastal fishing quotas now being distributed to the industrial trawlers? Has the Minister for Rural Affairs had meetings and dialogue with the interest organizations, for example Sportfiskarna?

The herring and the cod really need measures now. I would like to hear from the minister what he intends to do.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

As a person from Västernorrland, one often boasts about our proud food tradition, surströmming. Today, we have only a few coastal fishermen left along our coast who fish for the production of this delicacy, including Hans in Bondhamn and Manjola and Stefan in Köpmanholmen. They feel great concern for the future.

The crisis for herring and sprat continues in the entire Baltic Sea, the Bothnian Sea, and the Gulf of Bothnia. The warning signals from our coastal fishers have been clear, and research exists that confirms them. But despite the acute situation for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and despite all warnings from our coastal fishers, who perhaps know our seas best, the EU Council of Ministers has now decided on significantly increased fishing quotas for 2025. After the negotiations in the Council of Ministers, the quotas for large-scale industrial fishing in the proper Baltic Sea are increased by 108 percent. Minister Kullgren failed to get the other countries to agree to any change at all.

The quota that has now been set is a doubling of the fishing in the central Baltic Sea, despite the fact that Sweden had aimed to push for a reduction. In the Bothnian Sea and the Bay of Bothnia, the quotas are increased by 21 percent, even though the quotas in the Bothnian Sea and the Bay of Bothnia in recent years have not even been fished up – because there is no herring to fish up. This in itself is a very strong sign that the stocks are collapsing.

We Social Democrats have demanded a recovery break for large-scale fishing. We know that it accounts for 95 percent of all fish. But the SD government did not want to pursue and include this in the Swedish position. We also demanded in the committee that the minister should include the Both Sea and the Bay of Bothnia in the position because, from the beginning, only the central Baltic Sea had been included. Once again, we could see how the government ignores our northern parts of the country.

The herring in the Baltic Sea constitutes the basis of the ecosystem. If it disappears, we could face one of the greatest environmental catastrophes in the history of the Baltic Sea.

The Government's decision on fishing quotas for 2025 means that more than 95 percent of all herring and sprat fishing in the future will be carried out by large-scale industrial fishing, a fishery where the catch becomes fish meal for salmon farming, mink farms, chicken production and so on. The largest ships are also becoming ever larger and more efficient. In total, the 20 largest ships catch 95 percent of the fish in the Baltic Sea.

Since many are raising large-scale industrial fishing as a major problem, I would like the Minister to elaborate on their view on this.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! It was gloomy news we received from the Agriculture and Fisheries Council after the negotiations in October. The quotas for the fishing of herring and sprat in both the central Baltic Sea and the Bothnian Sea are being increased.

It was already known that the government entered the negotiations with a much tougher line, in fact the toughest line of all participating countries, with the hope of keeping the quotas as low as possible - something that is absolutely necessary for the sake of the ecosystems in the Baltic Sea but also for the sake of our small-scale fishers.

Much more needs to be done for the herring and sprat stocks. It feels hopeful that the moderately led government is acting forcefully in the matter. For example, we all meet here again next week to debate the bill A Living Sea, the largest and most comprehensive bill in the field in nearly 15 years. The entire approach in marine environment work will be ecosystem-based, where every measure in itself stems from its specific role and impact on the ecosystem as a whole. Decisive action shall be taken regarding eutrophication, the trawling limit shall be moved further out, marine protected areas shall be protected even more, and more areas shall be protected.

The sticking point, however, is fishing, and since we are part of the European Union, the fishing quotas shall be negotiated with other EU countries. Even there, Sweden must do its utmost to keep the quotas as low as possible.

In recent weeks, sharp criticism has been directed at the Swedish efforts in the negotiations, not least from the Social Democrats. According to the reporting from the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland advocated for the highest levels within the framework of the Ices range, for the central Baltic Sea an increase of 170 percent. The compromise proposal stood at 140 percent. This should be compared with the decided range of 108 percent, which has already been mentioned here today.

In my eyes, it is clear that Sweden's position, namely lower quotas than ICES' recommended minimum, actually led to the quotas landing in the lowest range. But Sweden seems to be far from the other countries in the issue of reduced fishing quotas. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister how he sees the future opportunities to influence the other Baltic Sea countries to embrace a more cautious approach in fisheries policy.

I also want to turn to the Social Democratic members. It is clear that the Social Democrats are now doing everything they can to win political points on the issue. They claim that the Swedish government has allowed an increase in the quotas and that it should have been uncompromising in the negotiations.

In a situation where all possible means need to be taken to limit fishing, where every single small fish counts, one can wonder if the Social Democrats, by refusing to compromise at the negotiating table, had allowed an increase in herring and sprat fishing of at least 140 percent or perhaps even a larger increase. That would probably have been the result if the government, as the Social Democrats say, had sat out the negotiations uncompromisingly.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank my party colleagues in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture who took the initiative for this important debate on the acute situation for the Baltic herring. I would also like to thank the responsible minister for being present to discuss what the government will now do to save the fish stock and small-scale coastal fishing. The government has, after all, agreed to a doubling of herring fishing in the central Baltic Sea and an increase of just over 20 percent in the Bothnian Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia of fish stocks that are near collapse.

Today, more than 20 industrial trawlers catch approximately 90-95 percent of the herring and cod taken from the Baltic Sea, and 90 percent of the fish caught is ground down into fish meal in Denmark instead of becoming food fish on a plate in Sweden and contributing to increased food supply capacity.

We have over a 30-year period seen a steady decrease in herring and that which exists and is fished up is becoming smaller and smaller. We know at the same time that there is a heavy fishing pressure from industrial fishing. It is overfishing, a predatory exploitation from strong economic interests. It is something that must be stopped. It is also why the Social Democrats have demanded a fishing pause for industrial fishing as an immediate measure.

Madam Speaker! What I see as absolutely most serious with the fact that it has now not become so, but even the opposite, when the government has negotiated in the EU's Council of Ministers, is that this government can actually be the last one that has the opportunity to save the salmon. But now it looks like one has failed totally.

In my home county of Gävleborg, we have small-scale coastal fishers who can testify to the clear negative development over time. For example, there is Bergmans fisk, which in September received the minister and his colleagues from the EU member states. There is also Carl-Åke Wallin in Rönnskär, who is chairman of Kustfiskarna Bottenhavet and who constantly pushes forward, proposes solutions, and highlights the coastal fishers' critical situation now that there is hardly any food fish left to fish. None of them will find it any easier now that these decisions have been made regarding the quotas for next year.

The Minister points out in the debate that Sweden has been alone in pursuing a restrictive line in the negotiations on the fishing quotas. My questions to the Minister and the Government are therefore: What is the strategy? What initiatives is the Minister prepared to take, and what plan exists to persuade those countries that fish the most in the Baltic Sea – for example, Finland and Estonia, which are countries with which we have a good and positive cooperation in many other matters – to listen to Sweden and agree to a fishing pause for industrial fishing and lower quotas going forward? It is, after all, the fundamental question for achieving sustainable fishing, even though we also need to take a lot of other measures to improve the situation.

The Minister also points out that ICES assesses that the stocks lie within safe biological limits to withstand the sharp increase in the fishing quotas next year. But a deficiency that researchers have been able to see historically is that politicians tend to underestimate the great uncertainty that exists in the forecasts. The Government is now taking an enormous risk with both last year's and this year's decisions on fishing quotas, which one has, after all, agreed to.

I therefore wonder how confident the Minister feels that the fish stocks will withstand the decision on quotas for next year without completely crashing.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I stand here in the speaker's chair for two reasons. One is that I want to ask a question about the possibilities moving forward to ensure good stocks of particularly herring and sprat, but also other fish species and sufficient supply for the coastal fishers. The other reason is that I have been raised not to sit in silence when someone is treated unfairly. The campaign that the opposition has driven against the minister in various media has simply not been fair.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and the Minister's staff at the department on an outstanding negotiation result regarding fishing quotas and the protection of fish stocks. It is a Swedish record. Never before has a Swedish government succeeded in securing fishing quotas at the very bottom of the range that the expert group from ICES proposed.

Furthermore, one was almost alone on one side. In my mind's eye, I get an image of a tug-of-war rope where everyone except the minister is on one side and where the minister stands alone on the other side but has nevertheless managed to pull the rope a good bit towards the Swedish side. Unfortunately, it didn't go all the way, but a good bit. It is an outstanding achievement.

Now to my question. It is not with Sweden that it is stuck. The government has processed the other countries around the Baltic Sea. We in Sverigedemokraterna have pulled our weight, partly by having all the Baltic countries in the parliamentary Baltic Conference line up behind reducing fishing quotas explicitly down to or below the advisors' threshold values, and partly by acting in the Nordic Council so that the Nordic countries adopted a recommendation to limit industrial trawl fishing in the Baltic Sea. This was needed until the fish stocks have recovered.

Now we have tried this. It seems that the other countries around the Baltic Sea can agree to reduced quotas when the issues are discussed at an overall level, but when they sit in the concrete negotiation and have the narrow perspective, they do not follow up on their commitments.

The question, therefore, is whether there are other contexts where Sweden can raise the issue of fishing quotas and precautionary approaches in an overarching way that would commit the Baltic Sea states to follow what has been agreed upon during the quota negotiations. Can we other parties help? Complaining, however, does not help.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Are we satisfied with this final result? No, we wanted lower quotas. Did we make a difference? Yes, we did. We pushed the result down.

Certain conditions are quite central to know. I know that both Social Democrats and Green Party members do, given how many more times they have negotiated on fishing quotas than I have, and given how their negotiations have turned out.

The decision requires, so to speak, only a qualified majority. No country has a veto. That makes the negotiations challenging for a restrictive country, such as Sweden is in this matter. A relevant question then becomes: What would the result have been if Sweden, during the negotiations, had continued to say no and sidelined us?

Sweden had a unique role in this negotiation. We pushed for quotas below the Commission's level and below the ICES advice. We did this to accelerate the recovery of the herring and mackerel stocks and to ensure that the recovery compared to last year will be lasting.

No country pursued such a restrictive line as Sweden. What other countries instead advocated for was that one should move upwards in the range of scientific advice. If Sweden, in such a situation, had signaled no all the way and set us aside, the final level for these quotas would not have landed on Ices F-lower, the lowest point – they would have gone up. For the Bothnian Sea and the central Baltic Sea combined, it would have been about at least an additional 15,000 tons of fish that had been taken up.

Would this have been more responsible? One might think that one is more interested in potentially appeasing some opinion here in Sweden than in caring about the fish in the Baltic Sea.

The decision is taken, as you are well aware, as a package. Individual geographical areas or fish species cannot be broken out. There were, therefore, several proposals from the Commission on the table that were not in Sweden's interest. The Commission wanted, for example, to stop the herring fishing of the small-scale coastal fishers in Skåne – that quota had instead gone to large boats. The Commission also wanted to stop recreational fishing for farmed salmon. The result in these two cases was that the fishing can continue.

When it comes to special conservation measures, a three-month trawling ban is introduced at Sweden's initiative to protect the spawning of the spiny dogfish. Sweden will voluntarily add an extra month.

The Baltic Sea is prioritized highly by this government. For me, it was important to already before the negotiations in October to get the Baltic Sea countries' ministers here so that they could meet small-scale fishers and get a better insight into how we view these issues.

In the work ahead, there are many very important parts. It concerns the marine environment bill, the first of its kind since 2009. We must also work more when it comes to predation from seals and cormorants. Furthermore, we must continue the work of influencing the Baltic Sea countries in a Swedish direction. There, of course, everyone can be involved and have an influence.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I am not so foolish as to not understand that Sweden as an individual country cannot decide on the fishing quotas for the Baltic Sea. But there is an important symbolic value in marking when something is truly wrong. It surprises me that the Minister for Rural Affairs did not choose to reserve themselves against the decision but voted for it.

On the Christian Democrats' website, the following can be read: "The Christian Democrats consider that fish should primarily be fished for human consumption. The size of the catch shall be sustainable in relation to the stocks of the respective species. An excessively large fishing yield benefits no one, but results in that both the fish and the fishing die out in the long term. The Christian Democrats want to reduce the bureaucracy and red tape for professional fishers and protect coastal fishing."

Despite this, Peter Kullgren, Christian Democrat and Minister for Rural Affairs for Sweden, chose to stand behind the proposals for increased fishing quotas for 2025.

Madam Speaker! To witness this makes me extremely frustrated. Fisheries policy has completely capsized. We have created a system where year after year we are forced to witness how our seas are emptied of fish by large industrial trawlers that risk creating total depletion. Instead of enabling a small-scale, sustainable fishing of food fish that can end up directly on our plates, we see how the majority of the fish that is taken is used to extract fishmeal. Fishmeal is then used to manufacture animal feed which is, among other things, used in fish farming, for example in Norway.

After that, when one didn't think it could get any crazier, our Swedish small-scale fishers, who also have smokehouses along the east coast, buy the farmed Norwegian salmon because they themselves no longer have any fish to take. It cannot just be me who thinks that this is completely insane.

Madam Speaker! I do not live myself in any coastal community – you can surely hear that. I live very far from there. But the threat that the small-scale coastal fishers experience from the large industrial trawlers that are overexploiting the Baltic Sea, I think reminds me very much of our Värmland sheep owners' fear of the wolf. It is about a feeling of powerlessness in the face of the decisions that are made, not least at the EU level, which can have devastating consequences for the individual, for rural development, and for the Swedish food supply.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time of war and unrest in our world, and in that context, it is more important than ever to review the Swedish food supply. We must not forget that an important part of this is precisely the blue nutrients. Therefore, the Minister for Rural Affairs and the government must listen to the warnings from our researchers, our small-scale coastal fishers, and our recreational fishers, who speak about how much the availability of large herring has actually decreased, and dare to take measures that enable small-scale fishing along the entire coast even in the future. This is an important step in being able to provide our citizens with food even during major crises.

Now we can observe that the government's goal of reduced quotas did not succeed, and in that case, the Minister for Rural Affairs must urgently review what other possibilities exist to protect the small amount of fish that remains. I really do not think we have received an answer on this. I hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs can now account for the measures he plans moving forward to save our small-scale coastal fishing and ensure that we have a food supply not only in large cities but also out in the countryside.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Not all questions received answers. The Minister, for example, did not say a word about the distribution of the quotas from small-scale coastal fishing to the large industrial trawlers. This is a decision that the Minister has in his own hands. It is about the government's authority. I understand that other things can be difficult, but what one owns oneself, one can do something about at once.

When it comes to this year's negotiations on fishing quotas, the Minister for Rural Affairs was clear long ago that it would not happen. There was no chance; the minister had already given up and did not believe there was any support for a responsibility for the herring and the sprat in the Baltic Sea.

But last year, Madam Speaker, there was very strong support. At that time, the EU Commission proposed a ban on sprat and herring fishing in the Baltic Sea, a zero quota. However, the Minister for Rural Affairs did not want that, and neither did the Liberals, the Sweden Democrats, or the Moderates. They wrote that the quotas were undoubtedly a relevant component, but that the proposal from the EU Commission would hit disproportionately. When the entire EU Commission had a restrictive line behind them, they said no.

This would have meant a stop to the large-scale industrial trawling, and it was a proposal that we Social Democrats stood behind, but not Sweden's Minister for Rural Affairs. And when the Minister for Rural Affairs negotiated this year, it resulted in doubled quotas in the central Baltic Sea.

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Rural Affairs says in his response today: "Since we had wished for even lower quotas, we are not satisfied." Even the Prime Minister said after the Minister for Rural Affairs had agreed to the increased quotas: "We are very concerned, there is an entirely obvious risk of overfishing." Vice Prime Minister Ebba Busch said this in the chamber of the Riksdag, where we stand now: "All of us in Sweden who know how tough the situation is for the fish stocks know what a catastrophic decision this is from the EU level." It is therefore about the EU level where the Minister for Rural Affairs negotiated.

So, it received a disastrously bad grade for this year's fishing quota negotiations, even according to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. There was also an increase of 108 percent in the central Baltic Sea.

My questions therefore remain. In a year's time, there will be negotiations again. What is the goal, and what is the plan? What is the minister doing here and now to improve the situation for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea? As I said just a moment ago: Are there any of the many proposals that we Social Democrats have presented that the minister can imagine taking forward and implementing? I think that the minister should at least take hold of his own agency, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, and ensure that the quotas are not redistributed from the coastal area, where there apparently is no sprat to fish, to the large industrial trawlers.

It is not just me, Madam Speaker, but very many who want herring on the Christmas table. For many, the mouth begins to water just at the thought of surströmming. We are many who want to see a healthier Baltic Sea. We want to see both larger and older strömmingar and, in general, a fish stock that recovers.

This is not about winning political points. It is truly about the winners being a healthy Baltic Sea with fish stocks. We want the government to increase the pace.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that there are many of our questions that the Minister does not answer. But I want to come back to surströmming - fermented herring that has always existed where people and herring have existed together. But Ulvö's old cannery at Höga Kusten was the first to consumer-package herring in tin cans. This occurred in the 1890s, and then this delicacy could begin to be delivered to all of Sweden, and the surströmming industry began its development - a surströmming industry that is appreciated by many and has strong traditions. The basis of the production is our coastal fishermen who deliver herring to the producers.

Together, commercial fishing and the herring producers generate 100 million and employ many people along the coast. These companies contribute to a sustainable food production with local jobs and a living cultural heritage. While the fish that the large-scale trawlers take up is ground down into fish meal and becomes feed, small-scale coastal fishing gives us surströmming but also pickled herring, smoked sprats, and fresh and processed fish in local shops and restaurants.

I have visited several of our coastal fishers in Västernorrland. Together with the producer organization Kustfiskarna Bottenhavet and several of our other Swedish fishing organizations, they have presented a number of important and concrete measures that the Swedish government can take to reverse the development for the herring. And it is this we must now listen to in order to be able to change.

There are proposals on the table. They concern protected areas, the development and modification of ICE's instructions, more sustainable management of seals and common eiders, addressing the deficiencies in the reporting of catches, time-limited closures, and much more.

A concrete proposal that both the Ministry of Justice and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management have been made aware of is to establish a protected area in Jungfruhalet, which is a trawling ground off Söderhamn. This is where the herring stays during the winter and grows before swimming towards our Norrland coast in the spring. A protected area in this relatively small area would, according to the coastal fishermen, make a big difference. The Finnish boats do not fish here, which means that Finland should agree to the proposal. The Minister mentioned himself earlier today at a meeting that he has good contact with his Finnish colleague. A tip is therefore to throw the question to the other side of the Baltic Sea, as there might be a bite.

There are, therefore, a number of good proposals. If the traditions are to be able to continue and we are to be able to eat our long-awaited surströmming, it is required that we reverse the development and ensure that we have a long-term sustainable fishery. That is what we want.

But what is the Minister's concrete plan moving forward to save the salmon? Which of the measures that Sweden controls does the Minister intend to prioritize, and how does the Minister intend to act towards Finland, the EU, and other countries around the Baltic Sea to gain support for the proposals that are actually already on the table?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! The government's entry into the negotiations was to deliver results. The result we obtained was not the one we desired, but it is a result that is 32 percentage points better than the compromise proposal and 62 percentage points better than the upper limit, which actually would have been a risk if Sweden had not sat at the negotiating table.

One could say that the Swedish delegation has saved at least 15,000 tonnes of fish from being fished out because they sat at the negotiating table and wanted to compromise. Does the Minister believe it would have been possible to push harder without Sweden having been sidelined from the negotiating table? And what would, in that case, have been the concrete consequence for the fish if we had not been involved in the negotiations?

I can further state that we agree with each other on much regarding the many measures that are needed in addition to lowering the quotas, and that is positive. But to claim that the government has allowed an increase of 108 percent, I do not think is anything other than a show for the galleries.

What the government has practically done is that they have prevented an increase of 140 percent or more. Polarizing and creating division at home will not save the herring and salmon stocks. Furthermore, at the beginning of next year, a proposal for Swedish legislation on a trawl ban in marine protected areas will be submitted, which is also addressed in the bill we are to debate next week.

The question to the Social Democrats remains. Sweden has, for as far as I know, never voted no to the proposals that have been negotiated in these contexts, which means that the Social Democrats, when they have been responsible for the issue, have not themselves done what they now demand of the sitting government. That tells me to me that the Social Democrats are willing to sacrifice at least 15,000 tons of herring. In my eyes, this is nothing other than a political game.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! There is currently nothing more important than achieving immediate and urgent measures that save the salmon and the small-scale coastal fishing, which has been conducted along our coasts for generations. If we do not act now, we will most likely face irreversible consequences for the fish stocks and the ecosystem in the Baltic Sea.

We need to learn from history. We need to change direction in the fisheries policy. It is quite obvious that the common fisheries policy is broken, isn't it? We cannot continue on the path we are on, as our seas are being vacuumed of fish by a few industrial trawlers. Soon it may be too late. We are already in the eleventh hour.

I truly reject the accusations of political games. Personally, I have been very involved in this issue as a local politician. I come from a county where we have for a long time had coastal fishermen who have warned about the development. Now I have chosen to engage in this issue also as a member of Parliament.

I believe that the tone and the gravity of words in this debate actually have to do with how reality looks. We do not have much more time. I expect the government's work to influence and conduct dialogue with other countries that fish in the Baltic Sea to be concretized. I look forward to listening to the minister's answer to the question, and also the answer to the question of whether the minister sees that he is confident with what Ices says about the fish stocks next year will withstand a one hundred percent quota increase. That is where we are. We are in such a serious situation.

What is important is what happens in reality and that we reduce the fishing pressure. That is what I really want to emphasize in this debate. The situation is so serious.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I will make some reflections based on the debate.

First, it concerns last year's proposal for a total ban on fishing. Then we would have had no herring. Then we would have only had "sour". Then it was said that there is a symbolic value in saying no sometimes. I think that is very good. It is something that the Sverigedemokraterna have said for many years and which the Socialdemokraterna have now followed suit – it is very good. But I believe that this is the wrong time to say no, because it would lead to a much larger quota. As many debaters have said, there is not much time here in the speaker's chair, and it is urgent not to fish too much.

I can bring up a few examples where we have said no and where the Social Democrats have not said no. When it comes to the taxonomy in the forest, the red-green government's representative was rather proud that it had passed. There, the Tidö parties and the Center Party together forced Sweden to say no. The restoration regulation, which is harmful in its current form, Sweden has said no to. The Commission pressured Austria's environment minister to go against his mandate from his government and his parliament, so it passed anyway. When it comes to Farm to Fork, the Sweden Democrats demanded a consequence analysis to say yes. We naturally did not get that, so we said no. It was right to say no there, because the consequence analysis that the USDA, the American Department of Agriculture, then conducted showed that the proposal would lead to increased hunger in the world. And it was right to say no to the proposal on forest monitoring most recently, which was poorly designed. There, a no fit very well.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! We said no to the stop. We could have had the large industrial trawlers removed from the Baltic Sea - Anna-Caren Sätherberg knows that is not true. The Commission's previous proposal meant that the only herring that could be taken out of the Baltic Sea concerned the large trawlers. What was prohibited was targeted fishing for herring and sprat. The coastal fishers would therefore not be allowed to take out any fish.

You did not want a total ban either. You also did not agree to the Commission's proposal. No party in Sweden's Riksdag agreed to the Commission's proposal last time. Just as now, I also said after those negotiations: We would have gladly seen even lower quotas.

I want to thank you for concrete input that comes, input about things that we own ourselves. That is what we can act on. We cannot decide on quotas ourselves. We cannot state that we shall ban a certain tool that one fishes with. We cannot entirely ourselves say that we shall ban trawling. It doesn't work. We then need to get more people on board.

Sometimes I wonder if all the good ideas in the fishing area come when the Social Democrats are in opposition. They didn't come even once during the time when they sat in government and owned these negotiations themselves. I actually think I have the answer. It is about exactly the same motivation as the one I have had when I have pursued the line that I have taken in these negotiations. You know that it would only lead to higher quotas.

In this debate, the rhetorical waves sometimes get very high. In such cases, it is important that one is given the opportunity to put things into perspective. How well, or rather how poorly, does the rhetoric actually align with the red practice? The quotas for 2025 were definitely higher than what this government desired. There is no doubt about that. But there is also no doubt that the quotas for 2025 are lower than during all the years when we had a red-green government.

One has to take 150,000 tons next year. That is far too much, we think. But it can be compared with certain red-green years when the quotas were more than double that high. In 2017 it was 330,000 tons. In 2018 it was 310,000 tons.

There is also a difference in how the quotas relate to the scientific advice, that is to say: What did ICES say, and what was the result? This time it was ICES' lowest point in the interval for both the Baltic Proper and the central Baltic Sea.

Again: Sweden wanted to go lower than that. But how many times were both of these lowest points reached when the Social Democrats negotiated? It never happened. It landed higher every year.

There are concrete things. We need to influence Ices, so that we get better advice. We need to address the issues with sale and joint. We are in the final stages of the discussions with the commission regarding trawling limits in certain areas. We have a new fisheries commissioner. When he said in the hearing that he wanted to visit the Baltic Sea, I immediately reached out a hand: I would be happy to meet you briefly.

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! No, Joanna, this debate is absolutely not about creating polarization and division. It is about shining a light on a very important issue so that the herring and the sprat do not meet the same dismal fate as the cod did. I therefore do not think we should downplay this, but rather see the value of the debate.

I wish the minister could have answered a bit more clearly on what concrete measures the government and the minister intend to take here and now to achieve a change. I do not believe we have received an answer to that. It will perhaps come in the final remarks.

I want to use my last minute in the debate to clarify the value of herring and sprats in Sweden, not least when it comes to our holidays, as my colleagues here have spoken about. At Christmas, Easter, and Midsummer, this is a natural part of the buffet.

I know that the Minister for Rural Affairs has not been an advocate for a plant-based diet since he took office. I do not believe that the Minister, unlike myself, is prepared to replace the classic pickled herring with a tofu-based variant on the Christmas table. But the harsh reality is that that is soon what will happen. It will soon be the only option on the store shelves—if we continue to empty the oceans of fish in the way we do today and put the ecosystems out of balance.

Madam Speaker! It is truly time to pull the emergency brake and mark the seriousness of the situation. This cannot be emphasized enough. Vital fish stocks are required for us to be able to maintain important local jobs, a thriving tourism, and a food supply that is spread throughout Sweden.

The Minister has previously chosen to stand up for Swedish interests in other matters, as Staffan mentioned. This concerns, for example, the nature restoration regulation. In that case, the choice was made to vote against the proposal. Now I think it is time for the Minister and the Swedish government to also fight for the herring, the sprat, our coastal communities, and our small-scale fishers.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to reply regarding some matters.

The Sweden Democrats' interest in herring was also evident in this debate, when the entire contribution was used to talk about other things. They did not participate in the Fisheries Committee in the EU when the five percent rule was discussed – whether a collapse would occur or not, or if we should keep it. They were not there then either.

The position that the government itself wanted and succeeded in getting the majority of the Swedish Riksdag to agree on was that the quotas would decrease. I believe the minister should look back at other governments' positions, whether it states that one should stay within an interval or not. But here it was clear that the Minister for Rural Affairs was to negotiate a reduction of the quotas. One can think differently. One can think that the negotiation went very well, as some here apparently do. One can think that it did not go well at all, as some others here do, because they increased by 108 percent.

What I want to say with this is: In a year, it will be a critical situation again. I asked a few questions to the Minister for Rural Affairs. It is about the fact that one cannot start negotiating at a meeting as the last thing you do. That negotiation starts now.

The Minister said that he had contact with a minister. Is the Prime Minister working on the issue in his contacts? Is the EU Minister working on the issue in his contacts? Does the Rural Affairs Minister have meetings and dialogue with the interest organizations? Does the Rural Affairs Minister meet, for example, Sportfiskarna?

My hope is for increased capacity for action where we are happy to help. This is truly important. It is a question of the Baltic Sea and the climate changes we see that affect the sea we love and the fish we want to see there.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I must finally comment on Member Staffan Eklöf's contribution to the debate. However, I am not surprised that a Member from SD is standing here today praising the government for the Council of Ministers meeting that resulted in significantly increased fishing quotas.

As the only Swedish party, the Sweden Democrats chose not to participate in the EU's fisheries committee on September 23 when the so-called five percent rule was voted on. It is an emergency brake that is intended to protect the stock so that the fish do not die out. When the real opportunity existed to stand up for the herring and the Baltic Sea, the Sweden Democrats chose to stay away.

We have seen a strange behavior from the side of the government. At one moment, it is claimed that one protects small-scale coastal fishing. In the next moment, one votes yes in the Council of Ministers for continued large fishing quotas that enable continued large-scale industrial fishing.

The day of the Council's decision became a nightmare day for the entire Baltic Sea and small-scale coastal fishing. The consequences will affect the ecosystem, our coastal fishers, recreational fishing, and our coastal communities.

We Social Democrats have, as has been mentioned, demanded a recovery break for large-scale industrial fishing. It is that which has the large fishing quotas. It is that which accounts for 95 percent of all fish. That is where we have the problem. It is a problem that must be solved now.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that the proportion of the quota that now goes to the coastal fishers compared to 2021 is twice as large. It is 18 percent now and was 8 percent then.

I also received a question earlier from Anna-Caren Sätherberg regarding HaV's distribution of the quotas. It is a delegation that has existed for a long time. It is distributed based on how much has been taken. It can go both ways.

As the quota system works, the coastal quota is allocated first of all. It is based on a system that it should never run out or that the quota should be fulfilled, but rather that it should exist all the time.

Now, fishing has increased along the coasts. The latest information I have is that HaV plans to return quota to the coastal fishers from the pelagics, just to mention something about it.

I want to devote the last half-minute of my speaking time to the future. I can state once again that Sweden is relatively alone in this position. I gratefully accept the support from all parties in Sweden's Riksdag.

It would be wonderful if the Green Party members could have influenced the Green Party fisheries minister from Germany, or the Social Democrats the Polish state secretary, who is a Social Democrat. Estonia also has a Social Democratic fisheries minister. I will try with those whom I possibly have better access to.

I believe that is how we build this moving forward. We must get a qualified majority on our side. I believe we share the intention to keep the quotas down. Then it is a matter of method, practice, and reality versus politics. We all understand that game, but it is results that count.

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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