Protecting agriculture and forestry from bureaucracy and activism
- Stop EU micromanagement and work towards greater self-sufficiency
The state has deliberately killed small-scale agriculture
Agriculture is the first industry in the history of civilisation and the most important for our survival. It is not surprising that it is the industry that was first regulated and is now most heavily politicised.
Since the 1960s, parties from right to left, with the help of agricultural universities and agricultural boards, have pushed for a rapid structural rationalisation of Sweden's agriculture. This development has been enforced by laws, bureaucracy and subsidies - using both the stick and the carrot.
The EU is centralising agriculture
Since Sweden joined the EU in 1995, Swedish regulation of agriculture has been replaced by the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which brought with it even more micromanagement and bureaucracy. When Sweden joined the EU, prices for agricultural products fell due to increased competition, but this is partly compensated for by EU farm subsidies. Joining the EU is considered to have made food cheaper, but what has really happened is that we pay part of the price of food through taxes.
Self-reliance requires food sovereignty
Most countries have strategies to protect their agriculture. They realise that without food sovereignty there is no independence. But in Sweden, the state has killed off most small and medium-sized family farms through anti-agricultural policies. The farms are still there, but they have been merged into ever larger units. Where there used to be ten active farming families, there is now only one farmer left. As a result, the basis for rural schools, local grocers and other small businesses has disappeared.
Robust food sovereignty requires a diversity of both large and small farms. A nation with low self-sufficiency is highly vulnerable. Not so long ago, Sweden was self-sufficient in food. Back then, there were many more active farmers, foresters and vegetable growers, and we had a stockpile of food. Forest pastures and meadows were used all over Sweden, which not only provided grazing but also a more open landscape. We got that ecosystem service in return.
Today, with larger and significantly fewer farms, the self-sufficiency rate in Sweden is below 50%. In the event of a serious crisis, that figure shrinks even further, as our modern large-scale agriculture is heavily dependent on imported inputs such as diesel, soy and fertilisers.
Diversified agriculture across the country is what is needed if we are to have access to food in a serious crisis. One way to protect our food production is to be careful about who can buy farmland. That's why we want to preserve and strengthen the Land Acquisition Act - it must not be relaxed or circumvented. Sweden's arable land and forests should not be bought up by multinational companies.
Laws, rules and activists make farming risky
In Sweden, agriculture is classified as an environmentally hazardous activity. This is despite the fact that a large part of our biodiversity has been created through human use of the land. The perception that farming is environmentally hazardous has created an aggressive attitude among the authorities that supervise farms. An official can shut down a farm on his or her own initiative, leaving the farmer virtually lawless. It is natural to want the next generation to take over the farm you have built up. But now many are hesitant to expose their children to the risk of being lawless against an authority.
Ambition Sverige is clear on agriculture not should be classified as an environmentally hazardous activity. Instead, agricultural ecosystem services should be recognised as a benefit to society. The officials who control animal husbandry in agriculture must have relevant knowledge of the natural conditions and characteristics of different animal species and breeds. Animal welfare inspectors without this knowledge should never be allowed to make crucial decisions in animal welfare cases.
Favouring Swedish livestock production
By over-regulating livestock production, politicians and civil servants have put Sweden at a competitive disadvantage compared to other countries. The self-sufficiency rate for beef is only 60 per cent, partly due to a lack of confidence in the industry. For lamb, the corresponding figure is just under 30 per cent. As a result, we are importing meat produced using methods that are illegal in Sweden.
Ambition Sverige wants to favour Swedish agriculture. Therefore, we do not want mandatory laws on grazing requirements for the largest dairy herds, as this is difficult to organise in a good way in practice. On the other hand, we want to distribute agricultural subsidies so that they favour grazing and increased use of natural pastures.
We want to make it easier for young people to start dairy and meat production. That is why we continue to favour generous transitional rules and exemptions from the loose housing requirement. This will allow older barns to be used again. We also want assessments of different housing systems for farm animals to be based on common sense and real animal welfare in individual cases.
Facilitating farm sales
Under Swedish law, selling meat and milk directly from the farm is complicated and expensive. We want to remove the complex regulations that inhibit direct sales from Swedish farms. Consumers should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to buy unpasteurised milk products. There is great potential for small-scale slaughter, but it requires a major simplification of the regulatory framework.
Forests - Sweden's green gold
Forests are one of our country's greatest assets. Two thirds of the country is covered by forests and growth has long exceeded felling. For over a hundred years, we have had a reforestation obligation, which means that every harvested area must be replanted. Thanks to this, Sweden is carbon-neutral, meaning that our forests sequester almost as much carbon as we emit.
The forest industry is a cornerstone of the Swedish economy. Sweden is one of the world's largest exporters of paper and sawn timber. In 2024, the total export value of Swedish forest products was approximately SEK 185 billion, and the forest industry accounts for 9-12 per cent of total employment in Swedish industry. The ongoing forestry report shows an opportunity to increase the value added by SEK 24 billion annually through world-leading research in biotechnology and sustainable materials.
The value of Swedish forests has largely been created by hundreds of thousands of private forest owners, who together own around half of the productive forest land. The fact that each owner has managed his or her land as he or she sees fit has favoured biodiversity. The reforestation obligation and private ownership are important reasons for the success of Swedish forestry. The volume of timber in Swedish forests has doubled in the last hundred years. For farmers, the forest has always been an economic buffer and a labour complement - a resource that has provided security in times of uncertainty.
EU wants to micromanage
Now this autonomy and success story is threatened by growing micromanagement and surveillance from the EU. A recent example is the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). It is a control and traceability regulation that aims to avoid deforestation globally. Although the risk of deforestation is non-existent in Sweden, we have to adapt to an EU law that increases the administrative burden and reduces the freedom of Swedish forest owners. Full implementation of the regulation has once again been postponed, but the intention is to introduce it as soon as the digital monitoring systems are in place. Instead of telling the EU that the EUDR should not apply in our forest-rich country, work is now underway to adapt Swedish legislation to an EU law that has no relevance to our forestry.
Trading in carbon credits
Citing the ”climate”, the EU thinks forest owners should start trading carbon credits. The Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) regulation, which came into force at the end of 2024, deals with the certification of carbon capture. If a forest owner refrains from or postpones harvesting, this should be certified and sold as a carbon credit. The scheme places heavy demands on monitoring, reporting and certification - another area of work for the EU's many bureaucrats.
The forest owner may gain a new source of income, but loses revenue from the timber. There is a high risk of a lock-in effect - the forest becomes climate policy instead of being used for timber, energy or the local economy. Swedish politicians and activists are good at pushing issues of ”protecting the forest”, i.e. stopping logging. However, they do not mention that increased allocations to reserves and other deferred harvesting lead to forest growth stagnating in the long term. The risk of fires and pest infestations also increases, of course, as the proportion of old forest increases.
ETS2 and monitoring
The EU's new Emissions Trading System 2 (ETS2) for buildings and transport threatens to increase fuel costs for forestry and agriculture. Sweden itself has chosen to include agricultural and forestry machinery, which means that every litre of diesel is subject to extra costs.
In addition, the EU is planning a common framework for forest monitoring, based on satellite data and reporting requirements. This means further centralisation and control over privately owned forests. Every new EU directive seems to be an attack on property rights and the freedom of use that has built up Sweden's well-managed forests.
Our response
Ambition Sverige believes that ownership and management rights should always be protected. Every forest owner knows best how their own forest should be managed. Forest owners should feel secure in the knowledge that they will receive full compensation in the event of encroachment. For example, when the state uses ”species protection” to stop felling without full compensation to the forest owner, both the owner's economy and rural development are threatened. Unclear rules and slow decisions by the authorities mean that many landowners are hesitant about long-term investments.
We stand up for the Swedish forest and for the people who use it. We say no to EU overregulation, the deforestation regulation and to irrelevant emissions trading. Forest owners and farmers should not be burdened with costs and bureaucracy for problems that we do not cause. Sweden's forests should be managed by Swedish forest owners - not by bureaucrats in Brussels.
Ambition Sverige will work for:
- Increasing the profitability of agriculture by removing climate-related requirements and reducing the administrative burden.
- Reducing the influence of supranational bodies such as the EU, UN, WHO and WEF. Sweden, as a sovereign nation, should regain power over our agriculture and forestry.
- That as long as we are in the EU, EU regulations should be interpreted strictly in Sweden's favour. In the event of an EU exit, we want national support for agriculture, with the aim of increasing our food self-sufficiency.
- Strengthening ownership and utilisation rights for forest and agricultural land. The state's ability to stop deforestation and compulsory purchase of forests must be limited.
- Sweden says no to the EU's deforestation regulation, carbon credit trading, ETS2 and plans for satellite monitoring of forest land.
- To introduce strict civil servant responsibility and stop activism in government agencies. Government authorities and municipal officials must promote agricultural and forest production, not make it more difficult.
- Removing the grazing requirement but favouring grazing. The farmer knows best what suits his farm.
- Facilitating the sale of meat and milk directly from farms. The rules for small-scale food processing and sales need to be simplified.
- Enabling pastoral farming and other grazing-based livestock production by authorising and facilitating wolf hunting (see chapter on rural areas).