Abstract

Since the late 1960's, a mix of government policies has prevented the loss of farmland in Sweden, “either to forest or asphalt”; these policies have also ensured the maintenance of soil fertility and groundwater resources. However, in Sweden as in several other European nations, a chronic and growing “grain glut” in recent years has undermined the economic logic of import protection and farm price supports—the principle means of promoting a sustainable agriculture. Mainstream economists, imbued with urban-biased and production-centered values, have long criticized these costly mechanisms of public support as cost-ineffective and socially unjustified. They and many prominent politicians tend to minimize the non-production benefits of maintaining an open “working landscape” and rural communities dependent upon agriculture. Historically, Sweden's major farm organizations and its agrarian political party have resisted this economistic view with considerable success. Therefore it was a shock to many observers when, in 1986, leaders of the Swedish Federation of Farmers itself proposed planting trees on crop land as one element of a solution to overproduction.This essay traces the evolution of Swedish farm debates and policies since World War II, leading to the present critical juncture. It explores the incipient alliance between farmers and conservationists to protect farmland (as well as family farms and farm communities) and assesses the prospects for maintaining land in production through diversification into biomass energy crops and high protein fodder crops (the former option takes on new significance in the wake of the Chernobil disaster and pressure for early de-commissioning of Sweden's nuclear power plants; the latter would reduce Swedish dependence on imported soybeans). Finally, there is speculation on the relevance of Sweden's experience for American farmland policy