A clear regulatory framework for active forestry

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

I shall try to take the opportunity to summarize eight years of forest debates, as this is the last thing I do in the chamber. It is no secret that I have constantly stood up for property rights, i.e., for the individual's freedom to use what one owns.

We have many times referred to the forest proposal that became reality in 1993. It was about freedom under responsibility. That forest proposal was based on an investigation led by a Moderate Member of Parliament, Sven Eric Lorentzon.

It was no surprise that a Moderate landed on exactly freedom under responsibility, for that is precisely the entire basis for the forest and our use of it.

I have stood here in many debates and spoken about that we need to return to the decisions we made back then. Since then, we have had a number of ministers who have said that the forest policy is fixed. But it has rather been the exact opposite, Madam Speaker. The forest policy has not been fixed, because even if laws and other things have not changed, interpreters, courts and authorities have understood freedom under responsibility in a completely different way.

Also, the EU has since we joined influenced Swedish forestry in very many different ways – even though forestry is not an EU-common issue. But forestry can be included in many other parts.

As a forest owner myself, I quite often feel that the debate with people who perhaps are not forest owners and do not move as closely to the forest becomes very emotional. People put emotions into their thoughts about the forest, and it is directly incorrect. As a forest owner, I of course love my forest, which means that I manage it in a sensible and sustainable way. And I do not believe that I am in any way unique among forest owners. I think it is fun to have many species in my forest. I think it is fun to have versatility in my management. But at the end of the day, it is also the case that I have interest and amortizations to pay. I also need to manage my forest and make money from my forestry. This is quite often forgotten in the debate, I believe.

Sometimes people also speak poorly about the forest industry. But the forest industry is the guarantee that we forest owners have an income from our forest today. The Swedish forest industry has also been a very large part of the foundation of Sweden's success. I would say that the forests and the mines are the foundation of Swedish success. Later, other parts have been added, but fundamentally, it is the forests and the mines that have carried up Sweden and Swedish prosperity.

To return to how it sometimes sounds in the debate: Forestry industry has almost become a pejorative, as if it were something negative and that there is some kind of profit-seeking and so on that is outside of all biological limits. I do not agree with those parts.

That is why I am glad that the forest bill which we are debating today and will make a decision on in tomorrow's vote is the first step toward returning to freedom under responsibility. It has been a success story. It has been something that Swedish forest owners have lived up to in a successful way and that they have been proud to carry through the years. That is where we must return to.

In the forest debate, we have also year after year talked about how much money should be spent, how much forest we should set aside, and how much we should restrict the individual's opportunity for use. I would like to say that it should be exactly the opposite. The less we make this budget and the less we restrict the individual's freedom in their ownership and use, the more of high environmental values will be created. They will also endure. They will endure over a long period if we remove the finger-pointing and stop interfering in everything that belongs to the individual's freedom.

Of course, there will always be forest owners who do not do everything perfectly, but in which industry in society are there not such people? The majority of the 330,000 forest owners in Sweden do things incredibly well.

Someone said earlier that it is not in forestry that the species are being driven to extinction, but rather somewhere else. Yes, in many ways it is about sand dunes, as was mentioned, but also about overgrown grazing lands. It is grazing lands that people today find difficult to cultivate due to too high a prevalence of predators. The grazing lands are a part where we have had our property rights restricted in various ways.

I remember when, in connection with Sweden's EU entry, we started with Natura 2000 areas. This was something that sounded very good. It sounded like it was a good way for us to take responsibility for the environment and so on. And it was said at the time, lo and behold, that it would not involve any restrictions. I would like to say that the landowners who joined in at an early stage and wanted to include their lands in Natura 2000 do not feel that way today. They do not feel that it does not involve any restrictions, because in these Natura 2000 areas, you are no longer allowed to do as you please. Outside of them, buffer zones have also emerged on lands where you also are not allowed to do as you please because they are located near a Natura 2000 area. I can continue and rattle off more and more of different things.

In here, we say that the right of ownership is fixed and strong. Yet, time and again, we read in the agricultural press about different types of restrictions on individual ownership and how one is being limited. One is expected to return with different types of record-keeping and so on.

The state should lay a dead hand over the management, just as was said here earlier, for some believe that the state is better at managing what individuals have created over several hundred years – that which I, as the eighth generation here at the farm, proudly carry forward to the next generation, to my little guy. But I do not want the state to interfere with finger-wagging and say what is good and what is not good, because I do not believe that is the path to success.

It has also been shown, since we shifted forest policy from a very regulated forest policy to one with more freedom under responsibility, that landowners and forest owners have moved things in the right direction. And now we are once again removing these pointers.

It has also been discussed here today that money is lacking. There is too little money in the budget to protect nature. We Moderates have been clear for quite some time: Do not increase the proportion of nature that is not used! Give freedom instead, and high nature values will exist in much more of the forest – even the used forest! Those of us who live and work in nature know that is how it is. That is how it will be. But for those who do not live close to and in the Swedish nature, it sounds like a utopia.

That is also why we have our disagreements in here. One attaches emotions to something that someone else owns. Sometimes we have called it forest socialism. I call it ignorance instead, because that is exactly what it is about.

Madam Speaker! I am going in for landing. I move again for approval of a first step back towards the freedom under responsibility that has served us well.

I hope that you in here will take your responsibility after the election. If you do not, I will hunt you – with wisdom, of course, regarding how it looks out there in reality for those of us who live and act together with nature.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit unconventional to take the floor to respond to one of your coalition partners, but what the hell. I want to thank John Widegren for his efforts and his generosity with the knowledge he possesses.

I remember the first time we met, in the spring of 2022. I don't know if the member remembers it. I had hurriedly stepped in to replace Johan Pehrson in a forest debate at the Skogsmaskindagarna in Karlskoga. It was shortly after he had become party leader and my first debate as a parliamentary candidate. It was actually a bit nervous.

A little over four years later, we now stand here debating forest policy. I think that is fine, and one can state that we have done very much good for Swedish forests during these four years.

I particularly appreciate John Widegren's clarity that what Sweden's farmers need and desire is not more subsidies but more freedom and more reasonable conditions, fewer government lectures and less red tape – more freedom, quite simply.

As we heard a sample of here, property rights is your clear guiding star and your hallmark, John. I apologize for my boldness, Madam Speaker. But the fact is that the one who owns something also manages it wisely.

We have managed to achieve quite a lot during these four years, John. We have begun a major review of the shoreline protection, we have worked on the restructuring of the forest policy and the predator policy, and we sat in the Environmental Goals Preparation together.

My question to you is: If you look 30 years into the future and are allowed to wish for something, where will Swedish forest policy be then?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for several exciting years and enjoyable discussions! I also think we have made progress in many of the issues.

If I am to look forward 30 years, I want us to have returned to what was the foundation for what we are trying to re-establish now. I believe it is absolutely necessary, because we hear all the time that there are very many who want a share of the forest and what the forest can offer when it comes to products and so on – products and experiences such as hunting, for example. All of this is to be delivered in the Swedish forest.

We have also been able to deliver this for a long time, but it has then been freedom with responsibility, so if there is anywhere we are headed, it is back to these principles. I am completely convinced that Swedish forest owners will also take the responsibility that we, from the political side, want and demand that they should take.

Soon, however, I will no longer be on the political side but will be one of those forest owners who will deliver timber, nature experiences, biodiversity and so on. But again – there must be more freedom, then it will be good.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! That was the answer I expected. I just want to wish the member all the best. I assume that you will not fall silent as a strong voice for Swedish forestry and that we will be able to read your columns and that if we do not behave, we will be visited – perhaps even haunted!

Great luck and a big thank you!

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, John Widegren, for perhaps the last speech here in the chamber of the Riksdag. It is always equally appreciated; you do not hold any papers or any script, but you speak from the brain and the heart.

Before I ask my question, I also want to take the opportunity to thank John for all these years together in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture – it has been eight years. I have truly appreciated your knowledge and experience as well as your great commitment in all the issues concerning our important green industries.

We have, of course, not always been in agreement, since we belong to two different parties. I do, however, actually think that we have often had the same view on long-term perspective and on the fact that the policy and the decisions we make must also work in reality for those who live and work all around the country – just as the member said from the rostrum.

I want to extend a huge thank you to Member Widegren for these years. You will be missed in both the Riksdag and the committee.

Mr. Speaker! Now to the question. We are dealing with the results of the forest investigation, and we sat in a reference group linked to this. Some proposals have been presented here, but a lot is also missing – there is a lot left to do. My question to Member Widegren is therefore: Are you satisfied with the result, or do you lack something and if so, what?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for your kind words! I return them, as I am experiencing exactly the same thing. It has been a give and take, but always in very pleasant forms.

As I understand it, and as was mentioned earlier, the preparation of several parts of the forest investigation is currently ongoing. If you ask me what I think, I would have liked to have seen more parts already. I would have liked to have seen that, for example, the area limit for a logging notification had been raised, because I am quite certain that it would lead to us having fewer regeneration areas overall. The average of the regeneration areas would have decreased if we, for example, had gone from half a hectare to two hectares, which there were discussions about in the investigation. That is probably one thing that I can miss.

For me, however, it is above all the foundation that is most important, i.e., that we actually pivot again and move back towards a greater trust in the forest owners. To get into the question of money again, it is not about having the most money in the budget to protect nature, but it is about having the most trust in those who live and work in our nature, because that is when the most new nature values will be created.

I am content to say that I am satisfied that we have turned and are now heading back towards what was. I hope that one continues with that after the election!

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank John Widegren for the answer.

I share the view that several important steps have been taken, but there is still a great deal to be done. Above all, it is about ensuring that all of this lands correctly, so that we do not end up in court rulings again.

I had one final reflection, and it concerned exactly the question that Member Nilsson asked earlier about whether there is any important part you would have wished for if you had been allowed to wish freely, but I think the Member answered that.

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I waive my right to speak.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! John Widegren and I both sat in the Biodiversity Goals Task Force, which was tasked with proposing how we in Sweden should reach our commitments for biodiversity and greenhouse gas uptake in forests and land.

In the investigation, John Widegren had almost as a mantra that no more forest should be taken out of production. At the same time, we are today in a situation where the loss of biodiversity is being highlighted by more and more people as a security threat. The British intelligence service has sounded the alarm that important ecosystems risk beginning to collapse in just a few years. It is about ecosystems that we are dependent on for our access to food and water.

One of the ecosystems that is particularly highlighted is the boreal forests, i.e., northern forests – the same type of forest that covers a large part of Sweden. The countries that, according to the British alarm report, will fare best are those that invest in the protection and restoration of ecosystems.

A report from the Swedish Forest Agency during the spring showed that the unprotected old-growth forests will be completely gone in 25 years if today's logging rate continues. Irreplaceable natural values will then be lost.

In that situation, the Moderaterna choose, in the bill that we are debating, to present policy that means these forests can henceforth be logged even faster.

My question is: Should it be free rein to clear-cut the last unprotected old-growth forests?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions. Regarding the Swedish Forest Agency's report, a fairly large part of their arguments has, with desirable clarity, been shot down afterwards by expertise within forest management. It is also the case that the forests the member speaks of in many respects are already protected today – a large part of them are already protected.

I am convinced that even if we gave carte blanche to fell old forests or the like today, it would not happen, because the forest owners are wiser than that. Of course, forests with high nature values will always be felled because private forest owners generally let the forest stand a bit longer than the state does, and thus high nature values grow in these forests. Very many of these forests have also in one way or another been managed over time, so I do not have the same concern regarding that issue.

I think my colleague Kjell-Arne Ottosson exemplary highlighted how Sweden stands in the various rankings. The one referred to here is not the only one. Sweden is doing very well when it comes to the ranking of precisely biological diversity.

I do not harbor the same concern, but I maintain exactly what I have said earlier: the more freedom we give to the forest owners, the better they will manage the high natural values that exist, and they will also create new ones.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now I think John Widegren is trying to mix the cards a bit here. My question was, in fact, about natural forest, which is forest defined by precisely the absence of cultivation. It is therefore not about forests where natural values return within a shorter perspective, but it takes hundreds of years for the forests to develop those types of values.

The Environmental Goals Preparation, which we both, as mentioned, have been part of, estimated that there are today approximately 1.5 million hectares of old-growth forest and natural forest that are not protected. The reports that exist show, as mentioned, that logging of these forests is currently taking place, and those natural values will not return. If they are gone, they are gone, and then we have lost that natural heritage.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is how it is. We will utilize some forests that have high natural values, and we will utilize some of the old-growth forests. But the fact remains that we have protected a very large proportion of these forests.

If one lives with the idea that the sky is the limit when it comes to nature protection, one can continue to say that we should take more and more land out of production. But then I think one should also take responsibility for saying how we as a country will be able to afford to do this. We have, after all, protected forests with high biological values, and we will not touch those. But we cannot continue ad absurdum and take more and more land out of production. It simply will not benefit anyone. Sweden is in a good position – let us continue to be in a good position!

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is always entertaining to listen to a debate that drifts quite far from the product we are actually debating.

It was many years that were to be summarized and evaluated, but something that the government and its representatives have tried to return to is that one is now removing socialism from the Forestry Act and from the way we manage the forest. I would like to ask the member if he can elaborate on this.

We can go back to what we are actually discussing and will vote on tomorrow. It concerns, among other things, a proposal to shorten the time that authorities have to process cases from six weeks to three weeks. I do not quite see where this socialism is reflected in that measure. I also do not quite see how it could be something that helps landowners with their main concern.

As the member himself described, as a landowner, one often has long-term perspectives on one's management. That is commendable. With relations to a place and a responsibility for a forest, one often thinks long-term – it may be about decades. One creates a forest management plan so that one has a plan and an idea of what is to happen. Often, the forest owner is not in such a hurry that the processing time needs to be three weeks instead of six weeks. Such a rush is, in any case, nothing that I have perceived as the biggest problem for Sweden's 330,000 forest owners.

I would therefore like to know why this reform is being carried out, why there is such a hurry, and in what way it can be linked to socialism.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Forest socialism is about wanting to seize more private property. It is no more complicated than that.

The question of processing times, I think, is somewhat interesting, because it is part of the work of giving increased freedom. If one had trusted the forest owners, we would not have needed any processing time at all, but I know there are parties in here who do not trust the forest owners but believe that the state is the guarantor for the forest. It is, however, precisely the opposite. Therefore, I see it as a pure question of freedom that the processing time is shortened this much. I would, as I said, have liked to see it become even shorter.

The discussion on whether someone should carry out a rejuvenation harvest or not should be conducted between the landowner and the Swedish Forest Agency. It should not be as it has become in recent years, with a number of different interest organizations and other things that are supposed to interfere with how landowners want to manage their forest. That is not freedom.

We are so many forest owners in Sweden that we will manage our forests in different ways, and that is precisely part of the beauty of the biodiversity in Sweden – that we manage in different ways.

This matter of shortening processing times, I think, is a clear example of increased freedom and a little less socialism, Mr. Speaker.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In that explanation, there is not a trace of what this forest bill is about. There is nothing about the protection of forests in this forest bill.

To halve the processing time means to move from a situation where the Swedish Forest Agency has the opportunity to inspect 1–2 percent of all cuttings before the forest is harvested to a situation where they will likely be able to inspect an even smaller proportion. What is done then – which I think the government could be a bit more transparent about, Mr. Speaker – is to shift the entire responsibility over to the forest owner. Now it is the forest owner who will have to be held accountable if the authorities do not have time to inspect. The knowledge requirement, however, remains.

We still have the Environmental Code and the species protection – all that remains – but in a very short time, there is no possibility of obtaining advice or supervision from the Swedish Forest Agency or other authorities. Instead, it simply becomes up to the forest owner to recognize different species and indications of natural values in their forest. Something that has taken me a five-year education to learn is now expected of all of Sweden's 330,000 forest owners. If they cannot, it is they who stand there with the risk of punishment.

To halve the time and remove the supervision – remove the Skogsstyrelsen's assistance – means, therefore, to place an enormous responsibility on the forest owner. It has nothing to do with freedom, but only with requirements to fulfill.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Rebecka Le Moine and I do not agree, we can say that. I see it in a completely different way.

The members of the committee previously highlighted long-term perspective, forestry plans, and that the forest owner has a thought and an idea with their forestry. Yes, and in that case, it can hardly matter how long the processing time is.

It is precisely such a thing we believe in, that is to say, to give the landowner freedom. The landowner, in fact, has for the most part quite good knowledge of what is on his lands, and he – or she – also wants to continue to manage his forest in a manner as exemplary as has been done for a long, long time.

The difference between the Moderates and the Green Party is, therefore, that we believe in the one who uses the forest. We believe in increased freedom, because that is also what can deliver to the company Sweden. We believe in less regulation and fewer lectures from the public sector. That way, one can deliver what we actually desire and want.

It can be a good closing remark for my part: Here you can see the major political differences. We believe in the forest owner, and other parties – for example Miljöpartiet – believe in the state.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 7, which concerns impact assessment and follow-up.

The forest has built Sweden. It has provided jobs, export revenues and prosperity, and it has been the foundation for industrial towns, family businesses and rural areas across our entire country. It will also be at least as important in the future, when we are to transition to a fossil-free society. Therefore, Sweden needs a forest policy that holds over time. We need a policy that safeguards both production and the environment and that unites utilization and conservation.

In 1993, the Riksdag made a historic decision when the production goal and the environmental goal in forest policy were equalized. It was an important insight then, and it is an important insight today. The forest is not either timber production or biodiversity, but it is both.

Since then, much positive has happened. Nature conservation has developed. Knowledge has increased. Certification systems have emerged. Voluntary set-asides have become a natural part of forestry. More landowners are actively working with nature conservation while simultaneously conducting productive forestry. It shows that we can cultivate and preserve at the same time. It is that balance we Social Democrats want to safeguard.

Mr. Speaker! Today, the government's bill on a clearer regulatory framework for active forestry is being addressed. There are parts of the bill that we welcome. We have long pointed out that there are forest owners who have ended up caught between different regulatory frameworks and agency decisions, and we have long demanded clearer rules. We have also long demanded that those who receive major restrictions in the use of their land should also be able to receive compensation. Therefore, we welcome that the government is now attempting to resolve parts of these issues.

At the same time, it must be said that the government is coming far too late. Instead of a unified grip on the forest's future, we have received a number of different proposals scattered across the mandate period – species protection for itself, compensation issues for itself, and the forest inquiry's proposals for itself. A holistic approach had been needed where usage, biodiversity, climate, and landowners' rights were weighed together.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats share the government's ambition to create clearer rules, but clarity is not achieved by shifting more responsibility onto the individual landowner – on the contrary, there is a risk that uncertainty will increase then. When the consultation obligation is changed, the consequences must be followed up carefully. Forest owners must know which rules apply. They should not have to guess or hire lawyers to understand what is expected. Therefore, we want to see a proper follow-up of the new rules.

We also say no to the government's proposal to shorten the time between the logging notification and the logging from six to three weeks. The authorities must have time to do their work, especially now when they have been overwhelmed by appeals. Legal certainty and quality must not become a pawn in the pursuit of faster processes.

Mr. Speaker! The forest is also one of our most important industries of the future. When the world is to reduce its dependence on oil, coal, and gas, the demand for renewable raw materials will increase. Wood can replace steel and concrete. Forest raw materials can become biofuels, chemicals, textiles, and new materials. There are enormous opportunities for us in Sweden, but then we must do more than just produce raw materials. We must increase the processing value and invest in innovation, research, and new technology. We must build more in wood, and we must create more jobs throughout the entire value chain. That is how we strengthen both competitiveness and the countryside.

For me, as a representative of Västernorrland, this is particularly clear. The forest creates jobs far beyond forestry itself – in sawmills, the pulp industry, transport companies, workshops, and ports. Every logging operation creates ripples throughout the entire society. Therefore, the forest is not just an environmental issue but also a jobs issue, a welfare issue, and a rural area issue.

Mr. Speaker! We must also speak about the people who work in the forest. Today we see how more and more of the planting and clearing work is performed by foreign labor. Many do an important job, but at the same time we know that there are examples of poor working conditions and unhealthy competition. We also risk losing Swedish competence and knowledge of forestry. It is a development that we cannot be satisfied with.

Swedish wages and Swedish working conditions shall also apply in the forest. We need to train more people for the jobs that exist within planting, clearing, and forest management. We shall compete with knowledge and quality, not with low wages.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: The forest is one of Sweden's greatest assets. It shall be utilized and developed, but it must also be passed on to future generations in at least as good a condition as when we ourselves received it.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As a person from Värmland, I think it is very fun to have an evening in the chamber where we debate forestry and even have several debates about the forest.

The Government presents, with this bill, the largest forest reform since 1993 – a year that has been mentioned earlier in the debate – for clearer rules, more reasonable conditions, and strengthened ownership rights for the country's forest owners. A future purposeful forest policy should promote a long-term sustainable and competitive forestry that creates momentum in the work for increased forest growth and increased availability of sustainably produced domestic biomass.

Mr. Speaker! If we limit Swedish forestry, the raw materials must come from somewhere else. Then there is a high probability that it will be imports from countries that have significantly poorer sustainability than what we have in Swedish forestry. Domestic biomass is absolutely the best from many perspectives.

Sweden's prosperity literally grew out of the forest. Timber from our forests financed the expansion of infrastructure and factories – yes, the entire construction of society. Generations of Swedes have received work, income, and faith in the future thanks to the forest that still covers around 70 percent of our country.

As my colleague John Widegren pointed out, there are very many emotions in the forest debate. We are told that we have no forest. Sweden is, therefore, still 70 percent covered by forest. According to the National Forest Inventory, we have more than double the forest volume today as we had 100 years ago. At the same time, we have harvested four times that growth.

The forest has been completely fundamental in how we have reached where we are today. It is no coincidence that the chamber here in the Swedish Riksdag looks the way it does, with so much wood and whitewashed wood. There is a reason for this, Mr. Speaker.

Without the forest, we would also not have been able to make the journey we have made regarding the ore. Without forest and charcoal, for example, we would not have been able to extract all the iron that we have extracted from the ore.

The forest has therefore also been important for other core parts of Aktiebolaget Sverige. It is also our greatest competitive advantage when it comes to the transition to non-fossil.

The forest has today an export value of 185 billion kronor. The forestry industry, with related industries, employs 140,000 people. It is absolutely crucial for us in Sweden and for our rural areas that we have a well-functioning forestry sector that leads to us getting jobs and tax revenues that keep Sweden's rural areas alive.

As I said, the forest is also our great competitive advantage in the transition, both as a carbon sink and as a substitute. We can replace CO2-intensive materials such as steel and concrete with products from the forest – products in wood. In that way, we take advantage of the forest's full potential.

Family forestry, which is operated by small-scale forest owners, is absolutely crucial. It provides the income needed to run agricultural properties. Family forestry also leads to us having living rural areas. It is very clear that not many people live where the large forestry companies own the forest. Where ordinary private individuals own the forest, people live there, however – there we have a living rural area. This is important from very many perspectives.

Long-term perspective and legal certainty were what we were addressing in the previous debate on species protection, Mr. Speaker, and that applies here as well. It is very important that we can rebuild the trust between the forest owners and the state. Freedom under responsibility has been mentioned several times, and it is very important. We have seen how it has gone when the state has pointed with the whole hand in certain forestry issues. For example, spruce was to be planted almost everywhere, and we saw what that led to. Contorta is another species that causes problems.

Not so long ago, one received subsidies to drain wetlands. Now they are to be put back. They spray with hormoslyr. It is the state that has pointed with the whole fist. But those landowners who have thought for themselves and who have worked according to their own head have a forest that is truly worthy of the name.

Several parts of the bill are very important. The obligation to consult has been raised in previous exchanges of remarks and speeches. That forestry measures should no longer automatically be covered by the obligation to consult is perhaps the biggest change. Instead, clarity shall be provided through a regulation so that the forest owner shall know what applies. We shall not have the lack of clarity that we have today.

It is about the logging notification and that the time is shortened from six to three weeks. In Finland it is ten days, and it works there as well.

Knowledge requirements have been a point of contention for several. A reasonableness rule is now being introduced in the Environmental Code for forestry measures so that the cost of acquiring knowledge does not affect the individual forest owner, and it is very important. It shall not exceed 3 percent of the value of the affected part of the property, so that it does not become unreasonably expensive.

There will also be a new order for appeals in order to ensure greater legal certainty. Now, the Swedish Forest Agency shall be a party when environmental organizations appeal the agency's decisions. Legal certainty shall thus be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! A recurring theme is that the Forestry Act shall be the primary regulatory framework for forestry. It becomes a form of primary legislation. I think it is completely the right way to go.

This is not everything. I would have liked to have included several more parts, but I know that more is being prepared at the Government Offices. I look forward to more proposals being presented.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against all reservations.

Mr. Speaker! Since this is, as far as I know, my last speech during this parliamentary term, I would like to wish the Speaker and the rest of the Speaker's Bureau, the Chancellery, colleagues in MJU and colleagues in the MJU Chancellery a very nice and pleasant summer. Hopefully, we will see each other again in the autumn.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the speech!

There is a lot of talk about trust and legal certainty. If one places this alongside the bill we are now debating, a very large discrepancy arises. What is proposed is that the link between a logging notification and consultation according to the Environmental Code should be removed. That may sound tempting and like a simplification, but what does not appear from the member's statement is that one is now placing this responsibility on every landowner in Sweden.

As an aid, the government representative speaks of a so-called exhaustive list, something that is also mentioned in the bill, regarding which species shall cause the landowners to realize themselves when a consultation is required according to the Environmental Code. This exhaustive list is expected to contain all the species that one considers to be sufficiently threatened. At least, the government representative fantasizes about it.

Mr. Speaker! The thing is that such an inventory, such a knowledge base, and such information does not exist. After having worked as a natural value inventory specialist in the consulting industry, I also know what extensive work it would involve to create an exhaustive list.

What is not apparent from the member's speech is that one is producing a framework but not filling it with specific content. It states with only one or two sentences in the bill that one is postponing the introduction of this, because referral bodies such as the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency have been very clear in their criticism that this is completely detached from reality.

People talk a lot about making it simpler, but an enormous and completely unreasonable responsibility is placed on the landowner.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the question or possibly the allegations!

That it should be unrealistic is for Rebecka Le Moine to say. I absolutely do not stand behind that.

Yes, trust is indeed thin between the state and the forest owners. Trust is also very thin and becomes thinner when we see how wildly foreign people are out in the forest inventorying something that someone else owns. Then they do not need to take any responsibility at all for what they report into Artportalen. The forest owner must take all responsibility, including the economic.

That the duty to consult does not automatically lead to a consultation is very good. It leads to clearer legal certainty for the forest owner. It also hopefully leads to us not receiving as many appeals as we do today. Previously, for example, we spoke about knärot in this context. One looks for a signal species to stop logging. That is the primary goal for many. It is just about stopping the logging.

Mr. Speaker! What is being completely ignored is that there is someone who owns the forest. It is apparently completely irrelevant.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There is a multitude of different wills among Sweden's forest owners. Not least, we have those who safeguard their land and want to take a great responsibility.

In one year, 556 applications for voluntary protection were received. People want to protect their forests. But there is no money, because this government has, overnight, destroyed the trust that was so important. They did this by lowering the budget item that was to go towards compensation to landowners.

The will and interest of the landowners is enormous. But the money that the Tidöregeringen has wanted to provide to satisfy this and meet the landowners' wishes has not existed.

There is a difference between landowners and landowners. Those who are interested in nature are not a target group for this government's proposals. But if you are interested in achieving a larger flow and an even larger volume, without anything hindering the flow, the government side is willing to do whatever it takes.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should move away from that. We must see that there are different wills among landowners. We must be able to accommodate and also provide opportunities for those who want to protect their forest.

Mr. Speaker! The order in which one supplements with knowledge of which species are present at a site is not actually changed anywhere by the bill that the representative here stands behind. The only thing that is done is to shorten the time and let the landowner receive an even greater responsibility and thereby can be held liable in retrospect. It is not to build trust, but it is to destroy it.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Different views are spoken of regarding Rebecka Le Moine. That is certainly true. We have different views on how the forest should be managed.

We have freedom under responsibility. It has served us well. It is up to each landowner to make use of that freedom as long as one stays within the boundaries of the law.

Voluntariness is very important. If we are to protect land, it must be done with voluntariness as the basis. It is extremely important that the state does not come again and point with the whole hand and take what others own.

My colleague was previously involved in forest socialism, and that is exactly what it is about when the state comes and just takes.

My family was itself affected by the state coming and wanting to take land. It was about white-backed woodpecker and Nordic grayling – I don't remember everything it was. We were out on an inspection so that the representative from the County Administrative Board could point out these species. But not a single species was found to point out, and they said: "It was a bit difficult today." Then they folded their hands, and so that inspection was finished.

That really does not lead to any kind of trust. Here we must trust the forest owner. It also means that the forest owner should primarily be able to cultivate their land. Miljöpartiet has immensely more money in its budget together with Vänsterpartiet. Those parties have much more money than all other parties in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! One can sprinkle as much money as one wants, and there is money for everything and in abundance. But we who live in the real world and do not live in a utopia must stick to the budget we have and to something that actually works in Sweden today. It is about prioritizing. We prioritize that forest owners shall be allowed to use their land.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation 5.

Swedish forest is an engine in our welfare and a foundation for our countryside. The forestry industry creates, in rounded figures, 120,000–130,000 jobs if one has a broader definition and includes indirect employment opportunities. The export value is over 150 billion.

It is about forest contractors in the inland of Norrland, sawmill workers in Småland, and engineers within the mass and paper industry. For hundreds of rural municipalities, the forest is the difference between a living community with schools and services or depopulation.

Against this background, it is extremely positive that Göran Örlander's investigation is now beginning to become a reality. This is part of the work. For the first time in a long time, we have a piece of work regarding forest policy that points in a clear direction towards simpler regulations, compensation to landowners who are not allowed to cultivate, and proposals aimed at increasing growth in the industry.

Mr. Speaker! If the forestry industry is to be able to continue to generate jobs and growth, it is a matter of growing more, fertilizing smarter, and strengthening private property rights further so that we can maximize the forest's ability to bind carbon and replace fossil products. To then ensure access to raw materials is completely fundamental.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support the bill which contains a long series of important and desirable proposals. Fewer consultations shall be required for forestry measures, and the costs that landowners may incur due to the knowledge requirement are limited. The confidentiality for the protection of animal and plant species is changed so that landowners can access the information needed to determine whether consultations are required.

Decisions by the Swedish Forest Agency according to the Forestry Act shall be appealed to a Land and Environment Court instead of an administrative court. The time that environmental organizations have to appeal is shortened, and the Swedish Forest Agency shall be granted party status when environmental organizations appeal the agency's decision.

Mr. Speaker! We would gladly see more proposals for simplification. It should, for example, become much more difficult for environmental organizations to appeal. We need to stand guard over the freedom of personal responsibility that we have had in Sweden since the Forestry Act was decided in 1993 and which, during the last decades, has increasingly come to be restricted.

Freedom within Swedish forestry has functioned as an engine for growth. When foresters are given the trust to manage their land based on local conditions instead of rigid regulations, conditions are created for investment willingness, innovation, and consideration for nature.

The Sweden Democrats, however, consider that the degrees of freedom could have been increased further. We hope that the continued work will take that direction.

The simplest way to reduce bureaucracy in Swedish forestry is to raise the area limit for the reporting requirement for felling, where the limit today is half a hectare.

From Göran Örlander's investigation, it appears that 35 percent of the notifications regarding logging only cover 10 percent of the area. A general increase to two hectares would mean that 35,000 notifications would be exempted from the requirement for notification. This would mean a sharp reduction in the number of cases as well as a large reduction in the workload for individual landowners and for the Swedish Forest Agency, while 90 percent of the area would not be affected.

The Sweden Democrats consider that individual landowners with smaller cultivation units than 50 hectares of productive forest land should be exempted from the requirement for notification of logging and notification for consultation if the logging does not exceed two hectares in total.

The requirement for reforestation of forest land after logging, damage, or other reasons why the land does not produce timber ensures good forest production and is good. However, there are a couple of situations where important environmental values are negatively affected by the requirement for reforestation.

We Sweden Democrats believe that the degree of freedom could be increased even here. We therefore propose that an exception be made for the requirement for planting new forest in these situations so that it becomes voluntary to do so.

It concerns, among other things, increased freedom to establish and maintain forest edges with a soft transition between forest and agricultural land and freedom to let biologically valuable open environments that arise naturally on parts of clear-cuts remain unplanted.

The Sweden Democrats want to see greater degrees of freedom in the forest. We trust the forest owners.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Martin Kinnunen for the speech!

When one reads the Sweden Democrats' rural program and what it could be, one sees that they often write that all of Sweden shall live. But after four years, we see a different result. The green transition has been slowed down, investments have been lost, and the faith in the future in many parts of northern Sweden has been weakened.

Now comes the next announcement in the Sverigedemokraterna's follow-up motion to the consideration. Sverigedemokraterna are usually skeptical about us protecting forest. Therefore, it is somewhat pleasing to read their follow-up motion where they actually see the need to protect more old-growth-like forest.

But when it comes to the compensation, one wants to compensate landowners in southern Sweden more than those in northern Sweden. The Government considers that 125 percent compensation is a reasonable level. The Sweden Democrats, on the other hand, want to give landowners in southern Sweden 200 percent of the market value.

My question is simple. Why should even more of the state's resources be moved south when the largest proportion of the forest, the forestry jobs, the export revenues, and the value creation are in northern Sweden?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for the questions!

The Sweden Democrats do not want to protect more forest. We think we can instead look at forests that are currently under protection and see if they can perhaps be converted to production instead. On the other hand, we shall protect better.

In southern Sweden, we do not have nearly as much protection today. It is not particularly strange that it is so. Very many people live in those areas, and there is not as much forest.

It is rather a problem that we protect too much forest in northern Sweden, which hinders development. It is to the detriment of the forestry industry. One needs access to raw materials.

This is something that could create increased faith in the future in Norrland. I perceive, contrary to what Malin Larsson describes, an increasing faith in the future even in Norrland. One sees the direction in the politics that exists here which strives towards increased growth, increased prosperity and a reduced focus on subsidies.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This illustrates a larger problem. As I said, the Sweden Democrats usually speak of the fact that all of Sweden should live. But in their own policy and in their own follow-up motion to the matter we are debating here today, they propose that the money should go south and that northern Sweden should stand back. Forest owners in southern Sweden are worth more than forest owners in the north. Northern Sweden is apparently to deliver jobs and export revenues. But when the money is to be distributed, it should go south.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is more a matter of justice. Why should forest owners in Skåne and Småland receive double the market value, 200 percent, while a forest owner in Västernorrland, Jämtland, Västerbotten, or Norrbotten should have to settle for 125 percent?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are not proposing anything at all that makes a difference for forest owners in different types of landscapes; we are proposing a different direction for the policy.

Protected land shall, of course, be replaced in exactly the same way in different parts of the country. These are simply lines of thought regarding how one can develop the policy in the area. Norrland is also not, as stated, in need of more grant money to protect more forest. Norrland needs more productive forest land. We need to lift away protected land and put it into production so that we can stimulate the forestry industry even in Norrland in the future.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the clarification of the stated positions!

There are quite a few question marks for me regarding how the Sweden Democrats reconcile their policy. I don't really see how this policy rhymes with the Sweden Democrats' ideology. I think that a nationalist party should safeguard what is considered the most Swedish thing we have, that is to say the beautiful, magnificent nature, the wilderness and the views.

As we hear here, Mr. Speaker, the Sweden Democrats are more inclined to remove the protection of forests and instead let the forests be clear-cut. Then these values, which the Swedish people also value so much, will disappear.

The development we have had has led to us getting less lingonberries and blueberries, which have decreased by 50 percent since 1950. Many associate this with perhaps the most Swedish thing there is: that with the help of the right of public access, one is out picking mushrooms and berries in forests that are beautiful and exciting places. The forest gives us recreation, and it means a lot for the Swedish folk soul.

80 percent of Swedes are of the opinion that it is important or very important to protect forests with high nature values. But the Sweden Democrats describe a policy where they would rather export the forest as soon as possible and also target those forests that have been granted protection.

My first question is: How do the Sweden Democrats reconcile their policy and the specific position of removing and demolishing protections in order to quickly be able to export timber? How does that align with a nationalist view of the Swedish nature?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the questions!

I believe it is simply a matter of balance. One must try to balance different interests against each other. We are probably all here in the chamber in agreement that the forest has important recreational values. There are important values regarding biodiversity, wildlife, and so on.

Then it's all about how much one should protect. It is not necessarily the case that everything becomes very much better just because one protects more land.

We Sweden Democrats have, for example, campaigned for a specific project to save endangered tree species, elm and ash. When we asked the Minister from the Green Party, we were told that the solution to this lay in the then-government increasing the budget funds for nature protection. But we know that this would not have helped these species. Now, however, when we have a focus on innovation, technology, and plant breeding, there is hope for elm and ash.

The solution does not always lie in protecting more and more, because Sweden cannot be a museum. Sweden must have a reasonable amount of protection, and we Sverigedemokrater believe that it has gone a bit too far in several places in the country. Furthermore, there have been far too many restrictions against landowners.

We must therefore shift the balance somewhat. This does not, of course, mean that one should remove all recreational areas in our country, but on the contrary: They must, of course, remain. There is no shortage of land in Sweden. There are areas to roam around in, and there will be even if the Sverigedemokraterna were to get a majority on their own in this chamber.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! So, it is about having a balance between production and environmental protection. But in the bill and the reservation, and in what the member has stated, nature conservation and environmental protection are conspicuous by their absence. There is not a single word about it.

What we are facing is that the time authorities have to review cases before the forest is clear-cut is to be halved. It also concerns a number of other things, but there is nothing that strengthens species protection, nature conservation, or environmental protection, for that matter.

I do not see that balance reflected anywhere, neither in the speech, the reservation, nor the proposition. It is laudable, but it means nothing. The only thing the Sweden Democrats have to offer is a measure and a question that I believe is ten years old. It would be appropriate with something that is perhaps a bit more current and relevant in the context.

Mr. Speaker! The explanation I find is that the Sweden Democrats have become part of the establishment. The Swedish people want something else. But we have a very strong lobby from the forestry industries and a wonderful sense of community where everyone who thinks more or less alike is applauded. There are very few nuanced expressions in Swedish politics.

I interpret this position as that the Sweden Democrats want into this community and into the establishment. It might perhaps be appropriate for the Sweden Democrats to say that one is giving up a position in Swedish politics in order to get into the inner circle.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the comments!

When we talk about balance, one must simultaneously talk about perception of reality somewhere. That is simply about what one considers a reasonable level of protection. I can reflect on the fact that we have much more protected land in Sweden today than we had in 1993, 2006, or 2010 in that regard. We have constantly moved towards a political reality with significantly more protection.

The question is where the balance should lie. The Sweden Democrats argue that we have gone too far. Now we must try to find as many good areas as possible to protect, and not focus on increased areas. We already have different forms of area protection in Sweden over the majority of our land. That is why it is so important that we return to the situation we had for forestry in 1993. That is why it is so important that we can also reform the shore protection so that we can achieve more reasonable trade-offs between individual freedoms and consideration for nature.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

It is important debates we have here tonight. We have already debated a matter regarding species protection, and now we are debating one regarding the completely necessary reorganization of forest policy that this government has worked intensively on during the mandate period.

Even the title of the bill, A clear regulatory framework for active forestry, says quite a lot about what the government wants to achieve. We propose regulatory simplifications with the aim of creating a more functional forest policy. We are now carrying out the largest forest reform in 30 years. We are doing it to get clearer rules in place, to create more reasonable conditions, and to strengthen the usage and ownership rights for all the country's forest owners.

The reorganization the government is now presenting will promote a long-term sustainable and competitive forestry. The foundations of Swedish forest policy remain firm. The proposals in the bill are, as everyone in here is familiar with, taken from Göran Örlander's forest inquiry. The parts that are not included in the bill are being further prepared in the Government Offices.

Previous speakers from the Liberals' coalition partners have already profitably accounted for the details in the bill that the government is now presenting, so I actually intended to leave that aside and instead broaden the perspectives somewhat.

Mr. Speaker! There are few areas that require such long-term perspectives as forest policy.

I intend to take the liberty of taking off already in Queen Christina's time.

Those who know their history know that we are then somewhere in the beginning of the 1600s, roughly 10, 12 or perhaps 14 generations back. That is at least how long my lineage has lived in the same place, worked the same land and managed the same forest. It broadens the perspectives, and it imposes an obligation when one makes decisions here in the chamber.

Something else that broadens the perspectives and also has a connection to the time my family has lived in the same place is that 120 years ago there was practically no large forest left there at home. Kilsbergen is often described as a large wasteland. The forest had become charcoal to provide the mining industry with fuel. Still, Kilsbergen is today in large parts forested again. Nature has a fantastic ability to recover.

It is precisely that lack of long-term perspective, that alarmism, and the often non-existent respect for property rights that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet express in the forest debate, where they completely distrust those who manage their own property, that is so incredibly provoking. To think, believe, consider, and feel that the best way to create high nature values is through state greed and disproportionate encroachments against fundamental legal principles is actually completely insane.

Mr. Speaker! For many of us who live and work in the countryside, the forest is a completely natural part of life and has been so for as long as people have lived there. The forest and the ore were many times the very reason why people settled there, especially in my home regions.

The forest has been the very foundation for the creation of prosperity, both locally and for Sweden as a nation. The forest is also still completely crucial for the society we see today. It has been for a long time, it still is, and it must continue to be.

Mr. Speaker! To live near the forest one owns, to utilize what it provides, and to care for and manage it is not just a form of enterprise. It is a way of life. It attracts people to stay, and it attracts people to move out to the countryside.

For me, it is the way of life strongly associated with freedom. There is a sense of freedom in owning, cultivating, and managing, a freedom that unfortunately has been increasingly restricted during the last decades.

Mr. Speaker! Those who own forests naturally have a responsibility to safeguard the common benefits that the forest generates. We liberals believe in the individual's ability to make wise, well-balanced decisions. We believe in freedom under responsibility. Both I, as a liberal, and my party safeguard the forest owners' right to their property.

Mr. Speaker! Something that is important here is our responsibility as legislators. Our responsibility is to ensure that the regulatory frameworks that exist are purposeful, legally sound, and effective. Environmental benefit and property rights must be balanced against each other. It is there that we take, through the bill that we are now debating and will decide on tomorrow, important steps towards a better balance.

Now we are taking important steps towards a more reasonable forest policy. Through clearer processes and a more predictable regulatory framework, we provide forest owners with better conditions to cultivate and manage their forests in the long term. With today's proposal, we protect the environment while simultaneously strengthening Swedish competitiveness. That was precisely the goal of the forest inquiry: to balance the need for economic growth against environmental considerations and social aspects. Now we move forward with a proposal for a richer, freer, and more reasonable Sweden. It is good for Sweden, and it is good for Sweden's forest owners.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in this last debate before the summer, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Chamber Office, the Speaker's Office, the committee's staff, and all colleagues in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, not just for this year but for the entire parliamentary term. I would also like to wish you a very pleasant and restful summer – perhaps for a few weeks, at least, before everything kicks into gear ahead of the election.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Elin Nilsson misinformed herself in her speech regarding the Left Party's forest policy. If one looks at the Naturskyddsförening's election poll, one can however get the impression that we are actually in quite a lot of agreement regarding the forest.

In the survey, all parliamentary parties have been asked to take a position on a number of different environmental policy proposals. Some of them concern the forest. Among others, there is a proposal to map all primeval and old-growth forests and ensure that they are given strict protection by 2030 at the latest. Despite the fact that all of these forests are to be protected by 2030 according to the EU's biodiversity strategy, many of Sweden's primeval and old-growth forests are still unprotected.

Another proposal is to ensure that 30 percent of Sweden's land and water areas are protected by 2030. The protection must be long-term and representative of Sweden's different types of nature.

In both cases, the Liberals have responded that they agree. I find it very difficult to reconcile that with the party's actions during the mandate period. The bill we are debating today will rather make it more difficult to protect old-growth and natural forests because the time from the logging notification to the logging is shortened, which reduces the opportunity to act when natural forests are threatened by logging. The government has also cut back on the protection of nature during the mandate period.

I also find it very difficult to understand the answers from the Liberals in the survey in relation to the party's actions in the Environmental Goals Commission, where precisely these proposals were on the table and could have been presented in the report if the Liberals had not stopped them.

Therefore, I want to ask Elin Nilsson: Where do the Liberals actually stand? Should the old-growth forests be protected or not?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member!

Yes, particularly valuable nature shall be protected. We have never said anything else. What we are debating here today are the forms for how Swedish forest policy shall be conducted. We see an imbalance where the environmental aspects have tipped over to the disadvantage of ownership rights and usufructuary rights, and we are now correcting that.

Both of the bills we are debating today are very much about creating balance. There is, in fact, an imbalance where ownership and management have had to take a large step back.

This is work that is ongoing broadly – not only linked to these two propositions but also in the constitutional law investigation which is now in its final stage and which has the mandate to precisely strengthen the protection for property rights and ongoing land use.

These are not conflicting interests. One can safeguard a strong property right and at the same time consider that the protection for very valuable nature should continue to be high.

The most important thing in what we are debating today is that when a restriction occurs, it must be reasonable, proportionate and well-founded, and when it is finally established that it shall occur, compensation shall be paid. That is the important thing in this discussion.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! In that case, I wonder what initiatives the government and the Liberals have taken during the latest parliamentary term to ensure that the unprotected old-growth and natural forests are protected. I am not aware of any such initiatives. It is rather the case that the bill we are debating here, as said, will make it more difficult because the time from a logging notification until the logging can begin is shortened, which reduces the possibility of acting when one sees that a natural forest is about to be logged.

As I mentioned earlier, the Environmental Goals Preparation had the chance to submit proposals that could have meant that all these unprotected forests had been protected. But the Liberals chose to block it. When one had the opportunity to do something about this, one therefore chose to do nothing.

I do not know why Elin Nilsson is involving property rights in this. I did not ask a question about property rights. Vänsterpartiet has no proposals at all to change anything regarding property rights. This is about the fact that we need to protect the most valuable forests, and action from the government is required for that to happen.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! That the Left Party member questions involving property rights in the discussion is perhaps exactly what shows how differently we view these issues and what different starting points we have in forest policy. As a Liberal, I always prioritize property rights. It is fundamental in a rule of law that the protection of property rights is strong. I know that it is not particularly important for the Left Party. That can be seen in the policy they pursue. Their coffers are infinite, and restrictions are considered reasonable as long as the landowner gets paid.

It is not that which is the point. Just because a landowner is paid for a restriction does not make it legitimate. There must also be good reasons for it. Here, our policies differ diametrically.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There is a lot of talk about property rights and other things, and the Green Party is accused of having a crazy policy and the like. It is clear that it does not really go hand in hand with the propaganda that has been adopted from the forestry industry. And it does not go hand in hand with what the warm community in here usually talks about.

But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we are not discussing the right of ownership. The right of ownership is constitutionally protected. It would require two identical decisions in two consecutive elections to repeal it.

However, we are talking about several other things. And a question that I think is very important to ask and get an answer to is why the Liberals choose to tell certain target groups externally that they stand up for protecting the old-growth and natural forests in Sweden. Why does the Liberals' Minister for the Environment go to UN meetings and say that Sweden shall pursue a policy to protect 30 percent, only to later, in this warm community, talk down those very proposals?

They don't lift a finger. They don't react at all, despite the alarm reports which say that if we don't do anything, we will have no old-growth or natural forests left in Sweden in 25 years.

This is not an opinion. The Swedish Forest Agency states this in its own reports. They also show that precisely the old-growth forests, which the Liberals claim to protect at least towards certain target groups, are now being logged at an increasingly faster pace, at an accelerating pace. The Liberals have had the opportunity to at least voice some kind of opinion on a change they want to see. But not even that have they done.

It may not be right to ask how one can survive as a party, because one perhaps will not do so now, which pleases me. But how can one even live with oneself when one says one thing to a certain target group but then seems to act in a completely different direction?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the question and for wishing my party the best of luck! It is still a bit charming, one could say with a certain irony.

In this area, you actually advocate for a policy that is, in my opinion, insane. I stand by that.

Regarding the claims that we are somehow bought by the forestry industry and propagate for it, I do not know if the member listened particularly closely to my speech, but I did not mention the forestry industry at a single moment. The forestry policy I have pursued during the mandate period has primarily concerned ownership. The forest owners, Sweden's 330,000 private landowners, need strengthened legal protection.

I am a member of the constitutional commission reviewing property rights. On paper, property rights have not changed. On paper, Swedish ownership has strong protection. But in practice, over the last 10–15 years, a development has occurred in the completely wrong direction. The right of ownership and use has been fundamentally restricted. It is what we are now determined to do something about, in order to create balance in this system again.

I believe that even the MP from Miljöpartiet shares the view that the current system, where landowners are left high and dry when the state restricts usage, is not okay. That is actually the most important question in all forms of forest policy that we are talking about.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I may not wish to ruin a party, but I hope that the voters punish those parties that fundamentally betray their own ideals and their election promises, among other things by cuddling the leaders of the Sweden Democrats at every turn.

But they also fail in this issue. Södra, which I believe is often portrayed as a cooperative, is also forestry industry.

The very poignant cases, which the member speaks passionately about with much emotion, are actually a few cases, 20–50 cases per year in Sweden. Meanwhile, this government's irresponsible policy, perhaps driven by a hatred of nature, has sabotaged the opportunity for 500–600 forest owners per year. This is, therefore, not a policy that takes responsibility for Sweden's forest owners. It is a policy that unilaterally listens to arguments and propaganda from the forest industry and which is often disguised by presenting it in the form of the forest owners' interests. But there are two different interests here. For those who read the bill and listen, it becomes very clear whose interest one is meeting.

The Chairman of the Committee said that it is also to benefit the countryside that they want to pursue this policy. It is absolutely a praiseworthy thought. But I want to add: Think then of those who live and work in the countryside but who have their forest, their entire surroundings and their landscape changed and destroyed because shareholders from Stockholm want profit on their investments. This is not a policy that is intended to promote local influence, but a policy that moves power from the countryside to Stockholm.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Before I enter into the forest issue itself again, I want, just for the sake of the matter, to express that I stand completely and fully behind my party leader and the direction that our party has taken. It is good for Sweden. We have done fantastically much good in so many areas during this parliamentary term, and we need to continue that journey.

I turn slightly against the rhetoric that labels me as an idiot and explains me as incapable of taking in information and forming my own opinion. Throughout my entire life, I have stood for freedom. Property rights are a foundation in everything I have done politically. Growing up in a forestry family, one realizes how important the right to cultivate and manage one's land is. It is from there that I have my commitment to property rights, not from any newsletters from various actors.

For the sake of the matter, I also want to say that I have a lot of contact with the forest industry and with landowner organizations. But I also have a lot of contact with the environmental movement and other actors in society, as one should when one is politically active. One takes in a lot of information, and one forms one's own opinion.

For me as a liberal, the right of ownership is fundamental. It is a liberal basic foundation.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! The forest constitutes a living environment for a large part of the biodiversity in Sweden and is home to many endangered species. Today's intensive forestry affects many species negatively, and logging is today one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in Sweden. Instead of living forests with trees of all ages, a mixture of tree species and dead wood, our forests today consist largely of plantations with even-aged spruces or pines that are harvested long before they reach their maximum lifespan.

Our forests are managed to provide as high an economic return as possible, and we have a forestry practice that unilaterally prioritizes production at the expense of biodiversity.

The Environmental Goals Preparatory Body has estimated that there are approximately 1.5 million hectares of old-growth forest and natural forest that are not protected in Sweden. These are among the most valuable forests in all of Europe. A report from the Swedish Forest Agency shows that the logging of the forests is four times higher today than when this government took office. If we do nothing, all unprotected old-growth forests and natural forests could be gone in 25 years, and they can never be replaced. The unique shared natural heritage is thus at risk of becoming paper.

The Riksdag has decided on the environmental goal Living Forests, which, among other things, means that the forest's biological processes and ecosystem services shall be maintained, that species shall have the opportunity to spread within their natural distribution areas through green infrastructure, that endangered species shall recover, and that the forest's values for outdoor life shall be protected. The evaluation of the environmental goal shows that it is not being reached and that the development is heading in the wrong direction. We are losing natural values that cannot be recreated, and there is a lack of management measures to ensure preserved biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Many things would need to be done: Stop the logging of forests with high nature values, adopt goals and protect 30 percent of the forest land, transition forestry towards clear-cut-free, introduce economic incentives to let the forest stand longer before logging, and introduce effective sanction possibilities for violations of the Forestry Act.

But how does the government respond to the serious situation? During the mandate period, brutal cuts have been made to nature conservation. Resources for the protection and management of valuable nature, including forests, have been seized since the government took office.

The Environmental Goals Commission had earlier during the parliamentary term an important assignment to propose a strategy for how Sweden should meet commitments within the EU and globally regarding biodiversity and greenhouse gas uptake. During the course of the work, there were a number of good proposals that would have strengthened the forest's biodiversity and climate benefits. Unfortunately, the most significant proposals were rejected by the right-wing parties, and that the report became so diluted was largely a result of the forestry companies' pressures.

Now, the parties in the government base are presenting this bill. There, it is proposed, among other things, that the link between a logging notification according to the Forestry Act and a notification for consultation according to the Environmental Code shall be removed. They also want the time between the logging notification and the logging to be shortened from 63 weeks and that the landowner's cost for obtaining knowledge shall be limited, together with a number of other proposals.

The proposition is a result of the government's forestry investigation, which submitted its final report last year. From the directives to the investigation, it clearly appears that the purpose was to increase deregulation and production within forestry. At the same time, it is claimed that the goals for forestry policy in the Forestry Act, where it states that production and environmental goals shall be equal, shall remain. It simply does not add up.

The government completely ignores that we are in a crisis for both the ecosystems and the climate and that the collective knowledge shows that the development of the environmental status in the forest has long been heading in the wrong direction. In the latest in-depth evaluation of the environmental goal Living Forests, the Swedish Forest Agency states that the main cause of the environmental problems in forestry is the combination of a lack of incentives to protect the environment and the existence of strong economic incentives for production-oriented forestry, while at the same time the policy provides freedom to prioritize timber production.

The Swedish Forest Agency notes that the Swedish model of freedom under responsibility is faltering because the incentives in practice are only aimed at production. In the recently published report Biological Diversity in the Forest, the Swedish Forest Agency states that the condition of biological diversity in Sweden's forests is serious. Underlying causes include, among others, large-scale clear-cutting with limited environmental consideration. It is noted that biological diversity in the forest is a central economic resource and that it constitutes a fundamental prerequisite for the function of forest ecosystems and for the delivery of ecosystem services such as timber production, climate regulation, water purification, erosion protection, flood protection, and recreational values.

Reduced biodiversity can therefore have negative effects for both the environment and the economy. International studies show that the loss of natural capital is already at present affecting financial stability and supply systems negatively.

Despite the crisis that our forests' ecosystems are in, the government and the Sweden Democrats choose to present a bill that worsens the protection of nature and biodiversity. The connection between the Forestry Act and the Environmental Code is weakened by the proposals, and it risks worsening the opportunities for consideration. By shortening the time between the logging notification and the logging, the opportunity to take consideration during logging is worsened. It also limits the opportunities for the public and non-governmental organizations to participate in notifications and submit views before logging.

The Civil Contingencies Agency warns that shorter processing times hinder risk assessments linked to natural disasters such as landslides, rockslides, and floods. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation considers that the proposal impairs the Swedish Forest Agency's ability to exercise supervision. The Swedish Tourist Association and Svenskt Friluftsliv argue that the proposal impairs supervision and that it risks high nature and recreation values.

Vänsterpartiet agrees with the criticism from the referral bodies and considers that the bill deteriorates the protection of biodiversity and weakens the possibilities to achieve a long-term sustainable forestry. We only support the proposal that decisions according to the Forestry Act shall be appealed to the Land and Environment Court instead of as they currently do to the Administrative Court. We think it is reasonable that all appeals are gathered in the same type of court, which can lead to a more uniform and efficient review. Otherwise, we move for the bill to be rejected.

I move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rebecka Le Moine (MP) agreed.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the bill, and I also move for the approval of reservation 6.

Mr. Speaker! The forest is important for Sweden. It means a lot for jobs, business, the climate transition, and the entire countryside.

For many forest owners, the forest is also something very personal. It is land that has been inherited for generations. It is forest that one has planted, cleared, and thinned oneself, and which one hopes to be able to pass on in good condition. Therefore, forest policy is important. It is not just about rules and paragraphs, but it is about what conditions people should have to cultivate and develop their land.

I cannot help but comment on some things that have been said today. There have been some discussions about northern Sweden and that it would be a shame for people if forest is cleared around the area because it becomes boring for those who live there.

For those of us who live and work in the countryside in northern Sweden, and surely also in other places, forestry is life. It is what makes our villages and communities exist at all many times, that we have jobs to go to, that house prices are reasonably high, and that residents in surrounding villages can work in the village where the forestry is located. Forestry can be the reason why the road is built. It might never be built if it weren't for the fact that timber transports traveled on that road.

For me, logging and forestry are life in the countryside. We are not so spoiled with jobs. There are no large labor markets nearby. It is unfortunate that that part is not being put forward.

I would like to point out another thing. It is strange that some of us in the chamber talk about biodiversity but mention nothing about climate. The forest is not just a carbon sink where it stands, but it means a great deal for replacing products that today come from fossil fuels. That is something, if anything, that is important to bring up.

Then it was the question of natural forests. I live near the mountain areas in the inland of Norrland, and I can say that over 1 million hectares of mountain forest is designated as natural forest. It is also natural forest.

When I hear representatives for, for example, Miljöpartiet stand on TV and say that the old-growth forests will be gone within 25 years, I think they are stretching the truth.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's proposition contains several proposals aimed at simplifying things for Sweden's forest owners, which is very positive. A good deal is heading in the right direction, and we welcome the proposals that strengthen property rights and reduce unnecessary complications.

But I and the Centre Party had probably hoped that the bill would be somewhat more comprehensive and contain more of all the wise suggestions that the investigator Göran Örlander put forward. The problem is not what is written in the bill, Mr. Speaker, but what is missing.

The Forest Inquiry was tasked with developing reforms that strengthen property rights and at the same time create better conditions for an active and sustainable forestry. The investigator performed extensive work and, as mentioned, put forward many important proposals. The Government has, at the current stage, proceeded with a smaller part, and that is what my criticism concerns.

Something I want to emphasize is the forest's climate benefit, and the investigator wrote quite a bit about this. Today we often speak of climate benefit as how much carbon is stored in standing forest. That is of course important, but it is not the whole picture. Let me take an example. If a tree stands in the forest, it binds carbon, which is good. But if the tree is harvested and used to build houses in wood instead of in concrete, emissions from construction can decrease; if the residual products are used for biofuels, they can replace fossil diesel; and if wood fiber is used in packaging or textiles, they can replace plastic and other fossil-based materials. That is also climate benefit.

The investigator also suggested that Sweden should develop a broader way to measure the forest's climate benefit. Today, we primarily look at how much carbon is stored in the standing forest, and the investigator argues that this measure is too narrow and does not capture the forest's entire contribution to the climate transition. The advantage of a broader measure is that we get a better basis for decision-making and can make more well-founded decisions on how the forest can best contribute to the climate both as a carbon sink and as a renewable source of raw materials, and then for more than just paper. Centerpartiet would have liked to see that proposal in the bill.

I believe this would have been good, because in many news reports and debates it is only highlighted that the forest should stand where it stands and not be harvested because it is the best carbon sink. But that the forest is so much more and, for example, can be used to replace products that today are based on fossil raw materials is important information that needs to be communicated to the public.

Mr. Speaker! Now, regarding the consultation obligation. To some extent, this is included in the bill, and fundamentally, the Centre Party shares the government's ambition. Fewer forestry measures shall require consultation, which can reduce the bureaucracy for forest owners. That is good. But here lies a problem: We do not yet know which measures will require consultation in the future. If consultation is only required in a few clearly sensitive situations, it will be a real simplification. But if many ordinary forestry measures are still covered, the change will be significantly smaller. There is some criticism here, as the Riksdag is expected to take a position on the reform before it is possible to assess how great the simplification actually will be.

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps the most important thing missing from the bill is a clear package to increase the forest's growth. This is crucial, not least if Sweden is to reduce its dependence on oil and gas. Fossil-based fuels, building materials, and products shall be replaced with renewable alternatives. But from where shall the renewable raw materials come? An important answer is: from the Swedish forest. But if we want to use more bio-based materials, we also need to produce more raw material in a sustainable way.

Then modern forest management plays a major role. It is important to remember that it is not only rules that determine how much forest is produced. Knowledge and investments also play a major role. Two forest owners can have similar land and similar conditions. But if one receives better advice, uses better seedlings and thins at the right time, that forest can, after a few decades, yield significantly more timber of better quality. Therefore, it is not enough to merely simplify rules. We also need more measures that strengthen forestry in practice.

Here the investigator is clear. It is primarily the forest owners and the forestry industry that provide the investments in the forest. The State's role is not to make the investments itself, but to create conditions that make it more attractive and possible to invest.

The investigator highlighted, among other things, that the state can contribute through better advice, knowledge transfer, and research. This can involve how the forests of the future should better withstand drought, storms, and pest attacks while simultaneously producing more raw materials in a sustainable way. It can also concern research and investments in better plant material, improved forest cultivation material, and new technology that can increase growth and strengthen the forest's production capacity. It can also be better support for forest owners when it comes to thinning, regeneration, and climate adaptation.

It is this totality that is missing in the bill, but which I hope will be highlighted in due course.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Forestry is long-term. A forest owner does not make decisions in four-year cycles; instead, many decisions are made in perspectives of 30, 50, or 80 years. Therefore, forest policy must also be long-term and predictable. The bill takes steps in the right direction, but a bit more is needed. We need to become better at measuring the forest's climate benefit, we need clearer rules, and we need better conditions to increase growth in a sustainable way.

Sweden's forest owners make long-term decisions every day. Politics should also do so.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Lindahl for the speech. It is always pleasant to listen to the member when she talks about forest policy. But sometimes when I listen to representatives for Centerpartiet, it sounds as if as long as the landowner receives compensation for a restriction in ongoing land use, it is acceptable. A sufficiently large cash box seems to be the solution to everything. This applies to species protection restrictions and sometimes even upcoming restoration plans.

This is for me pure socialist lines of thought, where the starting point is that the state takes what the state wants and also considers itself entitled to it because the state's interests are always superior to the individual's. As a liberal, I shudder a little just by uttering this.

Is compensation not merely a hygiene factor in a constitutional state when a restriction occurs, Helena Lindahl? Is it not at least equally important that the number of restrictions becomes fewer and that, to a greater extent than today, they are based on well-motivated grounds?

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It almost feels as if it was I who stood there where Elin Nilsson stands and asked questions to Elin Nilsson. For me, it felt as if I stood outside a bubble and looked in. I thought: What is she saying? That is what I usually say.

I agree that we should not pour tax money into provisions. In the Committee on the Instrument of Government, the Center Party argues that it should be proportionate, meaning that the state must align its mouth with its wallet. That is how it should be. One should protect that which is most worthy of protection. It is also something that the Center Party's members think is good and which we also make decisions about at conventions.

I assume the member has read something else, but in that case I say: One should not believe everything one reads! That is what mom told me when I was little and read gossip magazines.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Lindahl, for the answer! It is probably now I should ask the member how she and the Center Party will gain traction for this view among that crowd of left-wing parties that the Center intends to govern the country with after the election. But I will leave that be, because if there is anything that stands clear for everyone in this chamber, it is that Helena Lindahl does not need to wear checkered shirts to show that she is always ready to draw a lance for property rights and family forestry.

I will instead take the opportunity to thank the member for the clear voice she has been for family forestry and property rights during her years in the Riksdag, which she will soon leave. Helena Lindahl has made a difference, and I am convinced that the member will continue to do so in one way or another.

It has been fantastically fun to get to know and work together with the member. We have been able to do that even though we currently belong to different sides of politics. You are always welcome over.

I am, of course, thinking particularly of our trips to Ukraine. If those are there is much to tell, but there is no time for that and everything might not even be appropriate here in the chamber. But particularly memorable was when we by mistake got to closely examine Polish forestry a few kilometers from the Ukrainian border when we took a wrong turn and suddenly found ourselves on a very poor forest road. I believe we were both quite grateful then to have been raised in the countryside and to be able to handle rather bad roads.

Thank you for everything you have done here, Helena Lindahl, and thank you for your fine friendship!

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you so very much again, Elin Nilsson! I was almost speechless and also moved.

It is something special to begin in the Riksdag. You will all surely remember your first day here, how you pinched your arm and were terrified that someone would throw open the door and ask if you knew something, and then you would crack and show that you didn't know it. Now the last day is almost here – it is at least our last debate today – and then perhaps one feels it in a different way. But one remembers both.

This is my fourth term. I must say that it has been a wonderful privilege to be a member of the Riksdag, to carry the people's trust and hope, and also to share the days with fantastic civil servants, politicians, and all of you in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. Even though we sometimes have tough debates and perhaps do not always agree, I like you very much as people. Some of you have also become my friends. I will continue to have close contact with you.

I am so happy that I have had the opportunity to get to know Elin Nilsson. We share very much, not least the love for the forest and for the countryside. I want to convey a warm and heartfelt thank you, from the bottom of my heart!

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In Helena Lindahl's speech, we heard about the importance of increasing production and much more. I also heard some criticism regarding the fact that Miljöpartiet reads out figures stating that old-growth and natural forests could be gone in 25 years. Therefore, I thought I would take the opportunity to repeat them. It concerns 670,000 hectares of forest with irreplaceable values. It is not an opinion, but it is Skogsstyrelsen that has come up with these figures and this report. If we have reached a situation where not even our expert agencies' reports can be accepted or the content taken as a truth, it is difficult to find a common ground. I will therefore repeat this at all given opportunities, because it is important.

I move on to my questions. I believe that we have a common interest and a common enthusiasm for landowners in Sweden, forest owners all around our country, who want to do good for the environment and who have a vision for their forest, to also be given the opportunity to realize it.

I am very concerned about the profitability for forest owners in Sweden. Between 2011 and 2017, 60 percent incurred a loss. Only 20 percent made a profit. For Södra's typical farm, the profit is 2,920 kronor. That is a figure that does not hold up particularly well if one compares it with other forest owners within the EU. This is, therefore, before capital costs. My question to the member is what measures – which perhaps were not included in the bill – that we, if the Center Party could have a wish, would have needed to get in place to increase the profitability for the individual forest owner.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Rebecka Le Moine! I will also, with a fool's persistence, repeat that the forestry industry is important for Sweden and for the countryside. I have myself lived in one of all these villages where the saw meant everything and still does. It creates jobs for several hundred people both in Bygdsiljum village and in surrounding villages. I do not know what would happen to them and other villages and with all the investments in infrastructure around them if the forestry industry did not exist.

Sometimes I feel sad when I think that things are polarized too much regarding the forest and it is said that it is only being cut down and used for paper. That is not true, and the tragic thing is that one doesn't even get the opportunity to comment on it in the media.

For example, there is something circulating from Ekot about how in 25 years all old-growth forests will be gone. I believe it was one of the Miljöpartiets spokespeople who said it in one of the evening news channels. But then one does not tell the whole truth, but actually only talks about the forest below the mountain tree line. I think one should say it, because there is already a very large amount of protected forest. If I remember correctly, 1.2 million hectares of mountain forest are protected. There are enormous natural values there. Why does Miljöpartiet not bring that up?

I do not have time to answer the question about what we in Centerpartiet dream of and how we will increase the income for forest owners, but I may get the chance in my second speech.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The job creation in the forest industry concerns me very much, because at the same rate as the forest industry is rationalized, jobs are also rationalized away. I have visited sawmills and heard about investments that are to lead to doubled capacity and volume. What was also said then was that it will not mean that twice as much forest is delivered without it affecting others and making it so that they cannot flourish in the same way.

The question of jobs when one takes in twice as much forest volume in production is also interesting. The number of jobs will, in fact, remain the same. One increases the volume but maintains the same workforce, while other sawmills are closed down.

According to the statistics, fewer and fewer people are working in the forestry sector. The number decreased by 60 percent between 1990 and 2020. At the same time as one is happy that forestry is becoming more automated and rational, jobs are disappearing along this path. The industry is also becoming centralized.

Of those who perform the actual work, very few are Swedish citizens. The absolute largest part of those who are employed and handle planting and clearing come from abroad.

I see this as two major challenges that could achieve better development if we transitioned and created a more local economy and more local jobs through a continuous-cover and nature-oriented forestry. Now I give the Center Party the chance to respond. How do you view the possible development?

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! There were many questions that I will not be able to answer in two minutes. But I will try to do my best.

This is how it looks across all industries. Things and objects are streamlined over the decades, and new technology arrives. But it also creates new jobs.

I am thinking right now about the forest's climate benefit. We need, for example, to create more production of biofuels in Sweden, and it is clearly wise to create that where the forest is. That can also contribute to more jobs.

Short-lived and long-lived products are also better for the climate than using fossil products as a base. I believe the member agrees with that.

Then it is the case that if more people compete for the forest, the prices for the forest will also increase. Then the one who is a forest owner will also receive better pay. I must say that I have not heard of any forest owner who is dissatisfied, but we may be meeting different people. I am not saying that it is wrong; I am only saying that I have not heard it before.

There lies, in fact, the Center Party's wish: that we should become more self-sufficient, not just in food but also in artificial fertilizer and on biodiesel – things that we can actually already create today in Sweden with the help of the forest by utilizing, for example, biogenic carbon dioxide through a catalytic process and so on.

But it is also the case that both forest industries and forest owners need to have long-term, secure rules of the game. One cannot have uncertainty that the state will lay a wet blanket over large parts of forest owners' lands so that they can take those cases to court in order to get paid. As my colleague said: We cannot have that in a rule of law state.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I actually intended to extend a bit of the exchange we have had in the back-and-forth we have had here earlier. The latest concluded with that the state shall not lay a wet blanket over the countryside.

Today, the Riksdag's narrow majority has voted through that municipalities shall not be able to have a veto against uranium mines. Opening mines is truly to lay a wet blanket over the landscape. But then the government speaks very quietly, or actually not at all, about the right of ownership.

When it comes to foreign mines, the companies override the ownership rights and the history that the people in these places have managed, the farms that one might have considered investing in and passing on to their children and grandchildren. Instead, one has to live in uncertainty and with the worry that this place might be transformed into a gigantic mine hole.

There has also been a lot of talk about funding and that one must prioritize. I note then that one chooses to prioritize away all those landowners – there are very many of them, 556 – who during a period of one year have contacted the Swedish Forest Agency and the county administrative boards and said: "I would like to protect my forest." Those landowners exist. But it is spoken very quietly or not at all about them from the perspective of the Tidö parties. It is those landowners who now have to live in anxiety and uncertainty. Will it be possible to receive compensation for the high nature values that one wants to and takes the initiative to protect on a voluntary basis?

The answer is no, because this government has cut the nature conservation budget – perhaps as a retaliatory action against Miljöpartiet. But those who are affected are the landowners, who are forced to stand in line and live with this uncertainty. Their demand corresponds to three years of budget of the Tidö parties' size. This shows quite well the government's nonchalance towards landowners who do not go along with the forestry industry's dictates and who do not choose to let the forestry industry annex their forest on its own terms.

Mr. Speaker! This bill is a product that aims to force volume, logging, and delivery straight down to the forest industry. There is not a trace of regulatory simplification for forest owners. There is nothing that meets their everyday lives and nothing that is about making it easier for those forest owners who want something other than clear-cuts.

Mr. Speaker! When the last old-growth forests are logged, we lose not only biodiversity but also carbon storage, climate adaptation, important values for people's everyday lives, and the society's long-term resilience. These losses are in many cases irreversible.

This is something that the British intelligence report warns about. Without secure and functional ecosystems, we get a less secure and functional society. The boreal forests are actually identified in the report as a risk, and we can easily imagine that. If we are in an insecure situation with actors who wish Sweden ill, and on top of that have to handle forest fires, floods, or other forms of natural disasters, we become even more vulnerable.

According to new research, it is estimated that intensive Swedish forestry has caused a carbon loss that is greater than Sweden's fossil emissions since 1834. I repeat, Mr. Speaker: The emissions from forest mismanagement in Sweden over a long period correspond to and exceed the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels since 1834.

This is something that is completely astonishing and alarming, and it should overturn the entire forest debate. But the Tidö government has done everything just to continue with business as usual.

Sweden's last old-growth forests are now disappearing. The Swedish Forest Agency shows in its analyses that if today's logging continues, all unprotected old-growth forests and continuity forests below the mountain-adjacent boundary, which covers 670,000 hectares of forest with completely irreplaceable values, could be gone in 25–26 years. And the rate of logging of the forests that should never be logged is accelerating during the Tid government's time.

At the same time, climate change is increasing the risks both for the forest itself and for society. In this situation, the government chooses to pursue a policy that increases the pressure on the forest, reduces control, and weakens protection. It goes in a completely opposite direction to what research says is needed. It also goes completely against what the Swedish people are demanding.

These are proposals that do not benefit the forest owners, despite the attempt to dress them in such rhetoric. The proposals that simplify the forest owners' everyday lives and entrepreneurship are conspicuously absent in this bill.

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the direction of Swedish forest policy. The direction that the government is now proposing leads to more red tape and more legal uncertainty and to more responsibility being placed on the private forest owner. This risks leading to more logging being carried out that actually violates the law and the laws that we jointly enact. These loggings will to a greater extent take place outside of our authorities' control.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the rejection of the entire bill and for the approval of reservation 1.

I intended to go into some of the proposals that exist. The first concerns the connection between the logging notification and the Environmental Code. The Government wants to remove the automatic connection between the logging notification and consultation according to the Environmental Code. This may sound technical, but in practice, it is a comprehensive system shift.

Mr. Speaker! Today's agenda may not be perfect, but it serves a function. It provides an opportunity to highlight natural values, authorities are given the opportunity to intervene, and there is a basic structure that provides both supervision and a certain degree of legal certainty. Now the government wants to replace this with a new system that is, in practice, not described. It is presented in a few sentences but lacks concrete content and a proper impact assessment.

This is not serious legislation, Mr. Speaker, and the consequences risk becoming very serious. When the responsibility is shifted from the system to the individual landowner, it is the landowner who must decide for themselves when consultations are required. This implies a risk of misjudgments, and it means that people can end up in situations where they unintentionally break the law with criminal liability as a consequence.

There are no clear rules for how the new order shall function. There are no concrete boundaries and no sufficient impact assessment. We are, therefore, to make decisions in the Riksdag regarding a change whose actual content is not described but shall be developed in retrospect. This is not a responsible legislative process.

The second proposal I want to dwell on concerns reducing the time from a logging notification to an automatic approval of logging. That process looks like this today: a landowner notifies the Swedish Forest Agency of which area is to be logged, and after six weeks, an automatic approval will be issued to begin logging.

This is already a completely crazy situation, as the Swedish Forest Agency does not have time to even look at these cases or visit the forest within six weeks. This can therefore mean – and in several cases does mean – that forests with high nature values and species that have legal protection are being logged, even though they have not even been reviewed. They are being logged in defiance of the legislation we have jointly enacted.

By shortening this period to three weeks, the Swedish Forest Agency will have even less opportunity to provide advice and assistance. There will be even less opportunity for forest owners who want to be responsible in their management to actually follow the common legislation. A notification can therefore, after three weeks, lead to an automatic approval.

Forest owners often have a long-term perspective. They may have inherited their forest and been on the site for generations – for several decades. This is a long-term business. To come forward with a proposal that is to shorten the final period for the forest from six weeks to three weeks is nothing that improves the situation for the private landowner. One has had years to think through these decisions.

Madam Speaker! I shall provide some background and context. We have in Sweden an industry that is over-established. It is about stomachs that cannot be satisfied even if we were to clear all the Swedish forests; we would still need to import timber.

We now have a situation where we primarily have forest that is young, and we have forest that is old. It is not permitted to fell the young forest, and it is in the old forest that the species often have their habitat and where the biodiversity exists. According to the Environmental Code, logging may actually not take place where there are endangered protected species that live and reside at the location in question.

That is why the actual reason is not to make it easier for the landowner, but to ensure that forests that otherwise would never have been harvested can now slip through and be available for an insatiable industry after three weeks. Today, as has been said, only 1–2 percent of the harvests are inspected; we do not know much about the rest. Now this is to be halved.

It is as if the government had a goal that 99.0 to 99.5 percent of all logging of forests in Sweden should occur outside of our control and against our legislation. It would have been pleasant if, in that case, one had been honest about this objective.

Madam Speaker! When the time to submit information and different opinions shrinks, the opportunity to influence also shrinks. This actually violates the Åhus Commission's intention to enable different organizations to submit opinions and to have the opportunity to influence their surroundings – especially that which has a large environmental effect.

Madam Speaker! We are currently in a situation where biodiversity in the forest is decreasing. We have a new red list that is 800 species longer than the previous one. The most problematic thing about this bill is not each part individually, but it is the overall development that it also symbolizes.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to stand for a different path. We want a forestry that is long-term sustainable, which ensures biodiversity and where we can strengthen legal certainty and not weaken it. The large clear-cuts are a dead end that is not worth investing in.

We see this changing. We also see it in how large companies boycott SCA's large clear-cuts that conflict with the Sami villages' will. Change is therefore on the way.

We want to see an immediate stop to the logging of Sweden's last nature-valued forests. We want the state to protect instead of logging what the state itself has said should be preserved, that reasonable compensation is given to the landowners as an alternative, and that one does not only see the options in logging. We want to introduce economic incentives, for such are lacking today.

We want a bonus-malus system where forest owners who choose sustainable forestry and who are interested in nature conservation can share in this fund. We want to see a transition away from large clear-cuts towards a clear-cut-free and nature-oriented forestry.

Madam Speaker! There is still hope, even though we will see this bill voted through. I, who have sat in the forest investigation's reference group, have seen several other proposals that the Tidö government has failed to push through, so even though it is a bad proposal we have before us, I am glad that it is not filled with more absurdities than those that I have now presented.

There is also hope in that 80 percent of the Swedish people think it is important and very urgent to quickly establish a protection of Sweden's last primeval and natural forests. There is also a hope in that just by entering the Riksdag today, one is met by several citizens who have come here to point out how important it is that we overhaul the forest policy, which today benefits the forest industry rather than the many forest owners in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I long for and count down to the time when we have an election. I hope that it will be a forest election, and I hope that this product will be a small parenthesis before we overhaul Swedish forest policy.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the member a couple of questions. Is Swedish forestry unimportant? Does the Green Party believe that bonus malus in the forest will promote Swedish exports and our 330,000 forest owners?

Furthermore, I wonder why the member continues to insist that all old-growth forests will disappear within 25 years. We just had an exchange of remarks where I, among other things, spoke about how 1.2 million hectares of mountain forest are set aside, and that is old-growth forest. I can understand that it is in Miljöpartiets interest to protect more forest at the expense of forest owners and the Swedish forest industry, but I wonder why you do not stick to the truth, Rebecka Le Moine. It is simply not honest to say that all old-growth forest disappears within 25 years when so much old-growth forest is already set aside.

How can this be? Isn't it better if you are honest and say it as it is?

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! For every figure I have mentioned during the debate, I have a reference. If anyone has listened and taken note of this and is interested in learning more or wants to know where a particular piece of information comes from, I can certainly provide that.

A question was asked whether export is the most important thing. For us, the answer is no. We prioritize the profitability for the private forest owners. A bonus-malus system would have been very favorable for all those forest owners who want a transition, and they are not few – in just one year, 556 landowners have submitted expressions of interest to voluntarily protect their forest. But they cannot receive any compensation because the Tidö Government has prioritized them away. It is therefore an important issue for landowners to be able to have alternatives to clear-cutting their forest.

It is absolutely important with Swedish forestry, but the individual landowner and forest owner in Sweden has low profitability – so low that I am surprised, and actually ashamed, that we do not prioritize this issue higher. We talk about the large forestry industry, which makes billion-dollar profits, while at the same time Södra's example with a farm site shows that the profitability is very low. It is furthermore before capital costs.

The question that I think deserves more attention – especially from the Center Party, where they speak warmly about the countryside – is how we can achieve a local economy. How can we strengthen the profitability and the opportunities for the individual forest owners instead of staring blindly at SCA and the exports abroad?

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

The chairman says that the Green Party prioritizes profitability for forest owners. Yet you want to force the forest owners to choose a socialist model with bonus malus in the forest, Rebecka Le Moine. So, the forest owners are not to be allowed to choose for themselves how they shall manage their forest. I must say that it is the worst thing I have heard. It means that you in the Green Party think that you are better than the forest owners themselves at deciding about their forest. So, we cannot have that.

Those who want to practice selective logging can do so already today; no one is forbidding it. But it is not suitable everywhere. Furthermore, I do not think that one should look down on Swedish exports. They create an enormous number of jobs, not least in the countryside, where I and many others live and live – and want to continue to live. If we were only to practice selective logging and force the forest owners into your socialist model, I can promise you that villages like Bygdsiljum and others would not survive, and then I do not know what the point is with Miljöpartiet's policy.

I think it is better for you to say it as it is, namely that you want to prioritize key biotopes over forest owners and lay a wet blanket over Swedish forestry. That is what I hear in what you are saying.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! A question was asked regarding the figure 670,000 hectares of mountain forest. It is, therefore, below the mountain-adjacent limit, which I also said. It stands very clearly here in my manuscript.

It does not take away from the fact that we have already protected mountain forests that are very worthy of protection but have low productivity. There is no contradiction here, but rather it is about what is below the mountain tree line. This is simply a fact. I think it is important that we as politicians can convey what conclusions our expert agencies draw in their analyses. There is nothing to be ashamed of. There is always more to do, and this is urgent.

I return to bonus-malus. It is not socialist in any way, but it is an industry-funded fund. To say that it is socialist is like saying that the 556 forest owners who want to protect their forest would be communists, and it is truly to look down on everyone who thinks something other than what the Center Party and the government think.

I do not see the countryside and these landowners as a cash register that is to deliver and meet the forestry industry's wishes and demands. It is about people who have their own will, and I respect them. Therefore, I have been involved in designing policies to meet their needs.

We have an inconsistency with different governments, and this government has removed the funding that was supposed to go towards compensating all those landowners who want something else. For one year, it is therefore 556 landowners who have contacted the state in various ways and said "Please, help us!" – but who are being ignored. I am ashamed that people speak about them in this way. They are not mentioned. They are not important in the politics being conducted.

We in Miljöpartiet consider them to be important, however, and the bonus-malus system is for them.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 June.)

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