Improved regulatory framework for the taxation of forests
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 S welcomes the proposals on forest accounts and periodization but emphasizes that reforms must not increase complexity and that the species protection issue must be resolved 1. 2 V considers that production goals must be subject to environmental and climate considerations 2. 3 SD argues that forest owners should not be penalized fiscally for nature conservation 3. 4 C considers that nature conservation work should be based on voluntary initiatives, wants increased flexibility, annual payments, and that compensation for denied logging in mountain-adjacent forests is covered by the compensation fund 4. 5 M welcomes the changes as ownership is a fundamental principle and considers that the nature conservation account creates better planning conditions 5. 6 MP considers that the government is failing landowners by lowering the compensation amounts and that forestry is not sustainable 6. 7 KD considers that the government's proposals are wise solutions that provide stability 7. 8 L considers that the bill is well-balanced 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Malin Larsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a forest country. The forest is a fundamental pillar in our economy, in the climate transition, and in regional development – but it is also people's life's work and security. For many families, the forest is an industry planned over generations. Therefore, tax rules and compensation systems must be long-term, predictable, and fair.
The bill we are debating today aims to improve and simplify the tax rules for forest owners. The Social Democrats welcome several of the proposals, not least those concerning the forest account and the possibility of better periodization. At the same time, we want to be clear that reforms in this area must be seen in a larger context.
We stand behind our specific statement in the report. This means that we support the bill, but with some clear markings. The changes must not lead to increased complexity, and they do not solve the most acute issue for many forest owners, namely the consequences of species protection and the lack of functioning compensation systems.
We also want to remind that much of what is now being implemented is based on the previous forest investigation, which was produced during the last parliamentary term.
The revenues often come in larger items when logging occurs, while the costs and investments are long-term. The possibility to smooth out income over time is therefore crucial. Improving this tool strengthens the predictability and planning possibilities for many forest owners.
Even the proposal to introduce a nature conservation account is fundamentally a step in the right direction. Being able to periodize compensation for nature conservation agreements improves liquidity and reduces the risk of tax shocks in a single year. It can make voluntary nature conservation set-asides more attractive and contribute to more sustainable use.
At the same time, there are reasons to be attentive. Several referral bodies have pointed out that they would rather have seen a nature conservation fund than another account. There is a concern that the system risks becoming administratively complex. The Swedish Forest Agency has also pointed out that the basis is uncertain regarding the estimation of how large areas are covered by nature conservation agreements. This creates question marks regarding how large the effects actually will be.
Therefore, we want to emphasize that it is crucial that the changes do not lead to unnecessary complexity. A regulatory framework that is perceived as complicated risks counteracting its purpose. For the individual forest owner, the rules must be both understandable and practically manageable.
Mr. Speaker! The bill also contains an opportunity to postpone the taxation of certain compensation payments for up to ten years through a new compensation fund. This is positive. In parts of the country where the availability of compensation land is limited, reasonable timeframes are needed to be able to make well-considered decisions. A longer time limit reduces the risk that forest owners are forced to purchase compensation land under time pressure.
It is important that society takes responsibility when land is taken for common interests. When the state restricts ongoing land use, the individual should not bear the cost alone. That principle is fundamental.
Mr. Speaker, the most acute issue for many forest owners today is not addressed in the bill. It concerns species protection and situations where forest owners are denied the right to manage their forest.
More and more people experience that their right of use is being restricted through species protection decisions or denied logging permits. And they receive no compensation. That is where the uncertainty is greatest, that is where the frustration grows, and that is where trust in the system is tested.
The government has presented parts of a new compensation system. It is good that the issue is acknowledged, but there is still no unified overall solution. It remains to be seen how the compensations shall be financed in the long term, how legal certainty shall be ensured, and how the forest owners who have already been caught in the squeeze shall be handled.
At the same time, the budget for compensation to forest and land owners has been reduced by nearly 70 percent during this mandate period. This means that many are already waiting for compensation today. In that case, it is not enough to adjust technical parts of the taxation. The system must also be fully funded and function in practice.
For us Social Democrats, it is obvious that we shall utilize our forests but also that biodiversity must be protected. It is equally obvious that compensation shall be paid when the state restricts ongoing land use. Property rights and environmental considerations must be able to coexist.
It is also important to mention the issue of taxation of compensation in cases of denied logging permits. When Skatteverket changed its position in 2023, it had significant consequences. The difference between taxation in the income category for business activities and capital can be very large. The issue has been raised, among other things, through a written question to the Minister for Finance. The Government has, however, announced that the form of taxation will not be changed within the framework of this reform. This means that even if certain improvements are made to the regulations, an uncertainty remains for those forest owners who end up in this situation. It reinforces the need for a holistic solution where compensation, taxation, and legal certainty are interconnected.
Mr. Speaker! We support the bill because it contains several improvements: the Forest Account is strengthened, the possibility to periodize compensation is improved, and the adaptation to EU law is necessary. That is good. But we do so with clear markings. The rules must not become more complex, the compensation system must be fully funded, and the acute issue of species protection and missing compensation must be resolved in its entirety.
Sweden needs a strong, sustainable and competitive forestry. The forest is a key in the climate transition and in the development of the green industry. But long-term investments require stable and fair rules of the game. Forest owners must be able to plan for generational shifts and sustainable management without living in uncertainty about compensation or sudden economic consequences of political decisions.
Tax policy is not just technique. It is a matter of security, responsibility, and justice.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Mr. Speaker! The forest is one of our most important resources. As someone who has lived in Dalarna for a long time, I truly know how significant it is. The forest is a habitat for a multitude of different species and generates a range of ecosystem services in addition to storing carbon and producing raw materials.
We in Vänsterpartiet do not consider Swedish forestry as a whole today to be sufficiently sustainable to achieve our climate ambitions and preserve a high level of biodiversity. Our position is that production goals need to be subordinate to environmental and climate considerations.
If we are to achieve sustainable forestry, the supply of raw materials cannot be the governing factor for how our forests are managed. Nature's limits, with preserved ecosystems and biodiversity, must be the framework for how the forests are utilized. Within these frameworks, sustainable management should provide us with raw materials and energy that can, among other things, replace fossil energy and raw materials with a large climate impact.
That we use our forest resources in a sustainable way is crucial for us to be able to meet both the climate crisis and the depletion of biodiversity. These crises must be solved together.
Mr. Speaker! It is a step in the right direction that the government is now moving forward with proposals for improved conditions for forest owners for the taxation of forest. But we agree with the Green Party's reservation in the matter that the time limit on a nature conservation account should correspond to the duration of the nature conservation agreement.
Eric Westroth (SD)
Mr. Speaker! The Committee on Taxation is therefore debating report SkU18, which deals with the government's bill on more purposeful taxation of infringement compensation and the share of profits given for nature conservation purposes.
Let us begin by establishing a fundamental truth, namely that Swedish forest owners are the backbone of our country's economy. They are not only stewards of our vast forests, but they are also entrepreneurs, innovators, and key actors in the Swedish business community.
Think about it for a moment: Approximately 70 percent of Sweden's total area is covered by forest. It is an enormous area – green, living, and constantly renewable. Of this forest, a full 75 percent is managed in an active and responsible manner, and every year only around 1 percent of the stock is harvested. 1 percent is an extremely cautious rate, which means that the forest is constantly growing back stronger than it is taken.
For every tree that is cut down, at least two new seedlings are planted, and every year, around 400 million new seedlings are planted in our forests. It is not just a short-term replacement but also a conscious investment in the future, generation after generation. Thanks to active, sustainable forestry, the timber stock in our Swedish forests has doubled in just a few generations. It is a concrete proof that production and conservation do not need to stand against each other but rather reinforce each other.
Sweden is also one of the world's absolute largest exporters of pulp, paper, and sawn timber. During 2024 alone, the Swedish forest industry generated around 185 billion kronor in export revenues. That is money that comes home to Sweden, which builds welfare, schools, roads, and healthcare across the entire country.
We must also not forget that the forest industry creates jobs, especially where they are needed most. In rural areas and smaller towns, where the alternatives are often few, the industry employs around 140,000 people. These are real jobs, with meaning and a future, that keep entire communities alive.
Therefore, it is not only reasonable but also a duty that we as a country, and above all we as those who enact laws, value the forest, forestry, and the Swedish forest owners highly. And now we must ensure that they are given reasonable conditions to manage the challenges that arise when the state introduces limitations in production to protect unique nature.
Mr. Speaker! The bill we are now considering is a step in the right direction to provide forest owners with the support they deserve. When the state, through the Environmental Code or the Forestry Act, restricts the right of disposal over land for nature conservation purposes, whether it concerns future-use releases, buyouts, or nature conservation agreements, it often leads to a loss of production. It is a price that forest owners pay for the common good, to preserve biodiversity, and to protect sensitive ecosystems. But this must not become an unreasonable burden. Forest owners must, above all, not be penalized fiscally for contributing to this. On the contrary, they should be given tools to mitigate the effects and continue to move their businesses forward.
Let me get into the core of the bill.
First and foremost, the government proposes a special compensation fund for nature conservation land. This means that forest owners who receive compensation for encroachment or buyout due to nature conservation can set aside the amount in a fund and defer the taxation. This is a direct response to what the forest owners' organizations and the Forestry Commission have pointed out, namely that in areas with a limited supply of attractive forest land, it takes time to find the right investment.
The next important part concerns the periodization of compensation for nature conservation agreements. These agreements, which often extend over five years or longer, provide compensation that is currently taxed as a lump sum, which can lead to high progressive tax and unnecessary economic burden. The Government therefore proposes a nature conservation account where up to 90 percent of the compensation can be deposited into a special account in a credit institution. The deduction is generous, with a minimum limit of 25,000 kronor, and withdrawals can be spread over ten years.
This is not just a tax technicality, but it is a way to give the forest owners some breathing room. An average agreement can provide around 250,000 kronor, and without the possibility of periodization, the tax effect can become significant. With the nature conservation account, one can spread the income, reduce the progressivity, and better match the expenses for the loss of production that the agreements entail. The rules follow those for forest accounts, with flexible withdrawals after four months and the possibility of transfer during generational shifts – all to facilitate those who run family businesses across generations.
When the state introduces restrictions to protect nature, it is our duty to provide forest owners with reasonable conditions to compensate for the loss. The bill proposes this for the most part, even if an individual forest owner might wish for more. I nevertheless wish to conclude by moving for approval of the proposal in the committee report.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing to listen to so many engaged contributions regarding Swedish forestry and that the Speaker is also listening attentively. The Speaker naturally always does so, but he is extra attentive now. It is very pleasing.
It is now about an industry that is incredibly important for Sweden, as so many previous speakers have mentioned. It is also a question of an incredibly sustainable industry. I do not know if there is any other natural resource that we can utilize without consuming. Just as previous speakers have mentioned: If we cut down a tree, we plant two new ones. The entire ecosystem can continue for all time. It is simply fantastic.
It is also pleasing that several of the proposals in the bill come from the latest forestry bill that the Center Party was involved in negotiating during the previous mandate period. Now, parts of those proposals appear to be being realized. It feels great.
When one reads the report, it can in many ways be perceived as being about nature conservation and biodiversity. That is true, but what is important is what comes with nature conservation and biodiversity and how we work with that issue.
If we are to protect biodiversity, we must do so in a way that does not affect the individual business operator, who operates a business for the benefit of Sweden, for Sweden's economy as well as the climate and environment. It must not affect them economically in the form of unreasonable or unfair taxation or unreasonable infringements on property rights. It is something that we have seen far too much of lately. We are talking about a business activity that is important for sustainability, for open landscapes, and for jobs.
The forest bill submitted in 2022 was extremely clear that the protection of forest must be voluntary for the landowner as a starting point. Nature conservation work should to an increased extent be based on initiatives from the landowner rather than from authorities. There is simply no other way to make it sustainable.
An important tool for achieving the direction of the forest bill is that there is access to a broad palette of flexible protection forms available and that the landowner is not punished financially for managing his or her forest in a sustainable way.
In recent years, nature conservation policy has been characterized by a kind of top-down perspective where property rights have been handled all too disrespectfully and lightly. Great focus has been placed on formally protecting large areas through the creation of nature reserves. The Center Party wants to see increased diversity and flexibility within nature conservation and considers, for example, that nature conservation agreements, which we are talking about today, have been an untapped form of protection, despite their voluntary, time-limited, and flexible character. That they have not been utilized more may be due to what is addressed in the bill, namely that they have been disadvantaged from a tax perspective. Therefore, it is very positive that the government wants to rectify the agreements.
We in the Center Party support the direction in the bill. However, we have some objections. Regarding the new compensation fund for nature conservation land with an extended period to find replacement land, we believe it is good that the period is extended and set to ten years. But we believe that the proposed period for the fund should apply to all types of land, not just nature conservation land but also, for example, in cases of expropriation for power lines and so on. We simply justify this by saying that it simplifies things. There should be the same rules for all types of allocations in the compensation funds.
When it comes to the nature conservation account, we welcome that, even though we fundamentally prefer an arrangement where compensation is paid out automatically annually instead of as a lump sum. It would facilitate planning and administration for landowners, not least for those who want to make it easy for themselves and do not want to have to open accounts, choose a credit institution, and so on. But it is good that one has that possibility.
The Government writes that it appears appropriate that the rules for when and how withdrawals may be made from a nature conservation account follow the rules for withdrawals from a forest account and a forest damage account. We share that view but believe for several reasons that a nature conservation account, just like a forest damage account, should be possible to withdraw from over twenty years instead of, as is now proposed, ten years. The Government needs to take into greater account that nature conservation agreements can involve large amounts and have agreement periods well over ten years.
When considering a forest rotation period, ten years is actually no time at all when it comes to forest management and forestry. Planning for, for example, clearing and allocating funds for it, which can be done with compensation for nature conservation agreements, needs to be done over both one and two decades ahead.
I must conclude by mentioning the issue of denied logging permits in forests near the mountains, which is barely mentioned in the bill but which we have raised in our supplementary motion. If one wants to become a forest owner today, one might choose not to become one in the vicinity of forests near the mountains. Those forest owners are, in fact, still living in a kind of legal uncertainty.
The proposed compensation fund is good. There, forest owners can deposit money for compensation for encroachment for nature conservation, for example reserves, when it concerns a permanent restriction of use, as it is called. The Center Party argues that the compensation for denied felling permits for mountain-adjacent forest should obviously be considered a permanent restriction of use and be covered by the new compensation fund. Because that is precisely what it is about. It is for nature conservation purposes, and it is a permanent restriction of use, as few or no people believe that either the Swedish Forest Agency or the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency will revoke a felling ban in mountain-adjacent forest in the future. That is, however, not the intention with this proposal, and it does not work that way today.
In the preparatory works, it is stated clearly and distinctly that it may be a matter of permanent restriction of use when it concerns logging bans in forests near the mountains and that the forest owner may be entitled to compensation according to the Forestry Act. But it is unclear how.
If you are to become a forest owner in areas near the mountains, imagine this! Today, you are not regarded as the same rights holder as forest owners in the rest of Sweden. This matter has, as we have heard previous speakers mention, moved around in the judicial system, in the Tax Appeals Tribunal and in the Supreme Administrative Court. But no clarity has been reached.
I conclude by quoting from the committee report: "How the proposed compensation fund for nature conservation areas shall be applied to compensations paid out with the support of the Forestry Act may be developed in practice according to the Government. The Government states that it will follow the matter." It is therefore with support of the Forestry Act that the logging bans in forests near the mountains have been decided.
Such formulations make me a bit allergic. I believe that practice can be necessary sometimes. It might not be possible to regulate everything in the smallest detail. But when it affects individual businesses, individual forest owners, with enormous economic consequences as a result, it is not justifiable.
Adam Reuterskiöld (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like, as many of my colleagues have done previously, to begin by saying that today we are dealing with the Committee on Taxation's report regarding an improved regulatory framework for the taxation of forest. But I want to point out a perhaps slightly different aspect. This is fundamentally about the relationship between the state and the individual landowner and, ultimately, about the right of ownership. It is therefore a very important proposition being dealt with, as the right of ownership is a cornerstone of democracy – no ownership, no democracy.
For us Moderates, the right of ownership is a fundamental principle for a free society. It is not just an economic issue. It is also a question of freedom. The right to own, use, and develop one's property is a prerequisite for responsibility, long-term thinking, and investments. This applies to the highest degree to Sweden's 300,000 private forest owners. It is thanks to them that we have the fine forest that we have today.
We also know that the forest has multiple values. It produces timber and provides jobs and export revenues. It binds carbon dioxide, and it accommodates biodiversity.
When the state, for nature conservation reasons, limits a landowner's possibilities to cultivate their own forest, it shall be done with respect for the right of ownership and with reasonable predictability and legally secure economic conditions. It is against that background that we Moderates welcome large parts of the change that is now proposed.
Mr. Speaker! A central part of the reform is the introduction of a special compensation fund for nature conservation land. When a property owner receives infringement compensation or a buyout, for example during the formation of nature conservation reserves, a better opportunity is provided to postpone taxation and reinvest in new land. The time limit is extended to ten years. This is important. Finding replacement land or a replacement property takes time, especially in areas with a weak supply. Previous rules of between three and six years have in practice been insufficient. The result has been that landowners have been forced to pay tax before they have had realistic opportunities to reinvest.
The new order does not mean tax exemption. It is an important principle. But the timing of taxation can and should be adjusted so that it does not counteract reasonable reinvestment. A better balance is now being created here.
Mr. Speaker! Another important change is the introduction of the nature conservation account. Today, the compensation for nature conservation agreements is generally taxed with a lump sum. This can lead to a significantly increased marginal tax effect and an unreasonable progressive effect. By enabling deductions of up to 90 percent of the compensation and periodization over ten years, better planning conditions are created. It is a step towards increased neutrality and fairness in the taxation.
For us Moderates, it is central. The state should not, through its taxation, hinder voluntary agreements on nature conservation. If we want more landowners to enter into nature conservation agreements, the conditions must be reasonable and long-term.
Mr. Speaker! The reform also contains an important adaptation to EU law. Forest accounts and nature conservation accounts shall be able to be provided by credit institutions within the EEA, and forest deductions shall be able to be extended to properties within the EEA. For us Moderates, it is a matter of course that Sweden shall have rules that hold up in a European legal review.
Mr. Speaker, the most conflict-ridden issue in forest policy is not primarily about periodizations or office rules. It is about situations where landowners are denied usage, for example logging, and experience that the compensation is insufficient and that the taxation worsens the situation. Here, the state must be humble. When the public, for reasons of nature conservation, restricts property rights, it is the state's responsibility to ensure that landowners are not unfairly affected. The legitimacy of nature conservation policy rests on it being perceived as fair.
The reform we are now discussing does not solve all of these issues, but it improves the system. It provides better opportunities to reinvest.
Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' line is clear. We want to see a strong property right, a functioning market economy, and an effective nature conservation that is built on cooperation and not conflict. Forest owners are not opponents of nature conservation. On the contrary, they are often the primary stewards of their lands, with a perspective of generations. But they must be able to trust the state and its actions. The state needs to act predictably, with legal certainty, and with respect for the forest owners' economic reality.
That is why we stand behind this proposal. It does not mean a revolution, but it does mean an improvement. In matters concerning property rights, every step in the direction of increased clarity, reasonableness, and long-term perspective is of importance.
Mr. Speaker! A society that erodes property rights undermines, in the long run, both investment and accountability – and ultimately democracy. A society that, on the other hand, combines strong property rights with wise incentives for environmental consideration creates conditions for both growth and sustainability. It is that balance that we Moderates and the government seek. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! If those listening to this debate are wondering if it doesn't sound quite similar and if they haven't heard these figures and arguments before, it is very likely that is the case. The Swedish Forest Agency recently released a report that they call the power report. It shows how incredibly controlled the entire forest policy debate is and who is leading that debate. Forest policy is not based on science and research. I would say that it perhaps is also not based on what is best for the private landowner, which I think is a great sorrow, because we are a country with approximately 310,000 landowners.
Mr. Speaker! The debate instead stems more or less from the talking points that we are fed from the forest industry. Regarding just this power report, it is the case that just one step down from here we have a forest industry network that usually informs us about various facts. But the forest owners' individual stories, experiences, wishes, and visions rarely emerge in the debate, even though they say they stand firm and fight hard for the right of ownership. That, Mr. Speaker, I think is perhaps the greatest hypocrisy we have witnessed in this chamber – how they beat their chests to protect the right of ownership.
Right now, we are debating the tax rate and what tax design we should have for all those who have received compensation for their forest. The problems begin with the political will and the direction. What the government is doing is to lower the compensation amounts by 70 percent in a single budget in one fell swoop. It is a great betrayal of all those landowners who have taken the initiative to protect their forest according to their own planning and their own wishes and who are standing in line today. They have taken ownership of this and expect compensation. But this government, with all these parties that claim to safeguard property rights, is pulling the rug out from under it. There are, therefore, not even any funds available.
I meet many forest owners who are desperate. They contact me and tell me about their terrible situations, which can be completely horrible. One wonders if they should sell their property. Should they abandon their dreams for their farm? Should they give up the idea that the place should be inherited? One had been promised money, and there was a trust. That trust is now broken when the money has disappeared.
I can absolutely agree to rename the budget line item from Protection of Valuable Nature to Compensation to Landowners or something similar, if that is where the shoe pinches. But we must start at the right end, Mr. Speaker. We have heard several parties, including the Center Party, complain about the forests near the mountains. Had some of the parties that were before me on the speaking list been honest on the issue of ownership rights, we would have seen this reflected in the budget. Then one might have invested 4–5 billion in compensation to the landowners that one says one wants to protect. But that has not been done. There is only one party in the Swedish Riksdag that has done so, and that is Miljöpartiet.
Mr. Speaker! I am, nevertheless, fundamentally pleased with the product we are now discussing. It is from the beginning an environmental party initiative. When we were in government, we put forward a proposal to make it a little easier to do the right thing. It was about trying to rectify the injustices that exist between production and nature conservation. It has so far been – and is still today – much more favorable to invest in production in the forest than in nature conservation.
Mr. Speaker! I am, of course, positive about the fact that we are now adjusting the tax rules, but I would have wished that one could go further. I therefore move for approval of reservation 1. It should, of course, be as easy as possible for landowners to choose nature conservation. It should not result in a penalty. In my and the MP's opinion, the money that the state hopefully provides – that is, if we have a budget from a government that truly means business when it speaks about property rights – should therefore be tax-free. There should also be an opportunity for the landowner to decide for themselves whether it should be a lump sum or if the money should come over a period. The period should not end after only ten years but correspond to the time that the nature conservation agreement is valid.
Mr. Speaker! I would like to comment a little on the praise for the forest. Of course, Sweden is a forest country where there is a pride, not least among the 310,000 landowners. This also applies to all those who enjoy the forest in Sweden. I myself enjoy, among other things, utilizing the right of public access and picking mushrooms and blueberries. But the blueberry bush has been halved in Sweden in 50 years. It is a consequence of the forestry we practice, which is fundamentally not sustainable.
It is about the fact that we in Sweden stand out internationally regarding large clear-cuts with low environmental consideration. This is something that our expert authorities establish. In Sweden, 349 species are directly threatened due to clear-cutting, because clear-cutting simply removes ecosystems. Old forests and thousand-year-old ecosystems, which we have or have had in Sweden, cannot be replaced in 60 years. It is completely impossible. Sure – it works very well in an equation where one only cares about cubic meters. Cubic meters can always be replaced. But an ecosystem where evolution has occurred, a place that means something and where we perhaps have ancient remains and cultural remains, cannot be replaced in 60 years. Instead, it is monocultures we replace nature with.
One can absolutely talk about it being climate neutral and calculate the pluses and minuses of it. But if you care even the slightest bit about ecosystems and biodiversity – and also the climate – it doesn't work. One repeats the lie that the forestry industry has diligently served us with and lives in that lie.
It is not only Miljöpartiet, authorities, and researchers who see this now. From parties in the Tidöregeringen, it has been said: If it were as bad as Miljöpartiet, researchers, international researchers, and expert authorities claim, wouldn't the market also have reacted? The market has reacted, Mr. Speaker. Nestlé does not want to be involved with Swedish forestry. Zalando does not want to be involved with Swedish forestry. The reason is that it is demonstrated and established in black and white what consequences the large and widespread clear-cuts in Sweden have. This is about Swedish competitiveness, Mr. Speaker.
We hear all the time in this chamber how we should rather get even more business as usual and increase production. One tends to talk about the environmental goals as something that stands in the way.
Mr. Speaker! If we want to establish some kind of positive reputation for the Swedish forest industry and forest products, we must redo and do it right. Then we must ensure that we change the direction for Swedish forest policy.
We have today a legislation that has about 30 years on its back. It was a forestry law that arrived before Sweden joined the EU, before the Paris Agreement, before the Kunming–Montreal Agreement and before all the knowledge that exists today was gathered.
It is not easy to do the right thing in the forest as a private forest owner. I have all respect for that. I also have all the will to change it. Let us perhaps join forces in an ambition to carry out a regulatory simplification.
As the Forestry Act looks today, it regulates very many unnecessary parts regarding production. There, I, Mr. Speaker, have full confidence in and think it is entirely up to the forest owner's own head to decide how they want to manage their forest.
I also intended to address what was said about 140,000 employees in the forest industry. It is 29,100 forest workers according to the figures available from 2023. In the entire forest industry, it is 53,000. This is something that has decreased.
The number of jobs in the forest has decreased by 60 percent 1990–2020. Especially since 2005, we have seen a decrease in the pulp industry of 40 percent.
There is hope for a living countryside regarding the forest, nature, and also the economy. I believe that we can achieve that, Mr. Speaker, if we do not work against nature but rather with nature.
It is about the fact that we are not resisting the EU. Furthermore, we have had our party comrades who have made decisions. It does not come from evil EU bureaucrats, but it is parliamentary decisions. We could have won very much on a rethink where we simply bake together a new direction for Swedish forest policy.
There should not be several different laws. We have the Forestry Act, certifications, the Environmental Code, the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives, the EU's Restoration Law, and so on. There should perhaps be a legislation that takes a holistic approach where one does a bit more of what we do now and simplifies things for landowners and forest owners who want something else.
Mr. Speaker! It is about the profitability for the forest owners. It concerns me particularly because we have had a prevailing policy over several parliamentary terms back that has unilaterally focused on the forest industry.
Of our 310,000 private forest owners, it is 48,700 who have had some form of income from forestry 2011–2017. 60 percent of our forest owners incurred a loss. It was barely 20 percent who turned a profit during this period. It is something that I hope also worries and engages more of the members of the Riksdag. How was it then for those who turned a profit? They reported barely 91,000 kronor as a surplus.
Mr. Speaker! It is truly up to the forest owners to choose which direction they want to take. We perhaps need to promote and not talk down alternative methods that are harvest-free. It is about protection, among other things. The biggest problem for many forest owners is that there is no money for them to receive the compensation they expect from the state.
In the latest Forest Barometer, 12 percent of forest owners answered that it was good ongoing return that was the most significant. The most important thing was the feeling of owning forest. I think we should respect that.
Cecilia Engström (KD)
Mr. Speaker! An improved regulatory framework for the taxation of forests is what we are talking about today. It is a very important issue for us Christian Democrats.
Mr. Speaker! The starting point must be clear. Those who own the forest and the land shall also have the right of disposal and be able to use it as they wish in the future. They shall be met with reasonable and fair tax rules.
When the state decides on all future releases, or redemptions for nature conservation purposes, it is an expression of a common social interest.
It is at the same time a significant restriction of the individual's property rights. In that case, the taxation must also be designed so that it does not, in practice, penalize the landowner who contributes to preserving Swedish biodiversity and valuable nature.
The government proposes a special compensation fund for nature conservation land with up to ten years to reinvest in new land. It is a wise and realistic solution. Ten years provides a reasonable freedom of action without the system becoming open and unclear.
The purpose is clear. The compensation shall be able to be reinvested. The strong long-term perspective in Swedish forestry provides security in a situation that is often both economically and emotionally demanding for the individual.
That deductions should not be dependent on corresponding accounting entries is also a simplification that reduces unnecessary administration.
Mr. Speaker! An important part of the bill is the introduction of a nature conservation account for compensation for nature conservation agreements that run for at least five years. Compensations from nature conservation agreements can amount to significant sums, on average 225,000–250,000 kronor according to Skatteverket. For an individual entrepreneur, this can mean a heavy progressive taxation in the year the compensation is paid out. It is neither reasonable nor fair.
By enabling the deduction of up to 90 percent of the compensation and periodization over up to ten years, an arrangement is created that corresponds to the rules for forest accounts. This provides stability, predictability, and a more proportionate taxation.
That every nature conservation agreement shall be linked to its own nature conservation account is also a very wise solution, not least during generational shifts. It creates clarity regarding which funds belong to which agreement and reduces the risk of future disputes or uncertainties.
Mr. Speaker! The bill also contains an important adaptation to EU law. The possibility of forest deduction for properties within the EEA strengthens equal treatment and reduces the risk of legal conflicts.
A balance between simplification and control is needed. It is a strength of the bill that it both simplifies and strengthens the system. For the Christian Democrats, this is an expression of a policy that unites responsibility for the environment with respect for property rights. We want to see biological diversity. We shall protect valuable nature. But we shall do it in a way that is fair to those who own and cultivate the land.
Mr. Speaker! Let me elaborate on some further parts of the bill concerning the taxation of compensation for nature conservation agreements and infringement compensation.
There are few industries, if any industry, where the horizon for the work is longer than the forestry industry. When others plan for the next season, the forest owner plans for the next generation. It takes the time it takes to plant a tree and see it grow until it is time for harvesting.
We think the Christian Democrats' proposal that a forest owner could balance their finances more long-term with the help of a nature conservation account is a good proposal. Nature conservation agreements differ from formal area protection according to the Environmental Code. They are time-based usage rights that can run for a maximum of 50 years. The compensation is normally paid out as a one-time payment upon the signing of the agreement and is taxed under the income category for business activities.
Mr. Speaker! The problem is that today's rules mean that the compensation in many cases is taxed in its entirety when it is received, even though the agreement may run for several decades. This creates a taxation that is not in proportion to the agreement's actual economic significance over time. It is precisely this imbalance that the nature conservation account now addresses. By providing the possibility of periodization over up to ten years, the effect of the progressive taxation is reduced and the system becomes fairer. It strengthens the incentives to voluntarily enter into nature conservation agreements, which is central if we are serious about voluntariness as the basis for nature conservation.
Mr. Speaker! For me as a Christian Democrat, it is important to remember the bigger picture. Swedish forest policy is based on a balance between production and environmental considerations. For this balance to function, trust between the state and the landowners is required. If the taxation is perceived as unpredictable or unreasonably harsh, there is a risk that the willingness to voluntarily set aside land for nature conservation will decrease.
Through the bill, a better opportunity is created for landowners for reinvestments. It will result in a more reasonable periodization of compensations and increased legal certainty, especially during generational shifts. It will also be an adaptation to EU law. Furthermore, control is strengthened through clear reporting obligations. This is a reform that strengthens both nature conservation and property rights.
Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats argue that sustainable nature conservation must be based on responsibility, voluntariness, and respect for the individual's rights. This bill is a step in exactly that direction.
With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.
Anders Ekegren (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is late, and there are fewer and fewer people in the chamber. But that is how it is when the clock has passed 18:00.
Today we are going to discuss forests and taxes. It is not so common. The importance of the forest for Sweden is underestimated. The political discussion is many times about the tech industry, the automotive industry and, more recently, the defense industry.
The forest is important for the whole country to live. The forest exists in large extent in most parts of the country and still employs many people. The forest has a high processing value within Sweden and provides the country with large export revenues.
The forest industry is, however, undergoing change, for it is hardly newsprint that is the industry of the future. The connection to new fuels and timber construction is, on the other hand, an important part of the future. The forest is an important part of the green transition.
The forest also has significance for the climate, biodiversity, and human well-being. It functions as a natural carbon sink, it purifies air and water, and it protects against erosion and extreme weather events.
Mr. Speaker! There are over 300,000 individual forest owners in Sweden, and for them, today's decision is important. Forestry must work for the individual forest owner. It is these people that today's debate should be about.
For us liberals, property rights are important. Many forest owners have a long-term perspective that extends over generations. When I had a smallholding in Bohuslän, I had a farmer as a neighbor whose ancestors had cultivated the land and the forest in my vicinity since the 1600s. Then, one thinks long-term. It is important that we have confidence in the forest owners' ability to manage their forest. It is for these people that we shall improve the regulatory framework regarding the taxation of forest.
Mr. Speaker! The bill therefore proposes a more purposeful way to tax infringement compensation. Nature conservation compensation shall be able to be periodized. The legislation shall be adapted to EU law, which means that forest accounts shall be able to be provided by a foreign credit institution.
When I have read through the report and the comments that come from the opposition parties, I perceive that there is a great consensus on the broad strokes of the reform. There is agreement that the changes need to be implemented, but there are proposals for changes when it comes to individual details.
I judge, however, that the government's bill is well-considered and a step in the right direction. The Liberals can therefore stand behind the committee's report, and I move for approval of the proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.