(cont. from § 10) Forest policy (cont. MJU6)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for the speech! I want to start by saying that I place great value on the fact that Tomas Kronståhl is back in the chamber and that we can stand here and debate. It warms my heart. We have gotten to know each other quite well during this parliamentary term, and I know that Tomas Kronståhl and the undersigned are in complete agreement on many issues even though we represent two different parties.

My reply is actually an extension of the exchange that Tomas Kronståhl had with Helena Lindahl. In the reservation that Tomas Kronståhl moved for approval, they write about nature-oriented forestry and clear-cut-free methods. What constitutes nature-oriented forestry becomes once again a philosophical question. Is not all forestry nature-oriented? In my world, it is.

Today, it is up to the individual forest owner how they want to manage their forest. I have a question that I perhaps do not want Tomas Kronståhl's answer to, but would rather have the Social Democrats': Who is it that should decide which management methods should be used? Should freedom with responsibility also apply here so that the individual forest owner can decide for themselves?

The Social Democrats do have a certain fondness for big brother the state, at least in certain issues. If the Social Democrats' reservation were to go through, which I do not believe it will, is it then the case that it is big brother the state that is to point with the whole fist and dictate which cultivation methods shall be used?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Kjell-Arne Ottosson! It is always fun to debate with you, even on this issue.

I may phrase things a bit differently, but in most issues, I am not far from my party's views. I can say that. So it is also in this issue. We truly stand for a diverse forestry. It is not big brother the state that is to tell what kind of forestry shall be practiced, but just as I said earlier, a thousand wild flowers shall be allowed to bloom. One sees very many small forest owners testing different solutions in their forests.

I think it is very important that we have freedom with responsibility. As I said earlier, we also see that it yields the best results when it comes to the production of high-quality timber, which can be used for house construction, which increases carbon storage and other things. On that, we stand firm in our opinion.

When it comes to nature-oriented and continuous-cover forestry, it is exactly the same thing: There may be those who are interested in nature-oriented forestry. I had the privilege of visiting a private forest owner near Tiveden National Park who practices nature-oriented forestry, which was very interesting. What I understood from the forest owner was that it was also very economical. He managed the forest based on the premise that everything remained until the trees were 75 centimeters thick at breast height, which meant that he received very good payment for his forest. It was a successful model, he thought.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for the answer! It is gratifying that even the Social Democrats trust the forest owners more than the state. That should be noted.

I will raise another question. However, I will not demand any answer from Tomas Kronståhl on this point, but even this might rather become a philosophical question. The Property Protection Committee, as it is called, has been raised earlier in the debate. Then Tomas Kronståhl problematized regarding changes in the constitution and that things take a long time if they are to be included in the constitution. I will not ask how Tomas Kronståhl and the Social Democrats will position themselves on that question; I do not believe that any party is ready with that yet because we are still working with knowledge gathering.

But do Tomas Kronståhl and the Social Democrats not see that it can be worth working on several levels simultaneously? It is partly about changes in laws that must be made here and now and which are being made, and partly about ownership rights which are fundamental. It is clear both in the UN Charter, the European Convention, and in the Swedish constitution.

Nevertheless, we unfortunately see quite often deviations from what many of us interpret as something that is included in the right of ownership, and it is in those cases that a reinforcement in the constitution would play a role. It is therefore about both changes here and now and about clarifications regarding the right of ownership in the constitution. Those who won the Nobel Prize in Economics two years ago were very clear about precisely the importance of the right of ownership for building up society. It is immensely important, and that was what they won the prize for.

Do the Social Democrats see the importance and value of doing both parts, or is it only change in the law here and now that matters?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Kjell-Arne Ottosson!

I think it is important, and the constitutional protection is being reviewed now. I will not go ahead with any opinions on that, but the reason I raised the issue earlier was that we were talking about compensation to the forest owner in cases where one does not have the possibility to cultivate their forest due to natural values or other values that cause the state to say stop. I meant then that it takes time if we are to go in and make a constitutional amendment. It takes two parliamentary terms and requires a fairly advanced majority to pass a constitutional amendment.

I believe, therefore, that there are faster solutions in the form of smoother formulations and changes in both texts and regulations to actually reach our objective significantly faster. That was my opinion on that matter. I think this is going to be very exciting. I am following the investigation closely, even though I am not part of it myself, and think that these are interesting questions and discussions.

It is also, of course, a matter of weighting. When is the public interest so strong that the owner is no longer to dispose of their property rights? It is a very interesting question that there is every reason to discuss even in the future. For the time being, I have no other opinion than that of Member Kjell-Arne Ottosson.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! In one of its reservations, the Social Democrats argue that they are the political force that guarantees the balance between the goals of forest policy: that it is possible to cultivate the forest while simultaneously preserving valuable forest, something we completely agree on.

The problem for the Social Democrats, however, is not what is stated in the reservation or what one actually thinks, but what happens after the election. If no political miracle occurs so that the Social Democrats get a majority on their own, one will be dependent on other parties to form a government, including with great probability the Green Party, which openly pushes for a significantly reduced logging.

Mr. Speaker! It is not enough to speak of balance in theory. The voters have the right to know which policy will actually be implemented in practice. For eight years, the Social Democrats kept the forestry policy in check with the Green Party. Therefore, I wonder: Can the member guarantee that a government led by the Social Democrats will not push through reduced logging of forests as a result of negotiations with the Green Party?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Joanna Lewerentz for the question. That was probably the last time I said the name – next time I will say "the member", because the surname was difficult.

No one knows what it will look like after the election. If a lucky bird were to appear and give us 52 percent, we could guarantee that the forest policy we recommend and stand for would become a reality. But I can at least reassure the member that we will not again end up in a situation where we go out and speak about forests with biodiversity and nature values being taken over by the state without a reasonable discussion being held with the owner.

We must be very clear that we will try to design a forest policy that leads to diversity and biodiversity. As a forest owner, one should let the forest grow until it becomes mature and finished. Unfortunately, very many have chosen to harvest their forest far too early – in fact, primarily the large forest companies, including the state's own Sveaskog.

If we cut down a forest that is 50–60 years old, Mr. Speaker, instead of letting it stand for 90–110 years, we get 30–50 fewer years of carbon storage. I believe it is important to have a discussion and a debate to explain the importance of us both managing the forest in such a way that it provides maximum carbon storage and ensuring that we can use the material in a sensible way.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a partially pleasing announcement. I know, as I have said, that at least I and the member of parliament think very similarly in some of these issues. In his speech, Member of Parliament Kronståhl also highlighted the important role the forest plays for jobs in the countryside, just as I did.

Mr. Speaker! Sitting in government is not about wishing or about being able to decide everything. Imagine if misfortune were to strike and the Social Democrats received 51 or 52 percent! It is not a situation that any of us would want to be in. But it would be an even greater misfortune, I believe, if the Green Party were to gain too much influence over politics. Every compromise actually has a price. If it is the case that the Social Democrats do what they can to prevent the reduction of logging and to save the jobs in the countryside, what is one then prepared to give the Green Party instead? What is one prepared to give up? Is it nuclear power? Is it fuel prices? Or will it in fact be that the Green Party again gets free rein in environmental policy and that it is the jobs in the countryside that become the bargaining chip?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your vision of the future! But you cannot say that it is a horror scenario that we should obtain our own majority. You said earlier that our forest policy is quite welcome, and we can well hope that you stand by that.

I think it is important that we in our committee, for this debate, in a wise way and try to gather as much knowledge about forestry as we can. That makes me feel quite secure in discussions with all the parties that we might consider cooperating with. We haven't locked ourselves into anything, but we go to the election as an independent party. We think that the voters should be allowed to have their say. Then we can imagine cooperating with almost all parties except the Sverigedemokraterna. That is what my party leader has said, and I stand by it.

But we actually stand for a policy that we have a broad majority for, even in what we today call the opposition. We want to try to get more out of the forest. We are to create more biofuels and bioproduction. The purpose is to become a more sustainable society that is less dependent on oil states and other things. It is actually a quite interesting forest policy that could provide significantly more jobs and that we could join forces with many more in. We are to refine the raw material we have in a significantly better way and create more jobs by producing more from our forest. I believe that even Joanna and I can shake hands on that.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! "The forest debate must be based on proper facts. … Sweden's prosperity rests on our natural resources. And no resource has meant more than the forest. It provides jobs, export revenues, renewable products. It is also completely crucial for the climate. Therefore, it is worrying that Swedish forestry is increasingly being questioned without support in research, legislation, or facts. When the image of the forest is distorted, it has direct consequences for both forest owners and climate benefits."

This could, Mr. Speaker, have been my own words, but it is not. It is a quote from a debate article by former Prime Minister Göran Persson that was published in Aftonbladet yesterday. They are wise words, even though they came from a Social Democratic former Prime Minister. It is such that even he has now experienced what it means to be a landowner and a forest owner; we see the debate and not least how activists act all around in Sweden's forests.

Mr. Speaker! Even in this chamber, we have unfortunately quite often heard how a debate is conducted that is not based on facts. Consequently, it becomes very difficult to have a serious debate. We also see in the public debate and in publications from large media houses how it is very difficult to have a serious debate because one does not have the same foundation to stand on and is comparing apples and oranges. But in this case, I can only agree with former Prime Minister Göran Persson.

Regarding the report we are now debating – I naturally move for the approval of the proposal in the report – there are a number of reservations, and I would like to comment on some of them. The first two of them, Mr. Speaker, perhaps wouldn't even need to be reservations. To reserve oneself is a way of making a mark, but there is still very great agreement in the Riksdag regarding those two points.

One point concerns whether the EU should have anything to do with the Swedish forest and Swedish forestry. There is a very large consensus in the chamber and in the Riksdag that is not the case. The forest is a national competence. Not least this government has been very clear about that.

During the previous parliamentary term, a subsidiarity test was conducted in the chamber. It turned out then that over 80 percent of the members of the Riksdag considered that the EU has nothing to do with the forest, and the distribution of mandates has not changed much since then. There is, of course, a reservation regarding this, but I know that most parties can imagine standing behind this. It is more of a formality.

Furthermore, it is heartening and positive that we now have a new commissioner handling these issues in the EU. It certainly cannot get any worse, Mr. Speaker, in this matter than it was with the previous commissioner. We also note how the For Forest plus group, as it is now called, is becoming larger. It includes countries within the EU, including the forest-rich countries Sweden and Finland, which agree to work together to achieve a good management of forest issues in the EU.

The second point concerns the bioeconomy. Of course, we are in agreement regarding how incredibly important it is for Sweden, not least considering how much forest we have. Furthermore, a bioeconomic strategy from the EU has been submitted in this chamber today. I have not had time to read through it yet, so I have no idea what it contains. But I note that the EU has returned to the picture again. We will see what the strategy looks like. However, it is about the importance of the bioeconomy.

In these issues, there is not a huge difference between the parties, but the reservations should rather be seen as markings.

Miljöpartiet has a reservation that has been raised earlier in today's debate. It states, among other things: "For a more sustainable use of our forest, the forest needs to stand longer, but we also need to ensure that more of the products from the forest remain as wood products, such as wooden houses or furniture, instead of being burned or broken down as, for example, paper." In this matter, however, we have diametrically opposed views.

We believe that a managed forest is, in every way, the most climate-smart forest. The managed forest leads to the fact that we can also displace fossil products that we otherwise would not have displaced, because we would have had nothing other than fossil products to use to manufacture what we want to manufacture. It all sounds perhaps good, but in reality, it becomes counterproductive.

Another reservation concerns nature-oriented forestry and clear-cut-free methods, and I just debated that with Tomas Kronståhl. From that came the reassuring message that it is up to the forest owner how it is done.

There is a lot of talk about continuous cover forestry. However, we must remember that it is only on about 2 percent of the productive forest land in Sweden that such forestry is practiced. The productive forest land in Sweden is otherwise not suitable for this method. Continuous cover forestry would therefore work on an extremely small part. It is very important regardless that it is the landowner who gets to decide.

I see that I have to speed up, because my speaking time is disappearing far too quickly.

Species protection has been raised. I completely agree with the reservation. On January 7, we held a press conference that the undersigned attended. At that time, a referral to the Council of State regarding species protection was presented. This is a rights-based legislation, which means that if species protection in some way hinders forestry, one is entitled to compensation. If there is not enough money in the budget, the government must ensure that more money is allocated. It should not matter.

Furthermore, a differentiation of the species shall be made, and it is therefore expected that the sum will not be as large. Systems and structures for protection are created and implemented at several levels. One must also look at which intervention is being made. The one who manages their forest shall not be stopped in the same way as the one who deliberately enters and destroys by, for example, picking eggs from birds of prey or picking orchids. A distinction is made here.

A forestry bill will be submitted that will address further issues that have been touched upon here today. Several things are in motion. Some have already been presented, while others will be presented during the spring.

I was touching upon climate adaptation within forestry in a previous exchange. I note that my speaking time is almost up, so I must wrap things up even though I had more to say.

I conclude where I began: I completely agree with Göran Persson that the forest debate must be based on proper facts. Biology trumps ideology every single day. This also applies in the forest.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the speech, which was quite clarifying!

I thought I would take the opportunity to ask a bit about what you raised at the end. I, of course, submitted the motion on January 7 and saw the member in the TV press conference regarding compensation and species protection. We in Miljöpartiet are pleased that there will finally be a compensation. We have pushed that question for a long time. If one is affected by trespassing and cannot use their forest, compensation should be provided.

As the member pointed out, however, in the next breath one must review the species protection and change what is worth protecting. There must be some kind of differentiation. It also states that forestry shall be exempt from many of these things. Thus, one has actually given the forest owners carte blanche to do what they want. That is how it sounds when I read it. Now, we have not seen the finished product in itself. Since the member is knowledgeable in this, perhaps he can bring some clarity. Will there be any restrictions regarding species protection for the forest, or will everything be exempt?

I would like to take the opportunity to ask a second question, which we can perhaps elaborate on later. The member touched upon whether one deliberately harms something or if one does it unconsciously. If one picks eggs, one has absolutely removed [individuals] of a species. But the government is surely aware that if someone removes a tree where there are, for example, bird nests and intends to use the tree for something, it still constitutes harm? The species does not become less endangered because the harm occurs for another reason. Is it really possible to make such a distinction, and will it help species protection?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the questions.

It was a referral to the Council on Legislation that was presented. The bill has not been submitted to the Riksdag yet, but it will be.

Just as Emma Nohrén says, it is intended that there should be a differentiation within species protection. We must distinguish between ongoing land use and if one deliberately enters in order to destroy, that is, environmental crime. Such environmental crime is unfortunately large. For example, eggs are taken from the nests of birds of prey.

There will be no carte blanche, as the member pointed out, but there will be exceptions in agriculture and forestry for certain species. It concerns species that are still considered rare but not to such an extent that it requires influencing ownership and thus the right of use.

Two tracks are the point. One concerns protected species, and another concerns protected species where ongoing land use will also be stopped. That is where the compensation comes in. The reason there are two tracks is that we want to protect ongoing land use within agriculture and forestry. We see how incredibly important this is, not least for the transition. We need the goods from the forest to manage the transition. Furthermore, it is incredibly important for the individual forest owner to be able to rely on ownership and usage rights. Some species will, however, affect agriculture and forestry, and that is where the compensation kicks in.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

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

This still concerns me. If we relax or reduce the legal protection for many species that are threatened or rare and which today are protected or red-listed, and are therefore on the protection list, it will have an impact on biodiversity. Furthermore, there will be less oversight on where this is happening. Will the proposal be followed by an inventory so that one knows whether any species might soon be so rare that one must pull the handbrake? Would it not be better with a system that ensures we have a functioning population of whatever it may be, for example fungi or birds?

This is deeply worrying. It feels as if only a few species will have a signal value, but more should need it. This applies especially if one does not have to take them into account at all. Will it be necessary to take them into account, and if so, to which species? What is it that decides? Does it apply to the most endangered?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have approximately 30,000 species in the Swedish forest. It is, therefore, species-rich. We are also located at the edge of the boreal coniferous forest belt. That means we are at the edge of a distribution area. It is very normal that there are unusual and rare species in the forest.

The red list is rather blunt, as it points to trends. There are animals that are quite common in our Swedish fauna but that are still on the red list because the trend is alarming. The red list itself is therefore not an instrument that would be used to its full extent in this case.

Well, yes, it is a few species, and it is the rarest species that must be taken into account even during ongoing land use. Which species it concerns is not for me to determine, as I do not have that knowledge. It is the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency that is in the process of preparing a list and making a differentiation between different species.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the report on forest policy.

I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation, number 8. It concerns two things.

The first is that the government should promptly produce proposals for legislation aimed at stopping the logging of forests with high nature values. Today, logging of forests with high existing nature values, so-called core zones, occurs despite the fact that there is a shortage of these natural environments for a number of endangered plant and animal species. These forests often have high variation and are often characteristic of old-growth forests. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency considers that great efforts should be made by both the state and the forestry industry so that forests of conservation value are not logged.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is indeed of the opinion that no forests with high natural values should be logged. But despite the fact that this continues to happen anyway, they have failed to take measures to prevent it. Nor do they allocate sufficient funds in the budget so that these valuable forests can receive formal protection. Instead, they choose unilaterally to protect the interests of the forestry industry, which benefits neither the small-scale forest owners, the biodiversity, nor the climate. Consequently, the opportunities to preserve the remaining habitats for disadvantaged species within forestry are hindered.

Mr. Speaker! The second part of our reservation concerns that the legislation should be changed so that forests with particularly high values for recreation and outdoor life shall become subject to logging applications and be able to be exempted from measures and exploitations that do not promote these values.

The cultural environmental values of the forest and the social values shall be protected according to our environmental quality objectives. The social values of the forest are usually defined as the values created by people's experiences. These are an important resource for society when it comes to, for example, people's well-being, health, living environment and education, as well as regional development and tourism.

Mr. Speaker! The social values of the forest are touched by a number of different policy areas, such as forest policy, environmental policy, cultural environment policy and outdoor recreation policy. Strengthening the social values of the forest can also promote biodiversity.

Mr. Speaker! The Forestry Act has shortcomings when it comes to consideration for social values. Today, the legislation and the objectives are unclear regarding these, and they can be interpreted in different ways – this despite the fact that the forest's importance for public health is increasingly confirmed by scientific studies.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to take a reply to Kajsa Fredholm, but that last thing triggered me so much that I had to anyway.

We have had exchanges of remarks earlier, and it is very clear that the Christian Democrats and the Left Party have very different views on the state, what the state should intervene in and not intervene in, and the difference between mine and yours. The Left Party has no problem pointing with the whole finger regarding how forest owners should act in their own forest.

The reservation that Kajsa Fredholm mentioned addresses how important the forest is for public health, outdoor life, and so on, and that there should be specific restrictions. But the person who is to fell forest today must submit a logging notification, so that type of restriction already exists.

If we are to have forests that are good for public health and outdoor life, which I perceive is the intention in the reservation, cultivated forests are a prerequisite. Otherwise, you cannot make your way through. One wants beautiful forests with pine stands or John Bauer-forests of spruce, i.e., forests that are cultivated and final-thinned, because that is where the openness, the berry bushes, and all the other fine things are that I believe Vänsterpartiet is requesting in its reservation. But for us to get this, someone must cultivate the forest. Otherwise, we get a forest that is impenetrable and not at all guest-friendly, and I do not think that Vänsterpartiet wants that.

How is this to be achieved if the forest is not allowed to be cultivated?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is funny that the member always takes the floor against me and always says that he did not intend to do so but became so provoked. It is only good.

In my home municipality Leksand, there is a great deal of forest that is managed in such a dull way that one cannot enter the forest at all. It is even a problem, I feel.

Regarding the forest's cultural environmental values and the shortcomings and lack of clarity in the Forestry Act concerning social values, the Swedish Forest Agency stated in a report from March 2018, through an analysis of management measures for the forest's social values, that more clarity and feasibility need to be created. That is my answer. It is therefore not me who is making something up here.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Kajsa Fredholm mentioned the word "created," and it is the entirely correct word choice. I am not thinking of creation as such, which we may also have different views on, but rather that when it comes to the forest, there is someone – perhaps not primarily our Lord but the forest owner – who, by cultivating the forest, creates and shapes it so that it becomes the forest we seek for being able to pick berries and mushrooms in, for being able to have an orienteering competition in, and for having a nice hiking trail in. It is not created by itself. If nature is left to manage itself, it becomes a forest that no one can or wants to enter.

Forest owners are involved in shaping their own forest, and I feel that, among others, the Left Party misses this in the forest debate. The forest does not become [what it is] by itself, but it is someone who manages it and ensures that it becomes as beautiful as we wish. Then it is beautiful until it is harvested, but then it is instead some other forest area that has reached that age.

That is the point of the small-scale forestry that we have in Sweden. One always finds forests that have what Vänsterpartiet is calling for. One always finds forests with high nature values – precisely because we have 330,000 different landowners who manage the forest according to their own head. That is what is important, that someone manages the forest and that someone has created it. This is what Vänsterpartiet forgets in the debate.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was not a question, but absolutely: One must manage one's forest. I do not know why the member believes that we in Vänsterpartiet forget that. However, one must manage it in a good way – that is how it is. We do not consider that Swedish forestry as a whole is sufficiently sustainable, so it is good that our differences are brought forward here.

We need to reach climate ambitions, and we need to preserve a high biodiversity. Vänsterpartiet's position is that production targets must be subordinate to environmental and climate considerations. Sustainable forestry cannot be achieved if the raw material supply is allowed to dictate how our forests are managed.

I also know that there are many small and medium-sized forest owners who are good at managing their forests. That is how it is, and that is how it shall continue to be. But we have a problem today because we have an industrial extraction from the forest that causes biodiversity to deteriorate.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The forest matters. One could stand here in the speaker's chair for a long time, but I have a rather short speech. I intend to focus on the most important aspect of this issue right now.

For many of us who live and work in the countryside, the forest is a natural part of life. It has been so as long as people have lived and lived there. It has been the very foundation for the creation of prosperity, both locally and in Sweden as a nation. It is absolutely crucial for the society we see today. It has been for a long time, it still is, and it must continue to be.

To live close to the forest one owns, to enjoy what it provides, to care for and manage it for future generations and at the same time share in what previous generations have left behind is not just a form of enterprise but a way of life. It attracts people to stay or to move out to the countryside. For me, that way of life is strongly associated with freedom. There is a sense of freedom in owning, cultivating, and managing.

Mr. Speaker! Those who own forests 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. As a liberal, I and my party safeguard the forest owners' right to their property.

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 benefits and property rights must be balanced against each other, and there we need to find a better balance.

During the last decade, we have seen a development within the field of environmental law which means that individual forest owners now see their life's work being ruined. They lose the right to manage their forest without receiving a right to compensation, sometimes with questionable environmental benefit. It is an order that is completely unworthy of a rule of law.

What has been managed for centuries, often by the same family, and which was to be passed on to the next generation is lost. One is simply punished for managing one's forest in a way that creates high nature values. So we actually cannot have that. As a forest owner, one must be secure that one receives compensation if one is deprived of the right to cultivate parts of one's forest.

Mr. Speaker! The current species protection regulations lead to completely unreasonable consequences. The presence of fairly common species has far-reaching consequences, and when logging is stopped, forest-owning families are hit hard. Property rights are a liberal fundamental principle, and when they are restricted, it must be on legitimate grounds.

The tools we have to protect biological diversity need to be reformed so that they become more purposeful. The current species protection regulations have been the subject of previous contributions here today. As they stand now, they are neither purposeful nor proportionate. It is no exaggeration to say that the system we have is a blunder. Here we have a job to do, and a job is being done.

Mr. Speaker! I am therefore incredibly pleased that the government has now presented a revision of the species protection. It is underway and will land in the Riksdag this autumn. I am relieved – I actually find no better word – that we are now ensuring the introduction of a right to compensation in the event of species protection restrictions. If there is any issue that has kept me awake at night during this parliamentary term, it is precisely this one.

Later in our term, we will ensure that a right to compensation is introduced. That is not, in itself, the proposal we are to debate here today, but it is so important that, just like previous speakers, I nevertheless want to raise it. It is an important step in the work of cleaning up a bureaucratic failure.

At the same time as we do this, we increase the incentives for forest owners to manage their forests in a long-term and sustainable way that promotes biodiversity without them risking being affected economically. It is good for the forest, it is good for Sweden, and above all, it is good for Swedish forest owners.

We will debate the bill later in this chamber, and it is not far-fetched to say that it is the single most important issue that we will face and make decisions on during this mandate period when it comes to forest policy. It is an important cog in the cleanup of the system that eight years of social democracy left behind.

But there is more to be done. This is a step, but more will come. That is what I look forward to.

(Applause)

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 approval of reservation 1 from the Center Party, which concerns the EU's influence over Swedish forest policy.

This weekend, I visited Ockelbo together with my party leader Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist to listen to forest owners who have been affected by the storm Johannes. The stories hit quite hard. Many are very frustrated and dejected after their family savings have been shattered. It is felt in the core, not least for those who have been affected.

The message from the forest owners we met was clear: It must be made as easy as possible to get the wind-felled forest out. This is something we in the Center Party, via our party leader, have submitted proposals for today.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish Forest Agency's assessments indicate that forest with a value of approximately 5 billion kronor has fallen in the storm. How much of the value has been lost is difficult to say; it depends on how damaged individual trees are. But it is significantly more expensive to harvest storm-damaged forest, which means that the intervention costs will be higher than normal, not to mention the risks to one's own safety when working in storm-felled forest, with root balls, trees under tension, and so on.

Timber needs to be removed from the forest before the summer heat arrives, so it is quite a matter of quick action. This is in order to avoid swarming of, for example, the spruce bark beetle and the pine shoot beetle. If large amounts of fallen trees remain in the forest, it risks creating favorable conditions for harmful insects, which in turn can cause great damage to the forest that has escaped storm damage. Therefore, it is crucial that the forest owners are given the opportunity to harvest the forest quickly.

Mr. Speaker! Despite the forest being storm-damaged, a felling notification is required, which has a three-week appeal period, and one may not fell until six weeks after the notification has been made. That is the normal state of affairs. Right now, the instrument is perhaps a bit blunt given how quickly this forest must be out.

I have seen that the Swedish Forest Agency has now announced that they will grant certain exemptions and reduce processing times in some cases. They are also allocating more resources to help and inform affected forest owners.

I have also heard that different member organizations, Skogen and LRF, have so-called information lines where you can call if you are not doing well. This is not just about economics, it is also about well-being. One has often taken over forest from, perhaps, relatives who have put in an enormous amount of time and sweat to ensure that the forest is as beautiful as possible, so I can understand that one also needs that part. All credit to all of you who have established this type of support!

But, Mr. Speaker, as the situation is now, it is unfortunately still possible to appeal to outsiders, which is currently happening on a systematic level from various activist groups. The risk in this situation is that forest owners do not have time to rescue the fallen timber, and then there is the risk that storm-damaged forest goes to waste and becomes worthless.

That is why the Centre Party has today, via our party leader, proposed that we should temporarily amend the Species Protection Ordinance and open up for general exemptions from species protection, but also when it concerns logging notifications in the event of extreme occurrences such as storms or perhaps fires.

We actually need a catastrophe legislation in Sweden. It is lacking in the Forestry Act and in the Species Protection Ordinance today. What we know for sure is that there will be more storms and more fires. Then we also need to do something as legislators so that the forest owners feel security and predictability if it were to happen.

Historically, it is extremely rare that we see storm damage like this, and it is fortunate. According to the Swedish Forest Agency, the storm Johannes may have caused the largest storm damage in ten years.

Even though the changes that the Center Party proposes in the Forestry Act and in the Species Protection Ordinance are permanent, they shall only be used in exceptional cases. In these specific cases, it means that when forest owners are severely affected, we should not burden them with bureaucracy. I believe that very many agree on this.

Mr. Speaker! The government is now proposing compensation to forest owners when forestry is stopped due to species protection, and that is good. It is actually very good. But there are some challenges that I thought I would point out – not with the payment, for that is a bandage on the wounds of the forest owners. But there are problems with the fact that some – not all – present it as if this were something that would strengthen property rights. It is not quite that, even though it is good. I am afraid that it is rather the case that the state is given greater opportunities to use tax money to buy out private individuals' property and circumvent prosperity in the countryside.

Do not misunderstand me! I said that the proposal is good. I am convinced that most parties actually want to create a different order in forest policy, and this can absolutely be an important component in that. But to handle property rights from the perspective that restrictions are something self-evident and that the one affected by restrictions should be happy to be paid risks leading in the wrong direction. It reduces property rights to being about receiving compensation or being left out in a system where restrictions on private property, strangely enough, have become the universal solution to all goal conflicts. That is not how the choice should have to look.

Mr. Speaker! State interventions where an individual's right of disposal over their property is blocked should actually be a last resort, an emergency solution taken because the individual's property is crucial for very important societal interests. In such a situation, the question of compensation is obviously central. Therefore, the right to compensation is fundamentally correct, but it does not strengthen the right of ownership. It does not solve all forest owners' problems, and as an individual reform, it has the potential to cause some damage to the economy if it is viewed as a sufficient standard solution.

The one who invests in forest land does so with the aim of being able to cultivate it many times, often over several generations. This means that one bears the cost when acquiring the land. Thereafter, one bears the cost all the way until the time of harvesting. Once the harvest has been made, one also retains the land and can create new values from it.

Mr. Speaker! This is also the basis for jobs in the forest, jobs in transport and jobs in industry, large export revenues for Sweden, a great deal of tax revenue and all kinds of investments in the countryside.

The compensation issue limits the value creation solely to the value of the land for the individual and misses a bit of the social benefit in the processing stage. But hopefully, this will be dealt with since this is now to result in a government bill.

If one has a policy that year by year shall replace state restrictions on private property, it will – I repeat, and I believe there are some in here who agree – over time socialize more forest. The Center Party and several other parties do not want that. The risk in that case is that one throws tax money at laying a dead hand over land, eliminating jobs, undermining industry, and lowering Sweden's exports.

Mr. Speaker! A better forest policy should actually strive to reduce the number of restrictions and preferably make them time-limited, because that reduces the risk of carelessly creating a tax-funded socialization machine that gradually chews up private individuals' property. It sounds a bit harsh, but I thought it was expressed somewhat elegantly, if I may say so myself.

When it comes to the compensation, 125 percent is proposed. But I hope that the government considers this: Skatteverket has, especially when it concerns mountain forest farmers who are to receive 125 percent in compensation when they are not allowed to log for various reasons, been out and asserting that infringement compensations should be taxed as income from business activities and then on the entire amount. This is very unfortunate for everyone, not least for those who may have borrowed money on the entire amount. They can still be liable to pay when they have lost the forest. The tax aspects therefore need to be sorted out because the uncertainty is great.

With that said, I believe the principle of compensation is correct. For this to lead to improvements in practice, it is required that the forest investigation's proposals are actually implemented, preferably in their entirety, and that the delayed review of the species protection leads to something meaningful.

Now I see that time is running out. In conclusion, I will only say once again that the principle of compensation is right and correct. That I will direct to the government. The component that the government recently delivered feels very reasonable. On the other hand, this does not solve the real problems for forest owners, and it does not lead to either fewer or time-limited restrictions.

We simply have to have patience and see what the other parts of the forest policy deliver before the summer.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we have debated the forest, and since I was unable to take a turn to speak, I hope to be able to offer a bit of a dance. It is the case that one advantage of being last in the debate is that one has time to reflect a bit on what those earlier in the speaking list have said. I therefore thought to start from the beginning.

Martin Kinnunen from Sverigedemokraterna argues that it is not possible to evaluate our forest policy, because the Forestry Act is from 1993. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was three years old. I think that was a long time ago, and much has happened since then. As a nation, we have joined the EU, and the Paris Agreement has been established, as well as the Kunming-Montreal Agreement.

It is time to evaluate and choose a new course for Swedish forest policy. It is entirely possible, because we already know today what is wrong with it. Investigations, authorities, and report after report have already shown it.

Since joining the EU, we have been committed to reporting on how Sweden's nature is doing and how Sweden is doing in working towards the Birds and Habitats Directive. In Article 17 of the Birds and Habitats Directive, we see in black and white that we are missing our environmental goals regarding the forest.

There is only one forest type in Sweden that has a favorable conservation status, and that is the mountain birch forest. Approximately 40 percent of the species and 20 percent of the habitat types that have been reported do not have a favorable conservation status in all regions where they occur.

This is in black and white, and with that knowledge, it is completely reasonable that we as politicians also wonder how we can reform forest policy so that we can actually reach the goals that, for the most part, no bureaucrat in the EU has decided – it is we politicians who have made decisions about them. However, that is how it sounds, as if this is something that evil bureaucrats in the EU who just want Swedish politics and Swedish nature ill have come up with. But it is our party groups that sit there and negotiate and shape these goals together. This is, therefore, nothing that we can shrug off, but it is something that has been decided through democratic means. These are goals that we have subsequently evaluated and which it has been shown in black and white that we are not reaching.

I am also thinking about what was said from the Moderaterna side regarding property rights. I want to say with full force, Mr. Speaker, that it is a hell of a hypocrisy regarding property rights. What this government has done is to remove the possibility for municipalities to veto uranium mines. The entire mining industry shall be able to lay a wet blanket over the entire countryside.

There, my friends, we shall speak about property rights. It is about people who have lived and worked for generations and who perhaps have intended to leave this behind for the coming generations. There is, however, a hidden area that is gigantic, and one has no possibility of having any type of influence. There we are completely in the hands of foreign investment companies – pure joke companies. One has no power or possibility to influence.

As has been mentioned previously, the right of ownership in the forest is strong. It would require two parliamentary elections and two different parliaments in succession to change this. But just because one owns a forest or another piece of property – let us take a car as an example – it does not mean that just because one has a car in Sweden, one can ignore speed limits. One must actually have the car inspected properly, and one must put on the correct tires during the correct period. It means that one has a responsibility when one has ownership. The same must, of course, apply to the forest.

There has been much talk in this chamber before me about freedom under responsibility – and what does that mean? Well, it actually means that it is all clear sailing. I wonder, in all honesty, how many of you who have debated this forest issue know what a natural forest – a primeval forest – in Sweden looks like. They are very rare, so make sure to go there before the last of them are felled.

It is not timber fields that we are talking about when we talk about the last endangered species. It is also not something that humans are involved in creating through chainsaws or large machines. Then one might be confusing the nature conservation issue with grazing lands or hay meadows, because there we need to have a continuous disturbance. As far as natural forests – old-growth forests – are concerned, however, time is the most important ingredient for creating life there, not chainsaws and not machines.

There may be heathlands, hay meadows and other types of nature that actually need us humans to be there and help. This applies in particular to freeing up water flows in our rivers, streams and running water. There, one can also talk about the right of ownership.

I thank the Moderates and the Social Democrats for the previous parliamentary seminar which dealt with the conflict over dams and small-scale hydropower plants. What we do, however, forget is the land ownership rights which concern people's and the region's opportunity to fish. There we shall talk about land ownership rights, for this is entirely dependent on what happens upstream. There, from this government's side, it has been chosen to pause the legislation, which we have otherwise agreed upon both in the Swedish Riksdag and within the EU.

I also thought about what is called freedom. How great is the freedom for our Swedish forest owners today? We have previously heard that it is about 3 percent who choose to manage their forest without clear-cutting. What is this due to? It is not due to poor profitability or that it is impossible forests to manage in this way. We should say it as it is: We have a market failure regarding the forest.

Who are the forest advisors in Sweden? It is not primarily the Swedish Forest Agency, but it is the forest industry itself. There, Mr. Speaker, we come to the core of this entire debate. When you, dear colleagues, talk about forest and forest policy, you are talking about forest industry policy. We have a forest industry network in the Riksdag, but whose profitability is it about? Whose perspective are we taking?

Over a longer period, the value added of the forestry industry in GDP has decreased. In the 1980s, it was an average of 4.6 percent. It was 3.5 percent in the 1990s and 2.8 percent during the first decade of the 2000s. In 2021, it was at 2.2 percent. It is therefore this industry that we see our government sitting high and far up in the lap of.

What does it look like for the forest owners? Södra Skogsägarna reports a farm-type profitability and shows income and expenses. The profitability for forest owners in southern Sweden is approximately 2,217 kronor per year and hectare before capital costs. If one also considers capital costs for a hectare of forest, it is difficult to make a profit. This is also shown by the statistics.

Of the country's approximately 310,000 forest owners, 48,700 had some form of income from forestry during the period 2011–2017. At the same time, 60 percent incurred a loss, 17 percent reported a zero result, and only 20 percent turned a profit. I hope you take note, because this is what you say you protect but which you do not carry forward in your politics. The average surplus among those who reported a surplus was barely 91,000 kronor.

In recent times, timber prices have increased, and that has helped profitability. This is not due to politics, but rather depends more on how the world looks with unrest and market flows. We would, however, really need a policy that focuses on the individual landowner's profitability rather than the industry's. At the same time, large SCA makes a profit of perhaps 3–4 billion after tax, so it is going very well for them.

It is also important to consider what a forest owner wants with their forest. In the latest Skogsbarometern, only about 12 percent answered that good running return meant the most. Most important were the response options the feeling of owning forest, good long-term investment, and recreation and hunting.

The EU has also scrutinized Sweden specifically for cartel formations due to the market failure where one simply lets an industry pick the raisins out of the cake.

What about the jobs, then? Well, the number of people employed in the forest industry decreased between 1990 and 2020 by 60 percent. Even the number of sawmills in the country has decreased sharply for a long time, while at the same time we are harvesting more.

It is a pattern that we see. Regarding farmers, sawmills and crews, we are moving in a direction towards fewer but larger ones. This is therefore not a local economy that benefits the countryside. Most of the jobs that are created end up in or near the industries of urban areas.

A study shows that only 3 percent of those employed in planting and clearing are Swedish citizens. An overwhelming majority come from Eastern Europe. I hope that more parties want to look at what it means for these people, who rarely have good contracts or opportunities.

It is not the logging levels that affect employment. It often sounds like there will be more jobs the more we log, but with a more varied forestry, more business opportunities are created. We could invest in local value chains while the logging volumes could decrease slightly.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude with something that is close to my heart and which I have touched upon earlier, namely the injustice between city and country in forest policy.

Those who live and work in the countryside see a great value in the surrounding forest. The forest can actually be the reason why people chose to settle there. There is a great value for, for example, recreation, hunting, berries, and tourism. People have local knowledge and a relationship to the place. Decisions on logging are, however, often made over the heads of those who live there.

The Christian Democrats have spoken about how incredibly heavily regulated our forestry is. I would gladly invite a reply to find out exactly which legislation is being referred to. The only thing I have heard about this from the Christian Democrats is that the Swedish Forest Agency has six weeks to process the matter if a felling notification is made. If the authority does not manage to process it within that time, it is free to proceed – it then automatically becomes an approval, which can also be valid for five years.

The Swedish Forest Agency only has the possibility to review 2.5–5 percent of all logging notifications that come in. That is why we in Sweden clear-cut forest blindly.

The Environmental Code is all well and good, but I have read the Forestry Act from cover to cover. I recommend that you all do the same, because then you will see the wording that says one should take into account aquatic environments, cultural environments, and natural environments provided it does not affect one's production. We are thus back to square one – it is completely voluntary to do whatever one wants in the forest.

We can compare this with the power to influence if one lives in a city. There, one has the opportunity to express an opinion on comprehensive plans and detailed plans and perhaps even on how one's neighbor's house should be designed. People in the countryside have no opportunity to express an opinion. One has six weeks. There are no requirements for consultation. There are also no laws that ensure that social considerations are taken into account.

Let us compare it with building permits. It is not the case that the person who wants to build submits an application and then, after six weeks, is allowed to start building. They actually have to wait until they are sure of their matter and know that social and environmental considerations are taken into account. We would have such an order also in the forest.

Mr. Speaker! I think this discussion, and the entire debate, has been very misleading. For the sake of Swedish forest owners and Swedish nature, and in order to guarantee that future generations will be able to pick blueberries in the forests, which, by the way, have decreased by 50 percent as a consequence of this policy, we would need to guarantee that we can have living forests even in the future. It requires a completely new direction in policy.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the contribution.

I know that the member truly burns for these issues. However, we rarely, or perhaps rather never, have the same view.

I have a question for Rebecka Le Moine. I reacted when she said something along the lines that we other parties only talk about forest industry policy. I would like to defend myself against that.

I have stood in this speaker's chair and spoken about forest policy many times. When I am out and meeting people, I am reminded that there are also other aspects. It is about life in the countryside. Many villages exist only because of forestry. It is about jobs for people. It is not the case that jobs are overflowing where I come from or in other places in the countryside, but one becomes happy because of them. We cheer if five new jobs come to Robertsfors municipality. It might not mean anything in a larger context or in another place, but there it means very much.

The forest is also important for the climate, and there are also many other aspects that I think we should mention from this speaker's podium.

I am the daughter of a farmer and forest owner. I know how he toiled and how proud he was of his forest. I know that many others are too and how tenderly they care for this.

The member did not mention the countryside with a single word. Therefore, I would like to know: How is state-controlled and subsidized selective logging, which the Miljöpartiet has proposed, supposed to provide more jobs in the countryside than what exists today?

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In these political times, not least when one, like myself, follows nature, environmental, and climate policy very closely, it is easy to feel almost depressed, not least regarding species protection and the forest. Fortunately, there is hope. That hope is found among landowners, who are already transitioning. They are not waiting for a new shift; instead, they are working with a forward-looking spirit, pride, and the best interests of the region in mind. They are also doing it with profitability. Perhaps one could have supported them. The least one can do is not to speak ill of them from this rostrum.

Through a more clear-cut-free forestry, it is possible to refine in a much better way. Today we make minced meat out of beef fillet in the Swedish forest. We mow down the forests, and much goes to the paper and pulp industry or to combustion. Had we only been able to wait a little, not just go through the forestry industry's or the paper and pulp industry's business by just delivering to them, and ensure that we get good quality in sawn timber, we could have had a much higher refinement and achieved a much higher profitability. Then we could also have obtained more jobs in the countryside.

Therefore, I hope that the Center Party can look at this with new eyes. There are more ways to promote cut-free. Consulting can be one such way. Another way is to not speak ill of it, as if we had a boundary and as if it would not be appropriate. A third way is to go hand in hand with all those who are leading the way right now.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot say that I am very satisfied with the answer. My question was: How is this going to create more jobs in the countryside than what exists there today?

The reason I am so concerned about this is that I grew up in – and have lived in – a community called Bygdsiljum in Västerbotten. It is characterized by forest. The sawmill provides jobs for people in the village and in surrounding villages. It maintains the value of the houses. It makes it possible to open a small restaurant and a café and have a business that survives. None of this would exist there without the sawmill. We also would not get the roads repaired; given where Bygdsiljum is located, I do not think this is something that would be prioritized otherwise.

The forest is very important and provides many jobs. I object to what the member says about us talking down those who choose selective logging. We absolutely do not do that, as long as the forest owner themselves get to decide. That is what is most important. If one wants to choose selective logging, one simply does so. What I, like the Center Party, object to is that the state should use tax money to subsidize a certain type of management form that forest owners are forced to use. I think that is wrong. I also do not believe that it benefits the climate or the jobs.

My question is again: How is state-controlled and subsidized clear-cutting, which the Green Party has also proposed, going to provide more jobs in the countryside? The member's spokesperson has been in several newspapers and said that this will provide more jobs. I wonder: In what way will it provide more jobs than what exists now?

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate the commitment from Member Lindahl. However, I believe I answered.

If one looks at what has happened now, one sees that we have lost 60 percent of the jobs. That means we must go in a different direction. In that case, I think that one should work according to the landowner's will.

The proposal that we have submitted, which among other things concerns introducing a bonus-malus system in the forest where the landowner can enter into an agreement to voluntarily and on their own initiative commit to managing the forest without clear-cutting, is one way. Another way is to let Sveaskog, which is a state-owned company, lead the way, as has been done in our neighboring country Finland. It has proven to be a good way.

Since then, we have several municipalities that are already transitioning today. As has been said, that is where the hope lies. Several municipalities have already transitioned and adopted a new forest policy. This gives us some opportunities to see how this can be done in a good way.

I have not been so hopeful, but if we cannot wait and must already now start working in opposition and approach each other on this issue in some way, I can, if Member Lindahl wishes, invite you to a conversation where we can talk about how we can support the countryside. I am myself from the Småland forests, and I know how important local sawmills are.

Unfortunately, the larger sawmills are owned by the paper and pulp industry. This is something that has received criticism from the EU – how, in this monopoly-like situation, one advises landowners on how they should manage their forest. I would say that it gives a false sense of choice when you have experts who are constantly emailing and sending proposals: You must harvest your forest, otherwise this and that bad thing will happen.

We need to do something about this, and I am happy to send such an invitation.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 28 January.)

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