Forest policy

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Now it is time for the annual forest debate. We have stood here many times in recent years, and we have debated approximately the same questions every single time. This means that we are not really moving forward, or have not really moved forward, in the forest debate.

My party colleague Mats Green gave a speech earlier about the importance of mines, what they have meant for Sweden and what they have built up over a long period. It is exactly the same thing with the forest. It is the mines and the forest, and of course also Östgötaslätten, that have given Sweden success.

Jokes aside, Madam Speaker, in the middle of the 1800s, we clear-cut almost all of Sweden, at least the southern parts. At the beginning of the 1900s, we decided that we had to build up the timber reserves again, and we did. We began with a reforestation of what had been clear-cut, and since then we have built up incredibly large timber reserves in Sweden. At the same time, we have harvested these timber reserves a number of times.

When we reached the mid-1900s, the state decided how forestry should look. It was to be large monocultures, and if there were other tree species, we sprayed them with Hormoslyr. The forest owners who decided that they did not want to be part of this and instead manage the forest according to their own heart were the forest owners who built up high natural values. It is those forest owners who today no longer decide over their own forest.

Forest policy

When we then arrived at the 1990s and decided that Swedish forest owners should have freedom with responsibility, it was already too late for some. But since we have operated with freedom with responsibility in the Swedish forest and given the forest owners the opportunity to manage the forest according to their own judgment, we have continued to build up the timber stocks. But we have also increased many of the biological values that we measure in the forest.

Not everything is perfect – really not. It never is. But it is moving in the right direction in terms of very many parameters. You don't quite get that picture when you stand in this chamber and listen to certain parties.

We usually describe ourselves in Sweden and Sweden's forests as quite poor when it comes to biological diversity. Therefore, I find it so interesting to read about biological diversity from COP 15 in China in 2021. A tool was then developed by the Natural History Museum of Great Britain that was intended to measure biological diversity and trends for biological diversity in the world. One could measure over time and measure the countries against each other.

According to this way of measuring and monitoring biodiversity, Sweden is at the top together with Finland. When other countries look at Sweden, they see that we have a fantastic biodiversity in Sweden.

When one looks at how it has been since we introduced freedom under responsibility for forest owners according to the 1993 Forestry Act, one sees that the pace regarding the restoration of biodiversity has increased. Still, today we have the problem that forest owners are not allowed to manage their own forest according to their own judgment. How did it go so wrong?

We have had ministers all the way since we adopted this forestry law who have said that the forest policy is fixed. But nevertheless, more and more forest owners are being deprived of the opportunity to manage their own forest. Today, a large number of forest owners have to go to court to have it determined whether they should even receive compensation and whether they should be allowed to manage their own forest. This is a system that we must move away from. The future for the forest in Sweden is based on the individual forest owners managing and deciding over their own forest. A strong ownership right is a strong right of use, and that gives back to Sweden as a nation.

This government has now appointed a forest inquiry. It perhaps would not have been necessary if the previous one had fulfilled its purpose. Unfortunately, it did not. The problems arise when one has to negotiate ownership rights, forest, and usage with Miljöpartiet - unfortunately. C probably had very good intentions with that inquiry, but it is not possible to win that match and come out of it well. In the same way, it happened with the species protection inquiry that was appointed during the previous mandate period. Therefore, this government has now appointed a new forest inquiry. During the year, there will also be a smaller inquiry that handles the problems we have with species protection and the compensation issue. We must, in fact, solve these problems now. It must be an end to forest owners who have to go to a court time and again to be allowed to use their own forest.

In this forest investigation, we also speak about the EU and the forest. The EU has lately intervened more and more in matters concerning the Swedish forest and Swedish self-determination. I do not know if there are seven, eight, or nine different legislative proposals that in one way or another are in and poking at what concerns the Swedish forest and micro-managing the Swedish forest. It is probably not a trend that will pass, but we will need to learn how to handle how the EU in one way or another wants to enter and govern in the Swedish forest. Therefore, we also need to investigate how we should respond to the proposals that come from the EU.

It is another part in this investigation that concerns the forest owner when it comes to the responsibility for investigation. The new order that arrived regarding the forest during the last parliamentary term, and which our authorities decided to work according to, concerns that a forest owner shall investigate whether the state is allowed to restrict his constitutionally protected ownership and usufruct rights. It is not reasonable that the forest owner should investigate this and have this responsibility. These parts are also included in the investigation.

Madam Speaker! The EU has, as has been said in a number of different ways, entered into this and wanted to micro-manage and actually destroy this with freedom under responsibility as we have in Sweden. That is actually what it leads to. And I understand it, because it does not look the same in Europe when it comes to forests and the management of forests. But for Sweden, this is a major competitive advantage, just as the mines have been. There, however, we have fallen behind, and now we are doing the same thing with the forest.

What happens time and again when the forest owner is now not allowed to use their own forest is that a raw material shortage arises for our successful Swedish forest industry. It is a forest industry that is to account for a large part of the green transition, a forest industry that accounts for a large part of the gross national product and which actually does something good with the raw material that our sensible and wise forest owners have produced.

Madam Speaker! As a forest owner myself, I also want to be able to feel in the future that I am an environmental and climate hero. I do not want to sit and handle a number of different controversies with authorities and courts in order to be able to manage my forest and deliver raw materials, just as forest owners have done for a long time for Sweden's best.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, I believe that Sveaskog should be sold.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for his speech. It is always just as much fun to listen to John Widegren when he debates.

The Chairman mentioned the new forest investigation, and I have some reflections regarding it. It was announced almost a year ago, so it has taken a good while before it succeeded in being appointed. We have waited, but finally it arrived.

The investigation must manage quite a lot in a fairly short time. We have a previous forest proposal and the extensive investigation that formed the basis for it. There are also several other investigations concerning the forest that are already underway.

Based on this, I am reflecting a bit on how the dialogue with the other investigations should take place. It is a question of the Environmental Goals Commission, the Renmark Committee, the investigation on the deforestation regulation and, hopefully, also very soon an investigation on species protection.

How have the government parties thought about all the dialogues and, above all, all the overlapping assignments that exist? When it comes to the Environmental Goals Commission, there are several overlapping assignments within different timeframes that must be worked on in parallel. Who is to do what, and how is it to be coordinated?

Something that I think is good is the reference group that is to be appointed where all political parties in the Riksdag shall be included. How is that intended? Does Member Widegren know anything more? Is it the members from the Environmental Goals Commission, or is it a new group with representatives that is to be appointed?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions. It was a whole set of questions. Unfortunately, I shall have to leave the member quite disappointed as I probably cannot answer these questions. The Government Offices will probably have to handle them themselves.

I do not know yet how this parliamentary group is to be appointed - whether it is clear or not.

It is interesting that the member highlights that there is a lot of overlap. I think that is good. It means that more people will be looking at the same issues. Then, of course, it will need to land in some form of final processing in one way or another. The environmental goals preparation that is ongoing now, and which I myself am a part of, should be finished during the autumn. The partial report from the Forestry Commission shall be finished by Christmas, and the final report shall be finished by next summer. One will therefore work on the issues simultaneously, and I think that is good. I also assume that one will, in one way or another, succeed in landing them at the ministry in such a way that they can then lead to a wise proposition.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Widegren for the answer, even though he could not answer much in particular. I thought perhaps the Member had more insight and had been more involved in the preparation of the directives and the investigation.

I must, however, ask Member Widegren what he considers to be the most important issue in forest policy right now. For me, the answer is obvious: It is the species protection issue. It must be handled here and now. But the government does not seem to actually prioritize it – the SD-led government has had a year and a half, but nothing has happened.

We have had interpellation debates with responsible ministers here in the chamber, and during the question period we have asked questions, but we receive no answers. It is said that an investigation shall be appointed, and that has been said for a long time. It has been said that they are looking into the issue and so on, and most recently during the question period today, promises were made of a new investigation. But we have not seen a glimpse of it.

This is the issue that is most acute for the forest owners here and now. Why has one not started with the species protection issue? Does the member share the SD government's clear priority to appoint a forest inquiry but no inquiry on species protection?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I was first asked which I think is the most important issue right now. I agree that it is the species protection issue. One of the absolute biggest problems we have right now is the species protection issue. This is because we have chosen a new order for the forest, namely to interpret the species protection issue in a way we actually did not need to do in this situation. We could have continued forward in the way we have done previously.

The Moderate-led government has now appointed a forest investigation. In the preparatory work for that forest investigation, it is stated that a part of it shall be a species protection investigation. The issues do not, however, fall under the same ministers, and therefore this is divided. But it will happen promptly, for this is a matter that is urgent. Hopefully, we will therefore, within a year or so, be able to avoid seeing headlines time and again in the agricultural press about forest owners who are affected by species protection restrictions.

An important issue for me as a Moderate is the compensation part. Every time someone's ownership and use is restricted, compensation must be paid. For the Moderates, this therefore becomes a very important part of the continued work with species protection.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your speech, Member John Widegren! I could not help but request a reply given that you attribute such great power to my party in these matters. It is always exciting to see.

In my speech, I will take up approximately the same thing as the member did but – as usual, perhaps – the opposite.

In Sweden, we have a forestry law with two equal goals: we have a production goal, and we have an environmental goal. We have reached the production goal every year since we adopted these laws, but we have never reached the environmental goal. Should the government therefore not place greater weight on this when it appoints a new forestry inquiry?

In the Swedish Forest Agency's in-depth evaluation of the environmental goal Living Forests, it states: "The environmental quality objective has not been achieved and will not be able to be reached with existing and decided management measures and actions." It also states: "The development in the environment is negative." It has been evaluated up to the year 2030.

As a government party and, as we just heard, the leader of the government, this should be something one wants to address and ensure that one actually gets the tools to handle. I notice none of that when I hear John Widegren's speech, but rather I hear that one wants to increase the production target and override the environmental goal. The question is therefore: Do the Moderaterna believe that the environmental goal fulfills its function?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions from Member Nohrén.

The environmental goal Living Forests has been a contentious issue before. We maintain that the goal is not correctly designed. Both the Swedish Forest Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency emphasize that we will not achieve the environmental goal Living Forests even if we stop cultivating the forest. The goal is, in fact, incorrectly formulated. We believe that it is formulated in a way that does not make it achievable.

I still think that I said quite many times in my speech that environmental values and other things are, in many respects, heading in the right direction. That is the case, but a picture is often painted that it is not so in the Swedish forest, but that it is heading in the wrong direction. I think that is a very unfortunate picture, and I think that the index I referred to is a clear example of that.

According to this index, one needs to be above 90 percent to be at a stable level that is good for ecosystems and biodiversity, and Sweden - together with Finland and one additional country - is there, i.e., above 90 percent. The world average lies down at somewhere around 75-77 percent. It is therefore not here that the problem with biodiversity lies.

We have some problems with biodiversity in Sweden, and it concerns the amount of natural grazing land that is no longer grazed because we have too few grazing mules - which is due, for example, to the fact that Miljöpartiet, among others, have released the predator populations too much. It is a bigger problem than the situation in the Swedish forest.

I also said in my speech that everything is not perfect, but that I am completely convinced that individual, private Swedish forest owners want to make things better and become better. This presupposes, however, that they decide over their own forest. No Swedish forest owner believes that the public sector will manage his forest better than he does himself.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Like John Widegren, I am a forest owner, and I would very much like to do right by my forest. I want to be able to receive advice to know how it should be done and have the opportunity to take good environmental measures. I want to be able to deliver good biomass and, above all, good wood products, and to do that, one needs to see how the forest is doing in its ecosystem. There are, therefore, many different ways to look at this.

I do not think the member is answering my question. The goal Living Forests is misplaced, he says, but that is the goal we have and that we have adopted in this chamber.

When the Swedish Forest Agency looks at this, it can be seen that we have a shortage of important habitats in the forest landscape and that several types of habitats are decreasing and becoming more fragmented. This is an unfavorable status and a negative development for many forest-dwelling species. Many threatened and sensitive species are decreasing, and populations are becoming fragmented. Several of the forest's ecosystem services have an insufficient status. Cultural environments are being destroyed in the forest landscape in connection with forestry measures. We have a negative impact on the forest landscape's watercourses.

This is something that one sees has not improved over time. Instead, one sees that it has worsened since they began evaluating these things. It says: "Sweden's opportunities to preserve biodiversity in the forest landscape require powerful measures. For species tied to long continuity and species that need habitats that are rare today in the forest landscape, the situation is serious."

Doesn't the member think this is something to take seriously, rather than changing the goals? What are you going to do to make this good, John Widegren? Will the production goals and the environmental goals still be equal under a Moderate-led government? I do not see it that way.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! This matter of species is an interesting question. We shall not engage in it now, as it requires a somewhat longer discussion. Furthermore, our old nestor when it comes to species, Mats Nordberg, is no longer with us. He represented the Sverigedemokraterna. I had a very great confidence in him when it came to species and the species discussion. He often explained this with trends in species and so on, even if it is not the whole explanation.

Unlike the Green Party, the Moderates do not want Sweden to become a museum. The Moderates do not want more land to be taken out of production, because we cannot afford it. On the other hand, we Moderates have for a long time, when we have set our own budgets, had extra money to manage the natural values that we have already protected in order to have more maintenance in those areas and not have to take more land out of production.

For some in this chamber and around it, it is as if the sky is the limit for how much land should be taken out of production and how much land should be protected. It will not be a success story for Sweden. The success story is to continue letting individual forest owners decide, to give them the opportunity to become better but above all to let them cultivate and decide over their own forest.

The description that exists of the environmental goal Living Forests is yet another example of how we probably quite often portray ourselves as a bit worse than we actually are. In the eyes of the rest of the world, we are not this bad. When we report protected nature and so on to the EU, we report in a different way than other countries, and then we end up in a bad light. That must end. We must start highlighting the advantages we have, because the forest is the key to success in the future for Sweden.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have just had an exchange of remarks that touched upon quite a lot of my speech. One can see great differences in terms of how we view the forest, what is important, and what one can compromise on and what not.

I believe that we all here in the chamber can say that Sweden's nature is fantastic. I believe that most Swedes feel great pride and warm joy over the nature we have, and our country has been blessed with nature in abundance. We have miles of forests, magnificent mountains, bustling wetlands, and biodiversity in forest and land. But we see that the loss of particularly valuable and species-rich forests is very extensive, and it is happening right now at a very high pace.

The Swedish logging levels have in recent years been exceptionally high and have stood at over 90 million cubic meters every year. It is historically unique, Madam Speaker, and we see that the effects are very tangible in the forest landscape. This is not what the law prescribes. As I said in the exchange of remarks, Swedish forest policy has two equal goals: a production goal and an environmental goal. Both shall be achieved.

As I said earlier, the Swedish Forest Agency writes as follows in its latest evaluation of the environmental status in the forest: "Loss of natural values that cannot be recreated within a foreseeable time has been identified in the analysis as a problem of particularly urgent character. - Ensuring that remaining forests with very high natural values are preserved is crucial and needs to be addressed urgently."

The previous S-MP government commissioned a forest inquiry. It became a forest bill, and there were proposals on how we should protect a large part of nature when it comes to forest near the mountains. But the protection part came to nothing, because when it was to be implemented, the opposition's budget won and the money disappeared. After that, there was a new government, and even more money disappeared.

It is sad, because in the in-depth evaluation of Living Forests, several problems are raised that must be solved in order to actually achieve the environmental goal.

It is about the lack of habitats in the forest landscape. "Several types of habitats are decreasing and becoming increasingly fragmented."

We see an unfavorable status or a negative development for many forest-dwelling species. "Many threatened and sensitive species are decreasing and the populations are becoming increasingly fragmented." The populations simply cannot meet and become fragmented, and the forest landscape is being dissolved.

"Several of the forest's ecosystem services have insufficient status," it further states. We see that cultural environments are being destroyed in the forest landscape in connection with forestry measures, and we see negative impacts on the forest landscape's watercourses.

One part of how to address these issues is to have a more nature-oriented management. The Swedish Forest Agency's evaluation, for example, covers continuous cover forestry and other nature-oriented management forms and how to restore the water balance in the forest.

Before Christmas, we received a report presented by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency on how the conditions for continuous-cover forestry and nature-oriented forestry could be increased. Several different parts are mentioned there that could increase biodiversity and provide more continuous forests, including by giving Sveaskog and the National Property Board a mandate to work on these matters. One can also develop training and provide financial grants to entrepreneurs and competence development within continuous-cover forestry, because the knowledge does not always exist today. What is best? All methods do not work on all lands. Some methods work better. Sweden is a large, elongated country. We need more research.

We also need research on forest management, forest technology, forest planting, new machines, and new machine fleets that work. There we see right now that Sveaskog has a fantastic collaboration with some who thin with drones and other things. That means we get more forest left, because we do not need to have forest roads. We also get less impact on the ground. This is exactly what we should use our common forests for, and it is such initiatives that the state should take the lead on.

But is the government taking this seriously? No. Despite years of distress from researchers and authorities, they are now doing the opposite when appointing the new forest inquiry.

This investigation shall focus on increasing growth in the forest - even though we have not missed the production target a single time. But every year, as we have said, we have failed to reach the environmental goal. Yet, that is not included in the investigation. The serious threat to the last remains of forest with truly high nature values is not mentioned with a single word.

It is said that it is climate measures to extract more biomass, but one does not show an understanding that living forests are also a protection against climate change and that climate adaptation measures in forestry are a necessity.

One also does not want to know what is in the forest. We are already logging blindly now. Now, there is a desire to increase the area that individuals can harvest without inspection from 0.5 to 5 hectares. That is, an area the size of five football fields. If the neighbor does the same, it is soon a fairly large area, and if more neighbors do the same, it becomes an enormous clear-cut without any inspection. This could have devastating consequences for nature as such, but also for, for example, reindeer husbandry and for the fragmentation of the forest landscape.

These are some of the proposals in the forest investigation that make us deeply concerned. There are more.

John Widegren attempted to interpret the Green Party's policy earlier. I would say it was a distorted interpretation. We want to see a reorganization of the forest policy, yes. But we want Sweden to be a green pioneer country in sustainable and forest-proximate forestry. We see that we need a breadth of different methods for managing the forest.

John Widegren is talking about a museum. No, that is not what we want. But we shall protect that which needs protection, and that which is to be utilized shall be utilized sustainably. We want the size of the clearings and the combined size of temporally and spatially adjacent clearings to be limited so that we obtain a landscape view and can view the forest in such a way.

We want to see a compensation system to promote ecosystem services, increased consideration for nature, and other environmental measures in forestry. We want to promote sustainable forestry methods and minimize the leaching of wetlands and forest lands, because it is the case that what we do in the forest affects other places. If we have logging, we leach out minerals, basic substances, toxins, and nutrients. It ends up in our watercourses and, for example, in the sea, so what we do in the forest affects our entire ecosystem.

Madam Speaker! I will stop now. We will certainly continue with this debate throughout the evening.

We have a simplified motion process this year, which means that we will not be able to move for several of the motions we have submitted. I naturally stand behind them even this year, but I move for the approval of reservation 10 and therefore thank you for today.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Emma Nohrén often says that we think exactly alike, but the opposite. That is quite true.

Last week, news arrived regarding the new forest investigation that Emma Nohrén raised in her speech, and a debate article also arrived in the mail where the investigation was, of course, sawed down to the bone. In that article, which was written by a party colleague of Emma Nohrén, it states: "The government is pushing ahead - the forest shall be cleared" and "Sweden's nature is fantastic. But still, we allow a massacre of it." These are very drastic words about how the government wants to work regarding the forest and also about how it was handled, according to the Green Party.

Does Miljöpartiet as a party stand behind the statement that the Swedish forest is being clear-cut? Is it the image that the entire Miljöpartiet stands behind, or should the individual member be held accountable for it? Does Miljöpartiet consider that we are carrying out a massacre on the Swedish forest?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! As Kjell-Arne Ottosson said, the article was signed by a single member and contained word choices that I myself might not have made. On the other hand, we see that the investigation focuses on increased production and does not mention anything about environmental considerations. We see very few measures in that area at all. It is clear that there is frustration in this debate article.

We believe that the government has the opportunity now when they are to present a new forest investigation - despite so many others being ongoing at the same time, as we heard in the exchange between the Moderates and the Social Democrats. It is surprising that it only concerns increased production and that no other parts are included.

I personally would not use the same words as in the debate article, but we see where it is heading.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The directive states several things regarding precisely the environmental goals and how we should streamline environmental work in the forest. It is actually included in the directive.

In this report, Miljöpartiet has only one reservation that is up for consideration. A recurring mantra is "continuous cover forestry" and that one should cease clear-cutting. It is constantly recurring. But the research says that it is not the way forward. Possibly it could work in certain areas, but it is still very clear that it would not work if we switched to another form where we instead use selective logging. That was realized already in 1903. At that time, the forest was empty of large trees, and thus the material that provided seeds was not good.

Research has time and again pointed out that continuous-cover forestry will not work. If we are to proceed with it in large parts, a single tree species will take over, and that is spruce - regardless of what ground the forest stands on. Still, this is constantly recurring from Miljöpartiet. Does Miljöpartiet see no other way forward, other than possibly reduced fertilization? That yields even less biomass. We would need more biomass to absorb more carbon dioxide. Does Miljöpartiet see no other solution for the forest other than that it is managed without clear-cutting? It seems to be that which keeps coming up in everything.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! "Hyggesfritt" (continuous cover forestry) has become the name for a certain type of forestry, but we are increasingly talking about nature-oriented cultivation methods.

It is completely right that we do not like clear-cuts - especially not large ones. However, it can be done when it corresponds to a natural gap. We see in other countries, for example Germany, that clear-cuts are made on smaller areas. I believe it concerns up to 2 hectares in some parts. It can let in light and provide other advantages.

We would need to have a more nature-oriented management. Clear-cutting works very well on some lands, but not on all. If it were done everywhere, it would become a degradation, as the member says. Management is needed even if one works without clear-cutting, and one is out in the forest more often in that way. But to have clear-cut management as it is today, we consider it not compatible with the environmental goals, and it also means that one does not manage to achieve them.

Miljöpartiet wants cut-free, nature-oriented methods and fewer clear-cuts – if we are to have any clear-cuts at all.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has no motions in this report because we this year – or rather last year – have not submitted any motion on forestry. We did, however, at the beginning of the parliamentary term, and I would like to refer to that for those who are curious about our policy in the area. We also have in our follow-up motion to the government's climate action plan a number of motions concerning forest policy.

I thought I would take the opportunity today to talk a bit about forestry's climate impact. The forest is a habitat for a multitude of different animals and plants and generates a number of ecosystem services beyond storing carbon and producing raw materials. The total carbon sequestration could be even greater than today with forestry where the trees are allowed to grow older or through the protection of more forest. A significant part of today's carbon sink occurs on forest land that is not used for timber production, for example, formally protected forests.

Vänsterpartiet does not consider Swedish forestry as a whole to be sustainable today. Our position is that production goals need to be subordinate to environmental considerations. Today, the environmental goal Living Forests is not being met.

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 must be the framework for how the forests are utilized. That we sustainably utilize our forest resources is crucial for us to be able to meet both the climate crisis and the depletion of biodiversity.

According to the EU's new climate legislation, Sweden shall increase the average total net storage by 4 million tonnes in the year 2030. The net storage shall take place in forest, land and wood products. Net storage means that the uptake of carbon in forest land is greater than the loss that occurs each year in connection with logging and natural decomposition.

According to statistics from Naturvårdsverket, Sweden's net sequestration of carbon dioxide in forest land in 2022 was approximately 39 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This means that the annual carbon uptake in the forest has decreased by 40 percent over the last ten years. Collectively, this corresponds to emissions that are greater than from all domestic transport over one year. That the carbon uptake has decreased is due to high logging, that more trees have died from drought and spruce bark beetles, and reduced growth rates. The net sequestration in wood products is relatively unchanged during the period. Approximately 80 percent of what is logged in the forest goes to short-lived products such as biofuels, paper, and cardboard.

To break the trend of carbon storage becoming increasingly worse in Sweden, Vänsterpartiet believes that a large number of measures are required for Swedish forestry to become sustainable. Most urgent is to immediately stop the logging that occurs in forests with high natural values. Then more carbon can be stored and biodiversity can be strengthened. It is also of great importance that landowners can be compensated to an increased extent for storing carbon and preserving biodiversity and other ecosystem services and thereby contributing to the common goods that promote a more sustainable society for all of us and for future generations.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Even though the Left Party has no reservations today, there was still quite a lot in the speech that I would like to take note of, but there is not enough time for that.

Kajsa Fredholm said, among other things, that production targets shall be subordinate to environmental targets. At the same time, she says a great deal about the transition and the importance of transition given the challenges we have with the climate.

Then I must ask: With production goals that are subordinate to the environmental goals - it means, therefore, that we are to extract even less - in what way does Vänsterpartiet intend for us to transition? If we are not to use products from the forest, which is our great competitive advantage here in Sweden, what shall we use instead? Or is the solution to the transition that we should crawl back into the caves again?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the member's interest in our policy. I think that is nice.

I do not think that we are going to crawl back into any cave. I believe that even when people lived in caves, they used to cultivate the forest, at least if they lived in Sweden. There was forest to cultivate, burn, and use.

I mean that we should use the forest, but in a sustainable way. That was what I said in my speech. We do not consider that the forest as a whole is being managed in a sufficiently sustainable way today.

Since then, we have had conflicts regarding the management and use of the Swedish forest. If one were to put it to the point, one could say that one party sees the forest as a cultivation system and the other party sees it as an ecosystem. I believe that we need to find a middle ground here, where we can still maintain and preserve the biological diversity.

The UN's Agenda 2030 and the agendas of the annual COP meetings say the same thing clearly: The climate crisis is accelerating. We are in a bad position, and we must act now. Here, every hectare of forest has a role to play with its important products for the necessary biodiversity and the fight against the climate crisis. I wonder if the member agrees that the forest system also needs to be set within the timeframes of the climate crisis?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for both the answer and the question!

Yes, but of course, we are already there! Just by the forest standing and growing, it absorbs just under 50 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in a year. Then we have the substitution effect, which very many do not pretend to ignore. When we replace CO2-intensive materials such as steel and concrete with wood products, it becomes an additional approximately 40 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents that we displace because we use products from the forest. We are, therefore, already there. We make use of the forest and of the services that the forest provides us. That we would need to transition to reach there is a picture that I do not buy. We are already there.

In her speech, Kajsa Fredholm spoke out against short-lived products. This is another thing we usually hear: We should not use short-lived products to the extent that we do today.

We had a bioeconomy strategy conference a year ago, where we had representatives from the EU who said something along the lines of that we cannot continue to burn decent timber. They meant, in all seriousness, that we burn timber! The forest owner who sends their timber as firewood, I don't think exists.

Now it is like this, Madam Speaker, that logs are round. Planks and boards are square. When we send timber to sawmills we get residual products, and it is largely from these residual products that we make these short-lived products. We cannot use them for anything else. That is where this comes in.

Does Kajsa Fredholm and Vänsterpartiet think that we should also stop producing boards and planks and instead go back to log building houses? It will of course be nice, but then I think we will have great problems.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! It is always just as fun to debate with the member. Kjell-Arne Ottosson speaks about log cabins. I live in Leksand in Dalarna, and I think they are great. People are welcome to build more log cabins.

We need, for example, to build more in wood. Long-term sustainable wood products are absolutely necessary. I think that is very good.

What the member mentions about the EU having opinions on us burning suitable wood, or what the member said now, is nothing that I think the member should involve themselves in, because I do not agree with it. Of course we shall use what remains for both biofuels and other products. What I meant was the whole. The extraction from the forest is too large as it looks today, and we have a negative climate benefit in that way.

Then we have the EU's climate legislation, which means that we need to increase the net storage by 4 million tons by 2030. How does the member see that it is going to be done?

(KJELL-ARNE OTTOSSON (KD): I cannot answer that.)

No, sorry. I apologize.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation number 3, regarding the role of forestry in the bioeconomy.

The Swedish forest is our green gold that creates jobs and sustainable growth throughout the country. But the Swedish forest also has a unique natural value and must therefore be managed in a balance between nature conservation and forestry. The forest has built our country and has a decisive role in the transition now that we are to replace our fossil products.

Property rights in the forest are the basis for safeguarding the forest's potential, and voluntariness shall be the basis for the protection of forest.

We Social Democrats want the degree of refinement to increase, that more houses should be built in Swedish wood, that we replace fossil-based plastic materials and increase the domestic production of bioenergy and biofuels. In this, Swedish forestry is central.

Bioenergy is an enabler in the transition. New renewable solutions must be developed to break the oil dependency. With increased domestic production of liquid biofuels, we can strengthen our supply capacity and energy security.

The bioeconomy investigation that the Social Democratic government commissioned has submitted its proposals, but the question is what this government will do with it. It has been and is alarmingly silent.

Now it is required that we politicians are constructive and prepared to see the whole forest for the trees in order for us to move forward. We need more dialogue in our forestry issues, and in that regard, the forest program is an important tool to promote a growing forestry industry and a sustainable forestry.

The lack of competence in the green industries is something we must take seriously, and it can be alleviated with the help of Naturnära jobb. We Social Democrats also want to see an equal forestry sector. An influx of competent and committed women and men to our forestry workplaces is a direct prerequisite for the supply of competence and the industry's survival.

Madam Speaker! This past week there has been a lot of forest on the agenda, even in the Riksdag. First, we had a dinner meeting with Skogsindustrierna and talked about research and energy issues linked to the forest. Then we launched a forest education program to deepen our forest knowledge together across party lines. Sveaskog visited the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, and finally, the government also called a press conference and presented the directives for a new forest investigation, where the balance between the two equal forest policy goals, production and environment, shall remain firm. I think that is good.

There is solid work behind the previous investigation, which was over 1,000 pages. But since then, a lot has happened regarding the forest, primarily at the EU level and also in research. It is positive that a political reference group is being linked to the new forest investigation. It is important that, from the government's side, all parties in the Riksdag are gathered and an attempt is made to reach as broad a consensus as possible. Forest policy is not quarterly politics, after all. Every forest owner knows that forest policy is about long-term perspective so that the forest owners know what the rules of the game look like as far into the future as possible.

When the government presented the new forestry investigation, it turned out, however, that forestry's biggest problems today, species protection and the issue of compensation for forest owners who are deprived of the right to manage their forest, were not even included.

The latest example from my home region came at the beginning of this week. P4 Västernorrland reported on the Bäckström brothers in Resele, who were denied their logging notification to the Swedish Forest Agency because there are traces of the red-listed three-toed woodpecker. One is not allowed to log, and one receives no compensation.

The unrest is now great among the country's forest owners. More and more are receiving letters from the Swedish Forest Agency following harvesting notifications with information about protected plants and birds that can be affected by forestry measures. They cannot harvest their forest - the forest they have managed and planned for for decades, for generations, the forest that is an investment and an asset. This creates not only anxiety but also economic problems for many.

How long will Swedish forest owners have to wait? What does the government plan to do to handle this situation?

Knärot, three-toed woodpecker, bombmurkla, lavskrika, and tjäderspel have all led to species protection prohibitions and to forest owners not being allowed to harvest their forests. But shouldn't we protect species, perhaps some think. Yes, we should – within reasonable limits, and if it is to be protected, the landowner must receive fair compensation.

Sweden should have high ambitions for nature conservation and species protection, but it must be implemented in a legally secure and effective manner. An interesting discussion is also how we can increase biodiversity and how we can take into account protected species in the managed forest. Can we both manage and take into account at the same time? I believe so.

The forest is a national competence and shall remain so, we Social Democrats believe. In an EU context, it is fantastically important that we can export our forest products. As an EU country, we can use the forest as an important factor in the emissions system. But we must be able to have a dialogue with the EU about the forest without being overridden, and we shall also cooperate with other forest countries.

We are a forest country. The forest means a lot to many. It has a great economic value, but it also gives us hunting, mushroom picking, outdoor life, nature experiences, biodiversity and functioning ecosystem services. All these great values must be accommodated in the forest, and they must leave an impression on forest policy.

The forest is crucial for the development of Sweden and Sweden's rural areas. To develop a clear forest policy is to take responsibility for the country.

Madam Speaker! The year 2023 became the world's warmest recorded year ever. Even here in Sweden, our forests are affected. We see droughts, floods, snow-related damage after snowstorms with heavy snow, and many windthrows after storms. Climate change poses a threat to Swedish forestry and its cultivation methods. The Swedish forest will likely grow faster due to a changed and warmer climate, but at the same time, the risks of damage are increasing.

By adapting forestry to cope with a changed climate, the possibilities for the forest to withstand, for example, storms, insect attacks, and fungal attacks are improved, and the risk of driving damage is counteracted. An active forestry that is climate-smart and environmentally sustainable, while simultaneously creating jobs and sustainable growth throughout Sweden, builds our new growing bioeconomy.

The forest is Sweden's green gold. It is not only part of the backbone of our economy and welfare, but it is also crucial in the climate transition.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (both S) concurred.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is nice to be able to stand here at this late hour and discuss forests. A fantastically exciting subject!

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations. I can do so with considerable pride, as almost all of them are addressed in the forestry investigation or the upcoming species protection investigation. Then there is one reservation that we can gladly let rest in peace beyond that.

In Sweden, we have something called the Forest Barometer. It is an annual survey conducted by Kantar Public. One of the questions there is: What matters most for your forest ownership? When one hears the debate in society, in this chamber or wherever it may be, it often sounds as if the most important thing about owning forest is money and having as high a return as possible. You should harvest as much as possible so that you get as much money as possible – that is how I think it sounds in the general debate.

But in the answers that have come forward, the absolute most important thing is the feeling of owning the forest. The proportion who answer that is four times as large as those who answer that the most important thing is a good ongoing return. Ownership is therefore completely central. The feeling of owning something that you then manage and care for to the best of your ability ranks in first place.

In second place is good long-term investment. There, it is of course about money and a placement of money, but it is really not a question of any quick wins, as it also sounds like in the debate sometimes, but it is an investment over generations. It is very rarely the generation that plants is the same generation that then gets to harvest.

In third place comes hunting and recreation, as we heard earlier in one of the speeches: to be out, hunt, pick berries and mushrooms and so on.

In first place on fourth position comes good running return.

Property rights are completely central. We have heard that several times. But unfortunately, they are under constant attack both from the EU and at the national level from various actors. We truly have a mammoth task in protecting, preserving, and strengthening property rights.

As part of this, the government has presented directives to an inquiry, A robust forest policy that views the forest as a resource. Part of the work is to evaluate the forest policy, given the changes that have occurred since 1993 when the Forestry Act was introduced.

In the text regarding the law that came in 1993, it was stated that education and advice would mean that we could manage without political micro-management. That was the idea. It is a very good one, but we have certainly not reached the point where we can manage without micro-management in the forest. As we have also heard in the debate, freedom with responsibility was the motto when that law was introduced. One had, therefore, a trust in the forest owners' sense of responsibility. We must return to that trust, and that is where we should be in forest policy.

Another part of the investigation concerns developing forest policy to meet the challenges that will arise in the EU's forest policy and developing the working methods for Sweden's continued work in the EU regarding forestry issues. We really must step up, Madam Speaker. Just as Malin Larsson said in an earlier post, the forest is a national competence. We are almost entirely in agreement on that in the chamber. But still, the EU is out there fighting over forestry issues time and again, even though they are not supposed to do so. The forest is not mentioned with a single word in the EU Treaty, and thus it is a national competence. We must rather do the job at home and educate the EU institutions on what forestry actually is.

Madam Speaker! Another part concerns how we report. We must establish a uniform system so that we report equally. The way it is done now results in comparing apples and oranges.

Madam Speaker! Another extremely important part concerns simplifications for the individual landowner. This involves, for example, considering alternatives to the logging notification and the notification for consultation. It is about how decisions should not be able to be appealed to several different instances. Today, a decision can be appealed to both the general administrative court and to the Land and Environment Court simultaneously.

The knowledge requirements have been raised previously. There, we really must clarify what applies and facilitate so that the forest owner does not incur disproportionate costs and an enormous amount of paperwork. We have previously seen some forms that have been sent home to forest owners, and it is completely insane what expectations there are of the ordinary forest owner. It is not enough just to be a biologist; even higher education is required to manage filling out the forms. This shows that we have really run into a ditch, and that is why we must take a new approach.

Just as we have heard previously, a simplification of the logging notification for individuals, i.e., cultivation units owned by private individuals, must take place. We must review whether it is not possible to raise the limit for exemptions from half a hectare up to five hectares. This is again, Madam Speaker, a step back towards the basic principle in the law of 1993 where one trusts the forest owner.

In one of my remarks, I mentioned that both measurability and traceability in the environmental quality goals must be reviewed. We must streamline the work on environmental goals. In the environmental goal Living Forests, there are unfortunately a number of specifications and indicators that more and more researchers agree cannot be reached. Even if all human activity on earth were to cease for 100 years, we would not reach the goals. Then the question is whether the goals have been set in a proper way. We must set goals that are achievable. Those of us who have started our path in municipal politics have heard about management by objectives. There, it is crystal clear that goals must be achievable, and that is not the case here.

I look forward to the work that is to be done, and I look forward to the fact that a "super-investigator" has been given the assignment, namely Göran Enander. No serious actor questions his knowledge and competence: doctor, docent, and professor in forest management. It is going to be incredibly good.

I note that my speaking time is running out far too quickly. Finally, I want to raise the issue that is not included in the forest investigation, precisely because we must move faster. It is the species protection. That is why they are in two parts. If the species protection had been included in the investigation, it would have taken too long.

In December, I was on a study visit in Jämtland, and I visited a sawmill that during the autumn had stood still for several days due to a timber shortage. It sounds truly strange that there can be a timber shortage in the forest county of Jämtland. It was due to the species protection. That is, there were so many expected felling operations that had not taken place because the species protection had kicked in, and thus it was stopped. So we cannot have that. Therefore, this is being done in a separate track so that the investigation proceeds faster.

Madam Speaker! I conclude, even though I had more on my agenda.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Both I and Member Ottosson enjoy the forest. I intended to pick up where the Member left off.

Despite the fact that the Christian Democrats and the Liberals are in the same government, MP Ottosson raised the issue of species protection during a question period recently. Today, another Christian Democrat MP also posed a question about species protection. Even nine Christian Democrat MPs wonder the same thing as I do, namely why nothing is happening. But you are in government, and you have a responsibility.

You have now governed the country together for one and a half years, and the SD government has still not addressed the most important issue for forestry. I received no answer when I interpellated the Minister for Environment and Climate, and Member Ottosson also received no answer during the question period, even though you govern the country together.

Why is the government delaying in addressing the most important issue for our forest owners? Will the species protection regulations and the compensation issue be reviewed? That is what you have said. But when?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Larsson for the question.

It is very funny that the Social Democrats have been in a hurry on the issue, because it certainly was not a hurry when one sat in government oneself.

The reinterpretation of the species protection; the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive were merged. Sorry! Now I've lost the name of the directive. No, I can't think of it, Madam Speaker.

When the reinterpretation was made, the Social Democrats were in government. One has sat in government for two years after the reinterpretation, and one has done nothing. We have sat in government for just over a year, and we have addressed the issue because it must be handled now. It is precisely for that reason that it comes in its own track so that it can go as fast as possible.

I am very happy that it is we who are in government when the question is to be solved, not the Social Democrats. Then you would with great certainty have sat together with the Green Party and perhaps also the Left Party, and we can be sure of their stance on the issue. Then the question is whether anything would have been achieved at all.

In order for there to be progress in the matter, I am glad that we are part of the government. The investigation will be handled in a fast-track so that it proceeds as quickly as possible so that our forest owners are not affected by the madness.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ottosson for the answer.

Workshop and fast tracks; it has been one and a half years. I do not call that fast tracks, and I do not call it a workshop either. Both I and Member Ottosson know that when the EU rules were introduced, it was Member Ottosson's own party that sat in the government, not the Social Democrats.

The problems have not arisen through changes in Swedish legislation, but it is a series of court cases that have caused it. When this was discovered, the Social Democratic government acted immediately. We had a three-step plan and managed to complete the first two steps. The third step concerned the species protection rules. There, a review of the Environmental Code probably needs to be carried out.

Now the Christian Democrats have been in the government for a year and a half, but nothing has happened. The nature conservation issue must be handled now, and what applies to compensation to forest owners who are denied logging needs to be sorted out. Today we have heard from several representatives for the government parties that compensation is important. There are also many landowners who have high nature values on their lands and who want to preserve them. But what do we see the SD-led government doing? You are reducing the budget for protection and management of nature and forest. Then you put back a little money for protection, but it is far from what is required.

I do not agree that this should be some fast track or some workshop. I do not know if the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Climate and Environment are in agreement here. One says that it is urgent, while at the same time nothing has happened for a year and a half.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can only appreciate Malin Larsson's commitment to the issue. It means that there might be an even greater chance that things happen quickly even if the Social Democrats were to be in government.

As I said earlier, you also had the chance to correct it. If it was indeed the species protection that was the most important here, why didn't you take that first? Why, in that case, did you wait until the end with that?

Yes, this was implemented during the Alliance government. Yes, it was an over-implementation. Therefore, it must be redone and done correctly – no one has messed around with this at all. That chance has existed. The government did not take that chance. We will take it, and I hope that we take the chance also in several other parts where we see that Sweden has over-implemented EU rules because Sweden always wants to be "Bror Duktig" and preferably do a bit more than what is required. Thus, Sweden punishes itself. I feel very secure in that matter.

Regarding the protection of forests, Malin Larsson and I do not seem to agree. We prioritize quality over quantity. It sounds like Malin Larsson wants to protect even more forest and take forest from forest owners; that is actually what it is about. We have said that it is necessary to calm down and take care of the forest that the state has already taken from private forest owners.

It sounds good with voluntariness as a basis when one is to protect forest, but here it is also about compensation and how compensations should be handled. What compensation will you receive if you protect forest voluntarily, and how should it be the times when the state steps in and points with the whole fist? There we have not heard how the Social Democrats want to proceed – only that they want to put in more money to protect more forest. How much do the Social Democrats want to protect?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the speech! I must admit that I held on until the very end - then I pressed the button.

The members of the committee spoke a lot about freedom with responsibility and that it is we forest owners who know best. It states that Swedish forest policy is largely based on freedom with responsibility, with limited sanction possibilities. But the Forestry Act is a so-called minimum law - in order for the forest policy goals to be reached, forest owners are expected to make efforts beyond what the law requires. This is part of forestry's so-called sector responsibility, which means that measures required to preserve the forest landscape's natural and cultural environmental values are a shared responsibility for the authorities and forestry.

So, one must do what is required to achieve what is stated in the law. As we have touched upon, the law has two equal goals: the production goal and the environmental goal. At the end of the member's speech, he said that it is not possible to reach these goals. Earlier today, during the question period, the Minister for Rural Affairs stood here and said that he stands behind both goals. My question therefore is: Do the Kristdemokraterna stand behind both goals?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the question.

I will start where Emma Nohrén finished. Yes, we stand behind them. They must be goals that are actually achievable, but of course, we stand behind them. It is also stated in the investigation.

Emma Nohrén mentioned that it states regarding limited sanction possibilities. This can indeed be very much pondered given how actions are taken in the forest and how the state and state authorities in different ways act against our landowners.

There is no doubt: We stand behind the two equality goals, which were established in 1993. The Minister for Rural Affairs and I are in complete agreement on this, and it is also stated in the directives.

When these goals were established in 1993, one had – or at least wanted to arrive at – a view where one trusted the forest owners. It was argued that the policy should not be involved and micro-manage, but rather one wanted to provide freedom with the help of, among other things, education. This is something we have truly moved away from.

My experience is that Emma Nohrén's party is pushing for the exact opposite – that one should go in and regulate in detail ad absurdum – and considers that we are not doing enough here in Sweden, but that the EU should also go in and regulate in detail.

Does Emma Nohrén consider the forest to be EU policy? Should the EU be involved and care about Swedish forestry when the forest looks so incredibly different in the different European countries? It is not possible to compare the forest in Belgium with the forest here in Sweden. They are two completely different things. Should the EU be able to participate in limiting Swedish forestry when one does not have the knowledge?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have a climate law at the EU level that we have committed ourselves to follow. There is a condition there where the forest plays a major role. This is also what, for example, the Environmental Objectives Commission is working on.

Certainly, there are large parts where we have a common responsibility for all of Europe's forests so that they can perform Europe's climate work and contribute to biodiversity.

You said, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, that you stand behind the goals. At the same time, you said that the environmental goals cannot be reached. But regardless of whether one considers the goal to be unattainable, it can be seen that the trend since 1993 has been a downward one. There is a shortage of important habitats. Several habitats are decreasing – they are becoming smaller and more fragmented. We see an unfavorable status and a negative development for many forest-dwelling species. The populations of many threatened and sensitive species are becoming smaller. The ecosystem services have an insufficient status. We have a negative impact on the watercourses in the forest landscape.

It is not that we are in a good position and are going to go even higher, but rather that what we have is decreasing, despite the measures. When we see downward trends, decreasing numbers, decreasing spaces and habitats for these species, and that the species are decreasing, we cannot, regardless of what goals we have, say that we should be satisfied. Therefore, I wonder what you are going to do so that we reach the environmental goals or at least ensure that it does not go in the opposite direction, if you do not want environmental goals that actually correspond to what is required.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question!

We are in any case not to trust big brother the state. When the state has pointed with the whole hand, it has truly gone to ruin; it has shown itself with all desirable clarity.

We must trust individual landowners so that they can do the work they want to do. It has proven to be the absolute best, from the time the old crown forests became private until the present day.

Emma Nohrén talks about trends. We have more dead wood in the forest than in a long time. We have more leaves in the forest than in a long time. We have more birds in the forest than in a long time. We have more forest in the forest than in a long time. Still, it sounds like we don't have any forest left. 1 percent of the Swedish forest is harvested annually, and in the debate it still sounds like there are no habitats left. But there are, to the highest degree, habitats left in the Swedish forest.

What is truly worth protecting, the forest owners see and leave standing when they harvest. During a harvest, one must always take general considerations regarding high stumps, deadwood, or other things, and most landowners leave areas with high natural value, as they recognize the value themselves. We must trust the landowners, and the landowners must be able to trust the state. Otherwise, it will once again go completely pear-shaped.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report 7 on forest policy. The Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind all their proposals, but I choose to vote in favor of reservation 2.

For the Sweden Democrats, the Swedish forest is more than just a resource. It is a part of our cultural heritage, a cornerstone of our economy, and a key to our future and welfare. Our forest policy is deeply rooted in the principle of responsible and sustainable use, and we see it as our responsibility to manage this invaluable resource so that it continues to flourish for future generations.

We in the Sweden Democrats understand the importance of balancing economic development with environmental sustainability. We firmly believe that an active and well-managed forestry not only contributes to Sweden's economy through the production of timber and pulp but also plays a critical role in preserving biodiversity and a good environment. Our commitment to the forest is permeated by a deep respect for nature and an understanding of the connection that exists between man and the environment.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats stand for a forest policy that promotes sustainable utilization. This means that we actively support forestry methods that ensure that logging and other interventions do not damage the forest's ability to regenerate itself. Our policy is aimed at encouraging the growth of the forest in a way that protects water sources, preserves habitats for animals and plants, and maintains a healthy and diversified forest environment.

By promoting research and innovation within the forestry sector, we want to lead the way towards more efficient, economical, and environmentally friendly methods for forestry. We see it as crucial to cooperate closely with forest owners, local communities, and industry to share knowledge and best practices that support a sustainable future for the country's forests.

An important part of our vision is also to utilize the forest's potential in the fight for a good environment. By promoting forestry that actively contributes to carbon sequestration, such as reforestation and new planting of forests, we take an important step towards a greener and more sustainable future.

Economic value and environmental protection go hand in hand in our policy. We work to ensure that the Swedish forest industry continues to be a world-leading force by creating conditions that promote innovation and sustainable growth. This includes encouraging the use of wood in new and innovative ways, which contributes to a more sustainable development everywhere.

Education and awareness are central to our forest policy. We strive to increase knowledge about the forest's value and its importance for Sweden to ensure that everyone, from politicians to the general public, understands the importance of protecting and caring for this important resource.

In summary, the Sweden Democrats stand for a forest policy that is both responsible and forward-looking. By balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability, promoting innovation and cooperation, and focusing on education and awareness, we are dedicated to preserving the Swedish forest for future generations. It is our duty, our responsibility, and our honor to protect and promote this invaluable resource for Sweden's future.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is blessed with rich forest resources. It is a resource that is not only a cornerstone of our economy but also a source of pride and national identity. Our way of managing the forest has developed through centuries of experience, tradition, and innovation, resulting in a forest policy that balances economic development with environmental sustainability. This is a policy based on a deep understanding of local conditions and needs, something we consider fundamental to its success.

But today we face a growing concern regarding the EU's increasingly intrusive stance and regulatory framework concerning the environment and forestry. It is not without reason that the Sweden Democrats feel a deep concern for these regulations. They are often formulated far from our forests without a genuine understanding of our unique situation, and they threaten to undermine our national sovereignty and the successful forestry that is so vital for our country.

The Sweden Democrats stand firm on the principle of national self-determination, especially when it comes to managing Sweden's own natural resources. We believe that decisions concerning forest policy are best made by those who are closest to the forest, i.e., the Swedish people and their elected representatives. It is we who best understand the significance of the Swedish forest, its ecosystems, and the challenges and opportunities that exist within Swedish forestry.

Madam Speaker! The EU's attempts to standardize and regulate forestry across the entire continent without regard for national differences and needs constitute not only a threat to our ability to effectively manage our forests but also to our right to decide for ourselves over our natural resources. Such a one-size-fits-all policy risks weakening our forestry industry's competitiveness and its ability to contribute to national economic and environmental goals on our own terms.

We must safeguard our right to design the rules and practices that govern our forestry ourselves, based on our own scientific findings, traditions, and environmental conditions. We must defend our sovereignty against over-regulation and interference from the EU, which all too often is driven by an agenda that does not take into account the unique conditions in our country.

Standing up for our national self-determination does not mean that we close the door to international cooperation or ignore the importance of this. On the contrary, the Sweden Democrats see great value in sharing knowledge and best practices with other countries. But this cooperation must be based on respect for national sovereignty and an understanding that different countries have different conditions and needs.

We stand at a critical point in our nation's history, where the path we choose today and in the upcoming election to the European Parliament will shape the future of our forests, our economy, and our place in the world. It is therefore that we in Sverigedemokraterna forcefully argue for protecting national self-determination, defending the right to manage Sweden's forests in the way that Swedes know is best, and ensuring that Sweden remains a strong, independent, and flourishing nation.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

I am wondering a bit about what the Sweden Democrats and Member of Parliament Eriksson Falk think about the new forest investigation that was presented last week. The usual practice is that the Sweden Democrats, as the largest party in the government support, participate with a representative at all press conferences the government has. But not this time. Do the Sweden Democrats stand behind the investigation directives, or have the Sweden Democrats not been involved in the development of these directives?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

The Sweden Democrats think it is good that the government appoints an inquiry into the forest, which is so important for the Swedish economy and for Swedish jobs. We will follow the inquiry with great interest and contribute with our thoughts and input in the upcoming work.

I cannot answer why no representative from Sverigedemokraterna was present when the investigation was presented. But Sverigedemokraterna will, of course, be an active party in the upcoming investigation.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Eriksson for the answer. The Member cannot really answer why no one was present, but we do know that the Sverigedemokraterna, as the largest party in the government base, have a lot to say. Even yesterday, the Sverigedemokraterna participated in the government's press conference where the SD-government announced that they are lowering the unemployment insurance, even though the Sverigedemokraterna, before the election, put their honor on the line by promising not to worsen the unemployment insurance. Even at such a press conference, one chooses to participate, but not when it comes to the forest.

How important do the Sweden Democrats actually think forest issues are? They do not seem to prioritize forest issues, despite holding the power they have as the largest party in the government coalition. In the Tidö Agreement, the forest is not mentioned even once.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit exciting that the member chooses to take a reply to me at this moment. When my party colleague Martin Kinnunen participated in the same debate last year – when the Tidö Agreement was also newer – the Social Democrats chose not to ask that question, to perhaps influence or whatever thoughts they wanted to introduce. They are coming now. Just that, I think, is quite interesting.

The forest is important for the Sweden Democrats. The Tidö Agreement is the second [agreement] that representatives of my party have been involved in negotiating, as the member knows. The Tidö Agreement contains very much good policy when it comes to, for example, crime, migration, and energy issues, to mention a few parts.

It is clear that the Sweden Democrats consider the forest to be an important issue. That is also why we deliver such extensive policy in that area, including that which we are currently debating and that which I presented in my speech.

Why exactly some person was not present at a particular press conference, I cannot account for here or have all the details regarding. But the forest is an important issue for the Sverigedemokraterna and will be an important issue for the Sverigedemokraterna. We have been very clear about that on many occasions. That is also why we have been so clear that the EU must stay away from Swedish forest policy.

I think it is good that an investigation is coming that looks at these parts – how we can make it better for Swedish forestry and for Swedish forest owners, especially for all the individual forest owners who are all around in our country and who have had major problems linked to the policy that has been pursued under previous governments.

There, the Sweden Democrats can participate and influence a change through just that forest investigation that the member mentions. I look forward to the results of it, which measures will be proposed and what changes we can then make regarding the legislation.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! The forest is crucial for biodiversity. The forest's ecosystem services and the preservation of biodiversity are absolutely necessary for us to succeed in stopping climate change.

The forest also plays an important, if not decisive, role for our economy - locally and nationally. The forest is a strategic resource for a robust Sweden. The forestry industry is important for welfare, for jobs and for growth throughout the country. It also has immeasurable values for our well-being and for public health.

The forest is, just as many before me have said here tonight, fantastic. It is, if you will, a common national treasure, something that we need to care for with consideration.

Sweden needs and deserves a forest policy that ensures a long-term sustainable and competitive forestry and that strengthens the freedom of enterprise and the willingness to invest in forestry, while we take the considerations required to promote biodiversity. The ecosystems and agriculture need, must, and shall exist side by side.

Madam Speaker! Those who own forests have a responsibility to safeguard the common benefits that the forest creates. As a liberal, I and my party safeguard the forest owners' right to their property. Property rights are a liberal foundation. Environmental benefits and property rights shall be balanced against each other. We believe in the individual's ability to make wise decisions that are well-weighed - freedom under responsibility, if you will.

We here in this chamber, as legislators, have a responsibility to ensure that the regulatory frameworks that exist are purposeful, legally sound, and effective. This, my friends, is no small task.

Madam Speaker! Through improved forest management, there is potential to increase sustainable growth to meet the increased demand for forest products. At the same time, there is room to improve both production and the environment in the forest. But there are also goal conflicts here that require prioritization and conscious decisions. There is work to be done, and the work is underway. The environmental goals preparation must be mentioned; it is an important piece of the puzzle. The forest inquiry is another, as is the inquiry regarding species protection that has been announced.

In order for both the environmental goals and the production goals of forest policy to be achieved, consensus is required. However, there are deadlocks here, and there is more to be done here. In the government cooperation, we intend to do what we can to remedy this. Environmental care has been set against the need for products from the forest. So we cannot continue.

Forestry can and shall be efficient and gentle. Sufficient availability of forest raw materials is absolutely necessary for a shift away from fossil raw materials to be realized. I believe that the solution lies in a sustainable and active forestry with good growth and necessary products from renewable raw materials that provide the greatest long-term climate benefit. We also see a need for continued improved consideration for both natural and cultural environmental values in the management and use of forests.

Madam Speaker! I will not prolong the debate here tonight, but I would still like to conclude by making a small and highly personal historical exposé.

Almost 400 years ago, that is when Queen Christina ruled this country, it so happened that a young couple decided to break new ground. They settled in a risk hut out on a point at a lake with the clearest water my home region has to offer, far in there in the forest on the border between Närke and Värmland. History does not quite tell how it happened, but the ownership passed to the couple. They built a house, of timber probably.

This pair was the first of generations in my family who cared for, protected, used and managed the forest, mined the ore, caught the fish and hunted the game, for their livelihood and for the prosperity of future generations.

Madam Speaker! What I want to say with this is that it is exactly how we need to think when we shape the future forest policy. We must safeguard the prosperity of both current and future generations.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to extend a big thank you to Member Nilsson for the fine speech.

I believe I have mentioned the Liberals' forest policy here before, but I will do so again. This is how the Liberals themselves write about their forest policy: "National parks, nature reserves and biotope protection areas, together with a continued high general consideration, are the backbone of the Liberals' nature conservation policy. The remaining old-growth forests, the primeval forests, must be protected. The area of protected forest must increase."

There is a criticism of the newly appointed forest investigation, and it is precisely that the environmental goals should be reviewed from a forest and user perspective.

Member Nilsson began his speech by saying that the forest is crucial for biological diversity. In the directive to the new forest inquiry, the government hardly mentions biological diversity at all. My question therefore becomes: How does Member Nilsson view this? How important is the Liberals' backbone in these issues, and how will you monitor them in the forest inquiry?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Larsson, for the question! Yes, it is truly the backbone of our policy, and it is also the starting point in the negotiations that we conduct in the Moderate-led government.

In the committee directive to the forest investigation, it is established that the equal forest policy goals shall remain in place, and this includes the entire package of biodiversity, protection of valuable nature, and everything that has been mentioned earlier this evening. That is my answer.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the reassuring answer. I also raised the equality goals in my speech and think it is good that they are included in the new forest investigation.

In the previous budget for 2022/23, the SD-government cut the appropriation for protection and measures for our valuable nature quite significantly, and in this year's budget, the resources needed are also missing. Do the Liberals and Member of Parliament Nilsson think that our forest with high nature values needs to be protected and managed or not?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Of course, we believe that valuable forest needs to be protected and shall be protected.

As many have stood here in the chamber and said previously when budget issues have been debated, we find ourselves in a financially strained situation. In the budgets that the Moderate-led government has presented or delivered so far, a restrictive policy is pursued with responsibility for the future, in order not to drive up inflation, in order to continue building Sweden strong, and in order to meet the economic challenges that the present gives us.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! With advancing age, I cannot say that this time of day is my best time in the chamber, but I will try to speak about forest policy, which is one of my favorite issues.

I will begin by moving for approval of reservation 13, so I have done that.

Then I thought I would read a short text from a Facebook post that some of you might recognize. I will not read the whole thing as it is quite long and you can do that yourselves. I think Anna-Caren Sätherberg might recognize it, as it is Lia Hyttsten from Jämtland who has written the post. I thought I would start by reading a part of it because it says very much about property rights and the challenges that small forest owners face. She writes as follows:

Open letter to Sweden's population and politicians - a defense speech for property rights, Swedish security policy and our family's history. We must not fell our forest. My lineage is full of heroes, decades of toil, broken hearts and weary limbs. Their pride carried me here. In my lineage, there are no tycoons, priests or wealthy farmers. My lineage consists of miners and small mountain farmers who doggedly broke and cultivated the land until their bodies could no longer endure, all to then hand over the land they earned to the next generation.

The little man has been deceived for hundreds of years into selling his lands at underprices. Illiterate people have been encouraged to sign contracts that promised gold but turned out to be sand. I thought that time was over, but it is not. The era of modern baggböleri is here again, with the difference being that everything happens in full view with support from EU directives.

My parents are honest small-scale dairy farmers. They produce food. My parents are the epitome of welfare builders - dutiful taxpayers who have lived a life of simplicity without luxury. They have produced what the Swede takes for granted - food. Our agriculture is interwoven with forestry. The forest has been allowed to grow in order to provide capital for the development of agriculture.

For our farm and the upcoming generational shift, it is an economic catastrophe that what we did not think could happen is now actually happening: 38 hectares of final-felling forest has been held hostage when it turned out that there are traces of three-toed woodpecker in it. We are not allowed to harvest our forest. If we touch it, a fine of 7 million kronor shall be paid by us, the owners of the forest. Our certified forestry already had 6 percent of the forest set aside for key habitats. Not far from our forest, a luxury hotel is currently being built in inaccessible land. But millionaires transported by helicopter perhaps do not disturb woodpeckers.

We feel robbed of our property, but who can we report the theft to? In Sweden, the right of ownership is constitutionally protected, but that has turned out to be with major reservations.

This was part of the text that Lia Hyttsten, one of the daughters who want to make a generational shift of the forest, has written. For those who have not read it, I recommend doing so, because the post says a lot about what many of our forest owners, especially the small ones, are now experiencing.

Property rights are enshrined in the constitution, Madam Speaker, but the problem is that property rights are being eroded year after year. Forest owners can soon not even trust that they can call their forest their forest, that is to say, be able to decide over what previous generations in many cases have struggled for and put a lot of work into.

I therefore think it is good that the species protection ordinance, and how it is handled by certain individual authorities in connection with forest owners being denied logging, will be reviewed by the government.

I also want to include a passage for the government representatives. I know that when the Center Party sat in the alliance government, we had ministerial posts both in the Ministry of the Environment and in the Ministry of Rural Affairs, and one was not always in agreement on things. I hope, however, that it will turn out as well as it possibly can. I can promise you that the Center Party will sound the alarm if nothing happens quite soon and that we will haunt you at night. Then you will know.

Right now, Madam Speaker, Swedish forestry is in a state almost akin to the Wild West, where a majority of landowners have their logging stopped on unreasonable grounds with reference to species protection. Not infrequently, it concerns relatively common birds such as capercaillie, wood warbler and three-toed woodpecker.

Even the orchid knärot has, as you surely know, become a hostage for many forest owners. It is a plant that occurs in a multitude of places - millions actually, if you didn't know that - but despite this, the species has been allowed to halt several loggings in recent years.

This development has occurred without any changes in the legislation. Instead, it is the courts' and authorities' legal interpretations that have been allowed to dictate the conditions for Swedish forest policy. So, we actually cannot have that.

Since then, this has also been exploited by environmental activists who have seen an opportunity to stop logging with current species protection regulations by systematizing the appealing of logging notifications. The consequence has been that the Swedish Forest Agency and their staff are now actually being broken by a high workload. There is no longer any question of any forestry advice that can contribute to increased forest growth. I can certainly say that.

Madam Speaker! Several of the parts that the new forest investigation is to handle consist of treating the symptoms of a non-functioning species protection. In my opinion, it would have been better to address the core issues first. But now I hope and believe that one will address this and do so quickly.

Madam Speaker! It is not only family forestry that is threatened by the current state of Swedish forest policy. The forest industry, which accounts for 10 percent of Swedish export of goods, is also affected and, in the long run, so is Sweden's economy.

I spoke some time ago with an owner of mountain forest outside Vilhelmina who almost cried on the phone. There, they found something worthy of protection. I do not remember if it was this orchid or if it was a bird that was to be protected. I say nothing about that. But the problem is that if one is affected by the Species Protection Ordinance, one receives no compensation if one is not allowed to log. This means that as a forest owner, one is completely without legal recourse. One gets an informal reserve that one cannot sell, because naturally no one wants to buy it since one is not allowed to log. And one receives no compensation from the state. So we cannot have that.

That is why the blue light will now be on. I really hope that this will not take a very long time for the government because this is the absolute most important thing. Even though I welcome the forest investigation - the directives and also the investigator - I shall say, just as several others have said, namely that the absolute most important thing to review is the species protection issue and the compensation to our forest owners.

I apologize for speaking for so long. But now I have become worked up and upset over this issue, so you will have to bear with it.

Good evening!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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