Forest policy

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report MJU12 Forest Policy.

One might think that we often stand here and talk about the forest, but not so much happens in the forest. It grows slowly, even if it perhaps grows a bit faster in the fertile Östergötland. But still, very much happens between the times we stand here and talk about the forest. Isn't it in Sweden and Swedish politics, so it is in the EU and EU politics. In recent years, we have also learned that things happen that are not as good, which was also discussed in the previous debate about the terrible war that is ongoing in our vicinity.

This has caused people in general to have opened their eyes to preparedness and preparedness thinking, and the Swedish forest is also a part of a preparedness. The forest is something that has made and makes Sweden strong. The forest can replace raw materials that we perhaps sometimes have to fetch from other places on earth. Therefore, the Swedish forest is so important for Sweden, and therefore it is important that we maintain our Swedish forest production.

It is not always obvious that we should have production in the Swedish forest. In recent years, we have seen how the EU, in the form of proposal after proposal, increasingly wants to interfere in how we manage our forest in Sweden. During the last parliamentary term, I recall that there were eight different legislative acts at the EU level that in one way or another affect the Swedish forest and forestry.

We must say, as we Moderates do, that the Swedish forest is a Swedish competence and not something that is decided at the EU level. But the forest is also a larger issue, so sometimes one must nevertheless show understanding that different environmental and climate proposals at the EU level can affect Swedish forestry. In that case, it is nonetheless important, Mr. Speaker, that our ministers and also our parliamentarians at the EU level show and try to explain how it actually looks with the Swedish forest and forestry, and that one dares to speak out when proposals at the EU level come along that go completely in a different direction, as we think.

Forest policy

That is why I am very pleased that the government, with Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren at the forefront when it comes to forestry issues, has in a completely different way signaled against poor EU proposals. It feels very secure that we now have a minister who stands up for the Swedish forest and Swedish forestry.

At the national level, we have also begun to restructure forest policy. I would say that the primary sign of this restructuring is the forest inquiry that has been commissioned and which is led by Göran Örlander, professor of forest management. He is an incredibly wise person who has submitted a partial report from this forest inquiry. It arrived just in time for Christmas, and it contained a number of proposals intended to strengthen ownership rights, reduce red tape, and make it easier for Swedish forest owners to continue practicing a sustainable and sensible forestry.

Mr. Speaker! The policy that we decided upon here in this chamber at the beginning of the 90s has been a success for Sweden. Since we introduced freedom under responsibility and deregulated forestry, and thereby gave individual forest owners greater power to decide over their own forestry, it has been a success story. We have increased production in the Swedish forest and improved many of the biological values in the Swedish forest. Swedish forest is a success factor, and it is something that the whole world sees.

Something else that the government has done and which is incredibly important is that we are no longer selling ourselves out. We have had a tendency to engage in some form of self-harming behavior regarding the Swedish forest, but since the Swedish government has decided that we now report to the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives with the reference year 1995 instead of a pre-industrial level, we have landed at the same level as other EU countries. We compare ourselves in a similar way instead of giving away our assets and, frankly, our opportunities as a nation to achieve anything successfully. The change of reference period is therefore very important.

Mr. Speaker! From the Moderates' side, it has been about for a longer time that we believe in the forest owner. The public does not need to step in and manage. We believe that the forest owner makes sufficiently wise decisions and manages his forest in the wisest possible way. He delivers raw materials, he delivers nature experiences, he delivers jobs, and he delivers biodiversity, and he does this every day of the year. The Swedish forest owner is unique, because he has managed to do this.

From the Moderates' side, we therefore do not think that the proportion of forest to be taken out of production should increase. Where we find high nature values, we shall of course continue to be able to designate the forest with some form of protection. We do not need to increase the percentage of forest that is taken out of production, because we can find better ways to manage the environmental values that we have protected and, in the form of improved management, take care of them in a better way.

Mr. Speaker! For some, ownership is merely a legal concept that they quite often throw around here in the chamber. But for those who own and manage forests, ownership is something much greater. It is an inherent feeling and a heritage that may have been passed down through generations.

I am myself a forest owner in the seventh generation on our farm back home. For me, it is very important that I can hand over something to the next generation that is as fantastic as what I myself have inherited and taken care of during my time as a user. I want to hand over a forest property that has high natural values and that delivers production year after year. I do that with pride and in the belief that the next generation will do just as well. That we manage the forest over generations is what has led to successes and built Sweden as a forest nation.

We have now reached the point where some are actually afraid of getting too high nature values on their forest property, because then one can no longer decide for oneself. It has become a culture in Sweden that the public intervenes and is to decide when an individual forest owner has succeeded in building up high nature values.

This is what we Moderates want to move away from. We want a forest policy and a functioning forestry sector where the forest owner dares to increase nature values, have many species, and at the same time conduct good production forestry. We will achieve this through a strengthened ownership right, which is not just a legal term, and by being clear in our regulatory letters to the authorities.

We must ensure that all political decisions in this chamber lead to a continued strong property right, where the forest owner owns the right to take care of and manage their own forest. It is only then and only then that this success story can continue for future generations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm (M) agreed.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Widegren for the speech.

The wait and expectation for the species protection investigation is great among the country's forest owners. It is a letter of intent investigation. Consequently, we in the opposition have no insight at all. We are not allowed to participate in contributing to a long-term solution. First, it took one and a half years before the government appointed this letter of intent investigation. It was supposed to be finished by the turn of the year. But now, three months later, it is still not finished as far as I know. Therefore, I ask: What is it stuck on? Why is the government not delivering on the most important and most acute issue for our forest owners?

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

John Widegren (M)

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

Species protection is truly an important issue that needs to be addressed. It was also an important issue during the entire period of the Social Democrats' government, but it was not handled then. It ended with the Swedish Forest Agency adopting what was then called a new order in Swedish forestry. They truly brought up the problems that existed and which the policy had unfortunately actually turned a blind eye to for many years. The Moderates, together with the Center Party, pushed through a number of announcements linked to species protection. This concerned, among other things, the compensation issue and the investigation issue regarding species protection, which burdens individual forest owners. Then a smaller assignment was carried out under the previous government. After that, the issue has fallen to this government, just as the member says.

Yes, the letter investigation was supposed to be finished by New Year's. Now I have at least understood that it is approaching, and it might be finished in the coming weeks. Then it will end up at the Government Offices for preparation, as it is called. I am not particularly informed yet on what the situation is, but I can promise that the Moderaterna see this as one of the absolutely most important forestry issues. Before it becomes any kind of sharp proposal, we will monitor that this lands in a way that is advantageous for Swedish forest owners. I believe, just like the member, that this is one of the big talking points. But it is also one of the big problems today for individual forest owners.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

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

I can state that not even the Prime Minister's party, the Moderaterna, really know what is happening in this issue. It is approaching, it might come, it might be finished, we will hear. But this is an incredibly important issue. I think it is a bit worrying when, instead, they shift the blame onto the Socialdemokraterna. Here, we actually acted when we were in government. It is judgments that form the basis for this, and we would like to be involved in finding solutions. But this government acts as most governments do – closes the doors and wants to solve everything themselves instead of opening up for dialogue and finding long-term solutions. We Socialdemokraterna wanted that the species protection investigation should be conducted together with the forestry investigation to quickly see the whole picture and not leave any unresolved knots. We wanted that solutions should be found for all the questions that now pose for our forest owners all around the country.

Another question connected to this is: What happened with the birds? Often, the birds are the reason why forest owners are not allowed to log. The nesting sites of woodpeckers and black grouse stop very many logging notifications and it is that which creates the most restrictions. But there are question marks as to whether the birds are even included in this investigation. Therefore, I now pose the question to Member Widegren: Are the birds included in the letter investigation, or are they not included?

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

John Widegren (M)

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

The birds may not be included as clearly as I would have liked. But I am convinced that the birds will be included in the final result. In the connection to the peace-keeping regulations and so on, it doesn't matter whether it is about birds or something else.

I do not have much more to answer regarding the species protection issues, as we have not received the results yet. I simply ask to be able to come back to the species protection. But as I said, I am highly aware of the importance of the species protection issues, and I can guarantee that the Moderaterna will sell themselves very dearly here. These are large and important issues both regarding the ability to conduct forestry and the issue of compensation towards individual forest owners.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank John Widegren for the speech. I became a little concerned when I listened to the member, so I thought it is best that I ask questions to hear if it is not just me who has misunderstood.

We often and vigorously debate forest issues, and they also appear in very many other reports. But today is a small holiday, as only forest issues are on the agenda for the Environment and Agriculture Committee's debate.

We have international commitments. We have signed the Kunming–Montreal agreement on the protection of 30 percent of the forest. We have EU legislation, EU recommendations and Swedish legislation. For me, this applies until something else is said. It is not optional work.

Still, I think I hear from the members that we are not to protect more forest and not to take more forest out of production. Several different things were also said about EU laws. The members did not say that they are not to be followed, but it sounded like this is not something we are to listen to.

John Widegren was a member of the Environmental Goals Preparatory Committee, whose report was to deal with how we are to achieve what is specified in the LULUCF legislation. But what has been discussed instead is often whether we should agree to the LULUCF legislation. I do not believe that the final proposal answers that.

My question is whether the government and the Moderaterna think we should follow our legislation. I hope that you think so. But how is one to get there in that case? I do not consider your policy to be sufficient.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the members for the questions.

I will begin with the question regarding the 30 percent protected nature. It is extremely important, I think, in these forums that one distinguishes between mandatory legislation and things such as strategies and so on. The environmental goals preparation showed in its final product that we almost reached the 30 percent with the various proposals that were submitted there. Regarding the 10 percent strictly protected, we are basically there already.

Then we come back to the constant question, which we often debate in this chamber: What should be counted and what should not be counted? From the Moderaternas side, I would have liked to include a few percent for things that I believe we have protected but which are not counted. Then we would have been above these 30 percent. Sweden has, therefore, done its homework, and that was shown by the work of the Environmental Goals Commission. We have done what is required.

We have also done this with what I think is worth actually calling nature protection. Many countries around Europe have chosen to report, for example, landscape protection as protected nature, and they rank high in percentage. It can be nature where both agriculture and forestry are practiced. We can take Germany as an example. I believe they are still somewhere around 2 percent strictly protected nature. They are supposed to reach 10 percent. Even here, Sweden is a pioneer country.

I say it again: We do not need to sell ourselves out. We do not need to lie down and submit completely to everyone else. We are, in fact, leading the way in many respects. I know that there are parties in here who do not think we are leading the way and are a pioneering country. But we in Sweden, with our sensible forest management, have shown that we can manage to maintain high production while simultaneously having high biodiversity in the forest.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we differ slightly on how one should view protection and what constitutes protection. But if one looks at the statistics that exist, one can see that it is 6.1 percent of the productive forest land that is protected. If one counts with impediments and unproductive forest land, one reaches 9.7 percent, and if one includes protected bogs and fell-fields, it is barely 15 percent protected. But we are to reach 30 percent of the land ecosystems.

I know that the Environmental Goals Secretariat thought that one could also count in embankments, track beds and such, but for me, it is not forest land or productive forest land.

When I listen to the member, I think it sounds more like one should find ways to bypass the legislation rather than follow it. The member also placed very great emphasis in their speech on the right of ownership and the individual forest owner. In that case, I can take the opportunity to say that there are also many women who own forest – it was only "he" in the examples – I am myself one of them.

According to the member, all forest owners can therefore already follow this to the letter and need no regulatory framework. But we see how one can cheat on this and interpret things differently. We want diversity in forestry, but are we not to have any rules at all? Shall we remove the regulatory framework we have? Shall those who own forest be completely exempt from rules?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds many times as if the Green Party believes that the public is better than individual forest owners at taking care of the forest.

I am fully aware that there are many female forest owners. I am very happy about that. My wife is one of them – a very sensible and wise forest owner who safeguards property rights and high natural values, just as I do. Such are the common forest owners in Sweden. That is how it is done.

We do not need to remove laws and rules, but we do not need to make it even more difficult. We are making it more and more difficult time and again. Swedish forest owners have shown that they are capable of living up to this.

We can argue about protected nature or land taken out of production and so on. But we do not need to do anything that worsens things for Sweden when we are already a pioneering country.

In my previous post, I did not answer this regarding LULUCF. I think it is a very interesting discussion. I believe – I would perhaps rather say that I understand – that LULUCF will need to be redone, because the countries will not reach their LULUCF commitments. There is no reason for the EU to have this type of commitments if they cannot be reached. To reach the new calculations that came before Christmas would actually be directly counterproductive for Sweden. It is better to keep Sweden's production going.

Then one can absolutely have carbon credits and so on for those who want them. But let production continue, so that we get substitution effects and so on. I believe that the percentages when it comes to LULUCF will need to be revised for individual countries in order for them to be achievable.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here once again to discuss forest policy. It is usually a very lively discussion. I therefore want to move for the approval of our reservation 16, regarding the protection of near-mountain natural forest, right now, so that I do not forget it later in case there is a bit of a time crunch.

Now it is spring again in Sweden. I believe we have all longed for it, not least considering how the world situation looks. We see how buds are starting to appear here and there. We see flowers starting to bloom. I believe that many long for our nature. In Sweden, we have a long tradition of this – sometimes it is called national romanticism. But I believe that the vast majority have a feeling for the forest and feel a sense of well-being when they are there.

Many of our leisure activities also follow the seasons and how the forest looks. Now in the spring, it might be about getting out and walking, getting some air and looking at all the beautiful things. In the summer, it might be about getting out and picking berries and other things, walking, cycling – it has also become popular to cycle in the forest – running and so on. In the autumn, then comes mushroom picking, berry picking, hunting and everything that belongs to that. In the winter, perhaps one can also go skiing a bit.

I believe that almost everyone feels very strongly about the forest. At the same time, we often debate how we should manage the forest and that we are not quite meeting our commitments. In Sweden, we have for a long time had two equal goals: a production goal and an environmental goal. Neither shall take precedence over the other; they are equal.

Mr. Speaker! Last year, I spoke a lot about the Swedish Forest Agency's in-depth evaluation of the environmental goal Living Forests. It is conducted every four years. The latest evaluation was made in 2023 and was used during last year, i.e., 2024. It is the one that applies until further notice.

Let me take a few excerpts from there. It states that the environmental quality objective Living Forests has not been achieved and will not be reached with existing and decided management measures and actions. The development in the environment was negative. The goal has been evaluated against 2030. We will therefore not achieve our goals, as the policy currently stands.

Environmental improvement measures being implemented provide positive effects, but they are not sufficient to stop the loss of important habitats in the forest landscape. The effects of the protections and measures we take in one place are eaten up by what we do with the forest in other parts. We are eating the cake too fast.

It is also stated that the loss of natural values that cannot be recreated within a foreseeable time in the analysis has been identified as a problem of particularly urgent character. We are therefore talking about "foreseeable time", and it is not just about a few years but truly about exactly foreseeable time.

The five most important problems to solve in order to reach the goal of living forests are addressed. The first is the lack of important habitats in the forest landscape. Several types of habitats are decreasing and becoming increasingly fragmented. We know that 52 percent of all red-listed species are forest-dwelling.

Number two on the list is the unfavorable status and negative development for many forest-dwelling species. Many threatened and sensitive species are decreasing, and the populations are becoming increasingly fragmented. Fragmentation is actually a reason why we must keep the forest policy more cohesive. Many species are spread over large areas, and they need different environments in different parts of their lives. We need to see the forestry and the areas we protect in a slightly larger perspective, so that we do not fragment this. The protection we have established might work for adult individuals, but there might not be dispersal corridors for nursery care or other things.

Several of the forest's ecosystem services have an insufficient status, says the Swedish Forest Agency. It is said that cultural environments are being destroyed in the forest landscape in connection with forestry measures.

One also sees a negative impact on the forest landscape's watercourses. The latter is particularly important given the climate changes and that we must have resilience. We need to see water as a resource from source to sea. The forest and how we use it belong in this context. In a changed climate, we must also ensure that our lands retain the moisture that is needed.

This was the Swedish review.

Last week, the OECD released an evaluation of Swedish climate and environmental policy. In it, they say – I have mixed a bit from DN's and SVT's translation, because we are going to speak Swedish here in the chamber: Long-term intensive forestry and standardized clear-cutting have had negative effects on forest environments. Sweden is not on the right track to reach its goal for sustainable forests by 2030. It is also noted that logging has increased sharply, while protected areas are growing slowly. This not only threatens biodiversity but also reduces the forest's ability to bind carbon dioxide from the air.

This, Mr. Speaker, is what we see when we evaluate forestry. At the same time, I know that we need forestry – that is what we want too. But it must be in harmony.

I would like to make an analogy with the fisheries policy, where we have become more united in this chamber. There, we have agreed that we shall move out the trawling limit to reduce the pressure along the coasts – so that we can get the fish stocks back. We also agree that the quotas must be lowered, because if we only change where one fishes, it will result in increased pressure on the other areas.

It will be the same thing with the forest policy. We must protect in order to be able to preserve these things. We must have them in the right place, but we might also have to reduce so that the pressure does not become too great on the areas that remain.

When it comes to the salt, we agree, but when it comes to the forest, we do not agree. I do not understand how that adds up, because it is the same logic.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to achieve our climate and environmental goals in the forest, we must increase carbon storage. This means that we need to have longer rotation periods. We need to have a lower extraction. We need to protect more forest for the sake of biodiversity and also so that we can manage the forest's role in climate change. We know that healthy forests have better resistance against insect attacks and against weather and that they are better for the water's path.

We need to change the way we manage forests so that it does not become counterproductive, just as the Swedish Forest Agency said. The measures we take that are positive for the forest must not be eaten up by what is done that is negative. We must ensure that this hangs together.

Just as we talk about gentle fishing methods, we must talk about nature-oriented forestry methods. And we need to see the whole forest's role in the ecosystem when it comes to water resilience, dispersal corridors, and protection against climate change.

In the report, we have several reservations. It is about how we are to achieve an economy in a new forestry. It is about how we are to achieve our climate commitments. It is about how we are to be able to achieve a policy mix that actually makes it profitable to manage correctly. It is about that we need to protect that which is of greatest value, which we already know, that is, the mountain forest. And it is about that we must ensure that we have management methods that benefit the forest, the forest owners, and also the biodiversity.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I say: Thank you for today!

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Last week we stood here and debated with or against each other – depending on how you see it. Then we had a debate about our so-called slush funnel: overall environmental policy. Emma Nohrén mentioned in her speech the environmental quality goal Living Forests. That actually belongs, in the division we make here, at home in that report. It was thus raised then as well. But since Emma Nohrén clearly addressed the question now, I chose to request a reply.

The environmental quality objective Living Forests is something we often debate – for several reasons. One reason is that we have different ideological views on the forest. That is fine. That is why we are here. We are going to clash ideologies against each other. That is the core of the matter.

But we hear researchers who are quite clear that the environmental quality goal Living Forests is not a goal. It is a utopia. Even if all human activity on the earth's surface were to cease for 100 years, we would therefore not reach the environmental quality goal Living Forests.

Then my question to Emma Nohrén is: Does Miljöpartiet and Emma Nohrén consider the environmental quality objective reachable despite this? Or does Miljöpartiet see problems with the objective – and its specifications – as it is set today? Would it need to be changed? Can it be seen when one has a helicopter perspective to see the forest's full significance?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

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

I absolutely believe that it could be reached, but it may be that we have gained new knowledge since the latest specifications were made and that new milestones may be required for it to align better with subsequent legislation from the EU and internationally, for example.

But regardless of whether one can reach a goal or not, one sees the development over time during the evaluations. That is possible thanks to the environmental monitoring, which I know this government does not think so highly of because they are constantly cutting back on it. But we do, therefore, see the development over time.

The evaluation does not only say that we are not reaching this. It also says that it is a negative development in several places. In that case, the current system has not functioned. In that case, one would have to have a goal that it should be a negative development, and I truly hope that no one in this chamber wants that. If that were to be the new goal for living forests, I absolutely do not want it.

It is one thing if we do not reach all the way to the goal, but we must work on it. That was exactly what the evaluation of the environmental goals was about. It was the same thing that OECD looked at. It is about the trends forward. One sees that it is a notch in the curve. The latest notch regarding biodiversity and climate, according to OECD, came in 2022 when Kjell-Arne Ottosson's party with several others entered government. Then they actually changed the policy and steered away from the goals instead of towards the goals. I think that is wrong.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It must be stated that we are not in agreement on that question, and we do not appear to be going to reach an agreement.

Emma Nohrén raised this regarding red-listed species, and it is something that is often raised in the debate: We have so many red-listed species.

Yes, but in our Swedish nature, it is actually normal to be rare. For very many species, it is a normal state, not least because we are located at the edge of the great taiga. We are in a border area. Down there where Emma Nohrén lives, it is a completely different nature. Then you are suddenly in the sea, and then the possibilities for many of these species come to an end. We are, therefore, precisely on the border. It is normal to be rare.

We will, of course, take care of rare species. But if we build this on the red list, we are building it on trends. We have species that are red-listed and which certainly are not rare but which in recent years have had a declining trend. We cannot build on that. We must build on real figures, what actually applies. The rook and the mountain hare, for example, are two species on the red list. But they are in no way threatened with extinction.

Furthermore, Emma Nohrén raised this regarding clear-cutting sizes. Yes, incredibly much has happened regarding that part, at least during my lifetime. When machines were introduced in the forest, significantly larger clear-cuts were made because it was simpler. But in that regard, it has gone in a different direction. At the same time, Emma Nohrén speaks of the fact that we need to have lower extractions.

My question to Emma Nohrén is then finally: If we are to have a lower extraction from the forest but still carry out the transition, what shall we use for material instead?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the questions.

I think it is very important that we clarify this. I do not think there are many who have a handle on the red list. I think I have it, and I will try to clarify this with the red list a little bit.

It is used internationally – IUCN. It is about looking at development over time, two generations back. For an animal that only lives for two years, one looks four years back. For an animal that has a reproduction period of 15 years, one looks 30 years back. Then you see the trends and whether it goes up or down, just as we talked about earlier when it concerned the environmental quality objectives.

If an animal that has been common, for example the house sparrow, decreases significantly, it ends up on the red list. Which category it ends up in depends on how steep the slope is. It is not the same thing as it being threatened with extinction. It is about the trend. Is it negative or positive? And how steep the curve is determines which red list category it ends up in.

When a species ends up on the red list, it is known that something has happened that has disadvantaged that species. When a common species becomes rare, it is a cause for concern. If it is such a sharp shift in just two generations, it is something that should be taken into consideration.

I absolutely think that one should look at the red list, because it shows a trend and gives an indication of what is happening.

When it comes to the extraction, the research reports I have seen say that if we reduce to 2015's extraction – and then we did not extract a little timber in Sweden – we would reach most of our goals. At the current state, we have an enormously large extraction, the largest in a very long time or ever. If we were to reduce to the level we had ten years ago, we would still have plenty of timber, be able to make long-lived products and short-lived ones from what we cannot use for anything else, and still reach our goals.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice to have a person from Värmland in that chair as well.

Speaking of Värmland – 80 percent of everyone in our county who has gone to work today, or who will do so this afternoon if they work shifts, works within the forestry industry in some way. And 12 percent of Värmland's added value comes from the forest. The forest is incredibly important for Värmland, for the other forest counties, and for Sweden as a whole.

Of all the liquid cartons that exist in the world, that is, milk cartons, juice packs and all that it is, one in six is manufactured in this very distinguished landscape: Värmland. And one in four liquid cartons that exist in the world is manufactured in Sweden. That says something about how important forestry is. Furthermore, the liquid carton has replaced other products that have a greater environmental impact.

In this, the Swedish family forestry is absolutely crucial. In the debate, there is often talk about the large forestry companies and that part. But in Sweden, we have 330,000 private landowners. Family forestry is nevertheless the backbone. There we have the local ownership, and we have the forest owner who looks after and manages their forest.

Mr. Speaker! It is not least for those of us who are in this house and this hamster wheel that it is incredibly good to be able to come home, take the chainsaw, and go out into the forest and do something. It means an immense amount, not only for the transition for Swedish industry but also for the individual forest owner. Therefore, the ownership and usage rights and the fact that they are strengthened is completely decisive.

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

Speaking of reservations, I would like to bring up some of them in my speech. One thing that we often discuss in this chamber and where we have great consensus is the EU and the forest, which my colleague John Widegren took up earlier. The forest is not mentioned with a single word in the EU treaties. Therefore, the forest is not an EU competence, but it is a Swedish competence.

It has been clear that there is a great lack of knowledge regarding forestry issues in the EU. When one does not know what it is about, one should not assume legislation regarding it. One also does not see the great differences between the countries in the EU, and one does not see the forest's potential. When Sweden was the chair of the EU in 2023, we had a large bioeconomy conference here in Stockholm. There, a director-general from a directorate-general in Brussels stood and said: We cannot continue to burn usable timber.

Then it became clear; to say such a thing shows an enormous amount of ignorance. A forest owner who is of sound mind does not send their sawlogs as firewood in order to receive only a fraction of the price compared to what one gets if they send it to a sawmill.

That sentence has stuck, because it so clearly demonstrates the ignorance. Therefore, the forest is national competence.

In the climate action plan, the government writes: "The bioeconomy provides a double climate benefit through increased uptake and substitution effect, where biomass replaces fossil raw materials. It is important that EU policy beyond 2030 is designed to create incentives for a sustainable and growing bioeconomy." Just when it comes to a sustainable and growing bioeconomy, we have great consensus in this chamber. As we heard earlier in the discussion, it is rather about how much we should utilize it. But there is no doubt that the bioeconomy is important.

In this regard, the government has allocated funds, not least within the framework of Formas, to a research and innovation program with a focus on circular economy and a national research school on bioeconomy. Sweden is at the forefront regarding bioeconomy, but we can become even better. And we have the opportunity to become even better, precisely because we have the knowledge.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter addressed in the report is reforestation. There we can also look at our beautiful Värmland, where it is not a problem. The problem is not that we have too little forest. We are growing inward. That it grows back is a significantly larger problem. Furthermore, after harvesting, one is legally obligated to replant. One can also let seed trees remain or so. There are different possibilities. The forest owner handles that, as one naturally wants a regrowth for future generations.

We have a challenge, once again, with these EU legislations. We have a deforestation regulation, which is admittedly paused, and a nature restoration law, which unfortunately passed – even though it shouldn't have – when an Austrian minister voted against his own government. But it is EU legislations that go directly against each other. They say different things about the same issue. Which legislative act should we then follow? There, the EU becomes liable.

The forest investigation has also been up for debate earlier. It is an enormously important investigation to find solutions to many of the challenges we have regarding the forest today. A partial report was released just before Christmas; it was pleasant Christmas reading. We look forward to the final report which will come at the end of the summer this year. From what we have seen in the partial report, there are many good proposals that will help forestry forward and that will solve many of these problems. But it also states that active Swedish influence work within the EU is absolutely crucial if we are to get there.

Voluntariness under responsibility was mentioned earlier. This chamber took, with great unanimity, a decision on protection for voluntariness as a basis. But it is absolutely crucial that the forest owner can trust the state and that the state trusts the forest owner. That is where we really are not today. And the question is how we are to get there. Part of that is the knowledge requirement, which we discuss quite often. That is something that should be included in the forest inquiry's final report.

The government has now implemented several other parts, for example the change of the reference period which was mentioned here earlier. We are not going to penalize ourselves by having a reference period from pre-industrial times when most other EU countries have the time of EU entry. Why should not Sweden have the same? This government has ensured that we get there.

I had intended to bring up more things, Mr. Speaker, but my time is up.

(Applause)

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the speech!

The forestry industry is having difficulty finding the right competence today for its vacant positions. This could be a tip for all of you young people listening from the gallery: Look at the forestry education programs when you apply for your further education! People are needed – everything from forest machine operators to forest masters – and the technological development in that industry is very exciting.

Just education and research is something I am a little concerned about when I see both the research bill and the government's budget. You are reducing the grants for research and education at smaller universities. But it is at the smaller universities that the important breadth exists.

At the four northernmost universities, cuts of 40 million kronor will be made to education over the next two years. This means less teaching and that fewer people will enter education. Therefore, I want to ask the member if he thinks we need more or fewer education places in times of both increasing unemployment and a shortage of competence within the forestry sector.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

I do not know if it is permitted, but I still want to address the same gang in the gallery as Malin Larsson. Read a proper education! In this chamber, we often interact with each other. We are also very often in agreement, but it does not show outwardly.

Malin Larsson and I are here to discuss the report on forest policy and not the research bill. I will willingly admit that I have not read the research bill, so I am not enthusiastic about it. But just as I said in my speech, Mr. Speaker, the government has allocated money to a research and innovation program with a focus on circular bioeconomy and a national research school on bioeconomy. For this, Formas has received more money – not only for the current budget year but also for 2026, 2027, and 2028. There is, therefore, a long-term such investment.

Regarding the research bill, I admit as I said that I have not read it. But when I meet people in the forestry industry, it is very clear that they are also crying out for people.

It is not so long ago that I visited the forestry school Södra Viken in Sunne in Värmland. After that education, there are no problems getting a job. It is as sure as a bank to go there. But the problem is that not only the forestry industry but all industries are screaming for people. There is, therefore, a greater challenge in this. But of course, we shall encourage people to continue their studies.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In order for us to be able to develop the forest and our forest products, refine and renew, both research and education are needed. Both I and Member Ottosson, for example, usually highlight the important substitution effect, which would require more research.

We also see that there are fewer distance education opportunities with the policy the government is pursuing. It is incredibly important in our rural municipalities that one can stay put and pursue further education and continue studying when one is in the middle of life. But with the government's policy, it is the forest districts, such as my home district and the member's home district, that will be affected. It is our universities that will have less money. It is the small universities that will have less money for education and research. How does the member view the importance of forestry research across the whole country?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As said, I am not enthusiastic about our research proposal, but I share Malin Larsson's view that it is important with educational opportunities. One should be able to study, at least in some kind of proximity to where one lives, if one does not want to move.

We have different circumstances depending on where in the country we are located. I mentioned in my speech that it looks different within the EU. But there is no doubt that it also looks different within Sweden. It affects where forestry education fits best. But of course, we shall have forestry education, because we know that people are needed there.

There is a major challenge regarding academic freedom, that is, that you should be allowed to study exactly what you want. There are many courses you can study that do not give you a job, while at the same time other industries are screaming for people. Then the question is whether it can be managed in some way or if academic freedom should prevail. Do we have to start steering to get people into professions where they actually get jobs and which are important for Sweden, not least for the bioeconomy, as Malin Larsson mentions? We are broadly in agreement on how important it is. It can be developed and become even stronger. People are needed there. There is no doubt. That is where we are in agreement.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservation number 18, which concerns species protection, restrictions on land use, and compensation.

When we debate forestry here in the chamber, we usually call it our green gold, which has built our country. So it is. But what is important now is how we move forward to take advantage of the opportunities the forest provides. We in Sweden are lucky to have a lot of forest. It is a growing and well-managed forest that binds carbon dioxide, which is a home for a multitude of species, and which contributes products that can replace fossil ones. The balanced goals between nature conservation and forestry have led to a fantastic development of our forest.

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

Mr. Speaker! For the first time in a hundred years, new statistics from the National Forest Inventory show reduced growth in the forest. We also see more and more sawmills stopping their production and activists out in the forests preventing forestry machines from performing the forestry they are there for. We also see again an unusually mild winter, which causes challenges for the forest and forestry.

Of course, a concern is awakened in me when the forest grows less and sawmill workers risk losing their jobs – and some actually do. The level of conflict is escalating, and climate change is affecting our forest to an ever greater extent. It risks having major consequences both for the economy and for Sweden's opportunities to reach the climate goals.

It is pleasing that interest in the forest has increased increasingly, but it has also contributed to goal conflicts. Therefore, areas for cooperation such as the national and regional forest programs were needed, where knowledge and experiences can be shared. If the role of forestry is to be strengthened and the forest's role promoted in a growing bioeconomy, knowledge, broad solutions, innovation, long-term perspective, and cooperation are needed. It is a balance between use and conservation, different interests, and different considerations. Many are those who are affected.

It is also about jobs and the economy. But often it is the individual forest owner, who has cared for their forest for generations, who gets squeezed. Forest policy is not quarterly policy. Every forest owner knows that forest policy is about long-term perspective, so that they know what the rules of the game are as far into the future as possible. That is also why the commitment from us politicians is great in these issues. We want to be involved in influencing, and we want to be involved in taking responsibility.

I also believe that the forest debate would benefit from more dialogue, not less, and from us coming together. Furthermore, it is always good to meet on-site in the forest when discussing forestry and forest-related issues and forming views together, when one can see how forestry is carried out, what considerations are taken, and which species live there. We have incredibly many knowledgeable forest owners, forest workers, researchers, and entrepreneurs who possess long experience.

Mr. Speaker! The concern continues to gnaw at me, as there are several issues linked to forestry that raise concern. I am thinking primarily of species protection. Landowners still receive letters from the Swedish Forest Agency after logging notifications with information about protected plants and birds that can be affected by forestry measures. They cannot fell their forest and receive no compensation.

Forestry is closely linked with agriculture, especially for us in the north. There, the forest and its value are important during generational successions and for smaller farms to be able to continue to be operated forward.

The uncertainty, which is not only a consequence of Swedish legislation but is also influenced by new court cases interpreting EU rules, creates challenges for forest owners and authorities. Free-roaming species have been a highly topical issue ever since these judgments created a new order for the forest.

The government has chosen to handle the issues regarding species protection in a so-called letter-by-letter investigation at the ministry. It is an investigation that takes place in secret and which we in the opposition have no insight into. We also receive no answers to questions. When we asked last year why everything concerning the forest was not handled in one and the same investigation, we were told that there was an urgency regarding species protection. First, they waited for one and a half years before appointing this important letter-by-letter investigation, and now it has not been completed within the allotted time.

Several of us members have at various times here in the chamber asked what is happening with the investigation on species protection. Why is the government delaying the announcement? Most recently, the answer was that the Species Protection Investigation was not finished yet, and now in the debate, we have also not received any particular clarity. It was so urgent with the investigation that it could not be combined with the forest investigation, in which the whole could have been handled at once.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight how important research on the forest is. The level of conflict and the continued polarized societal debate make science more important than ever. The forest has built our country, but what opportunities exist in the forest moving forward? How can we create even more value from every tree?

The competence supply within the forestry industry and forestry research is extremely important for us as a country moving forward. But from the research bill and the government's budget, my concern is raised once again, because the government is reducing the funds for research and education at the smaller universities. It is they who contribute to the breadth of the research and can ensure that there is competence throughout the country.

We must take the skills shortage in the green industries seriously. We Social Democrats want to see an equal forestry sector. An influx of competent women and men to our forestry workplaces is a direct prerequisite for the skills supply and the industry's development.

The forest is one of our most important base industries, and it delivers everything from heat and pulp to building materials and renewable fuels. It is a long-term resource, a raw material that is also renewable and which contributes to a circular economy.

Forest policy must balance economic growth with environmental sustainability and see all the values of the forest and utilize its potential to create jobs and strengthen climate measures.

The forest is a link to our past, but it is also absolutely a key to Sweden's future.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring (S) agreed.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am not the first to stand at the rostrum today who thinks that the forest is fantastic. It truly is. At the same time, it is fraught with many conflicting objectives.

The forest is, if you will, a common national treasure, something we must care for with deliberation. Sweden needs and deserves a forest policy that ensures a long-term sustainable and competitive forestry. A forestry is needed that strengthens the freedom of enterprise and the willingness to invest. The forest also plays an important, if not decisive, role for our economy, both locally and nationally. It is a strategic resource for a robust Sweden. The forestry industry is important for welfare and for jobs and growth throughout the country, but it also has immeasurable values for our well-being.

At the same time as we take the considerations required to promote biodiversity, it also plays an important role in the transition to a more circular and bio-based economy. The ecosystems and forestry need, must, and shall exist side by side.

Mr. Speaker! As has been said, there are many interests to be balanced in the forest. It is a common space for outdoor life, hunting, and nature experiences. At the same time, the forest industry is one of our most important industries. The forest industry is absolutely crucial for Swedish exports and for a strong labor market outside the metropolitan regions. Without a competitive forest industry, Sweden would be a significantly poorer country. It would affect us all, regardless of whether we own forest or not and regardless of where in the country we live.

There is also an important rural perspective in this. For many of us who live and work in the countryside, the forest is a natural part of life. To live near the forest one owns, to utilize what it provides and to care for and manage it for future generations while simultaneously receiving a share of what previous generations have worked for is a way of life. It is a lifestyle that attracts people to stay or move out to the countryside to be close to their forest.

For me, this is strongly associated with a sense of freedom, something that I, as a Liberal, often speak warmly about. There is a sense of freedom in owning, using, and managing something. There is a freedom in roaming freely in the area's forests.

Those who manage 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. Environmental benefits and property rights must be balanced against each other. We believe in the individual's ability to make wise and well-considered decisions – freedom under responsibility. We as legislators have a responsibility to ensure that the existing regulatory frameworks are purposeful, legally secure, and efficient.

In order for the environmental and production goals of forest policy to be achieved, consensus is required, but there are well-known deadlocks here. This is something we in the government cooperation are working hard to remedy.

As has been said here earlier today, the so-called forest inquiry has now presented its first partial report. The review of the species protection that is ongoing within the Government Offices is moving forward. The current species protection rules create a constantly gnawing anxiety among many forest owners. The species protection rules and their application actually lead to completely unreasonable consequences. The presence of relatively common species can lead to forest owners losing control over their forest. When logging is stopped, forest-owning families are hit hard.

The system we have, with the national protection, must be reformed to become more purposeful. Property rights are a liberal fundamental basis, and when they are restricted, it must occur on legitimate grounds. The tools we have to protect biological diversity need to be reformed so that they become more purposeful than today's species protection is. In cases where the state decides on restrictions of property rights, this must also occur in a system with a high degree of predictability. In cases where there are species worthy of protection, the one who is affected, and thus is not allowed to fell, must be guaranteed compensation. The system for species protection that we have today is an impropriety unworthy of a rule of law country like Sweden.

That is why I and we Liberals are very happy that the government, with my Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari at the helm, is now working dedicatedly to establish a better system. There is a broad consensus in the government cooperation, and we look forward to soon seeing the results of the investigation that is ongoing.

Forest policy

Now we are strengthening property rights. We are cleaning up a bureaucratic failure, and we are increasing the incentives for forest owners to care for their forests in a long-term and sustainable way that promotes biodiversity in the forest without individuals risking being affected economically.

(Applause)

(cont. § 10)

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