Forest policy

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We received a new Forestry Act in the early 1990s. In a forestry context, that is quite recently. We cannot yet evaluate the consequences of that legislation. Forests that are being harvested today began to be managed before we had the two equal goals for production and environment. To understand the challenges we face, we must look at the actual figures regarding the forest's role for the Swedish economy, Swedish outdoor life, and climate work.

Madam Speaker! We have recently received statistics that once again underline the Swedish forest's capacity as a carbon sink. The total sequestration of greenhouse gases is significant, and it is increasing. The sequestration is a direct consequence of long-term management where growth over decades has exceeded the harvesting. The timber stock we have built up thus constitutes one of Sweden's most important tools to contribute to countering climate change.

Swedish forest policy has been a fantastically great success and still works well. The challenges are usually regulatory and have to do with Swedish authorities and perhaps above all the European Union.

Madam Speaker! It is important to emphasize that the forest's climate benefit is not static. The recently presented statistics confirm that the forest is a cornerstone in the strategy to reach net-zero emissions in the future. But this assumes that the balance between active use and growth is maintained. Without active forestry that generates new growth, the sequestration capacity declines as the forest ages. Therefore, it is important to consider the time perspective. Forestry involves extremely long planning horizons. The rotation period for a stand often extends between 60 and 100 years. This means that decisions made today will have their full effect only during the next century.

It has been over 30 years since the 1993 Forestry Act entered into force. That law meant a fundamental shift from the very detailed legislation of 1979. The requirements for regeneration measures and clearing were lowered in favor of the forest owner's own decision-making. Due to the slow biological processes, it is central to understand that we do not yet see the consequences of the paradigm shift in forestry.

The forest that was rejuvenated in the mid-1990s has, in many parts of the country, hardly reached its first thinning phase. The condition we see in the mature forest today, the forest that delivers raw materials to the industry and binds carbon, is in fact the result of the more production-oriented legislation from the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

This creates a pedagogical and political challenge. Evaluating how the deregulation of the 1990s has affected biological diversity or timber quality cannot be done today. The decisions made now are based on models and forecasts rather than on completed results in the landscape, which creates great risks for the future. It requires a high degree of caution regarding how the regulatory frameworks are adjusted. We can state that this caution has been lacking over the last decade both in Sweden and among decision-makers in the European Union.

We also need to address the socio-economic realities. The forestry industry is one of Sweden's most important basic industries. The export value amounts to approximately 185 billion kronor annually. The forest industry employs up to 140,000 people, if indirect jobs are included. It is a backbone for employment in large parts of the country.

Despite the economic strength, there are a number of clouds of concern. This concerns, among other things, a growing strategic contradiction. At the same time as competition increases from China, where we see massive state-supported investments in raw material assets and advanced processing, Swedish industry is forced to devote a disproportionate share of its resources to managing new, extensive regulations from the European Union.

In the Swedish debate, a number of smaller parliamentary parties and a good number of interest organizations participate with the perspective that forest should be public property. There has also come a wave of initiatives from Brussels, such as the regulation on deforestation-free products, the nature restoration law, and tightened reporting requirements within the framework of LULUCF. It appears as a paradox that in a situation of intensifying global competition, we choose to increase the administrative and regulatory burden on precisely the industry that is to contribute to delivering the green transition.

There is a significant risk that Swedish forestry will end up in a situation where the focus shifts from growth, forest management, and technical innovation to regulatory compliance. If we are to be able to compete with actors such as China, who do not operate under the same environmental or social requirements, the European and national regulations must be predictable and adapted to the actual conditions in the forest and not to theoretical desk products.

Sweden has a forestry industry that delivers record-high climate benefits and supports a large part of our economy, but it is an industry that is vulnerable to short-term political fluctuations. We must have the patience to let biological processes take time. We must also ensure that we do not regulate away our international competitiveness at a time when it is needed most.

Madam Speaker! Later in our session, we will have the opportunity to debate and decide on a new forest bill. The Sweden Democrats expect that this legislation, together with new legislation in the area of species protection, will contribute to removing many of the obstacles and uncertainties that exist for a fundamentally robust Swedish forest industry.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats promised before the 2022 election that forest owners would be given good conditions to cultivate and manage their forests with strengthened ownership rights without any external regulation or unnecessary bureaucracy. That is quite interesting. What is meant by external regulation and unnecessary bureaucracy? One of my questions to Martin Kinnunen is, therefore, what this implies. Should we not have any form of steering mechanism when it comes to the cultivation of the forest?

I also have another question. Given the work that the Sweden Democrats have been involved in performing for nearly four years – is Martin Kinnunen satisfied with what the Tidögänget has achieved?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for the questions!

I would say that a considerable amount of work remains. We have, after all, perhaps the most important product regarding the forest waiting from the government during the spring.

Sverigedemokraterna also have high expectations for the changes in the area of species protection.

We also have high expectations regarding the ownership rights inquiry, which is a parliamentary committee where, of course, the Social Democrats are also represented. I would like to pose a counter-question to Tomas Kronståhl regarding what starting points the Social Democrats have in that committee. Is one prepared to quickly establish a consensus between the blocs on the regulation of ownership rights issues in order, for example, not to risk a situation where the inquiry is extended so much that it is not completed before the election? It is a concern I have that the Social Democrats may not be serious about what they have said regarding ownership rights but instead would prefer to postpone the inquiry so that it is not finished before the election.

Madam Speaker! The most important issues we have to handle remain. We have a great expectation of the government that it will deliver on the forest investigation in the forest bill and that we will get changes regarding compensations and a more reasonable management of species protection. These are matters that are urgent and that we expect to happen during the spring.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the partial answer!

I share Martin Kinnunen's concern regarding the ongoing investigations and the remaining debates. We Social Democrats see that coordination and a rapid solution are required to get the forest policy and all the various remaining issues in order. I am not sure that a constitutional amendment is a particularly fast model.

However, I am absolutely convinced that we must solve the compensation issue. This leads me to ask one further question, Madam Speaker. We had allocated 2.5 billion kronor for compensation to forest owners who cannot cultivate their land in one way or another. You cut that sum significantly.

Now you are coming back with a sum of 100 million that is to take effect in 2027. The question is: Do you really want the landowners to receive compensation? Is it just an empty promise, or is one trying to delay the compensation in some way?

I have a different opinion regarding the compensation issue. I have seen a proposal that it should be a one-time compensation. The forest is a living organism and a growing raw material; it changes all the time. If it were to become a one-time compensation, we would essentially place a dead hand over the management of the forest. In that case, it is significantly better and more appropriate with a time-limited compensation.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I agree that there are many different processes affecting forests. Off the top of my head, I will think of the ownership issues, the LULUCF regulation, forest monitoring at the EU level, the deforestation regulation, the nature restoration law, and the species protection rules.

It almost never ends! If we add the investigations that have been ongoing in recent years, I think it is slightly absurd that we have a forestry industry that functions very well, with increased growth and with fantastic climate benefits and export benefits. It is something that we are mostly thinking about in order to deregulate in some way.

Tomas Kronståhl asks about the compensation issues. I can state that the Sweden Democrats are not involved in preparing the proposals from the government. What we have been able to see of what has come so far implies concrete improvements.

The 100 million that are set aside may possibly seem insufficient. At the same time, one must remember that the idea is that it should be a royalty payment, which means that if compensation is needed, the amount will be higher. Money will therefore be injected in the same way as with other royalty payments.

The reason for the Sweden Democrats is that we do not think there is a great need to increase the proportion of protected land in Sweden. A motive when we push for reduced allocations in the budget for this purpose is simply that we think it is better if more forest is cultivated.

If we can create even more jobs, contribute to even more climate benefits and create even more products that can replace fossil products, it is an advantage. It is a disadvantage to plow in much more money into more protected areas.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here today to debate forest policy. This year, the Committee on Environment and Agriculture is applying simplified motion handling. This means that many of the motions and requests that we had last year are not being taken up this year. We obviously still stand by the policy, but we have other reservations in this year's report. I want to demand approval of reservation number 9 already now.

Many of our reservations this year concern climate and climate adaptation of the forest. We often speak about the forest's role in the climate transition, the green carbon sink, and how we are to replace fossil raw materials with forest raw materials. We also speak a great deal about how we must preserve the forest so that it can absorb carbon dioxide.

At the same time, we know that a forest that stands helps to reduce the effects of a changed climate. If one reads the latest reports on the websites of the Swedish Forest Agency, SMHI, or the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, one understands that we need to carry out a climate adaptation in the forest so that we do not suffer major damages to society from our forestry.

Forestry contributes to great societal benefits, but a report from the Swedish Forest Agency shows that forestry can also destroy a considerable amount of forest benefits if the forest is not managed correctly.

The Swedish Forest Agency has seen that there are 68,400 risk areas. 42 percent of these contain roads, railways, buildings, and water protection areas. Over 120,000 buildings, of which 50,000 are homes, are located in risk areas where forestry is ongoing. There, it is necessary to climate adapt and conduct risk assessments before performing forestry measures.

We saw this autumn how the large amounts of rainfall over Västernorrland caused great damage. Among other things, a railway was destroyed. In the area, logging had been carried out on a slope. An accident commission has been appointed to look at whether the forestry in the area influenced this.

Just before Christmas, the Swedish Forest Agency's own analysis of this was released. They say that the forestry affected it. On one hand, a forest area in a steep slope had been clear-cut, and on the other hand, the forest roads leading into this had become like torrents and led the water downwards.

We saw just recently the storm Johannes move in over Sweden. It caused great damage, with 11,000–12,000 cubic meters of forest lying down. Then came the large amounts of wet snow on top of this, which complicates matters.

Storms have always occurred, but we see that with a changed climate as we now have, they occur more often. We have shifted seasons and seasons. That means that the frost has not arrived in the ground when many of the storm seasons occur. That in turn means that we get damage to the forests in a different way. When there is frost in the ground, they can remain standing and have more resilience.

From the perspective of the Green Party, we see that we must adapt forestry to the climate much more so that we can have a robust forest that can withstand storms and other things. Other forestry methods are needed, among other things, so that we do not leave bare areas in too large areas.

This is something that both the Swedish Forest Agency and others say. The larger the clear-cut areas, the greater the impact it will be. It also results in larger buffer zones towards other forest areas.

We also need to ensure that we assess the catchment areas much better. There are already rules of consideration in place. The Swedish Forest Agency can already today set requirements on logging size in drainage areas to reduce water-related damage, but this is done on a very small scale.

A clarification was needed in the environmental code's rules of consideration so that they become legally binding requirements. One needs to have a precautionary perspective so that events with low probability but with serious consequences are also covered.

Even if one does not believe it can happen, it can have major consequences when it does happen. One example of this is the train that derailed. Furthermore, the train was filled with ammunition. It could have gone really badly.

We have today a procedure for logging notification where one has six weeks before one receives an answer from the Swedish Forest Agency on whether one is allowed to log, and then one can proceed.

During this parliamentary term, several different forest investigations have been conducted, all of which have favored the industry's interests. Among other things, they want to reduce the number of days from the logging notification to the green light. We believe that this is bad for many reasons, including because the Swedish Forest Agency risks not having enough time to assess whether the measure is sufficient. The Swedish Forest Agency may not have enough time to see that it concerns a risk area.

We therefore see that it is necessary to keep six weeks and that the Swedish Forest Agency needs to have greater powers when it comes to looking at the risk areas. It should also be included in the forest management plans which forestry measures one should take within the risk areas.

We are talking about large economic values. As said, it is about several billion when you add up what could happen if you do the wrong thing in the wrong place, even though it is legal. We must close this loophole.

How we manage the forest also affects. One can get the authorization to manage a forest if one has other, nature-oriented methods, cuts down fewer trees and does it in a different way. Then one can manage the forest in many more places. That is also what, for example, SMHI says: In a changed climate, we will get increased growth of the forest. But we also see that the climate zones are shifting northward, which means we can get new species. That may be positive for some, but it also means more invasive species and species that do not belong here.

The risk of forest fires is increasing, which also places demands on how the forest should be managed, how we should take care of our forest and what level of resilience is required. We will probably see more damaging insects and more damaging fungi, which get better conditions in a different climate. Our species, which exist today, get worse conditions because they are equipped for a colder climate.

There is an incredible amount to do to climate-adapt forestry. This includes planning of when, where and how things can be done and more regulation so that we get into a routine with this and do not miss socio-economic consequences. It is also about a way of management.

Madam Speaker! Together, these are measures that affect biodiversity and other parts favorably. It is therefore a win-win situation if we do it right, but it can have catastrophic consequences if we do not.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

The forest should be managed in the right way. What is right, asked our colleague Elin Nilsson, who sits next to me in the chamber. It may be a philosophical question, but in this subject, I could imagine that it is also very ideological.

Emma Nohrén began, and then spent much of her speech on, speaking about the reservation regarding climate adaptation. She mentioned the accident in Västernorrland. There, a representative for the Swedish Forest Agency was out and speaking on the same day the accident occurred or the day after, saying that the whole thing was due to it being extremely cold.

Only a few days passed, and then the representative from the Swedish Forest Agency was kind enough to back down. It turned out that the Swedish Forest Agency and those who work with the issues there did not stand behind this, but rather it was an individual representative who had been out talking.

Unfortunately, this is something we do not only see at the Swedish Forest Agency, but it is a challenge we see at several agencies. There are people who are pursuing their own agendas. The question is how we are to address this, so that we build on facts about what is right – not from an ideological point of view, but what actually holds true biologically and ecologically. How are we to get through there?

It is a very interesting question, not least from my experience of the connections that Miljöpartiet has to organizations that drive issues regarding the forest and try to drain processes and stop logging. They do what they can to hinder utilization.

The question is: How does Miljöpartiet believe we should handle our authorities so that we get authorities that everyone feels they can trust?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was an interesting and quite unexpected question.

Let me first point out that the person who was out and stated that the forestry had an impact turned out to be right. The person simply anticipated the events, as the Swedish Forest Agency's own report from December 12, 2025, says exactly that analyses show that practically all forest roads running down slopes have been damaged in some way because they have collected and channeled water. It states in the report that it is the logging that has been carried out in the area that has made this possible.

However, it is also primarily the forest roads of the wrong size, driving damage, and the way the clearings had been planned that have had an impact. Forestry in the area has thus had an impact, and the Swedish Forest Agency itself has said that.

How is one supposed to gain trust in our authorities? I would say that regardless of which party one belongs to, there are organizations that stand closer to you than others. From my perspective, I believe there are others who have a greater influence on politics than my close organizations. If we look at the forest, it is the slightly larger forest owners that I think have had a lot to say in the recent investigations and investigation directives. This may not suit small forest owners like me or ensure that we meet our environmental and climate goals.

Our authorities shall proceed based on legislation, and it should not matter what political opinion one has when working there. One shall follow the authority's directives. That is how it is, and I hope that everyone does so regardless of whether one works at the police, the Swedish Forest Agency or the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I hope so too, and I wish that it were so.

Another question that Emma Nohrén raised in her speech was logging and logging notification. After the storm Johannes up in Gävleborg, we have approximately 10 million cubic meters of forest lying down. Now we hear, again, how some organizations will do what they can to delay the possibility of taking care of all this storm-felled forest. It is thus 10 million cubic meters that are lying – an enormous amount! It is not in Gudrun-scale, but it is still a huge difference. But here we have an enormous number of trees that must be taken away before spring arrives and before the temperature reaches over ten degrees plus, because that is when the bark beetle begins to swarm.

Different organizations have therefore come out and said that one should do what one can to appeal where it is seen to be reasonable, not least because of species protection. This, in turn, leads to us getting these damages.

Considering what Emma Nohrén mentioned regarding the logging notification and that one wants to remain at at least the time period we have today and perhaps extend it – I don't know – I wonder: How do Emma Nohrén and Miljöpartiet view that question at such a time, when we have a storm that has felled 10 million cubic meters of forest? It takes quite a long time to take care of that.

Does Emma Nohrén consider that the forest should still remain, or should a dispensation be granted from the six-week rule so that one has time to take advantage of this before spring arrives and the harmful insects begin to swarm?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There have been temporary rules. Storm Gudrun was the most recent occasion when exemptions were granted for certain things. From what I have understood, it is not seen that it would be needed as it looks now, but we have asked the Minister for Rural Affairs to come to the committee to explain what the government is going to do.

It is clear that one must be able to take advantage of the forest that has blown down. It is not directly Miljöpartiet that is out there appealing, but the whole thing should proceed in its usual way.

What seems to be a stroke of luck in this misfortune is, what I have heard, that the storm damage looks a bit different because there was no frost in the ground. Many trees still have root contact, which means they can survive even through the summer. That has been seen in similar places. It may not be as urgent everywhere to take care of the forest as if the trees had been snapped, as they become during frost.

Then I hope that it is ensured that there is capacity and that the most important things are taken first, for example where there has been frost and the stems have been cracked. But the authorities must help with that coordination. I believe that the individual forest owners need help with the coordination so that the right measure is taken in the right place.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Politics is very much about priorities. When goals conflict, I think, in any case, that one must be honest about the consequences of the policy one proposes. The forest is one of the areas where many goals conflict, where the debate is often polarized, and where honesty is often lacking.

The forest industry employs around 120,000 people with jobs directly linked to the forest. If we add the processing chain and surrounding activities, it is significantly more. These are jobs that exist in places in the country where jobs do not directly grow on trees – unless it is forest jobs, of course.

The Environment Party's spokesperson Amanda Lind said in Ekot's Saturday interview a while ago that the Environment Party wants to reduce logging by 15–20 percent to reach the climate goals. At the same time, she claims that this should not lead to fewer jobs. That equation does not add up for me, Mr. Speaker.

My question to Member Nohrén is therefore quite concrete and simple: How does Miljöpartiet actually mean that a reduction in logging of up to one-fifth will not hit the jobs in the countryside?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! How the jobs are distributed within the forest industry should actually be an entirely separate debate. A large part of the jobs are in industries near larger towns or central locations. That which is operated with forest machinery and such is managed by far fewer people today than before due to increased efficiency. There are also many foreign contractors because we do not have enough forest machine operators in Sweden.

We also see that the forest industry is currently a bit cooled down after the previous prices. Last year we had high prices. We see that many sawmills are now issuing layoff notices. It is not about that fewer extractions are being made right now, but about demand. We also have great competition from the rest of the world.

I believe there are larger and more serious problems within the forest industry and forestry sectors – primarily on the pulp side, where we are now seeing great competition from South America, China, and other parts of the world. Especially now with trade tariffs and the blockade against the USA, we will receive more cardboard from China. This affects the entire Swedish market, so that is probably what we should focus on.

The reduction we want to see regarding extraction from the forest is approximately to the level ten to twelve years ago – we have increased our extraction in recent years. That was sufficient for the industry that existed then. If we can reduce to such an extraction, we can achieve our climate goals regarding carbon storage, extract products so that we can replace the fossil, and also take biodiversity into account.

I am convinced that we can manage that equation. At least our figures show it.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! If the market is already putting spokes in the wheels of the Swedish forest industry, we should not put our own spokes in the wheels for it. According to calculations, a reduction of just 5 percent leads to approximately 7,000 jobs disappearing. These are not just figures on a piece of paper, but this is about people, families, and local communities that will be affected.

Against that background, I think that Miljöpartiet needs to be very clear about what their policy actually entails. A reduction in logging of 15–20 percent risks, by a quick calculation, corresponding to over 20,000 jobs, which are primarily located in rural areas.

I respect that Miljöpartiet makes different political priorities than I and my party do. But the voters also deserve respect. It requires an honesty about the consequences of one's policy.

Are you in Miljöpartiet prepared to sacrifice around 20,000 jobs in the countryside to let more forest stand, even though, for example, SLU points out that active and long-term use also leads to greater climate benefit in the long run?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The forestry that the Moderaterna usually advocate for is also what has led us to where we are today. It is ever larger areas. It is large companies that have the forest. One rationalizes and has larger machines, which requires ever fewer staff per harvested area.

The policy we stand for is that we want a more nature-oriented forestry with more variation in management methods, for example, clear-cutting. It will require more contractors and provide more different types of jobs in the forest. It will become more small-scale and fewer large-scale contractors, quite simply.

With our forestry, there will still be several jobs in the forest. There will also be more niches than what exists today. I therefore do not have the concern that the member has.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am surely not alone in this chamber in loving the forest. Since childhood, it has been a place of calm, movement, and reflection for me. Over the years, however, my perspectives have broadened. The forest does not only mean recreation – it means jobs and climate benefits and is a fundamental pillar of the Swedish economy.

The Swedish forest is something to be proud of – not only for the biological diversity and the opportunities for outdoor life it offers, but also for the crucial role it plays for the economy, climate work, and in the long run, the welfare in Sweden.

The forest is and has long been a backbone in Sweden's development. Over 300,000 forest owners manage the forest with care and long-term perspective. This has been done for generations and continues to be done for the future.

Voluntary removals, environmental considerations, and a strong commitment have since the 90s contributed to the preservation of forests worthy of protection, entirely in line with the forest policy goals. At the same time, indicators such as the amount of dead wood and the occurrence of deciduous trees show a positive development, in parallel with active management.

It is precisely this combination – use and responsibility – that has made the Swedish model successful: a strong forestry industry that goes hand in hand with growing natural values.

Mr. Speaker! Forestry is important not only for growth and exports but also for a living countryside. As I mentioned earlier, the forestry industry employs around 120,000 people in Sweden, even more if one counts the processing chain and related activities. It is about jobs, tax revenues, and faith in the future – in the whole country.

Our forest owners are also climate heroes. Swedish forests bind large amounts of carbon, both in growing trees and in sequestration in products from the forest. For every tree that is harvested, at least two new ones are planted, but often three or more.

Wood products replace fossil materials in everything from buildings to packaging. Research from SLU also shows that active and long-term use provides greater climate benefit over time than letting the forest remain untouched.

Despite all this, there is today a growing concern among forest owners that the two equal forest policy goals – production and environment – are no longer being treated as just equal. Forest owners experience that natural values created through responsible use instead lead to restrictions on the right of use and ownership. Values that have been built up over generations risk being lost.

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, something has happened in the Swedish forest. According to the Swedish Forest Agency, the number of appeals has increased by 800 percent since 2021. What has caused this is apparently that the environmental movement has systematically appealed. Processes are being dragged out, legal uncertainty is increasing, and in the worst cases, logging is stopped without compensation. Then the goals are no longer in balance – and then forest owners are punished for doing the right thing.

This has consequences far beyond the individual landowner. Around 60 percent of the timber for the forest industry comes from private forest owners. When logging is stopped, the entire value chain is affected. In rural towns, jobs are threatened, not because the actual raw material is missing, but because it is tied up in protracted legal processes.

Those who want to reduce logging and restrict property rights are obliged to answer: Which jobs will replace the 120,000 that the forestry industry provides? And which materials will replace the fossil-free products that the forest delivers?

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' answer is clear: If we are to manage the climate transition, increase carbon storage, and have a living countryside, the forest must be managed.

The government has now taken important steps in the right direction. A comprehensive forest investigation has been presented, changes in the species protection with strengthened compensation rights are out for consultation, and Sweden, together with other forest nations, has managed to bring the EU Commission to reason regarding the deforestation regulation. But more must of course be done to create long-term stability in forest policy, so that forest owners dare to trust that their care and hard work to ensure their forest fares as well as possible does not risk backfiring on them.

Mr. Speaker! It is actually an election year, and in forest policy, there are two clear paths. The Moderate-led government, which stands on the side of the hard-working forest owners, stands up for property rights, stands up against the EU's meddlesomeness, and ensures that the forest, in the long term, gets to play the decisive role for the climate transition that we are dependent on it to play.

On the other side, it is glaring. The Social Democrats know that the forest is a prerequisite for a living countryside. Yet, they are willing to make themselves dependent on a party that has a completely different view on the forest and, not least, the right of ownership. It is a party that wants to reduce logging, broaden species protection, and at the same time turn a blind eye to the consequences this would have for jobs in the countryside or the availability of sustainable raw materials that are so important for the transition. I do not think one needs to sit in the Riksdag to know which party I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker! At the Moderaterna convention in the autumn, we made decisions that clearly defend the right of use and ownership. Nature conservation shall not unnecessarily hinder land use. If it does, compensation shall be paid. Since land constitutes a capital asset, the infringement compensation should be taxed as capital income and not as earned income. It is based on a fundamental principle, namely that if the state claims your land, the state must also pay.

Those who contribute to increased nature values shall not be punished but encouraged. Those who create or maintain nature values shall be guaranteed ownership over them. There must be a security that long-term decisions do not lead to unforeseen consequences. A forest owner who lets their forest become extra old shall feel secure that the forest will also be allowed to be harvested at a later time.

We also want to adjust the right of appeal in environmental cases. Today, environmental organizations have a very extensive right to appeal decisions. At the same time, developments have moved in a direction that risks undermining both legal certainty and local anchoring. Logging notifications should not be public documents.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's forests are owned for the most part by individuals, not by the state or by large forestry companies. The dispersed ownership contributes to variation in forestry and thus to biodiversity. Different goals, different time horizons, and different management methods create a mosaic of forests that benefits both nature and production. The Moderates want to safeguard this ownership structure. Therefore, more state-owned productive forest should be sold to private forest owners with regional ties.

The Moderates want a forest policy based on trust, ownership rights, and long-term perspective. It must be a policy that makes it profitable to take responsibility for the forest, for the climate, and for future generations. That is the only way we unite biodiversity and climate work with a strong and competitive forestry.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Joanna! There were some parts there that I can sign off on. You obviously have a degree of wisdom even in forestry issues.

Before the period, the Moderaterna had high ambitions, and Prime Minister Kristersson even sent letters to our forest owners. It was to become easier to manage the forest, the regulatory burden would be eased, and compensation would also be provided if it was the case that the forest owner was not given the opportunity to manage their forest.

Among the first things you did was to almost completely remove the appropriation for compensation to landowners who, due to various natural values, were not allowed to use their forest. We see more and more often that many concerned forest owners, for one reason or another, do not have the possibility to use their forest and do not receive any compensation from the state either. That causes the willingness to invest and the willingness altogether to use one's forest to decrease sharply, and the value of the land also decreases as there is great uncertainty in the issues.

I cannot imagine that it is the Moderaternas core principle that landowners should not receive any compensation when they cannot cultivate their forest. The question is why it takes so long before anything happens.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that we have had high ambitions and that we continue to have high ambitions. I believe, not least, that all the decisions we made at our convention this autumn demonstrate this.

We have now presented a forest investigation that both the industry and the private forest owners largely consider to be good. A forest bill will be submitted to turn that investigation into reality. There is also a species protection investigation that proposes a strengthened right to compensation, and it is out for consultation.

Being in government is about negotiating. I know that Member Kronståhl also knows that. We have negotiated, and we have worked to come up with something that is as good as possible. At the same time, we have handled many extensive problems that Sweden has faced in other areas.

I still think that what we have landed on so far, and which will come to the Riksdag's table during the spring, is good. It is significantly more than what the Social Democrats managed to negotiate with the Green Party as a government partner.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the floor!

I can state that there are many investigations, conversations, and discussions. It is important that one tries to make the issue consistent and balanced, so that we forest owners – I say we, I have myself received a letter from the Prime Minister – truly have a future and that the issue is not sidelined.

What we see now is that no compensations are being paid out and that the Artskyddsutredningen, which possibly is a one-person investigation – it is at least confined to an office in the Government Offices – has not delivered anything yet. It increases the concern. It will be very unfortunate if there is another long wait in the issues, which means that unfortunately there will be even greater uncertainty and that people will not invest for the future, create more jobs and other things in the countryside – which we all consider important and that there is a great need for.

If we do not get a coherent picture of the future forest policy, which de facto receives a majority in Sweden's Riksdag, it will take many years before we again see investment-willing forest owners who want to invest in the future. I really want you to do what you can to speed up the Artskyddsutredningen and ensure that there are funds sufficient to provide compensation to forest owners when they are not allowed to manage their forest.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to emphasize that we have, of course, taken the concern that many forest owners feel seriously. That it has dragged on, combined with the fact that other proposals are emerging, for example from the EU, certainly contributes to some concern.

On the table lie two investigations that will come to the Riksdag. They may not go all the way, which we in Moderaterna would have liked. But it is something, at least.

In some other issues, we receive criticism that it is going too fast and that we are implementing new laws too quickly and not overseeing the consequences of it. At the other end, it sometimes goes too slowly. If one is very driven and committed in certain issues, one naturally wants it to go faster. But we work as well as we can, and I believe that it will be very good once it is finally in place.

I also know that John Widegren looks forward to debating both matters that will come up during the spring.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your speech, Joanna Lewerentz!

I could not help but request a reply. The member requested a reply from me earlier, and we spoke then about employment opportunities. I was a bit confused and did not have the figures in my head then. But if one looks at statistics from the Swedish Forest Agency, one sees that there were 31,900 who worked in forestry last year, 2024. In 1990, it was 34,200. It is therefore decreasing. In 1970, we had 340 sawmills in Sweden that took out 35,000 cubic meters. In 2020, we had 130 sawmills, thus one third, but they took out more volume, 150,000 cubic meters.

It is, therefore, a structural transformation. More is produced with less labor. It is the same here as in all other places. But we believe, of course, that one gets more job opportunities if it is more small-scale.

I actually requested a reply because I reacted when the member spoke about forest owners who do the right thing but are not allowed to fell their forest. I am a forest owner myself and know that according to the law I am obliged to know what I have in my forest. When I submit a felling notification, I must know if there is anything worth protecting. And if it turns out that it happens to be so, even though I did not include it in the felling notification, that is of course something that I have to handle.

To the member, it sounded as if those who are out and seeing if it actually is correct are activists who are ruining things for the forest owners. But actually, it is the forest owners who have not done right from the beginning. Or is a forest owner who submits a logging notification, regardless of what is there, right just because the person is a forest owner? Is that how I am to perceive the Moderaternas policy?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! This clarifies the difference between the Green Party and the Moderates on the forestry issue. The Moderates trust the forest owners. The Green Party does not.

Now the member actually gets to answer, because she has a rebuttal. The Green Party obviously chooses to rely on the hobbyists who travel around the country and inventory forest owners' land to find something worth protecting. That means two things, among others, that a lot of people are running around on others' land to put spokes in their wheels. But when they do find things, it also turns out that there are many more of certain species than we actually knew.

I naturally think that the forest owners should do their part. But fundamentally, it is about trust that a forest owner takes care of the forest that they own themselves, which they have done for generations, in order to build high values, both nature value and production value.

The difference is clear. Everyone in this chamber and everyone listening knows that, but I want to point out that the member's question makes it even clearer.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

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

When it comes to trusting the forest owner, one has, of course, regardless of what one owns and has, a duty and an opportunity. If one has something on their land that is worth protecting, one also has a duty to know about it. To then become angry because someone else points it out, I think is a bit wrong.

It is about skilled people who know species and who, in some cases, actually save our common biodiversity. It suggests that there is a systemic error somewhere here.

I think the member's argument shows that more inventories are needed in the forest. For example, the key habitat inventories that existed before were taken down because people were afraid of what would be found. But if we know that there is something that we believe is rare in general, then a good deal might also be able to continue being harvested. But if one is afraid of what one will find and wants to speed up the logging, the other side begins to wonder what it is that one wants to keep in the dark.

As I and my party see it, that which is worthy of protection should be protected. And it must, of course, be compensated. It is very good that a compensation possibility is finally coming. On the other hand, I become a little afraid when it is said in the same breath that forestry shall have exemptions from many of the species protection rules. Then perhaps no one will receive any payment, because nothing becomes worthy of protection. Is that how your new proposal is to be interpreted, Joanna Lewerentz?

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have full understanding that one becomes angry and distressed when one is deprived of their life's work.

The leader is nevertheless putting his finger on something here. Today we have a system that risks having exactly the opposite effect to what the Miljöpartiet requests. Due to the restrictions on the right of use and ownership, where forest owners are in practice punished for having cared for the forest and built up high nature values, the consequence instead is that they might harvest earlier than they intended or care for their forest in a way that high nature values do not arise. Then we get less biodiversity.

If we instead have an arrangement where forest owners are guaranteed either the right to manage their forest, of course with consideration where necessary, or the right to compensation where restriction is the only possible way out, the biological diversity will most likely increase.

I do not believe that stricter requirements and narrower rules will achieve the right effect – the effect that Miljöpartiet is looking for. We saw that before freedom under responsibility was introduced in forest policy in the 90s.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation number 5, on ownership, use and formal protection of forest.

The forest is one of Sweden's most important resources. About 70 percent of our country's area consists of forest today, which provides at least 185 billion kronor in export revenues. The forest is an increasingly important resource for all of us and affects all of us to an ever-increasing extent in different ways. Interest in the forest is increasing across the whole country and among the entire population. This is good and important but actually also a challenge.

The forest creates jobs and growth throughout the country and could be a future occupation for many more if we could succeed in increasing the processing, utilization, and interest among our youth to try to educate themselves, conduct research, and work within the forestry industry.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the entire forestry sector employs 140,000 people, I claim; we have heard different figures. Within forestry management itself – clearing, planting, and nature value creation work – it is almost exclusively about foreign labor, approximately 97 percent. Here there is real potential and an opportunity to increase the number of jobs. I think that now is an excellent time and situation to reintroduce the investment in standby jobs that we did during the previous parliamentary term so that both youth and others who today stand without employment can get a good entry-level job.

The forest is also an important enabler in the transition from fossil materials and fuels as well as for breaking the oil dependency. We often get the oil from dictatorship states that we do not want to have dealings with or be dependent on. We believe that we can increase the domestic production of, for example, liquid biofuels and also bioenergy, which can be used as a complement to electric power and strengthen our own supply capacity and energy security.

But the forest also has very great social and cultural significance in Swedish society. Spending time in forest and nature demonstrably reduces both stress, anxiety, and depression. Therefore, it is important that we safeguard the Swedish right of public access (allemansrätten), which creates opportunities for people to spend time in our forest and nature. It is an important responsibility even when we utilize our forest, so that we do not destroy the social values that are so clearly linked to our culture, history, and self-image.

Mr. Speaker! I want to advocate for Swedish family forestry. Often, forests have been managed for several generations, and knowledge and management methods have been passed down between generations. In many cases, this has created these unique environments, where biodiversity has been and is preserved.

Small-scale family forestry does not create large clear-cuts; instead, one manages their forest in a long-term and small-scale manner regardless of what form of forestry is practiced. Family forestry contributes to biodiversity through variation in terms of cultivation methods, tree species, and ages. It creates a living landscape, not just monocultures of certain tree species.

When the forest is owned and managed locally, much of the value also remains locally. This provides jobs and assignments for entrepreneurs locally and creates employment opportunities and vitality in communities and small villages. This can make the difference between a living countryside and a depopulated area.

Mr. Speaker! Forest policy has unfortunately reached a political crossroads, where more and more policy areas are making claims on both the values that the forest creates and the fantastic carbon sink it constitutes while it grows. There are political desires to use more and more of the forest as a carbon sink to reduce the pressure on other important climate measures that should be prioritized higher. At the same time, the debate continues on protecting so-called old-growth forests, forests with high nature values, and forests with rare plants or birds within the framework of the so-called species protection.

All these different values that the forest creates – economy, biodiversity, carbon storage, and so on – have resulted in various goal conflicts. Politics must take a holistic approach and ensure that legislation and steering instruments work together so that they become clear, long-term, and predictable for the forest owners. The government has, unfortunately, so far only delivered a mess of investigations. We must get a finished result.

The government's ambitions regarding forest policy were high. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson even sent out letters to the country's forest owners and promised that they would once again be given the opportunity to decide over their land. It was promised to resolve the issue of the criticized species protection ordinance and a smaller investigation was appointed – unfortunately behind closed doors at the Government Offices.

The conclusions have, not least due to too little transparency and participation, been heavily criticized. The most important question regarding compensation has not yet been resolved. The previous appropriation for compensation to landowners was reduced, and now they want to restore it with 100 million. That is called an investment, but it is not an investment.

Forest policy review, property rights, the EU's climate goals and the Swedish forest, environmental protection and the forest's future opportunities for increased growth are very important issues. In many cases, these issues are covered by ongoing investigations, which must be delivered.

Mr. Speaker! All these ongoing investigations and works concerning our use of the Swedish forest must form a unity. Therefore, it is crucial that this ongoing work is coordinated so that we obtain a coherent, predictable and long-term forest policy that has broad support here in the Swedish Riksdag.

We Social Democrats are convinced that it is possible to provide political conditions that contribute to more living forests and simultaneously an increased timber growth in Sweden. We want to strengthen the conditions for a successful forestry industry, where we raise the level of processing and create more jobs. We want to stand up for sustainable Swedish forestry and its diversity of cultivation methods towards the EU. We want to increase the knowledge of forest owners to achieve improved forest management. We want to favor and promote a diverse forestry and plant breeding, which will both result in increased carbon storage and ensure biodiversity and increased timber growth.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats consider it very important to provide compensation to forest owners who are not allowed to use their forest due to high nature values or the presence of rare plant or animal species. We are, however, critical of these compensations being for eternity, as nature values and the forest change over time. Consequently, the conditions can also, of course, change. Therefore, a time-limited compensation is to be preferred.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: The forest is very important for our economy, biology, and identity. Therefore, it is crucial that we now together solve the problems and challenges that the Swedish forest faces.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for a very good speech! There is much that I agree with the Member on.

This question should actually have been directed to Miljöpartiet, but I dug my nose into the papers a bit too long and didn't manage to press the button. We might have to return to such an exchange later.

I thought I would take the opportunity to ask the member the same question regarding bonus-malus in the forest and continuous cover forestry, also called selective logging. It is sometimes a good tool, if it is used in the right place, to the right extent, and when it is forester-justified. I want to say this clearly and plainly because the debate needs to be honest.

But Miljöpartiets desire to use economic steering measures via a bonus-malus system to force large-scale operations regarding specific measures such as clear-cut-free, is, in any case, I believe, a departure from freedom under responsibility. It also risks being counterproductive, both for the climate, for the forest owners themselves, as I mentioned, and for Swedish exports. We have already tested selective logging, and the results have not been very pleasant. It resulted in devastated forests, which the member surely knows even if it was a while ago, fragmented stands, and forests that were eventually so weak that one was forced to harvest very large areas to start over. This is not theory, but it is documented.

My question to the member is whether the Social Democrats support the system of bonus and malus, and that forest owners should be forced to clear-cut and be paid for it so that they do not use other methods that they might perhaps decide on themselves.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Lindahl, for the question! Do you want a short or a long answer?

(HELENA LINDAHL (C): You decide. You have two minutes.)

No, we are not for that. In my speech, I referred quite a bit to family forestry. I and we are convinced that if we have freedom under responsibility when it comes to the ownership of the forest, we also get a fairly broad system with different cultivation methods. I think it is the forest's possibilities or conditions that should determine what kind of timber production we should have in the forest.

I have looked at cultivation methods called primeval forest. It may work to some extent in spruce forest, but I do not think it would suit particularly well when it comes to pine and other tree species.

The land's conditions and the forest owners' interests, ideas, and visions shall be decisive when it comes to which cultivation methods are to be used. Then, I believe it is extremely important that we increase the knowledge of our forest owners, so that one sees opportunities to always plant the right trees on the right land and so that one has a mixed forest that both benefits the forest's growth and provides fodder for the wild.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I shall say that I am very satisfied with the answer. Even though my small, meager opinion does not influence the Social Democrats' agenda, I still feel satisfied.

However, I also want to emphasize that it is not only the forest's possibilities that should be decisive. I believe it is up to the forest owner to decide which cultivation method they want, because it is freedom under responsibility. Then, there is nothing wrong with selective logging, nor is there anything wrong if one wants to use traditional harvesting methods. But this shall, ultimately, be decided by the forest owner.

Then it was spoken about throttling the raw material and that this would lead to more jobs in the countryside and so on. So that is hardly going to happen. It is also not particularly good for the climate. The short-lived products de facto replace products that in many ways are manufactured from fossil raw materials and also from metals. If there is less of that commodity, the emissions will increase very much. I believe, however, that the member agrees with me on this.

I still think it is important that it is the forest owner who, ultimately, should make the decision. For someone who is not knowledgeable about forestry, it sounds nice to clear-cut, and that romanticized image might entice one or another to the ballot box. But it is important to point out what consequences it can also have.

I am very satisfied with the member's answer.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Lindahl, for the question and the observation! We have, I believe, essentially the same opinion when it comes to this.

Often we have a small-scale forestry that actually delivers more timber than the large forestry companies and even the state's own forestry. This proves, well, that it is when the individual forest owner themselves gets to decide, test, try, and determine what is best on their own land that we see the best result.

Then I believe that the ambition of all forest managers is actually that the trees should grow until they become as large and powerful as possible, so that we get products that it is possible to build houses, furniture and other things from. Then we also get a longer period with carbon storage and so on. There are therefore only positive aspects with freedom under responsibility here.

(Applause)

(cont. § 12)

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