Response to interpellation 2022/23:93 on reduced funding for forest protection
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns appropriations for the protection of forests and the future of forestry. KD considers the forest to be a strategic resource for jobs and growth 1 and that Swedish forest policy is based on balanced goals for production and environment 1. KD argues that Sweden already fulfills the goal of 10 percent strict protection 1 and that ownership rights should be strengthened through economic compensation 1 2. KD believes that forestry should be based on the forest owner's drivers and that the state should work cost-effectively. MP argues that the government's budget implies a slaughter of the work to protect nature 3 and that forestry is unsustainable 3. MP wants a nature-oriented, no-cut forestry 4 that creates more jobs in rural areas 4. MP wants to conduct a policy where one listens to forest owners who want better profitability 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Rebecka Le Moine has asked me what initiatives I intend to take so that the national and international environmental goals linked to the forest are achieved. She has also asked me what measures I will take so that landowners who want to protect their forest receive the support and compensation they are entitled to within a reasonable timeframe.
What the state is responsible for, the state must also do very well. The state's core tasks must now be the focus of the government and the Riksdag. The ability to prioritize the state's most important tasks in a difficult time will be decisive for our success.
Sweden's climate and environmental policy shall be ambitious, and Swedish competitiveness shall be protected. The policy must be aligned with research and be based on facts. Our common climate and environmental policy is based on the concept of stewardship and strives to find the most cost-effective measures that simultaneously do not harm industries and the countryside. The forest is a strategic resource for a robust Sweden and for jobs and growth.
The EU's biodiversity strategy has pointed out the direction for the union's collective work with preserving biological diversity. The new framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was decided at the 15th Conference of the Parties, will be an important political and global commitment for the entire 2020s.
The Government intends to actively counteract species extinction both globally and in Sweden through the preservation of particularly sensitive species and natural environments, sustainable agriculture, as well as fishing and forestry industries that continue to create environmental and climate benefits. Now we need to analyze the global declaration of intent from the party meeting and what Sweden can contribute.
Swedish forest policy is based on the balanced goals of production and environment. Growing, diverse and well-managed forests in line with the stewardship principle are of great importance for biodiversity, where the landowner's commitment and knowledge are crucial. Both climate and environmental issues are and need to be an integrated part of other policy areas and sectors.
Healthy and resilient ecosystems are important for the human living environment and provide, among other things, the conditions for the extraction of sustainable biomass as an alternative to fossil products and materials and fossil energy. Therefore, the work to preserve and protect valuable nature and make it accessible to everyone must continue. Allemansrätten shall be protected.
The Government considers that a strong ownership and usufruct right is the basis for being able to increasingly take advantage of the forest's potential for economy, climate, and environment. The protection of the ownership right shall be strengthened. A fundamental part of the issue regarding strengthened ownership right is that landowners shall receive economic compensation for restrictions on ownership and usufruct rights to the extent that they are entitled to it. The Government will, in all respects and contexts, safeguard and work for a sustainable Swedish forestry, with care for future generations.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Rural Affairs for the answer. My question is fundamentally about how the Christian Democrats, with their government, can choose to cut back on the protection of valuable nature to such a great extent. The government's budget has resulted in a slaughter of the work of protecting and preserving valuable nature. For 2023, 3.5 billion is removed for the protection of valuable nature and measures for biodiversity, endangered species, and management.
Just for the protection of valuable nature, the reduction is 70 percent. In addition, one also removes half a billion per year from the Swedish Forest Agency's work, which largely concerns measures for forestry, compensation to forest owners, and advice. Investing in protecting the last remnants of old-growth forest in Sweden is crucial for biodiversity, but one must also shift from clear-cutting to a more nature-oriented forestry.
The Minister for Rural Affairs mentioned COP 15 and the agreement on biodiversity to combat species extinction in a very pleasing manner. If we are to take these words seriously and implement them in a Swedish context, we must tackle our unsustainable forestry. At least 394 of Sweden's red-listed threatened forest-dwelling species are directly negatively affected by Swedish forestry and the clear-cutting phase. According to SLU and Artdatabanken, nine species are considered extinct due to forestry, six of which since the 1950s.
Before the election, SVT asked questions in a sort of forest compass. They asked, among other things, whether we would invest more money in protecting valuable forest. Then the Christian Democrats answered: "We do not have unlimited money for nature conservation. - - - If we protect smaller areas but manage them better, we can increase nature values. That instead, as regularly happens in the current situation, the state places different types of protection on land with high values but then cannot afford to manage them, becomes completely counterproductive for nature values."
In the same survey, the Christian Democrats answer that "forest owners all over the country live in uncertainty due to pending proposals for 'protection' of their forests, protection that often fails as money for management is lacking".
Mr. Speaker! This is incredibly contradictory. Does Peter Kullgren not understand that it is exactly this uncertainty that the government is creating? The grant for protection is compensation to landowners. Peter Kullgren and his government are now pulling the rug out from under people who want their land protected and receive compensation for it. This creates anxiety, and it means that people in the countryside have to wait unreasonably long simply because the government does not understand the connection between the protection of valuable nature and compensation to landowners.
The government's proposal is furthermore that one should invest in the maintenance of, for example, old-growth forests instead of investing in protection. It is so stupid that I do not know where to begin, Mr. Speaker.
Since Peter Kullgren, in his reply to me, argues that the party has shifted its view on research, I would like to inform him a little about ecology. Old-growth forests do not need to be managed. The forest has existed for billions of years and man for only 200,000 years. The forest does not need us, but we need the forest.
If the Minister for Rural Affairs does not want to believe it, I wonder if it is not the case that the Christian Democrats' nature conservation policy is governed by creationism, that is, that the earth was created 5,000 years ago, and that it is we humans and the Christian Democrats who are to rule over nature. In that case, we are in a bad spot.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It is important to point out that 14-15 percent of Sweden's area is protected already today. Sweden can therefore be said to fulfill the goal of 10 percent strict protection according to the EU's biodiversity strategy. In addition, 26 percent of the forest land - one in four hectares - are exempt from timber production. We have different forms of voluntary protection and formal protection. Sweden can therefore be said to take a great responsibility for the global issues surrounding biodiversity.
In different reports, one can get the impression that Sweden is worse than other countries at protecting forests. But according to the authorities, the countries report in very different ways. For example, Germany reports areas for outdoor recreation, while we in Sweden have *allemansrätt* and therefore do not need to report such areas. Other areas where ongoing land use is permitted have also been reported by some countries. The statistics therefore give a simplified and frankly incorrect picture of individual countries' actual commitments and of the true quality of the protection.
A strong ownership right is also more than a question of the right to compensation, and the Swedish Forest Agency has an ongoing assignment to realize the intentions in the forestry bill regarding voluntariness as the basis for formal protection. Solutions need to be found that promote both sustainable use and protection to strengthen the ownership right and that contribute to the fulfillment of environmental goals. For example, landowners should be able to more easily than today propose more areas for formal protection themselves.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! When one does not want to change politics and reality, one can resort to number-crunching tricks. If the Minister for Rural Affairs does not think that Germany is right in its way of counting, then we should not follow suit but stick to what the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Statistics Sweden present.
Not all forest can be harvested; it could be bogs or forest standing on rocks. But just because it cannot be harvested does not mean it is protected. It is important that the protection is ecologically representative. We have protected very little of the productive forest land because it has a high economic value. There we must protect much more.
The figures that exist for the productive forest land in Sweden show that the protection lies at around 7 percent. We have had a goal of 20 percent, which means that we need to invest enormously much more in precisely this forest if we are to be able to achieve our own environmental goals. Now there is talk of 30 percent. We therefore need to accelerate the protection and not withdraw 70 percent of the appropriations. We should step up instead.
I welcome, as I have said, the Christian Democrats' new position regarding research. It stands in great contrast to what the Christian Democrats have previously said, that is, that we have a sustainable forestry. Both the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences as well as the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency have time and again clearly stated that we do not have a sustainable forestry in Sweden. Clear-cutting is the main cause of the loss of species and the depletion of the forest ecosystems. It is, once again, about the existence of 394 species.
Initially, the Minister for Rural Affairs mentioned that we must safeguard biodiversity and work against extinction. If he means these words seriously, it is stated very clearly in the research and in report after report how the situation stands.
Most recently today, the heaviest report so far on Sweden's environmental status and on an in-depth environmental goals assessment was released. In it, the focus is on forestry and biodiversity. Once again, it is stated there that the situation in the forest is critical, that forestry is not socio-economically efficient, that a number of market failures occur, and that a transition to nature-adapted cultivation methods within forestry is needed.
If the Minister, therefore, means business with his change of heart regarding research, he should be able to look at these research reports, internalize them, and translate them into policy. As was said, it is not about opinions, but it is facts. It is the task of the government and not least the Minister for Rural Affairs to be able to internalize these facts and find ways forward to transition forestry to a more nature-oriented forestry and invest more money in protecting nature that needs protection.
The Minister for Rural Affairs mentions the countryside in his speech. I want to once again truly emphasize that clear-cutting and large clear-cuts do not benefit the countryside or local jobs. What we can thank large-scale clear-cutting for is the 4.7 trees saved on average per hectare, the declining profitability for the individual operator, and the approximately 126 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Evaluations show that environmental considerations have decreased. There are red-listed species that live in the forest and in the scorched and poisoned water. We stand on the side of the individual rather than the side of the industry in this. It is therefore why we need a nature-oriented, no-cut forestry.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that few of the hundreds of thousands of Swedish owners of forest properties will recognize themselves in the Green Party's description of "slaughter," "the last scraps," and "our unsustainable forestry." Many Swedish forest owners live off and for their forest. They are the ones who are experts on their forest, and they should have the right to own and manage their properties. It is in that direction we can move forward to take considerations into account.
Most people know that Miljöpartiet is not much of a friend of the Swedish forestry industry. What I can wonder about is that you so blindly refrain from taking responsibility for your policy. In your budget proposal, you want to fundamentally change the conditions for Swedish forestry and, in practice, undermine large parts of the industry. But the losses that your policy would de facto entail in the form of lost jobs, lost tax revenues, and lost export revenues, you have not included in your budget. The money that finances our common welfare does not grow on trees, but it is those trees that grow, are cared for, and are harvested that finance our welfare.
That I and the member do not share the same view regarding the forest is probably no great surprise to many. But I actually miss two voices in this debate, and those are the voices from the member's intended coalition partners Centerpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. The government and the government base, including Sverigedemokraterna, share a common view on the forest: It shall be utilized as a climate-smart resource. But what does it look like in your alternative, Rebecka Le Moine? Are you speaking for your entire government alternative, or are you only speaking for Miljöpartiet?
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I have sat in the Riksdag since 2018 and have been elected into the Riksdag through personal votes. That is why I have been elected, because I want to advocate for nature in our democracy. It is about all the thousands of endangered species that we are responsible for. Therefore, I speak for them and for their right to exist in our country and in the world. I will not take responsibility for other parties. I will try to influence as broadly as I can and as strongly as I can with the vote that I have received through democratic means.
The Minister for Rural Affairs says that he does not believe I have an understanding of forest owners, that they would not recognize themselves in this policy and that it would disadvantage them. I think that reveals very much about who the Minister for Rural Affairs primarily speaks with. It must be the CEOs of the largest forestry companies, i.e., not the individual individuals who are disadvantaged by the current forest policy.
We are talking about jobs. In the 80s, there were approximately 30,000 jobs in forestry. Today, the figure is 16,000. It is primarily within large-scale forestry that the jobs are decreasing, because we are rationalizing and creating larger and larger clear-cuts. Less and less labor was needed for this. Large-scale forestry needs very few people working. With a continuous cover forestry, more jobs are created in the countryside instead. It is also the case that less than 3 percent of the forestry industry's jobs are located in rural areas today. This is what we want to change. That is why we advocate for a policy where we listen to the forest owners in Sweden, who want better profitability. The question to the Minister for Rural Affairs is: What do you and your government intend to do to strengthen the profitability for the individual, for the individual landowner?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! In line with the idea of stewardship, we shall both preserve and sustainably utilize our natural resources. This is also the core of sustainable forestry. Sustainable forestry looks at the whole when we meet today's needs without jeopardizing future generations' opportunities to meet their needs. Our current forestry creates conditions for 10 percent of the Swedish export revenues, 145 billion kronor per year. The forestry sector employs a total of approximately 115,000 people and generates direct tax revenues equivalent to 25 billion per year. In addition, the forest binds approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide every year as Sweden emits.
Forest policy must be based on the forest owner's drivers, because in the end, it is the individual forest owner who manages their forest. We must build more from the bottom up and build on business responsibility and a pride in producing good products for the climate, for the environment, and for jobs and sustainable growth. Our mission as politicians is to remove obstacles and create stable conditions.
The protected areas we already have today can lose their value if we do not manage them well enough. I mean that it is important that the state should not only prioritize stricter protection but also look at the totality of all our commitments. It is important to work cost-effectively, not least in these times.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.