Response to interpellation 2023/24:671 on species protection and the forest

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Malin Larsson has asked me why no species protection investigation has been initiated yet and what measures I intend to take to handle the current situation and restore security for the country's forest owners.

As the government has announced on several occasions, the species protection is currently being prepared within the Government Offices, and the government will take a position on the need to review applicable provisions in the Environmental Code. The species protection investigation's report (SOU 2021:51) forms the basis for the work currently underway.

The Government has, in the preparation of the Species Protection Inquiry's proposal, identified that there is a need for further investigation into both the issue of national protection and the issue of compensation linked to species protection. As I have previously stated, the Government intends to have these issues investigated within the Government Offices.

Intensive work is ongoing in the Government Offices regarding species protection. The Government shares the view that there are problems with the current design and application of the species protection rules, and we believe it is important to have a regulatory framework that is clear for landowners and other stakeholders while simultaneously providing effective species protection.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister! The Minister for Environment and Climate and I met here in the chamber's speaking chairs also in November last year to debate the issue of species protection. Already then the issue was urgent, and it is even more urgent today.

When the government presented the new forestry investigation in February, it turned out that forestry's biggest problem today, namely species protection and the compensation issue for forest owners who are deprived of the right to manage their forest, was not even included. The government received criticism for handling things in completely the wrong order in some respects. It was precisely about the fact that they did not take the species protection issue first but only announced that that investigation would come soon, as well as that it would be handled by the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise.

The reason why the question of species protection was not included in the Forest Investigation's mandate was that it was urgent, the Minister stated then. It has been urgent for a long time now, but even today the government has not given any announcement as to when they will address this question, which is the most important for the country's forest owners. They promised an investigation, which has been conspicuously absent. This has also been the case with the announcements from the government, despite what we hear the Minister saying here today.

The legal development has created a situation where the species protection rules now stop more and more logging operations without forest owners being guaranteed the right to compensation. This creates a great deal of uncertainty. Many people end up in a bind and in financial difficulties when they do not know what applies. It is about forest that they have managed based on long-term planning and are not allowed to harvest.

The frustration regarding species protection is great within the forestry industry, and it has been described as chaotic. One is not allowed to fell, and one receives no compensation. How long will Swedish forest owners have to wait? What does the government have planned to handle this situation? When can we, and above all the forest owners, expect some result?

We parliamentary politicians in the opposition have submitted both interpellations and questions, but even Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats – that is, members from parties that are part of the government base – have asked questions here in the chamber about when the species protection shall be handled. The uncertainty therefore seems great even among the parties in the own government base.

It has now been three months since the forest investigation, where species protection was not included, was presented. What is happening with the species protection issue? We ask, the forest companies wonder, and the forest owners want answers. Everyone receives the same message: It is urgent. More information will be presented shortly. It is in the works. It will happen promptly.

Then the question is: What do all these time expressions mean for the government? When can we actually expect a decision?

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have worked with forestry issues for eight years. In the response from Romina Pourmokhtari, the word compensation was mentioned, and the question of compensation is indeed completely central. In the so-called Änok judgment, it was concluded that a forest owner who has been denied a felling permit is entitled to compensation of 125 percent.

This government, consisting of parties that claim to safeguard property rights, however, takes it back with the other hand. The Swedish Tax Agency has, through a change in practice, decided that the entire compensation shall be taxed. Instead of taxation on 25 percent of the compensation, one now receives taxation on 125 percent of the compensation. That means that an individual forest owner can be taxed on 70 percent of the compensation they have received and which they did not want in the first place, because the forest owner actually wanted to harvest on their land.

This government has done nothing about this; that is what is remarkable. A government that claims to uphold the right of ownership to the land takes back with the other hand what should have been taxed and what the forest owners were promised. There are a number of forest owners in Västerbotten who have received logging restrictions and who should have received compensation. Now the state is taking back what it has given.

There is, to say the least, great frustration among the forest owners who are now affected. Forest owners wonder whether they should apply for logging permits or not. Is it even possible to trust anything this government says? They give with one hand and quickly take back with the other. It is utterly regrettable.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! From the government's side, we have begun a piece of work regarding forest policy. I am, in any case, very pleased that we have done this. I and the Liberals see a need to conduct a review of the national forest policy given the developments that have occurred since the last forest policy reform came in 1993. Not least at the EU level, a huge amount has happened in forest issues that affect how the Swedish forest industry develops and how we protect the forest land we have.

We see the forest as a strategic resource for a robust Sweden as well as for jobs and growth. We also see that the Swedish forest policy, which is based on the balanced goals regarding production and environment, is something to safeguard. The balance between production and nature conservation creates a good basis for the continued implementation of the forest policy.

The government has appointed an investigator to conduct a review. The review shall consider measures for a long-term and competitive forestry that strengthens freedom of enterprise and the willingness to invest. The assignment also includes providing proposals for an efficient, simple, and well-functioning supervision of forestry and more effective environmental goal work in the forest.

The purpose of this investigation, Mr. Speaker, is to develop a future-oriented and purposeful forest policy that promotes a long-term sustainable and competitive forestry, increased forest growth, and a long-term increased supply of sustainable forest biomass so that it can fully contribute to the climate transition and Swedish growth in the many ways in which this can be done.

The Government shares the view that there are problems with the species protection rules and their application. There is an ambiguity regarding what constitutes sufficient consideration in connection with forestry, which results in concern and uncertainty among landowners. This government wants to ensure that the concern and uncertainty that exists disappears.

There is also an ambiguity regarding when compensation should be paid to landowners. I will not go into the tax-related issues, Mr. Speaker, as this is of course not something today's interpellation is about. This ambiguity is, however, very broad. It is a particular problem because the government, in line with the stewardship concept, sees a need to protect the active and engaged forest owners we have in Sweden. They are absolutely crucial for strengthening the ecosystems in the forest and for utilizing the forest as a carbon sink and a factor that contributes to renewable raw materials. A negative development for biodiversity is not something we will be able to reverse without commitment from various landowners.

At the Government Offices, an intensive work is currently underway to analyze the report of the species protection investigation. There are views that have been submitted by the referral bodies, which we are having a good dialogue about. There is also a judgment from the Supreme Court, which came in the spring of 2023, regarding compensation for a denied logging notification because the species protection is relevant to the work. This is something that the government is looking into.

As I have previously mentioned, we from the government have announced that we will have certain questions regarding species protection investigated within the Government Offices. This is therefore nothing that requires the appointment of an inquiry, even though certain parts will be investigated. This work must be done properly. We want to propose rules that work in the long term, and that takes some time.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister again for the answers. Based on the previously promised handling and speed, I had however both hoped and believed that we would not need to continue debating the species protection and that the Minister would have presented something today. In that case, I might have withdrawn this interpellation.

But unfortunately, that was not the case. Our forest owners continue to live in uncertainty, and the anxiety continues to gnaw. What will happen to my forest? Will I be able to share in its value? Will we be able to afford to make a generational transition of the farm? These are the kinds of questions many forest owners ponder. Today, Sweden's 300,000 forest owners are waiting impatiently for the government's promised investigation on the species protection ordinance and the compensation to forest owners to get started.

I come from Västernorrland myself, where the forestry industry has always been - and still is - particularly significant. The examples of affected forest owners have been many, and they are increasing while waiting for the government to act.

An example from home in Västernorrland that P4 Västernorrland has previously reported on is the brothers in Resele who were denied their logging notification because there are traces of the red-listed three-toed woodpecker.

Another recently affected person is a dairy farmer outside Sundsvall. He operates milk production and is a forest owner. Forestry is an important part of the company's overall operation. A planned logging operation was stopped with threats of a fine of over 600,000 after knärot was found in his area. Now the farmer has been required to submit a proposal to exempt 30 percent of the logging. These 30 percent are to be exempted from use because knärot is an orchid and all orchids are protected in Sweden.

Previously, the intrusion limitation has meant that the forest owner has to accept up to 10 percent consideration without receiving compensation. The Species Protection Ordinance sets this practice out of play, and the forest owner can be ordered to take significantly greater consideration or completely forgo logging without being guaranteed compensation.

In our part of the country, agriculture and forestry are closely interconnected, and the case of the farmer, just as the case of the family in Jämtland that was discussed earlier, shows that even food production and the associated biodiversity maintained by the grazing animals are affected by the ambiguities in the Species Protection Ordinance.

The last example I intended to bring up concerns a couple in Sollefteå who were going to fell 20 hectares of old-growth forest. But it was stopped there as well. The reason was that the larger bark beetle had been identified at the neighbor's property. But no one knew if it existed on the couple's land, and no compensation was to be paid out. In addition to a ban on utilizing the forest, with the associated loss of income, a fine of 100,000 kronor was imposed if they nevertheless made an impact on the forest.

We cannot have it this way. The government must immediately rectify the species protection ordinance. Will the forest owners be able to receive a decision before the summer, or will the government continue to delay its answer?

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I said earlier, I will not go into the species protection but into the compensation issue.

Is it reasonable that the state authority Skatteverket reinterprets previous practice so that a forest owner who has been denied logging on the property he purchased for 2 million, and therefore is entitled to 125 percent, is taxed at 65 or 70 percent based on the new regulations, i.e., a tax of just over 1.165 million kronor? He is then left with just over 800,000 plus a property that is worthless due to logging restrictions. He has bought a property, received a compensation, and is left with a debt. It is completely unreasonable. Had the same property become a nature reserve, the tax would have been 135,000, and he would have been left with 2.325 million. That is a completely different situation. But we have a number of property owners around the country who, instead of receiving compensation, are left with a debt, and we have a government that claims to protect property rights. That, Mr. Speaker, is completely absurd.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I completely share Malin Larsson's view. This cannot wait, and we must solve this problem quickly. We cannot torment Swedish forest owners in the way we do with species protection as an excuse. We must review the species protection and improve the way we handle issues regarding species protection in Sweden. We know that it is active and engaged forest owners who can help us protect the species we have in Sweden.

That is exactly why it is so frustrating that this work is taking time, not least because the Riksdag already stated in 2018 that the Species Protection Ordinance would be reviewed. This work could therefore have been completed by the previous government, but they failed to do so. Therefore, our government needs to take over and do what we can to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

We need to ensure that Sweden has proper species protection and lives up to what we have committed to in the EU so that the EU Commission does not penalize us for not working with biodiversity in a sufficiently good way. We must find a way to carry out this work that does not penalize Sweden's fantastically engaged and skilled forest owners.

My message to all those who are concerned about the great uncertainty that prevails is that I regret that the issue has remained unresolved since 2018. The Government takes it very seriously and is doing everything we can to resolve the issue. We will conduct a proper review of the species protection legislation so that the regulatory framework becomes effective and can be managed in a legally secure manner. This is, not least, about managing it in a legally secure and legitimate way towards the landowners who are entitled to compensation.

We have extensive material to work from. There are 147 instances that have submitted comments, and all these comments must be taken into account. Furthermore, a case law has developed in the matter, which also needs to be handled in connection with this work. We will investigate the issue of national protection and compensation linked to the species protection.

My message to the landowners is that the government considers that they should receive compensation for restrictions on property rights. A liberal bourgeois government naturally guards property rights. We regret that the work on species protection is taking time, we regret that the work did not take place as early as 2018 when the Riksdag established that it was required, and we are doing everything we can to handle the issue in the best possible way.

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for an important interpellation debate. However, I think it is a bit unfortunate that the Minister prefers not to take responsibility but instead blames those who governed in 2018. What is important now is that the responsible government, in which the Minister is included, takes its responsibility and does what can be done, and that the policy takes an overall responsibility for the entire issue. Everyone has already waited far too long. The whole must be reviewed so that all question marks are cleared up and so that nothing is left unhandled and risks causing problems for forest owners even further. I am thinking, among other things, of the Birds Directive, where one can protect birds' habitats with area protection instead of species protection prohibitions. Will this be included in the government's investigation?

Three months ago, it was said that the issue was urgent and therefore was not included in the government's forest investigation. A month ago, the Minister stated during the question period that more information would be presented shortly. Minister Kullgren said during the question period on May 16 that the government has not yet taken a stand regarding exactly what form it will take, that the work to produce directives is ongoing, and that an investigation will be launched to handle these issues. In today's answer to the interpellation, the Minister says that the government intends to have these issues investigated within the Government Offices. But where can we access the directives Kullgren mentioned, and will the government refer the proposals it arrives at?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I stated that we will review the species protection as soon as we presented the government's forest investigation. Of course, questions were then asked about species protection, and we explained how the government intends to handle this issue. As I have previously mentioned, the government wants to conduct a proper review of the species protection legislation so that the regulatory framework becomes legally secure and the problems that arise now are avoided. We have an extensive basis in a species protection investigation report and in the referral responses from 147 authorities whose views are being handled. Furthermore, a case law has developed in these matters, and that also needs to be taken into account in the work currently underway.

We have also notified that we will investigate the issue of national protection and the issue of compensation linked to the species protection, and that we will return to these issues, but that other parts are being handled within the Government Offices in an investigation that will be manageable more quickly.

Mr. Speaker! It is frustrating even for me to even have to refer to the previous government, but when the members take issue with the appallingly long time it takes for the government to deliver in this matter, it becomes quite relevant to mention that the previous government failed to do so during an entire parliamentary term.

We will carry out the work as efficiently as possible. It must not result in a pale outcome, because Swedish forest owners have waited long enough to receive proper information on the matter - and these pieces of information are intended to be delivered by this liberal bourgeois government.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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