Response to interpellation 2025/26:201 on the consequences of the forest investigation for biodiversity
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the consequences of the forest inquiry's proposals for biodiversity and the forest's climate benefits. KD argues that the inquiry aims for a sustainable balance between environmental values and production 1. KD emphasizes that the proposal to be able to revoke nature reserves for special reasons is a clarification of existing legislation 1. KD also wants to introduce a new measure for the forest's climate benefits that includes substitution effects to provide an accurate picture 2. MP considers that the inquiry accelerates negative trends for biodiversity and that calculation models for climate benefits are a way to manipulate figures 3. MP argues that the forest industry has too great an influence on politics and demands a transparency register for lobbyists 4 5.
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)
Madam Speaker! Rebecka Le Moine has asked me how I and the government intend to ensure that the protection of nature reserves and biotope protection remains long-term if they, according to the forest investigation's proposal, are to be able to be revoked. Rebecka Le Moine has further asked me whether I and the government intend to count voluntary set-asides as formal protection according to the EU's nature and climate reporting. Finally, Rebecka Le Moine has asked me whether I and the government intend to change the calculation models for environmental and climate improvements and, if so, in what way.
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking you for the interpellation. I note that the referral period for the final report A robust forest policy for active forestry (SOU 2025:93) from the 2024 forest policy investigation expired on December 16. This means that the proposals from that investigation that Rebecka Le Moine refers to are subject to preparation within the Government Offices. I cannot anticipate that preparation.
Sweden's many nature reserves and national parks protect high nature values and are important places for outdoor life, sustainable local and regional development, tourism, and rural development. In accordance with the government's proposal in the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), the Riksdag has decided on, among other things, an investment in the management and maintenance of national parks and nature reserves as well as an investment in the upgrading of hiking trails. According to the Environmental Code, nature reserves can already today be revoked if there are exceptional reasons (Chapter 7, Section 7 of the Environmental Code).
Naturvårdsverket is responsible for ensuring that data within the environmental field are reported to the EU and internationally. Every year, the agency reports data on protected areas to the European Environment Agency. From 2022 onwards, other effective area-based conservation measures, OECM, are also included in the reporting. In Sweden, voluntary set-asides can be reported as OECM if they meet certain criteria. They must be important for biodiversity, have a conservation objective, and be long-term. The data provider must also consent to the reporting.
For 2025, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency reported to the European Environment Agency that 15.4 percent of Sweden's total area of land and inland waters were covered by protected areas and OECM.
The European Commission highlights in its guidance on criteria and guidance for the designation of protected areas that other effective area-based conservation measures, so-called OECM, are an important conservation effort that can contribute to achieving the EU's objective to protect at least 30 percent of the EU's land and water by 2030.
The 2024 forest policy investigation assesses in its final report that all voluntary set-asides should be able to be reported as OECM.
The investigation has proposed that the Swedish Forest Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shall annually report a new measure for the forest's climate benefit, which includes carbon stock changes in forests and wood products, emissions from the value chain, as well as potentially withheld emissions from other products. The investigation emphasizes that this proposal is a supplement to the current reporting and not a replacement.
The investigation's proposal is, as mentioned, now being prepared in the Government Offices. It is my hope that the preparatory work currently underway contributes to a robust and purposeful forest policy for the future.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I believe that most people feel something, think something, and have an opinion when the topic of forest comes up for debate and discussion. This is because many also have a relationship with the forest. This applies regardless of where in Sweden they live and regardless of whether they own forest themselves, know someone who owns forest, or perhaps are just visitors in a forest.
I believe that the Swedes, as nature-loving people, find it alarming to see that the forests are changing. The blueberry bush has decreased by 50 percent over about 50 years. I ask myself: What will it look like in another 50 years? Will we have the opportunity to pick mushrooms and berries in the Swedish forest? Will there no longer be blueberry bushes as a carpet at the bottom? Berries can be cultivated to create happiness and provide recreation. One might even be able to cook one's own blueberry jam.
The development we are seeing worries me deeply. Therefore, it is also important that we, from a political standpoint, try to see reality for what it is.
Life in the forest – chirping birds and all the other animals we know are there – is something many of us find exciting. We enjoy seeing it, and perhaps that is also a reason why many tourists go there and want to see Swedish forest landscapes.
Knowing that the trend for the populations and the outlook for them is negative makes me very worried. It makes me even more worried to have followed the debate closely and been part of the reference group for the forest investigation. We are in a situation that is very serious and acute both for biodiversity and for the climate. The Swedish forestry model and the forestry industry are condemned as a major market failure, where the interests of the forest industry are unilaterally prioritized at the expense of all other values.
I do not see the forest investigation coming with any proposals that reverse these trends, but rather they are being accelerated in the wrong direction.
Madam Speaker! We have just heard how one is to manipulate the numbers regarding the climate by changing calculation models, and the same applies to nature conservation. It is desired that a small island remaining in the middle of a clear-cut should be classified in the same category as a national park. It is clear that this is not relevant from the perspective of the ecosystems or from how people experience the forest and can feel recreation and joy and pick mushrooms and berries. Instead, it is simply a way to boost the statistics so that they look better than reality.
My question to Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren is: Does the government consider that the statistics should reflect the actual ecological status, or should they be manipulated for political convenience so that we reach the goals on paper?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! First, I would like to extend a thanks to the interpellor for the commitment to the issue.
I want to begin by emphasizing that the government's work with forest policy aims to create a long-term sustainable balance between environmental values and production in the forest. Almost 70 percent of the country's area is forest.
When it comes to the proposal to be able to revoke nature reserves, I want to be clear. Already today, there is the possibility to revoke reserves if extraordinary reasons exist. The commission's proposal concerns clarifying the legislation for situations where natural values have been lost, for example, after extensive forest damage such as storms or attacks by fungi and pests. The commission emphasizes that the proposals should not negatively affect the environment or climate.
When it comes to voluntary retirements, it is important to remember that both the Environmental Goals Commission and the forest policy inquiry have assessed that these can be reported as other effective area-based conservation measures. This is entirely in line with the EU's guidance for the designation of protected areas.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! Having seen the investigation and read all the proposals, one also sees what kind of dismantling it actually entails for the forest and all other values, even if perhaps not just short-term production. But as Kullgren mentions in his statement, it is this that one is to balance against. My question is: Has it ever happened that Sweden has not delivered regarding the production goal?
I would like to say that it has gone very well for the Swedish forest industry in terms of profitability and profit during all the years I have looked at. But at the same time, it has gone very poorly regarding the environmental goals linked to forests. This applies to both our own national environmental goals and when evaluating all forest types in the reporting in accordance with EU's Article 17. There, we do not have a favorable conservation status for these forest ecosystems. The only forest ecosystem that has a favorable conservation status is the mountain birch forest. The others do not have a favorable conservation status.
Yes, we have met the production every year, but not a single year have we met the environmental goals regarding the forest.
Madam Speaker! If one is interested in the forest debate in Sweden, one is perhaps also familiar with some arguments, some figures, and some myths that are repeated time and again. What is said from the forest industry and from representatives of most parties here sometimes sounds very similar.
Therefore, it is interesting that DN has an article just today about a power report from the Swedish Forest Agency. There, it is written as follows:
"The center of power lies with the forest industry complex, a network of actors bound together by the goal of increased logging for increased economic return," writes the investigator Jesper Svensson, a researcher at Lund University. – – – At the same time, the review shows that the state's own investigations into the forest are increasingly staffed by individuals from the forest industry rather than independent experts.
Researchers warn that the forestry industry's hidden influence on politics distorts democracy. They quote the economist Adam Smith to describe the risk: when special interests and those in power meet in secret, it often ends in a 'conspiracy against the public'.
"To break the grip of the forest industry complex, the investigation now proposes a mandatory transparency register for lobbyists."
Then I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs: How does the Minister for Rural Affairs view this proposal? Is the government prepared to take measures?
I have actually experienced firsthand how forestry industry interests trump others. It is also something that is judged by authorities as a market failure, as large actors, large companies, make billion-dollar profits while forest owners have poor profitability.
I do not see a single proposal in this forest investigation to try to address the profitability for the private forest owner. But, Madam Speaker, I see plenty of proposals that do everything to try to accommodate the forestry industry's wishes.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want a strong property right in the forest. That is no secret. It was very well known before the election and thus to a very high degree democratically anchored. That I often and gladly speak with forest owners and listen to their views is completely self-evident. The opposite would have been extremely strange. But that does not mean that one cannot care about several things regarding the values we have in the forest.
I want to point out before I continue that we are currently processing and preparing this forest investigation. It is therefore not something that is finished yet. It is an investigation that we are in the process of preparing. I do not yet know exactly what the government will lay before the Riksdag in a proposition.
I would like to highlight an important aspect that sometimes falls into the shadows in this debate, namely how we report the forest's climate benefit in a comprehensive way.
This investigation has proposed that the Swedish Forest Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shall annually report the potential for emission reduction represented by the forest raw materials delivered from forest land. According to the investigation, this is not only about carbon storage changes in forest and wood products but also about emissions from the value chain and the so-called substitution effect, i.e., the emissions that are avoided when forest products replace fossil material.
This is, according to the investigation, of importance in order to provide an accurate picture of the forest's role in the climate transition. I can state that one rarely hears anything about this from Miljöpartiet. The proposal is a supplement to the current reporting, not something that replaces it, and it is, as mentioned, being prepared within the Government Offices.
I share the view that we must safeguard biodiversity but at the same time ensure that the forest can continue to contribute to fossil fuels and materials.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I note that my question regarding transparency registers was not answered. Instead, the debate was shifted to climate issues.
I find this to be incredibly interesting, because the specific part concerning the CLEAR model can be traced straight back to the forest industry. The forest industry has, therefore, been criticized in the investigation for a calculation model that simply overestimates the climate benefit with the current system. This highlights how important it is that we do something to create better transparency.
The EU has also investigated Sweden for cartel formation. We have a market failure where, among other things, timber buyers can also be advisors instead of neutral advisors. This is what is constantly mixed up when we talk about forest policy. Ownership rights were actually not something I took up. Even from the government's and Peter Kullgren's side, forest owners and the pulp industry are mixed up. They are not the same thing.
We could have taken many measures that go hand in hand with environmental and climate benefits but also with the forest owner's profitability, which can be strengthened enormously if we stop making minced meat out of fillet, which is what we do with Swedish forest today.
Madam Speaker! I do not see that any proposals in this direction have even been discussed by the commission. Therefore, I do not expect the government to come forward with anything in its proposal to the Riksdag. But I request an answer to the question, so I repeat it once more: Does the Minister for Rural Affairs see any problems at all with the forestry industrial complex that dictates forest policy today?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I do not share the interpellator's view of what governs what. But I want to emphasize in this debate finally that the preparatory work that is now ongoing is extensive and aims to create a forest policy that is robust and purposeful.
Forestry plays a crucial role in being able to increase fossil-free materials and energy sources. By using forest raw materials in products that replace fossil fuels, we can also reduce emissions globally. I find it a bit difficult to understand why this is not something that we, as a forest nation, should be happy about and celebrate.
We will now develop a policy that both safeguards biodiversity and strengthens the forest's contribution to fossil-free fuels and materials, while simultaneously providing long-term and legally secure conditions for a forest that can also continue to be utilized.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.