Response to interpellations 2023/24:105 and 129 on the property rights of forest owners and the Swedish Forest Agency's new guidelines for species protection

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist has asked the Minister for Rural Affairs why the Minister has not presented any proposals based on the initiatives that his party during the previous parliamentary term were involved in deciding on together with the Center Party to remove the misinterpretations of the EU directive on the protection of birds and to strengthen the forest owners' position in relation to the current species protection regulations, and how the Minister will act so that compensation issues will become easier to handle when the state wants to decide over private individuals' own land.

Malin Larsson has asked the Minister for Rural Affairs if he intends to take any initiative based on the Swedish Forest Agency's new guidelines for how the species protection regulations shall be applied and interpreted and based on their impact on Swedish forestry and agriculture, and why the government is delaying in addressing this important issue - will the species protection rules be reviewed and if so, when?

The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellations. I have chosen to answer the interpellations collectively.

The Government shares the view that there are problems with the current design and application of the species protection rules.

The then government decided in May 2020 on directives for an investigation to review the species protection to make it more applicable, effective, and legally secure. The investigation was to, among other things, take a position on whether changes in the Environmental Code's compensation provisions or other parts of the Code are necessary for the purpose of the review to be achieved, as well as analyze and take a position on how far-reaching restrictions on use that the protection provisions should be able to allow. The species protection investigation submitted its report in the summer of 2021.

After the Species Protection Inquiry presented its report, the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in a case regarding compensation due to a logging ban. In the judgment, the Supreme Court states that landowners, under special circumstances, have the right to compensation from the state for restrictions in land use that follow directly from the Species Protection Ordinance. The judgment is currently being analyzed within the Government Offices. An important part of the issue regarding strengthened property rights is that landowners shall receive financial compensation for restrictions in ownership and usage rights to the extent that they are entitled to it. The Government considers that the protection of property rights should be guiding in the matter of compensation for restrictions in ongoing land use in species protection cases. It is not reasonable for the regulatory framework to be unclear and for it to take an unreasonably long time for the landowner to receive the compensation he or she is entitled to.

The Artskyddsutredning's proposal to divide the implementation of the prohibition provisions in the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive into separate provisions has been addressed through the amendments to the Species Protection Ordinance decided by the government in June 2022. Furthermore, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency have developed joint guidance on how they interpret the changes in the Species Protection Ordinance regarding the protection of birds in connection with forestry.

Mr. Speaker! In April 2022, the Government commissioned the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency to, among other things, develop preventive strategies and methods for species protection in the forest. The purpose of these strategies and methods is to facilitate for forestry to, through planning and consideration, prevent the prohibitions in the species protection legislation from becoming relevant. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency have recently reported on the assignment. The report contains several measures aimed at developing the work with species protection in the forest so that the situation for landowners is improved. The agencies have committed to implementing certain measures and have also submitted proposals for measures that the Government must take a position on. The agencies' report is now being analyzed within the Government Offices to assess whether any measures should be taken on the grounds of the report or the proposals.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is currently preparing the issues regarding species protection and will take a position on the need to review applicable provisions in the Environmental Code. The Government believes that it is important to have a regulatory framework that is clear for landowners and other stakeholders and which simultaneously provides effective species protection.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer.

The reason why I, as vice chairman of the Committee on Industry, interpellate on species protection and forests is that agriculture and forestry policy is also industrial policy. Generational shifts are a very important part of all types of family businesses, and ownership rights are completely central to running companies. But it is also because the question of who should have the right to decide over my company, my investments, and my savings is manifested so sadly clearly with the Hyttsten family in Konäs in northwestern Jämtland, the region where I grew up and which is today my part-time residence.

I was at my family's home in Konäs a few weeks ago. Over coffee and waffles, we discussed all morning why things have turned out the way they have. The family wanted to fell a third of their forest in order to carry out the generational transition so that the youngest daughter can continue to run the farm with dairy cows. Dad Kurt told me that there are a lot of observations of marks from the strikes of a three-toed woodpecker. That is, no woodpecker has been seen at all, but only marks and nest holes have been found in a tree. It is also not possible to say when the woodpecker has been there or even if it really is marks from this woodpecker.

Now it is 40 or perhaps even 60 hectares that may not be logged. The entire Old Town is, for comparison, 36 hectares. These are enormous estates that today may not be touched.

No one can, however, tell better than one of the daughters, Lia Hyttsten, how it feels when the state comes with completely unreasonable demands. I have been allowed to borrow a few lines from the beginning and the end of a speech she gave a few weeks ago at Torsta outside Östersund:

My parents' life's work shall be sacrificed because there are traces of a woodpecker in their forest. My parents' hard-earned capital shall burn inside. Perhaps it warms for a while, but when the meadow flowers disappear, then no more cows will graze there in the summers, when bumblebees and bees can no longer gather nectar out there in the meadows because only scrub grows—is it still warm then?

What kind of societies are these that sacrifice on the altar? A society where respect for other people's life's work is easily disregarded. My parents have dedicated an entire professional life to building up their farm. They have constantly satisfied their hunger for a meal. Never consumed luxury. Worked on rest Sundays and Christmas Eve for 42 years.

Last weekend, four people witnessed a miracle in Konäs. Along the edge of the field walked a bird that cannot be mistaken for any other. It thrives in moist farmland and is classified as nationally extinct – a great snipe.

Let us take this with us. A miracle can happen, for we cannot overemphasize the importance of not logging our forest. Everything else is a great catastrophe that will echo far into the future. Not only monetarily but also for the heron, for it thrives in an ecosystem that exists where mullahs graze.

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Minister can, of course, not intervene in an individual case. But if the Minister, like me, thinks that this seems completely unreasonable, what can the Government do so that this type of state abuse does not happen again?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answers, even though I think it should have been Minister for Rural Affairs Kullgren who answered this interpellation since it concerns Swedish forestry to the highest degree.

I was first granted time for a debate with the Minister for Rural Affairs, but the next day Kullgren chose to hand it over to the Minister for Climate and Environment. I am nevertheless glad, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister is here so that we can debate this urgent issue. The number of affected forest owners is large, and they are increasing.

My first question is therefore whether it is Minister Pourmokhtari who will handle the issues regarding species protection and the forest moving forward.

It was the previous alliance government that directly implemented the species protection regulation into Swedish law. It functioned for several years until this problematic situation arose. The background is therefore not any changes in Swedish legislation, but new court cases regarding the EU rules on species protection that have applied for a long time in Sweden and throughout the EU.

The issue of species protection became relevant already during the previous parliamentary term when the new court cases created great uncertainty regarding how forestry and nature conservation should be combined so that Sweden does not violate EU rules on species protection.

It is worth reminding that the previous Social Democratic government took proactive measures when this was discovered. The Minister also refers to everything that was implemented in a short time under our leadership.

First, a special investigator was appointed to review the Species Protection Ordinance. But three measures for sustainable forestry were also quickly presented to address the uncertainty and anxiety that spread in early 2022 when more and more forest owners were prohibited from logging their forests due to species protection. From 2021 to 2022, the number of logging notifications that received orders with reference to species protection doubled.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency were given a mandate to develop guidelines and strategies, and an amendment to the Species Protection Ordinance was made. This was what could be addressed quickly. The Social Democratic government also announced a review of the Environmental Code and the Species Protection Ordinance, but also the regulatory framework that handles compensation.

Then the election took place, and a new government took office. Since we have not experienced any contradiction regarding this, we are surprised that the sitting government has not yet presented any proposals to continue the work regarding the Environmental Code, the Species Protection Ordinance, and the compensation.

The unrest is now great among the country's forest owners, and many of those I meet have been affected. More and more landowners are receiving letters from the Swedish Forest Agency following harvesting notifications with information about protected plants and birds that can be affected by forestry measures, and they cannot harvest their forest. They can, therefore, not harvest the forest that they have managed and planned for for decades, for generations, the forest that is an investment and an asset. This creates not only concern but also economic problems for many.

Based on this, I want to ask: What is the Minister's message to all these forest owners? What does the government's plan look like moving forward? When can we expect some result in this matter?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the facts. It is not in any way the case that Minister Kullgren has handed over an interpellation to me which he abstains from taking himself, but there is an order regarding this.

The interpellations concern species protection legislation, and species protection is, as Member Larsson is certainly well aware of, an issue regulated in the Environmental Code. The Species Protection Ordinance is issued with the support of the Environmental Code, and it is Sweden's Minister for the Environment who has responsibility for the Environmental Code.

It is therefore in no way odd that I, as a minister, stand here and answer these questions. Nor is it in any way the case that the Minister for the Environment is not aware of what great impact and fantastic potential exists in forestry and the large amount of forest that we have in Sweden, a country where two-thirds of the land consists of forest. It is something that I am highly concerned with in my work.

As I have previously stated, also regarding what Member Thand Ringqvist raises, the problems that exist in today's design are very concerning. The Government confirms the picture that we have problems with today's design and with today's application of these rules. If this is the case, there should be no doubts. This is also particularly problematic because the Government sees, in line with the stewardship concept, that active and engaged forest owners are absolutely crucial for strengthening the ecosystems in our fantastic, elongated country. They have an enormous capacity to preserve the forest, not only for the renewable raw material that is produced but also as a carbon sink and also as a contributor to biodiversity. We do not see this as a contradiction, and we are very proud of the fantastic nature conservation that so many forest owners in Sweden are part of carrying out.

We also see that there is a major lack of knowledge about this when forest issues are regulated at the EU level in the way they are, and that is precisely why Sweden has such a strong voice in these issues when one tries to point out how it works so fantastically well in Sweden, where we to a large extent have a very sustainable forestry.

An intensive effort is underway in the Government Offices to analyze the Artskyddsutredning report and all the comments that have been submitted by various referral bodies, and this is an issue we will need to return to.

I also want to comment on what Member Larsson touched upon, namely an alleged hasty handling of the issue. I do not actually share that picture. These are problems that have existed for a long time. Already in 2018, the Riksdag stated that the species protection ordinance would be reviewed. I cannot answer why the previous government did not progress further in that work, but Member Larsson, who was so proud of the work that took place under the previous government, can possibly account for that.

I do not like, as I have said, to focus on what previous governments have done or have not done, but I can clearly and quickly state that it has not happened sufficiently because the work has been handed over to me to manage. Many pieces were brought forward already at the Riksdag's announcement in 2018, but there was also a point in the January Agreement. An investigation was commissioned, and it carried out its work. But the results arrived just in time for when they handed over the government power. I do not share the opinion regarding the alleged decisiveness, but now this government will have to take further initiatives to resolve this issue.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that it is difficult for the Minister to answer the question when most of it seems to be under consideration in the Government Offices. But let me clarify some facts that I think are being obscured by a bit too many smokescreens.

First and foremost, it was explicitly forbidden until October last year to damage birds' breeding areas and resting places. But through the committee initiative that, among others, the Centerpartiet helped push through in the Riksdag, there was a change to a regulation so that just that provision would be removed. It is therefore no longer stated in any law or regulation that it is forbidden to damage birds' habitats. On the other hand, it is of course forbidden to disturb birds in a way that hinders the preservation of a population at a satisfactory level.

One could think that the problem was solved. But there remains an old residue that creates a bad atmosphere in the form of a constitutional comment to that very regulation. It states that damage to birds' habitats can be a prohibited disturbance.

The authorities, in this case the Swedish Forest Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, consider it therefore still prohibited to damage birds' habitats when it concerns rare birds that are sensitive to forestry. Since all birds are protected, it applies to all birds - unless an exemption is granted.

In Finland, they have managed to be much more pragmatic. In Finland, they do not have any automatic protection for birds' habitats. It can therefore not be a European legislative problem, but it is a Swedish legislative problem.

It was never intended that the species protection regulation should entail prohibitions that significantly hinder ongoing land use; instead, such encroachments were to be regulated through reserves, biotope protection, and voluntary nature conservation agreements. Let me therefore reformulate the question, as the Minister states that the government is well aware of the problems. Will the Minister appoint a forest inquiry that once and for all settles the legislative commentary so that the Swedish interpretation becomes reasonable?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Minister is sticking to what has been or has not been done by previous governments, despite the fact that the Minister's own alliance government was the government that implemented the Habitats Directive into Swedish law without making any changes at that time.

But that is history. Let us instead focus on what can be done now. We seem to want to tackle the problem, and in that case, it is better to look forward. I request an answer to the previous question: When can we expect results?

Just as I wrote in my interpellation, many forest owners are affected by these issues. I come from Norrland myself, and up there, forestry is closely linked with agriculture. Here, the value of the forest is important during generational shifts and for our farms to continue to be operated forward. Just as Member Thand Ringqvist pointed out, we now see landowners who have planned for generational shifts for a long time and in the long term, and to manage that, they want to harvest the forest they have managed well for a long time for this purpose. If one cannot harvest their forest or receive reasonable compensation for it, we risk also seeing abandoned farms. It is devastating for food supply, preparedness, and biodiversity if we lose the grazing lands that we in the north need more of, not fewer.

The Swedish Forest Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency recently reported on two government assignments regarding species protection. One concerns new guidelines for how the species protection regulations should be applied and interpreted, and the other concerns preventive strategies to ensure that species protection prohibitions are not triggered. There are a lot of good proposals in the report and also several proposals for the government to take further. As the situation stands today, this is very resource-intensive for both authorities and landowners.

I also want to raise a small warning finger, because there is a limit to what can be demanded of a small private forest owner. The same responsible authorities announced in October their interpretation of the judgment from the Supreme Court regarding whether a forest owner should be entitled to compensation in the case of species protection prohibitions. What the authorities have concluded in the interpretation is that landowners normally do not have a right to compensation for species protection infringements. The legal development, the new guidelines from the authorities, and the interpretation of the judgment have now brought us to a point where the species protection regulations and also neighboring regulatory frameworks must be reviewed. Even the Swedish Forest Agency needs reinforced resources to handle this.

The questions are also many regarding the government's announced new forest inquiry. We have now for a period of one year heard that it is to be appointed, but we have still not seen a glimpse of it. Is it intended that the questions regarding species protection should be handled in the inquiry? Why is Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren not here today to answer our questions? I understand the division, but precisely because these questions concern the forest, it is important.

It is not reasonable that small forest owners should be drawn into long, complicated and expensive legal processes for their logging notifications. The species protection issue must be addressed now, and what applies to compensation for forest owners who are denied logging needs to be sorted out. And it is we politicians who must take responsibility so that the legislation works.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by again confirming that the government shares the view that there are problems with the current design and application of these species protection rules. I do not like to speak particularly much about history either, but I also do not like historical falsification. For that reason, I like to point out complete facts and information about everything that was done during previous parliamentary terms, given that the member so clearly chose to focus on everything that was supposed to have happened during the last parliamentary term.

The fact remains that this government came to a table set with problems concerning the forest that have not been addressed. We see that Swedish forest policy has lacked both attention and reform for some time. This government intends to take action on this.

We are currently preparing issues regarding species protection, and we will not take a position on issues regarding the application of species protection or problems in the implementation today – as I have clearly pointed out.

We mean that it is important that there is a clear regulatory framework for the landowners and other stakeholders, while at the same time there is an effective species protection. Whether this will be handled in a forest investigation that has not yet been announced is, of course, not something I can account for today, but it is an ongoing work. But I look forward to presenting how Sweden will investigate the development of the forest policy going forward, not least through the investigation of the national forest policy.

We see, Mr. Speaker, a need to develop a future-oriented and purposeful forest policy that promotes a long-term sustainable Swedish forestry and a growing bioeconomy. It is such a thing that I can state today as Minister for the Environment and which I know that the Minister for Rural Affairs also signs off on. It is therefore why we will appoint a forest inquiry, as the Prime Minister announced in the Government Bill.

The Government currently has an extensive basis regarding the issue of species protection. There are a total of 130 proposals and 147 referral responses that we are now working with, and it is, as said, a work in progress.

Member of Parliament Thand Ringqvist chose to pose a clear and relevant question regarding this area, namely how it can be that the application differs so significantly between Sweden and Finland.

It is a highly relevant part of this. We see in many cases that the government has had to handle how we apply the legislation nationally where previously one has leaned on the fact that it is the EU and then set the question aside. It is something this government has started to handle on many different fronts, not least regarding applications of the Environmental Code. I have appointed an inquiry to look into this. But when it comes to just this, we see that there are binding results that must be achieved by every member state.

There is also a delegation to the national authorities to determine the form and approach for the implementation, and then authorities in different countries choose to apply this in different ways. It simply means that all EU member states are obliged to protect species in accordance with the requirements that exist, but also to introduce national regulations to implement EU species protection.

The starting point is that the EU's species protection shall be equivalent in all Member States, but that there shall be room to design and implement the national regulatory frameworks differently. That is what gives rise to the situation we are in.

As I have mentioned, we are looking into this issue, and we look forward to being able to provide an update once we have analyzed which path we should take to make it easier for landowners to comply with the existing rules and to encourage sustainable use of our forest, because we also want to use it.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the clarifying answers! So, a forest investigation will come; we just don't quite know when. The Government also seems to be looking at the room for interpretation and continues with that work in order to be able to make our interpretations more similar to Finland's. I hope that you find much room to do so.

If it is not possible to talk more about that question because it is being investigated, we can take up the question of the compensations. How can one find a compensation model that is legally secure?

The Minister began by saying that today's model is unreasonable and unfair. The fact is that when one wants compensation for not being allowed to fell one's forest, one must file an appeal. Most say that it is an approximately ten-year process to appeal because of some species that one isn't even quite sure exists in one's own forest.

It is an incredibly insecure legal situation that we have ended up in. It concerns the processes that are to be conducted through all Land and Environment Courts, which we know are completely overworked with all the other environmental assessment cases that need to be handled, and then the Land and Environment Court of Appeal is to look at the questions.

My question to the Minister is whether there are both processes and proposals that can be used to make these processes work faster. It is unreasonable for a family to have to wait for ten years to potentially get back a sum of money; how much they do not have the slightest idea about. And are they to receive a lump sum, or can one imagine that just like forest yield, it is something that comes annually? How does the government view this?

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

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, thanks to Minister Pourmokhtari for an important interpellation debate!

I hear that it is being analyzed, prepared and reviewed. I can unfortunately state that the government must be answerable to our forest owners regarding when we can expect results, but I hope that the government will soon return to this.

Knärot, three-toed woodpecker, bombmurkla, lavskrika, and tjäderspel have all led to species protection prohibitions and to forest owners not being allowed to harvest their forests. Should we not protect species, then? Some think so. Yes, we shall – within reasonable limits. And if it is to be protected, the landowner must receive fair compensation. Sweden shall have high ambitions for nature conservation and species protection, but they must be implemented in a legally secure and efficient manner.

An interesting discussion that is also important is how we can increase biodiversity and how we can take into account protected species in the managed forest. Can we both manage and take into account at the same time? Yes, I believe so.

The forest is Sweden's green gold and is not only a part of the backbone of our economy and welfare. It is also crucial in the climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! I still think I hear a consensus in the debate today. Therefore, I hope now that the government does not wait another year before tackling this issue, for it must be resolved as soon as possible.

Since we have the final debate in the chamber this Friday, I would like to conclude by wishing the Speaker, the Minister, and the others a pleasant weekend.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, there is much to say about these issues. If we had unlimited speaking time, I would not be surprised if we all stood here almost the entire weekend and further discussed all the different aspects that exist in Swedish forestry and not least Swedish forest policy, which is in need of development. There, the government intends to return with an investigation that takes a holistic approach to the national issues.

As has been said, there is much to mention, but let us talk a bit about what Member Thand Ringqvist highlighted regarding the need to review compensation issues and other matters.

I mentioned in my first post what the Supreme Court stated in a judgment concerning compensation due to logging prohibitions. In that judgment, the Supreme Court states that landowners are entitled to compensation from the state for restrictions that are a direct consequence of the Species Protection Ordinance. This is an issue that is now being looked at within the Government Offices. This judgment is being analyzed in addition to the analyses and the work that is already ongoing regarding the appointment of inquiries and other matters.

We want to do this work properly, Mr. Speaker. We want to propose rules that can function over a long period and provide security to all the forest owners we have in Sweden. It may take some time, even though the issue has existed for a long time, but we will look into this. From the government's side, we consider that landowners should receive financial compensation for restrictions to the extent that they are entitled to it, and that the protection of ownership rights should be guiding in the matter of compensation.

At the same time, we need to remember to halt the loss of biodiversity and work towards it in different ways. This is not a contradiction, as Member Larsson is pointing out. There are fantastically many forest owners in Sweden who want to take responsibility for the environment and nature and all the species within it.

With that, I thank you for this debate and wish you a pleasant weekend.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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