Response to interpellations 2024/25:270, 271 and 272 on sustainable and profitable forestry

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Katarina Luhr has asked me what I and the government are doing so that today's young people and future generations will want to invest in sustainable forestry, what measures I intend to take so that there are more alternatives for forest owners to earn money from their forests than by clear-cutting forest, how I intend to act in the near term so that Sweden's primeval and natural forests are not harvested, what measures I and the government intend to take to increase the forest's carbon sink, and what I intend to do to increase the profitability for those forest owners who contribute to preserving biodiversity and endangered species.

Rebecka Le Moine has asked me how I intend to act to ensure that forest owners in Sweden are among those with the best profitability in the EU, what I am doing here and now to transition forestry to a nature-oriented, clear-cut-free, and profitable forestry, in what way I intend for forest owners with large carbon stocks to benefit from their contribution to climate work, as well as how I work to introduce so-called bio- and carbon credits for Sweden's forest owners, so that those who contribute to protecting forests receive an extra income from this work.

Mats Berglund has asked me what I intend to do to increase the profitability for those forest owners who work to achieve sustainable forestry, what measures I intend to take to benefit forest owners with endangered species in their forests, and what I am doing to reduce the total annual clear-cutting and limit the size of the clear-cuts.

I choose to answer the three interpellations in a single context.

Madam Speaker! Swedish forestry is central to Swedish climate work, partly through the availability of biomass, which is of great importance to enable the transition to fossil-free materials and fuels, and partly as a carbon sink in forest, land, and wood products. The growing forest is also crucial for biodiversity. The Government assesses that active forestry with high growth and the use of products from renewable raw materials provides the highest possible long-term climate benefit.

Renewable raw materials are needed to phase out fossil-intensive resources both in Sweden and in other countries via exports. The direction for continued work is to promote a long-term sustainable active Swedish forestry and a growing circular bioeconomy with competitive industries. For the government, a sustainable bioeconomy, a long-term increased supply of sustainable biomass, circular economy, and climate adaptation are crucial elements in an effective climate work that should be promoted nationally, within the EU, and internationally. The government argues that for the EU to achieve its goals, it cannot rely on hard-to-achieve commitments for the net uptake in the LULUCF sector, which is characterized by great uncertainties and limited opportunity to influence in the short term through measures.

Profitability within the forestry sector is good today. The green transition has contributed to an increased demand for biomass from Swedish forestry. Over the last five years, timber prices have almost doubled. Even though the price level varies over time, there are few, if any, who believe that the positive trend will be broken. Today's forest owners have great freedom to choose the forms for their management. For example, all forest owners are free to practice continuous-cover forestry methods where it is deemed appropriate.

The Environmental Goals Commission has been tasked with proposing a strategy with interim targets, steering mechanisms, and measures that contribute to Sweden's commitments within the EU and internationally for nature conservation and biodiversity, as well as the uptake and emissions of greenhouse gases within the land use sector (LULUCF) (dir. 2022:126). The assignment shall be reported by no later than 15 February 2025.

In February this year, the government appointed the 2024 forestry policy inquiry (dir. 2024:16). The purpose is to develop a future-oriented and purposeful forestry policy that promotes a long-term sustainable and competitive forestry, increased forest growth, and a long-term increased supply of sustainable biomass in order to be able to fully contribute to the climate transition as well as jobs and growth throughout the country. The inquiry has today submitted its partial report. The work now continues with an overall review of the forestry policy. The inquiry shall submit its final report no later than August 31, 2025.

Furthermore, a so-called letter-of-the-law investigator has been tasked with producing new provisions on national protection and a purposeful regulatory framework for the right to compensation for landowners (KN2024/01639). The Government considers that prohibitions should be designed so that ongoing land use, for example in forestry, is not significantly hindered in the vast majority of cases and that purposeful use is not obstructed. Furthermore, the Government considers that landowners shall receive financial compensation for restrictions in ownership and use rights to the extent that they are entitled to it, and that the protection of ownership rights shall be guiding in the matter of compensation for restrictions in ongoing land use as a result of species protection. The conditions for compensation shall be clear and predictable in the same way as in similar decisions regarding, for example, the establishment of area protection.

The investigation shall be reported internally within the Government Offices by December 31 this year at the latest. It is my hope that the investigation work currently underway will result in many good proposals that the government can take forward with the aim of creating a purposeful forest policy for the future.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

In just the last week, politics has handled several major issues concerning the forest's extremely important role moving forward.

A partial report from the government's forestry policy investigation was presented just a few hours ago. The EU's deforestation regulation has been voted through in Brussels, albeit with delayed implementation. Right now, the Environmental Goals Commission is negotiating which measures we can take to reach the environmental goals for biodiversity and for carbon storage that the forest needs to help us with moving forward. On the other hand, the Minister for Rural Affairs has been quite invisible on the issue, so it is well-suited that we can hear a bit more about the minister's view on forestry issues, not least on how he views a profitable and long-term sustainable forestry and how it should be conducted moving forward.

The forest will in many ways play a decisive role for us and our lives ahead, and the political decisions made will affect us all, not least all forest owners, for a long time to come. Therefore, it is important that both the minister and the government take forest issues most seriously when making long-term decisions that will affect us all for an unforeseeable period of time.

The day before yesterday, on December 17, the UN platform for biodiversity, IPBES, released a report examining the importance of having a holistic approach in the political governance of biodiversity, climate change, food, water, and health. A great need for reforms in the financial system is also seen, not least regarding the forest, in order to better be able to protect and strengthen the ecosystems moving forward.

Today we also have a climate crisis to manage, which is created because for a long period of time we have emitted more carbon dioxide into the air than our nature and our forests can absorb and manage. To transition to a balance, we need to reduce emissions and at the same time increase the uptake in the forest. Therefore, all EU countries have also been tasked with increasing carbon uptake in forest and land.

In the current situation, Sweden's forests' ability to absorb carbon dioxide is unfortunately decreasing. Damage to the forest from drought, fires, storms, and insect infestations is one reason why the forest cannot absorb as much carbon dioxide. The high level of logging of the forest is another.

For many years, a pessimistic tone has been heard from forest owners across the country. In the Forest Barometer for 2024, one can read that approximately one in three forest owners is concerned about how climate change, fires, pests, or storms will affect their forest ownership moving forward. Dagens industri has previously reported that only 5 percent of individual forest owners think that the profitability in their own private forestry is very good. Between 2011 and 2017, forestry was an industry where the highest proportion of individual firms operated at a deficit.

At the moment, timber prices have gone up, and the profitability for the country's forest owners is better than it has been in a long time. But temporary price increases are no solution to the structural problems, especially not in an industry that we need to plan in a 100-year perspective. Furthermore, it is clear that smaller forest owners have more difficulty making their forestry profitable compared to the large forestry companies.

We know that most forest owners want to manage their forests sustainably and in the long term. For many forest owners, the value of the forest does not primarily lie in making money, but that does not mean that anyone wants to back down from cultivating the forest they own. Many forest owners experience today that they are forced to clear-cut their forests because no other alternatives are offered. This is completely crazy; from a political standpoint, we should do everything to favor those forest owners who want to manage and cultivate their forest in the long term with environmental and climate benefits.

A holistic approach to forest policy is needed, so I would therefore like to start by asking Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren what measures he intends to take so that there are more options for forest owners to earn money from their forests than to clear-cut the entire forest.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is considered in many ways to be a forest country. One often hears that 70 percent of our land is covered by forest or at least trees. But navigating forest policy is not always so easy. There are more than 700 definitions of what forest actually is and surely just as many different definitions and interpretations of what the word sustainable means, so it is not easy to even begin talking about sustainable forestry.

The forest debate is complex and often full of contradictions. As a nature conservation biologist, I often take off from what is ecologically relevant when talking about forest ecosystems, for example. Sometimes it feels like one doesn't see the forest for the trees. It is said that we have never had more forest than now. The fact is that we have very dense forests. The number of tree trunks in Sweden is a record high, while at the same time the number of natural and old-growth forests is a record low.

We know that today's forestry with clear-cutting has major consequences for the environment. It depletes biodiversity. It contributes greatly to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions. It has begun to be seen that the forest is moving from binding in carbon to actually releasing carbon. This is very worrying. We also know that the soil preparation involves heavy metals leaching out and that, among other things, mercury ends up in our watercourses and lakes. The question one has to ask is whether it is worth it.

Madam Speaker! When I ask this question, I also want to prioritize the individual over the industry. The profitability of private forest owners is rarely discussed in these debates, and it is a huge difference. The large companies make billion-dollar profits.

This is based on a large-scale approach. It is based on having the entire value chain, everything from owning large areas to having employees who can both operate the machines and process the timber and the forest raw material. There is a big difference in the economic forces of the large companies and their opportunities to push forward and also influence forest policy compared to the individual landowner and forest owner who owns the forest.

These are naturally two opposing interests, where one party wants to sell their forest product at the highest price possible and the other party would like to be involved in dictating the terms in order to be able to buy at the lowest and most pressured price possible. The forest owner's economy is therefore sidelined.

Many of Sweden's 300,000 forest owners are interested in things other than converting their forest into a clear-cut. They are interested in trying to find ways to use their forest to contribute to tackling the climate crisis and the nature crisis. What is pleasing is that we see a growing movement among the forest owners themselves to transition to a more sustainable and clear-cut-free, nature-oriented forestry.

I am interested in hearing the Minister's ambitions and what he intends to do to benefit and make it more profitable for the individual rather than the industry in this case. What does the Minister want to do to encourage and develop economic incentives that make it easier for the individual landowner who actually wants to contribute to storing carbon and preserving biodiversity in their forest?

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! We know that we must reduce climate emissions, take responsibility for the climate crisis we are in, and take responsibility for the richness of species and biological diversity. We must prepare ourselves for the consequences of climate change, and then we must realize that the forest and the way the forest is managed is a key component in this sustainability work.

Today's forest policy is, however, not designed for the forest and the forest owners to be part of the solution. The regulations need to be changed to make it possible for all those hundreds of thousands of forest owners - family forestry - to take on this responsibility by practicing a diverse forestry that contributes to climate work and to strengthening ecosystems, while simultaneously providing high profitability for the forest owners.

Today, it is the large forestry companies and their profit maximization that benefit, unfortunately at the expense of the profitability of the vast majority of forest owners and landowners, but also at the expense of many social, cultural, and environmental values.

I write in my interpellation that the forest owners, especially the small and medium-sized ones, feel that they have no other choice than to clear-cut in order to be able to make money from their forests. A concrete example of exactly this could be heard in Ekots review, where they, among other things, interviewed a forest owner in Jämtland who tells how he harvested parts of his forest after being called by professional buyers. In hindsight, he deeply regretted it. He says, and now I apologize for the language, that "it looks fucking terrible" and that it was the most unprofitable thing he has ever been involved in.

It is therefore the same people who act as advisors to the forest owners and the purchasers of the timber from the same forest owners. They are employed by just these large companies that want to buy timber for as low a price as possible.

This is a widespread problem. Often there is no alternative because the Swedish Forest Agency's advisory activities are essentially phased out. In a survey from 2022, 75 percent of 750 surveyed forest owners in Jämtlands län answered that they wanted to know more about alternatives to clear-cutting. Half of them answered that they were interested in managing their own forest without clear-cutting, and around 70 percent stated that they had received very little information about clear-cut-free alternatives.

I think we should listen to these voices. These many small and medium-sized forest owners, the family forest enterprises, must be able to achieve profitability in a varied multi-use of the forest.

It must pay for the owners to take responsibility, and the forest owners want to take responsibility. The ecological and social values in forest ownership often outweigh the economic values. In the latest Skogsbaromettern, it was only one out of eight, i.e., 12.5 percent, of forest owners who thought that economic profit is important or that good ongoing return means the most in ownership. On top of an already troublesome starting point, the government has made it even harder to be a responsible forest owner when, for example, the means for the protection of valuable nature have decreased significantly. Unsustainable clear-cutting then becomes the only possibility.

I have, therefore, asked the Minister what the government can and wants to do to improve the opportunities for the many forest owners who want to take responsibility, for those who have threatened species in their forests, and for those who want to limit clear-cutting. I have received an answer, and I thank the Minister for the answers, but they are perhaps not quite what I had hoped for. Does the Minister share the picture I am talking about, that is, that we are living in the midst of a climate and species crisis? Many forest owners want to take responsibility, but Swedish forestry is not adapted for that. What, in that case, is the Minister's and the government's conclusion?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today's interpellation debate concerns the individual landowner's conditions for combining a profitable forestry operation with contributing to greater climate benefit and stronger biodiversity. It is incredibly gratifying to see a rapidly growing movement at the ground level where individual forest owners, companies, and associations are pushing for a transition to continuous-cover and more nature-oriented methods.

Below, over 250 forest owners signed a petition in Svenska Dagbladet where they demanded a transition to a more nature-oriented forestry. When Ulf Kristersson, during the 2022 election campaign, sent letters to all of Sweden's forest owners, he received the following response from a landowner: Can you explain to me how it is good for my property rights to reduce the money allocated to pay forest owners who want to protect their forest from logging, so that the only way forward becomes to continue logging at below-market prices to meet the industry's need for cheap timber?

It is a very relevant question.

In recent years, more and more initiatives have been taken by organizations and companies with a focus on harvest-free and nature-oriented forestry, including Sveaskog's 2,000-hectare harvest-free zone in Tiveden, the geographically nearby landowner project Naturnära Skogsbruk in Tiveden, associations such as Skogens Mångbruk, and companies such as Plockhugget.

Common to all these initiatives is that they have the landowners' profitability in focus. The transition to more nature-oriented forestry methods is about increased freedom of choice for the landowners, not restricted property rights. There is, therefore, no lack of innovative forces trying to change Swedish forestry, but the opposition - politically spearheaded by the Tidöregeringen - is strong.

Today, the first part of the government's forest investigation is being delivered. The investigator has been tasked by the government to simplify logging and stimulate production. Behind the directives, strong interests are hiding that are pushing for results.

Logging in Sweden has reached historically high levels in recent years, which has led to a current shortage of forest to cut down. But what we have seen so far of the forest investigation focuses on making it even easier for the forest industry to log more instead of helping all those landowners who want to transition to more sustainable and profitable ways of managing their forests.

The expert authorities state that no scaling up of sustainable, nature-oriented forestry methods will occur unless the government puts forward concrete measures. The authorities have presented a number of proposals for measures, but the government has not acted on anything.

My question to Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren is therefore: What measures does the minister intend to take so that there are more alternatives for forest owners to earn money from their forest than by clear-cutting the forest?

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to the members for their committed contributions and interesting interpellations! There is still a kind of goodwill towards all of Sweden's forest owners. In all contexts, we shall highlight what fantastic work many forest owners actually do. There we can probably agree.

As has been mentioned in several of the posts, reference is made to a long series of different investigations. But as you know, that makes it somewhat limited for me to reason completely freely. Now there is a preparatory work ahead of us regarding the forest investigation. There is an ongoing environmental goals preparation, and then there is the species protection investigation at the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, among others, which handle parts of the questions.

With this said, I still have some additional comments.

It is clear that ambitious nature conservation work should be rewarded, but today it can unfortunately be quite the opposite. Forest owners who have created high nature values are deprived of the right to use the land completely without compensation due to the presence of protected species, and that is not reasonable. The Government is clear that the protection of ownership rights, which I note is not mentioned quite as often in the interpellants' posts, shall be guiding in the matter of compensation when forestry is restricted as a result of species protection. It is among other reasons why we have initiated the internal letter investigation, which is now in its final phase.

I can also note that even the forest policy investigation in today's partial report has touched upon the issue of compensation for nature conservation, albeit in somewhat more general terms.

There are several possible tools for forest owners who want to generate revenue from ambitious nature conservation work, for example by selling so-called biodiversity credits. It is a new market that is largely in its infancy but which I follow closely with interest.

It is also important to remember that forestry on a voluntary basis, without compensation, excludes 1.3 million hectares from active forestry. This corresponds to more than 5 percent of the total productive forest land.

Active and engaged forest owners are absolutely crucial for strengthening the ecosystems in the forest and for utilizing the forest as a carbon sink and a renewable raw material. Today's forest owners have great freedom to choose the forms of their management.

Despite the fact that we have heard a somewhat more negative picture of the situation in the submissions, high timber prices provide profitability in forestry. The need for forest raw materials will increase in line with the green transition, and there is very little that suggests that timber prices will fall right now. Furthermore, many forest owners utilize the opportunity for income in different ways, for example by offering hunting or other nature experiences. What forest owners primarily highlight as a cloud of concern is further unclear rules and obligations. A majority of forest owners believe that the EU's initiatives will lead to a fairly large or very large negative impact on their forestry. Overall, the forest owners are optimistic about the future, and the vast majority of forest owners in Sweden would choose to invest in more forest if they had the opportunity.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer from the Minister.

The Minister said in his response to our interpellations that the direction for the continued work is to promote a long-term sustainable and active Swedish forestry and a growing circular bioeconomy with competitive industries. It is actually what we are discussing in this debate.

The Minister also replied that the government believes that the EU cannot rely on hard-to-achieve commitments for the net uptake in the LULUCF sector, which is characterized by great uncertainties and limited opportunities to influence in the short term through measures. It is interesting.

The EU has decided on an overall climate work where all EU countries shall help each other in reducing their climate impact. This includes measures to reduce climate emissions and to increase the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The larger part of the carbon dioxide uptake occurs through uptake in forests.

Until now, the sitting government has changed Sweden's climate policy so that emissions increase, which should mean that one simultaneously works even more so that nature can take up the increasing amount of carbon dioxide. The Swedish forest accounts for the absolute majority of Sweden's carbon uptake. To meet Sweden's climate goals, we therefore need close cooperation with Sweden's forest owners to together find ways to support an increased carbon uptake in forest and land, which we also have a mandate from the EU to do. If I understand the minister correctly, however, he thinks that this is quite uninteresting.

Nature and the forest as a whole are important for many Swedes, and also for the forest owners. When the question is asked what means the most to people in their forest ownership, it emerges that values such as the opportunity for hunting and recreation and, not least, the feeling of owning forest are very valuable for the individual forest owners.

In addition to timber production as a source of income, many forest owners see other possible sources of revenue in their forests. For example, one-third of forest owners see revenues from hunting and recreation as the most likely source of income, followed by revenues from wind power, solar energy, carbon storage, and bio-credits. Forest owners need to be paid for the environmental and climate benefits they create, and therefore new economic instruments are needed for, among other things, increased carbon storage and environmental benefits. It also provides greater opportunities for continuous revenues if a forest has other uses than just timber extraction.

According to many experts, we get the greatest climate benefit from the forest with the help of measures that strengthen the carbon sink, such as more moderate logging, less intensive thinning, extended rotation periods, protection and removal – including of older forest – and adaptation of forestry methods to increase the forest's resilience to damage. Here, continuous cover forestry methods are to be preferred over clear-cutting.

In the answer to our interpellations, the minister says that all forest owners are free to practice cut-free forestry methods where it is deemed appropriate. The minister does not, however, seem to think it is particularly interesting to somehow favor those forest owners who can contribute to more sustainable forestry.

Today, much of forestry is built around clear-cutting, and it is often difficult for individual forest owners to choose anything else. Solutions for continuous cover forestry are not offered. The expertise and the market are lacking, and therefore political guidance and political will are needed. If the forest owners who work with sustainable active forestry are to be able to achieve greater profitability, we need to support exactly them. The continuous cover methods have, after several evaluations, proven to be profitable, but they must become at least as profitable as or more profitable than other methods.

Today we see that many forest owners see no other alternatives than clear-cutting, which means that we need to investigate other business methods for forest owners if we want to promote long-term sustainable forestry. I therefore want to ask Peter Kullgren again how he wants to support those forest owners who contribute to Sweden achieving the set environmental and climate goals.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The proposals from the ongoing forest investigation were presented just recently. I was part of the parliamentary reference group for the investigation, and the directives breathed a bit of a will to favor the landowner's situation and role in this.

The proposals that have been presented, however, are in the direction of business as usual. The industry has been accommodated very much. The proposals do not involve any actual regulatory simplifications that strengthen the landowner's role, but rather, they impose an even greater responsibility on the individual landowner.

A proposal concerns the process from the time a felling notification is submitted until one can begin logging, which should proceed faster. There, I want to focus on family forestry, which may have been passed down through several generations. The first question I want to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs is in what way it benefits family forestry that the Swedish Forest Agency is given a shortened time, from 42 days to only 10 days, to review the cases. It is about forests that have stood for generations. Should it take ten days to get permission to fell the forest?

This is an arrangement that has come about to favor a stable and continuous flow of forest raw materials directly to the industry. It is also an approach that increases legal uncertainty in forestry because it is difficult to know if one is even following the legislation when a proper review has not been conducted - and in some cases, not even an inventory. I mean that the proposals promise gold for the companies, at the expense of the family forestry's forests.

We can also see that the interest of a landowner to do other things than just clear-cuts is very great. The Minister for Rural Affairs emphasizes that there is a voluntariness, but why is it then that 97 percent of all logging in Sweden is done according to just the clear-cut model? This is something that the Minister for Rural Affairs should take note of. He should try to increase the voluntariness, the legal certainty, and the profitability, with the landowner's and the family forestry's best interests in mind.

The Minister for Rural Affairs expresses doubt and does not quite share the picture we are presenting in the debate. I would therefore like to refer to a report that Södra has produced, where they have calculated a model farm and its ongoing income from forestry minus costs. They have concluded that it yields 1,500 kronor per hectare and year. This means that large forest holdings are required to obtain a reasonable income from forestry. This also does not include the capital costs of forestry; if one includes them, one sees that small-scale forestry does not do particularly well. There is not a particularly large profitability here.

As we have touched upon earlier, the forest owners are also very much in a position of dependency on consultants. The consultants are often employed by the large forestry companies, which is a structural problem. The Minister for Rural Affairs should consider how a more impartial consultancy can be achieved.

I want to ask the question again, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister for Rural Affairs is doing to facilitate, to increase voluntariness and legal certainty, and to ensure that the state and the common good actually help to create a more profitable forestry for the individual.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! No one is happy about a clear-cut.

In my previous speech, I mentioned the economic, ecological and social values of the forest and the many forest owners. Forest policy is perhaps not exactly my usual area in politics, but the forest obviously has significance far beyond environmental, agricultural and rural policy.

As chairman of the Cultural Affairs Committee, I am responsible for a fairly broad political area which, in addition to culture, includes sports, association life, civil society, the cultural environment, outdoor life, and much more – such as popular education and the ecclesiastical cultural heritage. Sustainable forestry is important for the preservation of our cultural environment and our cultural heritage. In the forests, there are traces of graves, pit traps, older forestry remains, charcoal pits, house foundations, and other remains from old croft sites, ancient hillforts, and so on.

A more cautious forestry, for example with selective logging or similar, likely takes into account these valuable sites and occurrences in the forest, while clear-cutting with stump removal and ground preparation risks inflicting large damages on our remains in a rather brutal way. I would say that it destroys and nullifies, with great precision, important pieces of the puzzle in the understanding of our history, our culture, and our origin. As a historian, I become a bit terrified by the thought.

Outdoor life also depends on functioning, real forests. Whether you hike, orientate, ski, pick mushrooms or berries, or simply want to spend time and feel good in the forest, you hardly seek out clear-cuts. You want a real forest with varied landscapes and terrain – a forest where the trees are of different sizes and different ages, where the ecosystems function so that mushrooms can grow and where insects, birds, and other animals thrive.

Many of Sweden's private forest owners take a great responsibility to protect these values. When the local orienteering club is going to lay out courses, they naturally avoid the large clear-cuts. The question, however, is: What does the individual forest owner, who has taken responsibility for socially beneficial, social, recreational, or cultural values, receive? Today, the answer is: nothing. At the same time, the large forestry companies are allowed to continue making billion-dollar profits with gigantic clear-cuts that make it difficult for outdoor life and that damage social and cultural values.

Mr. Speaker! The Minister spoke about the right of ownership. It is, of course, important and constitutionally protected, but we in Sweden also have an almost world-unique right of public access (allemansrätt) which means that the forests actually belong to us all. A forest owner cannot prevent anyone from hiking or picking mushrooms, and I think we all find that very good. But the large companies are still allowed to destroy mushroom forests, break up hiking trails, and create clear-cuts, while the vast majority of forest owners take a public-spirited responsibility.

I want to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs: Is it reasonable that the bar is set so low for the large companies? And is it reasonable that it rests on the sense of responsibility of private landowners to, completely without any kind of incentive or compensation from the state or the companies that are allowed to clear-cut, ensure that the local orienteering club has sensible terrain to run in?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Rural Affairs for the answers.

The Minister for Rural Affairs referred to the fact that we do not talk so much about the right of ownership, but I think all four interpellants have actually talked about precisely the right of ownership and wanted to highlight it. The problem is that the forest owners are in the hands of the forest industry. They are pressured into logging. Above all, they are pressured into clear-cutting because there are no incentives to do it in any other way or available knowledge about the alternatives. It is this that is the big problem.

The Minister for Rural Affairs also claimed that he is awaiting a lot of investigations, but not everything needs to be investigated – a good deal of what already exists can be built upon and expanded. For example, one could increase the appropriations for the protection of valuable nature; no investigations are needed for that. One could introduce transition support targeted at individual forest owners to enable a shift to more sustainable forestry. One could invest even more in skills development for entrepreneurs who educate themselves in continuous-cover forestry. One could provide more money for the Swedish Forest Agency's and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's independent advice to forest owners regarding climate adaptation and continuous-cover forestry methods. One could also introduce forest loans to landowners who want to transition but who, for economic reasons, cannot forgo final felling.

The problem is rather that the number of sustainable proposals from this government regarding forestry is about as small as the number of trees on a clear-cut. Much reference is made to the fact that there is freedom of choice, but I wonder why 97 percent of these 300,000 forest owners choose clear-cutting methods if there is indeed real freedom of choice. I know that many of them would like to see other types of methods.

I want to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs again what measures he intends to take so that forest owners will have more options for earning money from their forests than by clear-cutting them.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying that it is called clear-cut forestry - that is the accepted term for what was called the clear-cut method here. It is extremely politically charged to talk about clear-cuts, and that was entirely deliberate here. There might be some forest owner out there who is getting irritated, so I want to mark that this is not a word that I usually use.

I also think that the term clear-cutting better defines what modern Swedish forestry looks like. One chooses an area where one harvests their forest. Many forest owners talk about rejuvenation area, and many see this as the most efficient way to conduct forestry.

The participants in the debate speak as if practically half of Sweden were a clear-cut forest. That is not how it looks around in our country, however, but it happens in a completely different way.

It has also been mentioned that Sweden is a country with an enormous amount of forest, and so it is. We have forests of different qualities and forests that are used for different purposes. We actually have a fairly large amount that can more or less be designated as production forests - forests that have been cultivated several times on the same land.

The government's position is quite clear. The government prioritizes that Swedish forestry should not be restricted. There are several reasons why a restriction of forestry due to LULUCF, which several have touched upon in this debate, would be a questionable path to take.

Today we are focused on the short-term size of net uptake during individual years and on short commitment periods instead of steering towards a long-term, active and sustainable forestry within the EU. This is simply because diminished access to forest raw materials would reduce the possibilities for substitution of fossil materials and, above all, fossil energy within many different sectors – the construction sector and the industrial sector are obviously two such sectors.

What would be the benefit for the climate if we did not use our renewable resource to the same extent in our enormously successful climate work of transitioning how we heat this country, which is quite often cold, and instead started up the oil boilers around our combined heat and power plants all over the country? It would not benefit the climate, and in the long run, it would also not benefit the environment.

Plastic also needs to be phased out as soon as possible and replaced with even more paper products and bio-based plastic.

High growth is the most important factor for meeting our commitments. The natural variation in growth between individual years is very large - much larger than the changes in harvesting levels that we have seen in recent years. This is due, for example, to the variation in annual precipitation.

The carbon sink is extremely difficult to measure. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has just updated statistics that clarify the great uncertainty. By 2030, the EU is to have an increase in net uptake of 310 million tonnes and an increase in the carbon sink of 42 million tonnes compared to the average between 2016 and 2018. Sweden shall account for one-tenth of this, i.e., 4 tonnes. Given the updated statistics and the low growth over the last year, this goal is challenging to reach.

Within the EU, an agreement has been reached during the year on a common framework for the certification of carbon sequestration and reduced emissions within agriculture and forestry. The Government considers that such a framework should create equal conditions in the internal market. The framework can also contribute to further incentives for carbon sequestration and, not least, to a broader funding base.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! 49 percent of all productive forest land in Sweden is owned by 300,000 individual forest owners. This means a unique diversity of forest owners, but that diversity is not reflected in the forestry. Today, clear-cutting is totally dominant - 97 percent of all harvested forests result in a clear-cut.

Clear-cutting does not provide added value for the climate and biodiversity or recreational values. Many forest owners want to change that. We are now seeing a rapidly growing movement where individual forest owners, companies, and associations are pushing for the transition to clear-cut-free. Common to all these initiatives is that they focus on the landowners' profitability. The transition to more nature-oriented forestry methods is about increased freedom of choice for the landowners, not restricted property rights.

It is regrettable that the Minister for Rural Affairs seems to ignore this development and refrains from taking advantage of this opportunity to support a long-term sustainable forestry. Or is it really so? Will we perhaps see a collection of proposals to facilitate things for all those forest owners who want to see their forestry more sustainable and more profitable in the future? That would be a nice Christmas present to both us and the forest owners.

I really hope so and would like to take the opportunity to wish the Minister a Merry Christmas. Thank you for the debate!

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, we have tried, for once, to focus on all those landowners who actually want something else with their forest than to have clear-cutting. It has been extremely difficult, because one is so deeply embedded in the business as usual thinking.

Since we have not heard any concrete proposals from the Minister for Rural Affairs anyway, I thought I would take the opportunity to share some constructive ideas that are welcome to be processed further in the Government Offices.

It is very regrettable that this government has cut very hard at the budget appropriation concerning the compensation of landowners. The appropriation has resulted in landowners, who represent many thousands of hectares and actually want to have them protected, entering into an agreement. They have received a promise of receiving money. When the appropriation in the new budget is then reduced very drastically overnight, because the government has not prioritized these funds, the landowners are left standing in long queues with long waiting times and enormous anxiety. In the end, they may give up and be forced against their will to sell their farm because they never received this money. That is the absolute first thing. We must do this for the landowners, who want it, but also with consideration for the situation we find ourselves in with both the biodiversity and climate crisis.

It is also important to follow the directives and the policy that come from the EU. It states very clearly there that we must phase out destructive clear-cutting, favor a transition and work with profitability, primarily for the individual.

I ask the same question as I have throughout, and I hope that the government can take these proposals with them. I am also interested in finding out if there is any kind of openness regarding converting these conflict species in forestry, for example, bonus species, and seeing biodiversity as a resource and potentially an extra income.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This debate is now approaching its end. Our interpellations have been about the forest, about the climate, and about profitability and sustainability.

At the core, the only solution is to find models that steer away from today's unsustainable clear-cutting practices - I will use that word anyway - and towards a more sustainable forestry where selective logging or similar methods become the norm. In such a forestry, our forests can consist of trees of different sizes, ages, and species, and conifers and deciduous trees can be mixed. It would be forests where animals, plants, and fungi thrive, just as we humans do - forests where the forest owners, not least the small and medium-sized forest owners and family forestry, achieve profitability in their ownership and their management of the forest.

The debate has been about how significant an economic, ecological, and social forestry is from a global perspective for the environment, biodiversity, species richness, and the climate. This is also important for us humans: for the forest owners and for all of us who enjoy the forest and who, with good support from the Swedish right of public access, use our forests for hiking, for recreation, and because we feel good from it.

The debate has been about that there are several ways to a sustainable forestry where forest owners are paid both for their logging and for letting the trees stand in the areas that have valuable or threatened species. This also applies to areas where reindeer graze and areas where our ancestors in our history have left marks and memories, intended for us and future generations.

However, an active government and a decisive responsible minister are required. There is good hope, but the debate has unfortunately also been about the Tidö government's and the Minister for Rural Affairs' obvious opposition to, and reluctance toward, taking this responsibility and taking a leadership for these important values.

In the run-up to Christmas, I wish that the government and the Minister for Rural Affairs listen to the forest owners, because they want to take responsibility.

Just like the others, I would like to wish the Minister for Rural Affairs, the Speaker, the Chancellery, and those who are watching – now there are no listeners left in the gallery – a very Merry Christmas.

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

Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)

Mr. Speaker! My priority is to design a forest policy based on the concept of stewardship. It also means that the forest continues to be cultivated. Active forestry with high growth and the use of products from renewable raw materials is judged to provide the highest long-term climate benefit. Renewable raw materials are needed to replace all the fossil fuels we use in Sweden and in other countries.

To increase the forest's climate benefit, both for substitution and for increased net removal, measures for increased growth, good forest health, and a growing circular bioeconomy are judged to be needed. As said, as a forest owner, one has great freedom to choose for oneself how one wants to manage one's forest, which guarantees a large variation in our forests. That is good.

Logging takes place based on both the possibilities of the law as well as the forest owner's needs and plans. To now introduce restrictions for forestry would probably worsen the climate in the long term and reduce the possibility of substitution of fossil raw materials, while in practice it would not contribute to achieving our EU commitments.

We have focused a lot on also alleviating the enormous anxiety that I can imagine you have also encountered regarding the uncertainty surrounding the regulatory framework that exists for forestry today – or the lack of a clear regulatory framework. Without saying anything about the content in this early stage, I therefore think that the heading of the partial report that was submitted today is very appropriate. We need to have a clear regulatory framework for an active forestry.

With that, I would also like to take the opportunity to wish all interpellants and fellow debaters a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I also, of course, wish the Speaker the same.

I guess we will have every reason to return to the subject in the new year.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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