PRESS RELASE, September 26, 2017

Today, Swedish NGOs write an open letter to the EU Environmental Council to express their concern regarding the proposed LULUCF regulation which they say risks having detrimental and long-term effects on both climate and biodiversity. The proposal, which favors an active forestry and supports a decrease of the EU forest sink, is strongly lobbied by Swedish and Finnish Forest Industries, and the NGOs warn the EU decision-makers not to be misled by production interests.

Sweden promotes itself as a leader when it comes to sustainable forestry and bioeconomy. The Swedish and Finnish Forest Industries are strong lobbyists and use the climate as a pretext to increase their forest harvest, production and economic rates, according to the NGOs. By endorsing a so-called bioeconomy, natural forests are systematically clear-cut and replaced by even-aged tree plantations, poor of species, to acquire alleged sustainable wood products and bioenergy.

“The planetary boundaries for climate and biodiversity are already exceeded and catastrophic consequences are ahead if stringent climate mitigation measures are not urgently taken. Sweden can be used as a world-wide example of how harmful clear-cutting methods are used to destroy natural forests in the name of sustainability. Not only that, these harvest methods also increase the emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce the carbon sink, and that is something the LULUCF regulation definitely not should not favor,” said Ahmed Al-Qassam, President of PUSH Sweden.

The NGOs urge the Environmental Council to introduce clear incentives to stop deforestation as well as to ensure policy coherence in relation to the Habitats and Bird Directives, especially when it comes to afforestation, reforestation and restoration of degraded forest lands. Increased harvesting which reduces the forest carbon sink needs to be discouraged and we need economic incentives to climate-friendly forest use and standing forests.

“We hope that the Environmental Ministers of the EU will make sure that they will not be misled by production-orientated claims from the Forest Industries. Climate change and loss of biodiversity are major global challenges. It is very important that the EU does not legitimize a more intensive forestry. We need functional ecosystems to mitigate to climate change,” said Viktor Säfve, co-founder of the Swedish NGO Protect the Forest.  

The following Swedish NGOs have signed the open letter to the EU Environment Council: Protect the Forest, Friends of the Earth Sweden, Naturarvet, PUSH Sweden and Climate Action Sweden (Klimataktion).

The open letter can be found here.


Viktor Säfve, International campaigns, co-founder of Protect the Forest, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Ahmed Al-Qassam, President, PUSH Sweden,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,
+46 (0)72-366 11 88

Press release 7th of April 2017

During the current visit of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to India, investors in the potential financiers of, and the company behind the planned Rampal coal power plant in Bangladesh are being urged to disinvest from the project by over 70 non-governmental organizations.

Non-governmental organisations from around the world today expressed their concerns in a joint letter to banks and investors with links to the different entities that are aiming to construct the proposed Rampal coal-fired power plant, which presents a major threat to the ecological integrity of the world’s largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans in Bangladesh, as well as to the health and livelihoods of millions of local people.

The 1320 megawatt Rampal coal plant project has been proposed by the Bangladesh India Friendship Power Company, and if completed, would be co-managed by the National Thermal Power Corporation of India (NTPC) and debt financed by India’s Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank.

“Investors with funds in NTPC or who hold India Ex-Im bonds must wake up to the Rampal threat and withdraw from climate-hazardous coal based energy projects, rather investing in renewable solar power instead,” said Amanda Tas from the NGO, Protect the Forest. “We also hope that this message gets through to the Prime Ministers of Bangladesh and India, who are hoping to expand their cooperative relationship. They must realize that burning coal is not an acceptable option, and that protecting the Sundarbans is not negotiable.”

Read the letter here.

The letter to the investors is supported by the following NGOs:

Abibiman Foundation, Ghana
AMIHAN National Federation of Peasant Women, Philippines
Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD), Asia Pacific
BankTrack, International
Biofuelwatch, UK/USA
Botswana Climate Change Network, Botswana
Friends of the Earth, Bosnia and Herzegovina
CHAUKATH voluntary network of feminists, Nepal
Climate Action Network, International
Climate Litigation Network, Transnational
Conservatree, USA
Cordillera Women's Education Action Research Center (CWEARC), Philippines
Cultures of Resistance Network Foundation
EcoNexus, UK
Ecoropa, Germany
Feminist League, Kazakhstan
Forum Environment and Development, Germany
Forum for Nature Protection NGO, Nepal
Foundation for GAIA, International
Fragile Planet Earth, South Africa
Friends of the Earth US, USA
Friends of the Siberian Forests, Russia
Friends of the Tamar Valley, UK
Nature and Youth, Sweden
GenderCC - Women for Climate Justice e.V., International
Genethics Foundation, Netherlands
Global Environment Centre, Malaysia
Global Forest Coalition, International
Green IT. Uruguay
Greenpeace Russia
Grupo Para o Desenvolvimento da Mulher e Rapariga, Mozambique
IBON International
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability – Africa, South Africa
Institute for Planetary Synthesis, Switzerland
Janabhivyakti, India
Japan Tiger and Elephant Fund, Japan
Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (JATAN), Japan
Friends of the Earth, Sweden
Klimataktion Stockholm, Sweden
Korea Federation for Environmental Movements, Korea
Michael Underwood Agroforestry Associates Africa, South Africa
Mom Loves Taiwan Association, Taiwan
National Indigenous Women Forum, Nepal
NCA-Afghanistan, Afghanistan
New Wind Association, Finland
Next Big Thing Movement, Inc, USA
Oil Change International
Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), USA
Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER), Malaysia
Planetary Association for Clean Energy (PACE), Canada
Protect the Forest, Sweden
PUSH Sweden
Quercus- National Association for Nature Conservation, Portugal
Rainbow Eco-Farm and Training Center NPO, South Africa
Re-nourish, USA
Rettet den Regenwald, Germany
Rewild, South Africa
Rutale Development Association, Africa Students for a Just and Stable Future, USA
SustainUS, USA
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Sweden
Tanzania Youth Coalition, Tanzania
TFINS, India
Thanal, India
The Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa
Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa
WECF Women Engage for a Common Future, International
Wildlife Impact, USA
Women's Environment & Development Organization (WEDO), International
World Heritage International, Netherlands
YouthNet for Climate Justice, Banglades

Amanda Tas,
Protect the Forest, Sweden
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone: +46 (0) 73 5860099

Wally Menne,
Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mobile: +27 (0) 82 4442083

On 21 March, the International Day of Forests, 200 organisations are reminding the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that its misleading forest definition dating back to 1948 must be changed. The definition has allowed the plantations industry to hide the devastating ecological and social impacts of large-scale monoculture tree plantations behind a positive forest image.

FAO’s forest definition has allowed the plantations industry to call their monoculture plantations of fast-growing species such as eucalyptus, pine, rubber or acacia “forests” because it defines a forest only by the number, height and canopy cover of trees on an area. The FAO forest definition has been used as blueprint for over 200 national and international forest definitions since 1948.

Under the guise of this FAO forest definition, the industry has been able to expand fast, especially in the global South, where monoculture tree plantations now cover some several tens of millions of hectares of land. This expansion has brought misery to countless rural and peasant communities, and indigenous peoples. Families have lost land and livelihood where monoculture tree plantations have taken their land, destroyed their way of life, dried up their water springs and streams and poisoned their food with agro-toxins. (1)

“For almost 70 years, the misleading FAO forest definition has served the tree plantations industry well. They have hidden the destruction caused when diverse forests, grasslands and peatlands overflowing with life are converted into ‘green deserts’ made up of monoclonal trees in straight rows behind the positive forest image provided by the FAO,” says Winfridus Overbeek, international coordinator of the World Rainforest Movement.

Forest restoration as climate protection debate adds urgency to get forest definition right

“With the adoption of the UN Paris Agreement on climate change, revision of this FAO forest definition takes on additional urgency”, says Guadalupe Rodríguez from Salva la Selva/Rettet den Regenwald, “it would be a tragedy if the misleading FAO definition makes expansion of these damaging tree monocultures eligible for climate funds earmarked for “reforestation” and “forest restoration.”  This would not only harm even more communities where tree plantations take over land used by villagers but also undermine climate protection: Carbon-rich forests could be destroyed and be replaced by monoculture tree plantations with countries claiming that according to the FAO forest definition, no forest area has been lost – despite the massive loss of carbon, biodiversity, water sources and local livelihoods when forests are replaced by monoculture plantations.

An example where the deliberate mis-labelling of plantations as forests allows the plantations industry to tap into climate funds is the ‘African Forests Restoration initiative’ (AFR100). Launched at the 2015 UN climate meeting, it aims to cover 100 million hectares that participating African governments consider “degraded” lands. The World Bank will make USD 1 billion available for this plan – and relies on the FAO forest definition to define eligibility for funding. Unsurprisingly, one of the most controversial tree plantations companies operating in Africa, the Norwegian-based Green Resources (2), was among the keynote speakers at a 2016 conference in Ghana, where the implementation of the AFR 100 initiative was prominent on the agenda.

2017 FAO International Forests Day theme ‘Forests & Energy’ shows urgent need to change forest definition

“Industrialized countries’ unsustainable energy demand combined with their new quest for ‘renewable’ energy is already converting forests in the global South into industrial ‘biomass’ plantations. Yet, the word ‘plantation’ does not appear once on the FAO’s “Key messages” webpage for the International Forests Day 2017″, says Wally Menne of the Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa. For example, to fuel all of the UK’s energy requirements through eucalyptus­-based biomass would require some 55 million hectares of plantation in Brazil – an area larger than twice the size of the UK.

200 groups today join the more than 130 thousand groups and individuals who called on the FAO in 2015 to rise to the challenge and urgently change the FAO forest definition because tree plantations are not forests.


World Rainforest Movement:
Winfridus Overbeek
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tel: +55 27 988 219007

Timberwatch Coalition:
Wally Menne
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tel: +27 (0) 82 4442083

Rettet den Regenwald:
Guadalupe Rodriguez
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tel: + 49 40 410 38 04 3


(1) The letter sent to FAO today can be found here. It is also available in Spanish, French and Portuguese.

(2) In response to the 2015 petition signed by over 130,000 people calling on FAO to change its forest definition, the FAO claims that its role is merely to harmonize the different national and international forest definitions of forests elaborated since 1948. However, the letter sent today shows how this view ignores that in fact, the FAO forest definition is THE reference for many of the national definitions, in the UN climate talks, in initiatives such as AFR100, etc.

Today, more than 70 non-governmental organisations from around the world called for the cancellation of the proposed Rampal coal power plant, in an open letter to the governments of Bangladesh and India. The proposed 1320 megawatt Rampal plant, construction of which is planned to start soon, would threaten the world’s largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans in Bangladesh, as well as the health and livelihoods of millions of local people.

Mangrove flora in the Sundarbans.
Mangrove forest in the Sundarbans. Photo: Mohammad Rakibul Hasan

The Sundarbans is a Ramsar-listed wetland and also includes a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It has an extremely rich biodiversity and is of critical importance for globally endangered species, including the Royal Bengal Tiger and Ganges River Dolphin. The Sundarbans also plays a key role in mitigating the impacts of climate change, acting as a carbon sink in its undisturbed natural state, and as a barrier against cyclones, storms and other natural disasters that would become more frequent and intense as more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.

"The unique ecosystem and biodiversity of the Sundarbans are under severe threat from the planned Rampal power plant,” said Wally Menne of the Timberwatch Coalition in South Africa. “Local peoples’ right of access to natural resources from the mangrove forests would be at risk. Although Bangladesh has the fundamental right to develop, this right belongs to all of its people, including the most marginalised, and should not be monopolised by big corporations whose only aim is to make profits, often at the expense of the environment and local communities."

The Rampal power plant is a joint project of India's state owned National Thermal Power Corporation and the Bangladesh Power Development Board. In October 2016, UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre and the IUCN identified four key main impacts related to the power plant’s construction: pollution from coal ash by air, pollution from wastewater and waste ash, increased shipping and dredging, and the cumulative impact of industrial and related infrastructure. They both recommend the cancellation of the Rampal power plant project.

“The availability of so-called modern technology is being used as an argument in support of the Rampal project, but this will definitely not keep its pollution to a minimum level,” said Amanda Tas from Protect the Forest, Sweden. “During recent years, coal-carrying vessels have sunk, and one oil spill has already occurred in the area. Rather than to build a climate-damaging coal-fired power plant, both India and Bangladesh should develop renewable sources of clean energy, respecting the environment, and benefiting all inhabitants of the Sundarbans. This must also include the most marginalised, who being largely off the electricity supply grid, and would not benefit from energy produced by the proposed Rampal power plant.”

In the open letter, the organisations call on political decision-makers to immediately halt the Rampal power plant project and other commercial projects in the Sundarbans and its surroundings, and to increase investments in renewable solar and wind power projects. They also urge the Government of Bangladesh to uphold the right to assemble, and to protect the safety of people that exercise this right, including the right to protest against government-approved projects. In January, police used teargas and water cannons against peaceful protesters, injuring about 100 people during a hartal in Dhaka, which was held to save the Sundarbans.

Read the entire open letter here.

Read the press-release including contact information here.

Swedish timber industry group Holmen, with its key market in the UK, has violated FSC standards by planning to harvest valuable forests and is suspected of having violated the Species Protection Ordinance, and is even suspected of corruption. The Swedish NGO Protect the Forest calls for UK consumers to put pressure on Holmen and other Swedish wood-suppliers to stop logging high conservation value forests and to transition to environmentally sound forestry methods.

High conservation value forest planned to be felled by Holmen in Jämtland. Photo: Ellinor Delin

Holmen is a Swedish forest industry group that runs forestry and energy production operations and manufactures paperboard, paper and wood products. It has one paper-mill in Workington, UK. Holmen Skog, responsible for managing the group’s land holdings, is FSC-certified, implying that its forest management should be environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable. Recently, certification body DNV GL requested major corrective action (CAR) from Holmen Skog due to its violation of the FSC certification. Holmen Skog planned to harvest several high conservation value forests in Jämtland, central Sweden, during the summer of 2016.

“We carried out inventories in these forests and found many red-listed species,” said Ellinor Delin from the Swedish NGO Protect the Forest. “Consumers in the UK receive guarantees from Holmen that their products are sustainable, but they as well as other Swedish forest companies such as SCA, Sveaskog and Stora Enso clear-cut biodiverse forests and convert them to species-poor tree plantations.”

Volunteers doing inventories in Jämtland. Photo: Ellinor Delin

In addition, Holmen Skog was recently reported to the police for felling a tree with a nesting pair of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), thereby violating the Species Protection Ordinance. The County Administrative Board informed Holmen Skog about the presence of the golden eagles in 2015. In 2016, only a stump of the nesting tree remained. The golden eagle is classified as near threatened in Sweden1, and is one of over 1,800 red-listed forest-living species in the country.  Only about 4% of the productive forest land in Sweden is formally protected as national parks and nature reserves2 while over 90% is subject to harvest3.  Additionally, the principal owner and chairman of the Holmen Board, Fredrik Lundberg, was by the end of January interrogated and under suspicion of bribery in connection with hunting events that he hosted.

Government-owned company Sveaskog recently got a major CAR for planning to fell high-conservation value forests in northern Sweden, despite its claims of environmentally sound operations. Here, volunteers found many red-listed species in the areas planned to be felled. According to the FSC and national law, inventories should be carried out by the timber industry itself.

“The Swedish forestry methods are very destructive and leave little room for vulnerable species,” adds Elin Götmark from Protect the Forest. “Sustainable forest methods are virtually non-existent. Holmen and other Swedish forestry companies need to be put under international pressure to immediately stop logging high conservation value forests and begin to use forestry methods which are as close as possible to the natural ecological processes in forests. It is high time customers see over where they source forestry products, but simultaneously all consumers have to reduce their use of these products.”


Elin Götmark, Spokesperson, Protect the Forest Sweden
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone: +46 70 678 74 23

Ellinor Delin, Protect the Forest Sweden
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone: +46 72 720 09 17

  1. Swedish Species Information Center (2015). The 2015 Swedish Red List;
  2. Swedish Forest Agency (2014). Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2014.
  3. Larsson, A. (2011). State of the forest – red-listed species in a Nordic perspective (only in Swedish). Report 9. Swedish Species Information Center SLU, Uppsala.