The Center Party (C) proposes that the state should sell off large parts of the Swedish people’s forest holdings in the state-owned company Sveaskog. They want to sell to private individuals and commons to strengthen forestry and agriculture. But a sell-off would mean that Sweden would miss out on one of its most important tools for protecting valuable forests, reducing conflicts and achieving environmental and climate goals. Instead, all the state’s forests should be used to benefit public interests such as biodiversity, functional ecosystems, climate, large carbon stocks, recreation, public health and indigenous peoples’ rights. This would benefit the public, not just the few who can afford to buy forest.
The state-owned forest land can be of great benefit by being used for nature conservation and nature restoration, as well as as exchange land for a fair and efficient process of protecting forests. The landowner then receives usable production forest without protection value from the state in exchange for forests with high conservation values that are currently privately or company-owned. It is better for the state to own and manage natural forests rich in species worthy of protection than production forests.
This is a solution that benefits several parties at the same time. Forest owners and forest companies will have greater opportunities to conduct their operations on land where there are fewer conflicts with nature conservation, species protection and reindeer husbandry. They avoid uncertainty, lengthy processes and recurring criticism about the felling of forests worthy of protection. At the same time, the state can protect valuable nature in a cost-effective manner.
Over the years, Sveaskog, the Swedish Property Agency and the Swedish Fortifications Agency have received massive criticism from the environmental movement and Sami communities for their destructive forestry. But private landowners also often cut down older forests worthy of protection and replace them with planted timber fields. Would private forest owners, who often rely on timber buyers or landowner associations such as Norra, Mellanskog, SCA and Holmen, really manage these lands better? We don’t think so.
Sveaskog is certified and must consult with the reindeer herders. They have entered into agreements with Sámi communities and the local population on management and consideration. If the forest is sold, these promises are annulled, so that the dialogue is complicated and the state fails the citizens. There is also a risk that only wealthy forest owners can win bids, rather than ordinary local people, and that land purchases are financed by large-scale felling that benefits neither the climate, the environment nor the local population. These are further arguments against C’s proposal.
C wants to use the income from the state to create natural pastures, adapt to climate change and make agriculture more profitable. But C has no credibility regarding biodiversity in forests and natural grazing issues.
The state should support small-scale forestry to make a transition. Truly sustainable close-to-nature forestry is the basis for long-term profitability, secure jobs and gives forest owners greater opportunities for multiple use. We are in favour of strengthening sustainable agriculture and forestry and increasing food production in Sweden. But it would be better financed by redistributing the billions that currently go to subsidizing climate-damaging industry.
The forest sector, which exploits Sweden’s largest ecosystem, should also be involved in co-financing forest protection together with the state and taxpayers. This can be done according to the “polluter-pays” principle, for example through a fund financed by a fee on sold cubic meters of forest biomass, and/or consumption and emissions in the forest industry. Large landowners and industry then pay the most, which is an important issue of fairness.
To be in line with the EU’s biodiversity strategy, EU directives, and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, at least 30 percent of the productive forest land in Sweden should be protected by 2030. Today, only about 6 percent of Swedish productive forests have formal protection. Here, the state-owned forest can make a big difference.
The Swedish Forest Agency states in its latest report: “The current situation conflicts with national and international goals. With continued felling of forests with high biological values, it is not considered possible to achieve Swedish environmental quality objectives. Thus neither does the forest policy environmental goal, the UN’s global sustainability goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).”
The state currently owns just under a fifth of the productive forest, where Sveaskog AB owns the most, and where the National Property Agency has mostly mountainous forests. The mountainous forest belt, the Boreala Amazons, must be preserved in its entirety. It is one of the few large, relatively intact forest landscapes in Europe and offers a unique opportunity to protect whole, resilient and functional ecosystems at the landscape level.
If the state stops forestry and clear-cutting, protects its older forests and protects privately owned natural and continuity forests through land exchanges, the climate will also benefit. Research shows that clear-cutting emits a lot of greenhouse gases and that reduced felling provides large and immediate climate benefits. A new study estimates that the transformation of the forest landscape has emitted more carbon than Sweden’s fossil emissions since 1834.
Protect the Forest’s and Greenpeace’s proposal to the Riksdag and the government is to:
- Instruct the county administrative boards, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency to establish nature reserves and biotope protection of all forests with conservation values at Sveaskog, the Swedish Property Agency and the Swedish Fortifications Agency.
- Instruct the county administrative boards and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to expand existing nature reserves through landscape planning and restoration, by linking and strengthening forests worthy of protection with development and zoning land.
- Give the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency access to land from the Swedish Property Agency and Sveaskog for landscape planning and as replacement land for the formation of reserves on private land.
Sweden would then approach the environmental goals in a cost- and time-efficient manner. We only have 3-4 years to do so. A sell-off that strengthens the already dominant forest industry and where the forests are managed with clear-cuts and plantations is not the solution.
Elin Götmark, Spokesperson for Protect the Forest
Karolina Carlsson, Campaign Manager for Greenpeace Sweden
The article is published in Dala-Demokraten.