I have created an embassy from my house for conservationists from all over the world to visit. Right now, the embassy is visited by one of Chile’s most committed environmental activists and explorers of nature in Patagonia, Rodrigo Polić. Rodrigo is a field biologist and documentary filmmaker with nature and the environment as a focus and is politically active for the protection of nature. Rodrigo’s film Escandigonia premieres in Stockholm on October 15. At the beginning of September, another dedicated forest protector, Peter Wohlleben from Germany, visited the embassy to experience and talk about real natural forests.
During September, I took part in a regional consultation meeting in Ockelbo where representatives of forestry and the Swedish Forest Agency held the strings. There was talk of consideration given.
The forest companies’ representatives claimed that we have now protected more than 30% of the Swedish forest and in these figures he counted voluntary set-asides, given consideration to clear-cutting and also considerations that according to him will be given in the future. In addition, non-productive forests on marshes and mountain birch forests as well as rocky outcrops were also included. This is thus forest that is not profitable to manage, because the growth is so low.
Such non-productive forest land is also not very productive when it comes to keeping a rich biodiversity alive, so it cannot compensate for the productive forests that are felled daily and that have high conservation values and endangered species.
As for voluntary set-asides, we have a lot of evidence of how they are either converted into ordinary production forest or sold to then be felled.
In other words, voluntary set-aside is not a particularly strong protection for the forest. Consideration left on clear-cutting cannot be called protected forest because the definition of forest is that it must be at least half a hectare that is tree-bearing. Consideration usually usually involves 3-30 trees on an area of less than a tenth of a hectare, which means that it can hardly be counted as forest.
The real figures for protected forest in Sweden are 6% productive forest land in nature reserves or national parks (Statistics Sweden, 2026). If you also include non-productive forest land in the formally protected area, it is 8.9% of all forest land.
At the meeting in Ockelbo, the participants in the forest industry showed their lack of knowledge about the forest and its ecology and their denial of the problems that clear-cutting demonstrably brings with it in the wake of the devastation of the forests. In a debate with a representative of the sawmill industry, the conversation was as follows:
“Forestry is good for the climate, for the national economy and we need to manage the forest.
I answer and ask if the sawmill representative thinks that it is ok that we sacrifice the forest’s biodiversity for the well-being of people?
-Yes, we have to sacrifice something.
A LRF representative joins the conversation.
“The conservationists are extreme and do not seem to understand that our protected forest areas will not have their species diversity left because they are blown down or killed by bark beetle attacks.
I answer that storms and bark beetles are part of the forest ecosystem and create good conditions for biodiversity.
“It is the birds that migrate and spread species by bringing fungal mycelium with them.
I answer that fungi spread by spores, not by birds.
-You mean that you know everything and are the best or?
I answer that on this particular subject I seem to know more than you.
“10,000 years ago there was an ice sheet here and then there was no biodiversity. Since then, it has moved back, so what we humans do does not mean much in this large system. It recovers on its own.
I answer that you often hear that argument from those who claim that we humans have nothing to do with the changes in the climate system. Then he got angry.
Another forest company’s representative says that it is good for the climate to clear cut and plant. Then I remind these gentlemen of the latest report from Lund University that old forests have far greater carbon stocks than young plantations.
Another forest company owner takes the tone and claims that he knows about that report and that it is not credible because they mix apples and pears in their measurement methods.
I then send an email to the researcher at Lund University and tell them about the forest industry’s representatives’ claims at the meeting.
The researcher responds immediately and tells us that the measurement methods are reliable and of high quality.
I am amazed that it is people like this who actually sit in leading positions in both the forest owner movement and the forest industry. Among those who manage our common nature, fact denial and biological illiteracy are unfortunately widespread.