The Swedish Forest Industries Federation (Forest Industries Federation) took part in a debate in DN in reaction to Protect the Forest’s and Greenpeace’s campaign Forest SCAndal, and that Nestlé had stopped buying virgin fibre from SCA. In their article, they call on the government to force the expert authorities to write about reality and give “a true picture of the situation”.
Protect the Forest and other organizations respond in DN.
The forest industry lives in a bubble of denial
Viveka Beckeman of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation claims on DN Debatt that Nestlé’s decision to stop buying virgin fiber from SCAis due to “misleading images” from activists. It is an astonishing denial of reality. The decision was made after a multi-year process in which Nestlé itself visited Endangered forestsand listened to experts, researchers and Sami communities. In this case, they did their homework and then made a fully informed decision. It is the inconvenient truth that the Swedish Forest Industries Federation is trying to deny.
The market is now reacting to the fact that the Swedish forest industry refuses to be modernized. Beckeman’s text does not mention with a word that Nestlé cited a lack of respect for indigenous peoples’ rights as a reason for its decision. This blindness to social values is one of several reasons why Nestlé sees the Swedish forest industry as a risk.
Nestlé’s decision is the beginning of the end for the myth of the sustainability of the “Swedish model”. For decades, the industry has made a living by vacuuming the landscape of real forests. In the place of the forest, timber fields are planted that lack the biodiversity and climate resilience that both the planet and the market require. The fact that planted trees grow does not help the 1,400 red-listed species that are assessed to be strongly negatively affected by felling. When lichen-rich forests are replaced by dense tree plantations, it is catastrophic for reindeer herding. In the evaluation of Living Forests, the Swedish Forest Agency states that the loss of natural values that cannot be recreated is a problem of a “particularly urgent nature”.
Beckeman calls on the government to “ensure” that authorities such as the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency give a “true picture”. It is an appeal for politicized facts. The Government is already proposing a sharp reduction in the protection of endangered species at the request of industry, and together they are working against the EU’s various nature conservation ambitions and legislation. Now the industry is also demanding that the state silence the authorities when evaluations and reporting are uncomfortable. It is similar to methods of truth management we normally associate with completely different forms of government.
The environmental movement’s criticism is not “radical”, it is based on evaluations and reports from expert authorities and research. A united environmental movement, Sami organizations and over 260 researchers support a forest reform in line with already decided environmental and climate goals, which requires a stop to the felling of forests worthy of protection. Several studies also show that reduced felling would provide great and immediate climate benefits – contrary to the industry’s mantra.
To claim that 25 percent of the forest is exempt from use is creative accounting where impediments (wooded unusable marshes and mountains) are included. Of the productive forest below the mountainous border, only about 4 percent is formally protected.
If the forest industry wants to save its reputation, it requires a change in forestry, not political tinkering with statistics. We must stop felling natural and continuity forests and respect Sámi rights. Otherwise, more customers will do as Nestlé does: trust their own eyes instead of what the Swedish Forest Industries Federation claims.
Frida Bengtsson, Head of Greenpeace in Sweden
Elin Götmark, Spokesperson for Protect the Forest
Maria Bergkvist, Vice Chairman, Climate Club
Inger Björk, The Forest Group Climate Parliament
Ida Edling, Environmental lawyers
Esther Hauer, Extinction rebellion
Elisabet Jansson, Rebel mothers for the forest
Isabelle Letellier, Scientist rebellion
Karmapriya Muschött, Chairman, Friends of the Earth
Esker Nylin, Field Biologists’ Forest Policy Committee
Jakob Schleicher, The Forest Rebellion
Ulf von Sydow, Chairman, The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation in Jämtland-Härjedalen
Brita Wessinger, Chairman, The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation in Västernorrland