In February 2024, the government commissioned Göran Örlander to conduct a review of national forest policy. The assignment also included reviewing policy development within the EU and considering measures for long-term sustainable and competitive forestry that strengthen freedom of enterprise and willingness to invest.
The inquiry's mission
The remit included proposing efficient, simple, and well-functioning oversight of forestry and more effective environmental goal work in forests. The aim is to develop a future-oriented, effective forest policy that promotes long-term sustainable and competitive forestry, increased forest growth, and a long-term increased supply of sustainable forest biomass, in order to fully contribute to climate transition as well as jobs and growth throughout the country. The equal goals (environmental goal and production goal) in forest policy should remain intact.
According to the remit, the inquiry was to, among other things:
- Propose economically efficient measures to encourage long-term sustainable and competitive forestry, and strengthen the freedom to conduct forestry business and the willingness to invest in the forest industry.
- Propose economically efficient measures for how forest policy can be developed to meet EU policy development.
- Propose a developed working method for Sweden’s continued work within the EU on forestry issues.
- Take a stance on whether it is appropriate to replace today’s supervision order, based on a felling notification, with another system for oversight, such as a self-monitoring system.
- Consider alternatives to the current system regarding the consultation obligation according to Chap. 12, Section 6 of the Environmental Code.
- Analyse and, if necessary, propose measures to ensure that the knowledge requirement and burden of proof rule in the Environmental Code do not lead to disproportionate costs for the landowner.
- Propose updated specifications and indicators for national environmental goals related to forests for improved measurability and trackability.
Impact on Södra
The inquiry’s proposals affect Södra and Södra’s members to a very large extent, and several of the areas where Södra experiences challenges are addressed through proposals in both reports of the inquiry.
There are several proposals in the Forest Inquiry’s interim report that are positive for Sweden’s forest owners:
- Those who suffer significant restrictions on their property should have the right to compensation through the right to require area protection.
- The Swedish Forest Agency becomes the supervisory and dispensation authority regarding species protection matters.
- All legal processes should be handled by a single court, and the Swedish Forest Agency is given a role in court processes.
- The permit requirement for noble broadleaf forests is removed.
The final report contains a number of proposals relevant to Södra, for example:
- Introduction of a production target system for monitoring the forest policy production goal.
- Introduction of a new way to report the climate benefit of forests, including substitution effects and emissions.
- Improved working methods in forestry issues within the EU, regarding both negotiation and implementation.
- A clear political assessment of how much area should be exempted from forestry.
- Regulatory changes to enable increased growth concerning, among other things, forest reproductive material, non-native tree species, fertilisation, forest damage, and regeneration work.
- A research programme focusing on forest management.
Södra's viewpoints
Södra has submitted comments on the inquiry’s interim report (available here). Södra’s comments concern, among other things:
- Area limit for felling notifications Regarding the proposal to keep the current area limit of 0.5 hectares, Södra has instead proposed a raised area limit of 2 hectares. This would reduce the administrative burden for both operators and authorities and simplify existing processes. Such a development would be attractive to many interested in forestry and contribute to a more long-term forest policy.
- Consultation It is good that clarification of the consultation obligation is desired, and we agree with the inquiry that consultation is a support tool for the landowner. Consultation means advice, not prohibition. However, it is difficult to foresee the consequences of the proposal regarding a consultation obligation separate from the felling notification. In the proposed laws, there is no limitation on the consultation obligation. Today’s appeals may change character and instead concern whether consultation should have taken place and how it should be interpreted. Therefore, it is very important that there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of the consultation procedure if the government chooses to proceed with the proposals.
- Knowledge requirement/consideration requirement We believe the rules need adjustment and adaptation to forestry. We are positive about a cost cap for the individual landowner, but see it as a partial proposal in a future changed knowledge requirement. Of course, forest owners have a responsibility for the environment in their operations, but they currently bear an unreasonably large responsibility for investigations and information gathering. This responsibility should more heavily rest with authorities.
The focus moving forward is to submit comments on the inquiry’s final report in a consultation response and, in other ways, in our advocacy work, to ensure that the inquiry’s proposals are prepared and implemented in a way that aligns with the needs of family forestry.
On these issues, we collaborate within the Swedish Forest Industries Federation and LRF Forestry, in parallel with internal work in consultation with representatives from Södra’s Management Council.