Latvia often cites Sweden as a model country where almost everything is supposedly organised to perfection, especially in the environmental sector and related issues. However, after familiarising ourselves with the views of Swedish colleagues, we conclude that things are by no means as bright and perfect in our neighbouring country. Similar problems to those observed here are coming to light. Self-serving interpretations of opinions and the framing of sound measures as harmful characterise the situation both here and in Sweden. In the following text, we look at one of them.
An unprecedented environmental scandal?
Forester Gunnar Lindén – works on environmental protection issues at LRF Skogsägarna (The Swedish Forest Owners' Association)
The Swedish Forest Agency (Skogsstyrelsen) recently announced that investment in key habitats in north-western Sweden must be suspended for the time being. Funding has been temporarily withdrawn because the existing habitat model is not suitable for this part of Sweden.
I have written before about the problems in north-western Sweden, pointing out the need to evaluate the management of habitats there. It is excellent that this is finally being done!
The reaction from environmental activists was not long in coming. The words used are loud, but to those involved in solving the problem and thinking about the significance of what is being said, the statements seem almost pathetic. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (Naturskyddsföreningen) writes that this is one of the greatest oversights experienced in issues concerning the preservation of Swedish nature. They call it a denial of information. Despite this, everyone knows full well that the Swedish Forest Agency will not stop obtaining information or using a management model that does not work in this region and will cause unpredictable consequences. No habitat inventory took place before the decision was made. Habitats were registered in connection with felling notifications, and there is no evidence that low activity in the region will lead to them being visited. Based on visitor statistics, government institutions will have exactly the same capacity to recommend or decide on the implementation of official protection.
Greenpeace reports that this is an unprecedented environmental scandal. What kind of world does Greenpeace live in? What words do they use when talking about large-scale oil spills, barrels of toxic substances on the seabed, chemical spills in Teckomatorp, or the construction of the Hallandsås Tunnel? It seems that in one part of the country, the understanding of what constitutes a serious scandal has changed.
The question is ultimately: is the decision harmful to the environment? I would argue that the opposite course of action would be far more damaging to the environment, as it would mean continuing to register habitats in north-western Sweden in the same way.
Swedish politicians and environmental protection institutions have previously taken the position of not emphasising the importance of forest protection in north-western Sweden (at least not in mountain forests). The reason for this approach: by making further investments, the marginal gains would be low. Forest protection goals in the environmental sector will henceforth apply only to mountain forests. Half of the mountain forests have already officially gained protected environment status, and most of the remainder is excluded from forestry in other ways.
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and other environmental organisations often choose not to include mountain forests in areas generally recognised as protected forests. Therefore, the figure is significantly lower, but the official justification is that mountain forests are not as economically significant as others to be treated as a priority.
Habitats are subjected to greater scrutiny with every inclusion of forest land in reserves – both official and voluntary. Contrary to the public interest, it was decided within the framework of habitat inventories to increase reserves in the north at the expense of other regions. Currently, the environmental protection budget of the institutions is being exhausted by expenditure on mountain forests which, according to Section 18 of the Forestry Act, may not be felled.
Forestry companies that own land in several parts of the country naturally, in accordance with certification, prefer to allocate their investments to key habitats. Because no one wants to give up more than 5% of their land, and the fewest key habitats are found in the north-west, the volume of voluntary reserves is increasing in the mountain regions. The above is happening despite the fact that reserves would make more sense in the lower parts of the country and on the coast.
The majority of private forest owners voluntarily protect at least 5% of their forest. Conversely, owners in north-western Sweden risk losing very large areas of economically significant forest because it is classified as a significant habitat. The public is not prepared to grant such official protection status, because then the property becomes a financial risk that must be maintained and where natural values must be developed, for example by allowing the forest to age before felling. A system that punishes those who value natural values will certainly not have good consequences for the environment in the long term. Environmental organisations should understand this. Therefore, their loud wailing sounds like pure populism and is evidence of a complete lack of pragmatism.