“Since the current forestry policy was drawn up in 1993, Sweden has joined the European Union and the problems caused by climate change have come to the fore, so the situation has changed. I have put forward proposals that will secure favourable conditions for the socially important forestry sector in the future. The forest sector needs clarity and predictability if it is to dare to invest,” says researcher and author of this article Göran Örlander*.

Sweden is a forest country: almost 70% of its territory is covered by forest. Forestry is of great economic importance, as timber and paper products make up roughly 10% of Swedish goods exports. Forests also support many other values, such as biodiversity. What is more, forests matter to Swedish culture and to the country's sense of itself. More than 300,000 Swedes are forest owners.

The last time Swedish forest policy was reviewed was back in 1993, and it is founded on “freedom with responsibility” – landowners bear the fullest possible responsibility for how they manage their forests. This creates the conditions for greater diversity in management methods and systems. One point is crucial: the two goals of national importance – environmental considerations and a high level of production – must carry equal weight.

The conditions in which forestry operates have changed since 1993. Sweden's accession to the EU has driven change. Climate change is also creating problems and setting forestry new tasks. Forests must be used to combat climate change, by supplying society with more climate-friendly products such as building materials and by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The Swedish government has tasked me (Göran Örlander) with examining proposals to secure sustainable and competitive forestry that strengthens freedom of enterprise and the willingness to invest in forests. I have submitted an interim report, “Clear rules for active forestry”, to Sweden's Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren.

Among other things, I propose the following reforms:

1. Introduce a dedicated compensation scheme for landowners whose forestry is constrained by nature conservation. A particular problem in forestry is the restrictions imposed by the protection of species safeguarded at EU level. Landowners barred from logging because of protected species currently receive no compensation whatsoever from the state.

In the course of my inquiry I have met a number of forest owners who have run into bans on managing their forest (their property) – for example the Hyttsten family in western Jämtland. The family has farmed a smallholding for several generations, supplementing its income with forestry. At present they are forbidden to harvest a large part of their forest, which means forest regeneration is impossible. There are many similar examples across the country.

This legal situation is both unfair and unsustainable from the point of view of industrial development policy. Given the widespread uncertainty, banks and other lenders are beginning to question the value of Swedish forest property as loan collateral. The willingness to invest in sparsely populated areas is declining.

I therefore propose a mechanism giving landowners a right to compensation. Where forest management is constrained by nature conservation, the landowner should be able to require the state to decide on a so-called forest land protection zone at the site in question, and the landowner would then receive a payment of 125% of market value. Many landowners would of course prefer to carry on managing their forests, but where that is not possible, compensation must be paid.

2. A new system for notifications and consultations concerning forestry operations. To carry out logging in their own forests, landowners must notify the Swedish Forest Agency. The problem is that these notifications can lead to appeals and, in turn, to long and costly court proceedings. On top of that, processing the notifications often takes unnecessarily long.

I propose shortening the period before logging may begin after a notification is received from six weeks to ten days. At the same time I propose new rules that will make it clear to the landowner when natural values are significant enough to require consultation with the Swedish Forest Agency. Where an operation requires consultation, the period will remain six weeks. My proposal means that straightforward operations can be dealt with more quickly.

I propose that only those logging notifications that the Swedish Forest Agency decides to examine, and which therefore lead to a formal decision, should be open to appeal. At present, environmental organisations can appeal against every logging notification submitted, even where the Swedish Forest Agency takes no decision on the basis of that notification.

3. A cap on costs for the landowner. At present it can be expensive for landowners to meet the so-called knowledge requirements, that is, to carry out surveys of protected species or to produce the documentation demanded by the authorities.

There is no justification for the landowner having to bear every expense arising in the course of ongoing land use, so I propose a rule limiting how much a landowner should have to pay for obtaining data.

4. Simplifying the process. Many landowners feel that too many authorities are involved in forestry matters. I propose simplifying the process so that the Swedish Forest Agency takes over from the county administrative board most of the responsibility for supervising compliance with forestry and environmental legislation.

All legal proceedings relating to logging should likewise be heard by a single court – the Land and Environment Court – rather than the present arrangement, under which certain matters end up in the administrative courts.

Taken together, my proposals mean that all the parties involved – landowners, environmental organisations and investors – must have clarity about what applies and when. Going forward, the same forest policy goals must continue to apply to production and to the environment alike. That is good for legal certainty, for environmental protection and for boosting the productivity of Sweden's forests.

* The author of the article, Göran Örlander, wrote in the first person, setting out his own assessment and his own work; we have kept that style in the translation