A commentary on the Greenpeace Nordic and Protect the Forest campaign against the Swedish forestry sector.

In mid-January, the aforementioned organisations launched a joint campaign against the Swedish forestry sector. It was based on a study (or studies) described as "independent and clear," urging politicians to make decisions and pass judgements regarding the forestry sector, biodiversity, and forest-based products based on the slogans of said campaign.

The Swedish forestry sector possesses information and scientifically grounded data that are diametrically opposed to the slogans of the aforementioned organisations.

According to the campaign, its authors refer to "broad public support" for the study in question. The Swedish Forest Industries Federation (SFIF) disagrees with such claims and points out that the study has completely ignored other research conducted in the relevant field. It appears that ignoring any other research that does not align with the campaign's main slogan has been the goal of the campaign organisers, suggesting that "other studies might be linked to industry interests and may not be reliable."

Science must be comprehensive, investigative, and cumulative of experience (knowledge). In a democracy, dialogue between interlocutors with differing views is of great importance. This is, for the most part, how discussions on research regarding environmental, climate, and forestry issues take place.

The most obvious and understandable problem with the campaign is its narrow, limited view of forest management. The authors of the campaign examine a specific (single) forest stand, looking at how biodiversity and carbon sequestration form and develop within it—that is, how the aforementioned processes occur in one very specific forest stand, viewing it in isolation from the rest of the landscape and situation.