Neither the forestry industry nor Sweden has managed to explain and defend its forestry model to the rest of the European Union. As the presidency begins, the time has come to change this situation, write Swedish forestry industry representatives Håkan Buskhe* (Håkan Buskhe) and Göran Persson* (Göran Persson).
Forests and forest products are an important factor in addressing climate challenges and achieving the European Union's goal of making Europe the first climate-neutral part of the world by 2050. Through sustainable forestry, which respects high levels of biodiversity and protects other natural values, it is possible to ensure significant carbon dioxide sequestration while producing goods that replace fossil-based alternatives. The contribution of forests to the “green transition” process is invaluable. It is the only large-scale renewable resource we can use once we phase out the use of fossil fuels.
On 1 January 2023, Sweden will hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union for the third time. The informal ministerial and other high-level meetings hosted by the presidency are an excellent opportunity to showcase various practical solutions that may be of interest to other countries as well. We have no doubt that forests and the experience we have gained in developing sustainable forestry over the last 100 years is a crucial issue to communicate to the other EU member states.
The forest is Sweden's strategic resource. It has allowed Sweden to move from poverty to prosperity. It is impossible to overstate the importance of an industry that forms the heart of entire ecosystems of economic activity, ranging from services and local raw material production in all Swedish regions to world-leading research and development.
At the same time, we must not forget that the fundamental value (or basic input) – the forest – is much more than that. It is easy to perceive the forest as a “cornucopia” that keeps on giving. This mistake was made in the late 19th century, when intensive logging, the sawmill industry, and the overestimation of available timber volumes led to a significant depletion of once-vast forest areas.
The turning point was the Swedish Forestry Act of 1903, which is considered the world's first modern industry law. Another major shift occurred with the introduction of the 1993 Forest Policy, which set production and environmental protection goals as equal priorities. Since then, significant and positive changes have taken place. We can see that commercial forests, which are now about 25–30 years old, have significantly higher variety and biodiversity than those that grew previously. This path must be continued.
We are currently in a situation where neither the forestry industry nor Sweden has managed to explain and defend its forestry model to the rest of the European Union. This is one of the main reasons why legislative proposals are being prepared in Brussels “on a conveyor belt” that will negatively affect both the Swedish forestry industry and the country's ability to respond to climate change. Each proposal may seem feasible in isolation, but by literally stacking them on top of one another, a difficult situation is created for Swedish forestry and its ability to generate a positive climate impact.
The new proposal for the Renewable Energy Directive significantly hinders the use of forest residues, which will have a negative impact on the climate. With the newly proposed LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) regulation, Sweden's carbon sequestration target is being increased by 4 million tonnes per year. This could directly affect raw material extraction, hindering the production of climate-friendly products. It should be noted that, according to Skogsindustrierna, 1.6 million hectares of forest land could be removed from forestry use by 2050.
It is important to emphasise that we agree with the goals and general direction of European forest policy. It is both significant and good. However, we see two major shortcomings that need to be addressed. Firstly, we are convinced that the achievement of various forest policy goals should be left to the member states themselves. European countries are too diverse in their natural geography for one single model to be suitable for all.
Secondly, impact assessments in the proposals must be improved. The question of what the overall impact of forest policy will be on the economy, climate, and biodiversity, and what the consequences will be outside the forestry industry and regional policy, is rarely, if ever, asked. The Commission's proposals also fail to include the impact on the circular economy, i.e., when forest products replace fossil-based alternatives. All decisions must be evidence-based and scientifically sound, as well as incorporate a broader societal perspective.
Sweden must use its presidency to showcase itself as a forest nation. We have a great deal to show that we can be proud of. We must use every opportunity to explain to European legislators and decision-makers our experience of Swedish sustainable forestry as a European resource. If we do not seize this opportunity, it could prove costly for both Sweden as a nation and the EU as a global leader in climate goals.
* Håkan Buskhe, CEO of the holding company FAM
Göran Persson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, forest owner
Original article: https://www.di.se/debatt/debatt-skogsnationen-sverige-tar-snart-over-ordforandeskapet/