Commentary from zemeunvalsts.lv
The problems mentioned in the article by the head of the Swedish Forest Owners' Association are well known to the owners of forests, agricultural land, and other properties in Latvia alike.
One is a very mathematical (Excel-style) approach to nature and an unmanageable respect for percentages, requirements, directives, etc. Whether necessary or unnecessary, sensible or senseless - the percentages must be met! It would be appropriate here to demand that the EU or EC institutions that invented or drafted the aforementioned percentages justify their inventions! And not with flowery phrases, but practically, in the field! Let the European officials go to Sweden, come to us, and explain!
Secondly, as can be seen, our Swedish neighbours also use various methods in their mathematics. For example, in Latvia, officials from responsible authorities, both present and former, have pointed out more than once that inaccurate (emotional) data have been submitted to the EU, or that data have been adjusted to meet specific requirements rather than reflecting the situation. Every so often, the same circle of people in Latvian public and private media express 'concern about the poor state of the environment', which Latvian authorities have reported to EU institutions using the already mentioned 'not always reliable, emotional and variously prepared data'.
It is not precisely known at what point in Latvia (as seen in Sweden as well) the law regarding the circulation of false information within the EU governance system and EU countries began to operate. It is permissible to suggest that it would be time to inform the Latvian public about this as well: which state institutions are providing false, 'emotional', or other inaccurate information about Latvia, to whom, and why.
(Translation from Swedish)
Introduction. 'Sweden would have some of the best indicators if, similar to other EU countries, we paid greater attention to and monitored environmental protection more closely. There must be clarity regarding both international commitments and how our institutions report them, writes Magnus Kindbom from the Swedish Federation of Farmers (LRF) Forest Owners' Association “LRF Skogsägarna”.'
For several decades, the environment in Sweden has been a priority in both society and business. One of many topical issues concerns the determination of land and water areas for biodiversity. Despite active efforts, Sweden ranks among the lowest in the EU in terms of environmental protection measures.
The LRF report points out that this data is misleading and emphasises that Sweden's base criteria for reporting in the field of nature conservation differ from those of other countries. If the data were submitted appropriately – similar to how other EU countries do – Sweden would be in a leading position within the European Union.
From Ystad to Uppsala
The development of criteria and the definition of soil protection (what we mean by it) are of great importance. The European Commission recently published a biodiversity strategy. One of its proposals is that 30% of all land and water areas should be protected. In Sweden, this would correspond to agricultural and forest land, as well as water areas from Ystad to Uppsala. If such areas were completely restricted in their economic or other type of use, it would affect Sweden's food and wood product production capacity and, to a large extent, energy supply. No less importantly, it would directly affect about 100,000 people – Swedish residents who own land or are employed in the food production or forestry sectors.
Government decision ignored
In accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and EU nature conservation directives, Sweden has committed itself to achieving specific goals.
In some cases, natural habitats are categorised according to definitions set by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In a review conducted by LRF, it appears that Swedish state institutions mostly report areas in the category of strictly protected territories. At the same time, other countries mostly report areas in other defined categories. When comparing results between countries, they are misleading and inaccurate.
The current target of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) accepted by Sweden in 2014 is the protection of 17% of land and water territories. The Swedish parliament and government set a higher target: 20% respectively. In connection with this decision, the government clarified the rules for achieving the new goal. Crucially, the reports provided by state institutions to date ignore the government's decision.
Target exceeded
If areas of low-productivity forest, the use of which is completely restricted under the Swedish Forestry Act (skogsvårdslagen), were included in the calculation, the aforementioned 20% (regarding the voluntary principles and considerations set by the government) would be exceeded.
It is significant that the government's regulations do not include many types of environmental protection that are 'used' in other countries. With broader calculations, nearly 60% of Sweden's territory would be considered protected.
Misleading statistics
Similarly misleading data appear in Sweden's assessment of the conservation status of state forests under EU Environmental Directives. Sweden is one of the countries that, according to the report, has the worst forest condition in the EU. In no other country is there such a large discrepancy between the desired state (reference level) and the actual area of natural forest.
According to the directives, the reference level must be specified based on scientific evidence or at least at the level that existed in the country when the directive entered into force. Based on the information submitted, it can be concluded that most countries likely apply the time when the directive entered into force in their respective country to determine environmental (natural) values.
Sweden chose a different path. Based on a questionable assumption, state authorities indicate as a reference level regarding the environment and habitats 20% of the pre-industrial state – that is, a time when a fifth of the country's population used (lived in) smaller housing areas, used less furniture, and consumed less heating, toilet paper, and other hygiene products.
Swedish authorities report that 'millions of hectares of certain forest environments are missing'. As a result, Sweden is portrayed as one of the 'worst' countries in Europe regarding the conservation of biological diversity. According to the Swedish national forest assessment, areas that are essentially important for biodiversity have increased over the last thirty years!
Clarity required
Currently, Sweden is facing new CBD and EU decisions: how much territory (land and water) must be protected. Consolidating the areas of protected territories, fulfilling international commitments, and comparing the situation with other countries is a priority for political positions and efforts.
State funds for achieving the aforementioned goals currently include several billion Swedish kronor. To increase protected territories, individual landowners have voluntarily set aside forest worth approximately 100 billion Swedish kronor.
One can always debate whether Sweden is right and/or others are mistaken in their definitions, and what should be included in various internationally defined categories of protected areas. However, information about the content of international commitments must in any case be transparent and understandable to all, as must the nature and content of the corresponding reports.
*Magnus Kindbom, Director of “LRF Skogsägarna”