Sweden is often regarded as a frontrunner in sustainability. For instance, it has the highest share of renewable energy in the EU and is known for its meticulous approach to waste recycling and sorting. Sweden is relatively sparsely populated, with around 70% of its area covered by forests. In the last century, the annual volume of timber "harvest" has doubled, but despite this significant increase in productivity, the Swedish forestry model is hotly debated among industry representatives. In this article, we would like to introduce one of the contentious issues and its context.

Although Swedish forest land accounts for only about 1% of the world's forest area, the country is the third-largest exporter of wood products in the world. 6% of the world's pulp exports, 8% of the world's paper exports, and 11% of sawn timber exports come from Sweden (KSLA, 2015). The majority of Swedish forests – 84% – (SLU & Sveriges officiella statistik, 2017) are used for timber production, and a large proportion of these consist of spruce or pine stands (KSLA, 2015).

To understand why the Swedish forest looks this way globally, one must go back several decades. In the late 19th century, a large proportion of Sweden's forests were depleted. Natural regeneration was no longer linked to the impact of forest grazing and the extraction of timber and charcoal. At the beginning of the 20th century, state authorities began to address this problem in order to ensure a constant flow of raw materials for the Swedish economy. In the 1903 Swedish Forest Act, its authors stipulated that all felled trees "must be replaced directly by planting new ones." Over the following decades, governments one after another "created" an increasingly long and serious list of forestry regulations, as well as a list of subsidies supporting the forest industry. This process ended in the 1950s when a forestry model based on clear-cutting relatively large areas was introduced, which increased forest profitability and allowed for the development of mechanisation in the logging process (Lindahl et al., 2017).

Sweden "imported" a model of rational forestry that was first developed in Germany. In his book "Seeing Like a State", James Scott provides a popular scientific overview of this model:

"The achievements of German forest science in standardising methods for calculating the sustainable yield and revenue of commercial timber were impressive enough. Crucial to our goal was the next logical step in forest management: attempting, through sowing, planting, and felling, to create a forest that would be easier for state foresters to inventory, manipulate, measure, and assess. In fact: forest science and geometry, backed by state power, were able to turn a real, diverse, and chaotic old forest into a new and more uniform one. To this end, undergrowth was removed, the number of species was reduced (often to a monoculture), and planting was carried out in continuous straight lines on large plots." (Scott, 1998, p. 11)

Scott's report shows how managing the forest to maximise timber extraction eventually turned complex forest ecosystems into mere suppliers of timber for industry and human needs. The "physical transformation" of complex (and even partially degraded) ecosystems into timber plantations in the 20th century, in turn, encouraged people to view forests solely from the perspective of the timber industry. Complex forest ecosystems are difficult to model, but the new timber plantations actually transformed quite neatly into "mathematical forest growth curves." This view of the forest as a timber plantation and the simplification of the forest reinforced each other.

In 1993, a significant change in forest policy took place in Sweden. Detailed regulations were eased, for example, those regarding the necessity to replace small and infertile forests with new plantations, the mandatory felling of new forests, the mandatory removal of older forests, and mandatory clearing. Instead, forest owners manage their forests with "freedom under responsibility." Only a few key rules remained, such as those regarding mandatory regeneration, consideration of environmental values, and reporting of clear-cuts (Lindahl et al., 2017). Furthermore, environmental protection was added to the Swedish Forest Act as a second and "equally important" policy goal alongside timber production (Lindahl et al., 2017). However, Swedish forests did not change their appearance. Forest owners, who were busy with distinct, biodiversity-poor spruce and pine monocultures, were (and to some extent still are) involved in managing plantations, especially considering the forest rotation periods of 60 to 120 years, which are common in central and northern Sweden (Simonsson, 2016).

The principle of freedom, for which the forest owner bears responsibility, and two goals: timber production and environmental protection remain the "three important pillars" of Swedish forest policy. However, environmental NGOs criticise Sweden, which is still largely covered by plantations rather than mixed and biodiverse forests (Protect the Forest, 2016; Sahlin, 2011). There is little hope that the government's environmental goals for 2020, such as "Sustainable Forest" or "Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life," will be achieved in the near future (Naturvårdsverket, 2019a).

Another part of the dispute is related to forest ownership. Since half of Sweden's forests are owned by private individuals (SLU & Sveriges officiella statistik, 2017), protection measures that are implemented from the "top down" are often seen as an infringement of property rights. This is especially true in cases where environmental conservation measures hinder timber production and the income associated with it.

This might seem like an example of a clash between economic development and environmental protection. However, there is more to it! In fact, the intensification of timber production is being promoted not only for economic purposes but increasingly for sustainability purposes as well (Lindahl et al., 2017)! Some people believe that sustainable forestry is synonymous with extensive management that brings natural processes as close to production as possible. In the Swedish forest industry, there is a different view on this. Sweden's first national forest programme, launched in 2015, defines sustainable forestry as follows: "The forest – green gold – contributes to employment and sustainable growth throughout the country and the development of a growing bioeconomy" (Johansson, 2016, pp. 143–144).

Thus, sustainable forest management "risks being translated" primarily as a goal for climate change mitigation and a transition to a growing bioeconomy. Ultimately, to create a biological economy in which fossil fuels, plastics, textiles, concrete, and steel are replaced by forest products, a large amount of forest biomass is required!!!! The "Swedish Forests" initiative (supported by several forest industry and forest owner organisations) is intended to "sell" (explain) the forest's opportunities to the general public through awareness-raising opportunities:

"The forest is a great place to spend time! It is friendly and also necessary for the climate. As the forest grows, it cleans the air (trees absorb and "store" carbon dioxide), and when the tree has grown, it can be processed into climate-friendly products and materials. As the forest continuously grows, its "renewable power" does not end as long as we take care of it in the right way." (http://www.svenskaskogen.nu/eng.html#start)

Ecological boundaries or adverse impacts on biodiversity may be neglected in this structure.

Some industry representatives are actively promoting the intensification of timber production to strengthen climate change mitigation measures, and the concept of bioeconomy is portrayed as a full-fledged combination of sustainability and plantation forestry. However, the other side of the story, emphasised by many researchers, shows that more diverse forests are capable of sequestering more carbon, providing a wider range of ecosystem services, and are also better able to cope with the future consequences of climate change (compared to monocultures that are ageing) (Gamfeldt et al., 2013; Keskitalo et al., 2016). Therefore, to further legitimise industrial forestry, which is widespread in Swedish forests, overly simplified arguments about carbon sequestration that do not take into account the range of services that forests provide at a given time should not be used. As promising and convincing as it may be if there were "more of everything" in Swedish forestry, continuous effort is required to address the trade-offs between production goals and important environmental and cultural values. Only through balanced action and management can a truly sustainable Swedish forestry model be achieved.

Authors: Iris M. Hertog, Sara Brogaard, Torsten Krause

(Translated from English)