Whether a forest owner's land is protected depends on the decisions of specific officials, for example, when discussing forest habitats. Landowners should always have the right to compensation for losses if the state restricts their right to use the land. This is written by Helena Jonsson, representative of the Federation of Swedish Farmers, and Sven-Erik Hammar, representative of the Forest Owners of the Federation of Swedish Farmers.

A forest owner in Värmland was prohibited from felling trees in his forests because regional authorities found a protected fungal species on his land – the sarcosoma fungus. The forest has thus lost its economic value, and the owner receives no compensation.

This is, unfortunately, one of the misguided examples of environmental protection requirements that risk hindering the forestry sector, as well as jeopardising jobs, prosperity, the environment and rural development.

“Maintaining the most beautiful parts of a forest will become a financial risk for companies.”

Clearly, the forest owner mentioned in the article had managed his forest in such a way that favourable conditions existed for the sarcosoma fungus to be found there. He shares his care for the forest and its environmental values with hundreds of thousands of forest growers in Sweden. However, the responsible authorities are creating a policy where forest owners who create specially protected areas face an increasing possibility (risk) of losing those forest areas.

This can be an ecosystem for rare birds, flower species or, as in this case, a habitat for the sarcosoma fungus. These restrictions are supported by the Species Protection Ordinance. This is how Sweden implements EU nature conservation directives. However, Swedish regulations require much more than the EU directives, which opens the way for unreasonable interpretations by the responsible authorities.

The threat of restrictions means that forest owners lose the motivation to manage and maintain their forests in a way that preserves natural values. Caring for and maintaining the most beautiful parts of a forest will become a financial risk for the owners.

Furthermore, it is unfair for a single state authority to decide that a forest owner's land will not be suitable for forestry, classify it as a forest habitat, or include a plot under species protection. A forest that has been managed for generations suddenly becomes worthless.

Officials must be prevented from having the power to completely "pull the rug out from under forestry companies" and influence their viability. When artificially created problems affect those who have preserved natural values in their forests, we lose the incentive for such activity in the long term. It is not just individual forest owners who lose out, but nature, rural areas and society as a whole.

Those owners who do not preserve old trees in their forests, allow clearings to overgrow and do not provide opportunities for plants and animals to develop in their natural environment, reduce their business risks. If such views spread among forest owners, it will seriously affect and impact Sweden's nature.

To manage forests sustainably, secure property rights are required. Security in property rights builds responsibility and sustainability. The Swedish economy is based on the principle that no one can take away from a person what they own and what they have built. Our country and our economy are based on this principle.

The "sarcosoma case" has attracted increased attention at a time when the regional government wrote in a request to the court: "The forest owner must account for why they want to carry out felling and what they will do with the income earned".

”The question arises as to how necessary this economic need is and whether the forest owner can cover that need in some other suitable way. Do they have the option to fell a different forest plot? Can they sell a part of the property? Does the owner have other assets they can sell to cover their economic needs? Instead of felling the forest, is it possible for them to receive a loan?”

In this way, the regional government is overstepping the rights of an independent, objective authority. From our point of view, this is an unjustified attitude towards foresters, who are expected to account for what they do with their own money, or who are being forced to leave their property. Unfortunately, Swedish forest owners encounter this attitude very often.

To ensure forest owners do not have to suffer from the arbitrary decisions of officials, a law is needed to protect them in such cases. Landowners should always have the right to compensation if the state imposes restrictions on the right to use their land.

If the state were required to pay for the losses incurred by owners, institutions would be forced to calculate whether the bans are worth it. If halting forestry operations costs nothing, there is a risk that officials will give preference to their own personal interests.

Today, there is no right to compensation linked to species protection regulations. The broad scope for interpreting species protection regulations creates serious legal uncertainty for individual forest owners. Regardless of what the verdict in the "sarcosoma case" will be, the species protection regulations in their current form are and will remain unreasonable. They must be changed!

Helena Jonsson, representative of the Federation of Swedish Farmers

Sven-Erik Hammar, representative of the Forest Owners of the Federation of Swedish Farmers