Researchers Raise Alarm Over Swedish Forest Policy Changes
A Swedish forest policy investigation is criticized by researchers for undermining climate and biodiversity goals.
Key Points
- • Swedish government to unveil forest policy investigation on August 28, 2025.
- • Researchers express concerns over 55 proposals that may harm climate benefits and biodiversity.
- • Proposals include easing nature reserve regulations and altering climate benefit calculations.
- • Critics challenge the potential for double counting in new methods for assessing climate benefits.
The Swedish government is poised to present the second part of its forest policy investigation on August 28, 2025, a move aimed at bolstering a sustainable and competitive forestry sector. However, this initiative is met with significant criticism from researchers who warn that several proposed changes could undermine climate benefits and biodiversity protections traditionally afforded by Sweden's forests.
The investigation, led by Göran Örlander, an emeritus professor of forestry at Linnaeus University, encompasses 55 proposals that suggest alterations to existing regulations. Key among these is the easing of restrictions related to land use, potentially allowing landowners to revoke nature reserves more readily, which researchers contend could threaten forest-dwelling bird species and diminish biodiversity.
Professor Markku Rummukainen has criticized the proposal for a new method of calculating the climate benefits of forest products, indicating that it could lead to inflated estimations of forests’ contributions to climate mitigation. According to Rummukainen, current methods already incorporate carbon savings from replacing fossil fuels with wood products, and the changes suggested could result in double counting of benefits.
Compounding these concerns is the reality of decreased carbon absorption capacity in Swedish forests, which has nearly halved due to increased logging activities over recent years. This has raised further alarm among researchers about the balance between forestry production and climate objectives. Örlander argues for a more flexible approach in forestry practices, including financial incentives for land conservation and the planting of non-native species, which he believes could enhance productivity without significant ecological repercussions.
Despite these benefits, critics maintain that such flexibility may come at too high a cost—risking native species and ecosystem integrity. As the country grapples with how to navigate this critical juncture, the investigation's outcomes will have profound implications for Sweden's environmental policies and forestry management strategies.