Jonas Eriksson, Norra Skog’s Members Manager and an appointed expert in the proposal process, believes the committee has overlooked the crucial fact that using raw materials from forests as a substitute for fossil materials is perhaps the most important contribution forests can grant us. He believes there is too much focus on solving the climate problem by concentrating on storing carbon in forests.
“The path to a long-term sustainable society requires that fossil raw materials are phased out and that we replace them with renewable products. In this context, using the forest solely as a storage site for fossil carbon is a short-term way of calculating the issue”, says Jonas Eriksson, who continues:
“It is a misconception that it is only through the storage of biomass that we realise the greatest climate benefits. The greatest benefit we can get is when we use products from the forest that drastically reduce the use of fossil carbon. It is fossil carbon that is the culprit – not our green forests”.
A growing global population means increased competition for land use. The black carbon atom must be replaced with a green carbon atom. As a large forest nation, Sweden has a responsibility to conduct active forestry and contribute by exporting climate benefits to countries that do not have the same opportunity to transition to a fossil-free society. New land is no longer being discovered, and therefore the land we have must be used more efficiently and sustainably.
Jonas Eriksson believes the committee has failed to include areas that can be identified as protected nature areas, which means we cannot fully benefit from the forest’s greatest climate benefit.
“Unfortunately, the committee has failed to fully account for areas that Sweden should count and report as protected nature areas. This means we are portrayed as worse off than other countries, which is serious because it could lead to politicians and decision-makers making important decisions based on incorrect data. Examples of areas that could also be included in the target-setting process are coastal protection areas, forest barriers and mountain forests”.
Norra Skog welcomes, however, the committee’s proposals for investments in information and advice to forest property owners with the aim of increasing forest growth, carbon absorption and biodiversity.
“It is, however, a waste of time for the secretariat of the committee to simultaneously propose incentives for forest owners to engage in passive forestry through extended rotation periods (delayed harvesting). There is a lack of a political analysis of what the socio-economic consequences would be with an extended rotation period. The proposal is to spend almost SEK 2.5 billion kronor on fulfilling these proposals. But doing so with extended rotation periods, for example, would reduce the Swedish forestry industry’s annual overall revenue by around SEK 8 billion”, concludes Jonas Eriksson.