The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation presents a distortion of reality

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, SSNC, has published a report on the Swedish forestry model. Among others Sveaskog is mentioned in the report. The report, which has been circulated to distributors and consumers of Swedish forest products in Europe, is severely skewed and contains several inaccuracies. With this report, the SSNC has chosen to propagate a distorted picture of what in practice is a positive development of nature conservation at Sveaskog’s holdings.

The basic principle of what is known as the Swedish forestry model is that conservation and production are combined in various scales across the entire forest landscape. Theenvironmental protection efforts range from general consideration at fellings to setting aside large areas of forest. As regards Sveaskog, during the past ten years we have set aside large areas as nature conservation forests and made decisions on 36 ecoparks, i.e. large areas of forest landscape in which nature conservation interests are prioritised with the aim to spread biological diversity to surrounding forest landscapes. In total, 20 percent of Sveaskog’s productive forest land below the boundary of sub-montane forests is used as conservation areas. Within forestry in general, considerable areas of conservation forest have also been set aside during this period, while edge zones, care-demanding areas, groups of trees, everlasting trees and high stumps are left at clear-felling in order to encourage biological diversity.

Not much of all these things, which to us is the Swedish model, does show in the SSNC report. Instead, Swedish forestry is described as being characterised by such things as large scale clear-felled areas, plantations and the use of pesticides. For customers in Europe, that this is intended to influence, this is of course discouraging. But what is the reality?

Nature conservation on felled areas

Sveaskog’s felling areas are not clear-felled. On average, at felling we leave nine percent of the trees standing. Of course, there are areas which are more or less treeless after felling, but the perspective of the report and the selection of photographs give a skewed impression of reality. One example of this is provided by the two photographs which show a gigantic felled area on Sörberget, north-west of the village of Nautijaur in Norrbotten. The report gives the reader the impression that the felling is a result of forest management. In reality, the trees were felled in 1991 by a tornado which “clear-cut” some 40,000 cubic metres.

No plantations in Swedish forestry

The SSNC’s reasoning of plantations is reminiscent of forest management that is completely at variance with Swedish forestry as it is conducted in real life. The Swedish FSC® – an organisation for the certification of responsible forest management, with the representation of environmental organisations, trade unions, reindeer husbandry, forest companies and manufacturers of wood and paper products – have jointly concluded that in Sweden the concept of plantation is only applicable in reforestation of former arable land, thus a negligible proportion of Swedish forest land.

Pesticides are being phased out

In Swedish forestry, pesticides are used to protect spruce and pine seedlings against attack by pine weevils. Treatment is mainly in forest nurseries before the seedlings are delivered for planting on forest land. Pesticide use in forestry today is less than three percent of the volume used by Swedish households. Sveaskog and Svenska Skogsplantor have invested in the development of mechanical protection against pine weevils that is both effective and environmentally friendly and replaces the use of chemical pesticides. We are at present launching this technology on a large scale. To describe the forestry that Sveaskog conducts at the present time as characterised by the use of pesticides is quite remarkable.

Environmental protection at various scales on Sveaskog land

In its criticism of Sveaskog’s forest management, the SSNC cites four forest stands in Älvdalen, of which two have been felled and another two are planned to be felled. Älvdalen municipality is located in north-western Dalarna. The forest landscape there is characterised by high abundance of red-listed fungi and lichens. In 2002, Sveaskog implemented a special landscape project in north-western Dalarna with a conservation inventory of all forest over 100 years old and all sub-montane forest. The aim of the inventory was to map out and identify the landscape’s most important natural assets. Based on knowledge gained from the inventory, we have excluded almost 20,000 hectares of forestry in the form of ecoparks and nature conservation forests. In the forests we use for production we also leave a large proportion for nature conservation as edge zones, care-demanding areas and groups of trees. In total, in north-western Dalarna, Sveaskog sets aside about 30 percent of the productive forest land for nature conservation. With these areas set aside for conservation, which are also complemented by several large nature reserves above the boundary of submontane forest, the prerequisites of maintaining biological diversity are very good.

The large-scale approach in north-western Dalarna is intended to protect biologically valuable forests with great potential to preserve and promote the forest’s endangered species also in the long-term. The inventories of the Dalarna forests also show that a number of the red-listed species live in the production-oriented and managed forests where the elements of nature trees and dead wood are relatively low. Here we take a more functional consideration for red-listed species primarily by a strengthening in consideration during felling. Sometimes these findings of high nature values lead us to setting aside new nature
conservation areas.

Sveaskog’s conservation efforts in north-western Dalarna are unique on the landscape level, with unusually large areas of forest set aside for the benefit for red-listed and other species. We consider that Sveaskog’s efforts in north-western Dalarna to preserve the natural landscape are sufficient as regards protected forest and nature conservation at felling. This situation, where listed species are widely spread in both nature conservation forests and production forests, is not a problem but rather to be regarded as a future vision for other forest landscapes.

Positive trends

The Swedish forestry model has been applied for almost 20 years and is being continually improved. From an ecological point of view, this is a short period of time. Nevertheless, there are positive signs that the Swedish model works. As the SSNC correctly points out, dead wood, old forests, forests dominated by broad-leaved trees and large trees are important for biological diversity. It is a fact that since the early 1990s all these qualities have increased in extent on productive forest land – that is, also outside nature reserves and other formally protected areas (Source: Forest Statistics 2010, Official Statistics of Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences). Even at the species level, we are now also seeing positive trends. For example, Swedish populations of several species of woodpecker have increased, as have the majority of fire-dependent wood-living insects. The latter is a direct result of requirements for the restoration of natural dynamics through nature conservation burning in FSC®-certified forest management.

The SSNC chooses to ignore the time dimension of nature conservation work, both past and future. Some parts of the historical account in the report are breathtakingly poor. The impression is given that virgin-type forests throughout the country were eliminated by modern forestry during the past half century. The fact that much of Sweden’s forests were severely exploited through dimension felling in earlier times is not mentioned. Nor that throughout much of the country several generations of planted forest preceded the forest that is there today. And where the report deals with the disappearance of large areas of broad-leaved forest, no connection is made to the peasant agricultural landscape which had existed for over a thousand years with its wooded meadows and pastures and which largely vanished in the rationalisation of agriculture during the last century. We have to take all this into account when we try to establish the right conditions for protecting today’s biological diversity.

As regards the future, the report states that general consideration at felling can never be a substitute for biodiversity values in the forest that is being felled. It goes without saying. But general consideration in the form of edge zones, care-demanding areas, trees left unfelled, etc., are important investments in biodiversity values in future forests and an essential complement to areas set aside. In many places, Sveaskog’s level of ambition for general nature consideration will generate more old trees in future forests than there is today. The ecological effect of this nature conservation practice is underestimated.

As regards the white-backed woodpecker, it is understandable that the SSNC chooses to present a negative picture. It is a fact that this species is on the brink of extinction. But it is nevertheless deplorable that the SSNC does not also mention the large-scale efforts that are being made to create broad-leaved forests for the white-backed woodpecker in particular, including on Sveaskog’s land – and in cooperation with the SSNC! Sveaskog has set aside 175,000 hectares in ecoparks and about 300,000 hectares in conservation forests, and many of these are being managed to become favourable future habitats in which many endangered broad-leaved forest species, including the white-backed woodpecker, can thrive. Bergvik Skog AB is also making extensive input in white-backed woodpecker areas, with forest management aimed at promoting re-colonisation by the species. Time is now required for the effect of all this to show through. Time is required for maturation of broad-leaved trees that the white-backed woodpecker requires and for these forests to produce dead broad-leaved wood. Conservation efforts by Sveaskog over the last few years have certainly improved the likelihood of the white-backed woodpecker re-colonising the country, not the reverse. That future prospects for the white-backed woodpecker are encouraging is indicated by the fact that the species has been recovering in Finland over the past ten years, despite the fact that forestry in Finland is generally considered to be more intensive than in Sweden.

A more balanced picture

The Swedish forestry model has many advantages, particularly the principle of developing conservation and recreation values throughout the entire forest area instead of dividing forest land into pronounced production and conservation areas respectively. Another of the model’s strength is that it assumes the forest owners’ responsibility – extensive conservation efforts are made that society would never be able to afford.

But although the model is successful, there are improvements to be made. This applies above all the quality of implementation of various commitments – including for Sveaskog. By mistake we have felled trees with high biodiversity values and key habitats and sometimes ground damage caused by vehicles is more severe than what is considered unavoidable in practical forest management. We deplore these mistakes.

To get a more complete overall picture of Sveaskog’s conservation work, one must consider the conservation forests and eco-parks and the nature conservation management undertaken to preserve or create natural values. We have developed this work in dialogue and collaboration with scientists, WWF, authorities and local representatives of the SSNC. The latter often show considerable respect for our work and we have creative cooperation with several of the SSNC’s local sections, where we exchange knowledge and experience of practical nature conservation issues.

The fact that Sveaskog has an acclaimed and popular commitment to eco-parks and nature conservation forests is no defence for mistakes in individual cases, but still should be considered in a fair rating on Sveaskog’s responsibility and sustainability of our forest management.

We are sure that the SSNC will continue to criticise individual forest fellings. Sometimes we think they are right and sometimes that they are wrong. In most cases it is not a black and white issue but we have differing perspectives about balance in nature conservation. We hope that the SSNC will develop a method of working that would allow them to avoid producing one-sided, distorted pictures of reality, and instead consider all the positive efforts of Sveaskog before the final grade is set.

Stefan Bleckert, Vice President Nature Conservation Strategy, Sveaskog
Olof Johansson, Senior Vice President Environment and Social Responsibility, Sveaskog
Herman Sundqvist, Vice President Silviculture, Sveaskog