The DN-debate the launch of 23 environmental organizations, the new campaign ” Our forest”, which requires that the environmental requirements of the state forestry company Sveaskog in a number of respects to be tightened up at the same time as the required return on the company is reduced.
In connection with the parliament for barely a year ago treated the motions on forestry, stood a majority, the ruling coalition parties had agreed + SD) behind a so-called notice to the government that ”a good incentive structure for sustainable forest management should be ensured and that a review of legislation in this area should therefore be implemented”.
a development of the straight-across targets, and on the contrary, further weakening incentives for the private forestry sector to contribute to the forest's environmental targets can be reached.
I'll try to explain.
The current forest policy is based on two equal goals if on the one hand a high and valuable production of timber, on the other hand, the conservation of forest biological diversity. The principle should be ”freedom under responsibility”, which means almost total absence of legal requirements and a minimum of incentives in either the one or the other direction.
in the Absence of incentives, however, have not led to the balance between policy objectives that policy makers envisioned when the policy was decided over 25 years ago. On the contrary, the problems are with the effectiveness of large, later confirmed by the in-depth evaluation of the environmental objective sustainable forests, which the Forestry commission published last week.
provides no revenue to the landowner. A forestry policy without sticks or carrots will therefore lead inevitably to the forest owners who ignore nature conservation can drive their business with better profitability than the who take their responsibility. The incentives are there, they are strong, but they run counter to political objectives.
Not infrequently leads the system to active environmental measures directly penalized. The right for the forest products industry that the FSC label on their products (try finding a milk carton that is not FSC certified, so you can ana its economic importance to the industry) is linked to the products does not contain any wood from the ”key habitats”. If a forest owner to exempt a parcel from the forestry area will eventually develop the key biotope qualities, and thus lead to that the wood is no longer going to sell. The forest industry boycott, thereby, give landowners clear incentives to prevent that such qualities created in the landscape. I do not think that it was the politicians ' intention.
In my report, ” Protecting the right – an ESO report on the environmental objective sustainable forests”, I show that the principle ”freedom under responsibility” – the almost total absence of environmental incentives in forest policy – in practice makes it impossible to meet the environmental objective.
that rewards actions that are unprofitable for the landowner but eager for society, and counterproductive measures which undermine the environmental objective.
All of the chips must be covered by the policy, and all landowners must, according to its possibilities, to participate.
This view is combated, the most militant of the FEDERATION of Swedish farmers forest Owners, who, instead, want to make an impact for the idea that the responsibility to cope with the biological diversity shall not be considered to be on the forestry industry or the individual owners of the land, but on the state. The principle that nutrition itself needs to cover its environmental costs, should apply to all others, but not forestry, and each restriction is described by the LRF as a devastating attack on private property rights.
behind the ”Our forest,” choose to direct all the light towards the Sveaskog, it means that you (probably completely unintentionally and unwittingly) legitimize the FEDERATION's view on biodiversity in the first instance, a responsibility of the state and that the costs in the first instance, shall be covered by the taxpayer (this time via lower returns from Sveaskog).
The new forestry policy, which was launched in the beginning of the 1990s has on the environment have reached a dead end and needs a complete renovation. For the environmental objective to be achieved requires that the ”incentive structure” to be established, which rewards initiatives that promote the objective and prevent actions that undermine it. This is something completely different than putting the responsibility on taxpayers and Sveaskog.