Available in Swedish abowe

New opportunities for Swedish forests and forestry arises with the intentions in the new EU Nature Restoration Law. Incentives behind the law include to protect forests that need to be protected, and to provide authorities, forest owners and foresters with support in this process. There are also incentives for diversification in forests and forestry, greater care and acknowledgment of the holistic values of forests. Active restoration management is a necessity – in forestry for climate adaptation and for strengthening the existing natural values in protected forests.

There is a legacy of successful experiences of restoration to rely on. The twentieth century has proven the capacity of the Swedish forest sector to restore forest land for increased wood biomass and timber production. Now, it is about restoring parts of the forest landscape again, but with a more diversified vision that reflects current and future expectations on sustainable land use in forests. Now, as previously, implementing the law is not about recreating past conditions but about creating new and build for the future.

Now, as previously, implementing the law is not about recreating past conditions but about creating new and build for the future.

Even with a focus on active restoration management and with support of applied research and monitoring, it is challenging to achieve the goals and intentions of the law. Large forest areas are targeted. A constructive ambition and will to achieve the intentions is needed, in line with the fact that Swedish forests and forestry needs to adapt to new markets, conditions, demands, and to a changing climate.

Forest land accounts to 69 percent of the land area and has been affected by forestry with a focus on biomass production for a long time. All available forest land – that is, has a satisfactory production capacity, is available, and is not with other land use or protected – is considered wood production land. This implies clear-cutting in rotation intervals of 60 to 90 years, where pine and spruce together currently make up about 80 percent of the standing biomass. With few exceptions, forestry is carried out in the same way everywhere, at all scales, levels and steps from seed to plank.

This standardization has led to successful expansion of forest land and wood biomass production, but also to a trivialization of forest landscapes, loss of biodiversity, increased vulnerability and reduced sustainability. The level of harvesting exceed the sustainable yield, the forest’s carbon sink is decreasing, and the growth to slowing down. We experience impact of drought, storms, fungal and insect infestations as well as hard-to-control fires in even-aged coniferous forest monocultures. Open and semi-open land with their specific biological and cultural-historical values are disappearing. Other land use, interests and values associated with the forest are left behind. Natural forests with high conservation values and intact forest landscapes remain on a small proportion of the forest land and are highly fragmented.

Coordination and planning

Today, forestry planning takes place at stand level with a focus on production goals or, to a lesser extent, on nature conservation goals. The uniformity in planning makes it difficult to include practices and value chains that support all the values of the forest. Diversification in planning, recognizing other key land-use in forests such as reindeer husbandry and including restoration to put forests in conditions that supports multi-functionality, is lacking.

Support and advice to the private forest owners, owning about half of the forest land and supply some 60 percent of the material to the forest industry, is from forest owner associations with their own industry or from other timber buyers. Neutral and independent advice occurs to a limited extent. Despite its equal portal objectives, the Forestry Act has a base in production forestry, and in practice it is the more far-reaching and clear requirements of the forest certification standards that apply.

Landscape planning on a larger geographical scale takes place in exceptional cases. The work on green infrastructure has not found its forms. This limits the ways forward to creating functional networks of kay habitats and endangered species.

The work on green infrastructure has not found its forms.

Sweden does not meet either national, EU, or international environmental objectives. In 2023, 9.2 percent of all forest land was formally protected, with a large proportion of protected mountain forest and a low proportion in other parts of the country. A further 4.8 and 1.9 per cent, respectively, were voluntary set-asides and consideration areas. This falls significantly short of the targets set at EU level: 30% of the land area, of which 10% should be strictly protected. This includes all primary forest and old natural forest, and it requires appropriate management, clear goals, measures and monitoring.

The need for diversification and multiple use is evident, as is the need to strengthen the economy and interests of forest owners, a landscape perspective in forest management planning, and climate change adaptation. There is a great need for restoration of forests and forest landscapes at all scales and levels.

Key elements of the regulation

Areas that constitute habitats (EU Habitats Directive), and that are not in a favorable conditions, must be restored: 30 per cent of their area by 2030, 60 per cent by 2040 and 90 per cent by 2050. This will primarily take place within Natura 2000 sites. Restoration can be exempted for very common habitat types and, in special cases, outside Natura 2000 sites.
Restoration should lead to improved biodiversity in forest ecosystems in general. Seven indicators are listed (see box). For native tree species, the definition includes those that can be expected to spread and establish naturally. Positive development of at least six out of seven indicators should be measured and reported regularly.

An additional three billion trees will be planted in the EU, which in Sweden means on land that is not forest land and that may have other priority values. Planting shall take into account diversity in terms of age structure, native tree species, ecological contexts, local habitat conditions, increased resilience to climate change and improved ecological connectivity.

A low reference area level does not solve conflicts

The Nature Restoration Regulation has been developed to comply with international agreements – such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU forest and biodiversity strategies. It is in light of these ambitions progressing too slowly, that the importance of reference areas and indicators should be seen.

Ignoring scientific evidence, setting artificial reference areas and generally setting targets at an absolute minimum level, as the Swedish government has signaled, does not change the state of the forest. Natural values still exists. Instead, Sweden’s reputation as a forest nation may be in question, and in long-term there is a risk for serious criticism from EU. In listed habitat types, other forests with high conservation values and forests with restoration potential, low reference area ambitions does not solve the conflicts that currently lands on forest owners and operators.

Multiple use and targeted actions

A creative and forward-looking uptake of the Nature Restoration Law intentions may provide solutions to current challenges and obstacles in forest governance and management. Future forestry needs a planning system that addresses multiple-use goals, including restoration to improve the conditions for prioritized goals. In addition, goals may need to be changed or modified over a rotation period, to adjust to climate change, promote native tree species or meet new demands on forests and forest products. Well-balanced multiple-use planning implies that the goal of timber production remains, but is also balanced to the holistic context of other values and interests in forests.

The regulation emphasizes active restoration. A positive trend in several of the indicators can only be achieved with active measures. This presumes that wood extraction can be made and that there are income opportunities for forest owners and timber flow to the industry. Active restoration includes adaptive forestry in the form of closer-to-nature methods, but also restoration-adapted management in neglected pre-commercial and early commercial thinning-stage forests.

A positive trend in several of the indicators can only be achieved with active measures.

Private forest owners are a specific target group in restoration. Few forest owners (about 8 percent) are economically dependent on forestry; 63 percent of the forest owners hold up to 20 hectares and 93 percent up to 100 hectares. Is large-scale industrial rotation forestry the best way forward? Do we know what the interest really is for alternative forestry and for restoration among these forest owners? What can the forest sector offer in the form of support and advice for those who are interested? Financing restoration is an important issue. Is governmental funding presumed? Are nature conservation agreements a possible ”biocredit”, also for purposes other than nature conservation, in a format that is known by forest owners and authorities, predictable and linked to the Land Code, at the landscape level as part of nature conservation landscapes? Can a fee be charged per volume harvested wood, as is already done for other purposes, to fund restoration?

All legislation needs to be reflected

The restoration regulation is part of a complex EU policy and in direct connection with, for example, the Habitats Directive, the Deforestation Regulation and the Biodiversity Strategy. The regulation applies as a law in Sweden, in addition to the Swedish legislation. Since the regulation embed the transition between forest and agricultural land, there are also connections with other land covers and other legislation. The national restoration plan needs to reflect these contexts, to allow the forest sector to navigate towards functional forest ecosystems and sustainable forestry in the future.

Johan Svensson
Researcher at the Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, SLU

Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Professor Biology, Mid Sweden University, and Senior Advisor at the Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, SLU