Skydda Skogen
Skydda Skogen är en ideell naturvårdsorganisation med fokus på skogen.
ID: 653709142112-68
Lobbying Activity
Response to Report on the evaluation of the LULUCF Regulation
11 Jul 2024
The European Commission is charting the path to making the EU climate-neutral by 2050 and thus recommends a 90% net greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. We agree that this is a needed minimum, and further underline the scientific proof that this can not be achieved without a fundamental shift within land use in general, and forestry in particular. It is fundamental for society to maintain the terrestrial carbon stock and sink through increased forest restoration and protection. We must (a) protect remaining primary-, old-growth-, and naturally regenerated forests to retain an accumulated stock of carbon in living and dead biomass and soil organic matter in safe storage, (b) increase ecological restoration of secondary and degraded forests, thus removing even more CO2 from the atmosphere. (See attached Keith et al 2024) Defend a swift & robust implementation of the EUDR Support a fund that incentivises foresters to transit to sustainable forestry Challenge in court MS who do not respect the Habitats legislation Adopt an ambitious FML Adopt a legal mechanism to reward public authorities that restore ecosystems, in addition to preparatory and guidance work, for the swiftest implementation of the NRL As LULUCFs first reporting period ends in 2025, the Commission must recognize that urgent action is needed (see list throughout this text) as today progress towards the target of removing 310Mt of carbon by 2030 is at risk, official data shows the EU will miss it by 80Mt. To meet its LULUCF, biodiversity and climate targets, the EU need to take urgent immense action. In fact, amid a climate crisis, EU land is decreasing its ability to store and remove carbon: in 2021 it was 23 Mt lower than during the reference period 2016-2018. EEA has warned that MS measures make it difficult to meet the 2030 LULUCF target. Wood harvests have increased in many countries, contributing the biggest share of the forest cover and carbon loss. Member States such as Finland, France and Sweden have not included meaningful measures to reduce their carbon sinks decline in their NECPs. Some have even proposed policies that would degrade the sink further. Finnish and Swedish government agencies have analysed their policy measures, but not proposed further action. While France is using EU funds to support measures such as clear-cutting then tree planting which degrades the forest sink, in other words, using the same forestry that put Finland and Sweden, and hence the overall EU LULUCF target at risk. It is of the utmost importance that the Nordic forest model is urgently transformed away from clear-cutting and tree planting, and not to be spread to other countries, such as France. Estonia, Finland and Sweden have also changed their reporting methodology to lower the national target, thereby making the overall EU target inconsistent. Include a harmonised way of measuring the LULUCF sink in the EU Forest Monitoring Law. Challenge MS who are not planning to meet their 2030 LULUCF targets, and do not report how they will ensure that their use of biomass is consistent with these targets. EU scrutiny of NECPs is useful but cannot ensure MS meet their LULUCF obligations as EU's own policies are increasing logging: Through incentivising the burning of wood for bioenergy within the EU RED. By allowing wasteful & destructive single-use plastic to be swapped for destructive single-use paper through PPWR. Through the methodologies for biomass-based technological removals currently being developed under the CRCF. These misguided incentives, need to be removed! Exclude forest biomass from the RED Adopt a clear and strong mechanism to ensure the cascading use of woody biomass is better implemented, and fast cycle uses of woody biomass such as bioenergy or paper are discouraged; Prioritise restoring natural removals over unproven and unreliable removal techniques such as Bio-CCS.
Read full responseResponse to New EU Forest Monitoring and Strategic Planning Framework
7 Feb 2024
Protect the Forest would like to underline the urgent need for strengthened forest-related legislation across the EU and thus welcomes the Commission's proposed Forest Monitoring Framework (FML). The Commission has produced a somewhat strong proposal, which needs further improvement. The main shortcomings of the proposal are the lack of some relevant indicators and foremost the failure to make the strategic plans mandatory. Many studies paint a grim picture of the state of Europe's forests; the overwhelming majority have medium to low ecosystem integrity. While forestry poses the biggest threat to protected forest habitats and species, it is concerning that information about the state of forests, and their trends towards destruction or restoration is often scattered, incomparable, inaccessible, outdated or entirely missing. Maes et al. (2020) specified current key data gaps in the areas of forest pressures (e.g. drought, storm damage, over-harvesting) and forest conditions (e.g. defoliation, deadwood, data on other forest species or structural diversity of forest stands). Continuing to rely on unharmonized and uneven-quality data hinders the EU's ability to protect its last remaining natural forests. The EU needs comparable, effective and transparent forest monitoring with relevant indicators including ecosystem services, carbon capture and storage, climate-change resilience etc. Restoration needs should also be included in this monitoring, linked to the forthcoming Restoration Regulation. On that note, FML should include 'forest carbon stock' as this is one indicator that needs to be monitored according to the Nature Restoration Law's (NRL) Article 10. [for the full list of indicator recommendations, see attachment]. Meanwhile, the Swedish government, and representatives of the Swedish forestry industry, are trying to convince the EU that no further intervention and legislation on forest protection, forestry or monitoring is needed - nothing could be further from the truth: The Swedish government intends to circumvent already existing legislation, by deciding to use its own definitions of "old-growth forests" (OGF). In an attempt to minimise the amount of forest land that can be classified as old-growth in Sweden, the government has instructed the authorities to add a requirement that the 'average age of the stands' must exceed 180 years. The Swedish government has also stated that they oppose monitoring of primary and old-growth forests as well as "monitoring on site level". They believe that the existing national forest inventory and their statistics, which is based on many small sample plots, are sufficient. Plot-survey data, however, cannot be used alone to map and monitor forests. Geodata is also required. Plot-surveys and the statistics, currently made by the Swedish Forest Inventory (SFI) and the Swedish Forest Agency do not show the delimitations of remaining primary and old-growth forests in the landscape, nor are the statistics sufficient to monitor the loss or impact on these environments. [for in-depth comparison, see attachment]. The EU can prevent the loss of these irreplaceable ecosystems if the FML requires mandatory mapping and protection of primary and old-growth and continuity forests, as well as other forests with high conservation values defined by the EU. Mapping must be reported (including their state) and monitored with geodata and polygons. To summarise: To guarantee efficient synergies between the reporting and strategy-development requirements, we suggest: 1) Make strategic plans mandatory. 2) Plot-survey data cannot be used alone to map and monitor forests; geodata is required. 3) A few non-negotiable indicator improvements are needed [see attachment] 4) More stakeholders need to be included; independent expertise from research institutes, NGOs, competent authorities and international institutions should be at the centre of co-decision, implementation and review processes.
Read full responseMeeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament)
31 May 2023 · Carbon Removal Certification & The Nature Restoration Law
Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Fern
2 Mar 2023 · Stakeholder’s views on nature restoration law proposal and expectations to the upcoming forest monitoring proposal
Meeting with Elena Montani (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Fern
2 Mar 2023 · Stakeholder’s views on nature restoration law proposal and expectations to the upcoming forest monitoring proposal
Meeting with Michal Wiezik (Member of the European Parliament)
7 Feb 2023 · Forest Monitor
Response to New EU Forest Monitoring and Strategic Planning Framework
6 May 2022
Trots en del insatser och vissa förbättringar så fortsätter den biologiska mångfalden i EU att minska. Även i Sverige ser vi nedåtgående trender; Skogsstyrelsen skriver: “Utvecklingen i miljön är negativ”.
Många studier ger en dyster bild av tillståndet för Europas skogar. Den överväldigande majoriteten av skogarna i Europa har låg till medelgod ekosystemintegritet. Detta beror på att Europa förlorat många skogliga ekosystem till fördel för återplanterade monokulturer av träd. Skogslandskapet är dessutom mycket fragmenterat.
Man kan dra slutsatsen att försämringen av skogarnas tillstånd huvudsakligen orsakas av skogsbrukets dominerande metoder i Europa är föryngringsavverkningar/kalavverkningar. I Sverige är andelen många gånger högre: enligt Skogsstyrelsen gjordes 66 674 anmälningar om avverkning i Sverige 2020, varav 63 973 av dessa var kalavverkningar/föryngringsavverkningar.
Sverige använder kalhuggningsmodellen i skogar som EU vill skydda. När kartfiler från Skogsstyrelsen över alla avverkningsanmälningar [mellan 2016 och juni 2021] jämförs med de uppdaterade kartorna från Naturvårdsverkets bedömning av kontinuitetsskog (skogar som EU vill skydda) [2017-2019], visar det sig att 39 % av kalavvekningarna i norra Sverige sker på mark som bedömts som kontinuitetsskog, samma skogar som EU vill skydda.
Avverkning inom både skyddade områden tillsammans med avverkningen i strid mot art- och habitatdirektivet är också ett hot mot skyddade livsmiljöer och arter. I en dom i Europadomstolen (2021) fastslogs att Sverige inte tar tillräcklig hänsyn till de arter som omfattas av livsmiljödirektivet.
Ett av EU:s få kvarvarande gammelskogbälten är i fara. Det omfattar en sträcka av 950 km varav många delar fortfarande är oskyddade. Det årliga antalet ansökningar om tillstånd för slutavverkning i den svenska fjällskogen ökade med nästan 400 % förra året. I en ny rapport, FORESTRY AT THE EDGE, lyfter Skydda skogen fram betydelsen av detta område och uppmanar EU att prioritera ett långsiktigt skydd av de kvarvarande gammelskogarna. Notera: I Skogsutredningen framfördes att de drygt 500 000 hektar fjällnära produktiv skogsmark med mycket höga naturvärden bör skyddas. Sverige måste ta ett internationellt ansvar, menar utredarna som skriver: ”Utredningen bedömer att detta intakta landskap är i det närmaste unikt i ett västeuropeiskt, och mycket skyddsvärt ur ett globalt, perspektiv”.
Samtidigt understryker European Environment Agency att det saknas, eller endast finns ofullständiga övervakningssystem i medlemsstaterna. Olika myndigheter och aktörer sitter på information och kartskikt över skogar med höga bevarandevärden, men viktiga delar av detta värdefulla material är otillgängliga för berörda intressenter, medan andra delar saknar kvalitetsgranskning (exempelvis skogsbrukets frivilliga avsättningar). Det finns idag ingen officiell kartportal som samlar alla skogar med naturvärden och alla naturvårdsarealer. Detta gör det svårt, eller nära på omöjligt att övervaka förlusten av värdefull skog och utvärdera naturvårdsinsatserna.
I och med den kommande restaureringslagen kommer det att bli nödvändigt att övervaka hur miljömålen uppnås i alla skogar i Europa:
En harmonisering mellan nationella skogsinventeringar (NFIs) är möjlig och nödvändig. Detta skulle ge ny information som bidrar till mer objektiva och långsiktiga bedömningar av t.ex. bevarandestatus och skogsbrukets inverkan på kolinbindning, biologisk mångfald och ekonomin.
Nya och gamla indikatorer bör därför vara rättsligt bindande och ingå i EU:s lag om skogsövervakning på ett holistiskt sätt, så att de olika komponenterna i skogsbruket mäts på samma nivå, och med samma upplösning (resolution).
Read full responseMeeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and Swedish Forest Industries Federation and
31 Mar 2022 · Forest policy and the EU Green Deal roundtable discussion
Meeting with Brian Synnott (Cabinet of Commissioner Ylva Johansson)
29 Jun 2021 · Presentation of their latest report- 'Forestry at the Edge'
Meeting with Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Jori Keijsper (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Riccardo Maggi (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and
15 Jun 2021 · Biomass
Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)
31 May 2021 · Forestry/Renewable Energy Directive (REDII)
Meeting with Brian Synnott (Cabinet of Commissioner Ylva Johansson)
27 May 2021 · Natural Forest situation in Sweden and forestry practices
Response to Guidance on REDII forest biomass sustainability criteria
28 Apr 2021
We fully support the “Do No Harm” principle embedded in the European Green Deal. Burning forest biomass is inconsistent with this principle & harms forest biodiversity, human health & climate. Burning wood is a major source of air pollution that kills hundreds of thousands of EU citizens/year.
While it is essential to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, the EU is on a perilous path. We are deeply concerned that the European Commission (EC) still includes the burning of forest biomass as ‘renewable’ energy in the REDII.
The forest biomass criteria are based on a false statement at Recital 101 of the RED: “It is appropriate to introduce Union-wide sustainability & greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria for biomass fuels..., in order to continue to ensure high greenhouse gas emissions savings compared to fossil fuel alternatives, to avoid unintended sustainability impacts, & to promote the internal market.”
As the EC’s own Joint Research Centre (JRC) & many other scientists have warned, burning forest biomass is not carbon neutral because carbon is emitted immediately, while forests need decades, if not centuries to regrow to offset emissions. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels in line with the Paris Agreement, it is essential to drastically reduce emissions while the uptake of carbon in the forests need to increase. Harvesting & burning forest biomass emit additional CO2, reduce forest carbon sinks & stocks & damage ecosystems in contravention of the goals of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy.
Reform the EU’s renewable energy policy by excluding forest biomass from counting towards the EU’s renewables target, a main driver of forest destruction. This simple measure would align the EU’s climate achievements on paper with what is actually emitted to the atmosphere.
Biomass sourced directly from forests, incl. residues, should not be considered as “renewable” energy. In a 50-100 year perspective, bioenergy can even have a larger climate impact than fossil fuels due to lower energy density & conversion efficiency. More than 100% of Europe’s annual harvest of wood would be needed to supply just 1/3 of the REDII. Incentivizing the use of forest biomass in REDII would lead to increased forest logging & carbon emissions.
By decreasing harvest rates & increasing forest protection & restoration efforts, carbon will continue to be absorbed & stored in the soil. This would benefit long-term carbon stocks, biodiversity & increase the resilience of nature, especially in a changing climate. Increased forest protection should be non-negotiable.
Biofuels certification schemes need to take the full life cycle impacts linked to biofuels (incl. waste & residues) into account as well as indirect land use change. This is not the case today. The EU Court of Auditors has stated that today's verification schemes lack full traceability of the origin of the biofuels.
A high target without proper criteria that excludes biofuels will lead to increased emissions. The EU needs to clearly define terms for so called ‘sustainable’ forestry practices that operate within the planetary boundaries for biodiversity. Today, arbitrary & vague definitions of the word ‘sustainable’ promote clear-cutting practices & increased expansion of tree plantations, which harm biodiversity & emit greenhouse gases. The term ‘sustainable’ should not be able to misinterpret.
In order to ensure a sustainable management of all forests, clear-cutting practices should be banned completely in the EU in favor of a nature-oriented forestry in forest areas without high conservation values.
The REDII should encourage decreased energy consumption & increased use of other renewable sources such as solar & geothermal energy, not fossil based fuels or BECCS. Prioritize energy efficiency & energy savings.
Removing residues harms biodiversity & decreases soil nutrient concentration, which can negatively impact regrowth & lead to acidification.
Read full response