MP vill ändra skogsbruket – skogsforskare kritiska

The Green Party has presented a new action package to transform Swedish forestry Where a central part is a so-called bonus-malus system where large households are charged fees And there the largest expenses have the highest cost So large really large logging operations have to pay a fee that goes to smaller forest owners They want to shift towards a more natural and sustainable forestry And this is an important reform Epoch Times has interviewed Harald Sell a lecturer in craftsmanship at Linnaeus University in Växjö The government estimates that the bonus-malus system would mean Sweden would forgo about 15 million cubic meters of forest per year This would hit the Swedish sawmill industry and long-lasting products very very hard Perhaps reduce by five million cubic meters that is the logging The Green Party rejects the criticism that their proposal would harm the profitability of forestry They claim that individual forest owners who own about half of the forest in Swede Instead they can earn more by using it in a natural way To have a forest management that is nature-friendly where more products can be harvested And make for example finer crochet then you can get more money for it Today a lot of it just goes off and gets turned into paper in the paper industry They get almost nothing for it Men with such a different natural forest manageme So actually the individual forest owners can benefit from this and that is what we want to do Harald Zell and his side argue that reduced logging could lead to increased imports And in some cases knitting can be replaced by materials such as steel concrete or plastic which in turn can lead to higher emissions Yes this will result in a shortage of long-lasting products That is the timber was directed towards the construction industry We must probably replace it if we are to continue building with imports Worse still which is likely is that it will be replaced with fossil fuels I mean steel and concrete plastic and such products That's not good This seizure will have counterproductive effects Zell also points out that parts of the debate lack historical understanding Men the criticism of the current hygiene misses how the methods have evolved And the most important task of forestry is still to ensure regeneration after each harvest One must obviously see that this method gradually emerged during the 1800s and into the 1900s It is a method where you plant clear and weed and then wait 70 to 120 years It is a very stable method and the most important thing in forestry is to regenerate When you read these proposals and the criticism it is as if not a single word is mentioned about renewal It's precisely this that is the most important when cutting down a tree or several trees You must ensure regeneration It has been a law here since 1903 and there is a great lack of knowledge and understanding in these proposals about nature It does not always renew itself It can take many decades before such an area renews itself One must impose requirements on these methods that we call "no-till" or "natural " They must also ensure renewal It is not given by nature The Green Party's proposal sets demands that nature cannot meet People forget the natural laws that exist That's what is meant by non-interventionist forestry that one should only cut down what is necessary So it will basically be just one tree species pine While pine we try to get rid of This is the proposal that leads to even more grain If one leaves the forest to develop freely it also becomes increasingly dominated by weeds And that is not good He also points out that the impact of climate change on the forest is not taken seriously enough in the broader forestry debate Changing plant zones drought and bark beetle damage according to him mea Greater risks that require more tolerant tree species and more active management You can't just say that if we protect more forests this will solve itself For we cannot pass on our great changes and what we have done to nature It will automatically stop all this huge change that is taking place Climate zones are moving north at a rate of one and a half centimeters per minute In northern Sweden it's even faster and this is very serious Well it's time to get going and roll up our sleeves so what tree species should we have We have already discussed the Green Party's proposal That is not included there People think you they imagine that nature will fix this on its own Through a method They say one should let the forest develop freely But it won't manage that no matter the method It's hard without this This will be tricky