Protect the forests – but not at the expense of sustainable and small-scale farming
The Deforestation Regulation is intended to ensure that goods consumed or transported through Europe do not contribute to deforestation. Europaforum Norra Sverige supports the aim, but believes that the current design can create legal uncertainty and increased costs – especially for forestry and agriculture in the north. Therefore, the regulation should be revised.
The regulation covers palm oil, soybeans, beef, cocoa, coffee, rubber and wood. For most people, there is a connection between production and deforestation – but including wood is misguided, according to Europaforum Norra Sverige.
– Forestry is not a main cause of deforestation, neither globally nor within the EU. Therefore, wood should not be included in the regulation, says Anders Öberg, who is regional councilor in the Norrbotten Region and rapporteur in the area of Research, Innovation and Business within the Europaforum Northern Sweden.
More difficult to conduct small-scale forestry
The increased requirements for traceability and documentation may particularly affect small forest owners, who may find it difficult to comply with the rules without agreements with larger companies.
“In practice, they are excluded from parts of the market or have to sell their forests through intermediaries. This affects their independence,” says Anders Öberg.
Europaforum Northern Sweden also objects to forestry plans being made public. These contain information about, among other things, planned fellings and valuations; things that should be allowed to remain company secrets.
A consequence could also be that more forests are left unused, with an increased risk of fires and insect infestations, which is an especially big problem in southern Europe.
Reduced supply threatens transition and economy
Reduced forestry could lead to a shortage of raw materials. The EU's goal is to replace fossil materials with bio-based alternatives, but if access is limited, the signals could be the opposite.
“It is counterproductive to tighten the rules for forestry at the same time as wanting to replace plastic and concrete with wood. If wood products become more expensive, they may be chosen over more competitive alternatives,” says Anders Öberg.
Increased regulation could also lead to investments in the bio-based economy being lost or shifted to other parts of the world. The EU risks falling behind the US and China again.
The forest provides conditions for agriculture
Northern Sweden's arable land is becoming increasingly important for food security, but pasture and arable land will be difficult to recreate with the current wording of the regulation. Such deforestation should be allowed in countries where there is no risk of deforestation.
– In order to keep more cattle, there must be access to protective stables and hay in the winter. Currently, 70 percent of the land is forest, and only one percent is arable land. More land needs to be converted to create space for grazing, cultivation and animal husbandry, explains Anders Öberg.
And if forestry becomes more difficult, it could also mean economic problems for agriculture.
– Many companies combine agriculture and forestry. Income from forests can provide stability when the prices of milk or meat fluctuate. Forests can also be used as collateral for investments, says Anders Öberg.
Another shortcoming that Europaforum Norra Sverige sees is the lack of clarity in how the regulation is to be applied. The EU Commission has produced guidelines, but they do not have the same legal weight as the regulation text itself. This can increase the risk of disputes, lack of investment and slowing down bioeconomic development.
Read the full position here:
Europaforum Northern Sweden's views on the Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)