Sweden’s forests: a national treasure under constant debate

For many Swedes, the forest is a place of recreation and reflection, a landscape with deep ecological and cultural significance that should be protected from excessive interference. At the same time, forest resources are an essential part of Sweden’s national economy, and the international demand for timber continues to grow. And many Swedes are forest owners. Almost half of the productive forests in Sweden are owned by private individual owners. Many owners live on their forest property and manage and harvest their forest themselves. Perhaps the forest has been owned and managed by the same family for many generations. The forest industry is furthermore a key contributor to the shift away from fossil-based materials, supporting broader climate objectives. These overlapping interests create a complex policy landscape, where environmental protection must be carefully balanced against the interests of the forest owners, economic growth and climate commitments. Achieving this balance has proven difficult for Swedish lawmakers, particularly in areas related to forest harvesting and biodiversity, where competing priorities often collide.

The Swedish forests provide a habitat for thousands of animal and plant species, yet many face a looming threat to their survival. Around ten percent of the country's species are red-listed 1 , 2 , 3 , prompting a wide array of initiatives aimed at protecting sensitive habitats and curbing biodiversity loss. These measures often affect how forests can be used, and hence, limit landowners’ ability to manage their property freely, creating tensions between private ownership rights and the public interest in preserving biodiversity.

The opening provision of the Swedish Forestry Act states that the forest is a national asset and a renewable resource that must be managed in a way that ensures sustainable yield while preserving biodiversity. From the very first paragraph, lawmakers make it clear that forests are not to be managed solely according to the landowner’s interests: biodiversity is placed on an equal footing with productive forestry.

To ensure that environmental and biodiversity interests are being looked after, a landowner must notify the Swedish Forest Agency of a planned forest harvesting before logging can begin. In most cases, the notification is left without comment, and the landowner may proceed as planned. However, if the area is home to protected species, the landowner may be prohibited from harvesting in parts or all of the area.

So, what happens if the forest is home to protected species? Are landowners entitled to economic compensation if they choose not to harvest the forest or are prohibited from doing so?

Many landowners are willing to refrain from harvesting if they are compensated for the financial loss. Today this can be achieved through different types of agreements with regional authorities – by establishing permanent nature reserves or by concluding short-term nature conservation agreements. However, the possibility of concluding this type of agreement depends entirely on the resources and interest of the regional authority.

If the landowner cannot reach an agreement with the regional authority, there is currently no system of compensation for the landowner. Then the only option is to notify the Swedish Forest Agency of a planned forest harvesting. If the harvesting is prohibited, the landowner must first pursue one or more complex court cases to the highest court to show that all available remedies have been exhausted, and then sue the state for financial compensation.

These are difficult, expensive and extensive processes that the individual landowner must pursue against the state. Although, in recent years, landowners have successfully pursued this type of case in the highest courts, the outcomes of individual cases remain uncertain. If the landowner loses, they will not only be left without compensation but will also owe the state large sums for legal costs in addition to their own legal costs.

In addition to the burden of litigation and the lack of economic certainty, one could argue that the absence of a clear compensation scheme is not only a barrier to land use, but also an obstacle to effective biodiversity protection. Landowners are encouraged to care for their forests and the species that inhabit them. It therefore seems counterproductive that a landowner who fosters an environment where protected species thrive may be penalised with a logging ban and receive no compensation, while another who manages the forest with less ecological care faces no such restrictions and may continue harvesting without interference.

The lack of clear regulation on compensation rights in cases of logging bans has been a longstanding concern and many have called for specific compensation rules tied to species protection, arguing that this is essential for sustaining growth in the forestry sector. As recently as December 2024, the Forest Inquiry submitted an interim report to the government addressing this very issue. The proposals aim to create a clearer regulatory framework for forestry and to enhance legal certainty for Sweden’s forest owners, laying the groundwork for a long-term, sustainable and competitive forestry industry.

Whether these proposals will be implemented, in what form, and how the balance between productive forestry and biodiversity conservation will ultimately be struck, remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that if Sweden and the EU are serious about their ambitions to protect and strengthen biodiversity while meeting targets for renewable materials, a more predictable compensation scheme must be put in place. Such a scheme would provide a genuine incentive for responsible landowners to continue their sustainable stewardship of the forest.

In the meantime, Swedish forest owners are at the mercy of reaching agreements with the authorities or suing the state.