In a letter to the European Commission, which Politico was the first to report on, eleven ministers from, among other things, the EU’s two largest economies, Germany and France, write that the need for global climate action has never been greater.
“2023 was the warmest year recorded so far. Global warming will intensify a number of negative effects that put the world’s welfare and security at risk.”
Therefore, the goal of reduced emissions by 2040, which the European Commission is expected to propose shortly, needs to be ambitious. And take into account the call that came this summer from the EU’s Climate Science Council: that member states must reduce their climate emissions by 90-95 percent by 2040 to contribute to a safe and fair climate transition.
EU-minister Jessika Roswall (M) tells DN that the EU is Sweden’s most important climate policy platform. Nevertheless, the government has chosen not to sign.
– It is good that the letter has been produced and we welcome what is written there. But our view is that you cannot have ambitious climate goals without mentioning the role of the bioeconomy. That was the reason why we did not sign.
Can you explain more clearly what it is that has prevented you from signing?
– What is not mentioned in the letter. Having sustainable and active forestry is crucial for us to reach our climate goals, and that was one of the reasons why the Prime Ministers of Sweden and Finland invited the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who also visited Stockholm last week. To point out how important we think Swedish forests and the bioeconomy are for the transition.
Will this not be interpreted as Sweden choosing to stand outside demands for a more ambitious climate policy?
– No, I wouldn’t want to say that. Sweden is at the forefront of all this. But if the ambitious goals are to be achieved, the other leg needs to be involved as well.
DN has previously told that Sweden needs to greatly increase what is known as net storage in forests, land and wood products in order to meet the EU’s requirements – but that the development is going in the opposite direction. In ten years, the annual carbon uptake in Swedish forests and land has fallen by 30 percent, more than the combined fossil emissions from all domestic transport in one year.
– When we cut down a lot at the same time as the trees grow worse, the carbon uptake decreases, Malin Kanth at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency told DN at the time and explained that an effective way to increase carbon uptake is reduced forest clearing.
The EU minister underlines that the most important thing for the government is to “protect the importance of having active and sustainable forestry.”
– This is what happens in our advocacy work, by, among other things, having very close and good contact with the European Commission and all member states and, not only the government but also the entire forestry industry, for example, as at the meeting last week.
You talk about advocacy work. Influence work on whose behalf? Is it on behalf of the forestry industry?
– No, in order for us to reach our climate goals.
Finland signs – but not Sweden?
– Sweden and Finland share the view that it is of great importance to have sustainable and active forestry, but Finland has made a different assessment and I cannot comment on it.
If I may summarize, so that I understand, the government agrees with what is written in the letter but has still chosen not to sign it?
– That is correct.
Mathias Fridahl is a climate policy researcher at Linköping University:
– If the real reason for not signing is that you want Sweden to pursue its forest policy in peace, it shows how important the issue is to the government. And that the conflict with the EU Commission is so infected that they choose to focus on it, even though they fully support what is written in the letter.
Could there be any other reason?
– If that is the answer from the EU minister, then it is reasonable to believe it. It is also possible to interpret it more maliciously: that Sweden’s government does not stand behind this letter at all and chooses to use forest policy as an excuse.
Read more:
EU head to Stockholm for meeting on forests and climate
Disappointment in the environmental movement over the forest meeting with the EU