Peaceful Woodpecker in the Forests – Then Life’s Work is Threatened
In the peaceful forests of Jämtland, a three-toed woodpecker has become the center of controversy. This little bird, or rather its tracks, has the potential to jeopardize the life’s work of local farmer Kurt Hyttsten.
After 42 years of hard work, investments, and major renovations, Kurt and his wife Haldis were preparing to hand over their farm to their youngest daughter. The farm had provided a stable income through meat and milk production, as well as the forest they owned. But all of this was before the discovery of the three-toed woodpecker.
Kurt describes the situation as “unpleasant” and can’t understand how one bird’s presence could potentially ruin an entire business. The Norwegian Forestry Agency has refused their application to cut down 38 hectares of forest due to the presence of the red-listed woodpecker. Another application for a different part of the forest was partially rejected.
As a result, the family is now prohibited from cutting down their own forest for the next five years and faces a potential fine of seven million kroner ($800,000) if they do. The financial impact of not being able to log their forest is significant and could have long-lasting consequences for their livelihood.
Kurt is not alone in his struggle. The Norwegian Forestry Agency has been using the presence of the three-toed woodpecker as a reason to reject many logging applications. Lars Ahlin, chairman of LRF Jämtland, believes that the agency’s interpretation of regulations is flawed and calls for clearer political guidance.
He argues that the measures to protect the woodpecker are disproportionate and could harm the farming industry and food production in the long run. He also emphasizes the importance of agriculture for biodiversity and suggests finding a balance between environmental considerations and the needs of farmers.
Daniel Bengtsson, bird protection officer at Birdlife Sweden, defends the agency’s actions and argues that there is a conflict between forestry and preserving viable ecosystems. He suggests that landowners affected by logging restrictions should receive fair compensation, ideally supported by both the state and the forest industry.
Both Birdlife Sweden and LRF criticize the Swedish Forest Agency’s interpretation of the regulations, but for different reasons. The agency defends its decision, stating that it must follow laws and procedures to maintain a democratic society.
Kurt and his family have appealed the decision to the Land and Environment Court, hoping to obtain a dispensation to cut down their forest. The outcome of the appeal will determine the future of their farm and whether their life’s work can continue.