Need for a consolidated impact assessment and follow-up on the forestry reform's effects
What's at stake: Several forestry-related regulatory changes have been presented in parallel during the term, making it hard to overview their combined effects; at the same time, the changed consultation arrangement shifts more responsibility onto individual forest owners to determine what applies, which can affect both natural values and legal certainty.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether the government should be required, through a formal statement, to return with a consolidated impact assessment covering all parts of the forestry reform, an account of how the reform affects Sweden's international biodiversity commitments, and close follow-up of the changed consultation procedure, or whether the current preparatory work is sufficient.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee rejects the motion and aligns with the government's assessment that the proposed simplifications make the regulatory framework clearer and more predictable while maintaining the balance between the production and environmental goals, and therefore sees no need for a separate consolidated impact assessment or follow-up beyond the ordinary preparatory process.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 7 (S)
The reservation (S) wants the government to return with a consolidated impact assessment of the forestry-related regulatory changes presented in parallel during the term, an account of how the changes affect Sweden's international biodiversity commitments, and close follow-up of the changed consultation procedure. The reasoning is that several separate proposals make it hard to overview the combined consequences, that an account of biodiversity impacts is missing from the preparatory work, and that it is hard to foresee the effects of shifting more responsibility onto individual forest owners when the consultation duty is made contingent on forthcoming regulations.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 7 by S.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
V
–
Abstain 2/0/19/0
Sown reservation
–
No 0/105/0/1
MP
–
Abstain 3/0/15/0
C
–
Yes 24/0/0/0
L
–
Yes 16/0/0/0
KD
–
Yes 18/0/0/1
M
–
Yes 66/0/0/0
SD
–
Yes 70/0/0/0
Broke with the party line
VKarin Rågsjö(V, Stockholms kommun)
Yes — party line: Abstain
VNooshi Dadgostar(V, Stockholms län)
Yes — party line: Abstain
MPAnnika Hirvonen(MP, Stockholms län)
Yes — party line: Abstain
MPJacob Risberg(MP, Uppsala län)
Yes — party line: Abstain
MPRebecka Le Moine(MP, Östergötlands län)
Yes — party line: Abstain
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects motion
2025/26:4144 by Åsa Westlund et al. (S) requests 1, 3 and 4.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motion
2025/26:4144 av Åsa Westlund m.fl. (S) yrkandena 1, 3 och 4.
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag approved the government's proposal on several regulatory simplifications in forestry.
The legislative amendments include the following:
A notification for consultation for forestry measures under the Environmental Code shall be required only if it is specified in regulations that the government determines.
The land owner's cost to obtain the knowledge needed before a forestry measure is taken, for example regarding protected species in a forest area, shall be reasonable in relation to the property's value.
The confidentiality for the protection of animal and plant species shall be changed so that landowners can access the information needed to determine if consultation is required.
The Forest Board's decisions under the Forestry Act shall be appealed to a Land and Environmental Court instead of to an Administrative Court.
The deadline for non-profit environmental organizations to appeal decisions about forestry or forestry measures shall be counted from the day the decision was made. Additionally, the Forest Board shall be given standing as a party when environmental organizations appeal the agency's decision.
The proposal aims, among other things, to strengthen ownership rights and increase predictability for forest owners.
The legislative amendments shall mainly enter into force on 1 January 2027. However, the provision that consultation requirements under the Environmental Code shall apply only if specified in an ordinance shall first enter into force on the day the government determines.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants the Riksdag to reject the proposal to shorten the Forestry Board's processing time for harvest notices from six weeks to three weeks. (S) — Reservation 7