Adopting the legislative changes for a clearer regulatory framework for active forestry
What's at stake: The decision determines whether forestry rules become clearer and more predictable for landowners while the production and environmental goals remain co-equal, or whether further deregulation risks reinforcing an already ongoing decline in forest biodiversity.
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 parliament should adopt the government's legislative proposals to simplify and clarify forestry regulation, or whether the proposals instead undermine the balance between the production and environmental goals against the backdrop of an already deteriorating state of biodiversity.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee endorses the government's legislative proposals in full and rejects the motion, pointing out that active forestry with high growth increases access to sustainably produced biomass and helps maintain the balance between the two co-equal forest-policy goals, and that clearer, simpler rules strengthen property rights and predictability for forest owners.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 2 (V)
The reservation (V) wants to reject the government's proposal. The reasoning is that the underlying inquiry aimed to strengthen deregulation and production in forestry while claiming the production and environmental goals remain co-equal, which the reservers consider contradictory; they point to agency reports showing a serious state of forest biodiversity, driven by strong economic incentives for production and insufficient incentives to protect the environment, as well as to large areas of high-value forest being logged every year.
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: adopting the government's legislative proposal and rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 2 by V.
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
Vown reservation
–
No 0/21/0/0
S
–
Yes 105/0/0/1
MP
–
Abstain 4/0/14/0
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
MPAnnika Hirvonen(MP, Stockholms län)
Yes — party line: Abstain
MPEmma Berginger(MP, Skåne läns södra)
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 adopts the Government's proposal for
1. law amending the Environmental Code with the amendment that chapter 16, section 13 and chapter 29, section 4 shall have the wording proposed by the committee in appendix 3,
2. law amending the Forestry Act (1979:429),
3. law amending the Law (2010:921) on land and environment courts,
4. law amending the Law (2026:000) amending the Law (2010:921) on land and environment courts,
5. law amending the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (2009:400).
Thereby, the Riksdag grants proposition 2025/26:242 points 1-5 and rejects the motion
2025/26:4141 by Kajsa Fredholm et al. (V).
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen antar regeringens förslag till
1. lag om ändring i miljöbalken med den ändringen att 16 kap. 13 § och 29 kap. 4 § ska ha den lydelse som utskottet föreslår i bilaga 3,
2. lag om ändring i skogsvårdslagen (1979:429),
3. lag om ändring i lagen (2010:921) om mark- och miljödomstolar,
4. lag om ändring i lagen (2026:000) om ändring i lagen (2010:921) om mark- och miljödomstolar,
5. lag om ändring i offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400).
Därmed bifaller riksdagen proposition 2025/26:242 punkterna 1-5 och avslår motion
2025/26:4141 av Kajsa Fredholm m.fl. (V).
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag approved the Government's proposal for several regulatory simplifications in forestry.
The law amendments include among other things the following:
Notification for consultation on forestry measures under the Environmental Code is needed only if it follows from regulations as determined by the Government.
The landowner's cost for acquiring 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 secrecy protecting animal and plant species is amended so that landowners are given access to the information needed to determine whether consultation is required.
Decisions by the Swedish Forest Agency (Skogsstyrelsen) under the Forestry Act shall be appealed to a land and environment court instead of to an administrative court.
The deadline for non-profit environmental organizations to appeal decisions on forestry or forestry measures shall be calculated from the day the decision was communicated. Furthermore, the Swedish Forest Agency shall be given party status when environmental organizations appeal the authority's decision.
The proposal aims among other things to strengthen property rights and increase predictability for forest owners.
The law amendments shall mainly enter into force on 1 January 2027. The provision that the consultation obligation under the Environmental Code shall apply only if it follows from an ordinance shall, however, apply only from the day the Government determines.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants the proposition rejected because it weakens protection of biodiversity and the environment in forestry. (V) — Reservation 2