Sweden and Finland have called on the European Commission to revise its Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) framework, arguing that mandatory cuts to harvest volumes undermine the bloc’s climate goals by sidelining the forestry sector’s carbon and substitution benefits.
In a joint letter addressed to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Prime Ministers Ulf Kristersson and Petteri Orpo warned that “a much decreased harvest would entail dire consequences for our economies as well as labor markets and it would severely affect the supply of timber and forest biomass in the whole EU.”
As it stands, forests cover approximately 70% of Sweden and Finland, supporting an industry that employs over 200,000 people. Wood products contribute more than 10% of Sweden’s exports and nearly one-fifth of Finland’s. “For Sweden, the export value is more than ten per cent of our total exports. For Finland, it amounts to almost a fifth of total exports,” the letter states.
Wood Central understands that the current rules oblige member states to boost carbon sinks by reducing harvesting. But Kristersson and Orpo argue that slower tree growth—due to droughts, pests and market shocks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—has weakened forest yields. These factors, they say, make the Commission’s targets “unreasonable and unjustified restrictions on Swedish and Finnish forestry.”
To address real-world uncertainties, the Nordic leaders want Brussels to unlock greater flexibilities in setting Forest Reference Levels. They ask the Commission to factor in “methodological changes, natural variability in growth, natural disturbances, increased emissions from organic soils and other aspects affecting net removals from the sector, such as the impact of geopolitical changes on harvest intensity.”
They also pressed for official recognition of timber’s substitution effects—where renewable wood products displace fossil-based materials and cut emissions—and recommended a “swift adoption of an EU-wide net emission reduction target of 90 percent for 2040, covering both emissions and removals, provided that the Commission’s further work takes sufficient account of uncertainties in the land-use sector, technology neutrality and cost-effectiveness.”
Kristersson and Orpo argue that modern forestry delivers both carbon storage and long-lasting climate solutions through bio-based materials. “Forests and forestry will remain crucial in our joint climate ambitions,” they concluded. “It is time to learn from existing legislation and adjust it to reflect the realities on the ground.”
