I am a big naturvän. As forest owners have chosen to keep large parts of my forest to be old, today some 170 years. I hold still, not with the submitter fully, that all the forest should be old – for economic reasons, but also for environmental reasons.
A growing forest is a more efficient koldioxidbindare than a closed, mature forest. In a shorter term time horizon of 40-50 years, the strategy based on the current Swedish skogsläget be able to function reasonably well environmentally, but in the long term is the inefficient in both environmental and skogsekonomiskt.
It is in this shorter time horizon, different EU-level organisations is in favour of a gentler forestry with less sockets and hyggesbruk. We do, however, speak completely different languages, we and mellaneuropéerna.
can fetch 10.000 sek per piece, may I, as a Swedish sales representative only premium up to 32 inches in diameter. The companies blame the market, but that the Swedish forest owners do not receive the price premium of rough forest accelerates the harvesting rate in the Swedish forests.
thus, There are internal structures in the Swedish forestry which inhibits the older forest. I therefore agree with the submitter that there should be some form of financial support for those of naturskäl överhåller forest.
in Addition, the red-green opposition to fully replace the owners who may avverkningsförbud on the basis of the EU’s artförordning or state mandatory markavsättning be broken. Today, it is a real reality that the owners dare not let the the forest become mature because of environmental interventions.
forestry, you know, first post. There are, however, fundamental differences in geography, ståndort, exclusivity, rarhet, as well as human and social premises that should determine how the forest is to be managed in order to be skogsekonomiskt profitable.
the Forest has a great value, regardless of whether we tend it or not. It has a potentially economically utbytesvärde, a skogsekonomiskt intrinsic value and a social, but also economic environmental value. These factors dynamics means that we should not consume or ”use” it in vain, but also not just let it stand.
It is very trivial general forest, which preferably can be used with today’s consideration. With better economic governance can also of natural forests and gems will benefit and be better preserved than in the day.
to get a new natural forest on my forest clearings by leaving many hibernators, handså mixed fröslag and active through ongoing munitions dana natural forests with varying seals and gaps. It creates mixed forests where animals and plants thrive unlike planted ensartade traktskogar.
It costs more in both time and effort to take care of the storm 200-årstallar. I understand that the common man can’t be bothered with this. But with the financial contribution would more make such efforts. It would create more voluntary provisions for such forest.
All forests should not, however, be mature. Newer research shows that a traded forest managed right is a more efficient koldioxidhållare because of greater light than a enduring that are not being used. It is what we do with the wood, however, is the real accelerator from the environmental point of view.
the same, but replaces the fossil fuels and energy-intensive activities as fuel, plastics, aluminium and concrete with new biotechnological fiber products, we get a substantial fördröjningseffekt of carbon emissions due to logging, but also an award-greater koldioxidinbesparing on current fossil fuel emissions.
This is in addition to the economic aspects of the main argument to continue to conduct sustainable forestry. Personally, though, I am most interested in that important natural values are given priority.
