The Swedish experience: Shrinking forests – Expanding tree plantations

Guest blog – About the author: 

Amanda Tas holds a M.Sc. in Environmental Science with focus on nature conservation biology. She has during the last 15 years worked with different environmental and nature conservation projects in Europe, Africa and Southeast Asia.


There is a large difference between natural forest-ecosystems and industrial tree plantations. However, the widely-applied UN FAO definition of ‘forest’ does not distinguish clearly between these two similar-looking (both characterised by tree growth), but conflicting land uses. By classifying both natural forest-ecosystems and industrial tree monocultures as ‘forests’, industrial-scale land cover conversions, with massive losses of natural habitat and biodiversity, can go unnoticed, regardless of region or country. 

Scandinavian countries have a long history of financial dependence on the timber industry, and are exceptionally prone to deteriorating forest ecosystems, with one having a particularly gloomy outlook – Sweden. 

The forests and tree plantations of Sweden constitute less than 1 % of the world’s timber land, yet yield about 5 % of all wood-derived products used in the world. How can that be possible? The answer lies in a destructive method of timber production called the ‘Swedish forestry model’, which is now being promoted globally as a ‘sustainable’ role model for the industry.

Sweden is the world’s third largest exporter of paper, pulp and sawn wood products. It considers itself a leader in “sustainable forestry” and promotes a “bio-economy” based on “renewable forest-based products and services”.[1] This scenario is in stark contrast with the fact that Sweden has never had as few old-growth forests as remain today. Over 90 % of the so-called productive forest land has been subjected to logging, but only 4 % is formally protected in nature reserves and national parks. Sweden defines ‘productive forest land’ purely in terms of wood production (an average of one cubic meter per hectare per year).[2]
Since 1950, about 60 % of the original ‘productive forest land’ has been clear-cut and converted to tree plantations and managed stands.[3] The result is a fragmented landscape of mainly clear-cut areas and tree stands of different ages. Today, over half (60 %) of the Swedish timber estate, excluding protected forests, is less than 60 years old.[4] Forests with a natural mix of trees of different ages, sizes and species, have mostly been replaced with even-aged stands of a single species, mostly spruce, pine or non-native species. Plants and seeds from cultivated stands, obtained from parts of Europe or North America, are used with the aim of increasing wood production. Evergreen conifers, mainly pine and spruce, are favoured over deciduous (broad-leaf) trees.
Naturally vegetated land such as heath-lands, meadows and grasslands, with a long historic continuity and high local species richness of e.g. insects, birds and plants, have also been converted to tree plantations, which has ended their long-established status as biodiversity-rich habitats without many trees. Pastures and abandoned agricultural lands have also received their share of planted trees.[5],[6]
Many of the tree plantations are still considered too young to be felled, from a profit point of view. Therefore, in order to meet wood production targets, the remaining unprotected forests are being subjected to logging. In 2013, nearly 240,000 hectares of productive forest (of a total 23 million hectares) were officially approved for felling,[7] compared to only 10,000 hectares of forest receiving formal protection.[8] The imbalance does not end there. In general, one third of the total fellings do not comply with the basic and general environmental requirements of the Swedish Forestry Act.[9]
Clear-cut_Björn Mildh resized blog
In the south of Norrbotten county, a clear-cut forest area scarified ahead of conversion to tree plantation. Clear-cutting is the main logging method in Sweden. (Photo: Björn Mildh)
It is obvious that converting forests into tree plantations reduces biodiversity. The fragmented landscape and small remaining natural areas cannot support viable populations of affected local species. Over 1,800 forest plant and animal species are red-listed in Sweden as near-threatened or endangered, and about 4 % of the red-listed forest-living species have become regionally extinct since the 1800s.[10]
In undisturbed forests, trees are allowed to grow old and to die a natural death. In Sweden, a Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) can live to over 700 years and a Norway Spruce (Picea abies) can reach an age of 500-600 years or even more. However, in managed plantations the trees are never allowed to become that old, and are cut down before they reach maturity at the age of 60-90 years. In old-growth forests, dead trees usually remain where they are. The dead trees, especially coarse woody debris, provide important habitat for various organisms including fungi, lichens, mosses, insects, birds and smaller mammals.
The deliberate replacement of forests with tree plantations, instead of allowing them to regenerate naturally after clear cutting, also reduces soil fertility, especially nutrient content and moisture retention capacity, and this undermines long-term land productivity. During this process, the soil is subjected to compaction, structural alteration, increasing acidity and erosion.[11] With tree plantations the micro-climate also changes, and this weakens ecological resistance to extreme climatic and environmental changes. Even-aged plantations composed of a single tree species are more vulnerable to damage through diseases, insect attack, wind, drought and fire. Naturally regenerated or restored forests with a mix of local native plant species are more resilient, and provide more ecosystem services in general.[12],[13],[14]
No matter how often sustainability claims are made, the ultimate objective of the “Swedish Forestry Model” is to convert forests into plantations in order to increase timber production. This un-natural process includes routine mechanized clear-cutting, replanting, thinning, fertilization and ditching. Industrial timber processing also involves energy-intensive log extraction, loading, trucking and milling, which is followed by manufacturing, shipping, consumption, and finally, disposal as waste; all of which generate high levels of pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases. 
The “bio-economy” concept is used by the timber industry and the government of Sweden as a climate change mitigation strategy to legitimize more intensive timber land management, which includes the conversion of forests to tree plantations. The intention is to increase the production of biomass to replace fossil-fuel derived energy and products with ‘bio-renewables’. Without acknowledging academic uncertainties regarding e.g. the carbon sequestration capacity of tree plantations, the claimed climate benefits of ‘growing forests’ are being highlighted.[15],[16]
No attention is given to the large volumes of greenhouse gases released from soil and biomass when forests are clear-cut, especially on peat land, prior to the establishment of the plantation.[17],[18]
Forests in the boreal region (the northern forest belt) generally store much more carbon in the soil than in vegetation.[19] Studies show a general pattern of decreasing carbon pools in tree plantations as compared to forests, independently of the biomes, geographic regions or other factors involved.[20] The largest carbon stocks per unit area are normally found in old forests, especially in old spruce and mature deciduous broad-leaved forests.[21] Furthermore, managed dense evergreen coniferous forests and plantations reflect less sunlight back into space, and thus absorb more heat than un-managed lighter-coloured broad-leafed deciduous forests.[22] This can increase local temperatures, and upset seasonal processes, such as snow melt.[23],[24]
Many scientists maintain that the climate change mitigation value of trees lies in the durability of their accumulated carbon, not in their current uptake of carbon dioxide.[25] Old-growth forests aged up to 800 years can still continue to function as carbon sinks.[26] By protecting high-carbon ecosystems from land-use change, greenhouse gas emissions can be avoided, but this cannot offset ongoing new emissions from other sources. The most effective form of climate change mitigation is to reduce, or preferably to halt, greenhouse gas emissions from all sources.
Promotion of the “bio-economy” by the Swedish government sends out the wrong signal, because ‘business-as-usual’ cannot continue. Modern society has, through industrialisation and globalisation, already transgressed the planet’s limits for climate change and the loss of biodiversity.[27] What is urgently needed is the complete protection of all remaining relatively undisturbed, and high conservation value forests (at least 20 % of all forests in Sweden need protection). Some renowned scientists are calling for the protection and restoration of at least 50 % of all lands and oceans in order to meet existing targets to protect biodiversity.[28],[29],[30]
Moreover, a greater area of naturally regenerated deciduous woodlands and mixed forests is needed in the boreal region. In addition, an overall reduction in the consumption of energy – bio fuels as well as fossil fuels, paper, timber products and other products derived from natural resources – is needed world-wide. Greater energy efficiency and re-use and recycling of products need to be seriously promoted, as well as to encourage the manufacture of high quality, long-lasting items, and to ban unnecessary short-lived products and packaging.
But this is not the case for the Swedish timber and biomass fuel industry, which wants to expand globally and invent new products (that nobody might need). Due to intensive management of timber land in Sweden, where most forests have already been converted to tree plantations, more land will be required, and this will be sought abroad.
The government plans to establish a ‘green’ trademark,  “Sweden – Developed by Forests”, as a promotional platform, aiming to contribute to global ‘sustainable development’ and to increase the demand for ‘sustainable’ Swedish tree-based innovations, products and services.[31] These objectives might be seen as mutually reinforcing, but instead of focusing on genuine sustainable development, the aim is, again, to increase wood production and consumption, energy supply and industrial competitiveness.[32] Investment in industrial tree plantations in developing countries, especially with fast growing alien trees, is becoming more common. Sweden, with its claimed superior knowledge of timber production, wants to develop this potential.[33] Moreover, the growing economies of China, India, Vietnam, South Africa and Brazil, as well as countries in northern Africa, are considered to be important consumer markets for Swedish exports.[34]
The Swedish-Finnish pulp and paper company, Stora Enso, is already active in Brazil, Uruguay, and China, where it has been heavily criticised for its operations; establishing ecologically unsustainable tree plantations and disrespecting the land rights of local communities.[35],[36] It has also been accused of poor working conditions for employees in a mill in India, and of using child labour in Pakistan.[37],[38] A subsidiary of Swedish multinational furniture company IKEA, Swedwood, has for several years, been accused of logging ancient and high conservation value forests in Karelia, Russia.[39]
In Africa, the Swedish government has helped finance a large tree plantation project in Mozambique through its development co-operation agency SIDA. A subsidiary company of Sweden-based Global Solidarity Forest Fund (GSFF), Chikweti, began establishing tree plantations in the Niassa Province of Mozambique in 2005. Natural vegetation was destroyed, leading to biodiversity loss and soil degradation. Local people lost access to their land, which impacted negatively on their livelihoods, and the plantations caused water contamination and shortages. The few jobs offered to local people were temporary and poorly paid.[40] In 2014, the Norwegian company Green Resources AS (GR) and GSFF signed an agreement where GR took over the land leases of GSFF in Mozambique.[41] In 2015-2016, fire damaged 65 % of GR’s plantations (3,077 ha in Tanzania, Uganda and Mozambique), with more than 90 % of the damage occurring in its Mozambican operations.[42]
In general, even-aged tree plantations composed of a single species tend to be more prone to fire.[43] Both eucalyptus and pine trees contain volatile oils in their foliage,[44] which can increase the incidence and severity of wildfires.[45] In January-February 2017, Chile battled to control numerous wildfires that affected the largest area in its history.[46] By early February 2017, the burnt area already exceeded 500,000 hectares, several local villages had been destroyed, and the native fauna was severely affected. Local social movements blamed the timber companies, with their over 3 million hectares of non-indigenous pine and eucalyptus plantations, and which have been subsidised by the Chilean state for 40 years.[47],[48]
Sweden cannot be directly blamed for these devastating wildfires, but the consequences of the industrial tree plantation model that it promotes are clearly evident, and the Swedish-owned JCE Group has large operations in Chile including two sawmills, of which one reportedly produces 350,000 cubic metres of wood chips a year, using logs bought from local plantation owners.[49],[50]
Furthermore, Sweden is a major exporter of timber production equipment, as well as pulp and paper mill machinery, and from this, businesses in the country as well as the Swedish government derive huge financial benefits. Here are some of the names involved: Husqvarna (sells chainsaws in Brazil, Indonesia, Australia, South Africa, etc.), Tetra Pak (processing and packaging company), Rottne (logging machinery), Bracke Forest (logging machinery), Bruks (supplier for bulk materials handling industries), Eco Log (logging machinery) and Jonsered (loaders and log-loading cranes). But Sweden is not the only culprit in this respect, with Finland giving strong competition in the sector.
Siberian jay_Gunilla Falk
The Siberian Jay (Perisoreus infaustus) can be considered an important indicator species, because it is dependent on older spruce forest for its habitat requirements. (Photo: Gunilla Falk)
Apart from producing wood, industrial tree plantations do not in any way replicate the benefits of a natural forest ecosystem. FAO’s published statistics on global tree resources, the Forest Resources Assessments (FRA2015), include both forests and planted tree stands in the total “forest area”. The FAO effectively offsets the area of genuine forests that have been lost for various reasons, against the area of new tree plantations, which often exceeds the former. This creates the illusion that there has been an overall increase in “forest cover”, or a reduction in deforestation, to support claims of so called successful REDD+ projects. Therefore, although the FAO’s analysis might sound convincing on paper, in reality there is a huge loss in terms of ecologically productive forest and biodiversity, with negative impacts on local communities, water resources and the climate. Major changes in land cover through land grabs for new tree plantations can therefore be allowed to continue unrestricted, while forest ecosystems and the livelihoods of affected local communities deteriorate.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification scheme for alleged ‘responsible’ forest management, is another problematic issue in Sweden. Its standard allows forests to be converted into tree plantations, through the use of clear-cut logging, soil scarification (ridging) and chemical fertilisation.[51] All large timber companies in Sweden are FSC-certified, but every year there are incidents where high conservation value forests are clear-cut, and destructive ‘forestry’ practices which violate even the weak criteria of the Swedish FSC standard, are used. There are no consequences for the companies involved except, at best, major or minor corrective action requests (CARs) from the certification body (CB) which audits on behalf of FSC, and in the end these are usually withdrawn. Because CBs are paid by the companies that they audit, they cannot act impartially. Despite these many flaws, the Swedish government still trusts timber companies to take appropriate measures to voluntarily protect forest areas, when FSC certified. Many environmental problems associated with the timber industry in Sweden today, can be blamed on the practice of allowing ‘self-regulation’ by FSC certified companies. During its almost 20 years in Sweden, FSC certification has created the misconception that the country’s forests (and tree plantations) are being responsibly managed, and that high conservation value forests are being safeguarded.[52],[53] This is now being used to ‘green-wash’ new tree plantation projects all around the world.
In Sweden, government has played a crucial role by deliberately favouring industrial interests that have traditionally held a powerful position in determining the country’s fiscal policies. The timber industry has actively opposed a more sustainable timber production model based on ‘continuous cover forestry’, which employs selective logging, because it considers this to be a nuisance, and the government has submitted to this position. The ecological, social, aesthetic and cultural dimensions of forests have been subordinated to narrow financial interests of large corporations, which, in the long run, are not sustainable.[54] Nowhere are industrial tree plantations genuinely sustainable, and neither is the practice of extensive clear-cutting. However, even though Sweden is a Party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and has committed to significantly reducing the level of forest biodiversity loss by 2020, this will not be achieved due to a lack of political effort. Instead, it seems that the long-term intention of the government is to allow the replacement of all unprotected forests with tree plantations, and once this has been achieved in Sweden, to move on into other countries.
It is indisputable that Sweden’s existing timber lands will not be able to simultaneously safeguard biodiversity, mitigate climate change and increase wood production.[54] Even though government officials might like to believe that their rigidly systematized thinking and knowledge, and forest governance system based on the industrial tree plantation model will be an inspiration for global work on sustainable development,[55] its inevitable negative consequences are obvious to all except themselves. By continuing to wear these blinkers for the sole shortsighted purpose of making profit, they are putting the forests of the world, that are crucial for our very existence, in urgent need of increased protection from the exploitative greediness of capitalism.
In summary, there are many important reasons for the FAO to urgently adopt new definitions, using precise terminology and language, in order to clearly separate tree plantations from forests. Our whole future depends on functioning forest ecosystems – not expanding tree plantations – and time is running out.
Amanda Tas, Protect the Forest, Sweden

Please read more in:

Beland Lindahl, K., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T. & Roberge, J.-M. (2015). The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? Forest Policy and Economics;

Read more about the boreal forest and the climate here:

Watch film clips:

Statement by the Director General, Swedish Forest Agency – short film produced by Björn Olin:

A large clear-cut in the north of Sweden – short film produced by Björn Olin:


[1] The Government of Sweden (2016). Internationella skogsfrågor – Underlagsrapport från arbetsgrupp 4 inom nationellt skogsprogram (only in Swedish);

[2] Swedish Forest Agency (2014). Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2014;

[3] Larsson, A. (2011). Tillståndet i skogen – rödlistade arter i ett nordiskt perspektiv. Report 9. Swedish Species Information Center SLU, Uppsala: 

[4] The Swedish National Forest Inventory (2016). Table 3.2 – Produktiv skogsmarksareal efter År, Län, Tabellinnehåll och Åldersklass. SLU:

[5] Eriksson, O. & Cousins, S. A. (2014). Historical Landscape Perspectives on Grasslands in Sweden and the Baltic Region. Land 2014, 3, 300-321;doi:10.3390/land3010300;

[6] Beland Lindahl, K., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T. & Roberge, J.-M. (2015). The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? Forest Policy and Economics;

[7] Swedish Forest Agency (2014). Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2014;

[8]  Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Naturvårdsverkets årsredovisning 2013  (only in Swedish);

[9] Swedish Forest Agency (11-04-2011). Gemensamma insatser krävs för bra miljöhänsyn,; Table 6.26: Miljöhänsyn vid avverkning i relation till LIT, lagkrav vid taxering, gäller föryngringsavverkningar genomförda 2007/2008-2009/2010.

[10] Larsson, A. (2011). Tillståndet i skogen – rödlistade arter i ett nordiskt perspektiv. Report  9. Swedish Species Information Center SLU, Uppsala:

[11] Liao, C., Luo, Y., Fang, C., Chen, J. & Li, B. (2012). The effects of plantation practice on soil properties based on the comparison between natural and planted forests: a meta-analysis. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21: 318–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00690.x;

[12] Bernhold, A. (2008). Management of Pinus sylvestris stands infected by Gremmeniella abietina Ph.D. thesis, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet;

[13] Holm, S. O. (2015). A Management Strategy for Multiple Ecosystem Services in Boreal Forests. J. Sustain. Forestry34, 358-379.

[14] Gamfeldt, L. et al. (2013). Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat. Commun. 4:1340 doi: 10.1038/ncomms2328.

[15] The Government of Sweden (2016). Främjande av biobaserade produkter och energi, smarta transporter, en skogsindustri i världsklass och ökad export – Underlagsrapport från arbetsgrupp 3 inom nationellt skogsprogram (only in Swedish);

[16] Beland Lindahl, K., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T. & Roberge, J.-M. (2015). The Swedish forestry model: More of everything?  Forest Policy and Economics;

[17] Amiro et al. (2010). Ecosystem carbon dioxide fluxes after disturbance in forests of North America. Journal of Geophysical Research 115. doi:10.1029/2010JG001390.

[18] He, H., Jansson, P.-E., Svensson, M., Björklund, J., Tarvainen, L., Klemedtsson, L., & Kasimir, Å. (2016). Forests on drained agricultural peatland are potentially large sources of greenhouse gases – insights from a full rotation period simulation. Biogeosciences 13, 2305-2318;

[19] Malhi, Y., Baldocchi, D.D. & Jarvis, P.G. (1999). The carbon balance of tropical, temperate and boreal forests. Plant, Cell and Environment (1999) 22, 715–740,

[20] Liao C., Luo Y., Fang C. & Li B. (2010). Ecosystem Carbon Stock Influenced by Plantation Practice: Implications for Planting Forests as a Measure of Climate Change Mitigation. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10867;

[21] Framstad, E., Stokland, J. N. & Hylen, G. (2011). Skogvern som klimatiltak (only in Norwegian). Norsk institutt for naturforskning;

[22] Naudts, K., Chen, Y., McGrath, M. J., Ryder, J., Valade, A., Otto, J. & Luyssaert, S (2016). Europe’s forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science 351, Issue 6273, 597-600.

[23] Anderson, R. G. (2011). Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front Ecol. Environ. 9(3): 174–182, doi:10.1890/090179

[24] Bright, R. M., Zhao, K., Jackson, R. B. & Cherubini, F. (2015). Quantifying surface albedo and other direct biogeophysical climate forcings of forestry activities.  Global Change Biology 21(9). DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12951;

[25] Mackey, B., Prentice, I. C., Steffen, W., House, J. I., Lindenmayer, D., Keith, H. & Berry, S. (2013). Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policyNature Climate Change, 3, 552–557;

[26] Luyssaert, S., Detlef Schulze, E., Börner, A., Knohl, A., Hessenmöller, D., Law, B. E., Ciais, P. & Grace, J. (2008). Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455: 213-215;

[27] Rockström, J. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472-475;

[28] Noss, R., Beier, P., Nowak, K. & Tabor, G. (2012). Bolder Thinking for Conservation. Conservation Biology, Vol. 26, No. 1.DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01738.x

[29] Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-Earth – Our Planet’s Fight for Life. Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York (259 pp)..

[30] Avaaz (2016). World Leaders: Protect Half Our Planet;

[31] The Government of Sweden (2016). Internationella skogsfrågor – Underlagsrapport från arbetsgrupp  4 inom nationellt skogsprogram;

[32] Beland Lindahl, K., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T.& Roberge, J.-M. (2015). The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? Forest Policy and Economics;

[33] KSLA:s tidskrift (2012). Export av skogligt kunnande från Finland och Sverige. Nr. 7, årgång 151;

[34] The Government of Sweden (2016). Internationella skogsfrågor – Underlagsrapport från arbetsgrupp 4 inom nationellt skogsprogram;

[35] Friends of the Earth (2011). Stora Enso: negative impacts in Brazil and Uruguay;

[36]  Global Forest Coalition (06-03-2013). NGO’s look to United Nations for Addressing Stora Enso’s Human Rights Violations in China

[37] Swedwatch & Finnwatch (2013). Global Expectations on Indian Operations – A  study on Stora Enso’s human rights challenges

[38]  Helsinki Times (07-03-2014). Stora Enso admits child labour an issue in Pakistan

[39] Protect the Forest (22-08-2016). Russian conservation expert confirms the criticism of IKEA’s logging in Russian Karelia;

[40] FIAN (16-10-2012). Mozambique: Swedish development cooperation violates rights of peasants in Niassa province;

[41] Green Resources (01-05-2014). Green Resources merges with GSFF to create leader in African forestry;

[42] Green Resources (2016). 2015/2016 Accounts and Directors Report;

[43] Karumbidza, B. & Menne, W. (2011). CDM carbon sink tree plantations in Africa: A case study in Tanzania. The Timberwatch Coalition;

[44] New World Encyclopedia (2008). Eucalyptus;

[45] CABI (2014). Pinus caribaea. Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

[46]  The Guardian (25-01-2017). Chile battles devastating wildfires: ‘We have never seen anything on this scale’;

[47] Eduardo Giesen (02-02-2017). Email, Global Forest Coalition.

[48] Global Justice Ecology Project (2017-01-31). Chile wildfire disaster fueled by non-indigenous tree plantations;

[49] Winnie Overbeek (27-05-2016). Email, World Rainforest Movement.

[50] Aserraderos JCE S.A.(2015). Somos;

[51] FSC Sweden (2014). FSC Forest Management Standard for Sweden;

[52] Tas, A. & Rodrigues, J. (2008). Under the cover of forest certification. Greenpeace;

[53] Sahlin, M. (2013). Credibility at Stake – How FSC Sweden Fails to Safeguard Forest Biodiversity. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation;

[54] Beland Lindahl, K., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T. & Roberge, J.-M. (2015). The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? Forest Policy and Economics;

[55] The Government of Sweden (2016). Internationella skogsfrågor – Underlagsrapport från arbetsgrupp 4 inom nationellt skogsprogram;


2 thoughts on “The Swedish experience: Shrinking forests – Expanding tree plantations

  1. Comment:

    I am a photographer, and have lived in a forest in Norrbotten, near to Lake Yli-Kuittasjarvi, for 4 years. They are destroying lot of trees here, and this year for the first time, I didn’t see elk, birds like Siberian jay, and fox . The deforestation is causing desertification for all that lives. This will also be for all of us here.

    I am very sad for what is happening in my forest. I try to speak with my neighbours (the owners of the land), but I think they don’t know what is important for the boreal forest ecosystem – for the animals, for the birds, and for us.

    However, I have hope in the future!

    Bianca Matera –


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s