Beatrice Karlsson did everything right. She bought out the family forest and planned a sustainable harvest, taking nature into account. She wanted to invest the money in renovating the family farm. Instead, she became the target of a media circus, starring Greta Thunberg. Beatrice was left with shut-down machinery, cancelled plans and a looming financial crisis. 

What was the offence? That she wanted to farm her own forest, according to Swedish law.

This is the reality in Sweden today. Activists with no local connection, no knowledge of forestry or ownership can storm in and stop a felling that was already approved.

They chain themselves to the machines and then carry out their own inventory to “detect” traces of red-listed species. And that's enough. A private landowner's activities can be frozen indefinitely, regardless of any prior authorisation or consideration given.

Beatrice Karlsson is not an exception. She is an example of how landowners have become society's scapegoats in the ”fight for the climate/environment”. It is always easier to argue with a single forest owner than to tackle real environmental problems. Standing in front of a forestry machine makes for better pictures than arguing in favour of changing consumption patterns or fighting against environmental toxins.

Greta Thunberg calls her action in Arjeplog a ”last resort”. But what does she and the other international activists know about forestry? She didn't even know that a private person owns the land. Nor did she know that consultations had been held, or that parts of the forest had already been excluded for nature conservation reasons. But it didn't matter. The show must go on, pictures must be taken and headlines must be made.

The most bizarre thing is that activists are allowed to act as if the forest were a lawless land. In reality, it is just the opposite. Forest owners in Sweden have some of the most regulated conditions in the world, with forestry laws, species protection rules, consultation with authorities and samebyar. They have obligations, responsibilities and take all the risks.

But when conflicts with ideologically driven environmental activists arise, it is as if our fine regulations no longer apply. Then it is the activists' agenda that rules.

Now society has to put its foot down, we can't have this in a state governed by the rule of law.

It is not a question of being for or against environmental concerns, but that environmental protection must be done within the law, and not at the expense of individual landowners. The right to ownership and use should take precedence over vocal activists and their hunger for attention.

It is high time to call things by their right name. What Greta Thunberg and her entourage did in Arjeplog was not civil courage, but an intrusion on private property and in a person's life. There must be consequences, even if the alleged intention was to ”save the environment”.

Marina Eriksson, spokesperson for Rural areas, Ambition Sverige and Anders Hedberg, spokesperson for Agriculture, Ambition Sverige | Photo: Ambition Sverige and Marina Eriksson