Understanding forest debt distribution among landholders is key for developing business models using the Forest Code to drive investment. Properties smaller than about 100 hectares (250 acres) are granted more leeway: most are subject to 50% set-asides and this threshold is rarely enforced. Mid-size holdings (500-1,500 hectares, or about 1,240 to 3,700 acres) must maintain 80% cover, but enjoy flexibility from regional zoning. Larger properties face the strictest enforcement, and a large cohort has cleared more than 70% of original forest.

Most medium and large-scale farms oppose the current regulations. If they could profitably restore their legal reserve by growing tree crops with global markets, however, their political position might shift from opposing to supporting the Forest Code. Small-scale family farmers are exempt from legal reserve caps, but are unlikely to proactively support current regulations unless they see clear benefits improving their livelihoods.

That bolded part might have something to do with this: Small-scale rainforest clearing drives majority of carbon loss, study finds

small-scale reforestation might help

ignoring that it wasn't sweden's land until 16-1700 hundreds and that sweden isn't a kingdom

yes 95% of forests in sweden are harvested unsustainably as monocultural crops by deforestation methods, uprooting everything and overturning the soil meanwhile. in the north timber is harvested from "treefarms" in a cycle of 70-150 years, based on when private forest owners call in companies to "harvest trees" and in the south that's as briefly as 50-70 years.

yes this government is insane and greenlight uranium mines which everyone living in sweden realize will pollute heavy metals and radiation to our sweetwater - the best and purest water on this planet - while using state overreaching to dismantle local municipalities right to deny total pollution of every citizen by mining uranium (never can 'alun skiffer' be mined without leaking heavy metals and radiation across everywhere nearby and beyond, not in australia not in the US - both of which have outlawed it afair)

we should absolutely have better government and better agroforestry practices. like the lübeck model of Not turning over top soil and Not deforesting for a "tree harvest". lotsa pushback because the agroforestry institution indoctrinate & rub elbows with the agroforestry industry here (a rare occurence of longstanding corruption in the nordic continent) which is perpetuated by- and is reflected in the 'jägmästar' education into officially entering the agroforestry sphere.

Governments worldwide channel an estimated $35 billion toward the fishing sector, but a 2019 study showed that $22 billion of that, or 63%, supports harmful practices.

Um... I'm pretty sure that 100% of fishing is harmful to the fish.

The lengths to which people will go in order to not eat banana...

What a bunch of bullshit. The title and conclusion, I mean. Of course it's unlikely that all of the land currently used for animal agriculture will be returned to forest. The problem is not that that land is unavailable for reforestation; it just means that people don't want to do it. If all of that land were to be reforested, then that would stabilise the climate enough that a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels (e.g. over several decades) would suffice to solve the current climate crisis. Articles like this do more harm than good. We need people to take action, not believing that nothing can be done.

Buenavista, in Putumayo

76° 14' 17.0"W, 0° 26' 52.5"N