Making decisions based on data is a given in today’s information-driven society, but problems arise when the data sources are too few or not suited to specific environments, leading to inaccurate conclusions. The ongoing debate surrounding Sweden’s alleged deforestation is a clear example of how relying on a single data source can produce misleading results and influence both public opinion and policy decisions.
Satellite data from Global Forest Watch has been used in several studies to assess logging and forest biomass in different countries, including Sweden. These data have led to headlines claiming that Sweden and Finland account for a large portion of Europe’s deforestation, with reports suggesting a 20 percent decrease in high-tree forest cover. However, these figures do not reflect the reality on the ground. A review by Swedish national television (SVT October 8 2024) shows how thinned forests have been incorrectly registered as fully deforested, creating an exaggerated picture of the deforestation rate.
This issue goes beyond mere technical errors in data collection. The fact that Global Forest Watch uses algorithms that are not adapted to the Nordic forest environment highlights the limitations that arise when global models are applied without consideration for local conditions. This problem is particularly evident in the Nordic region, where forestry operates in a unique way. Therefore, it becomes essential to supplement satellite data with local, land-based measurements, such as Sweden’s National Forest Inventory, to ensure a more accurate and nuanced view.
It is also clear that faulty data can have far-reaching consequences for decision-making. Studies based on this misleading data have been used to shape policy within the European Commission, resulting in incorrect conclusions about Sweden’s forestry practices. This demonstrates how reliance on a flawed data source can disadvantage entire nations within the framework of EU forestry policy, when decisions are made based on inaccurate assumptions.
In addition to distorting the deforestation debate, these faulty conclusions have also impacted perceptions of Sweden’s efforts regarding biodiversity. While Global Forest Watch claims that Sweden faces significant deforestation issues, other data sources show that Sweden is a leader in Europe when it comes to preserving biodiversity. The amount of dead wood and the number of bird species are increasing, clear indicators of a healthy ecosystem. This underscores the importance of using multiple data sources to obtain a complete picture of the environment.
