Answer to submitter. Let the pins retain power over the forest of the Swedish Church

Reply to Peter Lindgren: When the Swedish Church was separated from the state in 2000, it was decided that the members who wanted to organize themselves in different parties. It was also allowed for existing political parties to put up with their own candidates.

The Social Democrats and the Center Party have lined up with their own candidates and in this way have a significant influence in accordance with the statutes, while, for example, the Moderates have waived. The parties that renounce believe that religion is not a matter for the parliamentary parties.

The property committees have an important task, namely to ensure that the property of the church is managed effectively and contributes to the financing of parishes, pastorates and dioceses. The property has originally been donated to the various church congregations with that intention.

Consequently, playing The return a major role for the congregations in the countryside, with a declining tax base, while it has no significance at all for the church in Stockholm’s diocese. It is against this background Stockholm diocese wants to disregard the economic effects of the church’s forest investigators Göran Enander’s proposalwhile the rural show emphasizes the importance of the return. The fact that the Center Party appears as a defender of rural interests is thus more an effect of representing the rural assemblies than having contacts in the forest owner associations.

Is the current management of the church’s forest poor from an environmental point of view? No, not at all. The church made provisions for nature conservation in the forest and took into account agriculture long before it became relevant in authorities and the environmental movement.

In Skara diocese there are old examples such as Levene meadow. In the 1970s, hundreds of hectares were sold by Österplana Hed to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and were converted into a reserve. The Church is and has been an example when, in retrospect, one sees how its property has been managed by parishes, pastorates and property committees.

The best option For the management of the church’s forest is to maintain a decentralized management. It maintains and increases commitment to how the administration is managed.

How could one recruit elected representatives to an activity if it is centrally controlled by a board that lacks contact with the church’s parishes? Let the property committees themselves decide on how the forest should be managed in consultation with parishes and pastorates. It is to them the property has been donated, not to a central board in Uppsala.

More about submitter: How do you write on submitter and answer

More submissions: dn.se/insandare