Rising diesel costs are putting renewed pressure on forestry contractors and wood transport across Europe. France and Finland have seen fresh calls for stronger support, while Poland, Sweden, Austria and Germany already have different compensation or tax-relief systems in place. The differences are becoming more relevant for harvesting and roundwood transport costs at a time when sawmills in several European markets are already paying heavily for raw material.<\/p>\n
France: forestry contractors want GNR support raised<\/strong><\/p>\n France is the latest market where forestry contractors are pressing for stronger fuel support. The Syndicat des Exploitants de la Fili\u00e8re Bois (SEFB) is asking the government to raise aid for GNR \u2014 gazole non routier, the off-road diesel used in harvesters, forwarders and other non-road machinery \u2014 from \u20ac0.15 to \u20ac0.25 per litre.<\/p>\n GNR is a specific French fuel category for mobile machinery that does not normally operate on public roads. Agricultural and forestry users benefit from a reduced excise rate, and since 2024 eligible operators have generally been able to obtain the reduced rate directly at purchase rather than reclaiming it later.<\/p>\n The issue in 2026 is the additional pressure from the sharp increase in fuel prices. According to SEFB, road diesel rose from \u20ac1.342\/litre excluding tax in February to \u20ac1.95 in September, while GNR increased from \u20ac0.986 to \u20ac1.45\/litre. Forestry contractors argue that the existing \u20ac0.15\/litre support no longer covers enough of that increase.<\/p>\n The French government had already introduced a \u20ac0.15\/litre reimbursement for GNR used in agricultural and forestry work and subsequently extended the measure through December 2026. Eligible beneficiaries include agricultural operators and companies carrying out agricultural and forestry work.<\/p>\n SEFB is now asking for the forestry rate to be increased to \u20ac0.25\/litre. The demand is important because it comes from the contractor end of the wood chain, where the cost increase has appeared faster than harvesting and haulage rates could be revised.<\/p>\n Finland: diesel becomes part of the Sweden comparison<\/strong><\/p>\n In Finland, the debate is broader and is being framed increasingly as an industrial competitiveness issue rather than simply as relief for contractors.<\/p>\n Finnish Forest Industries supports the introduction of a professional diesel system but considers the government\u2019s proposal too limited. The planned system would provide a refund of \u20ac0.033\/litre from 2028. The organisation argues that the refund should start earlier and be granted at the maximum level permitted by Finland\u2019s existing tax structure, which it estimates at around \u20ac0.067\/litre.<\/p>\n The Sweden comparison is central to the Finnish argument. According to Finnish Forest Industries, diesel was around \u20ac0.47\/litre more expensive in Finland than in Sweden in July 2026. The organisation says this adds to a logistics disadvantage that is already structural: because of Finland\u2019s long transport distances, logistics costs as a share of forest-industry turnover can be as much as twice those of important competing countries.<\/p>\n The organisation also wants the scope of the professional diesel scheme widened to cover all professional freight vehicles above 7.5 tonnes where allowed under EU rules. Forest machinery is another point of contention, with Finnish Forest Industries arguing that harvesters and other forestry machines should be treated more consistently within energy-tax and emissions-compensation systems.<\/p>\n For Finnish sawmills, this comes on top of an already expensive wood procurement environment. The issue is therefore less the absolute diesel price than whether Finland allows a persistent net-cost disadvantage against Sweden to remain embedded in harvesting and wood transport.<\/p>\n Poland: compensation built into forestry contracts<\/strong><\/p>\n Poland has taken a rather different route by dealing directly with the contracts between the State Forests and forestry service companies.<\/p>\n Following the sharp increase in diesel prices, forestry service contractors working for the State Forests asked for compensation. In May, the Director General of the State Forests issued recommendations allowing an additional fuel-related adjustment in contracts for silvicultural and timber harvesting work. The State Forests explicitly acknowledged that the prolonged increase in fuel prices could threaten the liquidity of forestry service companies.<\/p>\n The system works through contract indexation rather than a standard per-litre subsidy. Compensation is linked to the difference between current fuel prices and the reference price used when the work was tendered, together with the volume of work and normative fuel consumption for the relevant forestry operation.<\/p>\n That gives Poland a different model from France or Germany. The higher diesel cost is recognised inside the service contract itself rather than mainly through the tax system. For contractors working under fixed-price agreements, it reduces the risk that a sudden fuel move makes already-awarded work uneconomic.<\/p>\n The Polish mechanism is also one of the more interesting models to watch if fuel prices remain volatile, because it addresses the timing problem directly: forestry contracts may run for months, while fuel costs can change within weeks.<\/p>\n Sweden: established tax relief remains an advantage<\/strong><\/p>\n Sweden already operates tax relief for diesel used in professional agriculture, forestry and aquaculture. The regime covers fuel used in work machinery, as well as certain vessels, and the government has proposed extending the temporarily increased relief into 2027 while adding further relief for consumption during the second half of 2026.<\/p>\n This gives Sweden a relatively established mechanism for reducing the net diesel cost of forestry work rather than responding only after contractors come under financial pressure.<\/p>\n The level has changed during 2026 as the government adjusted fuel taxation. The important comparison for the forestry sector, however, is that Swedish operators already have a framework through which changes in fuel taxation can be passed relatively quickly into the effective price paid by professional users.<\/p>\n That is precisely what Finnish industry representatives have been pointing to. When sawmills in Finland and Sweden compete in the same softwood lumber markets, the comparison increasingly includes not only sawlog prices, labour and energy, but the net cost of moving wood from the forest to the mill.<\/p>\n Austria: forestry included in a \u20ac100 million diesel package<\/strong><\/p>\n Austria has also renewed diesel support for land and forestry businesses. The government has allocated a maximum of \u20ac100 million to the programme, with \u20ac50 million available for 2026 and another \u20ac50 million for 2027. The first payment has been brought forward to December 2026.<\/p>\n Importantly for the wood sector, the scheme explicitly includes pure forestry businesses, not only agricultural holdings with some forest area.<\/p>\n The expected reimbursement is around \u20ac0.155\/litre, although the final figure will only be set once the calculation data are available. Austria applies standard fuel-consumption assumptions according to land use. For forestry land, the government assumes 12 litres of gasoil per hectare, giving an expected reimbursement of around \u20ac1.90\/ha.<\/p>\n This makes Austria less directly comparable with the French contractor model. Support is tied to the managed area and standardised fuel requirements rather than simply paying a fixed amount against every litre actually consumed. Even so, the forestry sector is clearly inside the scope of the measure.<\/p>\n Germany: full Agrardiesel refund is back<\/strong><\/p>\n Germany restored its full Agrardiesel relief from January 1, 2026. Agricultural and forestry businesses can again reclaim \u20ac0.2148\/litre of diesel through the energy-tax system. The federal government estimates that reinstating the scheme provides around \u20ac430 million in annual relief to agriculture and forestry.<\/p>\n The measure reversed the previous phase-out of the Agrardiesel system and restored the earlier tax treatment for both agriculture and forestry. Unlike some temporary crisis schemes elsewhere, Germany has presented the refund as a continuing structural measure rather than simply emergency compensation for the latest price spike.<\/p>\n For forestry operations, that puts Germany among the countries with the clearest per-litre relief. The effective benefit is higher than the current French \u20ac0.15\/litre GNR support and above the expected Austrian rate of around \u20ac0.155\/litre, although the systems and underlying fuel taxes are not directly comparable.<\/p>\n Germany has also introduced broader measures to address fuel prices in 2026, but for forestry the Agrardiesel refund remains the more relevant benchmark because it applies specifically to eligible land and forestry businesses.<\/p>\n How European forestry fuel support compares<\/p>\n The schemes cannot be compared euro for euro because national fuel taxes, eligibility rules and calculation methods differ considerably. What matters for the industry is the amount actually left with the contractor after tax relief and compensation.<\/p>\n Fuel is becoming another procurement-cost divide<\/strong><\/p>\n The current debate is therefore moving beyond the headline diesel price. For wood buyers and sawmills, the relevant comparison is the net cost of harvesting and moving roundwood after national relief measures are taken into account.<\/p>\n That gap is particularly interesting in the Nordic market. Finland already has high roundwood costs and a logistics structure that depends heavily on road transport over long distances. Finnish Forest Industries says its logistics costs relative to turnover can be as much as twice those of important competing countries, while the July diesel gap with Sweden reached about \u20ac0.47\/litre.<\/p>\n Sweden therefore starts from a more favourable position on one part of the procurement-cost equation, even though Swedish sawmills themselves continue to face high sawlog prices and difficult market conditions.<\/p>\n France has a different exposure. There, the immediate pressure is concentrated among forestry contractors and hauliers whose service rates have not moved as quickly as fuel. SEFB's demand for \u20ac0.25\/litre is essentially an attempt to prevent that gap from being transferred into higher harvesting charges.<\/p>\n Poland has chosen to transfer part of the increase into the contract automatically. That may prove more important than the headline amount of support. If fuel markets remain volatile, forestry service contracts elsewhere may increasingly require similar fuel clauses instead of assuming a fixed diesel cost for an entire season.<\/p>\n Austria and Germany rely more heavily on the tax system, with Germany now offering one of the clearer fixed per-litre refunds for eligible forestry operations. Austria has opted for a smaller estimated rate combined with an area-based calculation.<\/p>\n There is no single European model emerging. There is, however, a clear shift toward recognising fuel as a cost that forestry contractors cannot always absorb inside existing rates.<\/p>\n If diesel remains expensive through the winter, differences between these national systems are likely to show up more clearly in 2027 harvesting rates and delivered sawlog costs. For European mills already dealing with expensive raw material, national fuel policy is becoming one more variable in the procurement comparison.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Rising diesel costs are putting renewed pressure on forestry contractors and wood transport across Europe. France and Finland have seen fresh calls for stronger support, while Poland, Sweden, Austria and Germany already have different compensation or tax-relief systems in place. … Continue reading \n\n
\n \nCountry<\/th>\n 2026 system or industry demand<\/th>\n Support level<\/th>\n How it works<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Fran\u021ba<\/strong><\/td>\n Existing GNR aid; SEFB asks for an increase<\/td>\n \u20ac0.15 \u2192 \u20ac0.25\/litre requested<\/strong><\/td>\n Reimbursement for off-road diesel used in agricultural and forestry work<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Finlanda<\/strong><\/td>\n Professional diesel scheme proposed; forest industry wants stronger relief<\/td>\n \u20ac0.033\/l proposed; up to \u20ac0.067\/l sought<\/strong><\/td>\n Tax refund for professional transport; industry also seeks better treatment for forest machinery<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Poland<\/strong><\/td>\n Fuel compensation for State Forests service contracts<\/td>\n Variable<\/strong><\/td>\n Contract value adjusted according to fuel-price changes and normative consumption<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sweden<\/strong><\/td>\n Existing forestry diesel tax relief, with enhanced relief proposed for 2026\u201327<\/td>\n Variable by tax period<\/strong><\/td>\n Energy and carbon-tax reduction on diesel used in professional forestry machinery<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Austria<\/strong><\/td>\n Agrardiesel reimbursement for land and forestry businesses<\/td>\n around \u20ac0.155\/litre expected<\/strong><\/td>\n Area-based calculation using standard fuel-consumption assumptions; pure forestry businesses eligible<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Germania<\/strong><\/td>\n Full Agrardiesel tax refund restored from January 2026<\/td>\n \u20ac0.2148\/litre<\/strong><\/td>\n Energy-tax refund for eligible agricultural and forestry businesses<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n