ANNEXES

Annex 3: Advantages and disadvantages of different organization type

Organization Type	Description	Advantages	Disadvantages	Comments
1. Informal organization types	No organization body State provides only the general framework.	Easy to establish No standards to fulfil Very flexible and adaptable to a range of situations	No clear rights and responsibilities Restricted to l imited geographical limited area Often only short term	Various forms Widely used especially among larger properties
1a. Management by contract	Direct agreement between two or more parties The contract content influences the production process. Successfully introduced in agriculture.	Clear rights & responsibilities Market driven Voluntary	Tend to be for limited area or group of properties Limited production and market possibilities Forest products not in enough quantity to differentiate and so market effectively	Not popular in the forestry field, but of high potential, due to the growing impact of forest industry on properties
1b. Informal arrangements	Flexible agreements between 2 or several owners.	Very flexible and adaptive No regulations necessary	Impact only on a small scale Only attractive for short term co-operation, and specific situations	Widely implemented Limited impact
1c. Forest land management	Voluntary or compulsory merger of dispersed plots Subsidies provided as incentives	Creation of larger property units Well functioning system in agriculture	Complex administrative procedure Difficult valuation process Effective only when additional organizational activities are included	Not popular in the forestry field Only suitable for owners with several forest plots
1 d. (Group) Certification	Labelling of forest properties for best management practices through external certifiers	Can bring a group of owners together Spells out rights and responsibilities	Criteria not clear yet Competition among labels/brand names Not easy to adapt to small woodlots	Not widely implemented yet, but of growing importance especially in connection with formal organization types
2. Formal organization types	Various organizational structures exist The state provides the legal framework and defines organization standards	Clear options and demand framework Various forms to choose	Sometimes hard to fulfil standards Limited list of options	Already the majority of private forest land organized, but small owners under represented.
2a. With mainly political function	Several types operating at the national level The political function is often connected with an information role of members. Membership may be either voluntary or obligatory	Interest representation and co-ordination of political activities	No direct influence on forest management Small scale owners not always represented	Organizations already exist in every country
2a1. Federation	Voluntary association of independent partners, with limited purpose Objectives are to secure the independence and self management of members or member organizations. Active on national level.	No state influence Various member groups with possible bundling of various interests Voluntary membership Benefits extended to non- members	Limited local decision making power due to lack of regional or local organization units	Forestry federations exist in Austria, France, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Slovakia in Austria this is in combination with farmers organization
2a2. Chamber (of Agriculture)	Professional self administrated public corporation Membership is obligatory for all landowners Units exist at (national) provincial and regional level Partly functions as an authority.	Multi - level structure Representative body for all land owners	Though organizational structures at the regional level, no real influence on forest management,	Where existing (Austria and partly Germany) total land base coverage. Well established contact partner for forest owners
2a3. Union	Voluntary co-operative body of independent members, membership limited to a specific profession / group. Active only on national level	No state influence, bundling of specific interests, benefits specifically for members	Lack of regional / local level units, no or only weak links to related fields	Unions in the forestry field exist in Finland and France. As combined interest organization for farmers and forest owners very powerful
2a4. National association	Grouping of local / regional / provincial owner organizations and individuals to gain common interests. Voluntary membership.	Bundling of local, regional, provincial interests Close links to forest practice	No real influence on regional / local level member organizations	Examples in Finland, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia,
2b. With mainly information function	Several types mostly operating on the local / regional level. The information function is often connected with a political function. Voluntary membership	Close to the needs of members Promotion of communication Problem centered	No measures to implement decisions No direct forest management promotion or improvement	Not very often implemented but of high potential in future forestry debates
2b1. Forum	Platform or group of people to provide an expert discussion of problems or issues. Members are elected or delegated.	On the local level Exchange of information often cross sector	Only discussion with no decision making and implementation capacity	Not implemented at the local or national level yet. Precondition is the willingness to exchange information
2b2. Committee	Group of people with specific tasks. Members are either elected or delegated	Exchange on a specific task. Can be very powerful	Concentrate on specific topics Problem of candidates	Exist only in Norway at the local level.
2b3 Non-profit association	Organization form with exclusively non commercial activities Voluntary membership	Easy to create Good organizational type to start joint activities No or little capital necessary Possible local unit of multi level association structure	Too informal No direct impact on forest management Economically not attractive	Generally the first step towards a multi service organization. Still exist in Germany and France, though with decreasing importance.
2c. With mainly economic motive	Different levels of co-operation in forest management. Operate on the local level Membership tends to be voluntary.	Attractive for owners with economic objectives Profits and self financing possible	Expert management necessary High administrative costs	The dominant organizational type Offers clear measurable advantages for forest owners.
2c1. Forest Association as interest association as management association	Voluntary co-operative organizations for a common purpose Founded through agreement on statutes Interest association or management association according to the level of co-operation Bodies are usually the general assembly the board of executives and a chairman Different legal forms possible	Most common type Mainly as interest association Easy to establish Flexible tasks Joint stand management possible Individual ownership of properties	Interest Associations don't allow for joint management Management Associations strongly depends on active board of executives and manager Management Associations not interesting for smaller properties	Dominant form in Europe In Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and already in Latvia and Slovakia. Very flexible and adaptable regarding activities. High potential for future
2c2. Co-operative as interest association as management association as corporate forest	Unlimited membership co-operation body with the objective of providing support to members through joint management Members own shares of the co-operative Voluntary membership. Exist as interest association, management association or corporate forest Diversification through function, e.g. machine co-operative (machine circle), marketing co-operative, supply co-operative or consumer co-operative possible	Clear rights and responsibilities through statutes, board of directors and executive committee Different levels of co-operation possible on voluntary basis, Members are share holders Working examples in agriculture	Not easy to establish compared to forest associations Though individual ownership of land is possible the term may be misinterpreted Minimum compulsory membership fee.	Implemented in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden and Slovenia. Same development potential, though limited by the establishment procedures
2c3. Corporation as interest association as management association as corporate forest	Organized community with legal capacity and different legal forms. Exists as corporation under public or private law In public law corporations membership is obligatory Individuals as well as organizations are accepted for membership	All forms of co-operation level possible Clear organizational structures Simple for decision making	Not very accepted Strong state supervision,	Only exist in Germany, though not common even there (52 units with 11500 members).
2c4. Community Forest as management association as corporate forest	Commonly owned property Voluntary or established through state Joint forest management of the common property or of the remaining individual property Management either directly by individual members or indirectly through an organizational body	Joint forest management of larger areas Of interest to absentee forest owners Decisions and management impact on total member area	Hard to create if individual ownership is lost	Only exist in Austria (and as historical bodies in Germany) Growing interest in this option, now reaching 5% (330,000 ha) of the forested area.