F.C. HummelF.C. HUMMEL is the retired Chief of the Division of Forestry and Environment of the Commission of the European Economic Community. Before that he was one of the four full-time Forestry Commissioners of the United Kingdom. This article is an updated version of "Forestry policy in the European Community" which appeared in Resource Management and Optimization, Vol. 1 (1) New York, February 1980, to whom Unasylya is grateful for permission to use it.
The 10 member states of the European Economic Community account for less than 1 percent of the world's forest area but for over one third of world trade in wood and wood products. All the states are net importers in the forest product sector and their combined negative trade balance amounts to at least $17.5 thousand million per year, a figure which is exceeded only by the oil sector. A high level of substainable production from the EEC's 34 million ha of forests is very important because the community as a whole is not well endowed with natural resources. At the same time, increasing and, to some extent, conflicting demands are made on the forests for the conservation of the environment and the provision of recreational facilities. These pressures are very considerable because of the high population density in the European Community with its 267 million inhabitants. There is only about 0.13 ha of forests per head of population.
There has hitherto been no common forestry policy in the European Economic Community although some specific common measures have been taken. The need for a greater coordination of national forestry policies and for additional measures at the Community level is becoming more and more apparent as other EEC policies are developed which influence and are influenced by forestry policy. Thus the supply of wood to forest industries is an essential element of raw material and industrial policies. There are strong links with agricultural and regional policies because large areas of forest and of marginal and sub-marginal agricultural land, which is suitable for forestry, occur in the poorest regions of the Community where forestry and the industries based on it provide opportunities for employment and help to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the local population. The main contribution of forests to social policies is that they facilitate the enjoyment of nature by urban populations. The role of forests in the conservation of soil, water, wildlife and landscape provides a link with environmental policy.
A question which has started to be asked is whether there should not be some shift of emphasis from agriculture, on which the EEC is spending far more than $10 thousand million a year in subsidies, to forestry on which far less than 5 percent of this amount is spent, bearing in mind the contrast between the large surplus of certain agricultural products and the even larger deficit in the forest product sector.
The forest estate
The 33.81 million ha of forest represent 21 percent of the total land area of the EEC, or about the same as the area occupied by cereals and one third of the area devoted to farming as a whole.
Forests are very unevenly distributed among the member states. France alone accounts for about 41 percent of the total forest area and, together with the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, for almost 85 percent. These countries are not only the largest but also, with the exception of Luxembourg, the most densely wooded in the European Economic Community. The contrasts between member states are even greater in terms of forest area per head of population. In France, Greece and Luxembourg, this area is twice as great as in any other member state and more than 10 times as much as in the Netherlands.
SUNDAY AFTERNOON ON THE EDGE OF AN ENGLISH FOREST why so many Europeans support forestry
Comparisons with countries outside the Community reveal just how poorly endowed with forests is the EEC. In the United States, for example, the forest area per head is about 2.4 ha. This is almost 10 times as much as in France, 20 times as much as the EEC average and one hundred times as much as in the Netherlands. These differences have important policy and management implications. The greater the population in relation to the forest area, the greater becomes the need for policy measures such as zoning according to prime function in order to achieve a sensible balance between wood production and the environmental and recreational roles of the forest.
Forests are owned by the state, by other public bodies such as local communities and by private persons. Table 2 shows the area in each of these categories of ownership. The main points to note in Table 2 are:
· 57 percent of the forests are privately owned, the other 43 percent being more or less equally divided between the state and public bodies.· The distribution of ownership varies greatly between member states.
· The proportion of state forests is relatively high in the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and Ireland; in France, the area of state forests is considerable but it constitutes only a modest proportion of the total forest area.
The ownership pattern has several implications for forestry policy. The state forests are generally in fairly large units and are efficiently managed by a hierarchy of highly qualified forest officers and foresters. New policies and new technological advances are easily introduced by appropriate administrative action.
Private forests on the other hand are highly fragmented. All except about 50000 of the 3 million woodland owners have less than 50 ha. Very few woodland owners, whatever the size of their holding, depend on forestry for their living. Most are farmers or other local residents but there are also town dwellers who own woodlands, usually as a safe refuge for capital or for recreation and the satisfaction of owning a forest. The standard of management of private woodlands varies greatly. Some are among the best managed woodlands in the world, but the average standard is lower than in the state forests. The reasons are easy to understand: lack of motivation when the reward for additional effort is small, the management difficulties associated with very small units of ownership and, in some instances, insufficient knowledge of forestry.
It would be neither practicable nor even probably desirable to strive for any drastic reduction in the number of owners. Most owners depend on other activities for their main source of work and income. Very few would have the capital or the inclination to concentrate entirely on forestry. Two main methods have been tried in order to rationalize the management of small woodland holdings:
· Associations of woodland owners.· Enterprises which undertake the harvesting and sale of timber or the entire management of woodlands by contract; some of these enterprises are more or less independent while others are subsidiaries of forest industries whose main object is to secure their wood supplies.
SELECTIVE LOGGING IN FRANCE most EEC forest management is geared to sawlog production
Both approaches have produced good as well as poor results. Whatever methods are used to combat the effects of fragmentation of ownership, success is likely to depend largely on initiatives which the owners themselves are prepared to take.
One category of woodland owners which is important in some parts of the world is almost completely absent in all member states, namely the forest industries. Some forest industries do, however, encourage wood production in various ways, for example, by research on poplars and other fast growing species and by making plants of these species available to private growers. This is a useful initiative.
The area under forest in the European Common Market changes slowly. For many centuries, the forest area decreased as more and more land was cleared for agriculture. More recently, this trend has stopped and in some member states it has been reversed. There are as yet no complete statistics of these changes but the information which is available gives some indication of what is happening. In the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, the total forest area has remained virtually unchanged during the past 15 years but each year about 10000 ha of forest were lost, nearly all to urban use, while a similar area of bare sub-marginal agricultural land was afforested, In Belgium, too, the forest area has remained unchanged during the past two decades, In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, there has been an average net increase in forest area during this period of 30000-40000 ha per year, the afforestation being shared more or less equally between private owners and the state. In Ireland, where the forest area is very small, the annual rate of afforestation has been running at about 10000 ha, nearly all by the state, and there has been almost no forest clearance.
The change of land use between agriculture and forestry is reversible and need not impair the long-term biological production potential of a site. The conversion to urban use, on the other hand, is generally irreversible and takes the land permanently out of production. The consequences are, therefore, much more serious.
It is believed that about 5 million ha of the land in the EEC are sub marginal for agriculture but suitable for forestry and not needed for other purposes. A more accurate assessment could only be made as part of a general land classification and the formulation of a general land-use policy. Irrespective of ownership, the afforestation of this land would appear to be in the public interest, subject to appropriate environmental safeguards in sensitive areas where the conservation of a particular type of ecosystem is considered necessary. There is very little risk of the undesirable afforestation of good farmland; on most of this type of land, farming is more profitable than forestry and where it is not, afforestation is unlikely to conflict with agriculture or other policies affecting land use. It seems probable that there will continue to be little pressure to clear substantial forest areas for agriculture. Tree clearance is likely to be confined, as in recent years, to hedgerows and very small woods for the purpose of increasing the size and improving the manageability of agricultural areas. The impact of such clearings on future wood production is negligible, but they may lead to wind erosion of the soil and to the destruction of wildlife habitats which may be essential for the survival of certain species of animals and plants.
The pressure to clear forest land for urban uses, according to present indications, is likely to persist in the foreseeable future in spite of the recent decline in birth rates. The pressure is increased by the fact that land values for urban uses are many times higher than for forestry. Although the area involved in such conversions is much smaller than the increases in forest area through afforestation, it must cause concern. However, this problem can be dealt with effectively only in the context of general land-use policy and not through forestry policy alone.
Wood production
The economic production of wood has been the main forestry policy objective in most suitable forests. The income from timber production has been, and is likely to remain, the main source of finance to pay for forest management, including conservation. Wood production in the EEC was approximately 80 million m3 per year for the first 20 years and is now 85 million m3. Most of the wood comes from 20 million ha of productive high forest, but some comes also from 7 million ha of coppice and from the remaining 5 million ha of other land classed as forest, as well as from trees outside the forest. Yields from coppice are of significance mainly in France. Trees outside the forest constitute a significant proportion of total production in a few countries. In the Netherlands, lines of fast-growing poplars are planted on a large scale between fields and along roads; the same applies to parts of Italy and France where there are also larger plantations of poplar. In England, much of the oak that is felled comes from hedgerows and small clumps of trees which are still a typical and pleasing feature of the landscape.
Within the high forest, about one half to two thirds of the volume yield and a much larger proportion of the money yield are derived from the harvesting of mature stands. The rest comes from the thinning of young stands.
Table 1. Distribution of forests in the European Economic Community
|
|
Forest area |
||
|
Total 1000 ha |
As percentage of land area |
Hectares per head |
|
|
Belgium |
615 |
20 |
0.06 |
|
Denmark |
470 |
11 |
0.09 |
|
Germany, Fed. Rep. of |
7200 |
29 |
0.12 |
|
France |
13950 |
25 |
0.28 |
|
Ireland |
330 |
4 |
0.09 |
|
Italy |
6300 |
21 |
0.12 |
|
Luxembourg |
85 |
32 |
0.24 |
|
Netherlands |
310 |
8 |
0.02 |
|
United Kingdom |
2020 |
8 |
0.04 |
|
Greece |
2500 |
19 |
0.26 |
|
EEC |
33780 |
|
|
Source: FAO.
Table 2. Forest ownership in the European Economic Community
|
|
Areas 1000 ha |
|||
|
State owned |
Other public |
Private |
Total |
|
|
Belgium |
75 |
220 |
320 |
615 |
|
Denmark |
135 |
50 |
285 |
470 |
|
Germany, Fed. Rep. of |
2250 |
1800 |
3150 |
7200 |
|
France |
1720 |
2480 |
9750 |
13950 |
|
Ireland |
250 |
- |
80 |
330 |
|
Italy |
350 |
2150 |
3800 |
6300 |
|
Luxembourg |
5 |
30 |
50 |
85 |
|
Netherlands |
85 |
50 |
175 |
310 |
|
United Kingdom |
880 |
- |
1140 |
2020 |
|
Greece |
1640 |
300 |
560 |
2500 |
|
EEC |
7390 |
7080 |
19310 |
33780 |
Source: FAO.
The main points to note in regard to EEC wood production are these:
· The dominant position of the Federal Republic of Germany and France.· The total annual yield of 85 million m3 works out at only 2.5 m3 per hectare if related to the total forest area, and at 3.5 m3 per ha if related to the area of productive high forests. This is very low considering that in systematically managed forests average yields of 5-8 m3 are obtained.
· In the Federal Republic of Germany, the average yield per hectare is relatively high because a large proportion of the total forest area consists of productive high forest and within the latter the proportion of conifers is high.
· The very low yields in Italy are due in part to difficult site conditions, in part to the preponderance of broad-leaved species and in part to extensive areas of coppice on good land which could be converted into more productive high forest.
· The apparent low yields in the United Kingdom and Ireland are deceptive; in fact a very large proportion of the total forest area consists of plantations which are highly productive but as yet too young to yield a significant harvest.
Most forest management in the EEC is geared to the production of high quality sawlogs, which fetch a much higher price than pulpwood and cost much less to harvest. This form of management requires longer rotations and the retention of a larger volume of growing timber in the forest. This is considered a disadvantage more by economists than by most woodland owners, public and private. Woodland owners are understandably more concerned with net income and the security afforded by a capital reserve than with estimates of the percentage return which the income represents on capital invested, especially as such estimates can give very misleading results in times of inflation. In certain forests, long rotations may be required for ecological or amenity reasons.
By 1980, the EEC countries were importing about $25 thousand million worth of wood products. This gross import figure was offset by EEC wood exports amounting to $7.5 thousand million, leaving a wood products net import bill of $17.5 thousand million. This represents a significant change from the situation in 1974 when the EEC had a net import cost of only $9 thousand million in this sector. The present annual production of about 85 million m3 of wood in the European Economic Community is expected to rise, under existing national forestry policy, by about I percent per year up to the year 2000, while demand is expected to rise to almost 2 percent per year if present trends continue. The need for imports will thus continue to increase in the absence of new initiatives by the EEC countries to produce more wood themselves. Is there a case for such new initiatives? The following considerations suggest that there is.
The EEC has the potential at least to double its wood production by the year 2050. Politics and economics will determine the extent to which it does so. Still, given the expected increase in demand for wood products within the EEC - almost 2 percent annually - it would be impossible to achieve self-sufficiency.· The European Economic Community already accounts for more than one third of world trade in wood and wood products. As has been noted, wood imports represent the second largest expenditure of foreign exchange after oil.
· Few or no additional supplies can be expected from Scandinavia, which is already experiencing some difficulty in maintaining the present level of exports from indigenous wood resources. Even if additional wood continues to be available in North America, the USSR and the tropics, supplies from the natural forests there will have to come from less accessible areas than before, which will add to the cost of harvesting and transport.
· Although the potential supply of wood from plantations of fast growing species in the tropics may be great, the actual amounts that will become available are still very uncertain.
· The EEC will be in competition for its additional requirements with other customers, including some developing countries, where present consumption is low but may rise quickly if development, in fact, occurs.
· The cost of imports is likely to rise even faster than the volume because exporting countries are understandably insisting more and more on the export of wood products rather than of wood.
The main ways of increasing the availability of wood and wood products from indigenous sources are obvious. They are to harvest more wood; to raise the long-term production potential of existing forests; to engage in afforestation of unproductive land; and to use wood more completely and efficiently, for example, by increased recycling of waste paper.
The harvesting of additional wood would make an immediate impact on the supply situation. In the first place, there are overmature high forest stands where early regeneration would not reduce but rather increase the longer term production potential of the forest. Then there are many young stands which could be thinned more heavily without loss of increment, but which are left unthinned because the cost of harvesting is too high in relation to the price which is obtainable. Given the necessary economic incentives, the annual harvest could be increased by some 10 million m3 over the next few years. The long-term production potential of the existing forests could, it is estimated, be raised by about 60 million m3 per year, or from 85 million m3 to about 145 million m3. The increase would come, in part, from the conversion of about half of the currently unproductive forest as well as from the more intensive management of the forest which is already classed as productive. The estimate is undoubtedly conservative because 145 million m3 from 34 million ha still works out at less than 5 m3/ha/year: far less than that already achieved over large areas on comparable sites.
The afforestation of an estimated 4-5 million ha of bare land which is sub-marginal for agriculture but suitable for forestry and likely to be available for that purpose would increase production in the long term by a further 25 million m3 per year. It is worth noting that over 2 million ha have already been afforested during the past 30 years and that some member states continue with an active afforestation programme. The use of stumps, branches, roots, the better utilization of sawmill residues and the higher recovery of waste paper could together add some 20 million ma per year of roundwood or roundwood equivalent in the short term - say within 15 years - and about twice as much in the long term.
The overall picture that emerges is that the availability of wood and wood products from indigenous resources could be increased by about 30 million m3 per year in the short term and by about 125 million m3 per year some time before the year 2050. Economics and politics will determine how much of this potential increase will in fact be achieved. In spite of the very large potential increase in production, it would clearly not be possible to achieve self-sufficiency, bearing in mind the likely increase in demand; nor would it be sensible to stimulate production by raising the internal price of wood above the world market price. The wood processing industries of the EEC would either become quite uncompetitive or they would have to be protected against imports in a way which would be contrary to the EEC's trading policies and interests. Other solutions might be sought. However, with all these qualifications, there is no good reason why production should not be at least doubled by the year 2050.
A FAMILIAR MEDITERRANEAN SCENE in southern Europe goats are still a problem for foresters
Conservation
The role of the EEC forests in the conservation of nature has many aspects. In any given region, some aspects of conservation are more important than others. In the Mediterranean region and the Alps, the prevention of erosion and soil and water conservation are of supreme importance as otherwise there can be no civilized rural life. Forestry is the key to soil and water conservation under these extreme conditions of topography and climate. Specific actions are needed:
· The protection and appropriate management of existing forests.· The rehabilitation of forests degraded through grazing, fire or excessive exploitation in the past.
· The afforestation of bare slopes combined, where necessary, with terracing and other engineering works.
· Further research to enable the above actions to be taken more effectively.
The excellent work that has already been done demonstrates the possibilities of bringing back new life to areas where past destruction of the forest has created barren mountain-sides or has converted former agricultural land into grazing land which is almost too poor even for the frugal and destructive goat. Under these conditions, there is a particularly close link between forestry and agricultural re-development.
Under less extreme conditions of climate and topography, the main conservational aspects of forests that need attention are wildlife habitats and their role in the landscape. In most forests, it has been found that the production of timber is quite compatible with conservation, although some adjustments to management may be necessary - for example, the avoidance of large clear-feelings on steep slopes or on dry, hot sites. Forests with a particularly important conservational role are rarely those which are best suited for the economic production of timber because they tend to be on sites with poor soil or terrain difficult for logging, but there are exceptions where a forest has an economic potential but can only fulfil its conservational function if all timber harvesting and recreation are excluded.
The forest cannot fulfil its role in safeguarding the environment unless it is itself protected. Forests are exposed to many dangers, the importance of which varies according to local circumstances. Among the most important are fire, wind and diseases. Uncontrolled grazing in forests used to be more widespread than now, but where it still occurs the damage can be great, especially in the Mediterranean region. Recent developments have increased greatly the risk of damage caused by man: the influx of visitors has added to the fire danger; in order to create ski runs, forests have been cleared on steep slopes where they are most needed for the prevention of erosion; in some areas the haphazard development of second residences is not only eating into the forest but adding to the risk of fire in what is left of the forest. The decisions concerning such matters as the development of second residences in forests and the creation of ski runs do not normally rest with the forest services.
The costs and possible loss of revenue which are associated with conservational aspects of forest management are difficult to quantify; even more difficult is the quantification of the benefits, either in physical or in economic terms, although the damage that is done when these aspects are ignored is only too evident. There are very few statistics on these matters, either in the EEC or elsewhere, nor has a study as yet been made at EEC level of the measures taken and results achieved in furtherance of environmental objectives in forestry in the member states. This is an omission which it is intended to rectify as soon as possible.
Traditionally, the forester in most European countries has been a hunter, trained in all aspects of wildlife management. It is, therefore, not surprising that in a majority of member states the forest authority is also closely concerned with wildlife management. The main objectives of most wildlife programmes may be summarized as follows:
· To maintain a healthy but not excessive population of as many species as are appropriate to a region and in harmony with local traditions.· To avoid, as far as possible, interference with other aspects of forest management and agriculture, especially through game damage.
Legislation concerning hunting varies considerably between the EEC countries. It is most highly developed in the Federal Republic of Germany, where a comprehensive federal law on hunting has recently been passed. As hunting laws and customs are deeply rooted in local tradition and are adapted to suit local circumstances, there would be little point in trying to alter this situation except to insist on certain minimum standards in the interests of safety to human life and prevention of cruelty to animals. There are also other matters which call less for EEC action than for arrangements between neighbouring member states. Examples are the timing for hunting seasons along common frontiers and any special conservation measures for species such as chamois which are restricted to limited habitats. Control measures against pests such as wood-pigeons which do not respect national frontiers might also be considered in this context.
Finally, it is worth noting that the European Economic Community participates actively in the development of broader international measures for the conservation of wildlife.
|
The EEC's forestry research programme The European Economic Community has a research programme for forestry and forest products as part of its study of raw materials. The programme embraces all aspects of forestry, harvesting of wood, primary and secondary processing and the possible uses of wood as a chemical feedstock. Research on its use as a source of energy is already covered by an existing research programme on energy from biomass. The programme has two main objectives. The first is to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and to promote cooperation and collaboration between the member states by financing meetings, visits by research workers to other countries and exchanges of research workers. The second objective is to stimulate research on particular priority projects or for projects which are beyond the capacity of any one member state. While primarily intended for the benefit of the EEC, it provides for collaboration with other countries. On the timber side, the main emphasis is on species grown within the EEC, but imported timbers, including tropical timbers, may be considered if relevant to their processing and use in the member states. The provisional budget for the programme has been fixed at 12 million EEC units of account (equivalent to about $12 million) for a four-year period. EEC units of account are based on a weighted basket of currencies of the member countries. They vary with the average international values of the currencies of the member states in relation to other currencies. |
Recreation
The opening of forests to the public and the provision of recreational facilities such as picnic sites, car parks and information centres have become major elements not only of forestry policy but also of social policy in the EEC. These are, in fact, aspects of forestry with the greatest appeal to wide sections of the general public, especially in towns and other densely populated areas. The opening of forests has also led to a better understanding by the public of forests and of nature in general. On the other hand, the opening increases the risk of damage through fire and other causes, including vandalism. State-owned and other public forests in the member states are generally open to the public for recreational purposes. Access to private forests varies from country to country and depends not only on the laws in force but also on the density of population, the degree of urbanization, the distribution of forest within a country, the amount of accessible forest per head of population, local habits and a number of other factors.
Out of more than 34 million ha of forest in the EEC, only about half are open and usable for recreational purposes and an average of only 600 m2 of forest are available to each inhabitant. This figure varies as between member states from 2400 m2 in Luxembourg to 150 m2 in the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands. So far, access as such has been considered with no provision for any special facilities for the visitor. There is, however, an increasing demand and need for facilities such as car parks, picnic sites, camping facilities and information centres. Where such facilities are created, there is also a need to make the necessary sanitary arrangements. Recreational facilities help to concentrate the public in certain areas where suitable exhibits, literature and verbal explanations by qualified personnel can also help to create an interest in and better understanding of nature in general and forests in particular. The concentration of visitors in certain areas also reduces pressure elsewhere in the forest where the public would be less welcome. The creation of recreational facilities in forests is, with few exceptions, a very recent development of the past 15 to 20 years and the amount and type of facilities provided vary greatly between member states to suit local circumstances. The demand is obviously greatest in densely populated areas, especially where there are no beaches and few other opportunities for open-air leisure activities within easy reach.
In most forests the aim has been not to provide the leisure facilities which are available elsewhere. Those who like crowds, noise and machines have plenty of opportunities for enjoyment outside the forest. On the other hand, there tend to be few opportunities near towns except in forests for the quiet enjoyment of nature. It is, therefore, widely accepted by forest services that public access to forests should be mainly on foot. The installation and maintenance of leisure facilities in forests requires special skills and adequate supervision; it is also expensive and there is rarely much income. The cost of the provision of recreational facilities in the forest beyond the mere granting of access on foot and from which no commercial return is to be expected is generally borne by the state and other public bodies. Private forest owners are normally under no obligation to provide or let others provide such facilities in their woodlands.
Organization
The way forestry is fitted into the general organization of governments varies considerably between member states. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for forestry in Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands; the Department of Fisheries and Forestry is responsible in Ireland, the Ministry of Home Affairs in Luxembourg, the Ministry of Environment in Denmark where, however, some residual functions in relation to private forests have been retained by the Ministry of Agriculture which had originally been responsible for the whole of forestry. In the United Kingdom, the Forestry Commission, which is the forestry authority in England, Scotland and Wales, is responsible to three ministers but does not form part of any ministry. This diversity in organization is not surprising because forestry necessarily concerns several government departments and it is a matter of judgement where it should be placed.
In some member states such as the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom, the forestry authority itself manages the state forests while in other member states, such as France, the forestry authority function, which includes responsibility for private forests, is separated organizationally from the management of the state forests. The degree of devolution of responsibilities to regions also differs considerably. In France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, there is a high degree of centralization while in the Federal Republic of Germany each of the eleven "Länder" has its separate forest service. In Italy, too, there is a high degree of decentralization to the regions. In this respect, forestry tends to follow certain general trends in the countries concerned.
The different approaches by member states to the organization of forestry administration are determined in part by circumstances which cannot readily be changed, such as the fact that the ownership of state forests in the Federal Republic of Germany is vested in the Länder, and in part the approaches are a matter of choice. Generally Speaking, it would appear that the greater the division of responsibilities, the more difficult it becomes to implement forestry policies efficiently. It seems particularly important that the responsibility for all activities in the forest - timber production as well as conservational and recreational measures - should be undivided. Only in this way can a proper coordination of these functions of the forest be assured.
|
EEC forestry assistance to developing countries The EEC Budget for Overseas Aid provides assistance to forestry in developing countries. Countries that were formerly part of the British and French empires have been the main beneficiaries but recently other developing countries have also been included. Here are some examples of EEC forestry projects with the approximate value of the assistance in US dollars. Burundi. Assistance to establish forests to guard against erosion on degraded land. The timber will be used for construction and firewood ($2.2 million). Solomon Islands. Trees are being planted which will eventually provide good quality hardwood for both local needs and export ($625000). Trinidad and Tobago. Timber for furniture making ($1 million). French Polynesia. Equipment has been provided and trees planted as part of a long-term programme to replace timber imports ($900000). Mauritania. A pilot project for reafforestation aims to provide firewood, prevent soil erosion and provide gum arabic ($800000). India. A large afforestation and soil conservation scheme in the Indo Gangetic basin aims to rehabilitate eroded areas and prevent floods ($7 million). These are examples of projects where forestry is the principal element. Forestry components play an increasing role as well in integrated rural development programmes where they are mainly concerned with soil and water conservation and the provision of fuelwood. |
Forestry legislation
There is a marked difference between member states in their whole approach to forestry legislation. Some, notably the United Kingdom, prefer to keep legislation to a minimum and to supplement it, where necessary, by administrative procedures while other member states prefer very comprehensive legislation which leaves less administrative discretion. Partly as a consequence of this difference in basic approach, woodland owners in some member states are much freer to manage their woodlands as they wish than in others. At the same time, those who can mostly do as they please also tend to get the least financial and technical help from the state.
Generally speaking, forestry legislation in all member states appears to be adequate or even more than adequate for the implementation of existing policies; an important exception in certain member states is legislation concerning the problems associated with the opening of forests to the public. This deficiency is understandable because the large-scale recreational use of forests is relatively new.
A FARM IN THE MIDDLE OF A TUSCAN FOREST an historically European harmony of agriculture and forestry
Taxation and incentives. Forestry taxation and financial aids to forestry in the member states have been examined in a study entitled Forestry problems and their implications for the environment in the member states of the European Community (Commission of the European Communities, Information on Agriculture series No. 25, 1976). The systems of forest taxation in the member states are based primarily on income tax, which is supplemented in some countries by a capital or wealth tax or by various taxes on land and other real property, as well as by the inheritance and gift taxes payable in the case of changes of ownership. In addition, a value added tax, whose principles are standard, is payable on the turnover of forest holdings.
Both the income and other forestry taxes levied differ widely between member states in content as well as the level at which they are raised. Precise comparisons are difficult for a number of reasons which complicate the issue: for example, the effect of a woodland owner's income from other sources and parafiscal liabilities such as social security payments in respect of employees. Nevertheless, the study referred to above gives some useful indications. The study also indicates how various member states seek to adapt their taxation systems to the special characteristics of forestry listed above. The following are a few examples.
The EEC is concerned about its wood import bill, a net foreign exchange loss of $17.5 thousand million a year, second only to what it spends on imported oil. It is looking for ways to grow more wood and to make better use of its forests.
For income tax:
· Low rate or no tax at all under certain circumstances.· Simple method of assessment (based on rental value of land, yield potential or site quality).
· Some provision for setting off losses against income.
For taxes on transfer of property:
· Low rate or high threshold below which no tax is payable.· Deferred payment if new owner continues to manage holding for a minimum period in an acceptable way.
In general, the level of tax is lowered if the owner complies with certain standards of management. There can obviously be no attempt to harmonize forestry taxation in the EEC in isolation from taxation generally of which it forms a relatively small part, but it is hoped that a close examination of the results of the study will enable each member state gradually to improve, within the framework of its national taxation system, its system of forestry taxation so as to make it a more effective instrument of forestry policy. The process is likely lead to a gradual convergence of forestry taxation systems but that is not an aim in itself.
In most of the member states private forests receive some form of state aid. There are great differences in the purposes for which aid is given, in the way it is given and the level. The main purposes for which aid is given in one or more countries are:
· The afforestation of trees outside the forest.· The raising of the productivity of existing forest areas through soil improvement and silvicultural measures.
· The construction of forest roads and tracks.
· Procurement of specialized forestry equipment (e.g., for harvesting).
· Protective measures against fire and disease.
· The formation of forestry associations.
· Making good the damage from major calamities such as fire and wind blow.
· Opening of forests to the public.
Direct aids for specific purposes, such as those listed above, can be adapted to specific circumstances and varied according to changing needs much more readily than direct aids given by means of tax concessions. All the same, to be effective and to maintain confidence, there must also be a reasonable measure of continuity in the granting of direct aids.
One form of aid which is conspicuous by its almost complete absence is a thinning grant for the dual purpose of ensuring good silviculture and the flow of more small-sized wood to forest industries.
The Commission of the EEC, which is its executive body, has stated its intention of examining the desirability of an increased participation by the EEC in the provision of financial incentives to forestry as a means of:
· Helping to achieve agreed forestry policy objectives.· Ensuring that forestry contributes as effectively as possible to the EEC's regional, agricultural, environmental and other relevant policies.
Research and development. Much forest research and development work undertaken in the European Economic Community is of a standard as high as any in the world, but the research effort as a whole is very dispersed and as a result is carried out by a large number of mostly fairly small research institutes. Some are directly controlled by the forest services concerned such as the research directorate of the Forestry Commission in the United Kingdom or the Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Forst- und Holzwirtschaft near Hamburg and the forest research institutes of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany. Some are controlled by other government agencies such as the Centre national de recherches forestières at Nancy in France. Some form part of or are attached to university faculties of forestry. Some are controlled by forest industries or forest industrial associations and, finally, research on certain aspects of forestry is carried out by agricultural or environmental research institutes. This great dispersal of research effort not only results in a lack of direction but in some unnecessary duplication of effort. It must, however, be emphasized that not all duplication is wasteful since the particular approach to a research problem adopted by one research team may prove more effective than that adopted by another. Given the historic origins and the institutional framework within which the research organizations operate, the fragmentation of research must for the time being be accepted as a fact of life. That does not mean to say that nothing can be done to improve the cost-effectiveness of the forestry research effort in the EEC. In fact, the first modest steps have been taken.
At the suggestion of the heads of the forest services in the member states, the EEC has established an informal working group of the heads of the central government forest research establishments in the member states. This group has been meeting once or twice a year since 1974. Cooperation between member states in certain aspects of research, notably tree breeding, has been strengthened and a few research programmes which call for action at EEC level have been launched. They are concerned with forest fire prevention with special reference to the Mediterranean region, wood as a source of energy, the forestry aspects of broader land-use problems (site classification, use of marginal land, etc.) and certain tree diseases, especially the Dutch elm disease. In order to put the whole forestry research effort on a more solid basis, a study was commissioned in 1980 to review the research effort in the EEC concerning forestry and forest products with the object of identifying systematically research priorities at both national and EEC levels. This study has resulted in the forestry research programme described in Part 3. All forestry research in the EEC is done in close cooperation with the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), of which most forestry research institutes in the European Economic Community are members.
Table 3. Wood production by EEC countries in 1980
|
|
Total million m3 |
|||
|
Conifers |
Broadleaved |
Total |
m3 of roundwood per ha |
|
|
Belgium |
1.5 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
4.0 |
|
Denmark |
1.2 |
0.8 |
2.0 |
4.2 |
|
Germany, Fed. Rep. of |
22.7 |
10.3 |
33.0 |
4.5 |
|
France |
14.2 |
16.6 |
30.8 |
2.2 |
|
Ireland |
0.4 |
- |
0.4 |
1.2 |
|
Italy |
1.5 |
6.8 |
8.3 |
1.3 |
|
Luxembourg |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
2.3 |
|
Netherlands |
0.6 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
2.6 |
|
United Kingdom |
2.8 |
1.2 |
4.0 |
2.0 |
|
Greece |
0.6 |
2.2 |
2.8 |
1.1 |
|
EEC |
45.6 |
39.2 |
84.8 |
2.5 |
Source: FAO.
Table 4. How the EEC countries use their forests
(Between 1973 and 1980 there was little difference in the primary industrial uses to which EEC countries put the trees from their forests. One notable change was a large increase in use of wood for fuel.)
|
|
1973-75 |
1980 |
|
Millions of m3 of roundwood |
||
|
Sawmills and plywood mills |
45 |
45 |
|
Pulp mills |
13 |
14 |
|
Particle board mills |
7 |
8 |
|
As poles (transmission or construction use) |
3 |
3 |
|
As round mining timber |
2 |
1 |
|
For other industrial uses |
2 |
2 |
|
For fuelwood and charcoal |
8 |
12 |
|
Total |
80 |
85 |
Source: FAO.
Education and training. The education and training programmes of those engaged in forestry in the EEC have undergone considerable change since the EEC was formed in 1958. Even so, these activities have not been able to keep up with the changes in requirements brought about in part by the mechanization of forestry operations and in part by the enhanced environmental and recreational roles of the forest. University courses for those who wish to make forestry their career are available in all member states except Luxembourg. The courses differ considerably in content, but they are all of a similar high standard. Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany. Italy and the United Kingdom each have several universities or university-level institutes which offer a forestry degree or a degree with some specialization in forestry; France, which accounts for 41 percent of the total forest area in the EEC, has only two and that appears to be adequate. Elsewhere, there is an unnecessarily large number of facilities and there are more qualified forestry officers than there are jobs in forestry and the related fields such as town and country planning for which a forestry degree is an acceptable qualification. This is one aspect of forestry where considerable savings could be achieved.
The standard of training below university level for junior supervisors differs greatly between member states and the objectives do not always seem to be very clear. At one extreme, the training is too elementary for modern needs; at the other extreme, it is far too theoretical. The objective of training candidates to become highly competent practical organizers and forest supervisors with a sound knowledge of modern technology is achieved only in a few member states. This is a question with which the EEC is concerned.
The training of forest workers has made enormous progress throughout the EEC in recent years, but much remains to be done, especially in the case of those engaged only part-time in forestry. Working groups and meetings of experts under the auspices of the FAO/ECE Timber Committee at the UN office in Geneva give useful guidance on the training of forest workers and there appears to be no need for the time being for any separate initiative at EEC level.
Most of the EEC's home-grown timber comes from 19 million ha of high forest. In France, coppice is also significant, and poplar plantations make important contributions in the Netherlands, France and Italy.
Statistics. National statistics on annual cut, imports, exports, forest areas and structures (i.e., size of holdings and ownership) have been compiled at EEC level for some years by the EEC Commission's Statistical Service in Luxembourg. Except where there are special reasons to the contrary, the EEC statistics are based on the same definitions as the FAO statistics but give more detail where needed. Recently, the EEC Commission's working group on forestry statistics has begun to tackle the important problem of labour statistics, annual timber balances and annual changes in forest area. A study is also being made of the definitions that might be useful in connection with possible future statistics on the recreational role of the forest. The idea is to try and avoid the difficulties which were encountered with other statistics which were not comparable because each member state had developed its own definitions. Although no major need is foreseen for developing additional forestry statistics in the near future, it is likely that statistics on costs and prices as well as technological indicators such as output/man/year and economic indicators such as investment per job created will be required later.
Consultation. In most member states, there are advisory committees or councils in order to ensure adequate and regular consultation between the national forestry authority and the organizations representing private and public forest owners, employees, the primary wood-processing industries, the timber trade and nature conservation and landscape interests. The institutional setting for these consultations differs considerably between member states and there is much that they could learn from one another. At EEC level, effective procedures for consultation exist between the EEC Commission and the forest services of the member states as well as with organizations at EEC level, especially those representing the private woodland owners (Comité central de la propriété privée forestière - CCPF) and the forestry interests of the pulp and paper industry (Forestry Committee of the European Confederation of Pulp, Paper and Board Industry - CEPAC). Organizations at EEC level representing the other interests in the forestry sector are gradually being developed. This very desirable process is rendered difficult by the very different ways in which these interests are organized nationally. This applies particularly to the organization representing those employed in forestry.
There has hitherto been no EEC forestry policy as such and forestry is likely to remain very largely a national responsibility of the member states. The basic objective is to achieve a sensible coordination of national forestry policies with common measures being taken where they are found necessary in the context of broader EEC policies or to achieve specific objectives which cannot be achieved by national action alone. In spite of this cautious, pragmatic approach to EEC action in forestry, some forestry policy measures have been taken or are under consideration, and others will follow.
A financial contribution from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) was made in 1964 under Regulation 17/64/EC for the financing of certain forestry projects. This method of aid has been replaced by a series of directives intended primarily as a contribution to the improvement of agrarian structures. Most encourage the afforestation of land which has become sub-marginal for agriculture and is more suitable for forestry, but only where the afforestation contributes to the improvement of agrarian structures. From the forestry point of view, these are very limited measures, but useful as far as they go. The most important is a council regulation on a common measure for forestry in certain dry Mediterranean zones of the EEC approved by the Council of Ministers in February 1979 (EEC Official Journal, No. 114, of 14 February 1979). The object is to improve the geophysical and cultivation conditions which hamper agriculture, particularly as regards the conservation of soil and water. The measures concern afforestation, the improvement of deteriorated forests and necessary supplementary activities such as the construction of forest roads, terracing, fire protection and indispensable preparatory studies. A community financial contribution from the EAGGF is envisaged of about $230 million over five years. Under certain conditions, projects covering limited aspects of forestry may also be eligible for grants from the regional fund and the social fund. In practice, very few forestry projects have benefited. Loans for forestry and forest industrial projects are available in principle from the European Investment Bank, but little use has been made of this facility.
Some forestry measures at EEC level have been taken in the context of articles 43 and 100 of the Treaty of Rome, primarily in order to facilitate trade with the EEC. They are:
· Three directives concerned with the genetic quality of forest reproductive material (e.g., forest-tree seeds and nursery plants).· A directive concerning the exterior quality norms of forest reproductive material and a directive which deals with the classification of wood in the rough.
Three other measures with forestry implications deserve mention in the present context:
· Directive 67/654/EEC of 24 October 1967 which deals with the freedom of establishment and provision of services by self-employed persons in forestry and logging.· Directive 77/94/EEC on phyto-sanitary measures which are intended to minimize the risk of plant diseases of importance to agriculture and forestry being imported into the EEC and transmitted from one country to another within the EEC, while at the same time placing the minimum restrictions on trade.
· The Council Decision of 16/17 May 1977 to approve the Environment Programme 1977-81 which states in a short section on forestry that "the chief functions of forests in the various types of region should be studied together with the best ways of reconciling them".
There are 5 million ha of poor farm land in the EEC countries that could become forest. This would balance the clearance of forests for urban uses, a trend that is likely to increase since city land values are much higher than for forestry.
First contacts have been established at technical level with the forest services of Portugal and Spain in order to study the likely forestry implications of the possible entry of these countries into the EEC. It is calculated that the inclusion of these two countries in the EEC would increase its forest area by about two thirds and its production of wood by a little less than a third. It would appear from the information at present available that the forestry implications would be limited. The only significant new factor is that Portugal is by far the world's largest producer of cork. This is included in Annex II of Article 38 of the EEC Treaty as an agricultural product. Half of the country's 3 million ha of forest is devoted to the cultivation of cork oak. The overall effect of the EEC's proposed enlargement will be an increase in its net import requirements in the wood sector other than cork. While most of Portugal's forests enjoy the advantages of an Atlantic climate, the forestry conditions in parts of Spain are similar to those in the Mediterranean zones of the existing European Economic Community, but the proportion of the total land area covered by forests is greater. Statistics on a comparable basis are, however, not yet available.
In order to establish a sound basis for the development of forestry policy at both national and EEC level, the forestry situation in the European Economic Community has recently been subjected to a comprehensive analysis. In the first place, each of the nine forest services prepared a statement on forestry in the member state concerned. This collection of statements was presented to the Council of Ministers by the Commission as a working document in May 1978 and was followed in December 1978 by the Commission's Communication to the Council on "Forestry Policy in the European Community" which has already been mentioned and which includes objectives and principles of national forestry policy which all member states should have in common. A foundation has thus been laid for the subsequent creation of an EEC forestry policy that is clear in direction, and practical and flexible in application. Common measures, however, will be proposed only as and when they are necessary for the achievement of the common objectives or of broader EEC policies.
