Report on European Timber Position

By the SECRETARIAT of the EECE TIMBER SUB-COMMITTEE

Documents Presented to the International Timber Conference

WITH coal timber is the most important factor upon which reconstruction in European countries depends, whether used directly, as in housing. or as an ancillary industrial material, as in woodpulp, packaging, containers, etc. Among other important uses, timber for pitprops and railway sleepers is, of course, essential to the European economy.

During the war and until 31 December 1945, the Combined Board in Washington undertook the task of allocating timber among the Allies. When the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe was created in May 1945, it became apparent that the needs of the liberated areas of Europe, as well as of other European countries, would require the EECE to consider emergency measures for the alleviation of the critical shortage in timber supply. Accordingly, in October 1945 the EECE, in agreement with the Combined Boards in Washington, set up a Timber Sub-Committee to take over the activities of a working group which had functioned in London under the auspices of the British Ministry of Supply during the war and which had provided a medium for consultation on the needs and procurement of timber by European countries.

The FAO Annual Conference in Copenhagen, in August 1946, drew attention to the critical world shortage of timber and to the underlying factors of the shortage. It pointed out that the shortage was due not only to deforestation but also to the leek of equipment and skilled manpower necessary for the effective exploitation of the existing resources. Except for small quantities of special quality timbers imported from the United States and Canada, Europe, the U.S.S.R. included, was not only self-supporting before the war but was able to export timber to countries outside Europe, as shown in Table 1 below.

At the present time the war-devastated countries are faced with critical needs of timber, and their minimum requirements cannot be met even by drawing on the sources outside Europe. The Timber Sub-Committee of the EECE consequently undertook to give immediate help to member countries through short-term measures, by bringing together importing and exporting countries in order to adjust requirements so as to bring them within the compass of available supplies.

The following pages review the work of the Timber Sub-Committee and its efforts to aid European countries in meeting their timber requirements from European sources; for, although Canadian exports have made an important contribution towards bridging the gap between European requirements and supplies, no very substantial help from North America and the U.S.S.R. (important prewar sources of supply) could be expected in view of their own increased requirements.

G. Cerf (EECE) and E. Glesinger (FAO) with President Benes

A study of the measures which might alleviate the present critical situation disclosed the following possibilities:

(1) investigation of new sources of supply (tropical sources);
(2) improved exploitation of forests (training of technicians, modern equipment, etc);
(3) improved techniques and economies in the use of timber through

(a) restrictions in uses (particularly in building);
(b) technical developments to economize in the use of timber for essential purposes;
(c) research into substitute materials (including uses of sawmill refuse, shavings, and low quality wood).

While recognizing the great importance of long-term measures such as (1) and (2) above, calling for global consideration, the Timber Sub-Committee has limited itself to the study and solution of short-term problems and to such technical aspects of the problem as given in (3) above. It was clear that, while on the one hand if European production could be increased fairly rapidly, on the other hand the increase could only bring about effective improvement in the European timber position if the importing countries used every possible device to economize in the use of timber and employed all possible substitutes for timber. In this connection, attention is directed to the work of the Technical Sub-Committee of the EECE Housing Sub-Committee as evidence of the interest of European governments in the problem.

TABLE 1. - TIMBER EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF EUROPE:

Item	Exports		Imports		Surplus or Deficit
	1929	1937	1929	1937	1929	1937
Lumber	93,259	88,781	82,817	77,529	+ 10,442	+ 11,252
Pulpwood	31,697	37,972	23,639	26,220	+ 8,058	+ 11,725

While a review of the work of the Timber Sub-Committee could be set out in a number of ways, it was felt that a survey first of 1946 timber requirements, then of supply and the conditions affecting supply (coal) and, lastly, an evaluation of the 1947 position, would best serve the purpose.

1946 requirements

The difficulties which faced the EECE member countries at the beginning of 1946 in obtaining their supplies of timber and the uncertainties of supply from traditional sources led Belgium, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, and the Netherlands to concert with Canada and the United States in establishing the Timber Sub-Committee of the EECE, in order to explore the problem and determine what measures could be taken to meet minimum requirements. Since the establishment of the Timber Sub-Committee, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland, and Sweden have also participated in the work of the Sub-Committee. In view of the still disrupted state of the economies of these countries, it was not possible for the Sub-Committee to consider requirements for specific uses; its investigation in 1946 had to be limited to a comparison of the import requirements of the various countries, without taking into account the importance and quality of indigenous production. It should here be mentioned, however, that in 1947, as a result of the experience gained in 1946, it was possible for the Sub-Committee to extend the scope of its work in this connection as will be seen in the following pages.

The Sub-Committee had to consider European requirements and possible supplies of softwood, hardwood, pitprops, railway sleepers, telegraph poles, and plywood.

1. Hardwood

It soon became clear that requirements for hardwood varied greatly with respect to types and specifications and that therefore it would be impossible to set global quotas. On the other hand, the supply to European countries from colonial sources was primarily a question of ocean transport, with which the Sub-Committee was not qualified to deal.

2. Railway Sleepers

The supply position in railway sleepers did not appear very critical. On the other hand, the variations from country to country in the uses of hard or softwood, the differences in the specifications called for by various railway companies, which varied not only from country to country but also within the same country (according to the nature of the soil, etc.), made it difficult, if not impossible, to establish quotas for each specific use. It was therefore decided to include railway sleepers as an unspecified part of the total requirements for hardwood (see 1 above) or for softwood (see 6 below).

3. Telegraph Poles

The differing standards made it equally difficult to clear separately with requirements and supplies for telegraph poles. The Sub-Committee felt, however, that the supply situation would not become too critical, provided countries did not insist upon too high standards of quality.

4. Plywood

An examination of the plywood position indicated an estimated deficit of about 150,000 cubic meters. However, in view of the importance of Brazil as a producer and the uncertain possibilities of supplying the member plywood-manufacturing countries with the necessary raw materials, the Sub-Committee decided to defer examination of this question. It was suggested that it might be reconsidered in 1947.

5. Pitprops

In view of the technical considerations relating to the uses of pitprops and the direct connection between requirements for pitprops and the production of coal, it was agreed that the pitprop requirements of European countries should be examined by the European Coal Organization (ECO). (See "Execution of Agreements, D, Actual Imports. ")

6. Softwood

The problem of softwood was entirely different. Firstly, softwood was a commodity susceptible of general classification which allowed requirements to be stated in a relatively small number of figures; secondly, the limited number of sources of supply and the size of the needs made it a simpler matter to establish a basis upon which distribution could be examined.

This discussion is therefore limited to a consideration of the softwood position of EECE member countries. The term "timber" refers to softwood, unless otherwise specified.

EECE member countries reported their softwood import requirements for 1946 as follows (in thousand standards):

Great Britain	1,500
France	473
Belgium	300
Netherlands	400
Denmark	170
Norway	23
Total	2,866

Total 1946 availabilities as estimated by the Timber Sub-Committee amounted to about 1.4 million standards. (See "1946 Supplies" below.) It was evident therefore that import requirements as stated by member countries could not be met. Two possible courses of action were open: countries could compete for their requirements in a sellers' market which would lead to a rise in prices and cause inequities for those devastated countries whose weakened economies placed them in an unfavorable competitive position; the second course, adopted by the Timber Sub-Committee, was for each country by agreement and through reciprocal concessions to limit its imports from all sources to a global quantity proportionate to the availabilities.

It was proposed and accepted by members of the Timber Sub-Committee that they limit their purchases, as indicated above, to the following countries: Canada, United States, Brazil, Finland, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States, and the Balkans. Imports from the U.S.S.R., even if they proved to be small, were to be counted within the quotas. Since imports from Germany were still very uncertain, these were left out of the plan for the time being.

1946 supplies

At the time that the Timber Sub-Committee initiated its study of the softwood supply position in. Europe, producing countries such as Finland and Sweden were not as yet participating in the work of the EECE. It was necessary therefore for the Sub-Committee to base its estimates of supply on such information as members could make available. On this basis, the estimate of the 1946 softwood availabilities were as follows (in thousand standards):

Canada	500
Sweden	500
Finland	100
Brazil	20
Czechoslovakia	11
United States	160
U.S.S.R., Balkans, and Baltic States	100
Total	1,391

When Finland and Sweden joined in the work of the Timber Sub-Committee it became apparent that the quantity of timber these countries could make available for export depended in large part on their own supplies of fuel. Thus from the outset of the negotiations with these two countries a correlation of coal and timber was found to exist.

1. Finland: Fuel position in 1946

The most critical problem facing Finland was the shortage of good quality fuel, particularly of coal. Timber, which during the war had partially replaced the deficit in coal imports, was not a suitable fuel for certain industries such as electric power production and the steel industry, nor even as fuel for ships used as icebreakers.

In February 1946, when Finland first became associated with the work of the Timber Sub-Committee, it had already begun negotiations with the ECO with a view to participating in the work of that organization and benefiting under its allocation procedures. On 12 February 1946, the Finnish government submitted to the ECO a memorandum on its fuel situation (ECO/APC/99). This document indicated that Finland's yearly average (1936-38) consumption was equivalent to about 3.86 million tons of coal and coke; the 1946 program was based on an estimated consumption equivalent to 4.6 million tons of coal and coke. Prewar imports of coal and coke amounted to about 1.8 million tons; the program for the coal year 1946/47 (1 June 1946 to 31 May 1947) called for imports of 1.9 million tons, or about 160,000 tons per month. On the above basis, Finland was therefore faced with meeting fuel requirements equivalent to 2.7 million tons of coal, principally by consumption of 15 million steres¹ of firewood and timber waste. If these fuel requirements, which Finland estimated as minima, could be met with coal imports, Finland offered to undertake the following export of timber and timber products to European countries:

100 to 150,000	standards of softwood
1,900,000	cubic meters of pitprops
400,000	tons of cellulose
325,000	tons of newsprint
60,000	tons other paper

¹ Piled cubic meters.

The Finnish delegate had also emphasized the extra load which would be imposed on the Finnish transport system by the movement of firewood :from the interior of the country to coastal districts to cover, so far as possible, the deficit in coal, which normally arrived by sea. Furthermore, reference was made to the fact that any aid Finland might receive to enable her to acquire the necessary equipment and machinery for the exploitation of her forests would in large measure facilitate timber exports.

2. Sweden: Fuel position in 1946

The Swedish Government's report to the ECO (21 February 1946 EGO/GLEN/7) on its fuel position was similar to that of Finland. It underlined the difficulties that Sweden was encountering in obtaining coal supplies and the considerable influence of these difficulties in Sweden's exports of timber. Her import requirements of coal and coke for 1946 were estimated at about 7 million tons, or about 580,000 tons per month, which Sweden regarded as minima. With total fuel requirements amounting to about 14 million tons, Sweden had to resort to the use of fuels other than coal, notably timber, to provide the equivalent of 4.9 million tons of coal.

Sweden's limited resources in skilled manpower and equipment allowed for the cutting of about 50 million cubic meters of timber during the 1945-1946 season. This maximum quantity had to be divided between requirements of firewood for domestic fuel (as above) and the following exports which Sweden planned to make in 1946:

Softwood	400,000	standards
Chemical woodpulp	1,400,000	tons
Mechanical woodpulp	200,000	tons
Panels	85,000	tons
Papers	380,000	tons
Pitprops	500 to 700,000	steres

3. Timber-Coal Agreement

The European Coal Organization examined the foregoing memoranda submitted by Finland and Sweden, with a view to determining how far the stated requirements of these countries could be met. Before making a final reply to the two countries, and having regard to the connection between fuel imports and timber exports which was put forward in these memoranda, the European Coal Organization and the Timber Sub-Committee of the EECE decided to hold a joint meeting in order to prepare a recommendation which could be submitted to Finland and Sweden for their agreement.

A working party (the Timber-Coal Working Party) was accordingly established and met in London at the end of February and again early in March 1946, and was attended by members of the Timber Sub-Committee and of the ECO, and by representatives of the Swedish and Finnish Governments. The Working Party first had to consider the principle upon which it should work. Theoretically, several approaches were possible:

(a) to relate the timber exports to the coal imports of the two countries on the basis of the calorific values of timber and coal respectively (one ton of coal for six steres of timber);

(b) to relate the exchanges of timber and coal by a formula, fixing an arithmetical ratio between coal imports and timber exports;

(c) to consider a more general relation between timber and coal on the basis of reciprocal aid - i. e., if the timber-producing countries made every effort to export maximum quantities to the devastated countries of Europe, the latter, members of the EECE and the ECO, would, in turn assist the economic recovery of the timber-producing countries by aiding them with coal.

The Working Party unanimously rejected (a) and (b), because it was felt these were likely to result in serious inequities, as the economic situation in each country was the major factor which should determine the balance to be sought and maintained between the different types of fuel. The approach indicated in (c) was felt to be the only one which was equitable and which accorded with the spirit of co-operation upon which the work of the EECE was based.

After discussion, during which comparisons were made between the total prewar coal imports of these two countries and the quantities which the ECO could make available, the Timber-Coal Working Party recommended that the ECO make allocations of coal to Finland and Sweden during 1946 to bring total availabilities to the following amounts:

Finland		840,000	tons for the year,
	or	70,000	tons per month.
Sweden		3,600,000	tons for the year,
	or	300,000	tons per month.

These figures were to include imports from all sources (ECO allocations and bilateral agreements). Both Sweden and Finland agreed to these recommendations and promised to do their utmost to export the following quantities of timber in 1946:

	Softwood	Pitprops
Finland	100,000 standards	1,200,000 cu. meters
Sweden	400,000 standards	333,000 cu. meters

In July 1946, Finland informed both the Timber Sub-Committee and the ECO that it could make available additional quantities of timber for export if its coal allocation could be somewhat increased. A meeting was called of the Timber-Coal Working Party on 24 July 1946 to consider the Finnish offer to export an additional 75,000 to 90,000 standards of softwood and 450,000 cubic meters of pitprops, if its coal availabilities were raised from 70,000 to 100,000 tons per month. In view of the benefits which would accrue from these additional timber availabilities, the Working Party recommended that Finland's coal be increased as requested, and the ECO subsequently approved this recommendation.

4. German Exports of Timber in 1946

As indicated above, imports of timber from Germany were not included in the quotas to which purchases in 1946 were to be limited since, at the time these quotas were agreed to, it was not anticipated that any appreciable quantities of either softwood or pitprops would be available for export from Germany. It is appropriate to set out here the conditions under which exploitation of the German forests in the British and French zones has been and still is carried out.

German production can be divided into two groups:

(a) production by German firms with their own personnel and equipment;
(b) production by other countries (which may or may not be the controlling power of the zone), in cutting areas allotted to them, with their own manpower, equipment, transport, and maintenance.

Production from the cutting areas in the German Zones of Occupation allotted to neighboring countries is destined for the sole use of those countries; they may take out, as availabilities permit, softwoods, pitprops, firewood, etc. Production carried out by German firms is earmarked for German consumption, interzonal exchanges, and eventually exports.

This distinction, which was academic in 1946, became extremely important in 1947 when, the timber situation having become somewhat clarified, the quantities produced in the cutting areas of Germany allotted to different countries are now considered as part of the indigenous production of the respective exploiting countries. This is logical since exploitation in the cutting areas is carried out by means of equipment and material brought in from the exploiting countries.

(a) French Zone

Exploitation is carried on by the French Government with equipment provided from France. In addition, about 92,000 standards of softwood and 25,000 cubic meters of pitprops, produced with German equipment and representing a surplus over German consumption requirements, have been exported to France.

(b) British Zone

The British Government does not directly exploit the cutting areas in its zone, but places at the disposal of the zonal authorities and local concerns equipment sent in from England. This explains why the British Government reserved for itself the entire exportable surplus, which in 1946 amounted to 30,000 standards of softwood and 35,000 cubic meters of pitprops.

(c) American Zone

The United States itself does not import timber cut in Germany. In June 1946 the American occupation authorities concluded a contract with the British Government for the export of 28,000 standards to the United Kingdom. Subsequently, a contract was concluded with the Netherlands for 5,000 standards of softwood. Transport difficulties were the chief obstacle in the fulfillment of these contracts. However, since the contracts did not limit deliveries to a particular date, undelivered portions are being carried forward into 1947. Actually, very small quantities were delivered in 1946.

5. Allocations by Sources of Supply

Once the import quotas had been agreed upon, the Timber Sub-Committee was faced with the need to consider distribution according to sources of supply, since the probabilities of effective delivery varied considerably from one source to another. The Timber Sub-Committee recommended that, insofar as possible, each country be apportioned the same percentage share from a given source as was represented by-their import quota in relation to total availabilities. Thus for softwood the following percentages were arrived at:

United Kingdom	54	Netherlands	17
Belgium	8	Denmark	7
France	12	Norway	1

This recommendation was approved by the EECE and was transmitted to the governments of the producing countries.

Execution of agreements

The negotiations undertaken under the supervision of the Timber Sub-Committee and the recommendations subsequently agreed to were closely followed by the Sub-Committee during their implementation, making it possible to summarize the situation at the end of 1946.

A. Finland

As indicated above, the European Coal Organization had agreed to allocate to Finland a monthly supply of 70,000 tons of coal, later increased to 100,000 tons. Actual imports of coal and coke by Finland under the agreement were as indicated in Table 2.

TABLE 2. - FINNISH COAL IMPORTS IN 1946 Monthly average 1935-38 - 145,094 tons; monthly average 1946 - 80,357 tons.

Month, 1946	ECO Allocation	Bilateral Agreements	Monthly Total	Cumulative Total
April	15,247	55,362	70,609	70,609
May	10,427	64,283	74,710	145,319
June	43,059	66,080	109,139	254,458
July	39,345	62,738	102,083	356,541
August	63,091	37,206	100,297	456,838
September	62,206	28,498	90,704	547,542
October	35,576	42,497	78,073	625,615
November	21,427	33,086	54,513	680,128
December	8,436	34,643	43,079	723,207

As previously indicated, Finland had agreed to supply a total of 175,000 to 190,000 standards of softwood and 1.65 million cubic meters of pitwood. Actual exports were as presented in Table 3. (See TSC[46]55 - dated 15 November 1946.)

TABLE 3. - FINNISH TIMBER EXPORTS IN 1946

Country	Sawn Softwood	Pitprops
		Sold	Shipped
	standards	steres	percentage
United Kingdom	90,000	978,560	72
Netherlands	12,000	48,928	45
Belgium	11,000	458,700	88
France	4,000	12,232	100
Denmark	48,000
Norway	5,000
Switzerland	4,500
Sweden		18,948	0
Other European countries	2,000
TOTAL	176,500	1,517,368

TABLE 4. - SWEDISH EXPORTS OF SOFTWOOD LUMBER, 1946¹

¹ Figures in Petrograd standards, true measure, provisory figures from Customs returns in ma converted in the proportion of 4,672 m³ = 1 standard.

SOURCE: The Swedish Timber and Wood Pulp Journal, No. 3, 1947.

The foregoing shows that Finland was able to more than meet her engagements under the timber-coal agreement. On the other hand, the coal crisis which occurred throughout Europe towards the end of 1946 had its repercussions in Finland with the result that the monthly coal allocation of 100,000 tons agreed to by the ECO in the spring of 1946 could not be fulfilled.

B. Sweden

As regards the Swedish coal allocation, it had been agreed that this should amount to 300,000 tons a month. In turn, Sweden agreed to export 400,000 standards of softwood and 500,000 steres of pitprops a year.

TABLE 5. - SWEDISH COAL IMPORTS IN 1946 Monthly average 1935-38 - 654,271 tons; monthly average 1946 - 318,285 tons

Month, 1946	ECO Allocation	Bilateral Agreements	Monthly Total	Cumulative Total
April	82,669	153,310	235,979	235,979
May	72,918	262,329	335,247	571,226
June	86,818	224,749	311,567	882,793
July	104,278	187 456	291,734	1,174 521
August	152,924	228 693	381,617	1,556,144
September	99,586	244,776	344,362	1,900,506
October	113,146	286,770	399,916	2,300,422
November	82,251	236,105	318,356	2,618,778
December	66,396	179,392	245,788	2,864,566

It appears from Table 4 and Table 5 that Sweden received more coal (averaging 318,285 tons per month) than had been allocated to her and that, if total Swedish exports amounted to 400,000 standards, Europe's portion of these exports amounted to 362,190 standards. Pitwood exports, on the other hand, totaled 230,345 cubic meters according to the same source of information as that for Table 4, the full amount being distributed in Europe as follows:

Great Britain	133,157 m³
Netherlands	96,585 m³
Other European countries	612 m³
Total	230,354 m³

C. Canada

Canadian exports in 1946 are given in Table 6 and compare with 500,000 standards expected. (See "1946 Supplies.")

TABLE 6. - CANADIAN EXPORTS TO EUROPE IN 1946

D. Actual Imports

1. Softwood

As indicated, timber exports from Sweden and Finland were in some instances somewhat different from what had been foreseen and, on the whole, European countries were unable to purchase the total quantities to which they had agreed to limit their imports. (See Table 7.)

TABLE 7. - SOFTWOOD IMPORTS 1946

Country	Agreed Quotas	Imports 1946	Percentage of Realization of Quotas
Great Britain	832,000	810,000	97
Belgium	123,000	60,500	61.8
Netherlands	260,000	124,500	63.7
Denmark	104,000	100,000	98
Luxembourg	(1)	3,040
Switzerland	(1)	24,400
France	189,000	165,000	87.3
Italy	(1)	19,000
TOTAL	1,508,000	1,306,440	Average 81.6

¹ As these countries did not take part in 1946 discussions, no quota was axed.

2. Pitwood

As regards pitwood, actual imports during 1946 of the various member countries of the ECO are as shown in Table 8 below.

To sum up, the Timber Sub-Committee's estimates for 1946 proved to be overoptimistic, the quotas which had been accepted by member countries totalling approximately 1.5 million standards, whereas the actual imports which were realized by the European countries amounted to about 1.3 million standards. Countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands who had taken into account their reconstruction needs in establishing their requirements, were only able to import a small percentage of their quotas. Consequently, their initial consumption was reduced in 1946 through lack of supplies. This feet must be borne in mind since it indicates that 1946 cannot be considered as a basis of comparison in 1947.

TABLE 8. - PITWOOD, 1946

Import Data	Belgium	France	Netherlands	United Kingdom	Total
Total consumption	970	2638	171	2291	16070
Indigenous production	933	3076	25	1041	5075
Imports less exports	690	- 10	246	1983	2909
Increase of stocks	653	428	100	733	1914

1947 requirements

A. Softwood

In September 1946, the Timber Sub-Committee requested member countries to supply information which would allow it to determine the importance of their requirements for softwood and pitwood. The Sub-Committee drafted a questionnaire (TSC[46]35 Revised) asking countries to indicate their cutting programs for 1947, import requirements, and stocks on hand. This questionnaire also called for detailed information on consumption requirements by end uses, such as housing and construction, industry, packaging, shipbuilding, etc. The questionnaire called for corresponding figures for 1946, in order to provide a basis of comparison for 1947. The replies received were circulated to members of the Sub-Committee, under reference TSC (46) 51 and appendices. Space does not allow for a detailed analysis of the reports submitted by the different countries, but the substance of these reports is embodied in Table 9.

A comparison of the figures shows that, in general, requirements for 1947 represent about 141 percent of 1946 consumption. Furthermore, if the estimated requirements for 1947 are compared with 1946 quotas, the difference is still greater, since the stated requirements for 1947 are on an average almost double the quotas for 1946.

As indicated in " 1946 Supplies " below, the decrease in the indigenous production of most of the importing countries increases import requirements still further. As shown in column 8 of Table 9, these import requirements total approximately 3 million standards - a figure far above the 1.3 million standards actually imported by these countries in 1946.

The members of the Timber Sub-Committee were thus faced with the problem of establishing for 1947 a system of allocation similar to that of 1946. In 1947, however, the Sub-Committee had at its disposal more accurate and complete information on the requirements of European countries and could therefore take into account not only total import requirements but the total domestic consumption requirements of each of the member countries. On the basis of information on past requirements and on estimates for the future, the Sub-Committee first attempted to arrive at an allocation formula.

Several formulas were proposed. Among these, Formula A was based on the stated requirements of each country for 1947. The total of these requirements was then reduced to bring it into line with estimated availabilities. This formula, based solely on stated requirements, provided no checks on the basis upon which requirements were calculated and would have benefited those countries which had stated their requirements on a high basis, with consequent hardship on those countries which had calculated their requirements on a more. austere basis, and it was therefore not unanimously acceptable to the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee then proposed Formula B, which was based on 1946 consumption; but this formula was not acceptable to those countries, in particular Belgium and the Netherlands, who had not obtained in 1946 the quantities allocated to them at the beginning of the year. As a result of deficits in their imports their internal consumption had had to be greatly curtailed and they were, naturally, opposed to having their unfortunate experience in 1946 used as a basis for 1947 allocations.

Formula C, a compromise based on an average of the figures in Formulas A and B, was also rejected; it was again opposed by countries who had been unfortunate in 1946 and who were unwilling that 1946 imports should have any influence whatsoever upon import quotas for 1947.

The Sub-Committee was therefore forced to adopt a purely empirical method of allocating imports for the purpose of reaching unanimous agreement. After considerable discussion, the following import quotas were accepted (in standards):

Great Britain	1,122,000
France	200,000
Netherlands	210,000
Belgium and Luxembourg	147,000
Denmark	103,000
Italy	117,500
Switzerland	47,500
Total	1,947,000

TABLE 9. - TIMBER SITUATION, 1947 (IMPORTING COUNTRIES) - In thousand standards

All countries agreed to these quotas. However, recognizing the difficulties which existed as to delivery from the various producing countries, as well as differences in price and quality, the Timber Sub-Committee felt that it would be more equitable to complete these allocations by a further allocation by sources of supply. This distribution by sources, shown in Table 10, was transmitted to the governments of both the producing countries and the exporting countries with the following recommendation:

"The Timber Sub-Committee

" 1. Resolves

that between now and the next meeting of the Timber Sub-Committee, to be called early in April, the importing countries

(a) will not contract for more than 90 percent of their total import quotas, and
(b) will not contract for more than the quantities shown in the attached table from each producing country; and

" 2. Recommends

that exporting countries should make every effort to export the quantities shown in the table, and to give special attention to the needs of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy, whose requirements are especially urgent by reason of shortfalls in 1946 and unavoidable delays in starting their reconstruction programs.

"In view of the need for early implementation of this resolution, members of the Timber Sub-Committee are invited to bring this resolution to the immediate attention of the appropriate authorities of their respective Governments. "

14 March 1947

It should be noted that the total exports as given for each of the producing countries included both the "reasonably certain" as well as "possible additional" exports as estimated by the Sub-Committee and as shown in "1947 Supplies."

In accordance with the previous agreement between the EECE and the ECO as to the division of the work between these two organizations, the EECE communicated the pitprop availabilities, to the ECO, who themselves made allocations. It should be noted that the allocations cover only about 50 per cent of the estimated import requirements.

B. Pitprops

The 1947 requirements for pitprops of European countries, collated by the European Coal Organization are as shown in Table 11.

TABLE 10. - DISTRIBUTION OF TIMBER BY SOURCES OK, SUPPLY RECOMMENDED AT THE TWELFTH MEETING OF THE TIMBER SUB-COMMITTEE

TABLE 11. - PITPROP REQUIREMENTS 1947 - In thousand m³

Data	Belgium	France	Netherlands	Turkey	United Kingdom	Total
Forecast of total consumption	1,252	3,000	243	197	2,568	7,260
Requirements for stock readjustments	-184	334	-15	24	-360	-201
Forecast of indigenous production	400	3,112	0	123	272	3,907
Net imports (recommended allocations -exports)	550	153	198	40	1,644	2,585
Forecast of deficit at end of year (1+2) - (3+4)	118	69	30	58	292	567

NOTE: The requirements for stocks necessary to bring the stocks at the end of the year at a level sufficient to cover six months of consumption

TABLE 12. - 1947 PITPROP ALLOCATIONS In thousand m³

Importing countries

Exporting Country	Belgium	France	Netherlands	Turkey	United Kingdom	Total
Finland	400	20	80		600	1,100
Sweden	20	30	50	40	150	290
Norway					67	67
Czechoslovakia		25				25
TOTAL	420	75	130	40	817	1,482

NOTE: The above figures have been taken into account in order to establish the figures in line 4 of Table 9.

1947 supplies

A. Softwood

The softwood supplies of European countries in 1947 will be available from: (1) the indigenous production of importing countries, and (2) imports from abroad.

Estimates of supplies available to the importing countries from the various producing countries as given in Table 13 are more or less precise; these are classified under two categories - " Reasonably Certain" and "Possible Additional."

Total availabilities, reasonably certain and possible additional, are estimated at 1.95 million standards and cover the import quotas mentioned in the preceding section to which all the European countries agreed. These allocations may seem optimistic, since they take into account not only reasonably certain availabilities but also possible additional imports which may become available during the year. Nevertheless, the Timber Sub-Committee felt that this was the most reasonable and, in fact, the only possible procedure, given the importance of the requirements on the one hand and, on the other, the possibility that export availabilities may have been estimated in certain cases on a somewhat overconservative basis.

B. Pitprops

As regards pitprops, the only figures available at this time with respect to exports are those indicated by the Timber Sub-Committee to the ECO for allocation as described in the previous section. Availabilities of pitprops for export in 1947 are stated as follows (in thousand cubic meters):

Finland	1,100
Sweden	290 (as estimated by EECE and ECO)
Norway	67
Czechoslovakia	35
Luxembourg	145
Austria	100
Canada	640
Total	2,277

¹ This quantity has not been allocated, in view of the bad condition of the wood due to embedded shell fragments.

These quantities do not include certain exports under bilateral agreements, principally from France, Switzerland and the U.S.S.R.

TABLE 13. - SOFTWOOD SUPPLIES - 1947 In thousand standards

Country	Indigenous Production	Imp for EECE Countries
		Reasonably Certain	Possible Additional
United Kingdom	50
Belgium1	30
Netherlands1	35.3
Denmark	50
Switzerland	170
France2	600
Italy	3250
	375
Sweden		300	100
Finland		200
Czechoslovakia		40
Germany:
British Zone		150
American Zone		170
French Zone		464	454
Austria		20	22
Brazil		4	4
U.S.S.R.		50	50
United States		120	40
Canada		450	50
Others			25
TOTAL	1,260.3	1,568	345
ROUND TOTAL	1,300	1,600	350

¹ Includes timber cut in British and French zones of Germany with labor and equipment from the recipient country.

² Includes timber cut by French manpower in the French zone of Germany.

³ These figures are those proposed by the Timber Sub-Committee to the Italian Government, which agreed to raise its indigenous production to 115,000 standards and to draw 65,000 standards from stocks.

⁴ Consists of timber to be cut in the French zone of Germany by German labor

TABLE 14. - TIMBER REQUIREMENTS FOR PACKAGING

Country	Use 1946	Requirements 1947	Increase	Increase
		Standards		Percentage
United Kingdom	139,000	203,000	64,000	46
Belgium and Luxembourg	10,000	30.400	20,400	204
Netherlands	22,475	41,000	18,525	82.4
Denmark	35,000	40,000	5,000	14.3
Switzerland	64,200	61,000	(- 3,200)	-
France	82,000	115,000	33,000	40.2
Italy	77,000	192,000	115,000	149.3
TOTAL	429 675	682,400	252,725	Average 58.8

Program of work of the timber sub-committee

A. Packaging

In the course of examining the detailed requirements for 1947 of the member countries, the Timber Sub-Committee noted that one of the most important uses of timber was for packaging. Not only is this use oft timber important as to the quantities used (see Table 14) but the actual uses themselves are important, inasmuch as they apply to the export of a large number of essential goods, notably agricultural products.

At its Eleventh Meeting the Timber Sub-Committee considered the possibility of establishing a special subcommittee to deal with the problems of packaging. In view of the technical nature of the problem, involving as it does such general problems as commercial regulations, standardization, and substitute materials, the Timber Sub-Committee did not consider itself competent to deal with the matter and referred the question of the establishment of a special subcommittee to the main committee of the EECE. The main committee is to give consideration to this question, which has already been the subject of wide study by the Packaging Bureau of the International Chamber of Commerce, and by the British Standards Institution, as well as by the International Organization for Standardization. In exploring possible economies in the use of timber for packaging, the EECE approach to the problem will necessarily differ from that of the foregoing organization; the emphasis of the latter is on standardization of materials used, whereas the EECE's interest lies in economies in the use of timber.

B. Wood Pulp

Among the timber products which play an important part in the industrial life of European countries is wood pulp, which inter alia can be used as a substitute for timber in packaging. The great number of uses of wood pulp in industry would call for a special study of sources of supply, requirements, and measures which might be taken in order to assure equitable distribution of products having a cellulose base. The essentially industrial character of wood pulp production was stressed, as wood pulp is the primary product from which stem a great variety of uses, ranging from newsprint to the complex products of organic chemistry.

Conclusion

This brief review of the action undertaken by the EECE, and in particular by its Timber Sub-Committee, does not purport to be an exhaustive study of the timber supply problem in Europe or of all the possible measures for alleviating the critical timber situation. Nevertheless, from the reports submitted to the Timber Sub-Committee and the work undertaken in this connection by the other sections of the EECE and its Secretariat, it is reasonable to conclude that it would be rash to base too much hope on any substantial increase in exports from those countries which are presently exporting large quantities of timber. The U.S.S.R. which supplied no exports in 1946, may be the only country in Europe potentially capable of providing considerable supplies of timber for the European market.

The potential contribution to European supplies from new sources outside Europe remains a highly controversial matter, but must be given consideration in any long-term approach to the timber problem.

Although it is now difficult to foresee any substantial and rapid increase in timber supplies available to European countries, there remains the possibility. through the practice of strict economies in the producing as well as the importing countries, at the same time of increasing export availabilities and thus lessening the gap presently existing between requirements and supplies. It is to be hoped that the investigations which have been undertaken by the majority of the importing countries with respect to timber may lead, among other things, to a wider use of low quality woods which up to now have been restricted to limited purposes, such as packaging, as well as broader use of products manufactured from wood waste. In this connection the EECE, and in particular its Housing Sub-Committee, is at present considering action which may lead to the general adoption of technical processes which may effect appreciable economies in the use of timber for housing.

In general, the study of substitute materials, particularly of products based on wood waste, is a matter of first importance to all European countries. However, the present scope of work of the Timber Sub-Committee has not permitted a study of the processing possibilities of wood waste, and the highly technical character of the problem has prevented its study elsewhere by the EECE.

All countries and individuals are fully aware through direct experience of the critical shortage of coal, but the shortage of timber can itself become a dominant factor in retarding the reconstruction of the devastated areas. In fact, the shortage of timber will already be more critical, as requirements are considerably in excess of 1946 consumption.

A certain correlation between the supply of coal and timber availabilities has been noted. In the first place, for small quantities, principally for heating purposes, there is the possibility of substitution. Furthermore, coal, which has a direct influence upon the level of industrial production, affects agricultural production in general and forestry in particular, less directly, and the relation between coal and timber is obviously less important than that between coal and steel, for example.