T. FRANÇOIS
Chief, Forest Policy Branch. Forestry Division, FAO
Two major solutions have been advanced for stopping up timber yields in Europe. First, there is the afforestation of bare lands, often derelict farmland or abandoned grazing land, and the creation of plantations outside the forest proper; secondly, increasing the output from privately-owned forests, particularly small woodlands, which, despite frequently more favorable conditions, generally yield far less, both in quantity and quality, than publicly-owned forests.
The important contribution which the typical small woodlands of Europe can make to timber production has been the reason why these have received so much attention from the European Forestry Commission during its last three sessions. It is at the request of the Commission that this paper has been compiled, bused on the information and data that has emerged as the result of the Commission's discussions.
The concept of "small woodlands" covers at least three categories, and the problems involved are different, as are also the solutions:
1. The farm woodlot. Any wooded area which forms an integral part of a farm and which serves to provide for farm needs, whether consumed on the farm or in the home. Such woodlots are commonly used for purposes other than mere timber production or providing fences and fuel, such as livestock grazing, the collection of litter, gathering of fodder, fruits and leaves.2. Small woodland properties. Wooded areas that vary in size from country to country but which are usually managed in order that they may yield incidental products for sale through trade channels.
3. Industrial plantations. A term used-for plantations established outside the forest proper specifically to yield marketable products that will provide additional cash income to a farm or estate, or capital to pay, for instance, for extraordinary expenses or investments. Such plantations usually take the form of small groves or clumps and may consist of poplar, eucalyptus, robinia, etc.
The Table sums up the statistical data on small woodlands contained in reports made by member countries of the European Forestry Commission. It shows that it is not possible to gather properly comparable figures for various countries on the occurrence of private forests. This arises in part from the fact that statistical information that may be of interest for certain countries to collect, is of no interest to other countries. The Table, moreover, does not give a particularly clear picture of the fragmentation of forest areas. The figures are based on numbers of forest owners but, especially in certain countries of western Europe, the total wooded area belonging to a single owner is often split into many separate segments, which are often, located at considerable distances from each other.
Very small woodlands, say under five hectares or even under two hectares in area, are common in all countries of Europe. Added all together, they constitute in some countries an insignificant portion of the total forested area although in others they may make up quite a large proportion. In northern European countries, the size of small woodlands ranges from 20 to 30 hectares. In central and western Europe, the average falls, for instance, to 4 hectares in Austria and to less than 2 hectares in Germany and France. Along the Atlantic coast of Europe, industrial plantations occur side by side with the forest proper, as in the Netherlands, and have considerable importance. In southern Europe, the situation is rather confused. Privately-owned, small woodlands are of minor importance in Greece but very important in Spain, where they usually occur in concentrations. In Yugoslavia, they are badly fragmented. In Italy, small woodlands are of little consequence. However, in all these countries, industrial plantations, whether represented by rows of trees or small compact groves, are of high importance.
The extent of privately-owned forest in relation to the total forest area in each country and the degree of fragmentation of private forests, arise from a nation's history and the established legal principles, particularly in regard to inheritance.
Broadly speaking, private forests derive from the breaking up of large estates (latifundia) of feudal origin which began after the Crusades and became greatly accentuated from the end of the eighteenth century. The persistence of latifundia in Spain and Italy probably accounts for the fairly large average size of private forest holdings in these countries. In northern Europe, large forest holdings are in the hands of influential guilds some of which date back to very early times. Where inheritance laws have led to fragmentation, not only are private woodlands of small average size, but each wood is fragmented into many small holdings.
TABLE: STATISTICAL DATA CONCERNING SMALL WOODLANDS
* Estimated figures.
1 Forests under 20 ha, in size.
² Excluding company-owned forests.
³ Percentage of private forests.
The break-up of the feudal latifundia proceeded gradually. Usually the forests were abandoned to the villages or boroughs, the inhabitants of which already enjoyed usufruct rights. Where there was a strong community spirit, as in Switzerland and commonly in mountainous regions, the fragmentation ended there. Communal or collective ownership remains the practice in these areas and private property is comparatively of little importance. But elsewhere the forests were later divided up among the inhabitants, the laws at times prohibiting and at others favoring such fragmentation.
Agrarian structure takes shape either as a result of changes in economic conditions or through deliberate government action. The latter strongly affects both the total area of forests and their fragmentation. Recent examples of the expropriation of latifundia and the organization of farm settlements have often shown how any existing woodlands are made to disappear, and small private woodlots are not allowed to be reestablished. On the other hand, such land settlement schemes may favor the establishment of row and hedge plantations and small copses. Population pressure resulting in such agrarian reforms does then lead to a constant diminution of larger woodlands and an increase of small woodlands. A similar tendency towards small woodlands occurs through fragmented marginal farmlands being abandoned to the growing of trees.
An interesting example is afforded by Finland where, as a result of the measures that had to be taken to resettle refugees from the area ceded to the Soviet Union after the last war, the proportion of farm woodlots in the total forest area for the country as a whole increased from 52.6 to 59.9 percent.
In all these cases, it is seen how forest policy, insofar as small woodlands are concerned, is linked to agricultural policy.
It must be recognized that some small woodlands are very well managed. Generally, however, woodlands that come under this designation do not produce either in terms of quantity or in quality, what might be normally expected.
It has been said that the size of individual, privately-owned, small woodlands varies considerably from one country to another, so that this lack of productivity cannot be attributed just to its smallness of extent, which is relative.
The smallness of a forest does of course present disadvantages, hut the low productivity of small forests is due to other causes, equally valid for large forest estates and even extensive forests, whatever their type of ownership. These causes are lack of technical knowledge, of economic inducements and of financial possibilities to permit proper management. The small size of a woodland or its fragmentation merely accentuates these inadequacies.
A few comments on these three factors will later make more understandable the means that have been adopted by European countries to remedy the deficiencies of small woodlands, and perhaps even suggest others.
Inadequacy of technical knowledge
Sound management of a forest requires technical knowledge which, in the past, forest owners have generally been little prone to acquire and which governments, for their part, have been little concerned to provide. Obviously, the less the financial value of a small wood and, the less will the owner be disposed to acquire the technical knowledge necessary to proper management or to seek the advice of professional foresters. But it is essential that there be such qualified foresters available. It is a government responsibility in Europe to see that training facilities exist for extension foresters. The foresters taking care of State-owned forests cannot, at the same time, be expected to help manage private woodlands, and the experience of many countries suggests that large numbers of technicians are necessary in proportion to the area of private forests in order to secure proper management.
The same holds good as regards the development of industrial plantations. This is often an entirely new experience for landowners and technical assistance is essential to avoid failures and disappointments. However, if private forest owners are not interested in the management of their forests, the State-trained foresters may find themselves unemployed.
Economic considerations
Many farmers would undoubtedly be interested in acquiring the technical knowledge that would make their woodlots more remunerative, were it not that economic considerations require the woodlot to serve particular purposes: for instance, to supply fuelwood so that a coppice rotation is adopted or, in addition, to furnish extra grazing.
In Austria, where farm woodlots are highly developed, farm improvements are often financed from the timber, under conditions that are rarely beneficial to the stands. Definite overcutting has recently been reported in Austria because farmers wanted large cash sums to buy farm machinery. This is a common occurrence in many countries, and could perhaps he avoided by better co-ordination between agricultural and forest policy. For example, easy loans could be made available to farmers to be paid back gradually, so as to eliminate the need for overcutting standing timber. It is true that woodlands traditionally constitute a "savings account" for landowners, hut too heavy inroads at one time are not the way to ensure proper stand management.
However, it is especially nonfarming owners who are apt to regard their woodlands as money banks, and if a woodland is too small to furnish any substantial regular income, the temptation to overcut is even greater. Occasional small quantities of timber from such woodlands which sound silviculture might prescribe, are often difficult to sell and do not command good prices. Owners are therefore little inclined to invest substantial sums in improvements or access roads.
Economic considerations are foremost also in afforestation or tree planting. Tenant farming that does not guarantee the tenant long-term occupancy will not encourage him to invest in plantations. For lack of agreement between the landowner and tenant, afforestation may be impossible even if it would be economically profitable and the financial means for carrying it out were available.
Lack of finance
Even if owners of small woodlands would like to invest in forestry, they generally do not have the necessary money. And the smaller the woodland, the less cash for investment will it yield. Owners find it difficult to borrow any money on the basis of repayment from the income of their woodlands, and substantial sums are needed to pay for drainage, fencing, road construction, thinnings and stand improvements. New plantations entail substantial outlays.
In this regard, the farmer who owns a woodlot is usually in a somewhat better position as he can use some of his farm labor to tend his woods during the slack season. In northern countries, where the "dead" season from the agricultural point of view is particularly long, this has much importance. In addition to keeping on the land the manpower that would otherwise seek other occupations, the labor that the farm workers can put into the woods is a substitute for a cash outlay which, if it entailed having outside labor, would probably be considerable.
Proper management of small woodlands cannot be brought about merely by consolidation of ownership or by grouping separately owned properties into viable management units. It is necessary, in addition, to take measures to correct the lack of technical "know-how", economic inducements, and shortage of investment funds. This is a general situation. Even in the United States, where wooded areas several hundred hectares in area are termed small woodlands, owners are faced with the same difficulties as European owners of woodlots only a few hectares in size.
Correction of these difficulties must accompany specific correction of fragmentation.
No Government that belongs to the European Forestry Commission compels consolidation of fragmented forest holdings into single ownership, whether this be public ownership or a private association, or into suitable management units. But it must be admitted that useful results are difficult to obtain without recourse to compulsory powers.
It is fairly easy, by legislation, to stop further fragmentation of forest holdings. Legislation to this end has been introduced in several countries, for instance in Denmark (Law of 4 October 1919) where, incidentally, only woodlands over 10 hectares in area can hope to benefit from State aid; and in Germany, or at least in certain Länder of the Federal Republic. The French Law of December 1954 is of special interest, as a measure to check and reverse the trend toward fragmentation which is inherent in the inheritance laws. Formerly any co-owner of a woodland could at any time demand that the estate be divided up. Now, on the contrary, a single dissent against division is sufficient to oblige either the property to remain as an undivided holding or the compulsory buying in of the portions of the co-owners wishing to withdraw. The cost of this can be helped by loans from the National Forest Fund, repayable on a long-term basis.
In Finland, any fragmentation of the forested areas allocated to the farmers displaced from Karelia after the war was avoided by creating co-operatives in which was vested ownership of the forests involved. Shares in the cooperatives were apportioned to each farmer. When farmers need timber for their own use, they pay the value of this timber into the co-operative bank.
It is much more difficult to devise legislation which will encourage or secure consolidation of already fragmented forest holdings into single management or ownership units by voluntary action. Legislation often exists which does provide for this, but it is rarely called into operation. In Switzerland, for instance, there have been only two such cases in the last 50 years.
The law in several countries also provides for consolidation through agreed exchange and re-grouping of ownership of scattered plots. The main difficulty in such a procedure is the difference in type and quality of the woodlands to be exchanged between the interested owners. Consolidation along these lines appears to have been carried out systematically and with some success only in Switzerland. In 1956, 1,000 hectares were so consolidated, but the resulting individual forest units often do not exceed four to six hectares in area. Moreover, the regrouping operations involve putting in hand improvement works, especially road building, to enhance the economic value of the consolidated plots.
Consolidation can be brought about more easily where it is a case of areas to be afforested, because lack of uniformity in the plots does not then present the same difficulty. Here also, it is easier to effect consolidation by creating associations of owners who will be ready to contribute their land and pool their resources for the planting operations and subsequent management of the plantations as a complete unit. This system is adaptable in all European countries and forestry associations of this kind are already actively encouraged in some of them.
In some countries there is a natural trend, without State interference, towards consolidation of properties through purchase by societies, companies or investment agencies, often with a view to exploiting the value of the standing timber. This may or may not be a good thing. In some countries, notably France, the purchase of ownership titles with a view to the constitution of larger forest blocks is generally favored. In Sweden, consolidation of fragmented forest plots is encouraged in any form whatsoever; often certain are legally granted priority rights in the buying of any land coming on the market, with a view to creating estates of better economic size. Some consolidation of woodlands may thus be achieved, but unfortunately the high price of forested areas has not as yet been conducive to much progress along this line. In Great Britain, cooperatives are being formed to bring certain lands under forestry. Owners of adjacent lands receive shares in the cooperatives, and it is possible to form quite extensive management units. Already some 10,000 acres belong to cooperatives of this type, and ready investment capital has been found.
The effects of agrarian reform on forest fragmentation have already been mentioned in this paper.
The list of possible measures that can be taken to increase production and improve yields from private forests is long. It might be divided into compulsory measures and technical assistance or incentives.
Measures of compulsion
This implies imposing restrictions on the freedom of action of landowners. Such measures are not generally viewed with favor but many governments have gone quite far in this direction. Some impose total restrictions over the clearing of woodlands and forest if the aim is to put the land to some other use. But no European Government, save in the case of three German Länder and, under certain conditions, Spain, requires private owners to adopt any prescribed system of management or working for their woodlands, though indeed some, for instance France and the United Kingdom, offer subventions to owners who will voluntarily conform to a management plan approved by the State Forest Service.
Between these extremes, there is a whole range of limitations applied in the various countries of Europe.
In Norway, Sweden and Finland, private woodlands must be managed according to sound silvicultural principles. What is meant thereby is quite clearly defined in regulations, especially in regard to ensuring the regeneration of cutover areas. There are slight differences in the regulations of the three countries but in general they are undoubtedly more strict than elsewhere. However, the restocking of cutover areas is also enforced in several other countries (Portugal and Switzerland, for instance) and some governments further make the afforestation of denuded land compulsory (Switzerland, for example, in the case of establishing protection forests; Yugoslavia, on land within forest reserves; and some German Länder).
Many governments only authorize cutting in private woodlands under license; in Yugoslavia, a forester of the State Forest Service has to mark the trees to be felled. In some instances, limitations on cutting apply only to protective woodlands or forests; such is the case in Spain (regiones de interes forestal), Italy (vincolo forestale), and France (forêts de protection).
In order to prevent the purchase of forests for speculative exploitation, the Danish law makes it compulsory to have a permit for all cutting that it is desired to carry out within ten years of the purchase. Under paragraph 6 of the Law of 11 May 1935, all land registered as forest land must be maintained properly stocked: all private woodlands are regularly inspected.
In all the Länder of Austria a felling permit is necessary for forests not under a management plan. It is proposed to make systematic forest management compulsory for all woodlands over 160 hectares in size, and in addition, to make it obligatory that all clearcut areas must be reforested within five years at most.
Another kind of compulsory measure imposed by certain governments, and notably in some German Länder, is to require that the timber cut from private woodlands be destined for specific end-uses, or else meet prescribed market specifications in regard to size and grade.
Technical assistance or incentive measures
These kinds of measures may be treated in the same order as given earlier in this paper.
Remedying lack of technical knowledge
Considerable progress has been made in this respect in recent years, either through direct government action or indirectly through government-supported forest owners' associations.
Two types of action may be distinguished, one aiming at giving direct instruction, if only of an elementary character, to woodland owners, and the other designed to provide the services of experienced foresters capable of giving advice and guidance or performing for owners operations that require particular professional skill.
An example of the first type is that adopted, for instance, in Austria where technical training is provided for both the sons and daughters of forest owners, and elements of practical education are also taught by provincial youth organizations. In Sweden, 3.5 million kroners are spent per year on courses, either by correspondence or direct instruction, for forest owners and workers. By the end of 1956, Finland had nine schools for the training of forest owners. France has recently opened a similar kind of school and proposes to pursue this policy further.
School forests have naturally a broader purpose but their role in educating forest owners and their children must not be underestimated. Germany has about 1,400 such forests varying in size between three and five hectares. Here also there are two organizations operating to provide demonstrations of methods of felling, planting and execution of various types of forest work. Education through newspapers and journals is also markedly well organized; almost all farmers' magazines have a forestry section and many of them publish special forestry issues from time to time. Agricultural shows include forestry sections.
Courtesy, Service Topographique Fédéral
In Great Britain and France, considerable efforts are also made to educate forest owners through reading matter and publication of technical pamphlets. Switzerland makes particular provision for training technicians in timber grading and marketing so that they can, in turn, usefully give advice and help to private owners.
The second type of aid involves the furnishing of direct technical assistance to owners and this service is available in practically all European countries. In some, separate extension services have been established for this sole purpose and in the countries of northern Europe, for example, these are of long standing. In Austria, this type of assistance is rendered to small woodland owners by special forest services organized within the Chambers of Agriculture of the provinces. France has for several years had a Private Woodlands Service, and in Spain the Forest Service is to be reorganized to include, in particular, a forestry technical assistance or extension service.
The provision of personnel for such technical assistance services, not only for State services but also for various private associations, means that a considerable effort in training must be made. Once personnel have been trained and made available, their services must be used. In some countries, Germany for example, owners of forests over a certain size are required to make use of the services of professional foresters. Elsewhere, persuasion must be made effective.
Improving the economic situations of owners of private woodlands
Measures aimed at improving the economic situation of woodland owners so as to induce them to practice better management, undertake improvement works and carry out afforestation, are not peculiar only to small woodlands. The greatest incentive, of course, is proof that good forestry pays.
The maintenance of relatively high prices for standing timber and converted forest products is the best possible inducement to private woodland owners. Germany's 1957 report to the European Forestry Commission notes that timber prices are sufficiently high to allow most owners to dispense with government financial aid. High prices particularly favor the growing of quick-yielding species such as poplars, which can be integrated into normal farm management. It is not surprising that 6 to 8 million poplars were planted in Germany in 1956.
However, a deliberate policy to keep prices at a comparatively high level may, in the long run, rebound against the interests of forest owners. Many forest-owners' associations regard one of their main functions to be forcing prices of standing timber to the highest possible level, which can be harmful to industry. A report from Germany mentions that legislation is being introduced to curb such activities. It is the feeling of the European Forestry Commission, however, that close contacts between forest-owners' and wood-users associations or the trade are the best means of maintaining prices at reasonably remunerative levels and preventing dislocating fluctuations.
But there are other factors besides high prices. Many countries report that differences between "farm woodlots" and other private forests are tending to disappear. Electrification, improvement of roads and communications, easier availability of consumer commodities, encourage, for example, the use of fuels other than wood, or the replacing of wood fence-posts by electric fencing. The domestic demands on the farm woodlot decline and farmers look to producing higher grade products from their woodlands to bring in cash incomes. In the countries of northern Europe, it is considered that there should no longer be any difference in forest policy as applicable to public forests and to farm woodlots.
Technical progress in agriculture also has some effect on the possibility of improving management of farm woodlots. Rotation of forage crops, for example, makes it possible to dispense with or at least reduce grazing in woodlands, and also permits the afforestation of marginal pastures. The gathering of litter from the forest is seldom necessary as a practice anywhere at present. Agricultural workers' cooperatives provide training in forestry so as to make their members more versatile and employable at all seasons.
Financial aid
Providing financial assistance to forest owners is by far the most common method of inducing them to improve the treatment of their woodlands or to put in hand improvement works or plantings. This aid may be direct from the State but can also take the indirect form of promoting the setting up of owners' associations, mutual benefit societies, or the organization of credit facilities, all methods aimed at helping owners to help themselves.
Direct financial aid from government sources or through associations set up for the purpose, is general in Europe, and in most countries substantial amounts are allocated each year for such aid. Special agencies have been set up in various countries (Spain, France) to finance this type of aid, or else special laws have been passed (Finland, 1953). In this respect, Germany's Green Plan may also be mentioned.
Finland in 1956 spent nearly 3,000 million marks on the supervision of private woodlands and on assistance for improvement works and forest management; that is, nearly as much as the amount spent on the State forests. In Sweden, special effort is put into the construction of forest roads, which receive subsidies covering from 50 to 80 percent of the cost depending on the individual cases and the region. Road projects are drawn up by specialists attached to district forest services and the actual work is performed by the farmers themselves, who often organize themselves into associations for road-building and maintenance. Two to three thousand kilometers of roads are being built each year.
Aid often takes the form of subventions or grants to owners who agree to observe certain silvicultural or management rules. The Dedication Scheme of the United Kingdom is a typical example. As a rule, the stricter the regulations and restrictions that are imposed on owners, the greater is the financial assistance accorded to them. There are countries, however, where substantial aid is given with practically no obligations required from the owner.
The form which financial aid can take varies. One of the oldest means is the reduction or temporary cessation of taxes on forested areas, or the application of a special tax schedule for owners of forests who undertake to conform to certain regulations. Such relief has often proved necessary because the tax load applied to forests, particularly as regards inheritance taxes, is frequently one of the main causes of the ruin of private woodlands. 1 In France, particularly valuable assistance is given to owners who would otherwise find it difficult to meet inheritance duties without overcutting their woodlands.
1 The incidence of taxation has been dealt with thoroughly in publications of the Forestry Section of the European Confederation of Agriculture.
Often assistance takes the form of grants or subsidies; that is, the State participates directly, and makes non-reimbursable investments in work carried out under the responsibility and for the benefit of owners. Such grants may be in cash or in kind, for instance, in young plants or seed, and generally cover a large proportion of total cost. This, however, varies depending on the type of work. For plantings, in Spain, it is 60 percent of the cost of the work (with possible supplementary loans of 26 percent); in France, also, it is 50 percent. In Finland, it amounts to 60 percent and in exceptional cases to 80 percent; but the rate is calculated according to the; financial means of the owners applying for grants, and in such a way as to favor owners of small woodlands. In the Netherlands and in Sweden, subsidies are granted to the value of 50 percent. In Switzerland, both the Confederation and the Cantons can make grants for afforestation work as well as for restocking of woods and land rehabilitation, fencing, road construction and the consolidation of fragmented woodlots.
The loan system is also widely practiced, although to a slightly less extent than direct grants. The system is necessary because in the absence of special State-supported co-operatives or banking institutions, woodland owners or persons wishing to afforest their land, often find it very difficult to obtain the necessary credit. The amount of a loan which a Government is prepared to approve, varies with the extent of the program to be carried out. Usually the interest rate is low and repayment deferred or spread over a long period. In some countries, afforestation loans are recoverable only after the first fellings have been made in the planted stands. In the United Kingdom, although grants are limited to certain kinds of forest work, loans can be granted for all kinds of work likely to be carried out normally in forests, including the construction of roads and of homes for forest workers.
There are other methods of aiding landowners financially or even better to "help them to help themselves". In some countries, at the request of owners and on payment of relatively small fees, the State authorities may entirely or partially manage private woodlands. Norway makes it compulsory for private owners to deposit a specific percentage of their returns from timber sales into a special bank account. This account is unblocked only when the forest owners wish to carry out specific improvement works, and they may then be authorized to withdraw the necessary amounts. This procedure, which has been started only recently, has worked well in practice and Sweden intends to institute a similar system.
A purely financial consideration that frequently deters private owners from establishing new plantations or giving their woodlands proper attention, is the fear of natural calamities - wind damage, insect and fungal attacks and, above all, fire, which in a few hours can destroy the fruits of many years of patient effort.
The situation as regards forest insurance in Europe is on the whole good. In the United Kingdom, owners can insure their woodlands against fire with one large private insurance company and several smaller ones. In fact, the Forestry Commission only makes loans where the interested owner insures his woods. The premiums are relatively small, provided that not only the blocks particularly susceptible to firs are insured but the total forest area belonging to the owner. However, there is no insurance scheme against wind damage, insect pests or disease.
In Denmark, owners can have their woods insured against fire either by regular insurance companies or by a specialized company which however covers only reforestation costs. Sweden has four or five specialized companies which for comparatively small premiums cover not only fire hazards but also insect infestation, wind damage and disease. All losses are covered, taking into account not only the present value of the standing timber but also its potential value. Finland is in an even better position, because owners can insure even against the risk of failure of new plantations. The Netherlands has two mutual insurance companies against fire, one for forests belonging to private persons and municipalities and the other, directly under the Forest Service, for municipalities only.
Forest owners' associations or co-operatives can play a role of considerable importance in solving the problems of private woodlands and small woodlands in particular. ²
² FAO published in 1956, in Unasylva, Volume 10, Number 2, a comprehensive paper on forest owners' associations.
First of all, there can be wide flexibility in the form and mode of organization that such associations can assume, in keeping with the laws and customs of each country. Some forms of association provide only a very loose bond between members or only serve to help them in regard to one specific operation. Others provide for the pooling of the woodlands of all members for the purpose of management as single units, and so can compete with the guilds mentioned earlier in this paper.
The very nature of these associations implies that membership is voluntary. In a few countries, however, there is a tendency to make membership obligatory. In Germany, no new voluntary co-operatives in which the members pool their woods are being set up but those established earlier are still functioning and in two Länder the official services have the authority to create such co-operatives. In Spain, legislation now under consideration envisages the compulsory consolidation of woodlands into units of not less than 50 hectares each, and the compulsory setting up of owners' associations if demanded by over 60 percent of the owners concerned. The latter provision is common in many countries in the case of the formation of associations for a specific operations such as the draining of swamps and marsh land. In Finland, membership in a forest owners' association is not obligatory, but a law of 1950 requires all owners of forests with a theoretical timber yield of over 20 cubic meters per year, to pay a tax towards the support of such associations. In 1956 this tax produced nearly 600 million marks.
In many countries, forest owners' associations, created primarily for the purpose of enabling owners to sell timber from their woodlands at the best prices, soon tend to extend their activities to providing technical advice and material aid in forest management, and in fact to cover all phases of timber production. For example, the marketing cooperatives in Norway have appointed district forestry experts who have proved a great success in helping owners to plan their forest operations as well as to sell their timber. In central and northern Europe, many associations own sawmills. Some of them, like the major forest association existing in Denmark, undertake forest research, as certain Swiss associations have long been doing.
There are many services that such associations can render to governments. Probably the most important is that, especially at the local level, owners are made aware of the economic value of their woodlands both to themselves and in the broader context of the national economy. At the same time, the associations procure for individual owners facilities that governments could provide only through considerable expenditure of public funds or at a cost higher than legislative bodies could be expected to authorize.
Further, since local associations are frequently grouped into regional and then national bodies, they constitute channels through which government authorities can, on the one hand, explain the purposes of national forest policies to private owners in order to secure their collaboration and, on the other hand, sound out the general views of forest owners and obtain their reactions to proposed official measures.
Because of this, many countries have set up bodies composed of forest owners or on which owners are fully represented, to be of service to national forest departments. Usually, these bodies have only an advisory function as, for instance, the Forestry Council of the German Federal Republic. Some governments, however, vest them with responsibilities in connection with forest regulation and management, witness the case of the Forestry Board established in 1954 in the Netherlands.
There is also a marked trend to give even local associations a certain amount of responsibility in the enforcement of state regulations imposed on private owners. This is an excellent way to foster the prestige and standing of such associations and to ensure that they acquire as large a membership as possible. It is usually through the intermediary of such associations, where they exist, that state subsidies are planned, allocated and distributed.
The large forested areas under private ownership throughout Europe entail difficult problems for governments in the matter of the implementation of national forest policies. The relevance of private forests to such policies has often not been fully understood until fairly recently, but now responsible authorities are concerning themselves more and more with the matter.
Means have been gradually devised to provide owners, even of small woodlands, with considerable help towards sound forest management. However, there is still much progress to be made. Exchange of information between countries on methods employed and the degree of success secured, will help to bring this about. The study tour on "the development of rural woodlands" organized by Austria in 1986, and which took the participants also to Bavaria, Alsace, Lorraine and Switzerland, is good proof of this, and represents a useful way of disseminating the benefits of experience.
At its ninth session in 1987, the European Forestry Commission recommended to member countries that this sort of exchange of information be further developed. It further decided to give continued attention itself to developments in the matter of small woodlands, through reports rendered by Member Governments.
A number of specific recommendations were made to governments along the lines set out in this paper, and there were two points on which the Commission laid special emphasis:
1. The need for governments to co-ordinate their national agricultural and forest policies, and to effect as close co-operation as possible between agricultural and forest, services advising farmers.2. The fullest use of all forms of associations, syndicates, co-operatives or societies, to avoid further fragmentation of forest holdings and encourage the consolidation of existing fragmented holdings into economic units; to make private forest owners understand the economic value of their woodlands and instruct them in the essentials of good forest management; and, finally, to provide technical and financial assistance so that owners may fully exploit the productive capacity of forest soils, both in regard to quantity and quality of production, and gain remunerative money yields from their forest crops.
Translated from an original French text
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The article "An Accounting System for Mechanical and Motorized Equipment" by A. R. Patterson, published in Unasylva Volume 11, Number 3, was originally prepared for the Woodlands Section of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and printed as Woodlands Section Index No. 1567 (B-5). |
