MIKKO KANTOLA
MIKKO KANTOLA is Chief, Forestry Department, Work Efficiency Association, Helsinki. This paper was prepared for a symposium on matters of common concern to agriculture and forestry, held at Rome in conjunction with recent sessions of the European Forestry Commission and European Commission on Agriculture.
IN THIS PAPER the role of forestry in small farms covers countries of market economy with private ownership of farms and farm forests. There the State exercises only a certain influence on farm forestry. Forest owners and different forms of their co-operation, as well as communes, forest industry and other national groups, play an active role in the policy toward farm forestry. Political parties may also be interested in farm forestry, especially if it plays an important part in the national economy of the country.
In order to secure the continuity of a forest program the State usually sets guidelines to maintain it. This guardianship is performed partly through general economic policy and especially through forest policy proper. The measures can be divided into regulative and promotive stages. The regulative activity usually consists of laws and measures of control, the promotive steps include different kinds of assistance.
Most of the provisions in European forest laws are of a prohibitive nature, not only in protective or recreational forests but also in economic forests. They regulate, for example, the responsibilities of the forest owner and of the buyer as well as the organization of administration. In order to assure the continuity of the yield they aim to prevent the devastation of the forests or to make provisions for fire protection or minimum requirements for forest practices. In recent years forest legislation has taken more positive steps in order to achieve better management of forests.
The controlling and assisting activity of state legislature also varies from country to country. In some countries supervision is executed by state officials; in others this activity is entrusted to the care of private or semigovernmental organizations which as well as supervising also assist the promotion of farm forestry. This can be given as free assistance in the form of planning, foreman assistance, tools, seeds, and plants in order to ensure the long-term investments needed in national timber production. Financial aid can be given by loans at a low rate of interest depending on the economic standing of the forest owner. Of course, a certain part of scientific research and vocational training as well as different kinds of extension service, mainly or mostly financed by the State, benefit farm forestry.
Within the limits of state control and assistance private farmers are able to manage forests and harvest from them. Farmers who have their own forests also value their freedom to manage their forests as far as possible within the limits of legislation and control. It is necessary therefore to give them responsibility and to activate them through their own organizations. Responsibilities, rights and aid in the proper proportion will continue to be the keys to development of forests on small farms in the future.
Farm forestry can be considered as a:
· wood producer for the forest industry or for other buyers
· producer of wood needed on the farm
· form of land use
· supplement to seasonal employment
· supplement to earnings
· producer of funds from forest crops
· security for rationalization of agriculture
· leveler of economic fluctuations
· investment object for funds
· hedge against monetary inflation
· security for credits
· ground for recreation
· source of pleasure of ownership
· sign of wealth.
In northern countries especially, forests compose an essential part of the farm. Of the total forest area, 73 percent in Norway is owned by farmers or by other private persons, in Finland 63 percent and in Sweden 51 percent. In these circumstances the standard of farm forestry is important for the whole nation.
Farm forestry, however, involves a number of problems arising mainly from the type of ownership and the size of the holding. Osara (1936) stated that the responsibility for the condition of small forest lots often lies with the previous owner where forest lots near villages have been neglected, or their domestic use has been heavy, or they have been vigorously harvested before being sold to the new owner. He also pointed out other weaknesses of farm forestry. In particular, too small "dwarf forests" are not able to produce enough wood for domestic use and not enough suitable wood assortments are comprised in them. Therefore Osara stressed that the purpose of small-scale forestry has to be clearly defined as the production of' the greatest possible and most valuable amount of wood for sale. If this is done the demand for domestic wood will also be satisfied.
Features of farm forestry have been discussed by Holopainen (1966) as follows:
· As an individual form of ownership forestry does not generally constitute an independent section in the planning and decision-making process of the farm enterprise, but a part of its total operation.· National agricultural production targets, with the accompanying price and cost structure, often favor agriculture in the owner's decision-making as to land use, investments, use of labor, etc.
· In this planning situation there is a danger that the development of forestry on farms suffers from the temptation to sell timber needed as production capital or to direct investments to agricultural production because it provides income more quickly than forestry.
· Landownership lacks stability in some countries. Farms are frequently divided between children, farmland may be sold, it may be appropriated for various purposes, etc. These uncertainties reduce interest in developing forestry.
· The farmer frequently lacks knowledge of forestry and, feeling more dependent on agriculture, is more interested in having additional training in agriculture than in forestry, which results in the risk that he may fail to make well-balanced decisions.
· The development of farming in general suffers from the fact that the flow of know-how and of innovations is much slower to farms than to industrial firms. Particularly in small forestry holdings the lack. of knowledge is often acute.
· In some countries certain subsidiary uses, like the grazing of woodland, greatly handicap effective timber production.
· The small size of farm forests affects the economic results of forestry by not permitting large-scale Operations and low unit costs in forest management, mechanized logging and marketing.
· Small farm forests with a modest income also affect the owner's investment policy because of a lack of Opportunities for investing money and labor in long-term forestry improvement.
Farm forestry has also many merits. From the point of view of farming some of them have already been listed. Because of the complex of agriculture and forestry- the farm owner is able to use on the farm common production means - buildings, machinery, labor force - which result in a decrease of capital investment compared with that of' separate agriculture and forestry. Seasonal fluctuations in agriculture, in particular, create the need for more widespread employment outside agriculture and more working hours for tractive power which can be used both in agriculture and forestry. By this means not only the forest's stumpage prices but also its work strengthen the farming economy.
Connected with the increasing demand for wood, silvicultural activity arouses an increase in the need for work input to counterbalance the decreasing input in harvesting. Thus, it is possible to encourage forest owners to increase wood production by the use of their own farm labor; by this means favorable results have been achieved in Finland and in some other countries. On the other hand, since farm labor is a reserve labor force for the increasing industry and developing service industries, a shortage of labor may be foreseen sooner or later in farm forestry also.
Most small farms are situated near settled areas and on productive soil. Therefore, their chances of producing good quality forests and selling wood products are favorable and they may also have qualifications for intensive wood production in spite of the many disadvantages mentioned above. According to Hahtola (1967) the standard of silviculture is not influenced by the size of the farm. Thus small farms may also be able to fulfill satisfactorily their role in silviculture.
Fifteen years ago, a government committee made a study in Sweden of the productive status, stocking, etc. Of farm forestry as compared with that of State and company-owned forests. This study found no major differences in biological or productive aspects. Thus, "the Swedish national forest policy, through the combination of legislation, control and subsidies, has proved that in the past it has been possible to achieve a satisfactory yield from farm forestry, despite the small size of the combined farm and forest enterprises." (Sundberg, 1966)
These have been studied in many countries. One may mention research on the relation between delivery cuts and management of the farm as a whole, including its economic and social environment (Hahtola, 1967). In this factor-analytical study the following 12 factors were interpreted: farm size, size of holdings, degree of mechanization, off-farm utilization of tractive capacity, ratio of labor and size of herd to acreage, self-sufficiency in tractive power, size of delivery cut, time at which the cut was commenced, improvement cuts, structure of labor input in cutting, productivity of' delivery cut, and rational utilization of' forest land. This 12-dimension solution permitted a multidimensional examination of the relation between delivery cuts and the totality of farming. The following results from this study (Hahtola, 1967) may be noted:
· Scattered settlement seems to accentuate the importance of the forest to the farm.
· A rational parceling of forest holdings leads to better cutting methods.
· Cutting methods improve and the proportion of renewal cuts grows on moving from remote areas toward population centers.
· An abundance of labor and off-farm utilization of tractive power usually seem to favor intensive utilization in proportion to the size of the farm.
· The size of the farm has no effect on the standard of silviculture.
· The productivity of delivery cuts (labor input per output) is affected by the total employment of labor and tractive power on the farm. The off-farm employment of tractive power improves the productivity of delivery cuts. A similar effect is also achieved by such production lines as animal husbandry, which provides plenty of employment in winter.
· Alternative work opportunities for labor and traction - i.e., full employment - appear to improve the productivity of delivery cuts in part even when outside labor is used.
· On the contrary, an abundance of labor and the use of the farm's own labor are probably detrimental to the productivity of delivery cuts. In such cases the cutting is simply a fill-in job and not enough attention is paid to methods and work organization.
· As the size of the farm grows, factors both favorable and unfavorable come into play. The increase in the quantity felled and the rise in the degree of mechanization favor productivity. Better opportunities for using the farm's own labor on bigger farms have the opposite effect.
Silvicultural and forest management techniques adopted in European countries were developed mainly during a period when the power required in forests was provided by men and animals. Nowadays modern logging techniques require as far as possible clear cutting and large areas in order to achieve economic results. This points to the fact that traditional silvicultural practices ought to be adjusted and simplified to suit the requirements of modern mechanized harvesting techniques.
To define it in this way is not to forget that the old tradition is to set primary importance on silviculture and secondary significance on harvesting. There are also two main aspects in silviculture: silviculture solely as a biological science or silviculture adapted to maximizing profit. If it is agreed, however, that the function-idea of farm forestry is to maximize the economic added profit of producing and harvesting forests, it must be realized that silviculture and harvesting ought to be adjusted to each other.
Another distinctive feature of European farm forestry is the challenge to increase yields since Europe has become a large net importer of roundwood and processed wood from other continents and since the demand for wood is expected to increase further. When the level of demand is simultaneously accompanied by a rapid change in the pattern of demand, the desired variety of tree sizes, qualities and species ought to be indicated to the farmers of the region. This kind of measure presupposes the application of a national forest policy and management.
Providing that the increasing demand for wood in Europe leads to intensified silviculture, it can be estimated that owners of small farms - also having been stimulated by suitable information, educational activity and assistance - will show more and more interest in increasing the yield of their forests, providing, of course, that the improvement of forest yield will be rentable. Using the results of forest tree breeding, cultivation and fertilization of the soil and regulating water conditions, an integrative biological advance can be made. In order to maximize the profit the results of these actions ought to be measured in quantity, quality and economy.
Circumstances, however, vary a great deal in various countries, and especially in the countries of Europe. As a result our knowledge of the factors influencing biological advance and silvicultural treatment of stands is still very limited in spite of a considerable amount of scientific research. It is likely, however, that by the means mentioned above the rotation cycles of forests can be shortened in the future, not only in southern Europe but also in northern Europe. The optimum combination of thinning intensity, thinning cycle and type of thinning, however, must be found.
Operational costs can be reduced by mechanization in silviculture. Mechanical ditching plows, scarifyers, rotating earth movers, plate harrows and other site-preparing machines, planting machines, tractor- and airplane-applied fertilizers, new plant-growing techniques, etc., can be used economically under many circumstances. The increase in mechanization, however, stipulates that silvicultural practices should also be organized as a more regular activity in order to be economically carried out.
Research as to means of reducing costs in silviculture and harvesting ought to be increased. For example, row thinning, leaving parcel roads open even when establishing new stands, optimizing the clearings, etc., ought to be investigated in order to avoid loss of yield and to give relevant recommendations to farmers.
Until now small farms have also been obliged to strive to optimize the yield of their forests quantitatively and qualitatively in a suitable way. In the future it may be possible that, especially in connection with the changing pattern of demand, the increasing demand for pulpwood and the developing industrial processing techniques for dealing with pulp will lead to a situation where it may be advisable in certain regions to strive to maximize the quantity of yield in pulpwood production by short rotations and intensive cultivation. This in turn will give new impetus not only to small farms but also to the science of silviculture.
The cost per work unit in the mechanical conversion and transport of timber consists of the cost of labor and the cost of operating machines. Thus, in order to reduce the cost per work unit we must reduce their sum. However, when lowering the cost of labor by means of machines, machine costs tend to increase.
There are several levels of mechanization at which machine costs together with labor costs decide the work cost per timber unit under the prevailing circumstances. The level of mechanization can be defined as the relation between the machine cost and work cost per timber unit. If the work is totally manual the level of mechanization is 0, and if it is totally mechanized the level is 1 (Brunet, 1966).
Thus, it is possible to achieve in the harvesting of small farm forests the same or an even smaller cost per work unit by means of small machine investments and by relatively low outputs per day than by the bigger :machine investments and daily outputs of large-scale forestry. On the other hand, efficient machines requiring high investments are the most economical in large-scale forestry.
As an example three different machine investments and the* daily cost when felling trees and skidding the assortments onto the roadside may be considered here (Kantola, 1967):
|
Machine investment, in thousand $ |
|
Labor and machine cost per day, in $ |
|
Farm tractor with a winch |
3.0 |
13 |
|
Forest tractor or tractor with forest equipment |
15.5 |
100 |
|
Combine machine |
62.0 |
300 |
According to this example, the cost of harvesting would be U.S. $2.50/cubic meter in all cases if the approximate daily outputs were:
|
Size of investment, in $ |
m3/day |
|
3000 |
5 |
|
15500 |
40 |
|
62000 |
120 |
Thus, the work input of one man would be, in the first case, 0.20 man-day/cubic meter, in the second case 0.15 man-day/cubic meter and in the third, 0.05, although the cost per work unit would be the same in all cases.
CONCLUSIONS:
· In mechanical work the output per day must increase according to the heavier mechanization used.
· The mere work input of one man is not a sufficient measure when trying to find out the most economic level of mechanization.
· The most economic level of mechanization ought to be selected by comparing the sum of labor and machine cost per day with the output per day in the circumstances concerned.
· When trying to reduce costs it would be more reasonable to aim at the optimum not minimum labor, according to the circumstances.
As seen above, the amount of investment calls for a certain output per day. It also calls for a certain output per year, because in mechanical work the cost of machines per working hour is very largely dependent on the amount of annual work.
The tolerable working cost of an $18,500 tractor (Arnkil, 1966) demands, under Finnish conditions, at least 1,500 working hours per year. The influence of the amount of investments upon the total cost indicates that it is not reasonable to use machines of this price below 1,000 hours a year. The level of use ought preferably to be 2,000 hours a year. In addition, Arnkil makes the statement that the transport output of an $18,500 forest tractor with a tariff of $0.78/piled cubic meter ought to be, during a period of use of 1,500 hours, about 8.6 piled cubic meters per hour. According to this a forest tractor of this type should annually transport at least 13,000 piled cubic meters in order to be profitable.
As a general guide to Finnish conditions it can be stated that the profitable use of a forest tractor calls for at least 200 to 250 days of annual work. Thus a professional tractor contractor needs to skid annually 10,000 to 15;000 cubic meters of timber from the forest to the road side. According to Sundberg (1966) a special forest tractor ($16,000) in Sweden requires a period of use of more than 8 to 9 months which corresponds to an annual production of only 6,000 to 7,000 cubic meters.
According to Sundberg the influence of the size of the operation upon the direct logging cost in the well-populated areas of central Sweden with a good road network was as follows:
|
Size of operation, m3 |
100 |
200 |
400 |
600 |
800 |
1000 |
|
Ratio of direct logging cost per unit of wood |
123 |
107 |
97 |
93 |
90 |
88 |
Sundberg also states that the critical minimum size of semimechanized work operations in southern Sweden should be 10 to 20 hectares in thinnings and 2 to 4 hectares in clear cutting, or the cutting amount in both 500 to 1,000 cubic meters. In northern Sweden the respective areas would be 60 and 14 to 20 hectares and the cutting amount of the operation 2,000 cubic meters. The required size will gradually increase as the operations become more mechanized.
When examining the background of mechanical harvesting, attention is stir] paid to the size of the timber to be harvested. It is well known that the harvesting work per cubic unit in normal mechanical work is more expensive the smaller the trees. In addition, the harvesting cost per cubic unit with combination machines seems to be very dependent on the size of the stem. The density of the stand also largely influences the harvesting costs. As a practical statement it can be indicated that under Finnish conditions, mechanically harvested stands ought to have a density of at least 40 cubic meters per hectare. If the stands marked for cutting are considerably thinner than this, an increase in input and costs occurs. The relationship under American conditions is illustrated in a graph by Koroleff (1941). Many other factors also exist which influence the cost of mechanical harvesting. Only the density of the road network and the required amount and type of wood assortments of the operation will be mentioned here.
When considering the opportunities for mechanizing wood harvesting in farm forestry account must also be taken of the connection between silviculture and harvesting. The current principles of silviculture aim at the largest possible wood value increment. Because of this, considerable amounts of small wood must be eliminated in improvement cuttings, thus causing too high costs in silviculture and in the actual harvesting. Therefore it would be advantageous if the site preparation and fertilizing of the soil led to methods of growing pulpwood with a minimum need for thinning. Farm machinery ought also to be developed in such a way that the same machines - particularly tractors - could be used in harvesting, in silvicultural operations and in other operations needed on the farm and in the farm's subsidiary operations.
On the basis of what has been said above, it can be seen that the cost of harvesting can be minimized with a high level of mechanization which, however, necessitates the following:
· Output per day must be sufficiently high.
· Annual number of effective working hours must be large enough.
· Permanent forest workers with professional skill must be available and they must attain a level of salary and social benefits comparable to those of other trades.
· Forest work sites must be big enough.
· Stands marked for cutting must be dense and trees must be of big volume.
· Clear cutting ought to be practiced as much as possible and wood assortments few.
· Different forest works (silviculture included) must be organized so that professional forest workers can be employed throughout the year.
These requirements are difficult, particularly in farm forestry, and in many cases impossible to fulfill. In general the following facts hamper the chances of all-year-round vocational work:
· In many European countries the timber is harvested on small work sites, where often only half are clear cuttings profitable for mechanization and the other half are less profitable thinning cuttings.· In many countries the stands and work sites are not systematically situated along the same roads, which would considerably facilitate transport operations.
· If there are several buyers in the same area it causes the intercrossing of transport and makes timing the work difficult for high efficiency machines.
· Now and in the future there are and will be plenty of forest owners who want to fell and transport their own trees to the roadside in order to earn extra income at times when they have no other profitable work.
· The fluctuations between supply and demand both in international markets and in the national timber markets render the even running of the sites and the organization of all-year-round work very difficult.
· Logging methods are dependent on the demands imposed by the mills for the reception of timber, on legislative and commercial handicaps and on other factors. Generally speaking, the mills are not yet capable of receiving timber in every possible form; there are too many convertible timber species; the timber has to be stopped and measured too many times on its way from the stump to the mill; the forest roads are still imperfect; driving on common roads with loads of sufficient size, etc., is not allowed.
· Especially in the northern countries there is a lot of terrain - in Finland perhaps 50 percent - where the transport of timber is possible only when the ground is frozen. In terrain of this type forest work is bound to be of a seasonal nature.
· In some countries the seasonal nature of forest work is increased, for instance, by floating or by limited possibilities for felling and storing, due to weather conditions or long-distance transport.
For these reasons it is not possible to carry out harvesting and other forest work everywhere all the year round. Thus, in many European countries permanent forest workers are not the only solution. In addition, seasonal forest workers - if available - are needed if the purpose of mechanization is to be the economic harvesting of timber.
Growth in the national economy alters the relation-ship between different trades in every country. One of the striking features in this dynamic development is the decrease in agricultural population. In Italy, for instance, the agricultural population has decreased by 28 percent since 1958. About 200,000 people every year have left agriculture. In addition, the proportion of tile agricultural population has decreased in many countries. In Finland it was 41.5 percent of the whole population in 1950, 33 percent in 1956 and at present it is 27 percent. This proportion is expected to decrease further.
As a result of this development the number of farms has decreased, particularly in countries with a strong policy of increasing industrialization and decreasing the agricultural population. In France, for example, the area of cultivated land did not change between 1955 and :1963, but the number of farms decreased to about 1,360,000 of which 400,000 farms covered an area of less shall 20 hectares. Twenty years ago there were 300,000 farms in Sweden and now there are only 180,000 farms; and after 10 years it is estimated that the number will be less than 100,000.
Movement from agriculture to other employment is caused by the efforts to increase productivity in agriculture. It is also influenced. by the common growth of the national economy, by increased industrialization and the development of service industries, by improved standards of living and especially by the labor and agrarian policy. Movement from agriculture to foreign countries, on the other hand, is influenced by the official policy of foreign countries. Presuming that a part of the agricultural population is an actual or potential labor force for forestry, the influence of the national labor policy on the forest labor force can be appreciated.
In countries with a high level of mechanization - such as Canada, Sweden and the U.S.S.R. - it can be observed that besides large forest areas a common feature is the lack of forest labor in forest regions. Vast regions in Canada and the U.S.S.R. have always been uninhabited and in Sweden the labor and agrarian policy of recent decades has accelerated the movement of labor away from the forest regions. The only possibility has been to minimize the manual input with heavy machines and all-year-round workers in order to secure the arrival of wood at the mills. The mechanization of forest work using seasonal farm labor under those circumstances would not be economic.
According to the studies on the social structure of forest workers in Europe, close ties have existed between the agricultural labor force and that of forestry. Most of the forest workers have been independent farmers or farm laborers coming from smallholdings of less than 7 to 10 hectares, where the farmers have been obliged to look for additional income from forest work at periods when there is lack of work in the fields. Grammel (1962) showed that in central Europe there has also been a close relationship between the stage of regional economic development and the organization of forestry work, as wolf as the regional structure of agriculture.
In the northern part of Europe rapid economic and technical development in the 1950s began to have an effect on the social structure of forest labor. In Finland, for instance, farmers and family workers from farms of less than 5 hectares formed half of the number of paid forest workers in 1950, while their share was only one fourth in 1961. Small farmers have been replaced by landless professional forest workers, partly by farmers and family workers from larger farms having an acreage under plow of 5 or more hectares. The labor input of the professional forest workers (paid labor input to forestry 101 or more days per year) formed about 25 percent in 1950 and as much as 50 percent in 1961 (Heikinheimo-Ristimäki, 1965) .
In the other northern countries, as well as the countries in central Europe, the share of professional forest workers has increased. Grammel (1962) has stated the changes in the Swabian. uplands in Germany between 1953 and 1960 as follows:
|
|
Change 1953-60 |
Situation 1960 |
|
Percent |
||
|
Professional forest workers |
+ 45 |
28.8 |
|
Temporary workers |
- 40 |
28.6 |
|
Casual workers |
+ 53 |
42.6 |
According to Steinlin (1966): "This sort of labor situation is very advantageous to the forest industry since it allows a certain amount of the year's work to be carried out by specialist workers and the exhausting days of winter to be compensated for by using casual labor. This therefore results in a typical annual distribution of labor."
Steinlin has examined the forest labor force coming from different kinds of farms according to some other studies. He states that the expanding development of a region, together with increasing industrialization and the development of service industries, leads to a change in the structures of agriculture. In this way the number of farms of 2 to 10 hectares which are too small for full-time family work but too large for the operator to take up other full-time employment, will decrease. They will be replaced by the larger family holdings (more than 10 :hectares) that are the objective of the official agrarian policy in most central European countries. On the other hand, there will be so-called "end-of-the-day-farms" which are attended to after a day's work elsewhere. This leads to the conclusion that continuous mechanization urges the forest industry to employ full-time professional forest workers and to use, in addition, casual labor from agriculture in winter. In other words professional forest workers will be recruited mainly from the small farms which will be abandoned or reduced to ''end-of-the-day-farms.''
In a changing society forest policy, labor policy and agrarian policy also influence the practical results of the development. For instance, in Sweden the labor policy together with the agrarian policy has resulted in a shortage of farm labor in forest regions. As a result, there remains only one solution when mechanizing forest operations: high mechanization with all-year-round forest workers. In some other countries possibilities still exist for choosing the desired levels of mechanization to be used according to the wage and price situation, the forest labor force available and the region. As an example take Finland, where 63 percent of the country's forest area and 72 percent of the forest yield are owned by private farmers. According to the author's calculations (Kantola, 1967) there will still in 1980 be a sufficient forest labor force available in farms in Finland in spite of increasing industrialization and the development of service industries, and taking into consideration the continuously increasing output of agriculture and forestry. Forest work may thus be economically performed in the future also by developing machines and farming methods. In some specialized small farms with animal husbandry, the most important means for rationalizing work may be the use of only three machines: a power saw, a farm tractor and a milking machine.
However, the increasing mechanization of wood harvesting may result in a gradual loosening of the ties between agriculture and forestry in many European countries. Forest work sites may be made ever larger by cooperation and amalgamation. Thus, three kinds of labor force can be used: a certain amount of professional all-year-round forest workers (10,000 to 15,000 cubic meters per special forest tractor per year) can carry out wood harvesting as contractors or as professional employees; a part of the harvesting can be carried out by seasonal farm labor (1,000 to 5,000 cubic meters per agricultural tractor with medium forest equipment per year); casual farm labor (100 to 500 cubic meters per agricultural tractor with temporary light equipment per year) can be used when harvesting wood on their own small farms. In the last case, the use of the farm tractor can be considered as a marginal job whereby the fixed annual cost of the tractor is not charged on logging, or the fixed annual cost is charged on logging only in proportion to the time taken.
In all economic life the activities of the public administration and of the private sector ought to be harmonized according to the requirements for growth and development of the national economy. As a result the potentialities of forestry in small farms ought also to be fully mobilized by the joint efforts of society. Most of the problems in farm forestry can be settled by the general economic policy and by the forest policy.
These measures have been dealt with, for example, by Holopainen, 1966. Here only some of them will be mentioned when examining the economic co-operation and other measures required on small farms.
In order to promote forestry and the economy of small farms with the continuing changes in agriculture it must be remembered that changes in the structure of farms are also desirable. The following measures among others ought to be taken:
· Too small farms ought to be amalgamated into larger units and additional areas provided for small farms.
· Additional areas should be rented for farm agriculture and necessary changes to arable areas within farms ought to be made.
· Map sections in agriculture and forestry ought to be made as large and coherent as possible.
· Forests should be planted in small scattered fields where agriculture is no longer economic.
The requirements of silviculture and harvesting should be met by co-operation between farms. This provides that:
· The stands marked for cutting ought to be concentrated around certain roads selected yearly by the forest owners or their associations.· The stands marked for cutting ought to be selected as to logging techniques and located in the first place in areas with unsatisfactory yield in order to make the forest grow.
· Wood from delivery cuts carried out by small farms ought to be stored on roads selected annually by common agreement.
· The co-operation of forest owners in wood harvesting ought to be promoted also by concentrating work sites in harvesting carried out by off-farm professional forest workers in order to make high level mechanization as economic as possible.
Financial requirements ought also to be satisfied. In addition to state assistance, self-financing must be promoted. In Norway a certain percentage of the annual sales value of timber is deducted and deposited in a special account to be used subsequently for forest improvement in the holding concerned (Holopainen, 1967). In Finland self-financing is arranged in connection with taxation by collecting funds for the communal forest owners' associations according to the size and quality of the forests.
Administration and organizations to fulfill the requirements of farm forestry vary from country to country. Regional planning, scientific research ensuring good treatment of forests, organization of forest work, construction of road networks, as well as vocational training at both higher and lower levels, provide for good cooperation between public administration and the organizations responsible for promoting farm forestry.
Collaboration forest owners exists in many countries on the silvicultural, the economic-political and the economic-technical level. Silvicultural collaboration in Finland is based on the existing 389 forest owners' associations, each covering a communal area. They are fully self-financing, collecting funds for their personnel by taxation as mentioned above. Economic-political collaboration may take place in the form of organizations covering the whole state territory, pursuing an economic policy in their own interests. Sometimes, as in the organizations of this kind in the northern countries, they have established wood-working plants owned by themselves or by the forest owners. Part of this activity may also involve co-operative marketing of wood assortments on the roadside or in the forests. Economic-technical collaboration among small farmers may be accomplished in order to enlarge the production units, to simplify production and to acquire extra income. Reinikainen (1966) has presented the different kinds of co-operation between small farms as follows:
MUTUAL USE OF MACHINES AND LABOR
Based on private ownership:
· Aid of neighbors
· Machine-hiring firm
· Machine contractor
· Machine contractor and co-operative society in cooperation
· Hiring circle
· Machine bank
Based on common ownership:
· Machine syndicatean independent machine syndicate
a co-operative machine society
a machine joint-stock company
an organization
a machine dealer's firm· A working circle (a machine circle)
COMMON PRODUCTION
Based on private ownership:
· Mutual production planning (joint sales, etc.)
· Mutual production (a common pasture for cows, co operation in cattle raising, etc.)
· Forest co-operation area (a forestry syndicate)
Based on common ownership:
· Common operation (common milking, a common cowshed)
· A common household (small farms combined into common enterprises completely or for a certain part of production)
Thus, there are available many opportunities for different kinds of co-operation in farming and farm forestry. Which of them can be employed in the region concerned depends on different technical, economic, social and psychological factors. However, a high mental and educational level among farmers and well-planned organization of the linking organs for co-operation are also
needed for successful economic and social results.
ARNKIL, J.E., 1966. Traktorin käyttöedellytyksistä Metsähallituksen teknillisiä tiedotuksia No. 64, Helsinki.
BRUNET, R.L., 1966. Mechanization and size of lumbering operations: their correlation with methods of management. Sixth World Forestry Congress, 6 CFM/G/ C.T.IV/4, Madrid.
ECKMÜLNER, O., 1966. Is there a dualism between the beneficial and recreational influence of the forest on the one side and its economic function on the other side ? Sixth World Forestry Congress, 6 CFM/G/C.T.IX/2, Madrid.
GRAMMEL, R., 1962. :Die Abhängigkeit der Arbeitskraft-verhältnisse in der Forstwirtschaft von der regionalen wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Schriftenreihe der Landesforstverwaltung Baden-Württemberg, Band 13, Freiburg.
HAHTOLA KAUKO, 1967. Hankintahakkuut ja maatilakokonaisuus. (Summary in English: Delivery Cuts of Timber in Farm Management). Publication No. 114 of Work Efficiency Association, Helsinki.
HEIKINHEIMO, LAURI and RlSTIMÄKI, TOINI, 1965. Suomen metsätyövoima. Maaseudun työvoiman tutkimus 1961. (Summary in English: Forest Labour Force in Finland. Finnish Rural Labour Force Study, 1961.) Työvoima-tutkimustoimisto, Helsinki.
HOLOPAINEN, VILJO, 1966. Private forestry - a review of problems. Sixth World Forestry Congress, Madrid.
HRUSIK, and JINDRA, J., 1966. Methodological problems in harmonizing short-term and long-term forestry objectives in the system of planned economy. Sixth World Forestry Congress, 6 CFM/G/C.T.X/1, Madrid.
KANTOLA, MIKKO, 1967. Maatilatyövoiman käyttömah-dollisuudet tulevaisuuden puunkorjuussa. Metsätaloude-llinen Aikakauslehti No. 3, Helsinki.
KOROLEFF, ALEXANDER M., 1941. Pulpwood cutting, efficiency of technique. Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Montreal.
MAKKONEN, OLLI, 1964. Eräitä hakkuutöiden palkkaukseen liittyviä perusasioita. Metsätehon tiedotus NO. 220, Helsinki.
OSARA, N.A., 1935. Suomen pienmetsätalous. Deutsches Referat: Die Kleinwaldwirtschaft in Finnland. Thesis. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae 21, Helsinki.
REINIKAINEN, A., 1966. Maatilojen keskeisestä yhteistoiminnasta eräissä maissa. (English summary: Co-operation between farms III some European countries). Tut-kimusselostus 5, Valtion Maatalouden Tutkimuslaitos, Helsinki.
STEINLIN, H., 1966. Changes in the supply of and demand for employment in forestry. Sixth World Forestry Congress, 6 CFM/6/C.T.V/5, Madrid.
SUNDBERG, ULF, 1966. The relationship between the mechanization and the size of the logging forest enterprise and the forest working plan. Sixth World Forestry Congress. 6 CFM/G/C.T.IV/7. Madrid.
