The failure of a forestry association after a few years of life may be due to an inner flaw in its organization. The defect may be insufficiency of capital which prevents the undertaking of operations of profit to members, or overheads and interest on borrowed capital which burdens the organization with unproductive expenses right from the start. The fault may lie with inexperienced managers, a lack of proper technical staff or of the kind of able and dynamic individual who is indispensable for the satisfactory working of any collective enterprise.
When, however, it is observed that forest co-operatives flourish in some countries while in others they have to struggle to exist (the countries mentioned so far in these pages barely amount to a score); and when it is noted that, even in countries where the movement is highly developed, the activities of the co-operatives take widely divergent forms, then it may legitimately be asked what are the circumstances external to the organizations themselves that favor or hinder their establishment or assure their success once they are established.
The spread of associations is a characteristic of economic and social development during the last half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. Not to mention other forms of association, the co-operative movement has, on the whole, had extraordinary success, particularly in the fields of agriculture - in the widest sense - and of rural industries. They have already achieved much in raising the living standards of rural populations. It is no exaggeration to say that Denmark's prosperity, for example, is largely due to co-operative associations, and it is no matter for surprise that, in 1954, the Economic Affairs Department of the United Nations felt it appropriate to publish a book with the title Rural through Co-operatives.
Assuming then that associations are desirable, why do those pertaining to forestry and forest products show such varied development and diverse forms from one country to another? How can the obstacles to their sturdy growth be surmounted?
The formation of large collectively-owned forest blocks out of small scattered privately-owned woodlands is an operation which nowhere arouses any great enthusiasm. This holds true whatever the form of the association constituted for this purpose, whether it be strictly a jointstock company like the bodies referred to in Chapter II, or a society such as that somewhat arbitrarily called co-operative, like the production co-operative of Chapter IV.
In Chapter II, it has already been said that the law as it stands might not exactly be conducive to forming such associations. Also, the independent spirit often found in peasant communities and especially among owners of woodlands might explain the lack of enthusiasm. This is, in fact, at the bottom of most difficulties and should not lightly be dismissed. An owner's attachment to his woodlands is no isolated phenomenon and one is often surprised to find just how much care is lavished on some properties. The owner who regards his woodland not merely as a financial asset but with family pride, sees its incorporation into an anonymous block as something like confiscation.
There are, of course, other reasons for difficulties in forming forestry associations of the type now under consideration.
THE MEANS OF DEVELOPMENT
In the first place, simply grouping a number of privately-owned woodlands together, some or all of which may be in bad condition, does not automatically give a valuable forest estate and prospects of such dividends in cash and kind as to induce the various owners to carry through so fine a project into practice.
A large collective farm created from a number of small privately-owned farms does not necessarily become truly productive unless it receives investments in the shape of labor-saving machinery, buildings, means for transporting products, supervisory staff, and so forth. The same applies to forests, even if in less. degree. Modern silviculture - at any rate, in countries where the area of accessible forest is unlikely to change much - is expected to produce more per unit of area, and silvicultural operations, very similar to agricultural techniques, must be applied more frequently. If an extensive forest is to be worked profitably, there must be suitable roads. If an association wants to benefit from the higher returns possible through better methods of cutting, removing the timber to road or rail-head, transporting it to consumer centers and perhaps even carrying out primary processing, then the association must provide modern equipment for felling, extraction and transport, and possibly a fixed or transportable sawmill. In any case, technical surveillance will be needed, and silvicultural and cutting operations must be supervised by properly trained men. In short, capital must be invested in the forests - capital which the woodland owners may not be able to invest or may not wish to because the prospects are not sufficiently tempting.
This difficulty can, no doubt, be overcome by making it easier for small owners to obtain loans on easy terms and especially on long-term repayment, or by a system of subsidies. The grouping of lands for afforestation or reforestation purposes appears to have more chance of success than the consolidation of going forests, because planting is often encouraged by state subsidies or generous loans. It might be worth considering the extension of this policy to encourage correct management of groups of private woodlands.
FARM FORESTS
In the second place, a woodland does not always represent a separate entity; in many countries, it usually features as part of a farm, and in those countries - except Japan - where farm forests are commonly spoken of, they are not so small as might be thought. They frequently average 10 to 20 hectares, quite a sizeable area. With fair treatment, a woodland of 10 hectares can easily produce, even with poor soil and climatic conditions, about 30 cubic meters of wood a year which can be sold annually or every two years. It may account for a considerable portion - sometimes the largest portion - of a farmer's income.
Any attempt, therefore, to detach the farm forest from the farm proper would have serious economic and social repercussions. This is true in Austria and certain regions of Germany, like the Black Forest. It may be objected that in other regions the communal forest answers to the same needs as the farm forest - why, then, should not a collective forest do so? But a large collective forest could never cover the same variety of needs. It could not, in any case, represent for the individual farmer a reserve for those financial crises which he knows all too well.
PROSPECTS FOR A LIMITED DEVELOPMENT OF THIS FORM OF CO OPERATIVE
It appears, therefore, that there is little hope of seeing any great development in this method of grouping woodlands. This does not mean that the principle should not be favored in every possible way by legislation - but it should be legislation somewhat like the Danish Acts of 4 April 1909 and 4 October 1919, prohibiting or restraining the splitting up of forest land or else helping heirs to keep it in joint possession.
These are, of course, somewhat negative steps which would prevent future harm without remedying that already done. A more positive policy would be to facilitate the purchase of forest land, especially fragmented forest land, by societies and associations with sufficient capital to develop efficiently the reconstituted forest unit. While it is difficult to set up societies of this kind among woodland-owners, experience shows that it is fairly easy to find an already constituted society or association which can be made interested in the purchase of forest properties. The ideal, of course, is that the body concerned should be disinterested or a professional association like those dealt with in Chapter III, or again an existing forest co-operative. Nevertheless, any other society with capital to invest could fulfill a similar function. Investment in forestry offers a comparative security which will always be attractive where there is little threat to the forest from fire, pests or disease. Moreover standing timber today fetches quite a high price compared with other raw materials, and modern silviculture frequently enables the forest to offer a dividend comparable to that from purely industrial and commercial investments.
It might be advisable, then, to encourage such investments in forestry by special legislation.
There are some circumstances - especially where afforestation with species of rapid growth is concerned - which foster the setting-up of societies or co-operatives in the strict form. In Turkey, for instance, the law recognizes any person afforesting public land as the owner of the planted area. Numerous poplar-planting co-operatives have been organized and enjoy the advantage not only of this legal provision but also of such privileges as exemption from taxes, free supplies of plants, and technical help and advice from the Forest Service. There is, for example, the Yesil Yurt Tarim ve Barindirma Kooperatifi Adana-Ceyhan, with 1,200 members. The association was set up in 1946 and planted 400 hectares of Populus x euramerica between 1949 and 1950. No member may hold more than one share at a fixed value of 600 Turkish pounds. Large poplar-planting co-operatives of the same type exist in Argentina.
The formation of non-profit associations for forestry development or for the conservation of natural resources, and associations for the protection of members' professional interests, dealt with in Chapter III, presents few problems.
Associations for the protection of particular professional interests will tend to arise spontaneously. Where their aims are not confined to the strict protection of the members' immediate interests, their encouragement is a matter worth looking into, for it is chiefly through such wider aims that the associations may exert a long-term influence for good upon forest policy.
A powerful and active non-profit forestry association has little chance of formation in a country where the general public is ill-educated in matters concerning the conservation of natural resources - or is, indeed, ill-educated in any sense. People generally must be aware of forest values before individuals will take the trouble to join any such association. Of course, much depends upon the personality and public spirit, the popular and official prestige of those who inspire such associations. But for all this, their efforts may count for nothing in an environment ill-prepared to heed them; at best, the association will only attract the more enlightened classes and, however eminent the members, smallness of numbers may reduce the effectiveness of the association. The mass impact will not be there; and only this can guarantee positive results. Even the moral or financial backing of the State, however justified by the association's aims, will not be effective by itself. It is indeed the State which must act, but by far less direct means: its task is to educate all classes of the people, to rouse them to an awareness of the importance of conserving the nation's natural resources.
In the same way, the activities of professional associations will have little impact upon the economic and social progress of the country so as the members do not realize that they have a part to play beyond the bounds of their individual interests or professions.
It is, of course, difficult to expect that highly specialized associations of foresters or of the timber trade with their consequently relatively restricted membership - should engage, say, in research. It is not every association of foresters that can boast a membership approaching that of the Society of American Foresters or of the Association of Japanese Forest Technicians which with more than 12,000 members, can engage in such activities as the management of demonstration forests and research into the uses of aerial photography in making forest inventories. But there is no lack of examples of much smaller professional groups that, while continuing to protect their members' material and immediate interests, can yet contrive to engage in pursuits which are good not only for the future of their profession but for the country as a whole.
Here there enters another important educational aspect - this time chiefly civic education. It should be quite a normal thing for the State to help associations that pursue progressive activities. The State, with its forest research stations and forest products research laboratories, can experiment upon problems submitted by the associations, report the results, and give advice. Where associations undertake research on their own account, they can be given useful guidance in formulating research programs, and their work can be co-ordinated with that of the State. Financial help may be particularly justified where associations organize technical instruction for their members and derive no material profit from such activities.
In short, the State has an important part to play both in encouraging the setting up of non-profit associations able to further the application of efficient forest policy, and in directing the influence exerted by professional associations into useful channels.
A people's character as molded by history and environment makes individuals greater or less inclined to unite their efforts in a common aim. History counts for much, there is no doubt, in the development of the co-operative movement in Denmark. The emergence of communal or collective properties in Western Europe and the early formation of co-operative associations in Japan was probably fostered by the need to co-operate in order to overcome the difficulties of life in remote and mountainous regions.
There are three prerequisites to the formation of co-operatives specifically for forestry, obvious yet sometimes forgotten: the existence of small privately-owned woodlands; they must be of some acknowledged value to the owners; and the latter must be aware of that value.
The small privately-owned forest is not to be found all over the world; it is practically restricted to Europe, to the United States of America and a comparatively insignificant area in Canada, and to Japan. Elsewhere, forest land is mainly in public ownership or in the hands of big private owners. The owners of large forest estates rarely feel the need of co-operatives. The forests either bring in sufficient income to pay for their efficient management by trained technicians, and the marketing of products presents no particular difficulties; or, if the forests are difficult of access, their owner either takes little interest in them, and in exploitation, or gets what return he can without regard to their long-term productivity. It is easy to see why forest co-operatives should have made small progress in countries where such conditions obtain. The only forms of co-operative likely to arise are groupings of small contractors or manufacturers, or else - and. these are the types most usually found - co-operatives of forest workers or of craftsmen. In many countries, however, tree plantations on private lands are now being developed, and this may conduce in future to co-operatives similar to those discussed in Chapter IV.
Then there are the cases where small private forests certainly exist but have no intrinsic value, at least in their owners' eyes: forests, for instance, which have been degraded or ruined by overfelling. Even if these could be restored by natural means, it might be difficult to convince the owners that the very long-term yields likely to accrue would be worth the trouble of forming an owners' association.
This is not necessarily an insurmountable difficulty. Such has been the situation in the United Kingdom, but intensive propaganda and technical and financial assistance, and the Government's schemes for reconstituting and extending the country's forest resources have resulted in a widespread movement towards planting and woodland rehabilitation. As has already been seen, this has resulted in the formation of co-operatives which, in their turn, have helped the spread of the movement.
But it may also happen that the small woodland, even though reasonably productive, is not cared for by the owner because the property is too small. It has already been pointed out that, even between those countries where small forest properties are a common feature, there are differences in the degree to which the forests are fragmented. Where fragmentation of forest land was already well advanced when the cooperative movement took root, the difficulties in establishing forest co-operatives since are easily understandable.
Japan's example may seem to disprove this, for there forest property is very much split-up while forest co-operatives are highly developed. But two things must be remembered about Japan: first, that the notion of forming co-operatives and associations, even in forestry, is very old in that country; and secondly that the private woodland has remained closely associated with the agricultural smallholding. Small forests in Japan are largely farm forests like the woodlots in northern European countries which are, on the average, much larger than their Japanese counterparts.
In northern Europe, in Austria, and in many parts of Germany, the forest or woodland is regarded by the farmer as an integral part of his farm. Hence the factors making for the formation of forest co-operatives are found together: forest - covering a small area, it is true, but capable of responding to treatment; and owners who are perforce interested in those forests because they must rely upon them to produce a part of their income. Similar situations exist in other areas: in the French Landes, for instance, where forest co-operatives are highly developed although they are rare elsewhere in France. In northern and central European countries, the growth of forest co-operatives has perhaps been further favored by the general prevalence of a spirit of mutual co-operation in all fields.
FOREST CO-OPERATIVES AND STATE CONTROL
It may be doubted, however, whether all these factors are yet sufficient. Similar conditions prevail in the United States, yet, with a few exceptions, forest co-operatives in the strict sense do not appear to make great strides.
If we look more closely into the matter, the fact emerges that in all countries where the forest co-operative movement is highly developed, close State control is exercised over privately-owned forest lands. This is particularly true where the greatest development has been in co-operatives supplying technical assistance to their members; and perhaps less so where the co-operatives concentrate mainly on the marketing of timber and produce, even though, as has been pointed out, these types frequently add - and tend increasingly to add - consultative services to their other activities. This is the more strange in that close State control over privately-owned forest land means detailing many officers to the tasks involved and these specialists, in the normal course of their duties, give advice to private owners. But the truth is that, however large the official force of experts, they could not properly fulfill their task without the backing of well-organized forest co-operatives. Hence the latter have, to a greater or less degree, a kind of semi-official function, and a responsibility which, though not set down in any legal clauses, is in fact exercised in practice. So the two conditions which appear to encourage the growth of co-operatives are State control and the partial handing-over of practical responsibility to the co-operatives. This applies at least to the co-operatives for technical assistance which, so far as the application of sound forest policy is concerned, are the most valuable.
To prove this point it will be sufficient to look at the forest legislation dealing with private forest land and the authorities responsible for applying that legislation in those countries to which frequent reference has been made: firstly the northern European countries8 and secondly Japan.
8 FAO: National forest policies in Europe, Rome, 1954, and R. E. Marsh: Public Policy toward Private Forest Land in Sweden, Norway and Finland, The Charles Lathrop Pack Forestry Foundation, Washington, 1954.
In Northern Europe
Of the northern European countries, Finland perhaps shows the closest co-ordination among public, private, and semi-private bodies in the implementation of forest policy and the application of the law relating to private forest lands.
The law is strict. Not that management plans are imposed upon the private owner or that pressure is put upon him to fell or not to fell; but the basic principle of the 1928 Act is that no cutting must be carried out which either directly or indirectly (by leaving the land in a bad condition) prevents natural regeneration, and there must be no felling of young vigorous stands, except for systematic thinnings. Every proprietor intending to fell timber for sale or for supply to a mill, must give written notice, except if the cutting is a normal thinning operation or is in pursuance of an officially approved plan. The proposing felling site is then visited by a forestry expert on behalf of the State, and he can prohibit the operation if he thinks it contrary to the law, or he can suggest suitable alternative measures to the owner. The owner can legally disregard this advice, and the forester, after further visits to the site during or after the cutting, can report the case if he considers it necessary. If the results of the felling do indeed constitute abusive cutting according to the law, then the procedure of closure is applied.
This means a partial or total closing of the forest to certain uses (particularly cutting and grazing), accompanied, where necessary, by measures to ensure regeneration. This closure is provisionally ordered through administrative channels and, if possible, a written agreement made with the owner. If he will not agree, the closure is definitely ordered by the judicial authorities which set down the conditions of the closure. If cutting takes place in defiance of a closure order, or if the proprietor fails to notify his intention to fell, then the matter, after examination, is also referred to the judiciary, the owner's rights being safeguarded by a two-stage right of appeal.
The law provides for fines against offenders and the illegally felled timber may be seized and sold, the proceeds being used for the general benefit of private forestry.
In practice, it is sought to settle matters by agreement and above all by advice, help and financial aid to the owners. None the less this legislation, although it may be imperfect (it is intended to introduce amendments to strengthen some weaknesses) imposes a severe discipline upon forest owners.
Compliance with the law is ensured by the department - the largest one - of the Finnish Forest Service which deals with private forests. This department has a highly complex organization. It rests mainly upon the District Forestry Boards, of which there are 18 throughout the country, two being in the Swedish-speaking area. These bodies are directly responsible for seeing that the law is observed in all private forests, whether they are farm forests, forests owned by industrial companies, or any others. Each Board has three to five members as well as a technical staff, forest officers and assistants; these are employed by the Board and rank as civil servants, for the State covers most of the outlay by the Boards. The members are not appointed by the State, however. One is nominated by the Central Forestry Association (Tapio) for each of the 16 Finnish-speaking districts, and by the Central Silvicultural Association for the two Swedish-speaking districts (the part played by these associations will be explained later). The other members are chosen by the local farming associations covering the district. They are usually persons eminent in district farming or political circles, sometimes members of parliament. The members of the Board hold office for three years with the possibility of a further term. They elect their own chairman.
At the parish level, the law provides for local forestry committees each composed of at least three members appointed by the Parish Council. The committee, as a rule, receives and carries out the instructions of the District Forestry Board, although the Parish Council finances the Committee and lays down its internal regulations in consultation with the District Board and after approval by the district governor. Any administrative staff of the District Board working in the parish receive the help and backing of the parish forestry committee.
But as far as the small forest owner is concerned, the parish committees play a small part compared with the parish forestry association to which every owner must belong or which he must at least help to finance. These associations, under management boards elected by members, employ forestry experts; and it is these organizations, set up to help owners to manage their forests, which ultimately put into practice the instructions issued by the District Boards.
For selling his timber, the forest smallholder has also the big marketing co-operatives to call upon: these as a rule, restrict themselves to commercial activities.
The Tapio and the Central Silvicultural Association referred to above are two powerful widespread co-operative organizations employing a large, highly-trained forestry staff. Their activities cover many fields: campaigns for efficient methods of forest care, the publication of manuals, seed collection, nursery management and plant distribution, drainage schemes, and so on. But their chief function is to act as a link between the district forestry boards and the Forest Service on the one hand, and the owners and their parish associations on the other.
Thus the co-operative associations on all administrative levels are closely bound together in the application of the law. It is conceivable that so strict a measure would be widely misunderstood and difficult to apply, were it not for the existence of such associations, their close connection with the Forest Service, and their practical responsibility for implementing the law.
Forest legislation relating to private forest lands is equally strict in Norway and Sweden. In Sweden, felling is forbidden - other than for thinning purposes - except in overmature stands. Where the forest is past its prime, it can be cut, but only on two conditions: that felling does not jeopardize the sustained yield of the woodland or of the forest tract to which it belongs, and that it does not render natural or artificial regeneration difficult or impossible. Moreover, the owner must ensure that regeneration does ensue, and he may be compelled by a court ruling to carry out the operations needed for this purpose if he refuses to adopt any measures advised or ordered by the administrative bodies concerned.
Norwegian legislation on private forest land is similar, although the methods of application are perhaps less severe. One clause peculiar to this law is that requiring an owner, after cutting, to deposit in a bank a certain percentage of the sale price of the timber at the place of delivery. The sum deposited is a surety against his carrying out regeneration work on the forest he has cut. A recent measure has extended this surety scheme still further. The deposit on the sale price of the timber, reckoned at a different percentage rate, can be used in investment projects like road building, drainage systems, and housing and shelter for forest workers.
While it cannot be said that the application of Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish legislation depends entirely upon the forestry associations, it must at least be recognized that they are continually implicated, and that the law might well be inapplicable without their help. It may also be surmised that, if this legislation did not exist, the associations would be far less developed or, at any rate, their services to their members would be much less concerned with the practice of good forestry.
While there is no counterpart in Norway and Sweden of the powerful Finnish Tapio, the Forest Service, or at least the branch of it dealing with private forest lands, receives the closest support of the forestry associations and co-operatives. In Norway, for instance, this branch of the Forest Service maintains permanent liaison with the Norwegian Forestry Society which groups the county forestry associations, and with the Association of Norwegian Forest Owners. The latter unites the district forest owners' associations which, in their turn, represent a union of more than 300 parish forestry associations. The Association of Norwegian Forest Owners is itself affiliated to the Norwegian Federation of Co-operative Associations.
County forestry boards in Norway play a similar part to that of the district boards in Finland. The county boards, in their turn, keep in constant contact with the county forestry associations which, moreover, nominate one of the three members of each board. At a lower level there are, finally, the parish forestry committees, in direct contact with the parish forest owners' associations (which also nominate one of a committee's three members), and with the district associations of forest owners.
Japan
Present Japanese legislation relating to private forests is even more constructive, being based upon obligatory management. This is nothing new, but under the old forestry laws, the onus of formulating management plans was left to - or rather imposed upon - the Associations of Forest Owners, a responsibility that may well have had much to do with the development of co-operatives.
Under the 1961 forest legislation, the State is itself, in principle, responsible for management plans, and the complexity of the task involved is obvious in view of the centralization required by the law. In fact, the Ministry of Agriculture has first to divide the whole of the nation's forest land into main sectors each corresponding as far as possible with a river catchment area; and second, to lay down for each sector a basic management plan for the forests as a whole. This basic plan must provide that:
1. there is no clear-felling in young stands;
2. the thinning of young stands, where necessary, is efficiently planned;
3. areas where major felling operations have taken place are reforested within two years;
4. felling is prohibited on forests on steeply-sloping terrain.
The plan must detail:
1. the types of area to be planted, and the methods and species to be used;
2. the cutting methods which must be observed;
3. the roads to be built and other works to be undertaken relating to the transport of forest products;
4. fire-protection measures, and control methods against pests and diseases, to be adopted;
5. all other measures directly connected with forest management.
It is the responsibility of the governor of each prefecture or county to take the basic plan and, in conformity with instructions from the Ministry of
Agriculture, to see that the area under his control is divided into appropriate management units, and a five-year working plan drafted for each unit, all privately-owned forest land in the unit being included for the purposes of the plan. The draft is, however, not made definite until all forest owners, their associations, or any other persons affected, have had an opportunity of examining the scheme and stating their objections if any. The working plan specifies:
1. the minimum area to be planted and the methods and species to be used;2. silvicultural cuttings and improvement works to be carried out;
3. the maximum volume of cut and how it is to be distributed, firstly as between major fellings and thinkings, and secondly as between categories of products (sawtimber, coniferous and deciduous; fuelwood or charcoal, coniferous and deciduous!, with due regard to special conditions applying to certain forest types, especially protection forests;
4. felling methods;
5. forest roads to be built and other improvement works relating to the transport of timber;
6. lastly, forest protection measures and their efficient application.
On the basis of this working plan, the governor of the county must every year prescribe for each owner and for each separate property, the specific area to be reforested (with methods and species to be used) and the maximum volume that may be felled, first on areas subject to certain special restrictions and, secondly, on ordinary forest land.
The owners are not obliged to fell a precise volume, but anyone wishing to cut must forward a request to the county governor stating the locality where felling is to be carried out, the expected volume, and the different categories of roundwood which will make up the volume. Strictly speaking, the governor cannot authorize cutting in excess of the prescribed volume in any one year but the law, however, does allow some latitude (about 20 percent) in the case of first thinkings, improvement fellings, and the removal of overmature or overlarge trees.
The law permits an owner the right of appeal if he does not agree with the governor's decisions but the latter, nevertheless, has the final say in everything concerning silvicultural treatment on every private forest. The amount of work involved in all this can easily be imagined. While the owners' associations normally no longer play a part in the planning phases, it is obvious that the plans could not be applied without their help; and several instances have come to notice of their taking over, in practice, certain activities for which the governors are theoretically responsible.
It is too soon to draw any valid conclusions as to the results of the current Japanese forest legislation.
It would certainly seem to encourage the formation of owners' co-operative associations - perhaps in a less degree than previous laws, but still very appreciably.
NECESSITY FOR A LARGE TECHNICAL STAFF
Obviously the organization and supervision of private forest management in Japan, just as in northern European countries, requires a large cadre of trained personnel of every grade and degree of specialization: for not only must the governmental service be able to enlist the staff to serve directly or indirectly under its orders, but all the various kinds of associations must also be able to obtain the technicians they need to carry out their tasks. A successful private-forest policy - whatever the procedures adopted - requires therefore large trained staffs. The staff dealing with private forest land in northern European countries is in fact large but is still generally considered inadequate in the countries themselves. The number of professional foresters in Japan is even larger.
If none of the conditions cited earlier obtain, must private forest owners, and particularly owners of small forests or small landowners wishing to establish tree plantations, forego the benefits afforded by the co-operative?
Not necessarily, but it would certainly be better to renounce insistence on specifically forest co-operatives.
It has already been said that, in many countries, local forest co-operatives are combined at higher levels under the auspices of farmers' co-operative associations, or the national federations of such associations. Forest co-operatives thus gained a wider hearing from the public authorities and enhanced financial strength. But there is no reason why forest co-operatives and farmers' co-operatives should not combine forces down to the local level - that is, merge at that level into a single co-operative which would help the members to manage their forests, sell forest products and help in financial problems, just as it would in regard to agriculture. This would certainly help to reduce overheads, although forestry being a specialized subject such a co-operative would generally have to enlist the help of qualified foresters. Otherwise, it would have to seek close contact with the branch of the official Forest Service dealing with private forest matters.
This kind of merger is found in many of the countries which have so far received little mention because in them the co-operative specifically for forestry is rare if it occurs at all. The co-operative movement in Italy has developed along these lines. The land reclamation Act of 1933 and the 1952 legislation relating to the rehabilitation of mountain lands relied largely upon the formation of co-operatives for implementation: both measures concern foresters - indeed foresters hold the chief responsibility in mountain economy. Obviously, any planting, reforestation and general forest improvement schemes embodied in land reclamation projects do not necessarily call for the constitution of separate forest co-operatives; such work falls within the general scope of the rural co-operative concerned.
Even in those countries frequently mentioned in these pages, the question of choice between the general association and the specialized forestry association has not everywhere been resolved in the same way. The Austrian Länder of Carinthia, Upper Austria, Styria and the Tyrol have decided in favor of specialized forestry associations, Lower Austria and Salzburg prefer the generalized association, and it is generally considered in Austria that the merits of the latter outweigh their drawbacks.
An advantage lies in the specialized association in that forest products differ essentially from agricultural products; there are particular processing techniques and distinctive commercial usages; timber has its own market and its own price structure. The farmer who owns a forest usually is quite knowledgeable about price trends for his main farm products, crops and cattle. But he knows little about timber; he sells his wood once a year, if that, and prices are fixed far from his sphere of influence. Moreover he has little experience in forest care.
On the other hand, the specialized forest co-operative has one great drawback - its small capital. Where the co-operative movement is highly developed, the farmer often has to join several associations, each necessitating his paying subscriptions or buying shares. Only an association levying moderate fees has any chance of a fairly large membership. But timber trading calls for large capital investment, because the turnover is slow. Very often a forest trading co-operative will attract no members and get no deliveries of timber unless it can afford to pay comfortable advances. In Austria, where commercial co-operatives flourish, only the Alpenholz whose members are almost all big forest owners, has a large capital and its shares cost as much as 400 Austrian schillings. The shares of other co-operatives are very cheap, sometimes as low as 10 schillings, and, therefore, the co-operative must usually depend upon the credit which banks are willing to give them, at interest rates that are sometimes a heavy burden.
Generalized associations are rarely troubled by such problems. In Austria, at least, none of them seems to suffer from lack of capital. The Union of Provincial Associations of Lower Austria, for example, which does a big trade in all goods needed by farmers (fertilizers, farm machinery, seeds, building materials, etc.) accepts timber from its forest-owning members in payment for these goods.
Opinion in Japan tends to favor merging forest co-operatives with farmers' co-operatives even on a local level. The forest owner and the farmer is usually one and the same person and it has been observed that, in 90 percent of forest co-operatives, the great majority of members also belong to a farmers' co-operative.
The specialized forest co-operative is, however, more amply justified where forest property is divorced from farm property - or at least from farming. For instance, where, side by side with small farm holdings of woodlands, there are also forest estates whose owners are affluent enough to ensure that any co-operatives they might form would have sufficient capital to function efficiently.
This again raises the point whether it is desirable to include both small and large forest owners in the same co-operative. Although opinion is divided on this question, the example of Japan seems to prove that the two categories of owners whose problems, if not their interests, are different, are best kept apart. Otherwise the smooth working of a co-operative may be jeopardized.
