Current issue: 54(2)
This investigation studies the significance of forest income to the economy of a farm in Finland. It concentrates on the relationship between monetary income from forestry and the capital of the farm, especially from the viewpoint of investments made in the agriculture. The material is based on results of the accounting holdings of the National Board of Agriculture between the financial years 1925-1926 and 1936-1937.
The study shows that there is a high correlation between farm’s monetary investments and changes of deposits, and changes in the monetary income of forestry. The changes in depts seem not to be as closely related to forest income as could be expected. The most important role of forestry income in farm economy is financing the investments, i.e. operations that aim at developing and rationalizing farming and making it more profitable. In many parts of the country, the investments would have remained low without income from forestry. Income from cuttings provides usually a relatively large sum on a single occasion, which is easier to use to finance a large investment compared to a smaller regular income. The needs of agriculture may, however, lead to overcutting of the forests.
The PDF includes a summary in German.
The economy of the forestry in private farms in Southern Finland was studied based on the statistics compiled by the Board of Agriculture, and published in the series Tutkimuksia Suomen maatalouden kannattavaisuudesta (Investigations into the profitability of agriculture in Finland). The results present income, expenditure, assets, gross return, net return of the forests in the farms in 1924‒1926. The annual net return of the smallest farms (<10 ha forest land) was 884 Finnish marks and in the largest (>100 ha forest land) 48,335 Finnish marks. The location of the farm influences greatly the net return. For instance, the transport costs of timber from the forest is higher in the larger farms. To utilize the advantages of management of a large forest area requires knowledge about forestry. In addition, the fellings were higher in the small farms during the period. The net return is greater in the private forests than in the state forests located in the same region. Agriculture gave the farms larger net return than the forestry.
The volume 34 of Acta Forestalia Fennica is a jubileum publication of professor Aimo Kaarlo Cajander. The PDF includes a summary in English.
The Finnish Government appointed a committee in 1955 to analyse the economic status of the population living from agriculture. The present paper contains Part II of the proceedings of this committee. It discusses the earnings of the agricultural population from forestry and occasional work.
Agricultural population was defined as all people living from holdings of at least 2 hectares of agricultural land. Forestry income includes, besides the value of stumpage sold, earnings from logging in connection with delivery contracts. Earnings from occasional work include wages for logging made to the account of someone else, as well as wages for agricultural work, floating, carpentry, road construction and maintenance work etc.
In 1951–1954, the farms in Finland received an average aggregate of 29 milliard Fmk for stumpage, 10 milliard Fmk of which consists of the value assigned to the timber consumed by the farms themselves. The average income from stumpage was 110,000 Fmk per farm. The earnings from logging in connection with delivery contracts amounted to 3.3 milliard Fmk, and the earnings from occasional work to 6.7 milliard Fmk. The income from stumpage together with the earnings from delivery loggings amounted to 123,000 Fmk per farm. Adding the earnings from occasional forest work, an aggregate forestry income of 150,000 Fmk per farm has been obtained, 70–75% of which accounts for stumpage price.
The occasional earnings from sources other than forestry were on average 12–13 milliard Fmk, or 45,000–50,000 Fmk per farm. The agricultural income of the farms was 60.4 milliard Fmk, or 230,000 Fmk per farm. Thus, the aggregate income of the farms was 110 milliard Fmk, or 420,000 Fmk per farm.
The financial surplus from forestry per farm for the farms included in the study in 1951–1954 was on average 21, and the income from forestry 18 times as high as in 1934–39. The income from stumpage at the end of the same period was 18, and the earnings from occasional work 27 times as high as at the beginning of the period.
The agricultural income has the greatest relative importance in Southern Finland and Eastern Bothnia. The income from stumpage, in turn, has the greatest relative significance in supporting agriculture in the inner part of Finland, while the occasional income plays its most vital role in northeast Finland.
The PDF includes a summary in English.
The government of Finland appointed a committee to study which method of selling wood, sale at delivered price or stumpage sale, is more profitable method for wood sales from state forests.
According to the committee, in normal conditions, when supply and demand determine the price of timber and forest work wages are dependent on the supply and demand of labour, returns from the sale at delivered price has proved more favourable than stumpage sale. During the World War II the case was, however, the opposite. Sale at delivered price can have also other advantages. The state has by means of logging a hold in the labour market and can use loggings, for instance, to ward off unemployment. Also, loggings can be more easily used in rational silviculture. They keep the supervising staff of forest districts employed throughout the year and provide better professional training for the foresters. In addition, the number of buyers from state forests has increased. The stumpage sale may, however, be good method in certain conditions. The committee states that the State forestry officials are best able to decide on the most favourable method of selling.
The article includes an abstract in English.
The article is based on studies made in the Karelian isthmus in 1936-1938 before the World War II broke in 1939. Further studies were not possible after the war when the area was handed over to Soviet Union. Economic data of agriculture and forestry of the farms had mostly been regarded separately in the early economic studies of small farms in Finland. This survey aimed at studying influence of forestry in the economy of a small farm. 141 farms were included in a more detailed survey.
Forestry accounted for in average 38% of total income of the farms in 1937-1938. The farms had sold wood often, the amounts being often small. Good transport connections in the area facilitated the sales. Over 70% were sales at delivered price, and about half of the wood was small-sized timber. According to the results of the survey, forestry was important for the small farms in Karelian isthmus. The farmers could not have made a living without the forests. Hoveter, the farms had had to overuse the forest resources. The wood resources decreased by 18-22% in 1922-1938. They were, however, at the same level as in average in Finland in 1938.
The article includes an abstract in German.
An act passed by the government of Finland in 1922 prescribed that state-owned forest lands will be parcelled out to landless population. A survey was made in 1934-1935 by Forest Service (Metsähallitus) to investigate the success of the establishment of settlements, and which disadvantages it may have had in forestry in the state forests. In the survey 1,194 farms were inspected.
According to the directives of settlement, the farms should be able support a family of four adults. The area of arable land was in average 5-15 hectares. In addition, the farm should have pasture and forest enough to supply it most of the household timber. According to the study, the regulations had been applied variably. Usually the farms had been given more land than was required. It was estimated that farms had been given 110,000 hectares more forest land for gathering household timber than required in the act. Many farms had sold timber, in some cases to that extent it endangered supply of household timber.
Parcelling out land had affected the management of state forests. If a region had surrendered large forest areas for settlement, it could not follow its cutting plan. Also, there was relatively little state-owned forests in southern Finland, and the effects of parcelling out land were stronger. The report concludes that in general it was not appropriate to parcel out forest land. The execution of settlement should have beeb given to Forest Service.
The article includes a German summary.