sou · GQB340d5 · 2003-01-01 00:00:00 — Thus, if private land is designated as protected, then the landowner is legally obliged to manage his/her property accordingly. The land- owners are compensated for the management of protected areas. has 3,924,000 hectares of , comprising of the land area. Coniferous species constitutes of the Austrian area. Spruce is the most common tree species, with of this area, followed by pine with . area can be broken down into the following categories based on silvicultural objectives: is productive high-forest (commer- cial ) without protection as an objective, is commercial with protection as an objective, is coppice, and the re- maining is non-commercial with protection as the pri- mary objective. Private dominate the ownership structure (Table 24). Ap- proximately of the ownership is comprised of woodlots less than 200 hectares, owned primarily by farmers. Another of the area is comprised of large ownerships (greater than 200 hec- tares), which is owned primarily by former landed gentry, and a small portion by church abbeys and companies. Private (< 200 ha) Private (>= 200 ha) of the nine provinces The development of state in is linked to the feudal sys- tem and its changes. In 1849, the state property was divided from the royal property (Habsburgische Familienstiftung). Then, in 1872, the head offices for the administration of the state were estab- . And, in 1919, the royal property was incorporated into the state . After World War I the financial situation in was so bad that the government tried to obtain a public loan from the United Nations. The loan was granted under the condition that the state for- ests be managed as a private company. It was not until 1996, how- ever, that the quasi-autonomous governmental enterprise was con- verted to the private company to manage the state . The primary legal instrument used to support forestry in is the Austrian of 1975, amended in 1987. This is a federal law based on an older act dating back to 1852. This act defines land, the aspects of regional planning, the conservation of the and the sustainability of its functions. According to the Aus- trian Constitution (Article 10), forestry is a matter of federal legisla- tion and largely provincial administration. However, some specific legislation issues fall under the jurisdiction of the nine provinces, in- cluding regional planning, hunting, nature conservation and agricul- ture (grazing rights). In , there are several organisations involved directly in is- sues relating to : 3.Chamber of Agriculture for each province 4.State managed by () Federal and Province government There are three levels to the administration in : federal, provincial and district. At the federal level, the primary duties are na- tional and international policy. In most cases the primary au- thority is held at the provincial level. At the district level, the em- ployees are considered provincial officials though federal law consid- ers them to be under indirect federal administration. Figure 12 shows how these are organised. There are also departments that handle specific issues. One impor- tant example is the Torrents and , which is a division of the Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environ- ment and . This is important because some of is subject to hazard planning. Each province has a Chamber of Agriculture, with branches at the provincial and district level that represents private owners on statutory issues. The Chambers have two primary roles: 1) to partici- pate in legislative initiatives and act as the lobby in questions of taxation and European affaires and 2) administer government grants to members. The Chambers also work on operative areas, such as planning of wood harvest in small-scale . Federal and Member State Government – The Chambers of Agriculture are integrated at the Conference of the Presidents, which represents the interests of the members at the fed- eral level. The Conference is responsible for the cooperation with other lobbies, market initiatives and the coordination of the Cham- bers. The Conference also participates in international areas like certi- fication. The Chambers work closely with the authorities to en- sure proper land management for their members. Figure 13 shows examples of the Chambers organisation at the provincial level in conjunction with the provincial authorities. Chambers of Agriculture and provincial authorities The structure of the Chambers of Agriculture depends on the prov- ince. Figure 13 has three provinces, and for each province there are two organisations – the provincial authorities (represented by the box LFD) and the Chamber of Agriculture (represented by the box LLWK). The provincial authorities have three main re- sponsibilities: 1) to serve as the authority in federal and provin- cial legislation, 2) provide general advice on management to private owners and 3) manage the provincial . The LFD deals with the operational issues at a provincial level, while BFI deals with these issues at the county level. The FB is a local office that has no real authority, only providing operational support in the . The box on the right for each province (starting with LLWK) repre- sents the owners association, or the Chambers of Agriculture. As Fig- ure 13 shows, the resources for each arm differ for each province. This is a function primarily of the ownership in the province. For example, in there is a significant amount of land in the shared ownership category, and as a result, it relies heavily on the management services of the provincial authority. In provinces with less shared ownership, the provincial authority provides less resources. Federal state () The Austrian state corporation, , is the largest forestry enterprise in . In 1996, it was converted to a share-holding company (with the Republic of as the owner) and is now managed on the principles of a private, profit-oriented company. The organisational diagram is provided in Figure 14. The company con- sists of two managing directors, a and nine depart- ments. There are also five profit centres: three compa- nies, one sawmill and one log trading company. Figure 15 shows how the four aforementioned organisations fit to- gether in . Nature conservation is not organised under one organisation in Aus- tria. However, the government, more specifically the provinces, have the responsibility of the costs involved in managing these areas. The Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and enters into agreements with the provinces to pay of the costs of a national park if it meets certain criteria, primarily the criteria for IUCN designation II (national park). The remaining will be the responsibility of the provinces. There are currently five na- tional parks in , each with a central administration. This ad- ministration is organised as a limited company, which is established to provide policy and administrative functions for the actual land- owners within the national park. They are not however responsible for management, which remains the responsibility of the owner. 6.3Evaluation of the organisational effectiveness 6.3.1 Management of the The primary objective for , like any private company, is to increase operating profit and productivity. However, as a manager of the state , they do have several constraints. One important constraint is to maintain the value of the state . That is, cannot harvest in a that will decrease the overall value of the . Other constraints include the supply of wood to the industry and sustainability of the . has been able to achieve its objectives, providing suffi- cient profits to the owner (the Republic of ) and balancing the needs of managing the land on a sustainable basis, while meeting the demands of the industry. However, the management of the protected can be improved, and this is not unique to , but is a common problem across all ownerships responsible for these areas. The Austrian sector as a whole is not as efficient. As is evi- dent from the previous pages, the system is complex and the costs for managing the state are far from transparent. In addition, the services provided to owners as a whole are far more costly than is required due to this complexity. Bilaga 2 SOU 2002:40 land under control by (000 ha) Protected Area (IUCN categories) II (National Park) C,E,F A = Scientific research B = Wilderness protection C = Preservation of species and genetic diversity D = Maintenance of environmental services E = Protection of specific natural and cultural features F = Tourism and recreation H = Sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems I = Maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes 6.3.2Administration costs and revenues has two business units: forestry and property. The forestry business unit is mainly dominated by production of roundwood, with commercial harvesting providing of the income. This unit also provides revenue from sales relating to the sawmill, trade and hunting and fishing. The government does reimburse for the costs associated with managing the national parks. As a private company with the state owning of the shares, has agreed to pay the government for the use of its land in two forms: dividends and of the annual profit. This is repre- sented in the capital section of Table 26. SOU 2002:40 Bilaga 2 Financial data (1999) for (million SEK) Other services (tourism) Delivery of agriculture products *Note: Exchange rate applied was 1 ATS = (average for 1999). The are open to the public for recreational purposes. Only plantations and felling areas are closed to the public for access. The picking of mushrooms and is limited (maximum of per person per day) in order to protect the . Cycling and horse riding is only permitted on roads upon consent of the owner. Cycling across the countryside is strictly prohibited. Forestry and the trade account for more than of 's gross national product (GNP). And the and wood processing also provides a significant source of employment for local communi- ties (Table 27). employment in (full-time equivalent) including fibre boards and particle boards Paper and pulp industry Paper and cardboard industry 6.3.5Transfer of land ownership The transfer of land for conservation purposes is almost non-existent because by law all landowners are responsible for protected areas. Thus, if private land is designated as protected, then the landowner is legally obliged to manage his/her property accordingly. Table 28 summarises the results of analysing the five state ad- ministrations. The table has three sections; the first section summa- rises general information, the second summarises the state ad- ministration and the third section summarises the most important points for protected areas. The following gives further background and explanation for Table 28. The order in which the countries are presented in Table 28 was deter- mined by the percent public area, which was calculated by di- the public area by the countrys total area. had by far the largest amount of area controlled by the state, with , and the lowest was , with only . As far as the overall cover, had the most with . In , to be classified as land, the potential annual incre- ment of the site must be at least /ha. Thus this does not include scrub land, waste land and areas under forestry roads and landings. had the lowest cover with only , which includes of planted and of native . Table 28 includes a topic called Public nature conservation %, which is the area of nature conservation on public lands divided by the total area for that country. These areas include statutory protected and nature conservation areas. Out of the total for- est area in , is managed by the state for nature conserva- tion objectives. Areas included in this calculation were IUCN catego- ries II and V, nature reserves, landscape parks and other land managed for protection. In , of the protected areas are located on public land. Therefore, with cover, of the total area is managed by the government for conservation/ protection objectives. has almost 4 million hectares in nature conservation (protected areas, wilderness areas and recreation areas), which is of the total area in . Included in these na- ture conservation areas is 1.2 million hectares of statutory protected areas, which is of the total area in . had of its total area utilised for nature conservation purposes. Public and private ownership is included in this figure. has, across all ownerships, of the area reserved for protection. How- ever, only of the total area in is managed by the state for nature conservation. , and report to a single Minister for issues involving the state , including matters dealing with nature con- servation. However, in both and nature conservation issues were reported to a separate minister, the ment. Summary of the analysis on state administration Forestry of total labour m3/full-time employee Forestrys contribution to the countrys total employment was calcu- lated by dividing the total jobs supplied by forestry, which includes the direct employment from (nurseries, , maintenance, harvesting, road extraction, etc.), haulage and the wood-using industry (refer to employment tables in each country chapter for further breakdown), by the total employment. had the highest contribution, with , but with only of that contribution coming directly from . low contribu- tion to employment is primarily a function of the low percentage of actual . state administration, except for , was managed as a state enterprise. was managed as a private com- pany, owned solely by the state. had the highest level of participation in the government decision-making process. Forestry Commission involves stakeholders in all levels of the plan- ning process. These stakeholders are often the deciding factor if an area is harvested. The other four countries found innovative ap- proaches to involve stakeholders, but currently rely mainly on the two lowest levels of strategic alliances (contributory and operational), which involve only resource contribution and work sharing. As far as the financial structure of these state administra- tions, all were set up as a revolving fund, except for the Forestry Commission, which was a state budget. The revolving fund system al- lows the organisations to keep a portion its profit instead of returning it all to the government cashbox. The number of employees for the organisations was presented along with the contractors where data were available. The number of contractors presented for and includes harvesting and transport activities. It does not take into account activities or subcontractors because data were not available. In order to gauge the level of efficiency of the state adminis- trations, staff resources and harvesting activity were analysed. Three efficiency measures were calculated: volume harvested (m3 overbark) per full-time employee (adminis- trative and professional staff) volume harvested per productive area the administration cost as a percent of the total income. The first measure, m3/full-time employee, was lowest in and highest in . When looking at the m3 per hectare, showed the highest levels of harvesting productivity. The last meas- ure, percent administration cost of the total income, revealed to have the highest percent and to have the lowest at . There were four main issues to address with respect to the manage- ment of protected areas. First, is there joint management with com- mercial ? Second, what is the degree of self-financing? Third, are the objectives achieved? And, fourth, what are the procedures, if any, for the transfer of land for conservation purposes? was the only country where the protected were managed jointly with commercial . The second issue is how are the protected areas financed? Once again, the issue of transparency is stressed because it was only in and where the data were available. However, through interviews, we were able to deter- mine general levels of financing in the other three countries, which is presented in Table 28. , and had the highest level of self-financing. The actual amount of financing generated for and can be found in the financial section in each re- spective chapter. level was determined by the fact that a cer- tain level of harvesting is permitted within protected areas, providing revenue to the owners responsible for these areas. was con- sidered to have a low degree of financing because many of the pro- tected areas do not charge for recreational use and harvesting is quite limited. All the countries were able to achieve their overall objectives for nature conservation, though as already expressed; some were able to accomplish this more efficiently than others. was given a lower score than the other countries because, overall, the protected areas are in a sub-optimal state, with some areas having very poor stocking. The last issue addressed in the summary table was how the organi- sation handled the transfer of land for conservation purposes. In , and , this was almost non-existent. In these two countries, the government ensures the proper management of protected areas through subsidies, either in the form of compensa- tion or payments made on an annual basis to ensure the land is man- aged according to protection guidelines. In and the approach has been to purchase the land. As it was explained in the re- port on , the and has an excellent ap- proach. They have established a company, which is solely responsi- bility for the acquisition and assignment of property within FPS, which includes land for conservation purposes. There are some general features, which are important to have for a successful organisation of state . This chapter will summarize such features and try to underpin the importance of them by making comparisons or examples from the countries that have been studied. 8.1Financial Flexibility and Incentive to Improve Performance Irrespective of management objectives for the state-owned it is important that the organisation charged with such management has a possibility to carry over profits from one year to another, i.e. there is an incentive to do better as an increased profit means increased possi- bilities for the organisation to reinvest in assets which can further im- prove the performance. It is also important that these financial im- provements be delegated to district level where possible. The traditional government department organisation does not have this flexibility as it normally is working under a state budget re- gime, where costs are covered by the state budget and revenues go straight back to the state. If management is successful and objectives are achieved using less cost there is no benefit for the organisation as such, as a surplus will have to be handed back to the state budget. Likewise is valid for revenues. The disadvantages with such a system was most evident in Eastern Europe before market forces started to loosen the grip of insufficient state budgets. is a good example of how to overcome the deficiencies of such a system. At an early stage, 1991, district managers were given a result responsibility instead of budget responsibility. The expected re- sult was established according to the status of the resources of the district; young in difficult terrain could be expected to give a negative result, while mature in an area with good mar- kets would be expected to do well. If the actual result was better than the expected one, the district manager could use some of the surplus for improvements in the district like performance bonus for the staff or investments in better offices or machinery. and are good examples where the organisa- tion has the desired incentives to do better by only delivering part of the profit to the state and having freedom to use the rest as deemed best for the organisation. 8.2Separation of Activities for Public Benefits from State have a strong obligation to social and environmental ob- jectives in their management as well as commercial. This is best com- bined in a system where different functions are accurately separated and properly priced/costed. Normally the organisation should be measured for its efficiency in the commercial management of the for- ests. If any activity is to be undertaken which is not commercial, it should be costed and finance should be sought from external sources. In this context it would be beneficial for the state organisation to have a partnership which can assist in seeking interest and financing of such . ONF has a very strong policy to get any work, which is not directly related to their management, described and costed as a separate project. Such project is then sent to local municipalities, local NGOs, other organisations representing the interests of the local population and the state for comments and suggested financing. Only if such fi- nancing is obtained will the work be done. This ensures that such ac- tivities are done only when there is a genuine and broad public inter- est. It also ensures that regular activities can be accurately measured for efficiency and result, instead of being muddled with a mixture of costs and objectives. Forestry Commission in has been less successful in this respect. We have not been able to obtain costs for recreational activi- ties and other restrictions to regular management separated from other costs for managing the . The reason is that such costs are not kept apart. On the other hand the organisation of the Finnish FPS permits this kind of separation of objectives and financing for different activities. This organisation has an added value in the fact that the competence for doing different activities is all gathered under the same umbrella and can therefore easily coordinate such activities. 8.3State Ownership of Protected Areas There are basically two models for how protected areas can be han- dled: Ownership remains fragmented but the state compensates private owners for unreasonable costs. This model is being used in Aus- tria, and UK. In general it has proven to be less successful, although it can solve problems on a temporary basis. In it is reported to lead to a degeneration of the protected areas. Ownership is transferred to the state. This is done either through pur- chase of sensitive areas or swapping with state owned land. This model seems to lead to much more stable structures and is pre- ferred in , where a special company (Laatumaa) has been formed to handle this process. The advantage with such a solution is that Laatumaa can utilise this process to consolidate the FPS commercial holdings at the same time as protection targets are met. It is quite possible to manage commercial and protected for- ests within the same organisation. Funding has to come from differ- ent sources, but there are definite advantages in having the same or- ganisation responsible for all state owned land. The Finnish FPS is a good example of how this has worked in practice, but solu- tions where the commercial manager of land can handle also management of protected areas on a contract basis are also possible. The advantages are: Possibility to utilize personnel resources for both types of practices Easier to benchmark practices and establish demands on efficiency Clear synergies from information exchange and on the job train- ing. The protection specialists can teach the commercial how to improve environmental performance. At the same time the commercial can contribute to a more business oriented attitude among the environmentalists. The transparency in cost accounting lends to more precise plan- ning of activities and cost estimates. Although it is easy to understand the above arguments, it would be impossible to show in monetary terms that there is an advantage with having the same organisation managing the two types of assets.