EFI : European Forest Institute
Support EFIATLANTIC
Pinède
Le réseau pour la gestion durable des forêts cultivées.

français espagnol portugais english

FORSEE : Indicateur évalué

Indicator 6.01: Distribution of the number and area of forest holdings (not forest ownership), classified by type of management and size classes

Cost

Total Cost €5765

Shared Cost €4190

Marginal Cost €1575

Total Cost/ha €0.16

These cost include:

table1

Results

(FORSEE forest owner survey):

Figure 6.01a: Type of management

graf1

Figure 6.01b: Do you manage your woodland

graf2

Figure 6.01c: Forest Area

graf3

Figure 6.01d: Size Classes

graf4

Figure 6.01e: Number of forest holdings per forest owner.

graf5

Remarks

99% of the forest holdings in the pilot zone were managed as commercial private forest holdings (figure 6.01a). This would be expected in privately owned forests. In figure 6.01b, 60% of the forest owners managed their woodland and 28% of the forest owners did not manage their forest. 12% of the forests were in a management contract with an independent forestry contractor.

The total forest area owned per forest owner (figure 6.01c) ranges from 2.86 ha to 73 ha. As can be seen in figure 6.01c, most of the total forest area is less than 20 ha. The largest forest area (73 ha) is made up of three forest holdings and ranges within two different size classes (one in the 10-<20 ha class and two in the 20-<50 ha class). The majority of forest holdings were in the 10-<20 ha size class and the 2-<3 ha size class (figure 6.01d). The size classes don’t seem to follow any particular trend as both the 20-<50 ha and the 3<4 ha size class have the same amount of forest holdings. The lowest amount of forest holdings per size class is the 50-<100 ha.

Problems and Improvements

The forest owners were often confused by the forest holding classifications and were unsure as to which category they should select. Private woodland owners would be reluctant to classify their forest as a non-commercial private forest holding even if they managed it or not and the only forest holding that fell into this class was a woodland where parts of the wood were managed both commercially and non commercially, how to make this distinction was unclear.

Conclusions

A comparison of results within another geographic area nationally or an increase in the sample size would be possible future areas to research.

Logo IEFCcoop
Projet cofinancé par l'Union Européenne
Initiative Communaitaire FEDER
INTERREG IIIB Espace Atlantique