Forstbetrieblicher Kennzahlenvergleich Deutschland – Österreich – Schweiz

Abstract

Forest enterprise key figure comparison Germany – Austria – Switzerland The forest enterprise networks in the so-called DACH region (Germany [D], Austria [A] and Switzerland [CH]) have a long tradition going back to the 1950s. Due to different concepts and definitions, however, the national results are not directly comparable. Therefore, the aim of the DACH initiative is to enhance the comparability of national data sets and to draw conclusions for the forestry sector from the comparison of key figures. In order to achieve this, differences between country- specific indicator definitions were first identified and then offset as much as possible. A subsequent key figure analysis showed that certain forestry key figures of the DACH forest enterprise network can be made comparable, revealing the effects of the partially different conditions in the countries. The comparison of key figures over the years 2008 to 2013 shows that the German and Austrian forest enterprises achieved continuous profits in forest management. In contrast, the Swiss forest enterprises were in deficit despite extensive subsidies and compensations. This is partly due to the significantly higher expenses for timber harvesting, silviculture and forest road infrastructure, resulting in part from higher labor costs and in particular a much higher operational personnel density.

Forest Accountancy Data Networks—A European Approach of Empirical Research, Its Achievements, and Potentials in Regard to Sustainable Multiple Use Forestry

“…A FAN is a long-term monitoring system in which socio-economic data of a sample of forest enterprises is systematically, mostly annually collected. In some cases separate networks are operated for either different sizes of forest land (e.g., Austria has two FANs, one for smaller holdings below 500 ha forest land and one for larger holdings with above 500 ha) and/or different types of property (e.g., Germany collects data from state, communal and private forest enterprises) [10]. Results are often published annually and contain information about the whole sample as well as subsets (e.g., alpine versus non-alpine regions) [3].…”

“…As those networks evolved independently, any comparison of results requires prudence. Profound knowledge and a harmonization of key figures are indispensable for sound international comparisons [10,12].…”

Forest Accountancy Data Networks as a Means for Investigating Small-Scale Forestry: A European Perspective

“…Stridsberg and Algvere 1967;Rochot 1984;Brandl 1993;Olischläger 1993;Hyttinen et al 1997;Hyttinen and Kallio 1998b;Sekot et al 2011;Bürgi et al 2016). Not even all of these studies refer specifically to accountancy data networks designed for monitoring small-scale farm forestry and there is a tendency to just confront individual results without taking into account any peculiarities.…”

“…However, there is neither the legal basis nor sufficient political interest for establishing a harmonized research infrastructure and creating a consistent international data pool. So far, also the scientific interest is restricted to networks of bigger forest enterprises (Bürgi et al 2016). Nevertheless, there is potential for joint research efforts in regard to various aspects of small-scale forestry.…”

“…Progress in this respect is arduous and relies on the commitment of key players, international comparisons not being original goals of the national or sub-national networking activities. Only recently, the DACH-initiative further clarified the basis for common definitions, established a new set of primary ratios and decided on a comparison of national developments covering the years 2008-2013 (Bürgi et al 2016).…”