Address by MARCEL LELOUP
Director, Forestry and Forest Products Division, FAO
GENTLEMEN: Permit me, as Director of the Forestry and Forest Products Division of FAO, to elaborate on the problem which confronts us. The statistics which have been collected for this conference show that the countries of Europe and the Mediterranean basin which, in 1937, imported 6 million standards of timber, will receive scarcely 3 millions in 1947 and probably- about the- same quantity in 1948.
Since requirements are greater now than before the war, the crisis which faces importing countries in Western and Southern Europe is clearly evident. It is fundamentally due to the fact that exporting countries in Europe and North America have reduced their exports to a very considerable extent, and some of them, notably the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Poland, which furnished in 1937 nearly 2 million standards, have now become importing countries.
These figures speak for themselves. It is hardly necessary to remind you of the misery of the homeless people who live in ruins or in temporary shelters without even the most rudimentary sanitary requirements, a misery occasioned by the shortage of timber. Let me point out that this misery cannot well be expressed by statistics. I could see that for myself in Warsaw last summer. I was impressed by the amount of devastation in this city where only 5 percent of the buildings are intact and I asked how many persons were homeless. "Well, technically speaking," said an officer of the Statistical Bureau, "there are no homeless persons in Warsaw. In effect, during the night, the whole population disappears. Probably because many families are sharing the same room or because even in bombed houses some rooms are still available. The term 'homeless' only refers to the 2 million rural families which are living in holes in the ground."
The need then exists, the deficit is real, and it is necessary to take action as quickly and as effectively as possible. This is the more imperative since the lumber shortage in the world and in Europe might have been avoided or at least lessened, if proper action had been taken in time.
A grave error has been made in the past, an error which it is important not to repeat, namely, to separate the study of timber utilization or trade from problems relating to the source, that is, the forest itself.
Hotel King of England, Marianske Lazne, where the conference did most of its work
There are 3,000 million hectares of forest land in the world, out of which only 1,200 million are at present exploited. This great reserve of timber can replenish itself indefinitely if it is not abused, as, unfortunately, all too often happens. Vast areas, however, which were deforested in the past can still be made productive again.
Forests have this incomparable advantage: as economic necessity dictates, fellings can at any time be reduced without too much inconvenience, overproduction can be controlled, and capital can accumulate in situ.
Despite this particular advantage, lumber, like other primary products, has been subject to slump and boom. This can be attributed not only to the general economic cause of their fluctuations, but also to mistaken forest policies which should be corrected in the future. Scarcities resulted from exploitation without regard to reconstituting the forest growing stock; failure to develop new resources by opening up untouched forests or by reforestation of denuded areas; and failure to work existing forests according to the trend of demand in industry and trade.
Surpluses arose from the fact that foresters and forest-owners were not aware of the real economic trends and were ignorant of the extent of regional and world demands for lumber.
All recommendations about lumber put forward at this Conference will, therefore, undoubtedly have a direct influence on forest practices and vice versa, and delegates will have to consider the two aspects of all the problems they will study.
Let me add this: The feet that the forest estate has been included in the terms of reference of the Conference makes it impossible to separate short-term and long-term problems, or at any rate, to study them apart.
Forests are not like agricultural land, on which every year, according to man's need, different kinds of crops may follow each other, and where one year's crop has no great bearing on next year's. With forests, the results of any short-term measures will be felt for years afterwards and, on the other hand, plans must be made now to achieve particular results in five, ten, or even fifty years.
I do not think it is necessary for me to emphasize any further the importance of these facts, which justify, in my opinion, the vast program submitted to the Conference.
However, when FAO called this Conference, it had in mind another aim which it considers essential to these discussions. That is, FAO wanted to bring together representatives of both the importing and the exporting countries of Europe in order to give them an opportunity to compare their different points of view.
The countries of Europe have all suffered to varying degrees from the long war years, and the devastation which accompanied the war. Having co-operated when they had to come to terms and later to fight their enemy, these countries must, in the same way co-operate in peace, particularly in facing reconstruction. The first country which will have, willingly or unwillingly, to accept this European solidarity will be Germany, which is under the moral obligation of taking her full share in the economic reconstruction of the countries which were devastated. For this reason it is proposed that the ease for Germany should be considered separately.
But all European countries must face the need for this solidarity. Their commercial, industrial, and agricultural demands are so intimately connected that it is almost inconceivable that one of them might retain for a long period a sound economic and social position among neighbors whose condition was not similar.
But Europe of herself cannot satisfy her own demands, either of lumber or of any other food or industrial product, and whatever her efforts, she is obliged to look overseas in order to meet her needs. This is the reason why the governments of non-European timber exporting countries have been invited to send representatives to this Conference. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for their willingness to accept the invitation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
A moment ago I mentioned the anticipated deficits in Europe for 1947 and 1948. The prospects for the following years are no brighter, and this for a very simple reason, namely, that the forests which are at present accessible in Europe and North America can no longer meet both their internal demands and the requirements of other parts of the world which in normal times depended on them. Under these circumstances FAO considered it an essential task to place the prospects before the Conference and to supply as precise statistics as possible on the situation.
Taking this statistical information as a basis, every country will have to decide its own policy, not only for the immediate future, but even for the period up to 1960 and beyond, since in forestry you have to think in terms of decades and centuries.
Unfortunately, the information collected by FAO is very unsatisfactory as soon as we go beyond 1948. It is very easy to understand that governments and agencies are reluctant to answer questions on the remote future. On the other hand, it is indispensable for our discussions here to have a rough idea of plans and prospects beyond the immediate future. This is also a first essential in all sound forest management.
I hope that during committee meetings, delegates will be kind enough to fill in the gaps in the statistical information we have, thus enabling the Conference to get an idea of the general trends of the future.
It can be anticipated that present forest policies and economic plans will not suffice to balance the European lumber market. The Conference will have to study means whereby these plans could be modified and co-ordinated so as to obtain the desired result, and primarily to increase as much as possible the production of lumber in 1947 and 1948.
At first sight there appear to be two main lines of action which the Conference would see fit to pursue: control of consumption and control, or, more precisely, an increase of production.
We have said that the first line of action which would suggest itself to delegates is control of consumption. Necessity makes it inevitable to restrict consumption as far as possible. Many countries have already been obliged to put severe restrictions on consumption of lumber. Other countries may be reluctant to apply this solution. But such restrictions do not necessarily entail delays in building programs or in meeting the essential demands of the country. The progress achieved in wood technology, in the manufacture of boards from wood-waste, in prefabrication, make it possible to save such quantities of wood that if these modern techniques were applied everywhere, there would be an end of the lumber shortage. We can with advantage ponder the figures given by the eminent Chairman of the Subcommittee on Mechanical Wood Technology, which indicate that whereas under normal conditions a program for 100,000 buildings would require 1 million m³ of lumber, the use of modern techniques could reduce this amount by about 275,000 m³.
The time will come when reconstruction is completed, and then perhaps again supplies will outrun demand. But if one considers that enormous areas of the world are populated by people living in miserable shelters, without the most elementary conditions of comfort and hygiene; if one considers that even nearer to us whole families are crowded in miserable slums which are the shame of great cities, one may think that at least for timber a slump in the market should never occur. But it is the duty of all those interested to make the necessary collective effort to develop new markets, an effort which must be part of the general progress of civilization, and it is their duty to make it in due time, so as to ensure a smooth development in the world economy.
These, Gentlemen, seem to be the courses open to us to control consumption and you will have to examine ways and means in detail.
As far as production is concerned, to achieve control, one must go back to the source, namely, to the forest itself. Here the general trend of world demand and what we have said of possible stimulation in consumption, show that the main aim must be to increase production.
No doubt it is necessary to take into consideration the possibility of crises and of slumps and one must foresee the action necessary to protect not only the forests, but also the workers and industries dependent thereon. However, such crises are but episodes in the economic history of the world and the main objective must remain to develop the maximum production of the wooded areas consonant with sustained yield, proper soil conservation and maintenance of forest capital.
As far as 1947 and 1948 are concerned, it is obvious that the easiest solution, which the Conference will probably have to adopt, will be an increase of fellings in most European countries.
And yet we all know that European forests have suffered destruction and overexploitation during the war. It will be a few years before we can get detailed statistics on the amount of damage done.
But it does seem that the reserves built up in most European countries from many decades of systematic management have been sufficient to allow them to withstand the shock of the war without diminishing too drastically the forest capital.
War damage was generally local in effect and was often equalized by undercutting of those forests farther removed from main routes and less accessible.
Let us not forget also that forest capital has a certain elasticity and up to a certain point forests constitute a sort of savings account on which it is possible to draw in ease of need but only on condition that as soon as possible, and as well as possible. steps will be taken to replenish the capital which has thus been diminished.
When I was still Director General of Waters and Forests in France, I had, one day, a talk with the Minister of Reconstruction in which he expressed his surprise at The lack of timber in a country where there seemed to be so many flourishing forests. I said, " Certainly, we can and we must increase fellings, but on the condition that at the same time sufficient funds are put at the disposal of foresters in order to repair the damage inflicted upon the nation's forests."
The same observation may be made of the whole European continent, and even of the world, since abuse of forests does not affect Europe alone, and the position is worsened when great countries like the United States, which previously were exporting countries but which have drawn on their forest capital even more than Europe, are forced to decrease or even stop their exports altogether.
In those countries where immediate or early compensation for reduction in forest capital can be expected from opening up areas previously unexploited, or by afforestation, an improvement in estimates of output should be possible. Delegates will probably have to work along these lines for immediate needs.
Increased fellings will entail many difficulties, but the representatives of European countries have been convened here to find a solution to these problems during the Conference itself, or at least to indicate from their studies of the situation a solution possible of achievement in the shortest possible time.
The feet that concrete results have been obtained for other materials, particularly many food products, encourages us to say that it is not impossible to solve these problems, that only the opportunity for solving them was lacking, and that also this Conference can and must find practical solutions for the urgent problems with which we are confronted.
Even so, increased fellings in accessible areas are not alone sufficient and we have already mentioned why they must be considered as a very short-term remedy.
Conference documentation shows the necessity for Europe to turn to forest regions of the world which are as yet unexploited, in order to get the supplementary quantities of timber we require. Generally speaking such forests do not exist in Europe, but you will have to make suggestions in this connection, and they will later have to be considered by other regional conferences or by the general annual Conference of FAO. You will also have to examine how such resources could be made more accessible, what are the obstacles and the means by which they might be overcome.
Although these resources are not unlimited, they are at least considerable. However, when drawing on them, you will find it important to avoid the mistakes which have too often been made in the past and which resulted in their exhaustion.
Forest legislation in most countries, at least in the more advanced ones, is based on the principle that forests are a legacy from the preceding generations to the present one which the latter has to pass on to future generations intact, if not increased.
This principle is applicable to all forests of this earth but it can be said to be of particular significance to tropical forests, which constitute such an essential factor for the present and future welfare of the less fortunate peoples, especially in Africa. Indeed, these tropical forests not only protect the soil and stabilize the climate but they are also a vital source of income and wealth.
The opening up of new forests, and especially of tropical forests, should not become a purely commercial proposition geared to rapid exploitation but should also and above all be a silvicultural operation. Its objective should be the gradual improvement of the resources or at least their maintenance in a perfect state of vegetation in the same way as fellings in European forests aim at conserving and improving the growing stock.
The opening up of new forests areas does not constitute, however, the only means for increasing the output of lumber, and you will be called upon to examine other alternatives which I think I do not need to deal with in detail at this stage.
One of the means is improving equipment for sawmills with a view to reduction of waste. New logging equipment and especially mechanization constitute another remedy which should make up for the insufficient supply of manpower in the forests, the latter being in many countries one of the main obstacles to adequate wood production.
Increased mechanization of logging methods would also lead to more adequate working conditions for loggers and other woodworkers and would thereby also attract greater numbers of such workers. Thus, this mechanization is part of improved living conditions for woodworkers. Greater welfare and more comfort for these men is in turn an essential requirement if we do not want to be faced with a constant reduction of the available manpower supply for these hard and exacting tasks. For these woodworkers a forest is not only their place of work, but also the place where they spend most or all of their life, at least during the logging season. Minimum standards of comfort and hygiene must thus be provided for them and for their families.
The protection of workers against unemployment as a result of possible future slumps calls for special study. These workers are entitled to expect from the forest the same stability and security which have been obtained by workers in other industries.
Finally, the introduction of wood-based substitute materials is another important object to be studied by this Conference, not only because such substitution will facilitate a reduction of saw timber requirements but because the actual utilization of waste will lead to employment of products which have not been used heretofore.
This utilization of substitute materials will not only increase working opportunities in the forests, since large quantities of waste now abandoned must and will be profitably removed, but the higher returns from the cut will contribute to improved management of the resources and intensified silviculture, both of which are now frequently rendered impossible due to low yields in quantity and value.
It has previously been said that this Conference has already given rise to great hopes. It would be wrong to think that a single meeting like the one opening today can lead in a few days to solutions which will not only solve the present crisis but also all the problems of the timber and the forests of the world. But we will have already achieved a satisfactory result if we can reduce the deficit for 1947 to some degree and realize a more important reduction in the deficit for 1948. In addition we ought to try to agree on a number of recommendations which could constitute the basis of a co-ordination of forest policies and construction programs in Europe and thus be the starting point of future regular co-operation both on the regional level and for the world as a whole.
It would be easy to emphasize the importance of your task by reminding you of the millions of families who are looking to this meeting for help in their long-drawn suffering and of the millions of human beings who depend for their health, welfare, and maybe even for life itself on the results of this Conference. However, each of you here knows the difficulties of his own country and can easily find out from his colleagues about the difficulties of other countries in Europe and even across the seas.
Moreover, the figures speak for themselves and the gap between import requirements and export supplies is such that it can only be bridged by rapid and well-concerted measures.
To find these emergency measures, gentlemen, is your task here. In ending my remarks let me express the hope that you will be able to examine and agree on a long-term procedure which will be capable of sparing the forest, its industries, and its workers the menace of future and recurrent crises.
