Open Journal of Forestry
2012. Vol.2, No.4, 286-292
Published Online October 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojf) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojf.2012.24036
286
Appraisal of Aids as Provided by Rule 225 (Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1698/2005) in Tuscany Region—Methodology,
Procedures and Results*#
Roberto Fratini, Enrico Marone, Gabriele Scozzafava
Department of Agricultural and Fore st E conomics, Engineering, Sciences and Technologies,
University of Florence, Florence, Italy
Received July 31st, 2012; Revised September 5th, 2012; Accepted September 20th, 2012
The purpose of this paper is to illustrate a methodology to determine the lost revenue and increased costs
resulting from the assumption of forest-environment commitments, as provided by rule 225 (Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005) of the measure defined by the Tuscany Region. The aim is therefore to
determine the appropriateness of the payments provided by European Community measures. Regulation
(EC) No. 1698/2005 regards mainly land management and contributes to sustainable development by en-
couraging farmers and forest holders to employ methods of land use compatible with the need to preserve
the natural environment and landscape and protect and improve natural resources. This Rule covers sup-
port for non-productive investments linked to the achievement of agro or forest-environmental commit-
ments or the achievement of other agri-environmental objectives, as well as measures aimed at improving
forestry resources with an environmental objective (support for the first forestation of agricultural land,
establishment of agroforestry systems or restoring forestry potential and preventing natural disasters). We
have worked by analyzing each of the commitments required by individual actions and checking their
impact on forest regional management; we have calculated the additional costs and the lost revenue re-
sulting from the assumption of commitments.
Keywords: Forest Policy; Utilization Forest Costs; Financial Analysis
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to illustrate a methodology to
determine the lost revenue and increased costs resulting from
the assumption of forest-environment commitments, as pro-
vided by rule 225 (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005) of
the measure defined by the Region of Tuscany. The aim is
therefore to determine the appropriateness of the payments
stipulated by European Community measures.
Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005 regards mainly land man-
agement and contributes to sustainable development by en-
couraging farmers and forest holders to employ methods of
land use compatible with the need to preserve the natural envi-
ronment and landscape and protect and improve natural re-
sources. This regulation covers support for non-productive
investments linked to the achievement of agro- or forest-envi-
ronmental commitments or the achievement of other agro-en-
vironmental objectives, as well as measures aimed at improving
forestry resources with an environmental objective (support for
the first forestation of agricultural land, establishment of agro-
forestry systems or restoring forestry potential and preventing
natural disasters) (OECD, 2011).
Adopted Methodology
We have worked by analyzing each of the commitments re-
quired by individual actions and through a check of their impact
on forest regional management; we have calculated the addi-
tional costs and the lost revenue resulting from the assumption
of these commitments. In any case we have the adoption vol-
untary of practices that go beyond the normal standards of
management, or beyond the obligations set by existing envi-
ronmental rules and constraints and for this, there is no quanti-
tative evidence in ordinary forest management for resulting in a
difficult to quantify the economic cost.
All calculations have been reported to the additional opera-
tions provided by Measure 225 compared to a state of well-
defined and fixed baseline.
In addition, the calculation has been made by reference to
Tuscan Forest Inventory, which clearly outlines the regional
composition of the stands. We also made an appraisal of the
value of timber production through the weighted means of tim-
ber assortments and of mean annual increment.
For the assessment of costs incurred by the forest owner, and
thus the subsequent justification for the subsidies, we started
from the consideration that the commitments in most cases
represent an evident loss of wood and in an increase of costs
related to longer time management and organization of the
forest site and above all in a higher cost of logging.
For the determination of aids on the basis of standard as-
sumptions, we have distinguished three ways of calculating the
adequacy of the premium considering the scale of production
and related charges between ordinary forest management and
another burdened with additional commitments:
*This research was sponsored by Tuscan Region.
#A synthesi s of th is paper was pres ented t o the I UFRO co nference, Vi terb o,
Italy, 19-2 1 May 2011.

R. FRATINI ET AL.
1) The commitments act on production costs (processing)
only.
2) The commitments act on revenues only.
3) The commitments act on both costs and revenues.
For greater reliability in the calculation of lost revenue and
higher costs, however, it is appropriate to justify the aid in
proportion to the actual costs incurred and documented indi-
vidually. In this case we must, in principle however, distinguish
between the expenses that have a direct impact and those that
are deferred to the end of cycle.
For additional commitments with direct effects and for as-
sessing the sufficiency of the contributions provided, we will
mainly relate to the costs for the implementation of foreseen
activities. As for the lost revenue related to “forest-environ-
ment” activities which directly affect aspects, they must be
considered strictly related to the loss in value of the techno-
logical production of the timber.
Therefore, for any type of forest-environment commitments,
whether those that have direct effects on the costs or those that
impact deferred income at the end cycle, the stumpage value
(SV) will be influenced, directly or indirectly.
It must be made clear that, as with the value of stumpage,
which is codified by forest appraisal theory and widely adopted
in forest practice (starting price for the sale of timber); it repre-
sents, in fact, a transformation value of the forest production. In
practice, stumpage value is calculated as the present value of
the difference between the probable revenues from the sale of
wood and the costs required for its use.
In the case we would assume the stumpage value (SV) as a
proxy of the Gross Margin we should assess SV without con-
sidering fixed costs; in order to comply with EU guidelines
economic factors/income attributable to fixed costs should not
be included in the calculation.
Gross margin per unit to be used in the calculation of ade-
quacy of the premium must therefore consider only the costs
attributable to production (specific costs), excluding all those
cost items re lated to t he st ructure and busi ness orga nization (fixe d
costs). The exclusion of these last items of expenditure fully cor-
responds to the technical services of the European Commission
(Article 53, paragraph 2 - e) of Regulation (EC) 2006/1974.
The asset of budget of the production process is defined as
gross output (GO), obtained as a sum of sales value (quantity
sold multiplied by the market price of wood), the value of sec-
ondary production and the value of products reutilized in other
production processes (reinvestment). The value of these prod-
ucts is determined by applying the unit value that coincides
with probable market value made by the same assortment.
Stumpage value means the value of standing trees, and
therefore represents the economic results obtained (in terms of
“ordinariness” or additional commitments to the ordinary),
from the partial budget of forest utilization, comparing the pro-
ceeds from the sale of wood products (active) with the costs for
forest operations (passive).
SVR C
(1)
where: SV = the stumpage value (€), R = revenues from sale of
forest assortments, C = total costs (derived by forest utilization).
In this case, we compare the stumpage value considered in an
ordinary situation (i.e. the baseline) (SV) with stumpage value
resulted fr o m the acti vities under each measure 225 (Vm*); is suffi-
cient, for doing this comparison, to consider the individual effects
on revenues and costs necessary to accomplish this activity.
In fact, SV* differs from the SV as implementation of indi-
vidual actions will cause a change in R and/or C according to
the Formula (2):




**
SVRRC C 
*
(2)
where R* and C* are the specific costs arising from the nth in-
tervention
Therefore, a comparison of the initial situation with that
arising from application of individual actions foreseen by
Measure 225 (SV – SV*) is solved considering only the effects
± R* and ± C* attributable to the other specific operations nec-
essary to be in compliance with the guidelines.
Given this, compared to the initial situation that derives from
the application of the individual actions required by 225 (SV

SV*), we should first define only the effects of ± R* and ± C*.




***
SV SVRCRRCCRC
**

  (3)
In this regard, Table 1 shows the effects on R* and C* arising
from the adoption of individual actions.
In the following we analyze in detail some of the most sig-
nificant actions in order to improve the forest estate.
Analysis and Results
Calculation of lost revenue and of higher costs for individual
measures adopted.
a) i. Release, of one or more plants per hectare selected from
among older species and/or of greater diameter and wood value,
identified according to the criteria defined in Art. No. 12 of
DPGR 2003/48 / Region of Tuscany.
Baseline: on the occasion of forest cutting equal to or greater
than one hectare, both in high forests and coppices, for every
hectare of forest cut at least one plant per hectare must be left
standing. The specimens to be released are those of the greatest
diameter on the area to be cut, as indicated by the Forestry
Regulations of Tuscany (DPGR No. 48/A of 08/08/2003, Arti-
cle 12, paragraph 6.
Effect on revenue component (R*): Loss of income de-
rived from non-sale of timber assortments.
Effect on cost component (C*) Increased costs for forest
utilization and setting up of organization; loss of interest
on invested capital (growing stock)1.
For this determination we utilized yield tables relative to the
stands that are typical in Tuscany (this criterion refers to the
area forest inventory). We chose precisely those tables and
classes of fertility which best reflect the production characteris-
tics of these stands.
The plant of the largest size was selected considering the
customary rotation of the forest species in question; after we
computed total yield by the average diameter and height of
dominant plants and applied an appropriate dendrometric form
factor. These parameters are normally set out with production
tables (or Yield table).
Then we considered the average stumpage price by reference
to prices published in a specialized Journal
(www.rivistasherwood.it/tecniko-pratiko/).
When it was not possible to find the prices of wood products
1Technical operations chosen from among aged forest specimens and/o
r
those of greater diameter and/or greater wood value, with preference to
those with nest cavities useful for bir d s .

R. FRATINI ET AL.
288
Tn of individual actions included in 225 measures.
able 1.
Examinatio
Selection of forest species subject to utilization Effects on revenues Effect on costs
1) Release of one or more plants per hectare selected from those belong-
ing specially older and/or greater diameter and/particularuy value, prefer-
ring the eldest plant with cavity-nest for birds.
Loss of income resulting from
no timber use
Increased of corgnization, ost for setting
higher cost of forest utilization and for
GPS marking
2) Release of at least 5 plants per hectare selected from those belonging to
the species considered sporadic, and identified according to the criteria
defined in 'article No 12 of DPGR 48/R; 08/08/2003.
Loss of income resulting from
no timber use
Increased of cost for setting orgnization,
higher cost of forest utilization and for
GPS marking
3) Exploitation in coppice and high forest of different species of pine
(Maritime pine and Black pine, etc.) and of coniferous trees all dried up
without commercial value and high-flammability; Additional cost fo r cutting, haul a nd
disposal of woo dy material
Cleaning and mowing grass and shrub vegetation in the forests and
other measures for the protection of biodiversity structure. Effects on revenues Effect on costs
Cutting the shrubs in open areas within forests or wooded areas treated or
adjacent to a forest. Cost of slashing
Management of waste processing forest utilization Effects on revenues Effect on costs
Obligation to remove or, alternatively, the obligation to chipping and/or
chopping, resulting in distribution on the ground, of the residues from
forest operations; ban on burning of waste wood.
Sale of wood chip in larg e
sacks Cost of chipping, chopping, or distributing of slash on the ground
irectly, the analytical calculation of the costs of forest utiliza-
page price we multiplied
it
ent of lost revenues and higher
co
r
di
selected from
th
fied according to the criteria defined in article No. 12 of DPGR
orest species listed in paragraph 1 of article
N
operations for
wh minimum, defined in
A
sa
ention, we computed the stumpage value of a single
pl
d
tion was carried out, at the same time utilizing the evaluations
of wood prices from other appraisals.
After determining the average stum
by the percentage of timber assortments gotten from the plant
released in order to estimate the loss of income; to this value we
added an additional share needed for identification and geo-
referencing of plants as previously explained. Funding meas-
ures will be provided in seven years, so it is possible that the
landowners might anticipate some of the costs, at the same time
it is possible that the Regional Administration may grant an
advance payment to the landowners because the intervention is
performed at the end of the period. The eventual interests, ac-
tive or passive, that might arise are assumed to be irrelevant and
so they were not considered in the calculation. Moreover, it is
necessary to distinguish between landowners applying the
measure at the beginning or at the end of the period considered;
normally this behavior involves much higher costs for testing
operations (verification) of forest setting, much higher than the
currency interest on advances.
For a more completed assessm
sts of this action we have considered the economic character-
istics of main stands of Tuscany and principally the values of
different wood assortments. In conclusion, the stumpage value
is calculated for each plant identified in the forest (the average
value is considered for forests that have different classes of
fertility). The values identified are weighed according to the
surface distribution of the different stands in the region (source:
Forest Inventory of the Region of Tuscany, 1986), obtaining a
weighted average value representative of Tuscan forest land.
The action does not provide for a financial contribution fo
fferent forest types, but a weighted average value; in this case,
considering the different stands and surfaces, as highlighted in
Table 2, corresponds to €76.96 per plant. The lost revenue and
higher costs calculated for this intervention, therefore, will
amount to €10.99 per plant per year (€ 76.96:7).
a) ii. Release of at least 5 plants per hectare
ose belonging to the species considered sporadic, and identi-
48/R ; 08/08/2003.
Baseline: When cutting in coppice and high forest the iso-
lated plants of the f
o.12 of Forestry Regulations of Tuscany must be preserved,
i.e., when the density of plants is less than twenty plants per
hectare for each species, and having a diameter greater than 8
cm; subject to paragraphs 2 through 5 of that article.
Effect on revenue component (R*): Loss of income de-
rived from non-sale of timber assortments.
Effect on cost component (C*) Loss of interest on invested
capital (growing stock; costs for technical
identification of individual plants) that consist of plant
identification by GPS geo-referencing.
The operation requires that the forest thinning or final cutting,
en the density of the forest exceeds the
rticle 12 Forestry Regulations of Tuscany, leaving from a
minimum of 5 to a maximum of 10 plants per hectare in addi-
tion to the baseline Tuscan Forestry Regulations. The plants left
must be chosen from among the sporadic species (cited in the
article) and identified according to the criteria defined therein.
Since it is not possible to make a prediction for each species
considered in order to determine the lost revenue due to the lost
le of sporadic plants left in the forest, we proceeded to esti-
mate the possible value. After the choice of 10 plants with a
prevalence of the most representative species of Tuscan sylvi-
colture, we calculated the volume in cubic meters) using a dou-
ble entry yield table. Finally, after creating the scale of plants
considered we computed the average stumpage value of timber
assortments: saw logs, pulp logs, firewood, etc. utilizing timber
prices published in the specialized literature (Tecniko Pratiko,
2009).
To quantify the lost revenue and increased costs related to
this interv
ant, referring to average stumpage values of ten plants of
different species and different age, height and diameter, broad-
leaf in predominance.

R. FRATINI ET AL.
Table 2.
Average values of lost revenue and higher costs for r elease of the larger plant computed fo r individual forest stands in Tuscany
Type of forest Revenue p er plant (€/)Site classAge Additional cost for Average value per
technical surveys (€)Forest r egional surface plant (€) (hectare)
Douglas fir 58.65 1 50 47.52 88.02
Douglas fir 40.08 3 50 47.52
Douglas fir 22.77 5 50 47.52
10,240
Turkey Oak High Forest (in tra nsition) 31.55 1 130 47.52 75.395
Turkey Oak High Forest (in tra nsition) 24.2 3 110 47.52 17,048
Turkey Oak coppice with standards 30.39 30 47.52 77.1 9220,352
Chestnut 49.92 1 48 47.52 87.865
Chestnut 30.77 2 48 47.52 9120
Sapin 66.16 3 120 47.52 99.1 2
Sapin 37.22 4 120 47.52 13,904
Beech 33.84 2 100 47.52 79.1 0
Beech 29.14 85 47.52 20,384
coppice 18 Maquis 18 - 2247.52 65.2 5110,432
Black pine 15.93 1 100 47.52 63.45 20,496
Pine Maritime 8.79 2 60 47.52 56.31 60,928
Ast said for the a) i measures, easur
ill be provided in seven years, so it is possible that the land-
e relief map necessary for the detection and
m
se of
no
cording to the
ba
whe in excess of 2
B, C, as represented a
Table 3.
Loss of revenue fo r the release of a mixed group of plants.
s we have jufunding mes
w
owners may anticipate some of the costs; at the same time it is
possible that the Regional Administration may grant an advance
payment to the landowners when the intervention is performed
at the end of the period. The eventual interests, active or pas-
sive, that might arise assume irrelevant values and so are not
inserted in the calculation. Moreover, it is necessary to distin-
guish between landowners applying the measure at the begin-
ning or at the end of the period considered; normally this be-
havior involves much higher costs for testing operations (veri-
fication) of forest setting, much higher than the currency inter-
est on advances.
To the loss of income determined above must be added the
costs involved in th
apping of plants. These costs are based on current profes-
sional tables. The amounts , show n in Tab les 3 an d 4, consider time
needed for geo-referencing or processing the plants detected.
If we add to this also the loss of interest on forest capital
(considering the adoption of an interest rate of 3%) becau
forest utilization, for the seven-year duration of the measure,
we obtain an additional cost of € 1.80 for plant.
The following Table 5 shows the computation of lost reve-
nue and higher costs for each plant released in ac
seline. This value is composed of a fixed part, which consists
of the geo-referenced survey of the twenty plants to be released
according to the baseline, and by a variable part represented by
the number of plants left in accordance with the following for-
mula (4):
Lost revenue and higher costs =AxBxCxD (4)
re x is the number of plants released0 and A,
D are the kinds of costs as wellnd calcu-
lated in Table 5.
Timbe r assor tment s€/ton tons Totale Value ( € )
Logs > 20 cm 150 0.35 53.10
bolts 80 0.96 77.09
firewood 30 0.15 4.46
134.65
Losnue singles reve plant
13.46 Value single plant
Table 4.
Costs and lost revor each plant issued in excess ofirst 20
pla enue f nts. the f
Type of costs €
A) Cost of geo-re ferencing of the first 20 plants 76.28
B) Cost of geo-referelant in excess of the ncing of each p0. 63
initial 20
C) Financial loss of each individual plant 13.46
D) Loss of interest for individual plant 1.8
Total 92.17

R. FRATINI ET AL.
Table 5.
Caseline. osts for 5 and 10 plants additional to b
Coltural operation No. 5
plants (€) No. 10 plants (€)
a) Georeferencing cost of of the first
twenty plants 76.28 76.28
b) The cost f the plant of geo-referencing o
in excess of the initial 20 3.13 6.25
c) Financial loss to individual plant 67.32 134.64
d) Loss of interest on investments reported
single plant 9.01 18.03
Total 155.74 235.20
Lost income and higher costs per year 22.25 33.60
The cost defined for a single plant releyonre-
scribed twenty is forecast at € 92.17. Over tht seven
therual vf losue
nd higher costs totaling the amount € 22.25 when five plants
e are no obligatory practices.
-
mleast 3 other interventions of this type during
th r-
fother year (the third, fifth and seventh year of
co
am
enue and higher costs (3 mod-
er
e and higher costs is
hi
ding, with subsequent
tting logs increase in revenues
/shredding costs
ay or
ch
nue and higher costs we first
m
wing Table 7 shows the chipping cost per hectare
of
is convenient in situations where mechanical
eq
lly it is impossible in each individual request that the
ased be
e nexd the p years,
efore, we must consider the annalue ot reven
a
are released and € 33.60 if there are 10 plants.
Another forest environmental commitment that we have
analyzed is “Cleaning and mowing grass and shrub vegetation
in the forests and other measures for the protection of structural
biodiversity”.
b) Cutting the shrubs of the open areas within forests or
wooded areas treated when included in or adjacent to a
forest.
Baseline: Ther
Effect on revenue component (R*): There are no effects
on revenues.
Effect on cost component (C*): costs of scrub removal and
mowing.
The action involves scrub clearance in the first year com
itment and at
e remaining time of commitment; the work must be pe
rmed every o
mmitment).
Table 7 shows the variables and the related costs for me-
chanical mowing per hectare.
The calculation reported above of machine hours and labor
hours accrued has been achieved on the basis of the information
contained in the price list for regional operations and forestry
workers (Regione Toscana, 2008).
Therefore, the costs per hectare of cultivation operations
Table 6.
Cost of tending.
ounted to € 604.10 for the scrub clearance on land moder-
ately invaded by grasses and shrubs and € 302.05 for clearance
on lands invaded by low weeds.
The annual amount of lost rev
ate clearings); 3 years are considered, amounting to € 215.75
per year ((€ 604.10 + (302.05 × 3): 7).
Therefore, the amount of lost revenu
gher than expected, i.e., € 200.00 per hectare.
c) Debris management processing
Obligation of removing and/or shred
distribution of wood debris on the ground; it is forbidden
to burn the waste on site.
Baseline: obligation of spli
Effect on revenue component (R*):
derived from sale of timber assortments.
Effect on cost component (C*): chipping
of waste material per hectare and distribution on site.
The action requires that the scraps must be taken aw
ipped and/or shredded (manually or mechanically), with
subsequent distribution on the ground: it is forbidden to burn
them except for reasons of plant pathology (on the area where
forest operations are carried out).
For the calculation of lost reve
ade an appraisal of the average quantity of waste material per
hectare. Then, by calculating the average productivity of a
chipper, we computed the relative cost per hectare for the chip-
ping of slash determined before. Therefore for the calculation
of the quantities of slash per hectare reflecting the species, type
of management and age of the plant we referred to the studies
(Bernetti, 1987; Spinelli, 1999; Bernetti, et al., 2004). At the
same time to evaluate the cost of chipping, according to its
average efficiency, the experience was sought from industry
experts.
The follo
the waste material left on site (inclusive of the forest opera-
tion of wood material), for the most common types of forest in
Tuscany classified according to species, class fertility and age.
The result includes the cost of distribution of wood chips on the
ground.
Chipping
uipment has easy access and where there is a viable market
for wood chips. This is true in particular where the orographic
conditions, the forest road system and the market determine
advantages and disadvantages for the processing of forest re-
siduals.
Norma
Hours/Hectare €/Hour €/Total
Mechanical chaining carried out on field medium invaded by grasses and shrubs, accommodation
and removal of debris
Tractor equipped and specialized worker 10.0 60.4 604.1
Mechanical chaining carried out on field low invaded by grasses a nd sh rubs, accommoda ti on and
removal o f d ebris
Tractor equipped and specialized worker 5.0 60.4 302.1
290

R. FRATINI ET AL.
Table 7.
Cost of collection, chipping and spreading of slash.
ID Species Cost of chpping per
hectare (€/hecCosts chipping and split of slash Costs spreading Sale c tare) left on the ground per €/hectareper hectare (€) hips Cs net (€/hectare) osts chip revenue (€)
1 Maritime pine 1317 1129 270 1981 735
2 Maritime pine 785 673 270 1180 548
3 Ma ritime pine943 808 270 1418 603
4 Douglas fir 2131 1826 270 3204 1023
5 Black pine 997 855 270 1500 622
6 Black pine 777 666 270 1168 545
7 Black pine 521 446 270 783 454
8 Black pine 1334 1143 270 2005 742
9 Black pine 1070 917 270 1609 648
10 B lack pine 877 752 270 1319 580
11 B lack pine 919 788 270 1382 595
12 B lack pine 778 667 270 1170 545
13 B lack pine 635 544 270 955 494
Table 8.
Suary tavenue and hiosts calculated. mmble of lost regher c
€/her
Kind of forest-e nvironommitments ment cectare p
Year
1) Selection of species subject to utilization.
a) Releas e of one or more plants per hectare selected among older species and/ or greater d iameter and wood value, identified € 10.39 per plant
according to the criteria defined in Art. No 12 of DPGR 2003/48/Tuscan Region.
b) Releas e of at least 5 plants per he ctare seiameter an d wood value , identifi ed accord-lected amo ng older spec i es and/or greater d
ing to the criteria defined in Art. No 12 of DP€ 2r 5 2.25 pe GR 2003/48 /Tuscan Region. plats n
c) Removal, in conifer and broadleaved stands of plants of aleppo pine, maritime pine and black pine and others conifer especially
if dried up, with disease and without commercial value and high flash :
from 5 to 20 plants per hectare; € 29.55
from 20 to 40 plants per hectare; € 59.76
more than 40 plants. € 75.70
2) Cub vegetation in the fore s ts and other measures for the prot ection of biodiversity structural. leaning and mowing grass a nd shr
Cutting the shrubs in the open areas within forests or wooded areas treated when covered by or neighbouring t o a forest. € 200.0
3) Waste forest managem ent processing.
Duty of removal or, alt ernatively, exist the obligation to chipping and/or shredding, with subsequent distribution of wood debris on
the ground; it is also for bi dden to burn the debris on the gro und the groun d. € 89.54
4) Impact of forest utiliza tion on soil, shrubbery, on the regeneration a nd wildlife.
Use for yarding and hauling by pack animals, crane cable and chute instead of mechanical means. € 104.10
addition
n
To this end, in determining the entity of lower revenues and
higher costs, an analysis of the Tuscan territory was made
hich took into account the variables described above. The
result of this analysis allowed us to identify an area representa-
al cost of chipping be in regulation, when this would
ot result as profitable because its costs are not compensated. w

R. FRATINI ET AL.
tive and externalities. Te of
s financed by the Region of Tuss
Nations Publications.
Bernetti, G. (1987). I boschi della Toscana. Quaderni di Monti e Boschi,
Giunta Regionale Tos
Bernetti, I., Fagarazzi, C methodology to ana-
sample of the context within which it is convenient to chip,
ove the chips and sell 70% of these. the provision of public goods the single actionrem
For the remaining 30% of the residual material, not easily
transportable and therefore not sellable, there is expected a
partially mechanical chipping and the subsequent homogeneous
distribution on the ground; if work with the chipper is not pos-
sible, the other part of this can be split into pieces of maximum
length of 1 meter and maximum diameter of 5 cm. The average
cost of chipping was considered to be equal to € 7 per cubic
meter of timber used. The average cost of chipping and shred-
ding is considered equal to € 14 per cubic meter of timber used.
Despite the wide variability of costs shown in Table 8, giv-
ing an average value per hectare is justified; in fact, applying
the intervention for each specific situation does not seem war-
ranted, considering that detection and control of costs is often
greater than the premium paid. Furthermore, this variability
reflects the characteristics of the ownership of the forests, often
fragmented and scattered throughout the territory. It follows
that the average amount of lost revenue and higher cost re-
ceived by the individual beneficiary of the intervention is
broadly appropriate to the forest structure, itself also quite va-
riable. The average cost of the project is equal to €625.54 per
hectare. The annual value of lost revenue and higher costs will,
therefore, amount to €89.36 per hectare.
At the conclusion of the detailed examination of some of the
measures provided by Regulation 225 (Council Regulation (EC)
No. 1698/2005 and adopted by the Region of Tuscany, we pre-
sent in one table (Table 8) the amount of lost revenue and
higher costs considering all the measures established by the
Regulation.
Conclusion
Our study was limited to defining a methodology for deter-
mining compensation that can completely cover the higher
costs and lower revenues (as required by the EU). It would be
extremely useful and interesting to complete this research by
analyzing the impact and effectiveness of each single action on
he choic
cany follow
more a political path then a technical one (problems in the deci-
sion process at national scale). The constraint imposed by the
European Community to pay only the higher costs and lower
revenues (computed on the basis of market prices) undervalues
the production of public goods and prevents their real devel-
opment (problems in the political instruments adopted at Euro-
pean scale).
REFERENCES
Bauer J., & Corredor, H. G. (2006). International forest sector institu-
tions and policy instruments for Europe: A source book. UNECE-
FAO: United
cana: Edagricole.
., & Fratini, R. (2004) A
lyze the potential development of biomass energy sector: An applica-
tion in Tuscany. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 415-432.
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.018
Ciancio, O., & Nocentini, S. (2004). Il bosco ceduo. Firenze: Acca-
demia Italiana di Scienze Forestali.
Hippoliti, G. (1997). Appunti di meccanizzazione forestale. Florence:
Studio Editoriale Fiorentino.
AFA (1987). Tavole stereometriche ed alsometriche dei boschi ita-
liani. Trento.
IS
S
Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (2009). Policy and
good forest management practices baseline measures for the imple-
mentation of forestry and environmental. Rete Rurale Nazionale, T ask
Force Foreste.
Regione Toscana (2008). Modifiche ed integrazioni al prezzario re-
gionale per interventi ed opere forestali di cui alla. Bollettino uffi-
ciale della regione Toscana, 55.
Sherwood (2012). www.rivistasherwood.it/tecniko-pratiko
pinelli, R. (1999). Environmental and socio-economic impacts of
using excavators and backhoe loaders as base machines in forest. In
Proceedings from the first meeting of a concerted action FAIR—CT
98-3381 (pp. 109-116). Garpenber g, 13-17 December 1999.
292