DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu



ŠUMARSKI LIST 9-10/2018 str. 55     <-- 55 -->        PDF

Figure 5 is presenting the data of price differences for beech and conifers for all the recorded transactions (left graph) and those data by excluding the negotiated volume (right graph). Normally, the average price difference for this category of volume was bigger. It can be expected that harvesting companies tendered for volumes (cut-blocks) with lower prices. Despite this logical expectation, this is valid only for 2014, the year with the biggest auction prices.
Further analysis on the price difference focused on the type of silvicultural systems (Fig. 6). For the conifers dominated cut-blocks, we found out that in each of the analyzed years there were quite big differences in the average price difference between cut-blocks with different types of harvests, but no elements seem to be constant. Nevertheless, for beech dominated cut-blocks there are some features that were common in all three analyzed years: salvage volumes had the lowest price difference every year. Interestingly, in 2012, the highest price difference was recorded for the sanitary volumes.
4. Discussion and Conclusions – Rasprava i zaključci
The main goal of this study was to analyze the harvesting conditions and the wood selling prices in a forest area representative for the Romanian forestry and to produce reliable statistics on such conditions. Given the approach of this study, comparisons whit internationally available results are rather difficult to make. However, some points may be raised and discussed. First of all, the harvesting systems used in the analyzed region are in line with the practices reported by Borz (2015) for Romanian operations. Such practices refer mostly to the excessive extraction distances as being specific to the hilly and alpine forests of Romania. As a fact, extraction distance exceeded in average 1 km, therefore, increased harvesting costs, even if not evaluated in this study, are to be expected as previous studies shown also a poor management of the operational time and low productivities in such conditions (Borz et al. 2013). Coupled with the high timber purchasing costs, they may contribute to the reduction of profit margin of small size harvesting