Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 00:15Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Scandinavian Journal of Forest ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sfor20
Profiles of forestry contractors and development ofthe forestry-contracting sector in SwedenCarola Häggström a b , Akie Kawasaki c & Gun Lidestav aa Department of Forest Resource Management , Swedish University of AgriculturalSciences , Umeå , Swedenb Skogforsk , Uppsala Science Park , Uppsala , Swedenc Department of Agro-environmental Sciences , Kyushu University , Fukuoka , JapanAccepted author version posted online: 18 Oct 2012.Published online: 08 Nov 2012.
To cite this article: Carola Häggström , Akie Kawasaki & Gun Lidestav (2013) Profiles of forestry contractors anddevelopment of the forestry-contracting sector in Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28:4, 395-404, DOI:10.1080/02827581.2012.738826
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2012.738826
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Profiles of forestry contractors and development of theforestry-contracting sector in Sweden
CAROLA HAGGSTROM1,2, AKIE KAWASAKI3 & GUN LIDESTAV1
1Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea, Sweden, 2Skogforsk,
Uppsala Science Park, Uppsala, Sweden, and 3Department of Agro-environmental Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka,
Japan
AbstractContractors perform the majority of forestry activities in Sweden, yet little is known about the development of theircompany structures and strategies. By analyzing data from the Swedish Forest Agency’s yearly survey to forestry contractorsfor 2006�2009 and comparing the results with previous data for 1993�1998, we examined the current profiles of Swedishforestry contractors and their recent development. For 2006�2009, responses were received from 700 to 770 forestrycontractors, corresponding to ca. 20% of the estimated total number of Swedish forestry contractors. In 2009, 60% ofcontractors were mainly performing logging activities, whereas 30% were mainly performing silvicultural activities. Between1993 and 2009, the number of contractors increased by ca. 80%, while the number of forestry working contractors and theiremployees increased by 157%. These increases were mainly due to increased silvicultural activities. Although one-personenterprises still dominate among Swedish forestry contractors, most logging work is performed by small-sized enterprises,whereas most silviculture work is performed by large-sized enterprises. Our study suggests that there is an increaseddependency upon contractors and forestry contractors have become more diversified, but still specialized, in the type ofwork they perform.
Keywords: Business development, entrepreneur, forest harvesting, forest machines, logging, mail survey, silviculture.
Introduction
As a result of the ongoing outsourcing of processes,
forestry contractors now hold a key position in the
timber supply chain in many European countries, as
well as in some American, African, and Asian
countries (Louw 2004; Westermayer 2006; Baker &
Dale Greene 2008; Kawasaki & Kohroki 2009;
Kastenholz et al. 2011). In Sweden, contractors
have played a prominent role since the technological
developments matured in the late 1970s, driven by
the decision of large-scale forestry (LSF) companies
to outsource mechanized forestry operations to
reduce costs. However, despite Swedish forestry’s
dependency on forestry contractors’ businesses,
there is a distinct lack of up-to-date knowledge
based on systematic research.
Historically, outsourcing began with mechanized
operations in harvesting, terrain transportation, and
soil scarification (Bostrand 1984; Liden 1994,
1995), later followed by outsourcing of manual and
motor-manual silvicultural activities, mainly planting
and pre-commercial thinning (Eriksson 1999). Dur-
ing the 1980s, the number of machine contractors
and their share of logging activities increased rapidly.
These increases were primarily due to a shift from
machine owners employed by LSF companies (also
introduced in the 1970s) towards full contractors
(Liden 1995). Based on data from Bostrand (1984)
and Liden (1995), the proportion of contract
machines, including machines owned by employees
in LSF companies, increased slightly but remained
around 60�70% of all industrial forest machines
during 1976�1993. The first generation of machine
contractors owned relatively low-cost machines for
terrain transportation (Bostrand 1984), but with the
rationalization and mechanization in the 1970s and
1980s, those machines became redundant. Thus, the
total number of machines decreased quite rapidly in
Correspondence: Carola Haggstrom, Department of Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Skogsmarksgrand, Umea 901 83,
Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2013
Vol. 28, No. 4, 395�404, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2012.738826
(Received 15 March 2012; accepted 8 October 2012)
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
the early 1980s. Studies have shown that in 1976, at
least 6700 machines operated nationwide (Bostrand
1984), while somewhere between 2900 and 4629
machines were reported in 1993 (Liden 1995;
Ejermo 2001). Eight percent of all machines in
1985/1986 were silviculture machines (soil scarifiers,
Liden 1995). By 1992/1993, planting machines, pre-
commercial thinning machines and chippers had
been introduced, contributing to the rise in the
proportion of silviculture machines to 11% (Liden
1995).
During the 1990s, the number of silviculture
contractors increased rapidly, whereas the number
of machine-owning contractors, who mainly perform
logging activities, remained relatively stable (Ejermo
2001; Eriksson 2004a). Eriksson (1999) estimated
that contractors’ share of LSF silvicultural work
amounted to 55% in 1998, compared to 33% only
three years previously. In 2003, contractors were
estimated to perform ca. 90% of LSF silviculture
operations (Eriksson 2004b). As shown by the
continuously increasing number of silviculture en-
terprises in the Statistics Sweden register (Eriksson
2004b, 2007), there is no sign that silviculture
contracting is reaching saturation.
Many changes have affected forestry management
since the 1990s, and the contractors’ sector has
undergone continuous change. However, there are
currently no reliable measures of contractors’ com-
pany structures and compositions. In Sweden, the
production of logs, silviculture treatments, and
procurement of tops and branches for forest fuel
has steadily increased (Swedish Statistical Yearbook
of Forestry 2000, 2011). However, two severe
storms hit the southern part of Sweden in 2005
and 2007, which is reflected in the statistics. For
example: there was a large difference in fellings
between 2005 (118 million m3 standing volume)
and 2009 (76.9 million m3 standing volume); the
area prepared with mechanized soil scarification
increased by 14% from 2003/2005 to 2007/2009,
the planted area increased by 20% and the number
of seedlings produced for Swedish usage increased
by 16% (Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry
2011). In a longer time perspective, the use of
natural regeneration has become less common in
favor of planting and seeded areas (Bergquist et al.
2011). New regulations contained in the Forestry
Act in the 1990s led to a large downturn in pre-
commercial thinning activities. However, since
1998, Sweden has seen a mean annual growth of
cleaned areas by ca. 6% (Swedish Statistical Year-
book of Forestry 2011). Despite this, areas in need
of pre-commercial thinning have increased by 4%
per year (based on the 3-year mean, excluding the
three-year period of 2003�2005 due to changes in
statistical methods, Swedish Statistical Yearbook of
Forestry 2011).
Highly productive logging is today more challen-
ging than during the 1990s since the proportion of
harvested volumes from final felling in relation to
thinning has decreased by 6% since 1993/1994
(Kempe et al. 2005; Nilsson & Cory 2011). Given
the lower productivity and higher costs for thinning
compared to final felling (Brunberg 2003; Brunberg
& Thor 2010) this shift toward increased thinning
would result in an estimated 4% overall reduction of
logging productivity and a similar increase in har-
vesting costs. This is despite a 14% increase in
productivity of the harvesters in final felling accord-
ing to productivity norms (Brunberg 2007) and
volumes (Nordfjell et al. 2010). Signs of declining
productivity and rising costs in harvesting are of
general concern (Nordfjell et al. 2010).
Moreover, there have been no major break-
throughs in technological development in recent
years (Nordfjell et al. 2010). In addition, operating
conditions have become more challenging for ma-
chine operators due to, e.g. environmental consid-
erations, certification schemes, and higher demands
on quality and delivery to industry. However, little is
known of the effects of the changes on contractors
and the forestry-contracting sector. Based on data
from the national survey, the aim of the present work
was to describe and discuss forestry contractors’
company structure and development, including an
evaluation of who they are, how many there are, how
many workers they employ and who are hiring them.
Materials and methods
The study was based on four years of data for 2006�2009 from the Swedish Forest Agency’s yearly
written questionnaire to Swedish forestry contrac-
tors and previous results based on the same survey
for the years 1993�1998 (Ejermo 2001). Sampling
was conducted by the Swedish Forest Agency after
2003 (and prior to that Statistics Sweden), but the
procedures used were the same for the entire data-
set from 1993 to 2009 See Ejermo (2001) for a
detailed description of the 1993�1998 data-set and
results.
Population and sampling technique
Samples of forestry contractors were drawn from
Statistics Sweden’s Business Register (CFAR), using
the industry code representing silviculture and
logging. The Swedish Forest Agency then removed
enterprises not conforming to Statistics Sweden’s
definition of forestry contractors, i.e. LSF compa-
nies (companies with, approximately, at least 10
396 C. Haggstrom et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
employees in forestry and at least 5000 hectares of
forest land, Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry
2011) and contractors who had not been active in
forestry according to previous years’ surveys. A
stratified random sample was taken in order to
estimate the numbers of contractors, clients, ma-
chines, work hours, working owners, and their
employees. The Swedish Forest Agency constructed
four strata (labeled A, B, C, and D) according to the
stated number of employees; higher sampling frac-
tions were used for larger companies (Table I). The
actual number of employees may have deviated from
the stated register value because, amongst other
things, of difficulties in keeping the CFAR up to
date at the time of the survey. Furthermore, the
CFAR includes all employees of registered compa-
nies, whereas the questionnaire only asks for persons
who work in forestry. Since contractors may have
interests in other businesses apart from forestry,
companies with multiple business interests may have
been classified into strata corresponding to more
employees than they actually use for forestry work.
The intended sample size was 2100 units, except in
2006 when it was 2320 units. The total response rate
varied from 53% to 59% in 2006�2009 (Table I). The
survey register also contained companies other than
silviculture and logging contractors, i.e. overcover-
age. The overcoverage was due to companies
wrongly classified as being silviculture or logging in
the CFAR. This problem declined over the sample
period from 47% in 2006 to 30% in 2009. The
number of companies missed, the undercoverage, is
unknown, but according to representatives of LSF
and workers unions, most contractors are registered
in Sweden and would thus be included in the
population retrieved from the CFAR. Despite these
problems, responses were received from 700 to 770
forestry contractors, corresponding to ca. 20% of the
estimated total population of Swedish forestry con-
tractors.
The questionnaire, which since 1991 has re-
quested data for the preceding year, was changed
slightly in design between 1993�1998 and 2006�2009. According to the Swedish Forest Agency
(Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2007),
this may have resulted in higher estimated values of
the numbers of working owners, employees, and sum
of both for the latter period. The combined group of
working owners and employees will henceforth be
referred to as workers.
Statistical analyses
Answers to the questionnaire were weighted by the
actual sampling fraction P for each stratum (A�D) to
obtain estimates of the total population,^
M and^
Y , as
well as estimates for each stratum (Equations 1
and 2). We also calculated combined ratio estimates^
Yt to estimate ratios of variables work hours,
numbers of clients, workers, and machines per
company or per worker (Equation 3)
^
M ¼X4
j¼1
Pj � Nj (1)
^
Y ¼X4
j¼1
yj � Nj (2)
^
Yt ¼^
W^
X(3)
Pj is the proportion mj/nj, where mj is the number of
responses from forestry contractors and nj is the
sample size in stratum j. Nj is the population size and
yj is the estimated population mean in stratum j.^
W
and^
X are estimates of the total population accord-
ing to Equation 1 or 2. Further details of the
statistical methods used for the analysis can be
found in Cochran (1977, pp. 142�144, 165�166).
The value of P varied for different questions in the
questionnaire due to partially missing values.
Due to heterogeneity in the population, we ana-
lyzed the data from 2006 to 2009 for two contractor
categories, silviculture contractors and logging
contractors. The categories were defined based on
the amount of time the contractor spent on pre-
defined tasks. Mechanized soil scarification, planting,
and pre-commercial thinning were assumed indicators
of silviculture contractors. These silviculture tasks
Table I. Description of the sample and number of responses for the years 2006�2009 for strata A�D.
Intended sampling
fraction (%) Sample size (nos.) Responses (nos.)
Strata Nos.a Designated term 06 07 08 09 06 07 08 09 06 07 08 09
A 0 One-person enterprise 28 18 13 10 1429 1000 733 551 862 583 382 288
B 1�4 Small-sized enterprise 35 41 59 69 523 601 893 1057 289 339 490 568
C 5�9 Medium-sized enterprise 67 100 100 100 250 368 345 343 151 204 175 170
D 9 B Large-sized enterprise 100 100 100 100 119 131 129 149 56 72 66 77
aNumber of employees according to the inclusion criteria for each stratum.
Profiles of Forestry Contractors 397
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
represented ca. 30% of all contractors work hours for
the period. Mechanized harvesting, mechanized
forwarding, operation of a chipper, manual thinning,
and manual final felling were assumed indicators of
logging contractors. These logging tasks represented
almost 60% of all work hours. The remaining 10% of
total forestry work hours could not be attributed to
any category. To be categorized as a predominantly
silviculture or logging contractor, the enterprise had
to spend at least 30% less time on tasks belonging to
the other contractor type. About 10% of all con-
tractors did not fit into either group according to the
above definitions.
We divided the contractors according to the
amount of time they spent on forestry work to
estimate the number of contractors with and with-
out forestry work as their main occupation. Using a
benchmark of 25% of one person’s yearly working
time in Sweden (during 2006�2009), we defined
occasional contractors as enterprises with less than
455 hours/year in forestry work and typical
contractors as enterprises working more than 455
hours/year. Thus, forestry work was not necessarily
the main occupation of occasional contractors.
However, the main part of the analysis was
performed on the combined group of occasional
and typical contractor enterprises to enable com-
parisons with previous studies and because mea-
sures of subpopulations are often less reliable. If not
stated otherwise, when describing contractor en-
terprises we refer to the combined group of both
types of contractor.
When possible, results regarding the entire popu-
lation, as well as results for different company sizes
(stratum A�D), were compared for 1993�1998
(Ejermo 2001) and 2006�2009. Results from
1993�1998 and 2006�2009 were analyzed for
trends, growth rates, and averages for different
periods. Due to changes in the questionnaire design,
results from the earlier period were sometimes
summed to enable comparison. The categories of
silviculture and logging contractors were only ana-
lyzed for the years 2006�2009.
Results
In the following sections, results with a relative
standard error (RSE) less than 25% are marked
with one asterisk, results with a RSE greater than
25% but less than or equal to 50% are marked with
two asterisks, and results with a RSE greater than
50% are marked with three asterisks. For the 1993�1998 data-set, RSE is not available.
Contractors’ structure and development
1993�2009
From 1993 to 2009, the estimated number of
contractors in Swedish forestry increased by 80%
(Figure 1). In 2009, there were 2488* typical
contractors primarily focused on forestry work in
Sweden and 1074* occasional contractors.
Throughout the whole period, the vast majority of
enterprises were either one-person or small-sized
enterprises (strata A and B). However, medium-,
and large-sized enterprises (strata C and D) showed a
substantially higher mean annual growth rate com-
pared to one-person, and small-sized enterprises, and
hence the proportion of contractors in the former
groups have increased since 1993 (Figure 1).
Consequently, while the total workforce increased
substantially over the period, by 157%, the largest
increase was for large-sized enterprises (1109%,
Figure 2). Thus, from being the smallest employer
Figure 1. Number of forestry contractors in Sweden 1993�2009. Data for 1993�1998 were adapted from Ejermo (2001). Dotted lines are
not estimates of contractors but represent the changes between 1998 and 2006. The estimates for 2006�2009 have a relative standard error
(RSE) of less than 25%.
398 C. Haggstrom et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
category at the start of the study period, large-sized
enterprises increased in importance and were only
outnumbered by the number of workers in small-
sized enterprises in 2009. Small-sized enterprises
were the main employer in 2009 and employed more
workers than middle-sized enterprises during 2006�2009 (Figure 2). As reflected by the increased
number of workers, large-sized enterprises carried
out a larger proportion of the total contracted
working hours in 2009 than 1998, and considerably
more so if compared to 1993 (Table II). Working
hours increased by 129% from 1993 to 2009, which
was somewhat less than the increase in the number
of workers. Thus, the average number of working
hours per worker decreased over the whole period.
Furthermore, the amount of time on silvicultural
activities increased (Table II). In 1998, a maximum
of 19% of the total work performed by forestry
workers was related to silvicultural activities,
whereas in 2009 pre-commercial thinning together
with planting and silviculture machine work com-
prised 34% of all work. Nevertheless, logging
remained the main task of Swedish contractors in
2009 (Table II); 27% of all work was allocated to
Figure 2. Number of owners and employees (workers) involved in forestry activities in Swedish contractors’ enterprises in 1993�2009.
Data for 1993�1998 were adapted from Ejermo (2001). Dotted lines are not estimates of contractors but represent the changes between
1998 and 2006. The estimates for 2006�2009 have a RSE of less than 25%.
Table II. Estimated work hours (1000s) in total and per worker in Swedish contractor enterprises in 1998 and 2009.
Strata/company size Total for contractors
Task Year A B C D All Silviculture Logging
Mec. harvesting 1998a 503 1615 664 288 3070 41** 3441*
2009 448** 1572* 992* 507* 3519*
Mec. forwarding 1998a 660 1257 454 224 2594 43* 3082*
2009 388** 1344* 972* 464* 3168*
Mo-Ma thinning 2009 65** 59** 17** 136** 277** 171** 101**
Mo-Ma F. felling 2009 66** 46** 20** 3** 135** 27* 94**
Silviculture 1998a 87 173 60 24 344
Mec. silviculture 2009 64** 146* 66** 89** 365* 210* 121*
Planting 2009 87** 393* 70** 950** 1500* 1 465* 23*
Pre-commercial thinning 2009 390** 704* 320* 1102* 2517* 2304* 168*
All forestry tasks 1998a 1854 4000 1580 728 8163
1998b 1.056 1.322 1.407 1.419 1.272
2009 1864* 4742* 2744* 3474* 12,825* 4572* 7875*
2009c 0.737 0.964 1.106 1.113 0.982* 0.815* 1.238*
A: one-person enterprises; B: small-sized enterprises; C: medium-sized enterprises; D: large-sized enterprises; Mec.: mechanized; Mo-Ma:
motor-manual; F. felling=final felling.
*RSE of less than or equal to 25%.
**RSE of more than 25% but less than or equal to 50%.aSource of 1998 years data: Ejermo (2001).bEstimated work hours per worker in 1998 are calculated from the total number of work hours divided by the total number of workers. Data
from Ejermo (2001).cHours per worker.
Profiles of Forestry Contractors 399
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
mechanized harvesting and 25% to forwarding.
Taken together, motor-manual thinning and final
felling comprised no more than 3% of all work.
The number of purpose-built forest machines
remained relatively constant between 1993 and
1998 but increased almost 50% by 2009 (Table III).
Machines for silvicultural work (mainly soil scarifiers)
increased the most (ca. 120%), while harvesters and
forwarders � representing the vast majority of ma-
chines � increased by 51% and 39%, respectively. In
addition, there was a large growth (323%) in the
number of other than purpose-built forest machines.
Despite this increase in machines, the number of
machine-owning contractors did not increase by as
much (24%) as contractors without machines
(180%). However, most contractors (2358* compa-
nies, 65%) were machine owners in 2009.
The percentage distribution of different clients
was stable over both periods 1993�1998 and 2006�2009. LSF companies were the main client for all
enterprises (Table IV), except for one-person en-
terprises, who were mainly contracted by other
(private) forest owners (OFO) during 2006�2009.
Although ca. 30% of all contractors in 1993�1998
and 2006�2009 had only one client, only ca. 12% of
large-sized enterprises worked for a single client
(Table IV).
Silviculture and logging contractors 2006�2009
In 2009, 60% of forestry contractors were logging
contractors, i.e. mainly engaged in logging activities
like harvesting and forwarding. Another 30% were
silviculture contractors and mainly engaged in activ-
ities like soil scarification, planting, and pre-com-
mercial thinning. The remaining 9% were equally
engaged in both types of activities. Logging contrac-
tors employed 11% more workers than silviculture
contractors, but enterprises of the former were twice
as numerous. Only 4% of workers were women;
however, women were up to four times as numerous
in silviculture enterprises as in logging enterprises
(Table V).
In 2009, most silvicultural work and 36% of all
forestry contractors’ work hours in Sweden were
performed by 1119* silviculture contractor enter-
prises, of which 44% were classified as occasional
and 56% as typical contractors (Table V).
Occasional silviculture contractors were mainly con-
tracted by OFO and typical silviculture contractors
were mainly contracted by LSF companies (Table
IV). On average, they were contracted by nine***
clients, but 19% were contracted by only one client.
Silviculture contractors carried out almost all the
outsourced work in manual planting and motor-
manual pre-commercial thinning but only around
half of the mechanized silvicultural work (soil
scarification, mechanized pre-commercial thinning
and planting, Table II). As most of the silviculture
contractors’ work was manual or motor-
manual (Table II), only 30% owned a machine.
Furthermore, a maximum of only 12% of all
purpose-built forest machines were owned by silvi-
culture contractors (Table V).
Workers in typical silviculture enterprises conducted
98% of all working hours carried out by silviculture
workers � on average 891* hours a year per worker in
2009. One-person- and large-sized enterprises had the
highest mean working time per worker. Although most
silviculture contractors were one-person enterprises,
50% of the total work (in hours) was carried out by
Table III. Number of machines in Swedish contract forestry in
1998 and 2009.
Number of machines
1998a 2009
Harvesters 1459 2201*
Forwarders 1793 2501*
Silviculture machines 200 466**
Chippersb 61 68*
Other machines 171 724*
*RSE of less than or equal to 25%.
**RSE of more than 25% but less than or equal to 50%.aData for 1998 adapted from Ejermo (2001).bFigures for chippers are unreliable due to few units.
Table IV. Allocation of work for different types of clients and
percentage of contractors with one, 2�5 or more clients.
Type of clientsa
Number of
clients (interval)
LSF FOA OFO PST 1 2�5 �5
1998b 44 21 32 3 29 43 27
2006 42* 15* 40* 3** 26 48 26
2007 41* 16* 41** 1*** 27 47 26
2008 44* 16** 39* 2*** 28 45 27
2009 42* 17** 39* 1*** 30 46 24
Silv 41* 15*** 43* 1*** 19 47 34
Silv T 50** 20*** 30** 0**
Silv O 30** 8*** 61* 2***
Logg 44* 18** 37* 1*** 38 43 19
Logg T 51* 22** 26** 1***
Logg O 17** 4*** 79* 1***
LSF: large-scale forestry; FOA: forest owners associations; OFO:
other (private) forest owners; PST: purchasing standing timber;
Silv T: Typical silviculture contractor; Silv O: Occasional
silviculture contractor; Logg T: Typical logging contractor;
Logg O: Occasional logging contractor.
*RSE of less than or equal to 25%.
**RSE of more than 25% but less than or equal to 50%.
***RSE of more than 50%.aActual figures for 1998 may differ by 1�2%.bData for 1998 adapted from Ejermo (2001).
400 C. Haggstrom et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
workers in large-sized enterprises, i.e. enterprises with
an average of 34 workers.
In 2009, most of the mechanized logging and 61%
of all forestry contractors’ work hours in Sweden was
carried out by 2219* logging contractors mainly
involved in logging operations. Twenty-two percent
of those were occasional and 78% were typical
contractors (Table V). Typical logging contractors
were mainly contracted by LSF companies, but
OFO were the most important clients for occasional
logging contractors (Table IV). On average, logging
contractors worked for five*** clients, but 38% were
contracted by only one client.
Logging contractors carried out almost all work in
mechanized harvesting and mechanized forwarding
but less than half (47% in 2009) of motor-manual
felling (Table II). In accordance with the high degree
of mechanized work, logging contractors possessed
84% of all purpose-built forest machines. Only 13%
of the contractors were purely manual or motor-
manual (did not own any machines, Table V).
Workers in typical logging enterprises carried out
99% of the total working hours conducted by logging
contractors, on average 1334* hours a year per
worker in 2009. Average working time increased
with increasing company size. Overall, most work
(42% of total work hours) was performed by workers
in small-sized enterprises, i.e. enterprises with an
average of three workers, while one-person logging
enterprises with an average of 1.3 workers accounted
for only 14% of logging contractors’ total work.
Large-sized logging enterprises, with on average 11
workers per enterprise, accounted for 15% of logging
contractors’ total work in 2009.
Discussion
Despite some methodological shortcomings due to
inaccuracy of the CFAR and the questionnaire
design, we believe that our results are representative
of Swedish forestry contractors’ enterprises as the
study covered about 20% of the estimated popula-
tion of Swedish contractors. Consistencies between
repeated measures indicate the reliability of our
results, even in instances with high RSE. Further-
more, our results are in many cases supported by
others’ findings.
Yet, it should be stressed that in todays’ survey
design, contractors have to report E15-time (i.e.
machine-time including breaks shorter than 15
minutes), although E0-time (machine-time exclud-
ing shorter breaks) is the standard for all machine
contractors. Furthermore, the number of clients may
be overestimated and the type of clients may be
skewed towards OFO since contractors might have
confused landowners for clients in answering the
questionnaire. It should also be noted that the results
based on the strata (one-man, small-sized, medium-
sized, and large-sized enterprises) are not exactly the
same as results for enterprises with 0, 1�4, 5�8, or 9
and more employees. However, the chosen method
was used to enable comparison with the 1993�1998
data-set.
The forestry-contracting sector in Sweden has
undergone continuous growth since the late 1970s;
Table V. Features of silviculture and logging contractors in 2009.
Silviculture contractors Logging contractors
Variable 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009
Contractors 1071* 1138* 1185* 1119* 2202* 2116* 2079* 2219*
A 698* 785* 855* 714* 1027* 940* 973* 1020*
B 278* 257* 242* 303* 867* 861* 776* 850*
C 54* 57* 59* 45* 236* 228* 247* 276*
D 42* 40* 29* 58* 72* 87* 84* 73*
Typical 709* 711* 746* 632* 1726* 1671* 1632* 1740*
Occasional 363* 427* 439* 487* 476* 445* 447* 478*
Workers 4415* 4987* 4955* 5610* 6857* 6193* 7044* 6337*
Women 281* 297* 342* 444* 228* 155* 118* 108**
Men 4134* 4690* 4613* 5166* 6629* 6039* 6927* 6229*
Machines 537* 581* 1159* 846** 4988* 4735* 5230* 4808*
Special machines 289* 261* 297* 618*** 4633* 4442* 4882* 4398*
Worker/special machines 14.3*** 17.9*** 17.9*** 8.6*** 1.5* 1.5* 1.4* 1,5*
No machine 709* 650* 784* 752* 238* 251* 378* 295*
A: one-person enterprises; B: small-sized enterprises; C: medium-sized enterprises; D: large-sized enterprises; Special machine: machine
purpose-built for forestry work; No machine: number of contractors who do not own any machine.
*RSE of less than or equal to 25%.
**RSE of more than 25% but less than or equal to 50%.
***RSE of more than 50%.
Profiles of Forestry Contractors 401
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
initially attributed to redistribution of LSF employ-
ees to contractors but the development is now largely
driven by increased demands for forestry services.
Our results have shown that the body of contractors
has become larger and more diversified since 1998,
in line with increased forest production and diversity
of outsourced tasks, and the absence of productivity-
increasing technological developments or stand con-
ditions. This diversity and increase in forestry
contractors has probably also been affected by the
demanding tasks of clearing up and planting after
the storms Gudrun and Per in 2005 and 2007.
Although we identified many structural differences
between silviculture and logging contractors (e.g.
Tables II and V), the degree of mechanization was
clearly the main point of contrast. Since machine
contractors need to make heavy capital investment in
machinery and highly educated workers, they must
ensure that both resources are used efficiently. This
explains why highly mechanized logging contractors
employ fewer workers and conduct more work hours
per worker than low mechanized silviculture con-
tractors. Historically, the workforce in Swedish
forestry declined sharply during the mechanization
phase (Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry
2000). The utilization of machines also explains
why there are so few occasional logging contractors
compared to silviculture contractors.
The general trend of increasing proportion and
numbers of large-sized enterprises is equally attribu-
table to increases in large silviculture and large
logging contractors (Figure 1 and Table V). Never-
theless, large-sized logging contractors employ rela-
tively few people compared to large-sized silviculture
contractors. Today, silviculture and logging contrac-
tors employ an equivalent number of workers.
However, if forecasts are correct in predicting
increased mechanization of planting and pre-
commercial thinning (Strandstrom et al. 2009;
Nilsson et al. 2010), this development will change
the prerequisites for silviculture contractors.
It has been suggested that machine operators in
Sweden specialize in machine work and seldom
perform any motor-manual work (Hultaker 2002;
Synwoldt & Gellerstedt 2003). Our results support
this finding since the logging contractors were almost
exclusively machine owners (Table III) and worked
equally few hours in motor-manual thinning and
final felling as silviculture contractors (Table II).
However, some flexibility in forestry operations, i.e.
logging contractors carrying out silviculture work
and silviculture contractors performing logging
work, is presumably valuable for individual enter-
prises from an economic as well as a labor perspec-
tive. In support, Hultaker (2006) emphasized that
enterprises need to perform complementary tasks to
cope with periods of low occupation and efficiently
utilize resources within the enterprise. Synwoldt and
Gellerstedt (2003) suggested that flexibility was also
required to facilitate work rotation and ensure
workers’ health.
Although surprisingly low, the mean working time
per worker of logging contractors was higher than
the average silviculture worker. The relatively low
mean working time of logging workers may partly be
explained by the requirement to report G15-time.
Another possible explanation is working hours in
nonforestry work are excluded in the questionnaire.
The difference in average working hours between
logging contractors and silviculture contractors may
be due to the previously mentioned heavy capital
investment required by the former, as well as the
scope for carrying out logging activities through
most of the year. Seasonal employment is common
amongst silviculture contractors (Eriksson 1999),
especially in the northern part of the country, and is
particularly suited to the low degree of mechaniza-
tion and limited possibilities for conducting such
work during the winter in Sweden.
We expected a difference in the client base of
logging and silviculture contractors, with logging
contractors being more dependent upon LSF. This
was because both are service providers, but logging
contractors also produce timber for the wood supply
chain. LSF companies, as the key suppliers of wood
to industry, do not encourage logging contractors to
buy wood directly from forest owners (Hultaker
2006). Purchasing already cut wood from contrac-
tors would complicate the task of monitoring and
controlling the wood supply chain to optimize
transportation and storage. Logging contractors are
thus highly dependent on LSF and other wood
suppliers to form contracts with forest owners. In
contrast, when it comes to silvicultural activities,
LSF companies do not gain from any (short-term)
products of the contract work, and thus their
operations will not be complicated by the contrac-
tor’s actions. The dependency on LSF companies, or
other wood suppliers, is accentuated by logging
contractors’ need for stable incomes due to the
heavy capital investment in machines. Long-term
contracts provide economic security and are offered
by many wood suppliers. However, this is not offered
by OFO or when purchasing standing timber (PST).
Conversely, silviculture contractors do not need to
make such heavy capital investments in machinery or
highly educated workers and can, therefore, afford
and possibly benefit from a more flexible business
concept. Although the results regarding the choice of
client should be interpreted with care, silviculture
contractors seem to be as dependent on LSF as
logging contractors are. The difference we expected
402 C. Haggstrom et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
to find between logging and silviculture contractors
was instead evident for typical versus occasional
contractors.
In conclusion, Swedish forestry is increasingly
dependent on contractors to carry out logging and
silviculture operations. Most of the contractors are
specialized in either mechanized logging or manual-
and motor-manual silvicultural work. In recent
years, the Swedish forestry-contracting sector has
changed so that silviculture and logging contractors
are now equally important as forestry employers.
The observed structural differences between the two
contractor categories suggest they should be re-
garded as separate types of contractors. Neverthe-
less, future mechanization of silvicultural operations
may affect the observed structures and categoriza-
tion of contractors by changing the prerequisites for
investments in capital and labor. Considering recent
developments and, in particular, the increasing
dependency on contractors’ capabilities, it is impor-
tant to gain better information on contractors, not
only of their number but also their performance. To
obtain this knowledge, a more consistent survey
design is recommended.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Editor and two
anonymous reviewers for providing many helpful
suggestions on previous versions of the manuscript.
Data were kindly provided by M.Sc. Anders Gron-
vall at the Swedish Forest Agency and Assistant
Professor Soren Holm is gratefully acknowledged for
statistical guidance. The main authors’ contribution
to this study was financed by the SLO Foundation
through the Forest-Industry Research School on
Technology. The paper has been edited by a profes-
sional, native English-speaking editor.
References
Baker SA, Dale Greene W. 2008. Changes in Georgia’s logging
workforce, 1987�2007. South. J. Appl. Forest. 32:60�68.Bergquist J, Eriksson A, Fries, C. 2011. Polytax 5/7 ater-
vaxttaxering: Resultat fran 1999�2009 [Polytax 5/7 refor-
estation inventory: result from 1999�2009] (Rapport No. 1).
Jonkoping: Swedish Forest Agency (in Swedish).
Bostrand L. 1984. Produktionsteknik och arbetsmiljo � en studie
av skogsmaskinforares arbetsforhallanden 1969�81 [Produc-
tion techniques and work environment � a study on forest
machine operator’s work condition 1969�81] (159). Gar-
penberg: The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
(in Swedish).
Brunberg T. 2003. Forestry costs and revenue in Sweden, 2002
(Results No. 5). Uppsala (Sweden): Skogforsk.
Brunberg T. 2007. Underlag for produktionsnorm for extra stora
engreppsskordare i slutavverkning [Basic data for productiv-
ity norms for extra large single-grip harvesters in final felling]
(Redogorelse No. 2). Gavle: Skogforsk (in Swedish with
English abstract).
Brunberg T, Thor M. 2010. Produktivitet i gallring och slut-
avverkning 2008�2009 [Productivity in thinning and final
felling 2008�09] (Resultat No. 10). Uppsala: Skogforsk (in
Swedish with English abstract).
Cochran WG. 1977. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York:
Wiley.
Ejermo O. 2001. Entreprenorer i skogsbruket 1993�1998: En
redovisning baserad pa den arliga entreprenorsunder-
sokningen [Contractors in forestry 1993�1998: an account
of results from an annual survey of forestry contractors].
Jonkoping: Skogsstyrelsen (in Swedish).
Eriksson B. 1999. Skogsvardsentreprenorer � nulage och framtid
[Silviculture contractors � at present and in the future]
(Arbetsrapport No. 428). Uppsala: Skogforsk (in Swedish).
Eriksson B. 2004a. Kraftig expansion � entreprenorer gor nu 90
procent av skogsvarden [Rapid growth � contractors now
account for 90% of silviculture] (Resultat No. 17). Uppsala:
Skogforsk (in Swedish with English summary).
Eriksson B. 2004b. Morgondagens skogsvardsforetag [Tomor-
row’s silviculture contractors] (Arbetsrapport No. 580).
Uppsala: Skogforsk (in Swedish).
Eriksson B. 2007. Silviculture companies � growing and devel-
oping the business (Arbetsrapport No. 631). Uppsala:
Skogforsk (in Swedish with English abstract).
Hultaker O. 2002. Forest contracting today and in the future � a
qualitative study of logging contractors’ activities and their
visions of the future [Master’s thesis]. Uppsala: Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences (in Swedish with English
abstract).
Hultaker O. 2006. Entrepreneurship in the forest harvesting
industry: a qualitative study of development in small
enterprises [Doctoral disstertation]. Uppsala: Sveriges lant-
bruksuniversitet (in Swedish with English abstract).
Kastenholz E, Dyduch C, Fitzgerald R, Hudson B, Jaakkola S,
Liden E, Monoyios K, Morat J, Pasek F, Sachse M.
2011. Guide to good practice in contract labour in forestry.
Report of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Best
Practices in Forest Contracting No. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Kawasaki A, Kohroki K. 2009. The reason for forestry ‘‘foremen’’
dismissal from employee and their actual condition: a case of
Fukuoka prefecture. J. Forest Econ. 55(2):10�20 (in Japanese
with English abstract).
Kempe G, Nilsson P, Toet H. 2005. Skogsdata 2005: Aktuella
uppgifter om de svenska skogarna fran Riksskogstaxeringen
[Forestry statistics 2005]. Umea: Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences (in Swedish).
Liden E. 1994. Machine inquiry � 93 � harvesting systems,
ownership and volumes in Swedish forest enterprises. Out-
come 85/86 and 92/93 and prediction for 97/98 (Uppsatser
och Resultat No. 269). Garpenberg: Swedish Universtity of
Agricultural Sciences (in Swedish).
Liden E. 1995. Forest machine contractors in Swedish industrial
forestry � significance and conditions during 1986�1993
[Doctoral thesis]. Garpenberg: Swedish Universtity of
Agricultural Sciences.
Louw WJA. 2004. General history of the South African forest
industry: 1991 to 2002 [information paper]. South. Afr.
Forest. J. 201:65�76. doi: 10.1080/20702620.2004.10431775Nilsson P, Cory N. 2011. Skogsdata 2011: Aktuella uppgifter om
de svenska skogarna fran Riksskogstaxeringen [Forestry
statistics 2011]. Umea: Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences (in Swedish).
Nilsson U, Luoranen J, Kolstom T, Orlander G, Puttonen P.
2010. Reforestation with planting in northern Europe.
Profiles of Forestry Contractors 403
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Scand. J. Forest Res. 25:283�294. doi: 10.1080/02827581.
2010.498384
Nordfjell T, Bjorheden R, Thor M, Wasterlund I. 2010. Changes
in technical performance, mechanical availability and prices
of machines used in forest operations in Sweden from 1985
to 2010. Scand. J. Forest Res. 25:382�389. doi: 10.1080/
02827580308620
Strandstrom M, Hamalainen J, Pajuoja H. 2009. Metsanhoidon
koneellistaminen � Visio ja T&K-ohjelma [Mechanisation of
silviculture � vision and R&D programme] (Metsatehon
raportti No.). Helsinki: Metsateho Oy (in Finnish).
Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. 2000. Jonkoping:
Swedish Forest Agency.
Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. 2007. Jonkoping:
Swedish Forest agency.
Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. 2011. Jonkoping:
Swedish Forest Agency.
Synwoldt U, Gellerstedt S. 2003. Ergonomic initiatives for
machine operators by the Swedish logging industry. Appl.
Ergon. 34:149�156. doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00006-1Westermayer T. 2006. Out-sourcing of work in Germany’s
forestry: rural social structure and identity in transformation.
Arbeitswissenschaftlicher Forschungsbericht No. 3. Frei-
burg: Institut fur Forstbenutzung und Forstliche Arbeitswis-
senschaft.
404 C. Haggstrom et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
15 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
