SUMMARY. 77 



(b) Compulsory afforestation of certain lands. 



(c) Prohibition to devastate existing forests. 



(d) The laying down of rules for the management of existing 



forests. 



(e) The taking under State management of private forests. 

 (/) Insisting on proper forest protection. 



((/) Prohibition of dividing private forests. 



(h) Prohibition of selling private forests. 



(i) Eegulation of the consumption of forest produce. 



4. Summary. 



The question, whether, or to what extent, the State should 

 exercise a control over private forests from an economic point 

 of view cannot be answered straight off ; the answer depends 

 on the circumstances of each case. Under any circumstances, 

 the principle should hold good that the State should only 

 interfere for weighty reasons in the interest of the common 

 welfare. In that respect, all depends on the proportion of the 

 forest area already under State control, such as State and 

 communal forests, and on the general condition of the 

 country. 



In Britain, the area of State forests is very small, and there 

 are few communal or corporation forests. And yet, so far no 

 State supervision over private forests has become necessary, 

 owing to the favourable position of the country as regards 

 imports of timber and substitutes for firewood. Indeed, such 

 supervision would be practically impossible. In case of 

 necessity, the State must acquire the forests, or plant up 

 waste land. 



In continental countries, matters are somewhat different, 

 because the means of import are less favourable and the 

 quantity of substitutes, especially for firewood, smaller and 

 less favourably distributed. Here the State might be called 

 upon to interfere in the interests of the common welfare. 

 The actual state of affairs differs very considerably. Taking 



