A Study on Forest Insurance

산림보험(山林保險)에 관한 연구(硏究)

1. Objective of the Study The objective of the study was to make fundamental suggestions for drawing a forest insurance system applicable in Korea by investigating forest insurance systems undertaken in foreign countries, analyzing the forest hazards occurred in entire forests of Korea in the past, and hearing the opinions of people engaged in forestry. 2. Methods of the Study First, reference studies on insurance at large as well as on forest insurance were intensively made to draw the characteristics of forest insurance practiced in main forestry countries, Second, the investigations of forest hazards in Korea for the past ten years were made with the help of the Office of Forestry. Third, the questionnaires concerning forest insurance were prepared and delivered at random to 533 personnel who are working at different administrative offices of forestry, forest stations, forest cooperatives, colleges and universities, research institutes, and fire insurance companies. Fourth, fifty three representative forest owners in the area of three forest types (coniferous, hardwood, and mixed forest), a representative region in Kyonggi Province out of fourteen collective forest development programs in Korea, were directly interviewed with the writer. 3. Results of the Study The rate of response to the questionnaire was 74.40% as shown in the table 3, and the results of the questionaire were as follows: (% in the parenthes shows the rates of response; shortages in amount to 100% were due to the facts of excluding the rates of response of minor respondents). 1) Necessity of forest insurance The respondents expressed their opinions that forest insurance must be undertaken to assure forest financing (5.65%); for receiving the reimbursement of replanting costs in case of damages done (35.87%); and to protect silvicultural investments (46.74%). 2) Law of forest insurance Few respondents showed their views in favor of applying the general insurance regulations to forest insurance practice (9.35%), but the majority of respondents were in favor of passing a special forest insurance law in the light of forest characteristics (88.26%). 3) Sorts of institutes to undertake forest insurance A few respondents believed that insurance companies at large could take care of forest insurance (17.42%); forest owner's mutual associations would manage the forest insurance more effectively (23.53%); but the more than half of the respondents were in favor of establishing public or national forest insurance institutes (56.18%). 4) Kinds of risks to be undertaken in forest insurance It would be desirable that the risks to be undertaken in forest insurance be limited: To forest fire hazards only (23.38%); to forest fire hazards plus damages made by weather (14.32%); to forest fire hazards, weather damages, and insect damages (60.68%). 5) Objectives to be insured It was responded that the objectives to be included in forest insurance should be limited: (1) To artificial coniferous forest only (13.47%); (2) to both coniferous and broad-leaved artificial forests (23.74%); (3) but the more than half of the respondents showed their desire that all the forests regardless of species and the methods of establishment should be insured (61.64%). 6) Range of risks in age of trees to be included in forest insurance The opinions of the respondents showed that it might be enough to insure the trees less than ten years of age (15.23%); but it would be more desirous of taking up forest trees under twenty years of age (32.95%); nevertheless, a large number of respondents were in favor of underwriting all the forest trees less than fourty years of age (46.37%). 7) Term of a forest insurance contract Quite a few respondents favored a contract made on one year basis (31.74%), but the more than half of the respondents favored the contract made on five year bases (58.68%). 8) Limitation in a forest insurance contract The respondents indicated that it would be desirable in a forest insurance contract to exclude forests less than five hectars (20.78%), but more than half of the respondents expressed their opinions that forests above a minimum volume or number of trees per unit area should be included in a forest insurance contract regardless of the area of forest lands (63.77%). 9) Methods of contract Some responded that it would be good to let the forest owners choose their forests in making a forest insurance contract (32.13%); others inclined to think that it would be desirable to include all the forests that owners hold whenerver they decide to make a forest insurance contract (33.48%); the rest responded in favor of forcing the owners to buy insurance policy if they own the forests that were established with subsidy or own highly vauable growing stock (31.92%) 10) Rate of premium The responses were divided into three categories: (1) The rate of primium is to be decided according to the regional degree of risks(27.72%); (2) to be decided by taking consideration both regional degree of risks and insurable values(31.59%); (3) and to be decided according to the rate of risks for the entire country and the insurable values (39.55%). 11) Payment of Premium Although a few respondents wished to make a payment of premium at once for a short term forest insurance contract, and an annual payment for a long term contract (13.80%); the majority of the respondents wished to pay the premium annually regardless of the term of contract, by employing a high rate of premium on a short term contract, but a low rate on a long term contract (83.71%). 12) Institutes in charge of forest insurance business A few respondents showed their desire that forest insurance be taken care of at the government forest administrative offices (18.75%); others at insurance companies (35.76%); but the rest, the largest number of the respondents, favored forest associations in the county. They also wanted to pay a certain rate of premium to the forest associations that issue the insurance (44.22%). 13) Limitation on indemnity for damages done In limitation on indemnity for damages done, the respondents showed a quite different views. Some desired compesation to cover replanting costs when young stands suffered damages and to be paid at the rate of eighty percent to the losses received when matured timber stands suffered damages(29.70%); others desired to receive compensation of the actual total loss valued at present market prices (31.07%); but the rest responded in favor of compensation at the present value figured out by applying a certain rate of prolongation factors to the establishment costs(36.99%). 14) Raising of funds for forest insurance A few respondents hoped to raise the fund for forest insurance by setting aside certain amount of money from the indemnity paid (15.65%); others wished to raise the fund by levying new forest land taxes(33.79%); but the rest expressed their hope to raise the fund by reserving certain amount of money from the surplus money that was saved due to the non-risks (44.81%). 15) Causes of fires The main causes of forest fires 6gured out by the respondents experience turned out to be (1) an accidental fire, (2) cigarettes, (3) shifting cultivation. The reponses were coincided with the forest fire analysis made by the Office of Forestry. 16) Fire prevention The respondents suggested that the most important and practical three kinds of forest fire prevention measures would be (1) providing a fire-break, (2) keeping passers-by out during the drought seasons, (3) enlightenment through mass communication systems. 4. Suggestions The writer wishes to present some suggestions that seemed helpful in drawing up a forest insurance system by reviewing the findings in the questionaire analysis and the results of investigations on forest insurance undertaken in foreign countries. 1) A forest insurance system designed to compensate the loss figured out on the basis of replanting cost when young forest stands suffered damages, and to strengthen credit rating by relieving of risks of damages, must be put in practice as soon as possible with the enactment of a specifically drawn forest insurance law. And the committee of forest insurance should be organized to make a full study of forest insurance system. 2) Two kinds of forest insurance organizations furnishing forest insurance, publicly-owned insurance organizations and privately-owned, are desirable in order to handle forest risks properly. The privately-owned forest insurance organizations should take up forest fire insurance only, and the publicly-owned ought to write insurance for forest fires and insect damages. 3) The privately-owned organizations furnishing forest insurance are desired to take up all the forest stands older than twenty years; whereas, the publicly-owned should sell forest insurance on artificially planted stands younger than twenty years with emphasis on compensating replanting costs of forest stands when they suffer damages. 4) Small forest stands, less than one hectare holding volume or stocked at smaller than standard per unit area are not to be included in a forest insurance writing, and the minimum term of insuring should not be longer than one year in the privately-owned forest insurance organizations although insuring period could be extended more than one year; whereas, consecutive five year term of insurance periods should be set as a mimimum period of insuring forest in the publicly-owned forest insurance organizations. 5) The forest owners should be free in selecting their forests in insuring; whereas, forest owners of the stands that were established with subsidy should be required to insure their forests at publicly-owned forest insurance organizations. 6) Annual insurance premiums for both publicly-owned and privately-owned forest insurance organizations ought to be figured out in proportion to the amount of insurance in accordance with the degree of risks which are grouped into three categories on the basis of the rate of risks throughout the country. 7) Annual premium should be paid at the beginning of forest insurance contract, but reduction must be made if the insuring periods extend longer than a minimum period of forest insurance set by the law. 8) The compensation for damages, the reimbursement, should be figured out on the basis of the ratio between the amount of insurance and insurable value. In the publicly-owned forest insurance system, the standard amount of insurance should be set on the basis of establishment costs in order to prevent over-compensation. 9) Forest insurance business is to be taken care of at the window of insurance com pnies when forest owners buy the privately-owned forest insurance, but the business of writing the publicly-owned forest insurance should be done through the forest cooperatives and certain portions of the premium be reimbursed to the forest cooperatives. 10) Forest insurance funds ought to be reserved by levying a property tax on forest lands. 11) In order to prevent forest damages, the forest owners should be required to report forest hazards immediately to the forest insurance organizations and the latter should bear the responsibility of taking preventive measures.

우리나라는 근래(近來) 고도경제성장(高度經濟成長)으로 인(因)하여 목재수요(木材需要)가 급증(急增)하고 있으나 국내생산재(國內生産材)가 공급율(供給率)은 수요량(需要量)의 20% 정도(程度)에 지나지 않아 많은 외재(外在)를 도입(導入)하고 있으므로 장래(將來)의 목재(木材) 수요공급(需要供給)의 균형(均衡)을 이룩하기 위하여 강력(强力)한 산림자원(山林資源) 조성사업(造成事業)의 추진(推進)이 요망(要望)된다. 산림자원(山林資源) 조성사업(造成事業)을 추진(推進)하는데 있어서 가장 중요(重要)한 것은 조림의욕(造林意慾)을 높이고 조림사업(造林事業)에 필요(必要)한 산업자본(産業資本)을 산림(山林)에 유치(誘致)하도록 하는 일인데, 이러한 역할(役割)을 할 수 있는 경제적시설(經濟的施設)의 하나가 산림보험제도(山林保險制度)의 실시(實施)인 것이다. 산림보험(山林保險)을 실시(實施)하면 산림재해(山林災害)가 보상(補償)되므로 자본가(資本家)는 안심(安心)하고 조림투자(造林投資)를 할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 산림(山林)을 담보(擔保)로 한 금융(金融)의 길도 열리어 투자(投資)한 산림(山林)에 환금성(換金性)이 주어지므로 산업자본가(産業資本家)가 산림투자(山林投資)를 회피(回避)하지 않게 되어 산림자원(山林資源) 조성사업(造成事業)이 촉진(促進)될 수 있다. 이러한 관점(觀點)에서 외국(外國)에서는 19세기말(世紀末)부터 산림보험제도(山林保險制度)가 실시(實施)되기 시작(始作)하여 주요(主要) 임업선진국(林業先進國)에서는 모두 산림보험(山林保險)을 실시(實施)하고 있는 것이다. 산림보험(山林保險)을 실시(實施)하는데 있어서 가장 중요(重要)한 것은 장기간(長期間)에 걸친 산림재해(山林災害)의 통계자료(統計資料)를 정확(正確)히 조사(調査)하는 일과 그 나라의 여건(與件)에 맞는 산림보험제도(山林保險制度)를 창설(創設)하는 일이다. 과거(過去) 10년간(年間)(1961~1970)의 년평균(年平均) 산림재해상황(山林災害狀況)을 조사(調査)한 결과(結果)는 산림화재(山林火災)가 9,000여정보(餘町步), 곤충피해(昆蟲被害)가 570,000정보(町步), 병균피해(病菌被害)가 694정보(町步)로 나타났다. 특(特)히 그중 외국(外國)의 산림보험(山林保險)에서 재해보상(災害補償) 대상(對象)의 으뜸이 되고 있는 산림화재(山林火災) 피해상황(被害狀況)을 과거(過去) 18년간(年間)(1953~1970)에 걸쳐서 조사(調査)한 결과(結果)에 의하면 산화면적(山火面積) 위험율(危險率)이 $\frac{1.1853}{1,000}$였고 1960~1969년(年) 사이의 전국(全國) 산림화재면적(山林火災面積) 위험율(危險率)은 $\frac{1.3045}{1,000}$로서 유우럽에 비(比)하여 높았으나 일본(日本)에 비(比)하여 그리 높지 않았다. 또 과거(過去) 5년간(年間)(1966~1970)의 전국(全國)의 산화재적(山火材積) 위험율(危險率)은 $\frac{0.1991}{1,000}$로서 대단(大端)히 낮은데 이것은 우리나라 산림(山林)의 축적(蓄積)이 빈약(貧弱)한데서 온 결과(結果)였다. 이러한 산림재해상황(山林災害狀況)에 비추어 우리나라에서 산림보험(山林保險)을 실시(實施)하려면 어떠한 내용(內容)의 산림보험제도(山林保險制度)를 설립(設立)하는 것이 좋겠는가 하는 질문조사(質問調査)의 결과(結果)는 다음과 같았다. 1. 산림보험(山林保險)의 필요성(必要性) 산림보험(山林保險)은 산림담보(山林擔保)에 의(依)한 금융(金融)의 길을 열어주고(5.65%), 산림피해(山林被害)를 당(當)하였을 때 재조림비(再造林費)를 확보(確保)하게 하여(35.87%), 조림투자(造林投資)를 보증(保證)하는 수단(手段)(46.74%)으로 반드시 실시(實施)되어야 한다고 응답(應答)하였다. 2. 산림보험법(山林保險法) 산림(山林)의 특수성(特殊性)에 비추어 일반(一般) 손해보험(損害保險) 규정(規程)을 준용(準用)할 것이 아니라(8.35%), 산림보험(山林保險)을 위한 특별볍(特別法)을 제정(制定)하여야 한다고 응답(應答)하였다(88.26%). 3. 보험경영업체(保險經營業體)의 종류(種類) 일반(一般) 보험회사(保險會社)(17.42%)나 산림소유자(山林所有者) 상호조합(相互組合)(23.53%)에서 산림보험(山林保險)을 취급(取扱)할 수도 있겠으나, 산림보험(山林保險)의 특이성(特異性)에 비추어 국(國) 공영산림보험(公營山林保險)의 별도(別途)로 운영(運營)되어야 한다고 반응(反應)하였다(56.18%). 4. 보험사고(保險事故)의 종류(種類) 산림보험(山林保險) 사고(事故)를 산화(山火)에 국한(局限)시키거나(23.38%), 산화(山火) 및 기상해(氣象害)만을 포함(包含)시키면 된다는 의견(意見)도 있으나(14.32%), 산림보험(山林保險) 사고(事故)에 산화(山火), 기상해(氣象害), 병충해(病蟲害)까지 포함(包含)시켜야 한다는 의견(意見)이 가장 많았다(60.68%). 5. 보험사고(保險事故) 취급대상(取扱對象)의 종류(種類) 산림보험(山林보험) 취급대상(取扱對象) 수종(樹種)은 침엽수(針葉樹) 인공림(人工林)에 한정(限定)시키거나(13.47%), 침엽수(針葉樹)와 활엽수(濶葉樹)의 인공림(人工林)만을 포함(包含)시키기를 원(願)하는 반응자(反應者)도 있었으나(23.74%), 많은 반응자(反應者)가 수종(樹種), 임종(林種)(인공(人工), 천연(天然)) 구별(區別)없이 모두 포함(包含)시켜야 된다고 반응(反應)하였다(61.64%). 6. 보험사고(保險事故) 취급대상(取扱對象)의 범위(範圍) 산림보험(山林保險) 사고(事故) 취급대상(取扱對象) 범위(範圍)는 10년(年) 이하(以下)의 유령림(幼齡林)만 취급(取扱)하기를 원(願)하는 자(者)(15.23%), 20년(年) 이하(以下)의 임목(林木)만을 대상(對象)으로 하면 족(足)하다는 반응자(反應者)가 있었으나(32.95%), 많은 반응자(反應者)가 40년생(年生) 이하(以下)의 임목(林木)까지 포함(包含)하기를 바라고 있었다(46.37%). 7. 보험계약(保險契約) 기간(期間) 산림보험(山林保險) 계약기간(契約期間)은 1년(年) 단위(單位)가 좋다는 자(者)도 상당(相當)히 있었으나(31.74%), 과반수(過半數)가 5년(年) 단위(單位)로 계약(契約)하는 것을 바라고 있었다(58.68%). 8. 보험계약(保險契約)의 제한(制限) 5정보(町步) 미만(未滿)의 소면적(小面積)은 산림보험(山林保險) 대상(對象)에서 제외(除外)하고(20.78%), 단위(單位) 면적당(面積當) 일정(一定) 재적(材積) 또는 주수(株數)를 보유(保有)하고 있는 산림(山林)만을 계약대상(契約對象)으로 하는 것이 좋다고 반응(反應)하였다(63.77%). 9. 계약방법(契約方法) 산림보험(山林保險) 계약방법(契約方法)은 임의(任意)로 산림(山林)을 선택(選擇)하여 계약(契約)하기를 원(願)하는 자(者)(32.13%), 임의(任意)로 계약(契約)하되 소유산림(所有山林) 전체(全體)를 일괄(一括) 계약(契約)하도록 하는 방법(方法)을 택(擇)하여야 한다는 자(者)(33.48%), 특정임지(特定林地)(신식지(新植地), 보조조림지(補助造林地), 고가임지(高價林地))는 의무적(義務的)으로 계약(契約)하도록 하여야 한다는 반응자(反應者)(31.92%)로 나타나 비슷한 반응(反應)을 보였다. 10. 보험료율(保險料率) 산림보험(山林保險) 요율(料率)은 지역(地域)에 따르는 위험정도(危險程度)를 참작(參酌)하여 면적비례(面積比例)로 결정(決定)하여야 한다는 의견(意見)(31.59%)과 지역(地域) 위험율(危險率)을 참작(參酌)하여 보험가액(保險價額)에 따라 정(定)해야 한다는 의견(意見)이 있었으나(31.59%), 우리 나라에는 지역적(地域的) 위험율(危險率)에 큰 차이(差異)가 없을 것이므로 전국(全國) 일률적(一律的)인 보험료(保險料)를 보험가액(保險價額)에 따라 정(定)하기를 원(願)하는 경향(傾向)이 높았다(39.55%). 11. 보험료(保險料)의 납부(納付) 산림보험료(山林保險料)는 단기(短期)는 일시불(一時拂), 장기(長期)는 매년(每年) 납부(納付)하게 하는 의견(意見)도 있으나(13.80%), 단기(短期)는 고율(高率), 장기(長期)는 저율(低率)로 하되 단기(短期), 장기(長期)를 막론(莫論)하고 매년(每年) 납부(納付)하도록 하여야 한다고 반응(反應)하였다(86.71%). 12. 보험사무(保險事務) 취급기관(取扱機關) 산림보험(山林保險) 사무(事務)의 취급(取扱) 즉(即) 창구업무(窓口業務)의 취급(取扱)을 산림행정기관(山林行政機關)에 위탁(委託)하거나(18.75%), 일반(一般) 보험회사(保險會社)에 맡기기보다는(35.76%) 산림조합(山林組合)에 위탁(委託) 취급(取扱)하게 하고 보험료(保險料)의 일정율(一定率)을 환부(還付)해주는 것이 좋다고 반응(反應)하였다(44.22%). 13. 손해보상(損害補償)의 한도(限度) 산림보험(山林保險)의 손해보상(損害補償)은 유령림(幼齡林)이 피해(被害)를 입었을 때에는 재조림비(再造林費)를 한도(限度)로 하여 보상(補償)하는 것을 원칙(原則)으로 하고 성림(成林)의 경우(境遇)에는 손해액(損害額)의 80%정도(程度)를 한도(限度)로 하여 보상(補償)하기 보다는(29.70%) 실손(實損) 현재가액(現在價額)을 보상(補償)하거나(31.07%) 조림비(造林費)의 복리계산(複利計算) 합계액(合計額)을 보상(補償)하는 것을 바라고 있었다(36.99%). 14. 보험기금(保險基金)의 조성(造成) 산림보험(山林保險)의 기금조성(基金造成)은 손해(損害) 보상액(補償額)에서 일정액(一定額)을 공제(控除) 적립(積立)하여 조성(造成)하거나(15.65%), 임야세(林野稅)를 신설(新設)하여 기금(基金)을 확보(確保)하기 보다는(33.79%), 산림보험(山林保險) 무사고(無事故)로 인(因)한 잉여금(剩餘金)에서 일정액(一定額)씩을 적립(積立)하여 산림보험기금(山林保險基金)으로 하자는 의견(意見)에 많은 반응(反應)을 하였다(44.81%). 15. 산화(山火)의 원인(原因) 산림관계직(山林關係職)에 종사(從事)하고 있는 사람들의 과거(過去)의 경험(經驗)에 비추어 본 우리나라 산화(山火)의 주요원인(主要原因)은 실화(失火)(원인불명(原因不明), 32.39%), 담배불(28.89%), 화전(火田)(19.85%)에 의한 것으로 나타났는데 산림통계(山林統計)에 나타나 있는 산화(山火)의 주요원인(主要原因)과 일치(一致)하였다. 16. 산화경방(山火警防) 산림화재(山林火災) 경방조치(警防措置)로서 가장 중요(重要)하고 실효성(實効性)이 있으며 실천(實踐)할 수 있는 삼대대책(三大對策)으로는 (1) 방화선(防火線) 설치(設置)(23.84%), (2) 건조기(乾燥期)의 입산금지(入山禁止)(21.10%), (3) 메스콤에 의한 계몽교육(啓蒙敎育)(18.01%)이라고 반응(反應)하였다.