i

TRENDS IN FOREST OWNERSHIP, FOREST RESOURCES TENURE AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS: ARE THEY CONTRIBUTING TO BETTER FOREST MANAGEMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION? A CASE STUDY FROM TURKEY

By

Dr Yusuf Guneş1 and Dr Aynur Aydin Coşkun1

1 Associate Professor, Istanbul University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Environmental and Forestry Law

ii

Contents ACRONYMS III SUMMARY IV INTRODUCTION 1

Objective 1 FOREST RESOURCES AND TENURE 3

Forest area, types and condition 3 Stakeholders 3 Forest ownership rights and responsibilities 4 Management agreements: figures, rights and responsibilities 5 Planning and monitoring systems 6

CHANGES AND TRENDS 8

Defining forests 8 The present 9 Main trends 9 Summary of trends and changes in tenure and use rights 10

ANALYSIS OF TENURE SYSTEMS 11

Forest management 11 Livelihoods 12 Capacities 13 Policy and legislation 14

FOREST TENURE, SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION 16

State forestry 16 Community forestry 16 Public and private forestry 17

CONCLUSIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD 18 REFERENCES 19

iii

Acronyms ILO International Labour Organization NGO non-governmental organization NWFP non-wood forest product SFM sustainable forest management

iv

Summary Forest tenure has a strong influence on the sustainable use of forest resources and on poverty alleviation for the people who live in or near forest areas. Within this context, stakeholders’ rights to use forest resources are often more important than their right to own forest land (as a full-fee owner), in that use rights usually stipulate how forest resources are to be managed and used to increase right holders’ welfare and alleviate rural poverty.

In Turkey, forest lands cover 21.2 million ha, or 27.2 percent of the national territory. Almost half of these forest resources are degraded; the other half is productive. High forests account for 73 percent of total forest land, and coppice forests for 27 percent. High forests contain 93 percent of Turkey’s standing tree volume, and coppice forests only 7 percent. Turkish forests have rich and diverse non-wood forest product (NWFP) resources, biodiversity and nature protection values. The variety of soil and climatic conditions across Turkey mean that growing stocks and annual increments also vary. The Black Sea region is more suitable for growth than most other parts of the country; nationwide, the productivity of forest resources measured in terms of annual increments averages about 2.7 m3/ha, ranging from 2 m3/ha in relatively drought-prone central Anatolia to 20 m3/ha in the Black Sea region.

The main stakeholders in forest resources are the public, local communities, investors and forest owners. More than 99.5 percent of forest resources are owned by the State, with the remainder owned by public or private entities. Stakeholders’ main rights to forest resources are access, exclusion, resources withdrawal, and alienation, with the exception of State forests, which cannot be alienated. Use rights include afforestation, grazing, harvesting, construction, hunting and recreation. Forest use rights are particularly important for the 8.5 million people living in or near forest resources. These people obtain woody materials for fuelwood free of charge from State forests, and are hired by the State as seasonal forest workers, which often represents their only opportunity for earning cash income.

In general, forest resources are planned by State authorities, with only very limited participation from other stakeholders. Forest resources management is implemented by the General Directorate of Forestry as sustainably as possible, with some activities carried out by local people and private investors, such as afforestation and collection of NWFPs by private investors, and harvesting activities by forest villagers and forest village development cooperatives, according to relevant laws.

The State forestry authority monitors forest resources through the renewal of management plans every ten years, satellite imagery and ground observations by experts.

Following establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the country’s forest resources increased in size and improved in condition, but since then public pressure on forest land and products has led to substantial degradation of these resources. The State has expended much effort to combat forest degradation via afforestation, but pressure from other land uses, such as harvesting of woody material, grazing and mining, continue to be the main threats to forests resources.

The Turkish State has management authority for State forests, which are managed to produce woody materials and for other ecosystem services. Forests owned by public and private entities have the potential to provide only recreation and NWFPs, owing to their smaller size and poor-quality tree stands. For many years, the State has been criticized for its inefficient management, ineffective control, destruction of forest resources, inadequate budget allocation to forest management and failure to combat rural poverty. Alternative management options have been recommended, such as joint management with local people and private investments and participation in afforestation.

This case study shows how public management and private forest ownership may work well in some places, whereas State forest management may be better in poor and marginal forest lands. To achieve such a management system, it is necessary to make a series of legislative changes and amendments that promote public forest management, afforestation by private enterprises and the availability of a wide range of ownership and use rights.

Introduction

1

Introduction Forest resources are vitally important for many people throughout the world. Millions of people obtain such necessities as shelter, food and drinking-water from these resources, and the people living in or near forests are totally dependent on them for their own survival. Forest resources also provide a host of indirect benefits at the global level: oxygen, carbon sequestration, freshwater, etc.

Forest resources in Turkey are of nationwide importance for preventing soil erosion, ensuring fresh air, regulating the climate, etc. About 8.5 million people living in or near Turkey’s forests are almost totally dependent on forest resources for such vital needs as fuelwood and woody materials for housing construction. These people are also employed by the General Directorate of Forestry to harvest forest resources, collect wood and carry out other tasks.

In Turkey there are three types of forest ownership: State, private and public (forests belong to a public legal entity other than the State). At 99.5 percent of the total, State forest ownership dominates, leaving private and public ownership with only about 0.5 percent of all forestlands. Some experts put this share at even less, recording only about 25 000 ha, or about 0.1 percent of the total, in public or private ownership. The distribution of forest lands among these ownership types is not homogenous throughout the country: most public and private forests are in western Turkey, particularly Marmara and the Aegean region (OGM, 2006).

The State domination of forest ownership is the subject of much debate, as it leaves forest dwellers with very few land resources, although they do retain some traditional and customary use rights. Compared with a national average of 6.4 ha, farming households in forest villages own only 2.4 ha, which is not large and productive enough to grow sufficient crops and vegetables to ensure their survival. According to Haan (1998), forest villagers are poorer than other Turkish villagers, and depend on forest resources for fuelwood, livestock grazing and construction materials. The average annual benefits from these forest resources are slightly more than US$2 000 per household, which is less than half the national average income (De Haan, 1998).

Although Turkish law stipulates that paid harvesting, planting and other work in State forests must be carried out by local forest villagers, this is not always the case. In spite of the low costs of such labour, the State sometimes uses people from elsewhere, and considers income distribution and wealth transfer when hiring. Forest households earn an average of about US$120/year from forest labour (De Haan, 1998).

The first step in making villagers’ use rights more secure is to investigate the ownership structure, the legal basis for forest ownership rights, and their distribution and trends, before analysing whether and how secure use rights can contribute to poverty alleviation and sustainable forest management (SFM), and then developing new policies and legislation. It will then be possible to identify which tenure type(s) make(s) the greatest contribution to poverty alleviation and the sustainability of forest resources.

As the analysis of forest tenure and ownership is a new approach, it is necessary to identify the role of forestry in poverty alleviation. In particular, it is important to define and stress the ways in which forests can contribute to sustainable livelihoods, to describe which rights and responsibilities are linked to forest use and management, and to provide support in elaborating policies that take this aspect into account. Landownership should not be disregarded, and the positive or negative effects of different types of landownership on these issues should also be highlighted.

In many cases, forest landownership implies ownership of forest resources, but there are instances where ownership of land differs from ownership of the resources on that land. Where this is the case, ownership of the forests, rather than of the land, is the primary focus for capturing forestry’s contribution to sustainable livelihoods and poverty alleviation.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this case study is to improve understanding of the relation between forest resource tenure and forest management, and the implications of this for poverty alleviation. It presents a

Turkey case study

2

quantitative analysis, complemented by qualitative information on components of forest tenure and their implications, especially on resource ownership, management agreements and institutional arrangements. The study results will support policy and law development in countries in the region, and will help raise awareness about the linkages between forest ownership, management agreements and institutional arrangements on one hand, and SFM and poverty alleviation on the other.

Forest resources and tenure

3

Forest resources and tenure

FOREST AREA, TYPES AND CONDITION Turkey is a large country of 77 846 000 ha located between the continents of Europe and Asia. Of this total area, 34 percent is agricultural land, 27 percent forests, 27 percent meadows and pastures, 11 percent settled areas, and 1 percent lakes and rivers (Figure 1). Figure 1. Land uses in Turkey

Forests occupy about 21 204 035 ha, or 27.2 percent of the country’s total surface area. As a result of overexploitation, excessive grazing, political intervention and other causes, almost half of these resources are substantially degraded. High forest accounts for 73 percent of total forest land, and coppice forest for 27 percent. High forest covers three types of forest stand: coniferous (74 percent of the total), broadleaf (12 percent), and mixed (14 percent) (General Overview of Turkish Forestry, 2006). The vast majority of Turkey’s timber volume – 93 percent – is produced in high forests, and only 7 percent in coppice forests. Turkish forests have rich and diverse non-wood forest product (NWFP) resources, biodiversity and nature protection values (Government of Turkey, 2001). The variety of soil and climatic conditions across Turkey mean that growing stocks and annual increments also vary. The Black Sea region is more suitable for growth than most other parts of the country; nationwide, the productivity of forest resources measured in terms of annual increments averages about 2.7 m3/ha, ranging from 2 m3/ha in relatively drought-prone central Anatolia to 20 m3/ha in the Black Sea region. Most of Turkey’s forest lands lie towards the northern and southern coasts of the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

Management objectives for forests in Turkey vary depending on the condition of tree stands; most forests are open to exploitation. The main uses of forests include timber harvesting, collection of NWFPs, grazing and hunting. Protected forest areas are under State control and all uses of them are prohibited, apart from the collection of seeds, flowers and mushrooms for household consumption, and entry into the forest for leisure or recreation. Protected areas include 39 national parks covering 877 771 ha, 32 strict nature reserves covering 63 008 ha, 22 nature parks covering 76 937 ha, 104 natural monuments covering 5 286 ha, and Ramsar areas.

According to the law, all forests are under the care and supervision of the State, which is to protect them in cooperation with the public.

Fast-growing tree plantations on private land have good potential to generate tree growth and annual harvests. At present, about 200 000 ha of private land is planted with fast-growing trees such as Poplar and stone pine. These plantations produce about 3.5 million m3 of harvesting volume (Ministry of Forestry and Environment, 2003), accounting for 18 percent of the total wood production from both State forests and private plantations, and equivalent to 21.5 percent of the 16 299 668 m3

harvested from public forests (General Directorate of Forestry, 2006). This is a high percentage given that the area of fast-growing plantations (200 000 ha) is less than a tenth that of total public forests (21.2 million ha). However, Turkey’s forest laws do not recognize fast-growing Poplar and stone pine as forest trees, so these plantations are counted as farm forestry rather than forestlands, regardless of their crown shadow, tree canopy and significant contribution to forest industry and employment. Data about their production volume and contribution to forestry therefore tend to be inaccurate and incomplete.

STAKEHOLDERS The main stakeholders of forest resources are forest owners (both State and private), the general public (i.e., people with no direct interest in forests and their resources), local people living in or near forests, and investors. Other groups such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research institutions and consulates have use and ownership rights over very small forest areas.

Turkey case study

4

Owners of any type of forest are entitled to exercise ownership rights, but the State has more use rights over its forestlands than private owners have over theirs. The general public have access rights to forests for recreation, and the right to withdraw such forest products as seeds, fruits and mushrooms for household consumption.

Forest resources are the only source of income, fuel and construction materials for many local people. Articles 31 and 37 of the Forest Code give forest dwellers the rights to access, withdrawal, exclusion and management of forests. Local people include forest villagers and village organizations, such as forest development cooperatives established according to the provisions of the Law of Cooperatives. These organizations are promoted by forest legislation and are entitled to special privileges.

Article 40 of the current Forest Code stipulates that forest cooperatives and forest villagers have the right to be employed in the harvesting, thinning, afforestation and forest product transportation (especially of timber) activities of the State’s local forestry branches. The cooperatives also have the option to purchase some of the harvested timber at a discount or at the harvesting and transport costs. In addition to the general public’s rights to collect forest products, forest villagers also have the right to collect harvesting residues, bark, dead wood and branches for household consumption. Article 31 of the Forest Code gives forest dwellers the one-off additional right to collect wood materials or to buy them from the local branch of the State forestry enterprise at a discount or at the harvesting and transport costs, to build and repair their houses, barnyards, etc. If a right holder prefers, he/she can instead claim the cash value of the wood from the local forestry branch.

The law also recognizes investors in the forest as stakeholders, and grants them rights to excavate mines, bottle water, collect NWFPs, etc., under the care and supervision of the State and with official permission.

OWNERSHIP RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Under the Ottoman empire, almost all forests belonged to the empire, except for those under private or foundation ownership. With the Khan’s consent, ownership of a forest area could be conveyed to a private entity, a foundation and or a forest village organization. Areas of forest called cibal-i mübaha2 were allocated to public access and free use for household fuel and other needs. When this approach resulted in overexploitation of forest resources, the empire enacted its first forest management and protection legislation in the Forest Decree of 1870.3 The decree was based on the empire’s theory of ownership and allowed the use right to a tree stand to be assigned to a private entity while ownership remained with the empire. Today, such a tenure system cannot be applied to forest land because Turkey’s current Civil Code stipulates that the owner of a piece of land also owns all the assets, fixtures, etc. on that land, which are conveyed to the new owner, when ownership of the land is transferred. Assets, fixtures, etc. cannot be conveyed independently from the land on which they stand.

When the Turkish Republic was established in 1923, the new State found that severe forest destruction was threatening the sustainability of the country’s forest resources. In response to this, a new Forest Code was enacted in 1937 (Law 3116) covering all the necessary provisions for management, protection and use rights. The Forest Code established the foundations for Turkey’s forestry and tenure system. It annulled the cibal-i mübaha approach and put all forests under the supervision, care and control of the State, classifying forest ownership into four categories: State, public, private, and foundational. Because the Civil Code allows ownership of lands only, and not of trees, all forest ownership applies to forestland and everything on and below the land’s surface, unless a specific law provides otherwise. For example, oil, mines and underground waters are excluded from landownership.

Almost 3 percent of forest land was owned by private entities until 1945, when Law 4785 nationalized all forest areas greater than 5 ha, reduced to 3 ha in 1950 by Law 5653 This law has

2 Cibal-i mübaha means free mountains. These were areas of imperial forest that were open to public access free of charge. 3 This decree adopted many of the management approaches and methods then used in European countries such as France.

Forest resources and tenure

5

always been controversial, and more recent disputes centre on whether or not it covers forest areas established after 1945. A new Forest Code (Law 6831) was enacted in 1956 and is still in practice.

In 1961, for the first time, forests and forestry issues were included in the Constitution. According to Article 131 of this Constitution, all forests are under the care and supervision of the State, which must manage and use them in accordance with the law. Ownership of State forests cannot be transferred to others or acquired through prescription, and servitude or easements other than in the public interest cannot be imposed in respect of them. These provisions were retained in the 1982 Constitution.

Compared with the old Forest Code, the new legislation no longer recognizes foundational ownership (ownership by a foundation). As well as the owner’s right to alienation, withdrawal, access, exclusion and management, various articles of the Forest Code and other Turkish legislation provide for several kinds of forest management and use rights to be assigned to stakeholders, subject to conditions. These are classified as: harvesting privileges; construction and other permits; water resources; afforestation and plantation forestry; NWFPs;4 hunting and tourism; recreation; city forests; forest villagers’ rights; mining; tourism investments;5 and grazing permits.6

Use rights in Turkey’s forest tenure system are based on the Constitution, statutes, regulations and traditional law. Not all owners have all the entitlements listed in the previous paragraph; for example, the State cannot sell its forest land, while private owners can.

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS: FIGURES, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Regardless of who owns the forest land, the management, planning, protection and exploitation of forest resources are subject to State control and supervision according to Article 169 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Forest Code. The State draws up the management plans for its own and public-owned forests, and oversees the planning process for private forests. The State is therefore the main management authority, and the only forest stakeholder category to exercise sole ownership control and authority over its resources. However, this does not mean that other interest groups, particularly local people, are ignored. According to articles 26 and 40 of the Forest Code and the recently updated Management Planning Regulation, the General Directorate of Forestry should ensure interest groups’ participation in forest planning processes. The following sections describe different categories of forest management in Turkey.

Exclusive owner management In most forest land, the owner (the State) is the exclusive manager, and no public or private body can exercise use rights. Extraction and/or harvesting rights cannot be entirely transferred to others, but non-commercial use rights for households or individuals are allowed, according to the conditions described in the following paragraphs. Strictly limited: Of Turkey’s 21 204 035 ha of forest land, 6 215 141 ha is closed to wood extraction, of which 476 086 ha is open for afforestation. Areas closed to wood production include protection forests, national parks, natural monuments, nature parks, strict nature reserves, wildlife protection areas, wildlife development areas and rehabilitation areas. Other use rights such as mining, tourism investment and recreation are allowed in some of these areas, but strict nature reserves, natural monuments, wildlife protection areas, rehabilitation areas and burned forests are closed to all use types. Non-commercial use rights, customary rights, and permits to hunt and gather dead wood and NWFPs: Almost all forest lands are open to local people who have traditional rights to access and to withdraw some forest products for household consumption. Some forests are open to public access for

4 Forest villagers’ right to collect NWFPs for household consumption is based on traditional rather than statutory law. 5 The application of permits for tourism investments are pending owing to a 2007 Resolution of the Constitutional Court. 6 Grazing in State forests has a legal basis in the Forest Code, but the team carrying out this case study found that no grazing permits have been issued. Instead, ranchers’ grazing activities continue to be based on traditional law.

Turkey case study

6

recreation and non-commercial hunting. In these areas, local people have the rights to collect bark, dead wood, harvesting residues, seeds, flowers, NWFPs, etc. The rights of local people and the public stem from both customary rights and recent forest legislation.

Forest investors can obtain contracts for collecting NWFPs. In 2007, NWFP harvesting in a total of 47 219 ha of forestland was leased to investors under permits. Each permit holder has a clearly defined forest area, which can be in any type of forest apart from natural monuments, strict nature reserves, wildlife protection areas, afforestation and rehabilitation areas, and burned forest lands. The specific areas for which permits can be issued are defined every year. Permits allow holders to collect forest products for one year, subject to the demand for and availability of the products. For example, between 2000 and 2006, the law allowed 3 636 tonnes of NWFPs to be withdrawn under leasing or extraction contracts, at a total value of 12 643 817 new Turkish lira (about US$10 million). Among the products harvested were thyme, resins, chestnut, walnuts, herbs, seeds, barks and branches.

Forest management contracts and partnerships Joint forest management with communities and community timber concessions/licences: According to Article 40 of the Forest Code, forest villagers, preferably via forest development cooperatives, are given priority for contracted or licensed employment in all State forests: harvesting, transporting, collecting forest products, production, forest improvement, silviculture, afforestation, road construction, etc. In 2006, 9 298 696 m3 of industrial wood and 5 252 691 m3 of fuelwood were produced under this type of joint forest management with local people (General Directorate of Forestry, 2006). When the village workforce is too small or asks for higher wages than those offered, or when special expertise is required, the forest authority may issue a special contract with others. Private company permits, forest harvesting licences and schemes: Turkish forest legislation does not allow private enterprises access to public forests, which are managed entirely by their owners. However, Article 40/2 of the Forest Code does allow private companies to be contracted for management activities in State forests when a local forest village workforce is unavailable. Such contracts must make it clear that the use rights do not imply the transferral of State forest management to private enterprises.

In addition, private forest owners have the right to manage and withdraw from their forests under State supervision, and may transfer management rights to other private companies. However, the total area of privately owned forests is very small (12 336 ha), and the areas open for harvesting too tiny to make management contracts between two private companies viable, so in practice private companies cannot issue permits for harvesting. Fast-growing tree plantations on private land are the exception to this. These areas are not subject to State control, as they are seen as crops or farm forestry, and their; private owners may assign contracts for harvesting, regeneration and other practices such as cultivation and fertilization.

Devolved management rights Turkey’s Constitution and Forest Code prohibit the conveyance of public forest management rights to private investors or companies.

PLANNING AND MONITORING SYSTEMS According to Articles 26, 46 and 51 of the Forest Code, all types of forests are required to have management plans. Plans for State forests are prepared by the General Directorate of Forestry, normally for periods of about ten years. At the end of each period, the plan is updated or replaced. Each plan identifies the harvesting volumes and areas for NWFP harvesting, water resources protection, erosion control, rehabilitation, afforestation and pasture. When the plan is updated the trends in each of these elements are assessed.

Forest resources and tenure

7

The same procedure applies to public forestlands, for which management plans are prepared by the State Forest Agency free of charge. The State has authority to supervise and control the management of these forests, and monitors the owners’ application of management plans.

The management plans for private forests are prepared by the owners with supervision from the State Forest Authority on their design and implementation. According to Article 52 of the Forest Code, when a private forest owner fails to draw up a management plan within the time limit set by the State, the State will draw up the plan. , The owner then pays the State for the work entailed in four equal instalments over two years. In all types of forest, use rights allow their holders to withdraw resources in accordance with management plans. In practice, however, rights to grazing, recreation and traditional hunting are not planned; instead, the users of these resources, who are forest dwellers and the public, exercise these rights according to traditional law and customs. TABLE 1 Ownership, use rights and management agreements

Use right/ management category

Management agreement

Types of enjoyment

Legal basis Users Ownership Manager/ supervisor

Hunting Licence Withdrawal Statutory The public Public or private State and private entity

Tourism investment

Licence or easement

Alienation Statutory Investors Public or private State and private entity

Grazing Permit Withdrawal Access

Statutory or traditional

The public Public or private State and private entity

City forests Agreement Access Traditional The public Public State

Harvesting Contract Withdrawal Statutory Local people and forest villagers

Public State

Forest villagers’ rights

Agreement Withdrawal Access

Statutory or traditional

Local people and forest villagers

Public State

Afforestation Contract Alienation Statutory The public and local people

Public or private State and private entity

Construction Licence or easement

Alienation Statutory Investors Public or private State and private entity

Water resources

Licence Withdrawal Access

Statutory or traditional

The public and investors

Public or private State and private entity

NWFPs Licence Withdrawal Access

Regulatory or traditional

The public, investors or local people

Public or private State and private entity

Hunting and tourism

Licence Withdrawal Statutory Investors Public or private State and private entity

Recreation Agreement Access Statutory or regulatory and traditional

The public Public or private State and private entity

Sale Contract Alienation Statutory Owner Private Private entity

Turkey case study

8

Changes and trends Forest landownership in Turkey has a complex and confusing history; its relationship with other types of landownership, and the effects of court resolutions, ownership acquisition through prescription and how it is perceived all make it an even more complicated issue.

DEFINING FORESTS In the era of the Ottoman Empire, forests were perceived as available land resources that could be converted to other uses as required. This attitude persists and, combined with poor forest policy, has led to the definition of forest being altered over time, causing changes in the areas classified as forest land.

Before the first Forest Code was enacted in 1937, an Austrian forest expert surveyed Turkey’s forests (Bernard, 1935) and recorded a nationwide total of about 10 million ha of forest land. This total included areas covered by forest trees, but not by shrubs, maquis, etc., which were considered wooded lands and not forests.

The first Forest Code defined forests as “areas covered by a collection of trees and shrubs grown either naturally or cultivated by humans, and producing woody materials or any kind of forest yield”. This definition excluded steppes, city parks, thorny areas, and areas of less than 5 ha that were not adjacent to natural forest boundaries and were owned by private entities.

In 1945, the Law of Nationalization (Law 4785) marked a turning point in forest ownership and had a deep influence on property rights to agricultural lands. The law’s impact on all Turkey’s ownership structures can still be felt today. Under this law, all forests that existed prior to 13 June 1945 (when the law came into effect) and that were owned by public or private entities or by foundations – in other words, by any party other than the State – were nationalized, with ownership automatically transferred to the State without prior notice. Unless they are in or next to State or nationalized forests, the following forests are exempt from nationalization:

• forests other than natural forests cultivated by humans, and plantation forests subject to leases or contracts; • privately owned forest areas under stone pine, alcorn oak or chestnut; • forests other than natural forests cultivated by humans or planted with such species as Poplar, Salix, Alder, Acacia, Ocaliptus or Cypress; • forests, other than those determined by the Ministry of Agriculture as contributing to the scenic beauty of the environment, belonging to village legal entities, municipalities, or the public legal entities of provincial councils.

Following implementation of this law, about 540 000 ha of forestland was nationalized

(Kayganacioğlu, Renda and Onursan, 1976), accounting for about 2.5 percent of the total. This is not a particularly large area of forest resources, until it is compared with today’s total of about 14 000 ha of privately owned forest. In terms of assessing forest management systems, 2.5 percent is a large enough proportion to allow the efficiency of private and public forest management to be compared. This law is still in force and creates challenges for forest landownership and SFM.

In 1950, Law 5653 amended several provisions of the Forest Code, for example by excluding areas of maquis from nationalization, while including privately owned forest areas of more than 3 ha (instead of 5 ha). As a result, about 500 000 ha of maquis was removed from the forest area, and ownership transferred to private entities. Some experts and politicians objected to this transfer because maquis areas were considered forestland in the original laws prohibiting the transfer of forest ownership to private entities. Since 2001, title deeds transferred to private entities according to Law 5653 have started to be cancelled, causing severe problems regarding security of ownership and implementation of SFM plans. In 1956, the new Forest Code (Law 6831), which is still in practice, removed cemeteries and areas covered by wild olive trees from classification as forests.

Changes and trends

9

The Constitution of 1961 included a provision covering forest management, protection and property rights issues, in the belief that providing a constitutional basis for forest resource management could improve forest protection and exploitation. To implement the Constitution’s forest provisions, Law 1744 was put into practice in 1973. It amended Article 2 of the Forest Code, and allowed areas of forestland that lost their forest cover prior to 1961 to be reclassified and converted to other uses. This increased the opportunities for forest land encroachment.

THE PRESENT The Constitution of 1982 extended the Forest provisions by stating that “Offences committed with the intention of burning or destroying forests or reducing forest areas shall not be included within the scope of amnesties or pardons applicable on other occasions.” This Constitution also extended the time limit for areas that had lost their forest cover to be reclassified as non-forest land, from 31 December 1961 to 31 December 1981. To implement this provision, a series of special laws amending the Forest Code were put into practice from 1984. All of these continue to allow forest boundaries to be reduced, and so far about 1.5 million ha of former forest land has been occupied by the public for agricultural, housing, settlement, industrial and other uses. Ownership of these areas is retained by the State Treasury, but the public exercise use rights free of charge, although the State has made several attempts to collect royalties on some uses since 2002. Other former State forest lands have been alienated by transferring ownership to the occupiers.

The amended Forest Code also provides the legal basis for tenure regarding grazing, harvesting, recreation, NWFPs, construction, management planning, mining, etc. Article 17 deals with the issuing of construction permits and mining search and extraction licences for investors seeking to build infrastructure and other constructions on all types of State forestland. Article 49 provides similar rights in public forests and Article 52 in private forests. Articles 19 to 22 deal with planning and permits for grazing; Article 26 with management planning; Article 25 with recreation; articles 31, 32, 34, 36 and 37 with use rights for forest villagers and their development cooperatives; Article 40 with harvesting in State forests and the need to give priority to forest villagers and their development cooperatives; and Articles 57 to 67 with afforestation. Private entities are entitled to exercise use rights in areas that they have afforested themselves, although ownership remains with the State. The Forest Code also assigns responsibilities for forest fire control to the public, particularly local people.

Articles 45 to 49 of the Forest Code make provision for protection, management, management planning, the issuing of use permits, forest product harvesting and afforestation in public forests. Articles 50 to 56 make the same provisions for private forests.

MAIN TRENDS These developments have had three main results: changes in the areas of forest lands; changes in the structure and perception of forest landownership; and changing trends in resource tenure.

The total area of forest land in Turkey has been increasing because of afforestation and more accurate forest land surveying, even though substantial areas of forest land have been converted to other uses, burned, clear cut, occupied or settled.

The ownership structure has changed significantly, especially since the 1945 Law of Nationalization, which prohibited the private ownership of any piece of land greater than 3 ha occupied by forest trees or shrubs. The title deeds to private property that is now occupied by cropland (for example) but that was once occupied by forest vegetation are now being cancelled by the courts according to the 1987 Law of General Land Survey (Law 3402), which provides for the cancellation of title deeds due to violation of the Forest Code. This, combined with the public’s perception of forest ownership, poses serious threats for the security of ownership and SFM. With average landholdings of 6.4 ha per farm, the results of losing the title deeds to private land that has been classified as forest are devastating for many farmers, forcing them to leave the land and seek alternative livelihoods in cities. In addition, according to a recent (and very controversial) interpretation of the Forest Code now increasingly applied in Anatolia, if two adjacent farms share a

Turkey case study

10

total of more than 3 ha of land classified as forest, they are registered as joint owners of that area and must manage it as forest.

Forest tenure has undergone some positive developments. Among these is the assigning of management, resources withdrawal and exclusion rights to private entities that carry out afforestation on public lands, entitling private entities to manage these areas according to forest legislation. In State forests, the recognition of mining permits, based on Mining Law No. 3213 of 1985, and tourism investment permits, based on the Law of Tourism Encouragement No. 2634 of 1982, has created a new type of forest tenure. By entitling forest investors to manage forest lands, these provisions create greater flexibility for stakeholders and more income-generating opportunities for rural people. Investors take care to implement the provisions relevant to their use rights when managing forests, because these are directly related to their own security of tenure and the sustainability of their forest resources.

SUMMARY OF TRENDS AND CHANGES IN TENURE AND USE RIGHTS The trends and changes in forest tenure have benefited some forest users and penalized others. The nationalization of forests harmed, and continue to harm, thousands of private owners. On the other hand, the increase in areas where permits for hunting, tourism, afforestation etc. can be issued has boosted the livelihoods of the public and, particularly, of investors.

The underlying causes of these trends and changes include political, social, legal and economic factors. Unstable forest policy and forest legislation drive politicians to promote their own interests, such as obtaining votes from rural people. Incomplete forest and general land surveying create serious ownership conflicts, while misinterpretation of forest legislation and incorrect perceptions of forest landownership also hamper forest tenure security.

Tenure systems

11

Analysis of tenure systems In Turkish forestry, the concept of forest management is applied primarily to State forests. The small total area of public and private forests gives these two categories less scope for different types of management.

FOREST MANAGEMENT Several use rights to State-owned forest land are legally or traditionally devolved to local people and other interest groups, who exercise them under the supervision of the State forestry authorities. Thus a kind of joint management with interest groups has evolved for some usufruct rights in State forests.

Timber harvesting Timber harvesting rights in high forests are assigned to local forest villagers, according to Article 40 of the Forest Code. If local villagers do not agree to carry out these activities, other rural people, forest development cooperatives or contractors can be employed. In practice, forest villagers and their cooperatives nearly always agree to harvest timber. When the bidding price per volume is unsatisfactory, local villagers prevent the District Forestry Authority from hiring others, resulting in 10 000 ha of forest land remaining unharvested every year, as reported by the General Director of Forestry at the case study workshop in Istanbul in March 2008. Forest villagers also perform silviculture practices such as pruning, thinning, artificial regeneration and seed collection.

Afforestation The General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control is the authority responsible for assigning contracts for afforestation activities within State forest boundaries. Private investment in afforestation has been encouraged for many years through such policy tools as gift payments, interest-free credit, tax exemption and deductions, seedling provision and technical support with planning. So far, however, the level of private investment in afforestation has been disappointing. Between 1984 and 2006, a total of about 64 000 ha of public land was planted by private investors, who manage the State-owned forest resources as though they were their own.

The reasons for this low level of private afforestation vary from lack of incentives to poor tenure security. Private entities are not willing to invest in afforestation for the production of forest resources. Forestry experts at the case study workshop reported that private investors seek more significant incentives, such as construction permits for the areas they afforest. However, current law does not allow such use rights for private investors. Afforestation of small areas7 is not a good investment because of the management costs involved. A shortage of funding sources is the main obstacle to private afforestation (Erkuran, 2001), along with restricted use rights for private land containing forest trees. These areas are considered forests and subject to forest legislation, which prohibits the investors from converting forested (including afforested) areas to other types of use. The specific restriction on housing construction and other real estate development in forest areas is a particularly strong disincentive for private afforestation.

Afforestation of public land through joint forest management with forest villagers and forest investors, on behalf of and supervised by the State, has been carried out on 2 054 913 ha. Of this total, about 1.5 million ha was bare land that has been afforested for the first time, and the remaining half million ha is reforested former forest that had been cleared through harvesting, wildfire, etc. Decision-making regarding afforestation activities has been transferred to private consultants, and does not involve public participation. Cultivation, site preparation and seedling planting are usually performed by local people.

7 As described previously, privately owned forests cannot be larger than 3 ha.

Turkey case study

12

NWFPs According to the National Forest Inventory of 2006, the management of NWFPs has been almost totally devolved to local people and private investors, through contractual agreements between investors and the General Directorate of Forestry, and free of charge for forest villagers’ household consumption needs. NWFP usufruct rights also require a joint management approach. About 114 different NWFPs are obtained from Turkey’s forests, but so far there has been no systematic management planning for these resources, mainly because the necessary institutional capacity still needs to be built. At present, devolving NWFP usufruct rights to forest villagers and investors may help improve the management of these resources, and it is important to establish effective legal provisions to allow such transfers. According to the National Forestry Inventory, in 2006 a total of 171 856 830 kg of NWFPs generated about US$140 million8 of extra income for investors and forest villagers, making an important contribution to rural welfare improvements and poverty alleviation. Forest villagers are trained in NWFP collection and export through joint management initiatives such as development cooperatives.

Grazing Although according to the law ranchers require grazing permits, no such permits have been sought. Grazing is an important factor in forest village livelihoods, but the damage it causes, particularly by goats, threatens the sustainability of forest resources. A recent programme to provide financial support to ranchers has helped reduce the number of animals grazing in forests from 350 000 to 200 000 (General Directorate of Forestry, 2006c).

Hunting and recreation Hunting for tourism and recreation is a usufruct right exercised in almost all State forests. Management of hunting resources is devolved to tourism operators through contract agreements, and to the public through traditional law. According to the Terrestial Hunting Law of 2003 (Law 4915), tourism operators are required to pay a licence fee per animal killed, while members of the public pay only an annual hunting licence fee. Participants at the case study workshop reported that lack of law enforcement was putting game animals at risk from poachers and illegal hunters. Local authorities are more able to protect animals in the areas near villages than in more distant zones.

Participatory management planning Participatory management planning is a new issue in Turkish forestry; in the past, management plans were prepared by expert foresters alone. Recently, the participation of local people and the public in decision-making processes has become a new trend, which is reflected in amendments to forest legislation and the Management Regulation. The new regulation has provisions allowing local people’s participation in forest management and ensuring that their interests are recognized in management plans. These provisions are about to go into effect, so it is too early to discuss potential outcomes, but good results are expected.

LIVELIHOODS The most important sources of income in forest villages are farming, livestock and horticulture. Although only 8 percent of forest villagers in Turkey depend totally on forest resources for survival (De Haan, 1998), these resources are always an important source of woody materials for forest dwellers’ heating and cooking. About 60 percent of the families in forest villages depend entirely on wood for heating, and about one-third for both heating and cooking. Forest families obtain total annual benefits averaging US$272 million from forest resources (De Haan, 1998). Added to this is forest villagers’ illegal felling of trees, which is worth more than 100 percent of State support and brings the total fuelwood benefits for forest villagers to more than US$550 million a year. The State allocates an additional US$84 million of wood for forest villagers’ housing construction and repair. 8 Linn et al. (2001) give a value of about US$110 million for 2001.

Tenure systems

13

Livestock raising is another livelihood source for forest communities. Forest villagers graze their animals in forests and collect branches and plants for forage, saving an annual total of about US$50 million on livestock feed – a substantial contribution to communities’ survival. Wage employment is another income-generating opportunity for forest households, which earn an annual total of more than US$200 million from forest activities (De Haan, 1998).

Other income-generating activities for forest households include beekeeping and collecting NWFPs. Forest communities’ total income and benefits from forest resources exceed US$480 million a year, rising to US$750 million when the US$275 million derived from illegal tree cutting is added.

Nevertheless, forest villagers continue to be poorer than other population groups in Turkey, and farmers’ poverty level is half that of forest dwellers’. At present forest resources make only a limited contribution to poverty alleviation, partly because communities surrounded by forests are very restricted in the ways they can use the land and have only limited use rights. A closer focus on forest tenure and use rights may help to enhance forest dwellers’ welfare and relieve poverty.

CAPACITIES Increasing communities’ capacity and skills may contribute to SFM and poverty alleviation. Forest dwellers are among the least educated, least skilled and least trained of the population, so training and education programmes should concentrate on income-generating activities based on forest products.

NWFPs are a good potential source of income, but forest villagers’ lack of knowledge and financial support means that almost half the income currently derived from NWFPs goes to investors from outside the forests. The General Directorate of Forestry also provides employment opportunities, but forest villagers cannot always benefit from these owing to lack of capacity. At present, forest villagers account for only 16 percent of the directorate’s workforce and expenditure on salaries (De Haan, 1998), mainly because they lack forestry skills so can be employed for only less specialized and lower-paid work. State forestry institutions can help rectify this situation through providing programmes and activities, such as the initiative described in Box 1.

Box 1. Stone pine seed production in Kozak Yaylası Kozak Yaylası is a forest-based rural community in Izmir where the General Directorate of Forestry implemented a programme for managing stone pine forests, in State forests under leases, and on private land. The aim of the programme was to produce stone pine seeds for food, and its outcomes are impressive. Turkey’s total annual stone pine seed production is about 1 300 tonnes, of which between 900 and 1 000 tonnes is produced in Kozak. The 80 percent of this production that is exported generate annual income of about US$10 350 000, or about US$1 300 per capita for the local people participating in the programme. Kozak’s regional pine seed production is now greater than the national production of some countries, including Portugal and Italy. Stone pine cultivation also creates many jobs in the region, and now generates about 60 percent of total household income. Source: FAO, 2004.

The case study team found that most potential forest investors lack knowledge and awareness of

private afforestation. This, combined with the other factors discussed in the previous section on management, discourages them from investing in the afforestation of private or public lands.

Private forest owners also need enhanced capacity, skills and knowledge for forest management. In Turkey, private forests are managed mainly for hunting and timber production.9 Although the Forest Code stipulates that the State must pay for forest protection, including prevention of forest fires, the income generated from private forests does not cover owners’ management costs, because market prices are low and production capacity poor, at 1.8 m3 /ha/year for a total harvesting volume of about 14 000 m3. This situation threatens the sustainability of most privately owned forests.

9 Private plantations of fast-growing species are not included in this discussion, because they do not count as forests under Turkish law. Instead they are regarded as orchards, and not subject to the same use restrictions as private forests.

Turkey case study

14

Most private forests are close to metropolitan areas, particularly Istanbul. Private owners should therefore be encouraged to find alternative uses of their forests. During the case study workshop, literature review and interviews with experts, the case study team found that private forest owners need training and capacity building to identify and assess alternative forest management options. Financial bottlenecks and restrictions in national forest policy and legislation also need to be addressed.

The public also needs capacity building and training to help overcome common misperceptions and misinterpretations of forest legislation and judgments. In Turkey, there is a general belief that the State does nothing of benefit to the poor; a Turkish proverb states that “everything goes as it comes”, implying that nothing will be done to help the poor, who must instead take care of themselves. To turn this view into a more positive one of goodwill and hope, information and examples of beneficial public forest management (such as that described in Box 1) are required.

POLICY AND LEGISLATION In Turkey, policy, ownership, tenure and management of forests and forest resources are based on two articles of the Constitution: State ownership dominates public and private ownership; and the right to manage State forests cannot be transferred to parties other than State forestry authorities. The State is therefore the only decision-maker regarding how to manage forest resources. Some experts dispute this interpretation, claiming that the legislation does not specifically prevent the State from devolving management rights and authority, as long as it retains the ultimate responsibility for supervising management and enforcing requirements. Nevertheless, the State has not experimented with new management techniques, such as community management or joint management agreements devolving use rights to local people, particularly forest villagers (Ozcan, 1996). Such approaches could be tested on a small scale and at the local level, before being expanded to the larger scale if successful. The following paragraphs outline some of the issues to be addressed to make Turkey’s forest legislation more relevant to SFM and secure tenure.

The Forest Code is very old and does not reflect the new concepts, definitions and terms of modern forest legislation. Some concepts and definitions have not been updated, while others have been added, making the code inconsistent and imbalanced. Some issues are fully and comprehensively reflected in legislation, while others are totally ignored or not clearly defined.

Frequent changes in legislation make laws seem instable and weaken the public’s willingness to adhere to them. Since the first Forest Code of 1937, the legal definition of a forest has undergone seven alterations, four of them substantial. Most of the Forest Code articles relevant to crimes against forest resources have also been amended and altered frequently, as have those regarding the harvesting privileges and rights of forest villagers. Most of the reasons for these alterations have been political, rather than technical. The changes have therefore made the law insecure and difficult to implement because they threaten the security of use rights and the efficient implementation of plans and programmes to ensure tenure security.

Laws from the Ottoman era still have an impact on land tenure in Turkey. The old law recognized ownership of resources as separate from landownership, so that one entity could own a tree stand, while another owned the land on which it stood. The legal system based on Roman civil law that was established by the new Republic of Turkey does not recognize separate ownership of resources and land, and allows only restricted use rights such as easements and covenants for periods of no more than 100 years, after which holders lose their usufruct rights.

Ottoman law also reserved some forests areas for free public exploitation, and the Turkish public continue to perceive all natural forests – even recently established ones – as belonging to the State and open to public exploitation, except for those few small areas under private ownership. This perception is also quite common among politicians and the legal establishment. Even more damaging for tenure security is the belief that privately owned land containing natural forest cover should belong to the State. In such cases, the private owner is sued and the title deed to the land cancelled by court resolution. This discourages private afforestation investments.

Forest legislation also acts as a disincentive to private afforestation because it does not allow investors to use afforested areas for recreation, house construction and other commercial land uses.

Tenure systems

15

Without these use options, most potential investors find forests insufficiently productive to meet their management costs.

Current legislation does not include provisions for traditional usufruct rights, particularly NWFPs, which are potential income sources for forest villagers. These use rights should be secured by legislation.

The State is the sole authority for managing and planning forest resources, in spite of a global trend for including local people in forest management and planning. To make such collaboration possible in Turkey, local people need to know that they will receive concrete benefits from joint management, and there must be mutual trust between the two parties involved. The first step is to provide the legal basis for transferring responsibility and decision-making authority and establishing participatory management; current legislation does not provide such a basis. Recent amendments to the Management Regulation cover the concept of participation, but do not include provisions for defining and securing participation. The forestry authority should be flexible about sharing some management rights and responsibilities with communities.

Turkey case study

16

Forest tenure, sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation

STATE FORESTRY Owing to the dominance of State over public and private ownership, State forest management and planning has a greater impact on SFM and poverty alleviation than public or private management has. By law, the State has to protect forest resources and enhance the welfare of forest villagers, including cooperating with communities in managing forests. However, implementation of these legal provisions has not succeeded in enhancing rural welfare and cooperation, except for wildfire management. The current health and conditions of State forests and tree stands is no worse than in the past, at least in terms of area covered, but several factors such as mining, tourism investment and grazing threaten forests’ sustainability. Thus, the sustainability of forest resources tends to be considered more important than poverty alleviation.

The productivity of forest resources, as well as socio-cultural, economic and ecological conditions, vary across the country, so strict, inflexible and homogenous management principles cannot be applied and implemented everywhere. Instead, a more flexible management approach should be adopted. When applying a specific management style to a particular forest resource, local conditions must be taken into account, including when use rights, particularly for timber and NWFP harvesting, are conveyed to local communities.

The General Directorate of Forestry has been transferring most forestry practices, apart from forest landownership and timber concessions, for about two decades. For example, silviculture practices such as thinning and brushing, forest road construction, forest regeneration, energy forests, green belt forest zones and erosion control have been transferred to private entities and, particularly, to local people. This brings hope for more effective management, although these practices are now carried out under only short-term agreements and contracts.

State forestry’s contribution to rural poverty alleviation has been limited. One of the reasons for this is that rural people are not sole managers and have only very restricted participation in State forest management. In addition, their institutional and technical capacity for forestry practices are insufficient to meet the needs of modern forestry and global forest management.

COMMUNITY FORESTRY The best forest management option for sustainability and poverty alleviation seem to be community forestry, under certain conditions. There are some good examples of community management and family-level private forestry, such as the Kozak Yaylasi stone pine programme (Box 1), which demonstrate that tree harvesting and NWFP collection can be well managed by communities. However, successful community management requires that specific local and general conditions are met, and capacity building is essential (FAO, 2004). Landownership and tenure must also be secure, so for communities that do not have their own forests, management rights to State forests should be granted for long periods. In the stone pine programme, the villagers started off with no knowledge of managing stone pines, exporting nuts or marketing their products, but they developed these abilities through training and experience during the programme. The outcomes for villagers were great and their living conditions were substantially increased: “development of the region’s socio-economic structure has created a unity not seen in most parts of the country, including the development of business cooperatives” (FAO, 2004). Successful community forest management of NWFP resources requires a careful analysis of local and countrywide ecological, socio-cultural and economic conditions.

Community management can also be based on long-term timber contracts for forest villagers and/or their development cooperatives. Currently, the law grants forest villagers only short-term timber contracts, and the State forest authority retains exclusive decision-making power regarding the areas and times for timber harvesting. It then signs contracts with individual forest villagers or forest

Forest tenure, sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation

17

village development cooperatives, according to which contactors are self-employed and responsible for all social security, physical and technical safety of the workers they hire, in exchange for payment of a set price per cubic metre of harvested timber. In effect, timber harvesting contracts use forest villagers as a cheap, seasonal labour force, and therefore contribute very little to poverty alleviation. Long-term contracts and use rights for forest villagers would probably be more successful.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FORESTRY Across Turkey there seem to be various options for managing private and public (owned by public legal entities other than the State) forestry activities. Because of the small size of private and public forest areas, and the resulting small standing volumes and low productivity, it is difficult to make reasonable comparisons between the contributions to SFM and poverty alleviation of State forestry on the one hand, and public and private forestry on the other. However, this does not mean that public and private forests cannot satisfy public needs. Despite their small size and capacity, both types of forest have investment potential for recreation and NWFP production.

Successful examples of private forestry initiatives and efforts include family-level forestry encouraged by the General Directorate of Forestry in Kozak Yaylasi (Box 1). Private forests also have potential for sports and recreation and city forestry, because most of them are close to metropolitan areas. Another option is private afforestation of both public and private land subject to specific conditions and legal arrangements. Although the public has a negative opinion regarding private ownership of natural growth forests, the attitude to privately owned planted forests and afforested areas is more positive. Private afforestation with adequate financial incentives and a solid legal basis for investments may work well towards achieving SFM and poverty alleviation.

So far, however, the incentives offered have not been sufficient. For example, although private investors can recoup the costs of afforesting public lands from the State, the low profitability of the small areas involved discourages them from afforestation; greater financial incentives are needed. Other disincentives include the management restrictions applied to private forests, especially the prohibition on reconverting afforested areas back to other land uses. Private owners also have to pay all the costs of the forest planning, management and protection activities stipulated by law.

According to Article 1 of the Forest Code, some tree species are not considered forest trees, and both naturally occurring and planted areas covered by these trees are not considered forests. This gives their owners far more flexibility. Trees in this category include the fast-growing species Poplar, stone pine and wild olive. At present, about 200 000 ha of private lands are planted with poplar trees, and the annual wood harvest from these non-forest areas is about 3.5 million m3, which alleviates the production pressure on State forests and helps secure their sustainability. In spite of this potential, investors in fast-growing plantations (with the exception of a research institute studying fast-growing trees) receive no public support, incentives or technical assistance. For example, capacity building for plantation managers could result in greater sustainability for both the plantations’ resources and State forests. There is also need to alter the current legislation so that private entities that plant forest tree species or allow them to grow naturally on landholdings of more than 3 ha do not risk losing their land when it is reclassified as forest and claimed by the State.

Participatory resource management is another essential element for poverty alleviation and SFM. Turkey’s current centrally planned forest management and centrally enforced forest legislation tend to be rigid and inflexible, and take little or no account of local conditions. The updated Management Regulation is a good step towards rectifying this situation.

Turkey case study

18

Conclusions and the way forward In Turkey, several issues need to be addressed to secure property rights, SFM and poverty alleviation. First the State should update its forest policy to include new approaches and developments that are emerging at the global level. Aims of the new policy should be secure landownership and tenure rights, resource improvements and sustainability, decentralized decision-making, resource planning that considers people rather than only trees, and enhanced rural welfare. Amendment of the forest legislation is already under way and will be completed soon.

The legal definition of forest also needs to be adapted to bring it into line with internationally accepted definitions. Almost half of the area currently classified as forest in Turkey does not satisfy the international criteria for forest land; national legislation should include legal definitions of these wood- and other lands, and management plans should be drawn up for them. The new definition of forest should not exclude any tree species, such as fast-growing species. This exclusion of species is unique to current Turkish forest legislation and means that many areas with extensive tree cover are not included in forest boundaries in land surveys.

Forest ownership categories are likely to remain as they are, but tenure security of both public and private forests is a major concern, as is the security of landownership in general. While current forest legislation and the Law of Nationalization remain in force, all privately owned woodlands are classified as forests and become State property, in spite of Articles 35 and 44 of the Constitution guaranteeing security for all types of landownership. The new legislation should therefore include clear provisions for ensuring that private landownership rights are secure and well implemented, even when formerly non-forested private land is converted to forest.

Incentives provided in the current legislation should be retained, but more financial encouragement is needed for forest investors. Forest ownership can be conveyed to private investors under current legislation, but more flexible management options should be guaranteed to private owners. At present, private owners are reluctant to plant their farm and other land with forest trees because of the subsequent difficulties in reconverting it back to other uses, and the risk of losing afforested areas of more than 3 ha to the State. The new law needs to be more flexible about converting forestland to other uses in response to changing circumstances. Such provisions would encourage more private afforestation activities, including on degraded areas, thus helping to prevent erosion and other damage.

Current legislation does not include provisions for NWFPs. During the case study workshop and research it became clear that NWFPs have good potential for poverty alleviation and forest village development. Although customary law allows forest villagers to collect NWFPs for household consumption, they do not have statutory rights to such resources and cannot use NWFPs commercially. Instead, entities other than forest villages can obtain leases to collect NWFPs through short-term contracts, even though forest villagers have the greatest need of them. Legal provisions giving forest villagers priority in NWFP collection and use would be a substantial step towards diminishing rural poverty.

Laws should be amended to encourage community forestry. The first step would be to establish management plans for potential community forestry areas, such as stands of stone pine, wild olive and pistachio. Local communities should then be included in joint management of these areas, and the legal basis for such a management approach needs to be provided. Article 26 of the current Forest Code, which is about planning, should be revised and amended accordingly.

The short-term contracts for employment in forest management that are currently available to forest villagers violate the International Labour Organization (ILO) Agreement in that they make forest villagers self-employed and fully responsible for their own social and physical security, as well as that of anyone they employ. The wages paid by the State do not cover these costs, but if self-employed villagers do not insure the people they employ they are committing a crime and risk legal penalties. New legislation should ensure that villagers are given long-term tenure rights for ten to 20 years and that they are properly insured at very little cost to themselves.

References

19

References Bernhard, R. 1935. Türkiye’nin bitki ve iklim coğrafyasını incelemiş ve bir orman kanunun gerekliliği konusunda rapor hazırlayarak Hükümete sunmuştur. Fazla bilgi için bkz. In R. Barnhard, Türkiye Ormancılığının Mevzuatı, Tarihi ve Vazifeleri. Çeviren: Nihat Basri SOMEL. Ankara, Yüksek Ziraat Enstitüsü Yayını, Sayı:15. Bruce, J.W. 1998. Tenure brief. Review of tenure and terminology. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, Land Tenure Center. Cubbage, F.W., Laughlin, J.O. & Bullock III, C.S. 1993. Natural resources policy. New York, John Wiley. De Haan, C. 1998. Forestry sector review: grazing resources and livestock management in forest lands. Available from the Ministry of Forestry and the General Directorate of Forestry, Ankara. Dryzek, J.S. 1997. The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. New York, Oxford University Press. Erkuran, M. 2001. National Forestry Program. Forest legislation consultant report. Ankara, [who published?] FAO. 2000. Decentralization and devolution of forest management in Asia and the Pacific, edited by T. Enters, P.B. Durst and M. Victor. RECOFTC Report No. 18 and RAP Publication 2000/1. Bangkok. FAO. 2001. Governance principles for concessions and contracts in public forests. FAO Forestry Paper No. 139. Rome. FAO. 2003. Multilingual thesaurus on land tenure. Rome. FAO. 2004. The management of villager-owned stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) plantations in Kozak region, Turkey: a case study by M. Sülüşoğlu. FAO Working Paper. Ankara. FAO. 2006. Global forest resource assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper No. 147. Rome. FAO. 2006. Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia. Forest Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 14. Rome. FAO. 2007. Tenure security for better forestry. Understanding forest tenure in south and Southeast Asia. Bangkok. FAO, FAO/RAP, RECOFTC & APFC. in prep. The evolution of devolution: contributing to participatory forestry in Asia-Pacific? Bangkok, FAO. General Directorate of Forestry. 2006a. General overview of Turkish forestry. Ankara. General Directorate of Forestry, 2006b. National Forest Inventory Report. Ankara. General Directorate of Forestry. 2006c. Sustainable forest management, criteria and indicators. Ankara. Government of Turkey. 2001. National Action Plan of Biodiversity Strategy of Turkey, Ankara. Gunes, Y. 2004. Conservation and preservation movements and their influences on environmental legislation in the USA. İ.Ü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 31(1303–1260): 47–57. Hays, S.P. 1959. Conservation and the gospel of efficiency: the progressive conservation movement, 1890 –1920. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, Harvard University Press. Kayganacioğlu, M.R., Renda, N. & Onursan, G. 1976. Gerekçeli, Açıklamalı-İçtihatlı Orman Kanunu ve İlgili Mevzuat, Olgaç Matbaası, Ankara. Knox McCulloch, A., Meinzen-Dick, R. & Hazell, P. 1998. Property rights, collective action and technologies for natural resource management: a conceptual framework. SP-PRCA Working Paper No. 1. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute. Light, A. & Katz, E. 1996. Environmental pragmatism. New York, Routledge. Linn, J.F., Chhibber, A., Bromhead, M. J., & Stewart, J.F. 2001. Turkey forest sector review, 2001. Document of The World Bank Report No: 22458-TU Meinzen-Dick, R., Knox, A. & Di Gregorio, M., eds. 1999. Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. Proceedings of the International Conference, Puerto Azul, the Philippines, 21–25 June 1999. www.capri.cgiar.org/workshop_devolution.asp. Meinzen-Dick, R. & Knox, A. 2001. Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: a conceptual framework. In R. Meinzen-Dick, A. Knox and M. Di Gregorio, eds. Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. Feldafing, Germnany, Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (DSE). Ministry of Forestry and Environment, 2003. National Forestry Report, Ankara Pinchot, G. 1947. Breaking new ground. New York, Harcourt Brace and Covela, California, USA, Island Press. OGM. 2006. Forest Resources Statistics. Ankara. Özcan, S. 1996. Forest legislation forest policy and institutional structure in Turkish forestry. Available from the Ministry of Forestry, Ankara.

Turkey case study

20

Rosenbaum, W.A. 2001. Environmental politics and policy. Washington, DC, Congressional Quarterly. Schnaiberg, A. & Gould, K.A. 1994. Environment and society: the enduring conflict. New York, St. Martin’s Press. Turner, M.J.J. 1989. Conservation and protection of Georgia’s freshwater wetlands. Michigan, USA, UMI Press. White, A. & Martin, A. 2002. Who owns the world’s forests: forest tenure and public forests in transition. Washington, DC, Forest Trends.