Trends in Forest Ownership, Forest Resources Tenure
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 i 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 ii Acronyms ILO International Labour Organization NGO non-governmental organization NWFP non-wood forest product SFM sustainable forest management iii 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. iv Introduction 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