Page menu:

Çalışkan H., Birben Ü., Özden S. Forest in Comparative Law: Germany, People's Republic of China, Canada, Nigeria, and Türkiye

Forest law, forest perception, legal systems, national point of view, sustainability


UDC 630*9

How to cite: Çalışkan H.1, Birben Ü.2, Özden S.2 Forest in comparative law: Germany, People's Republic of China, Canada, Nigeria, and Türkiye // Sibirskij Lesnoj Zurnal (Sib. J. For. Sci.). 2024. N. 2. P. 103–112 (in Russian with English abstract and references).

DOI: 10.15372/SJFS20240211

EDN: …

© Çalışkan H., Birben Ü., Özden S., 2024

Forest governance around the globe has been making positive progress in the sense of resource management in the last decade. However, differences in legal systems and policies cause some difficulties in advancing towards the common goal of forest sustainability. This study is aimed to contribute resources sustainability by comparing forest laws in different legal systems so as to get good governance and practice examples. The legal systems discussed have been determined as Romano-Germanic (Civilian), Anglo-Saxon, Islamic, and Socialist law. To represent these legal systems Germany, Canada, Nigeria, the People's Republic of China, and Türkiye have been selected. Forest laws of those countries examined and discussed for definition of forest, ownership types, and protection. It has been concluded different legal systems has an important effect on forest perception and the spatial area of forests. The sustainability approach in the Chinese Forest Law has more positive effects on the forest when compared to other laws. That kind of perception of forest law may lead better forest governance and could be the best example for the rest of the world. 



Ahrends A., Hollingsworth P., Beckschäfer P., Chen H., Zomer R., Zhang L., Mingcheng W., Xu J. China's fight to halt tree cover loss // Proc. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2017.

As I., Global poverty and non-govermental organisations // Fırat Univ. Int. J. Econ. Adm. Sci. 2017. V. 1. Iss. 1. P. 31–66.

ATO. Federal Republic of Nigeria Fact Sheet // Ankara Chamber of Commerce, 2021

Best A. L. The forestry outlook in Canada // The For. Chron. 1960. V. 36. Iss. 3. P. 260–264.

Birben Ü. A Legislative analysis, based upon comparative law, of the legal basis and development of forest ownership and use rights // Istanbul Univ. Inst. Sci. Technol., 2011.

Birben Ü., Ünal H. E., Karaca A. Examination of the perception of society related to forest resources (Case of Çankırı city center) // Turkish J. For. 2018. V. 19. Iss. 1. P. 76–82.

BMEL. Bundeswaldgesetz1 Seite 1037 vom 7, Mai 1975. Bundesministerium Für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. 1975.

BMEL. The forests – mainly privately owned. The forests in Germany, selected results of the third national forest inventory // Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) (Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture), Germany, 2014. P. 9.

Braatz S. International forest governance: international forest policy, legaland institutional framework // XII World For. Congr., 2003.

Chiavari J., Lopes L. Forestand land use policies on private lands: an international zomparison Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany and the United States // Climate Policy Initiative. 2017. Full_Report_Forest_and_Land_Use_Policies_on_Private_Lands_-_an_International_ Comparison-1.pdf

Elvan O. D. Evaluation of the changes made in the criminal provisions of Law No. 5728 and Forest Law No. 6831 // II. Congr. Socio-Econ. Probl. For., Isparta, 19–21 Feb., 2009. İsparta: SDU, 2009.

Erdonmez C., Yurdakul Erol S. A milestone in terms of historical development of the national forestry policy in Türkiye: Law No. 125 // J. Bartin Fac. For. 2021. V. 23. Iss. 1. P. 182–201.

FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2000 main report. FAO For. Paper 140. Rome: FAO UN, 2001.

FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2010. FAO For. Paper 163. Rome: FAO UN: 2010.

FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2020: Main rep. Rome: FAO UN, 2020a.

FAO. Global forests resources assessment 2020 China. Rome: FAO UN, 2020b. ca9980en.pdf

FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2020 Germany. Rome: FAO UN, 2020c ca9997en/ca9997en.pdf

FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2020 Nigeria. Rome: FAO UN, 2020d. cb0037en/cb0037en.pdf

FAO. Nigeria Forest Law. Faolex Database. Rome: FAO UN, 2021 faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC003330

FAO. Forestry production and trade. Rome: FAO UN, 2022 en/#data/FO

FAO UNEP. The state of the world’s forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people. Rome: FAO UN, 2020.

GOC. Government of Canada Forestry Act Consolidation of Canada. R. S. C., 1985, c. F-30. Version: June 28, 2021.

Gumus C. Ormancılık Politikası. KTÜ Basımevi, 2004.

GVBL. Waldgesetz für Bayern (BayWaldG), Fundstelle, 2005. S. 31.

Imre Z. Introduction to civil law. Second Ed. N. 2194. Fac. Law Publ. 495. İstanbul Univ. Publ., 1976.

IMF. Report for selected countries and subjects: Oct. 2021. Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/October/weo-report?c

Interpol. Global forestry enforcement // Strengthening law enforcement cooperation against forestry crime, 2019.

Jinping X. Report at the 19th National Congress of CPC. People's Daily online. 2017.

Kishor N., Damania R. Crime and justice in the Garden of Eden: improving governance and reducing corruption in the forestry sector // The many faces of corruption. The World Bank, Washington, DC, 2007.

Lund H. G. What is a forest? Definitions do make a difference an example from Türkiye // Euras. Sci. J. 2014. V. 2. Iss. 1. P. 1–8.

Mangobay. Deforestation soars in Nigeria’s gorilla habitat: ‘We are running out of time’. 29 Oct., 2021.

MEE. Forest Law of the People’s Republic of China Ministry of Ecology and Environment The People’s Republic of China. 1984. elatedlaws/202102/t20210207_820735.shtml

Mizrak D., Temiz Ö. Law and politics examination of extraordinary periods in Türkiye in the light of literary works // Ankara Bar Ass. J. 2009. V. 67. N. 2.

Ngounou B. NIGERIA: 25 million trees will be planted to absorb CO2. Afrik 21.2019.

NRCAN. Forest classification of government of Canada. 2021a.

NRCAN. How much forest does Canada have? 2021b.

Official Gazette. Law No: 6831 Forest Act (1956, 8 Sept.). Official Gazette (No: 9402) 1956.

Qin T. The evolution and challenges in China’s implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity: a new analytical framework // Int. Environ. Agreem.: Politics, Law and Economics. 2021. V. 21. P. 347–365.

Saka-rasaq O. Forest loss in Nigeria, the impact on climate and people from the perspectives of illegal forest activities and government Negligence. Novia Univ., 2019.

UCA. Nigeria (1960-present). Univ. Central Arkansas Dep. Polit. Sci. 2021.

Vanguard. Deforestation: Nigeria has lost 96 % of its forest. 3, Sept., 2018.

Vehola A., Malkamäki A., Kosenius A., Hurmekoski E., Toppinen A. Risk perception and political leaning explain the preferences of non-industrial private landowners for alternative climate change mitigation strategies in Finnish forests // Environ. Sci. & Policy. 2022. V. 137. P. 228–238.

Yiliyaer A., Aliu A. Contemporary administrative law principles in People’s Republic of China. // J. Turkish Justice Acad. 2018. V. 35. P. 641–664.

Zhang Y., Qin Q., Fan J., Chen K. Comparative analysis of forest conservation and sustainable forest management in China and Germany // Asian Agr. Res. 2013. V. 5. N. 10. P. 117–124.

Return to list