T. FRANÇOIS
Chief, Forest Policy Branch, Forestry and Forest Products Division, FAO
This paper has been prepared for field officers serving under technical assistance programs
THE PROMULGATION of laws is only the second step in the development of the national forest domain. The government of the country must first know what it wishes to achieve, that is to say, it must have a forest policy. The laws will naturally differ depending on whether the main goal is to open up virgin forests, to conserve existing forests, to restock stands with a view to soil conservation or for commercial logging, to develop community forests or to protect stands against fire, grazing, etc. Laws will also differ radically depending on the importance attached to privately-owned stands and on whether small or large forest owners are involved, and also on the policy toward such stands, that is, whether there will be strict control of fellings or whether the owners will merely be encouraged to manage their stands scientifically. Until such time as the major lines of such policies have been laid down, no legislation can be established.
Naturally, in order to frame such a forest policy, a country must know its forest resources, its present and future timber requirements, what reforestation is needed for soil conservation purposes and to protect agriculture, the obstacles in the way of forest conservation, etc. It is not always necessary to have on these points detailed information involving an inventory of available timber resources and ground surveys on land that either is, or should be, under forest, etc. Such an inventory is essential later for drawing up forest development plans and programs, the prerequisites for which are a sound policy and effective legislation.
Forest laws must be in harmony with the general laws of a country. Either because of language difficulties or because of the short time available to them, it is often impossible for foreign experts to become acquainted with all the laws of the country where they are working. Therefore, the most they can do is to submit certain proposals, or indicate what articles should be incorporated in forest laws to achieve the forest policy purposes. In a first draft, such articles should be written in very general terms and the experts must leave it to the lawmakers of the country to draw up the final text. The ideal arrangement would be to have small three- to five-man committees, including, in addition to the expert, one, two or three legislators, one of whom should be highly competent in each of the following legal fields: constitutional law, administrative law, and civil and penal law; finally, if possible, one or two foresters from the country involved, preferably with some knowledge of the general laws in force there.
Of course, this in no way implies that the experts should not familiarize themselves with the national laws, since otherwise it would be difficult for them to enter into useful discussions in such a committee.
The points that require attention are:
Constitutional law
What guarantees does the constitution offer to private property, communities and associations? Is expropriation legal? When? How is power divided between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of the government? Is there a clear distinction between the last two? Is the government of the federal type? If so, what are the respective functions of the central government and the federated states or provinces, and what are the relations between the latter and the federal government?
Administrative law
How is the high administration of the country organized? Is it decentralized? Are regulatory powers delegated? What are the conditions of employment in the administration (stability, salaries, recruitment)? How are communities organized? Is appeal against administrative decisions possible for communities or private persons? What are the bases of fiscal legislation, how is the budget drawn up and distributed? Are accounts of revenue and expenditure kept separately? Does the government intervene in commerce (exports, industrial development, etc.)?
Civil law
What is the land tenure system (is private, collective or state property recognized)? Is there a distinction made between ownership of the land and ownership of buildings or improvements on the land? What usufruct rights, easements, rights of use exist? On what documents is ownership based? How can property titles or rights to use land originally part of the public domain be acquired? Is there a cadastral survey? Are grazing rights recognized? How is property transferred? How do co-operatives work?
Penal law
How is the judiciary organized, particularly the courts responsible for enforcement? How are violations of the law classified and what courts are competent to deal with them? How is the police organized? What weight is attached to the depositions of police officers in the courts? What are the rights of persons having appeals powers as regards arrest, seizure, searching private homes, interrogating witnesses, etc.? What is the appeals procedure? Are administrative or police officers empowered to settle disputes in certain fields?
The forest act submitted to the government in draft form must, first and foremost, be simple.
Though such an act need not be immutable, it must be durable and serve as a basis for government decrees and administrative regulations that can be modified and adapted to changing circumstances, though still remaining within the act; hence, it must be drafted in very broad terms.
In most countries in which technical assistance programs are being operated, the forest services are small, with a minimum number of professionals, whose technical activities are therefore extremely limited. The forest ranger corps is somewhat more numerous, but the technical training of rangers is usually elementary, so that they are merely expected to be able to read, write and carry out the simplest policing and surveillance work.
Consequently, a multiplicity of complex legal clauses initially would be useless. The aim essentially is for subsequent development by means of regulations or decrees. In other words, the act should impart the proper guidance and provide a framework to be filled in by such regulations.
This last point raises the question as to what are the essential points that need to be included in a forest act a question to which an answer will now be attempted.
In its very first articles the act must state clearly what agency is responsible for its enforcement.
Since direct management of state forests or supervision of the management of other forests is essentially a technical matter, a forest commission might be contemplated, or some other agency entirely independent of any ministry, with its own budget and accounting system, or even some semi-governmental agency that enjoys great autonomy. Such a solution is not to be recommended in countries where political circles have barely become aware of the value of forests and where wide support for forestry development must be aroused in these circles if success is ever to be obtained. On the other hand, if timber and forests are destined to play an important part in the economic and social life of the country, a special ministry, such as already exists in many countries, may be set up. Usually the government agency enforcing the forest act is attached to some already existing ministry (which we shall here assume to be the Ministry of Agriculture) and this ministry must be mentioned in the act as responsible for its enforcement.
In countries which already have well-organized forest services (even though funds may be short) firmly attached to the Ministry of Agriculture, it is not even necessary for the act to mention which agency of this ministry has powers of decision and execution or certain special responsibilities. References such as: "The Minister of Agriculture, on the report of the Director of the Forest Service, may (or shall)." should therefore be eliminated. Indeed, the minister will organize the forest service, announcing its specific duties to ensure its proper functioning and possibly delegating certain of his powers to it. This is essentially a task for the executive and the text of the act need not enter into details. Naturally, if certain basic or final decisions have to be left to a body higher than the Ministry of Agriculture (the cabinet or the chief executive, for example), the act should mention the fact.
There is no need, either, to make particular mention in the act of bodies other than the forest service that are also under the Ministry of Agriculture. Even if these services have to intervene to enforce certain articles of the law, it is still for the minister responsible to direct such intervention.
On the other hand, although the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the general enforcement of the forest act, it is practically inevitable that other ministries should also be concerned with the enforcement of certain of its articles. These ministries should be mentioned in the act, as well as the general manner in which they will co-ordinate with the Ministry of Agriculture for the enforcement of the articles in question.
One ministry which will almost inevitably be involved is the Ministry of Justice, since it will have to enforce the penalties laid down by the forest act. That is why the procedure for ascertaining offences and submitting reports on them to the judiciary must be broadly defined in the forest act, unless such questions are automatically settled by investing the forest service officers or rangers with police authority (something that should be explicitly mentioned in the act if such is the case). Certain particular points regarding the enforcement of the forest act may need to be specified (see below).
If a forest service is already well organized as a permanent body within a ministry, there is no need for special mention of it in the act; if this is not the case, there may be good reason for mentioning it. An article setting up a forest service may invest the minister under whom it will function with broad powers to recruit staff and procure the necessary funds for its operation. However, even in this case it is not advisable for the law to be over-explicit as regards the tasks entrusted to this service or to specify its internal structure, as this might detract from the prerogatives of the executive. It might merely be mentioned that its tasks are technical, comprising research and training of lower grade staff (and possibly even of higher officers), but primarily it will be expected to assume the responsibilities attributed to the minister by the forest act and possibly by other acts, responsibilities which he in turn delegates to the forest service.
Mention has just been made of "other acts" and, indeed, attention should be drawn to the fact that it is not the forest act alone that necessarily regulates everything concerning woodlands and forests, since forestry is only one form of land use and timber only one commodity. It is in fact wiser to limit the compass of the forest act, otherwise there is a danger of dealing with diversified subjects involving such varied interests that the bill of law may never be passed. The rule should be to deal only with subjects in which the forest service will have the main essential responsibilities. An act is always an act and applies to the entire subject matter it covers but it would be absurd, for instance, to change a constitutional law into a forest law. A certain amount of discernment is necessary to know the limits beyond which a forest act should not go. For instance, if tax exemptions or relief are to be granted to private owners for setting out new plantations, the provisions to this effect should appear in the forest act as well as in tax laws where they also belong. If they are to appear in the forest act, they obviously are also of concern to the inland revenue department. As mentioned above, a forest act should, in broad outline, establish the relationship between the latter department and the Ministry of Agriculture (details being left to inter-ministerial regulations). For instance, the Ministry of Agriculture may make a report to be transmitted to the inland revenue department on the setting out and management of new plantations. The forest act may also incorporate regulations on the timber trade, import and export privileges or restrictions, the organization of forest industries or of lumbering camps, etc., if and where these points are not left to other laws.
Finally, if it is intended to set up an entirely new forest service constituting either a new ministry, a government body, or a quasi-governmental agency more or less independent of any ministry, the forest act must obviously contain details on its organization, its tasks and their limits, its powers, its relationship with existing ministries and various executive and judiciary bodies, the method of staff recruitment, its budgetary sources and, finally, the supervision of the new body by the government's higher executive branches.
It is all the more necessary to include these points in an act if the usual functions of a forest service are divided up among several bodies belonging to different ministries or are assigned some to regular ministerial agencies and others to more or less independent bodies. Such combinations may well be useful or even necessary but cannot be efficient unless relations between the various interested bodies are clearly set forth in the act, at least in broad outline. In any case, it should not be forgotten that the forest policy, which is an integral part of the economic, social and land use policy of a country, must be under government control. A body that merely manages government property may be allowed as much autonomy as it wishes once the principles of such management and its supervision have been defined, but no independent body can impose a forest policy on the government.
As already mentioned a forest act should confine itself strictly to its own subject. Some of its provisions should or can apply to the entire country as, for instance, regulations on the timber trade, import and export duties, taxes on forest holdings, etc. However, provisions of this type may be included in other acts - preferably so if the forest service is not the main agency responsible for their enforcement. Other provisions generally applicable to the entire country that will necessarily be included in the act precisely because the forest service will usually be the responsible agency may, for example, cover timber transport, forest fire fighting, protection against tree diseases, bans on felling of certain species that should be conserved, the setting up of sawmills and other wood-using industries, etc. (see below).
The essential characteristic of a forest act is that the majority of its provisions, and the most important ones, should refer to certain well defined areas of the country, called "forests," for the management and/or surveillance of which the forest service will be responsible. The act must, therefore, make very clear what is meant by the term "forest," otherwise it will be null and void.
Unfortunately, the legal definition of a forest by mere description of its characteristics is impossible. As everyone knows, for various reasons a fully stocked forest with tall standards may not come under the term "forest," whereas absolutely bare land may be included. Furthermore, forests, wooded pastures and true pastures are sometimes barely distinguishable. There is therefore no alternative: the first articles of a forest act must be explicit as regards the areas to which the term "forest" refers, which means that they must make provision for the demarcation of these areas with boundary marks, ditches or other physical signs. These are the essential articles in a forest act.
The above statement must be thoroughly understood. It means that any area demarcated according to the procedure outlined in the articles of the act will automatically come under the act (and that a new act will not be necessary for each demarcated piece of land). On the other hand different provisions in the forest act or other acts may apply to nondemarcated areas. For example, it may be as well for the forest service to give its advice or permission for felling of trees by private landowners or government services on areas that are not yet, or that never will be demarcated. There is no need for a forest act for this purpose. The essence of such an act is that it applies mainly to strictly defined and clearly delimited areas (see Principles of forest policy, Resolution No. 26, adopted in 1951 by Member States of FAO).1
1 Report of the Sixth Session of the FAO Conference, Rome, 19 November - 6 December 1951.
In countries with properly compiled land registers or cadasters that are frequently brought up-to-date and in which, for each plot of land, the nature of its use is indicated, all land registered as forest may legally be considered as such. Even in this case, serious difficulties often arise where there are no physical landmarks. However, in only a few countries or in a few nonforested parts of each country are there such cadasters. There are none in countries where forestry is still in its infancy or where the distinction between forest lands, farmlands and pastures is still under dispute or may change with time.
Consequently, the most important articles of a forest act are those which provide for demarcation of the lands to which this act will apply and which stipulate in broad outline at least the procedure to be followed for this delimitation.
It must be added that the act may distinguish between several types of forest (for instance, protection stands, production stands, etc.). Since different rules or restrictions will apply to each of them (this being the main reason for making distinctions), these various types of stands, if contiguous, must be demarcated physically in different ways.
There will always be at least two types of stands, those that are state-owned and those privately-owned or belonging to communities.
If no government control is imposed by law on stands that are not state-owned, they need not be defined, delimited or demarcated. Even if certain advantages are granted, for instance, to private stand owners with no concomitant control or restrictions, such operations would be useless. On the other hand, when the act makes provision for any type of supervision or restriction (as, for instance, forbidding clear-cutting in order to modify land use) delimitation and demarcation must still be carried out, as otherwise the act would be inoperative. Depending on the nature of the restriction, such delimitation may be vague or detailed. If a specific restriction or obligation is imposed, for instance, on private stand owners in a certain area, it may suffice to have the private stands in that area delimited as a whole rather than each one individually. If complete control, similar to that exercised in state owned stands, is imposed on all private stands, each of them must be completely marked off from other land, whether considered as under forest or not, and from adjacent public or private stands.
Delimitation and demarcation of private stands should generally be the task of the public service empowered by the law to supervise them. Where, however, private owners are granted certain advantages, which may or may not derive from this supervision, the cost of delimitation and demarcation and even their execution may be required of the owners in exchange for these advantages. The act should be precise on these points or at least lay out the main provisions regarding these matters of demarcation.
At all events, for countries with large forests, the physical tasks of delimiting and demarcating will inevitably demand a lot of time even where modem techniques, in particular, aerial photography, are used, since even these are no substitute for ground surveying and delimitation work. Even assuming that a country has a large enough staff of foresters and that this task is considered among the most urgent, priorities still have to be established.
It is not for the forest law to go into such details and perhaps for a very long time to come vast tracts of woodland will inevitably remain without surveillance. Consequently, temporary arrangements may have to be considered. Generally speaking, however, such expedients should be avoided. The act, assuming that there is an adequate forest service for enforcement purposes, may of course contain provisions of a very general character, like those mentioned above (prohibition of the felling of certain species, control over raw timber hauls, obligation to report the setting up of sawmills); it may even require the forest service to give its advice on these matters and supervise lumbering concessions. However, if this is envisaged, it would be either as part of a land settlement project or because it is felt that the forests have been made accessible and can therefore be brought under a regular management system. In either case, it is necessary to delimit the stands which will be permanently subject to the forest act. Beyond this one cannot go. To demand the enforcement of the law on forest land that is not delimited would impose responsibilities upon the forest service without giving it the means and powers to carry them out.
Furthermore, woodlands which have not yet been delimited under a forest law are not thereby without legal status. They may be private property, and as such governed by laws applying to all private property, or they may be state-owned - "fiscal land," to use the Latin-American expression. The latter are usually managed by special services often attached not to the Ministry of Agriculture but to another ministry (Land and Land Settlement, for example), whose duties include the enforcement of laws for agrarian reform, land settlement, etc., which apply precisely to these lands. Such laws determine the procedures for the alienation of state land for agricultural or industrial development and may specify that the Ministry of Agriculture (and, hence, the forest service) be consulted in the course of these procedures. This provision is the hallmark of wise laws concerned with safeguarding national forests and organizing close co-ordination between all the services of a country responsible for sound land use. However, if they do not contain provisions of this nature, it is not the forest act which must introduce them into national legislation. Progress along these lines should rather be sought by the introduction of proper clauses into acts governing state land as a whole.
The fact that such provisions are not included in these laws in no way prevents the drafting and promulgation of a good forest act. Since such an act will first of all call for delimitation of stands and since, as we have seen, an order of priority must be established for the physical task of delimitation and demarcation, it is clear that these operations should apply first and foremost to stands in zones where state land is being settled (legally or illegally) or in areas where this process has already been completed. In fact, delimitation is less important for stands far from inhabited centers or farming and grazing areas, stands that are as yet inaccessible and virgin, and which may not be opened to logging, either on a regular or occasional basis, for several decades to come. It is only in certain cases where fire prevention may be necessary that delimitation becomes important. However, this is much more a technical than a legislative problem. Consequently, delimitation work should be centered on lands under forests or to be afforested or reforested, where competition between farming, grazing and forest use is already a problem or is likely to become so at any moment.
The setting of priorities is the task of the service empowered to enforce the act. As we have said, the main lines of procedure for stand delimitation should be prescribed, this being a very important point in countries where land settlement for farming is taking place. Normally, this procedure should provide for the investigation of land titles of owners or occupants of forests adjacent to stands to be delimited, as well as the determination of the areas over which these titles extend. Hence, the act should require landowners and adjacent occupants to participate in this procedure and provide systematic protection of their rights. But what can be done where land has no owner or apparent occupant or if the occupant cannot prove his title? It should not be forgotten that the stands to be delimited have been taken, by virtue of a forest act, from state land which is managed under another act (either a land reform or land settlement act) by a special government body or ministry. The act should therefore also provide for the organized participation of that body or ministry in this delimitation procedure, thus avoiding difficulties that might arise later from unilateral action.
Considering the uncertainty that still exists in many countries regarding differentiation between farm and forest land, the forest act should not state that delimited stands governed by the forest law are inalienable. On the contrary, it should prescribe a procedure for relinquishment or cession under which the body managing state land would also be required to intervene under conditions set by the forest act. However, lest this procedure lay itself open to abuse that would endanger the stability of forests, and therefore the scientific working of stands, the procedure should be quite rigorous and should be concluded by the highest executive authority, for instance by a ministerial or interministerial decree.
A forest act, as we have said, cannot define by enumeration of its characteristics the land to which it applies. It can only prescribe that such areas he delimited physically. However, in order to help the officers in charge of ground survey work, it could well set forth certain rules enabling them to choose those portions of the national territory to be included. These rules may be appealed to when claims against the suggested delimitations come up to the effect that these officers have gone beyond the law. However, such rules should not be confused with the legal definition of a forest. The act may state, for instance, that, in principle, all land with over 50 trees to the hectare should be included in the legal delimitation of stands. This is one possible criterion. It would be inadmissible, however, for the act to stipulate that every plot of land with over 50 trees per hectare is to be legally considered as forested land. This would be an attempt at a legal definition of a forest on paper which would be doomed to failure for readily understandable reasons and which would render any forest act null and void.
The criteria and definitions may vary greatly from country to country and will be determined mainly by the proposed forest policy. The following are only some of the possible definitions of forest land:
1. land with a more or less dense cover of trees;2. the same land, but with the proviso that it will not be farmed for a fairly long period of time or that it is definitely unsuitable for agriculture;
3. land more or less densely covered with scrub;
4. land which can be managed on a sustained yield basis (for the production of fuelwood. or timber);
5. multipurpose land (grazing land) where timber production has a certain importance;
6. land which must remain under tree, brush or grass cover in order to protect the soil and water and prevent erosion, avalanches, etc.;
7. bare land or land with a thin cover of trees which should be totally or partially reforested for protection purposes;
8. land to be reforested. for economic, social, health or recreational purposes.2
2 The following definitions, which Swiss authorities feel should be incorporated in their cantonal forest laws, may serve as an illustration:
" (a) All land managed mainly for timber production." (b) All land on which trees grow, even though it may be used for several purposes, for example, forest grazings and chestnut groves.
" (c) All land, the cover of which serves a protective purpose, including pastures where alder (Alnus spp.) and pine (P. mughus) grow.
"This does not cover isolated trees except for chestnuts with a d.b.h. of 20 centimeters and more, small woodlots and plots of brushwood on farm land, roadside plantings, gardens and parks. "
These definitions may be suitable in a country where the forests have long been an established feature (a federal law stipulates that the forest or woodland area is to be maintained at the present figure) and where there is a complete land cadaster and forest consciousness is highly developed. They are naturally not suitable for less developed countries, and are merely given here as an example.
Although the incorporation of such definitions in a forest act may be useful, it is not essential. What is essential is the procedure for the delimitation and demarcation of stands. In fact, the size and nature of the plots of land to be included under forest land is a question that must be settled by the forest policy of the country concerned. Many laws try to define forest land as land unsuited to agriculture. This is obviously much too vague an expression to define forest policy on this essential point, and to make possible its implementation (which is the prime object of the legislation).
On the one hand, it does not specify whether land used under a shifting cultivation system (that is, occupied, in a 15-to 30-year cycle, for two to three years or more for crop growing and left untouched for at least 12 to 27 years so that the trees may grow) should be incorporated in forest land regardless of the land tenure system. On the other hand, the term "agriculture" is also very vague and does not indicate whether rangelands, that is, natural grasslands, should or should not be considered as forest land. This lack of clarity is all the more serious as many types of vegetation, whether natural or planted by man, include both trees, some of them of great forage value, and grass swards and other forage plants, some of which may be industrially useful. In other words, there is sometimes no clear distinction between forests and natural grasslands, which explains why forests are all too often illegally used for pasturing. This causes their degradation as well as the despoliation of the grazings in the vicinity.
Finally, large stands which are still virgin or distant from farming belts often include land where stable agriculture could be established but only after a long lapse of time precisely because of the distances, whereas they can still in the meantime produce good timber crops. Should such lands be excluded from the forests to be delimited, in execution of forest law provisions?
What we have just said clearly shows the impossibility of defining the term "forest" and the necessity, in order to arrive at a legal definition, of first of all prescribing the delimitation and physical demarcation of land to be considered as under forest. In particular, one should avoid any reference to land unsuitable for crop growing or as pasture. It is far better that nothing he said on this subject, thus giving the land-use policy every opportunity to develop in the best interests of the country. The best formula seems to be to indicate in the preamble of the act or in one of the first articles that its purpose is to ensure the conservation, sound use and development of the renewable natural resources of the country or of the timber and other natural resources, or some other formula of this type.
From the standpoint of government policy, it is clear that if grasslands, belonging to the state or to communities, and used for pasturing livestock or shifting cultivation, are excluded from forest, i.e., from "forest" within the meaning of the law, they will generally be left without any technical supervision because countries with only young forest services are still less likely to have services capable of caring for natural grasslands and wooded areas used for shifting cultivation. Until better solutions are found, the responsibilities of the forest service should be extended to these lands in order to avoid the misuse and sometimes irreparable damage which often results from unsupervised use. However, as already mentioned, decisions on this matter must be made when the government lays down its policy. Obviously, if the government does not wish to impose any restrictions on the use of such lands, they need not be incorporated under forest land or discussed in the forest act.
Many texts of forest acts begin with an article recognizing that the conservation or development of natural resources and forests is in the public interest. The wording of these articles may be extremely important if the legislator wishes to empower the ministry concerned to resort to expropriation measures in order to keep certain sites under forest or promote their afforestation or reforestation. The wording used may determine the legality or otherwise of the power to expropriate, as governed by provisions in the civil, administrative or constitutional law of the country.
If the policy decided upon aims at obtaining from the legislature enabling powers for a ministry to expropriate land, the text of the act should obviously be drafted in such a manner as to define the cases where this power may be exercised. It is very unlikely that such an act would be passed if the instances cited permitted too broad an interpretation.
Actual expropriation procedure does not have to be specified in the forest act, which need merely refer to other more basic legal texts on this subject. Only if it is intended to introduce restrictions on this more general law or, alternatively, to facilitate its enforcement by certain special provisions, should such amendments of the general legislation be incorporated in the forest act.
In many cases when a forest officer assigned the task of delimiting a stand makes a ground survey of the area, he finds that far from not having been used or having been used only by its lawful owner (assuming that land titles are proven), regular exploitation is being carried on by private individuals or nearby communities. The gathering of wild fruit or other forest products as well as the pasturing of livestock or shifting cultivation may also have been practiced there for a long time.
In order to enable the surfaces which are to be marked out on the land to be used for the purposes laid down in forest policy, it is indispensable that the nature, importance and means of exercise of the rights of use be perfectly well known (unless the act provides for the outright elimination of all such rights in the delimited forests in execution of the forest act - a drastic measure which can and should be considered only rarely). It is obviously important to free newly-delimited forests of all servitudes which encumber them, but the methods of doing so, which clearly call for compensation, are long and difficult and it is usually preferable to wait for subsequent legislation to stipulate the correct procedure. The immediate aim will be simply to control such rights and confine their exercise within limits designed to ensure that they shall not endanger the stability or fertility of the land in question in such a way as to render impossible the exercise of such rights thereafter.
Hence a forest act which prescribes delimitation of forest lands should also call for the listing of all rights of use (indicating the nature of these rights, their extent, conditions governing their exercise and the identity of the persons involved). While considering the need both to respect and to regulate rights of use, forest policy should aim at sustained yield of stands.
What therefore are the basic provisions that the act should contain in order to achieve this result in the easiest possible way?
State-owned forests
Theoretically there is no difficulty. The act should contain an article stipulating that one of the tasks incumbent on the forest service is to place each stand under an officially approved management plan.
There is the practical difficulty, however, that any serious study of a management plan inevitably takes a long time, and hence the act would have to contain not only the provisions governing the sale of forest products (both direct sales and long-term logging concessions) but also indispensable guarantees that such sales or concessions contracted prior to the; approval of the management plan will not imperil the stand's future productivity. The granting of long-term concessions might be conditional upon the submission by the beneficiary of a technical management plan for his entire concession period. He might even be required to demarcate the boundaries of the stand in question, thus simplifying the work of the forest service, though the latter would ultimately remain responsible for ensuring implementation of the management plan as well as of the demarcation work.
There is no point in including in this chapter of the act provisions regarding sales prices of products or the obligations of the concessionaires. All this can more properly be done in subsequent regulations. At most the act should enunciate the principles governing the grant of long-term concessions and the sale of products (for instance, at public auction).
Community-owned forests
A choice must be made between placing stands under a management or working plan analogous to that for state-owned forests (under the absolute control of the forest service), allowing them to be handled as privately-owned stands (see next section), or some intermediate system. In any case, it should not be forgotten that, if there is to be some form of control, the stands have to be demarcated and, if a system other than that for privately-owned stands is chosen, a special delimitation would have to be made, probably of each stand separately. If the first alternative is chosen, the particular needs of the community which owns the stand have to be considered in the management plan.
Privately-owned stands
1. If these are very large and there are many owners, any form of control is a heavy task for the forest service (which, being perhaps of only recent creation, may be unable to handle it).2. Extremely strict control, accompanied by very severe penalties for violations of the law, involves the danger of smothering any initiative on the part of private owners, so that they lose interest entirely, which, unfortunately, they are all too prone to do anyway.
The preceding remarks serve to show that the act should only include the simplest duties that do not compel the forest service to carry out very rigorous inspection. Notice of all fellings and their authorization by the forest service, reports on cuts and full inspection by the service officials - all these are quite unrealistic measures. The most that can be suggested is that the act should lay down the principle that any owner who himself, or through others, works his forest stand (and not the logger) is obliged also to ensure the regeneration of logged-over areas, either by natural regrowth or by artificial plantings of species of equivalent economic value. The only sanction that should be written into the act is that which authorizes the forest service to demand the replanting of a cutover stand or itself take charge of such work at the expense of the owner if natural regeneration does not occur. The article on this subject should prescribe the main lines of procedure for forest service action in such cases. This procedure should include the possibility of landowners taking appeals to court, since the purpose is to protect them against exaggerated, unwarranted or retroactive demands.
More restrictions and regulations may be imposed with regard to stands classified as protection forests, although one should remember what has been said in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section.
This division of the act should also include provisions regarding the compulsory stocking or restocking of stands and the possibility of expropriation in specific cases. Such articles should be framed with local laws on expropriation in mind and, if need be, these should be referred to in the forest act itself.
Another division should contain provisions on possible state aid to owners wishing to restock or improve their stands, build roads, etc., whether within the forest area or outside it. In the case of plantations outside the forest area, aid should logically be granted only if the newly-created or improved stand has been delimited and is incorporated into a forest area, except in the case of linear plantations, hedges, etc.
In this division the act may also include the financial privileges which may be granted (with discernment) to owners who wish to restock or improve their stands, provided that it is not more in accordance with local custom to include such provisions in the finance laws.
Finally, if the country in question has the problem of fragmentation of private forest holdings, yet another division should deal with co-operatives of forest owners. To draft such articles, the expert will have to make a serious study of current acts governing co-operatives in other economic fields and particularly farmer cooperatives.
It must be recognized that in many countries demarcation lines and boundary marks, essential as they are, are not sufficient to force local populations to respect the property rights of either the state, communities or private persons. It is often the actual use of the land within these boundaries that, at least in the eyes of the local inhabitants, creates true title to the land. This concept is founded on ancient custom in some countries. That is why, at least for state-owned forests, and those which the act places under its control, this act should contain an article compelling the forest service to place all forests under officially approved management. If the delimited areas are almost entirely under true forest vegetation, such management will naturally be geared to lumbering and forest industries. Even in such a case, however, it often happens that the land is also used to graze domestic animals or as game preserves. If it is deemed necessary or desirable, for technical, economic or social reasons, to allow or, indeed, promote such activities (provided, of course, that stand yield is sustained), management for purely forestry purposes may be modified into management partly for forestry and partly for grazing and, possibly, for wildlife conservation as well. In such cases, the act should pronounce to that effect, as well as specifying possible use for farming if there are areas where shifting cultivation is practiced within the delimited stands.
The act may go even further and distinguish, at least as regards their main use, between the various types of forest. This, especially for state forests, would be more useful than the legal distinction most often made between protection and production stands. It may not be indispensable that a stand used essentially for grazing be distinguished, legally speaking, from stands where lumbering is the primary use, as the difference between the two types pertains mainly to how they are managed. In India, for instance, so-called forests often encompass vast expanses of range, and in the management of these stands working circles are set aside for grazing. On the other hand, when parts of the forest are used for farming or shifting cultivation, it is theoretically necessary to distinguish between two types of forest, because usually the laws relating to them are quite different. This, actually, is the solution reached in many countries of Africa where some forest reserves are strictly protected for timber production or soil and water conservation, while in other forests, called by various names, restrictions are much vaguer and more lax. Unfortunately, all too often in the latter case such restrictions are entirely inoperative precisely because such stands are not delimited or marked out, all efforts along these lines being confined to forest reserves.
The problem here is linked with rights of use. As already mentioned the forest act must wherever necessary make these rights the object of regulations. It is in the chapters on the working of stands that such regulations find their normal place, whether they apply to the cutting of timber, to the grazing of animals or to shifting cultivation. In countries where rights of use exist de facto or de jure, it is useless to seek to delimit forest areas unless it is government policy to regulate the exercise and scope of such rights. In fact, it is absolutely useless to promulgate a forest act if these rights can be freely exercised everywhere.
Regulations governing such rights of use should respect acquired rights insofar as possible (with the above-mentioned reservations regarding elimination of such rights by destructive exercise), and this is normally feasible. It often happens that wise regulations make possible not only the exercise of such rights without any danger to the forests but even with certain advantages to the latter. The right to practice shifting cultivation, for instance, can be used for setting out plantations (under the 'taungya' system), grazing rights for eliminating fire risks, etc. It is still necessary, however, that the act should lay the bases for the regulation of such rights.
In order to avoid the indefinite extension of rights of use, either in number or area, before legally prescribed stand delimitation is carried out, one precaution must be taken in framing the act itself. It must contain an article stipulating that only rights of use already in existence on state land at the time of the promulgation of the act shall be recognized. This may possibly be extended to property rights if, as is the general case, continuous occupation of land for a long period of time establishes title to it. However, this is something to be considered more by the agencies administering state land in general, and a forest act is therefore not its natural place.
Articles prescribing how delimited stands are to be managed, and the manner of carrying out the resulting work look beyond mere establishment of property rights in such forests. The act should be so drafted as to emphasize how the restrictions it sets on forest use are balanced by advantages, not only to the entire country but also to local communities in the vicinity of forests who will naturally be the most affected by any restrictions imposed. Thus, the act may well prescribe that communities may extract whatever timber they require from forests and that this shall have priority over the supplying of any other demand, or that local labor should be given priority over any other as regards forest work, etc. It may even stipulate a procedure for relinquishing a certain portion of a forest to a nearby community, although this area will still be under the supervision of the forest service. Such provisions are often a great help to communities in their economic and social development.
In this connection it is also necessary to be realistic. It is entirely useless, for instance, to prescribe that owners must take pest control measures which it is clearly impossible to execute and supervise. As a rule, pest control measures are a purely technical matter and therefore not the immediate concern of the act. In the case. of state-owned forests the question does not even arise, since the forest service is responsible for taking all technical measures necessary and for this no law is needed.
Where much of the land is privately owned it should also be remembered that stand protection should be organized not only for the benefit of state-owned stands, but also for forests belonging to other owners. No matter how little interest an owner shows in his stand, he is as much concerned as the government that nobody should settle there without his permission, that no trees be stolen, that no fire be started, either willfully or through negligence, and that no grazing be carried on without his permission. It is to be hoped that if private owners are guaranteed security in these respects, they will begin to take an interest in their forests.
How can this be achieved?
In certain countries legislation provides for contracts whereby the forest service undertakes the management of private stands for a specified fee. Provisions of this nature, however, may remain ineffective because landowners usually show little inclination to have the forest service intervene in their affairs.
One suggestion is that the forest act concern itself exclusively with the protection of state forests (except as regards certain points on the use of fire in stands and on forest fires in general - these will be discussed later - and, if deemed feasible, clauses on pest and disease control). A clause would then provide for the extension of such protective legislation at stand owners' request on very simple conditions, for instance, that each owner should have his own stand delimited and submit the survey map to the forest service (it is difficult to conceive how protective legislation can be applied to any stand unless this preliminary step has been taken).
In order to interest private owners in this arrangement, they must derive definite advantages from the penalties attached to violations of the forest act, their ascertainment, and the submission of proof of the offenses to the authorities. The law in all countries punishes theft, and the theft of wood from a forest is a theft like any other; it punishes use of another person's property without his prior consent; it punishes the starting of fires, whether willful or otherwise. The penalties contemplated in a forest act have, therefore, to be more severe and rigid, this being justified in many instances by the fact that damage caused to a forest is to the material and economic detriment of the entire nation. Or else the procedures for the ascertaining of an offense, its investigation, seizure, etc., should be simpler or the judicial processes more expeditious; or better still, all these conditions should be combined. Therefore, before making proposals regarding the organization of stand protection, it is advisable to study current legislation on these various points, particularly the general classification of violations of the law, rules of evidence applicable in the various cases, and the corresponding forms of judicial procedure, including appeals procedure.
The act should, generally speaking, call for stand protection along the following lines, though the importance of each point will very greatly from country to country.
Protection against trespassing on forest land whether for agricultural use or any other purpose
In countries where there are a great many squatters, the particular laws on this subject should be carefully studied. Occupation of forest land should be prohibited even if no trees or bushes are cut or mutilated.
This chapter of the act may include articles of very special character, since they apply essentially to forest owners, namely articles on the clearing of stands, i.e., the removal of trees in order to use the soil for other purposes, either by the private owner himself or, with his consent, by another.
Should the above suggestions regarding delimitation of stands be accepted, the articles on clearing of forests will logically refer only to land within the limits of private stands. Conditions governing the grant of clearing permits will be more or less strict, and the penalties laid donn for violations will be fairly heavy or light, depending on the forest policy adopted. Among these conditions it will be absolutely essential to include provisions making it compulsory for owners to demarcate the plots they propose to clear, thereby automatically establishing the revised boundaries of their forest land.
Protection against unauthorized or clandestine cutting or extraction of timber or forest products
Nothing special need be said on this point, save that the act should perhaps not consider as an infraction certain unauthorized fellings during bona fide logging operations, since it is inevitable that some trees should be accidentally cut down or mutilated during the operations. The indemnity that the State or the owners must be paid for such fellings or mutilation may be stipulated in the logging concession or sales contract.
It may be useful to list clearly all legally protected forest products in order to avoid any controversy regarding products of obvious general economic value (such as gums and resins) and also so as not to interfere with the collecting of products that are of value only to the local inhabitants and which would go to waste if not gathered and used by them (wild fruit, deadwood, etc.).
Protection against unauthorized grazing
On this point also nothing special need be said except that in principle it is best to lay down different penalties for the grazing of the various types of livestock and particularly heavy penalties for grazing of animals in artificially planted stands.
Protection against fire
When fire is an important destructive agent, the drafting of this chapter will present particular difficulty and require extremely careful attention if the provisions are to remain within the practical scope of the law.
First of all it should be pointed out that it is useless to have fire control, detection and prevention measures included in the act. Such technical measures are the concern of the forest service in state-owned forests, and that of the owners in private stands. The only preventive measure that should be included in the act is the stipulation that forest owners must open up firebreaks and keep them clear. Even this would be too much to expect in countries underdeveloped from the forestry point of view. Here the most that could be done would be to insert in the articles on privately-owned stands (see Section C above) reference to state aid to stand owners who wish to open up firebreaks or take other steps to prevent fire, such as the joint purchase of fire fighting equipment, organized patrolling, etc. Such cases would be rare in these countries.
The act must therefore confine itself to:
1. Holding the person proved guilty of causing the fire responsible for any damage in a state-owned forest. In addition to the penalties contained in the national laws against any person causing fire voluntarily or involuntarily, the penalties for the cutting or mutilation of trees can be applied, and these penalties increased for damage caused by fire.2. The prescribing of the necessary restrictions on the lighting and conveying of fire in a stand or within a certain distance from the limits of a state-owned stand. These may be more or less severe depending on the season of the year and may even go as far as prohibiting access to stands when climatic conditions heighten the danger of fire. In such cases the act should stipulate whose responsibility it is to declare closed seasons, the responsibility being decentralized as far as possible. It is not necessary that the person responsible belong to the forest service, though the latter should be consulted and may possibly impose these measures.
3. Establishing the responsibility of the authorities in case of reported fire. This may be of two types: on the one band technical responsibility, which should lie with a member of the forest service, and, on the other hand, the organization of rescue and fire-fighting measures. The latter could very well be entrusted to a government official or representative with authority over the various civil or military services or groups that can help in these measures, particularly the army, transport officials, and the postal and telegraph services. It is essential that both these types of responsibility be decentralized as far as possible. Within each district it might therefore be advisable to vest them both in a single person, especially since at first there will be only very few forest service agents. The act should empower the authorities responsible for the organization of fire-fighting and rescue measures to move men and vehicles as required.
Whereas articles under paragraph 1 above should apply exclusively to state-owned forests (except as they are extended to private stands invoking the principles of Section D, those under paragraph 2 may apply either exclusively to state-owned forests or to all forests. Articles under paragraph 3 are necessarily applicable to all forests.
If the measures under paragraph 2 are considered inadequate, additional articles can be incorporated governing the lighting of fires for specific purposes (burning over for pasture renewal, fires lit during hunts or for shifting cultivation, etc.). Naturally, it is completely unrealistic to expect to regulate all fires of this type in any given country. However, regulations might govern the lighting of fires near forests, whether they be privately- or state-owned, or fires which threaten to reach the limits specified in paragraph 2. The authority empowered to allow the lighting of fires should also be decentralized. It may, for example, be the same authority that will have to organize aid in case of fire. Permission to light fires may be granted only under certain conditions, for instance, only if the authority's representative is on the spot. In any case, anyone who has a permit to start a fire is thereby exonerated from any responsibility if the fire spreads to a forest, unless he has failed to comply with the conditions laid down, otherwise there would be no point in requesting such permits.
The forest act need not contain detailed provisions with regard to private lumbering and timber processing or wood trading. Most matters in which the act intervenes in the case of such enterprises are already covered by other laws more general than the forest act and therefore responsibility for the enforcement lies with other government services or other ministries. Such is the case, for instance, with laws governing the relations between employers and workers, fiscal legislation, laws on the importing of machinery or other requisites, as well as the export of forest products. There is no doubt that in a country where sawmill equipment is outmoded because of difficulties in importing the necessary machinery, there arises a temptation to introduce into the forest act measures to facilitate such imports; but the forest act is not the proper place for such measures. This does not mean that the expert who advises the government should not call its attention to such matters and try through the usual legal procedure or regulations to have the situation improved.
Although the forest act should contain only a few provisions pertaining to such enterprises, they are important ones. Before enumerating them, it must be stressed that the act should not include provisions that hamper the normal activity or the development of such enterprises, which alone can work the stands to advantage.
Unfortunately, provisions of this sort are all too frequent. Checks on the hauling of timber along roads may facilitate supervision over logging, and in some countries the government's only revenue from its forests may be the fees imposed for the permits to transport timber. However, it must be repeatedly emphasized that this is not the best way for the State to derive revenue from its stands. It should sell the wood from the stands it owns at regular prices, and should tax transactions involving wood cut in privately-owned stands; but it is a hindrance to loggers to have taxes and sales prices tied to the transport of wood. Moreover, where there is only a small forest ranger force, this control over road transport absorbs all its energy and does not allow it time to carry out its technical or policing duties in the stands. Consequently, tax collection on timber transported on the highways is a measure that should be used very sparingly. In case of doubt, in this connection as well as with regard to any other measures that may prove harmful, it is usually possible for the law to lay down the principle that the government has the power to apply such measures throughout the country or in any part of it, and then to leave the practical application and detailed execution to enabling decrees or regulations based on the act.
The essential functions of the forest service as regards lumbering companies are:
1. To ensure, as far as possible, sufficient supplies of raw material to any and all existing or future firms, without danger of impoverishment or destruction of the forest stands, it being understood that such undertakings should use the raw materials in the best possible manner with the minimum amount of waste.2. To check on the production of such enterprises, merely for statistical purposes, to make certain that no imbalance is provoked between timber growth and cut.
Consequently, when any country plans to set up new industries or expand existing ones and a government licence is required for the purpose, the forest act should specify that such licence may only be granted after the forest service has studied the matter and examined the stands which the firm will work, as well as that firm's machinery and workmen. Even when no licence is required for starting these new industries or expanding existing ones, the forest act should require such preliminary investigation and have the findings submitted both to the government and to the interested parties.
Furthermore, the act should prescribe that the forest service shall keep a register of all proposed and existing lumbering concerns, whether industrial logging firms or timber trading companies, and that statistical data shall be regularly submitted for the exclusive use of the service.
Most probably the general penal law of the country establishes several categories of offenses and, for each of these categories, the procedure for judicial inquiry, seizure, and trial, the payment of fines, etc., as well as the jurisdiction of the various courts, appeals procedures, etc.
The forest act must of necessity specify in what category offences against this law shall be placed.
This simple specification will probably suffice ipso facto to give all directives as to the ascertaining and punishment of offenses against the forest act. All that is necessary is to revise certain details that do not apply, or apply inadequately, to the infractions committed in forest stands, that is, usually in very isolated places with no communication facilities. Consequently, some of the articles of the forest act will have to mention these details and specify the relevant legal procedure. This may be particularly the case as regards confiscation of livestock for infractions of clauses regarding grazing, or of sawmill equipment for breach of rules relating to the felling of trees, as well as the penalties in the case of aggravating circumstances, repetition of offenses or complicity in breaking of statutes or regulations.
In studying these possible modifications of, or additions to, the general penal law, the principle stated at the beginning of Section D must be borne in mind: namely that the procedures for ascertaining and investigating offenses, for seizure, etc., should be as simple and expeditious as possible, though naturally in accordance with the basic principles of the country's general legislation.
The forest act must explicitly stipulate who is authorized to report that the law has been broken or more exactly (since in principle all state police should have authority to act in case of lawbreaking) it must stipulate whether members of the forest service do or do not have police powers. If need be the staff of such a service could confine itself to technical responsibilities, and in the case of an infraction of the forest act merely inform a member of the police force who would then proceed to report the offense and investigate the case. This may suffice for certain types of infractions of the forest law, but would make it too difficult to prove the committing of an offense, especially in connection with protection stands. It is difficult to imagine that a forest ranger who discovers a person illegally cutting down a tree, would run to find a member of the police force in order to report the offense. Consequently, the need for giving the forest service police powers, at least as regards violations of the forest law, must be emphasized.
Investing rangers with such police powers would in itself have various consequences as regards their rights in the investigation of cases (access to private homes, for instance), as well as regarding the value of their reports or their testimony before the courts, and finally in matters of arrests and seizure. Here again, the provisions of the general laws may have to be simplified in order to meet the needs of the forest act.
On the other hand, it is important that no judiciary powers be given to the forest service staff in the projected act. Not only would such a provision be absolutely contrary to the spirit of modem constitutional law, but it would impose additional functions on the service entirely foreign to its nature.
True, in some countries forest laws confer on certain officers of the forest service the power of compounding the offense3 but this power is in no way a judicial function, since the person presumed to have committed the offense may always refuse to accept the proposed settlement. This right of compounding the offense is moreover strictly regulated. It may be advisable to have Such powers incorporated in the forest act, but on condition that all essential measures to safeguard their proper exercise are included.
3 i.e., to accept a summary fine in lieu of court prosecution.
If, as already suggested, private owners may in certain circumstances benefit from the provisions of the forest act as regards stand protection, it is important also that the act stipulate who must prove that infractions have been committed in protected stands. This police task may be assigned to forest service officers, but most probably, since there will only be few of them in the areas where forest property is already well developed, it may be necessary for the owners to recruit private keepers, approved by the forest service, for police duties similar to those of the staff of the service itself.
Finally, a chapter of the act should be devoted to penalties, though, of course, it may be advisable that in the case of certain articles involving penalties or certain types of penalty, the penalty should not he separated from the article where the offense is mentioned.
The question of penalties should be studied carefully without losing sight of the fact that many violations, in addition to being illegal acts, also cause material losses to the stand owner (whether it be the State or a private person) and adversely affect the future of the stand. There are three possible types of penalty, namely: fine (or imprisonment) for infraction of the law; return of the products extracted from the stand, or payment of the equivalent value; payment of damages. These are frequently, although not always, found in conjunction with each other.
In a forest act, however, only the first type of penalty should be prescribed, since the fine or length of imprisonment depend on the nature of the offense (for instance, the type and age of the trees illegally cut; the nature of livestock introduced into the stand; aggravating circumstances; and repetition of the offense). The two other penalties are variable by their very nature: no legal text can prescribe them, only a court can determine them. If the act is to offer inducements to private owners who are interested principally in recovering products extracted, or in being paid for damage inflicted, it is of the utmost importance that both these penalties be fixed by the same court which imposes the fine or imprisonment, and at the same time. The general penal law of the country may be so conceived that this condition is met. If not, the proviso should be introduced as far as possible into the forest act.
Once the law has set up a forest service and vested it with concrete responsibilities, the government's annual budget should, as already mentioned, include the necessary funds to ensure regular salary payments to the staff and enable it to perform its normal functions.
In theory, the forest act is therefore not concerned with the budgetary funds for the forest service; at most it indicates the manner of submission of the forest service's budget, if this seems advisable or is the custom.
The new trend is for each country to have a forest service financially independent of the general budget, which uses its own revenue to cover its expenses and only deposits any surplus it may have with the treasury.
This system has obvious advantages. The great difficulty in new countries is to recruit forestry officers and pay them a salary commensurate with their professional and technical training and that allows them a standard of living that will enable them to fulfil their duties satisfactorily. An independent budget for the forest service can guarantee acceptable salary levels and material advantages. In addition, it allows the necessary funds to be devoted to stand improvement and regeneration, which are often indispensable after cuttings. It also enables the service to invest all or part of its surplus revenue in forest development work.
On the other hand, it should be pointed out that autonomy of this type also has certain drawbacks, not only because it partially deprives the government of control over the forest service officers, but also because, obviously, the best way of keeping the government's interest in its forests is hardly fostered by the assumption that it can derive no benefit from them or that any income therefrom may not be employed for more general purposes but only directly for the stands. This solution also involves certain risks if the forest service is inclined to underestimate the danger of more or less temporary overheavy logging. Finally, this solution is not always practicable. When a country has little woodland or the State owns only very little, or else when there are many forests either still virgin or barely touched, the main function or the forest service is to direct investment or undertake stand improvement or conservation of low-yield stands that are nevertheless important from the standpoint of soil protection and water supply. The result is that, for many years at least, the revenue derived therefrom is practically nil.
For this reason it is necessary to weigh seriously the pros and cons of such a system. If it is decided to set up an independent forest service, the act should sketch out how the budgeting for such a service, and its control by the State, will work.
Whichever system is adopted in countries that are just beginning to consider forest law and forest management, much capital is necessary for the improvement of existing stands and the planting of new ones. These are not what are normally called budgetary outlays. Not only does the forest service require considerable funds for such purposes, but they have to be provided on a sufficiently stable basis for it to venture on long-term projects.
The forest act may call for financing through a forest investment fund. Generally speaking, such a fund must be derived from one or several special taxes (logically, for instance, the taxes on sales of standing timber, on internal or foreign sale of the products of sawmills or wood-using industries). Nevertheless, care must be taken that such taxes shall be easy to levy and that they do not handicap the lumbering industries or the timber trade. If necessary the returns from certain stands (experimental stands or high-yielding plantations) may be set aside wholly or in part for such a forestry fund; but if the forest service has only a small staff, there is one danger that it will concentrate its efforts exclusively on this remunerative type of stand.
If a forestry fund is set up by the forest act, the act should also stipulate not only approved types of investment but also the general procedure for collecting the fund's resources and the method of state control over investment-type expenditures.
To sum up, the following outline can be recommended for a forest law in countries as yet underdeveloped from a forestry standpoint.
INTRODUCTION - Statement of motives with a brief summary of the major forest policy lines.
SECTION I
(a) Definition of general terms used in the act.
(b) Authorities responsible for enforcement of the act.
(c) Classification of stands, if necessary (protection, national parks, etc.).
SECTION II. DELIMITATION OF FOREST LAND
Chapter I. State forests
(a) Delimitation method.
(b) Recognition of rights of use.
(c) Management of wooded land that is not included within the boundaries of forest land or that has definitely been abandoned as wasteland (possibly).
Chapter II. Community stands
Chapter III. Privately-owned stands
SECTION III. MANAGEMENT OF FOREST STANDS
Chapter I. State forests
(a) Compulsory management plan - Method of approval.
(b) Control of the rights of use.
(c) Disposal of forest products (by sale, by logging concessions, etc.).
Chapter II. Community stands
Chapter III. Privately-owned stands
Subchapter I.
(a) Obligations of private owners with regard to stand logging (a distinction being made, where necessary, between production and protection stands).
(b) Obligations of private owners as regards reforestation of barren land.
(c) Acquisition by the State of private forest holdings and possibilities of their expropriation.
Subchapter II. Various privileges, particularly as regards subsidies (possibly tax exemption, etc.).
Subchapter III (possibly). Forest owners co-operatives.
SECTION IV. PROTECTION OF STATE FORESTS
Chapter I. Protection of stands and of forest products against extraction or deterioration
(a) Felling and mutilation of trees.
(b) Extraction of other forest products.
Chapter II. Protection against illegal occupation or trespassing
Chapter III. Protection against grazing
Chapter IV. Protection against fire
SECTION V. PROTECTION OF FORESTS IN GENERAL
Chapter I. General provisions (with special reference to fire prevention)
Chapter II. Application of the provisions under Section IV to stands owned by private persons or communities
Chapter III. Clearing of stands
SECTION VI (possibly). FINANCING THE FOREST SERVICE
(a) Budgetary regulations.
(b) An autonomous national forestry fund.
SECTION VII (possibly). EXPLOITATION, INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE OF FOREST PRODUCTS
(a) Installation of forest industries.
(b) Transport of timber.
SECTION VIII. INFRACTIONS OF THE FOREST LAW
Chapter I. Police powers of forest service officers
Chapter II. Procedure
(a) Classification of infractions.
(b) Proving the committing of offenses; confiscation of illegally-extracted products; arrest; investigation of offenses.
(c) Legal prosecution, competent courts; appeals; rights of transaction.
Chapter III. Penalties
(a) Punishment of single offenses.
(b) Punishment for repetition of offenses or of offenses with aggravating circumstances.
(c) Complicity in committing of offenses.
