Bosnia and Herzegovina's Fragmented General Forest Functions Fee
Bosnia and Herzegovina
A timber levy funding forests' "general beneficial functions" is uniform in Republika Srpska (10% of roadside timber value) but fragmented …
Serbia · Belgrade · See the Serbia profile
Serbia's Law on Forests levies a minimum 15% charge on the market value of harvested timber, split 70/30 between the national and local budgets, feeding a ring-fenced Budgetary Fund for afforestation, forest improvement and disaster recovery.
Serbia's Law on Forests (Official Gazette of RS Nos. 30/2010, 93/2012 and 89/2015), Articles 77-84, establishes a compensation charge ("naknada za korišćenje šuma i šumskog zemljišta") payable by all users of state and private forests. Under Article 78 the charge is calculated as a minimum of 15% of the market value of felled timber assortments at the place of cutting.
Article 82 splits the resulting revenue 70% to the Republic of Serbia budget and 30% to the budget of the local self-government unit where the felling occurred (Article 84 applies the same 70/30 split in the autonomous provinces). Rather than entering general revenue, the Republic's 70% share is ring-fenced in a dedicated Budgetary Fund for Forests (Article 81), established to pursue long-term, sustainable forest-management objectives.
Article 88 mandates that the Fund finance afforestation of new forest land, tending and improvement of existing stands, construction of forest infrastructure, preparation of forest-management plans, and recovery after natural disasters such as fire, storm or pest outbreaks.
The mechanism mirrors similar "general beneficial functions of forests" levies inherited from former Yugoslav forestry law in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. No independent, quantified ex-post evaluation of ecological outcomes (hectares afforested, carbon sequestered, erosion avoided) attributable specifically to the Fund's spending was found in publicly available sources; the well-evidenced facts are the statutory rate, the 70/30 split and the Fund's earmarked legal purpose, not measured ecosystem outcomes.
Read the full analysis: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/srb143404.pdf
Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.
Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
A timber levy funding forests' "general beneficial functions" is uniform in Republika Srpska (10% of roadside timber value) but fragmented …
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan's Forestry Agency has planted saxaul across ~1.7M ha of the dried Aral seabed in five years, employing ~150 foresters …
Costa Rica
Costa Rica's national PES, created by the 1996 Forest Law, has paid landowners US$565M to conserve 1.15M+ hectares for carbon, …
Japan
Since 2019, Japan distributes ¥40–62 billion/year to municipalities and prefectures for managing private plantation forests; from April 2024 funded by …
Open full copilot Grounded in cited practices — always check the sources.