evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice

Serbia's Forest Use Compensation & Budgetary Forest Fund

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.

Details

Promoter
Government of the Republic of Serbia — Forestry Directorate (Uprava za šume), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management
Period
2010-present
Keywords
forestry finance, earmarked levies, afforestation, public forest law

Description

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

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful