Comparison Of Forestry Property System

Property Law of the people's republic of China has laid legal foundation for forestry property research in China. However, given that forestry has unique characteristics of complexity as object property compared with other real estate, and that the current Property Law has been too stringent on forestry, legislation of lex specialis is expected to actualize forestry property in more comprehensive and professional way.To define contents and analyze characteristics of forestry property in China with general property theory, this article casts light on provisions of Chinese Property Law concerning forestry. Comparative analysis approach is introduced to expound the current problems of forestry property institution along with the deficiency of legislations in contract with foreign forestry institutions, based on which amendment advice is proposed, thus to confirm and promote Forest Tenure Reform with solid legal foundations.Conclusions and suggestions are drawn through solid comparative analysis approach about forestry property institutions in different countries:(1) In the aspect of forestry property legislations, Japanese and German forestry legislations have a major characteristic as perfectly corresponding and cooperate with property legislations. However, China along with Russia, suffers from a disagreement and even contradiction between forestry legislations and property legislations. So when it comes to forestry property legislations, China should follow the model of Japan and Germany, and seek the accuracy, profession and conformance in constants.(2) In the aspect of forestry ownership, every country has province-owned forestry, which China lacks.. What is more, Germany and Japan has private forestry which takes up a great proportion; while Russia has few private forestry due to Common property forest system. While Japan and Germany adopt vertical management patterns for state-owned forests, and state-owned forestry run according to well-established schemes (forest management schemes); private forest management primarily takes the form of formulating plans (forest management schemes) and regulating forestry cooperative associations. Russia has no regulations for private forests due to a lack of private forests, but Russia emphasized on the management patterns for state-owned forests, and adopts compulsive interventions. The major problems for China's forestry property lie in a lack in subjects for state-owned forest, unsuccessful establishment of collective ownership, and disrespect for private ownership.(3) In the aspect of forestry usufructuary right about easement, there are no notable differences between countries except for the unique atmosphere of public easement in Russia. As for other forestry usufructuary right institutions, Japanese and German forestry usufructuary rights act as complement to forestry ownership rights, with a decrease in importance. However, China and Russia make forestry usufructuary rights a fundamental issue in forestry property institutions, and the major method in current forestry management, due to Common property forest systems. In China and Russia, forestry usufructuary right has a more significant importance than forestry ownership rights and forestry guarantee property. Relatively, forestry usufructuary right about easement in China lacks variety in forms and functions. Contracts of collective forests result in disadvantages of scattering management, and forestry administrative permit system and ban on state-owned forests harvests makes major barrels of woodland franchise contract. Therefore, an adoption of German and Japanese experience has become a necessity, and it is a urgency to develop forestry cooperative associations and reform forestry administrative permit system, as well as perfect compensation institutions for state-owned forests.(4) In the aspect of forestry guarantee property, China and Russia are both in the beginning period with limited kinds (only mortgage right) and a range of restrictions, let alone poor concerning regulations. Meanwhile, forestry guarantee property institutions in Japan and Germany are quite advanced, with legislations quite perfect in both categories and contents. While China lacks supporting measures as well as necessary service systems, including professional forestry valuation agencies, widespread forestry insurance institutions and perfect forestry property merchandise markets, which makes the affect forestry usufructuary right about easement in China negatively.(5) In the aspect of forestry property transfers, Germany has a strict and complex procedure to ensure safety during transaction. While property transfers in Japan can be easily achieved with agreements of persons involved, according to creditor's rights. However, such autonomy in forestry property transfers takes the form of simple procedures but insures no security. As a result, Russia combines the merits of Germany and Japan in forestry property transfers, and request registration to ensure the safety with a much simple procedure. Given the circumstances in rural China, forestry property transferring patterns in China have adopted Japanese legislations, say creditor's rights, which provide tremendous convenience as well as insecure in property merchandise. (6) In the aspect of forestry property publication institutions, Germany has built up the most perfect institutions with incomparable accuracy and strictness in registration. Japan has adopted French property publication for real estates, but takes little registrations in real estate transaction in spite of counter publication, which illustrate the role of property publication to maintain rights. Russia has adopted German system, but emphasize on government intervention in forestry property publication. Forestry property publication institutions in China are major innovation system, and take the primary form of French counter publication. However, forestry property publication institutions in China endow the publication form of register with public confidence, which has a dispatch with property theory, and differs a great deal from Japan, German and Russia in register agencies, personnel and contents.