Examination of the implementations of taking out of forest boundaries in Istanbul in terms of forestry policy


Kose M.

JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF FORESTRY-ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY, cilt.67, sa.2, ss.157-184, 2017 (ESCI İndekslerine Giren Dergi) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 67 Konu: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2017
  • Doi Numarası: 10.17099/jffiu.293336
  • Dergi Adı: JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF FORESTRY-ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.157-184

Özet

In Turkey, forest protection and development and protection of forest villagers are among national forestry policy's primary aims. To realize these aims, forestry policy instruments are legal regulations related to forestry, forest ownership, and public relations. In this context, this study's main aims are as follows: (1) to analyze cadastral work conducted on processes of technically excluding land from forest boundaries, (2) to inspect these works' compliance with legislation's purposes, (3) to determine these works' problems from the point of view of cadaster teams, forest administrations, and forest villagers, and (4) to discuss results that might arise from implementations of excluding land from forest boundaries in terms of national forestry. For these purposes, the city of Istanbul has been selected as the area of study. However, because in terms of time and practicality, evaluating all areas removed from forest boundaries in Istanbul was not feasible, selecting a sample area on a local scale has been deemed appropriate. Therefore, in Istanbul City, Sile District, the villages of Ahmetli, Imrendere, Karamendere, Korucukoy, and Ovacik were selected for 2/B implementations, and all parcels in the sample areas were included. From study results, when different 2/B implementations with laws numbered 1744, 2896, and 3302 were evaluated with implementations of the final and definite Law numbered 5831, it was determined that significant technical errors occurred during placement of boundary stones on the area of study and also in plotting maps. Furthermore, some lands not subject to implementations did not lose their forest characteristics in technical and scientific terms and did not comply with the relevant legislation's criteria. Significant portions of areas subject to 2/B were already non-forest, privately registered, and owned lands. These lands were being used as farmland even when the forest cadaster was conducted. Moreover, even these privately registered lands were included within forest restriction boundaries, and as no objection was raised within the prescribed time, this situation became definite. It has been determined that such lands are being removed from forest boundaries with 2/B implementation, and improper transactions are thus being corrected.