FOREST AND LAND USE POLICIES ON PRIVATE LANDS: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND THE UNITED STATES

The document evaluates how Brazil's Forest Code (Law No. 12.651/2012) compares to the land-use and forest protection laws of six other top agricultural exporters. It focuses on two main areas: riparian buffer zones and biodiversity conservation. The analysis finds that Brazil maintains some of the most stringent rules for private lands, particularly regarding mandatory no-harvest riparian zones and the requirement for all private properties to set aside land for biodiversity (Legal Forest Reserves) without compensation. While other countries use a mix of voluntary easements, financial incentives, and targeted zoning, Brazil's approach is more universally mandatory across private rural properties, though the report notes that the effectiveness of these rules depends on full implementation and enforcement.

• Brazil has the most stringent regulations on private land regarding riparian buffer zones and other ecological buffers among the studied countries. Its no-harvest zones range from 30 to 500 meters wide depending on the river's width, whereas other countries often allow agricultural activities or forest management within their buffers.
• Brazil is the only country in the comparison that mandates all private properties to set aside a portion of their land for biodiversity protection, known as Legal Forest Reserves, without providing financial compensation. This requirement varies from 20% to 80% of the property area based on vegetation type and location.
• While the 2012 Brazilian Forest Code provided more leniency for areas deforested before July 2008, it remains relatively more stringent than the regulations of the other reviewed countries.
• Many of the compared countries rely on financial incentives and voluntary agreements rather than mandatory set-asides. For example, the United States uses conservation easements and programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which provided approximately U$29 billion for conservation between 2014 and 2018.
• Forest ownership and the resulting policy approaches vary significantly by country; for instance, Canada's forestland is predominantly public with a strict legal regime for public lands, while France's forests are primarily private and subject to different juridical procedures for public versus private forests.
• China's forest policy has shifted from encouraging exotic rapid-growth species for industrial use toward repopulating ecologically sensitive areas with native species and protecting remaining natural forests.

APA

Chiavari, J., & Lopes, C. L. (2017). FOREST AND LAND USE POLICIES ON PRIVATE LANDS: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND THE UNITED STATES. Climate Policy Initiative. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Forest_and_Land_Use_Policies_on_Private_Lands-an_International_Comparison-1.pdf

Chicago

Chiavari, Joana, and Cristina Leme Lopes. FOREST AND LAND USE POLICIES ON PRIVATE LANDS: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND THE UNITED STATES. Climate Policy Initiative, 2017. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Forest_and_Land_Use_Policies_on_Private_Lands-an_International_Comparison-1.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Chiavari |first1=Joana |last2=Lopes |first2=Cristina Leme |title=FOREST AND LAND USE POLICIES ON PRIVATE LANDS: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND THE UNITED STATES |publisher=Climate Policy Initiative |date=October 2017 |url=https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Forest_and_Land_Use_Policies_on_Private_Lands-an_International_Comparison-1.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{chiavari2017forest, author = {Chiavari, Joana and Lopes, Cristina Leme}, title = {{FOREST AND LAND USE POLICIES ON PRIVATE LANDS: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND THE UNITED STATES}}, institution = {Climate Policy Initiative}, year = {2017}, month = oct, url = {https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Forest_and_Land_Use_Policies_on_Private_Lands-an_International_Comparison-1.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }