#Genesis

No. 1 Switzerland's modern forest protection concept has its roots in the catastrophic floods of the 19th century. The Federal Constitution of 1874 introduced in Art. 24 the "federal supervision over forest policing in the high mountains", establishing for the first time a constitutional competence of the Confederation in the forest sector (BBl 1870 II 710).

No. 2 With the partial revision of 1897, this supervisory competence was extended to the entire federal territory (Art. 24 para. 1 former BV). The constitutional basis enabled the Federal Act concerning federal supervision over forest policing of 11 October 1902, which enshrined the quantitative forest conservation requirement.

No. 3 Within the framework of the total revision of the Federal Constitution, forest protection received an independent constitutional provision. The Dispatch of 20 November 1996 emphasises the transformation "from supervisory competence to principles-based legislation" (BBl 1997 I 386 f.). The new formulation reflects the modern multifunctionality of forests and the expanded federal competences.

#Systematic Classification

No. 4 Art. 77 BV is classified in Section 4 "Environment and Spatial Planning" of the second chapter. This systematic position underscores the close connection to → Art. 73 BV (sustainability), → Art. 74 BV (environmental protection), → Art. 75 BV (spatial planning) and ↔ Art. 76 BV (water). The provision concretises the general sustainability principle for forests and complements the environmental and spatial planning protection concepts.

No. 5 In relation to fundamental rights, Art. 77 BV acts as a constitutional immanent restriction on the guarantee of property (→ Art. 26 BV). The forest conservation requirement stands on equal footing with the guarantee of property and shapes the content of property (BGE 150 I 213 E. 4.2; Judgment 1C_364/2017 E. 5.2). Also to be noted is → Art. 699 CC, which enshrines the free right of access as a private law double norm.

No. 6 As a competence provision, Art. 77 BV follows the federalist principle of → Art. 3 BV. The principles-based legislative competence of the Confederation (para. 2) leaves the cantons considerable implementation competences, while the promotional competence (para. 3) corresponds to cooperative federalism.

#Elements of the Offence / Content of Norms

#Multifunctionality of Forests (para. 1)

No. 7 The constitutional legislator enshrines in para. 1 the three classical forest functions: The protective function encompasses protection against natural hazards (avalanches, rockfall, erosion) and the climatic compensatory function. The utilisation function primarily includes timber production as a renewable raw material. The welfare function encompasses recreation, biodiversity, water protection and air purification.

No. 8 This triad of forest functions is not exhaustive. Modern forest policy recognises additional functions such as CO₂ storage in the context of climate protection. Decisive is the equal consideration of all functions without a priori prioritisation (Griffel, Forest and Law, SZF 2012, 305).

#Principles-based Legislative Competence (para. 2)

No. 9 The principles-based legislative competence replaces the former supervisory competence. This change is more than terminological: while supervision primarily reacted to cantonal implementation deficits, principles-based legislation enables proactive framework regulation (BBl 1997 I 386).

No. 10 The term "principles" must be interpreted restrictively. The Confederation may only establish the essential guidelines, while detailed regulation and implementation remain primarily with the cantons (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Federal Constitutional Law, No. 1127). Practice shows, however, an extensive exploitation of this competence in the Forest Act.

No. 11 It is disputed whether the principles-based legislative competence also legitimises implementation competences of the Confederation. Jagmetti denies this with reference to the difference from the former supervisory competence. Hoffmann/Griffel affirm this, however, based on → Art. 46 para. 1 BV for limited federal implementation competences.

#Promotional Competence (para. 3)

No. 12 The promotional competence empowers the Confederation to take financial and non-financial support measures. Typical instruments are subsidies for protective forest care, research promotion and training contributions.

No. 13 Promotion is facultative ("it promotes") and is subject to the availability of funds. It complements the regulatory measures of principles-based legislation through incentive mechanisms of cooperative administrative action.

#Legal Consequences

No. 14 Art. 77 para. 1 BV establishes a state objective obligation without direct justiciability. Private parties cannot derive subjective rights from it. The provision, however, obliges all state organs to consider forest functions in their activities (analogous to → Art. 73 BV).

No. 15 The principles-based legislative competence (para. 2) establishes a concurrent federal competence. Insofar as the Confederation has legislated, federal law takes precedence (→ Art. 49 BV). The Forest Act largely exhausts this competence but leaves room for cantonal implementing provisions.

No. 16 The constitutional forest protection concept acts as an interpretive directive for the entire legal order. In weighing interests in authorisation procedures, forest conservation enjoys increased weight (BGE 106 Ib 136 E. 4c).

#Disputes

#Scope of Principles-based Legislation

No. 17 The permissible regulatory density in principles-based legislative competences is controversially discussed. Rausch/Marti/Griffel (Environmental Law, 142) advocate a restrictive interpretation: the Confederation may only issue framework provisions. Keller (People's Initiative "Save the Swiss Forest", 23) argues for a broader interpretation given the national importance of forest protection.

No. 18 Particularly controversial is the dynamic forest concept of the ForA. Hoffmann/Griffel criticise that the federal legislator granted the cantons plein pouvoir to replace it with the static forest concept without formulating restrictive criteria. Jaissle (The Dynamic Forest Concept, 187 ff.) defends the flexibility as necessary for cantonal spatial planning.

#Relationship to International Obligations

No. 19 The relationship between Art. 77 BV and international climate protection agreements is unclear. Schefer (oral communication) argues for an interpretation conforming to international law that gives priority consideration to CO₂ sink functions. The prevailing doctrine, however, emphasises the equal ranking of all forest functions (Zimmermann, Forest Policy Annual Review 2013, SZF 2014, 108).

#Federal Implementation in Principles-based Legislation

No. 20 The dispute about federal implementation competences with mere principles-based legislation remains current. Jagmetti sees in the constitutional revision a deliberate competence shift to the cantons. Hoffmann/Griffel and Wild (The Clearing Permit, ZBl 2002, 120) argue that → Art. 46 para. 1 BV permits specific federal implementation competences even with principles-based legislation.

#Practice Notes

No. 21 In clearing applications, the multifunctionality of forests must be comprehensively assessed. Mere compensation of the utilisation function through replacement afforestation is insufficient if protective or welfare functions are irreversibly impaired (BGE 122 II 81 E. 4b).

No. 22 Forest determination procedures must consider dynamic forest development. Decisive is not only the current vegetation coverage but also the natural ingrowth of forest areas (Art. 2 ForA). Property owners should prevent potential forest formation through timely management measures.

No. 23 In conflicts of use between recreation and forest conservation, Art. 77 BV offers no clear prioritisation. The case law on recreational activities (BGE 150 I 213) shows that intensive uses may require authorisation. Organisers should contact forest authorities at an early stage.

No. 24 Climate protection projects in forests (CO₂ certificates) must consider all forest functions. Monocultures for maximum CO₂ binding can collide with the biodiversity function. An integral approach in the sense of sustainability (→ Art. 73 BV) is mandatory.

#Constitutional Foundations and Forest Protection Conception

BGE 150 I 213 of 24 May 2024

Laser game activities in forests; precedence of federal law over cantonal licensing requirements.

The Federal Supreme Court clarifies the constitutional foundations of forest protection under Art. 77 BV and their relationship to federal forest legislation. Art. 77 BV confers on the Confederation a limited framework legislative competence for forest conservation.

«La Constitution fédérale prévoit, à son art. 77, que la Confédération veille à ce que les forêts puissent remplir leurs fonctions protectrice, économique et sociale (al. 1). Elle fixe les principes applicables à la protection des forêts (al. 2). Elle encourage les mesures de conservation des forêts (al. 3). L'alinéa 1 de cette disposition fixe les objectifs globaux de la Confédération en matière de gestion des forêts. Quant à l'alinéa 2, il attribue à la Confédération une compétence concurrente limitée aux principes, en matière de protection des forêts.»

#Deforestation Permits and Balancing of Interests

#Development of Caselaw on Deforestation Interest Balancing

BGE 119 Ib 397 of 11 November 1993

Refusal of deforestation permit for holiday home development; application of the new Forest Act.

Leading decision on the constitutional forest conservation mandate and its implementation in the new Forest Act. The Federal Supreme Court establishes that the deforestation order must remain the result of a comprehensive balancing of interests.

«Nach Art. 5 WaG bleibt die Rodungsverfügung das Ergebnis einer umfassenden Interessenabwägung. Die Voraussetzungen für die Erteilung einer Rodungsbewilligung wurden inhaltlich aus der Forstpolizeiverordnung (Art. 26 FPolV) übernommen und um die Erfüllung raumplanerischer Kriterien ergänzt.»

BGE 122 II 81 of 14 March 1996

Coordination of EIA procedures and deforestation procedures for road projects.

The Federal Supreme Court defines the procedural requirements for complex infrastructure projects that are both subject to EIA and require forest clearing. The decision clarifies the coordination obligations between different licensing procedures.

«Art. 12 WaG verlangt, dass vor der Zuweisung von Wald in eine Nutzungszone entweder eine Rodungsbewilligung oder eine verbindliche positive Stellungnahme der Rodungsbewilligungsbehörde vorliegt.»

#Deforestation for Various Uses

BGE 106 Ib 136 of 22 September 1980

Deforestation for ski slopes and ski lifts; overriding interest in forest conservation.

Leading decision on deforestation for tourism infrastructure. The Federal Supreme Court denies an overriding public interest in tourism development where substantial deforestation has already taken place in the region.

«Aufgrund des gesetzlichen Gebots der Walderhaltung seien Skipisten durch den Wald im allgemeinen nur dort zulässig, wo kurze Waldaushiebe zur Verbesserung der Linienführung oder zur Verbindung offener Abfahrtsstrecken nötig seien.»

BGE 103 Ib 54 of 6 May 1977

Deforestation for gravel extraction; balancing of interests between gravel extraction and forest conservation.

The Federal Supreme Court develops principles for balancing interests in temporary forest uses. The decisive factors are the reversibility of the deforestation and the possibility of subsequent reforestation.

«Im Gegensatz zu den häufigen Fällen, in denen die Waldbeseitigung Platz für die Errichtung eines dauernden Werkes (Haus, Strasse, Bahn) schaffen soll, wird mit der Rodung zum Zwecke der Kiesausbeutung der Wald nur vorübergehend beseitigt; durch Auffüllung und Aufforstung der ausgebeuteten Waldgrundstücke kann langfristig der Wald in seinem ursprünglichen Umfang am gleichen Ort wieder hergestellt werden.»

BGE 108 Ib 267 of 13 May 1982

Deforestation for roller slide; clarification of the balancing of interests.

The Federal Supreme Court clarifies the caselaw on the requirements for balancing interests. A compelling necessity is not required, but a significant need that outweighs the forest conservation interest is necessary.

«Die Vorschrift von Art. 26 Abs. 1 FPolV setzt für die Bewilligung einer Rodung nicht voraus, dass die Rodung einer zwingenden Notwendigkeit entspricht (Präzisierung der Rechtsprechung); sie verlangt jedoch, dass sich hiefür ein gewichtiges, das Interesse an der Walderhaltung überwiegendes Bedürfnis nachweisen lässt.»

#Property Law Aspects of Forest Conservation

Judgment 1C_364/2017 of 21 September 2018

Material expropriation and the forest conservation mandate.

The Federal Supreme Court places the forest conservation mandate under Art. 77 BV within the system of constitutional property restrictions. The forest conservation mandate stands on equal footing with the guarantee of property and has a content-shaping effect on property.

«Neben der Eigentumsgarantie stehen weitere, ihr gleichrangige Verfassungsbestimmungen wie die Gebote der Walderhaltung (Art. 77 BV), des Gewässerschutzes (Art. 76 BV) und des Umweltschutzes (Art. 74 BV), welche ebenfalls auf die Festlegung des Eigentumsinhalts einwirken.»

#Forest Use and Recreational Activities

BGE 150 I 213 of 24 May 2024

Laser game activities in forests and licensing requirement for "major events".

Current leading decision on the interpretation of federal forest use provisions and the competence of cantons to regulate specific forest uses. The Federal Supreme Court confirms that Art. 77 BV grants cantons wide discretion in specifying forest protection.

«Les jeux de combat, même sans projectiles, peuvent être considérés comme une activité présentant un potentiel important d'atteinte à la forêt [...] L'affrontement d'équipes suppose en outre de très nombreux mouvements et une occupation accrue de l'espace forestier.»

Judgment 5D_124/2010 of 21 December 2010

Private law driving prohibition in forests; relationship between forest protection and guarantee of property.

The Federal Supreme Court demonstrates how the constitutional forest conservation mandate (Art. 77 BV) also applies in private law relationships between forest owners and third parties.

«Das öffentliche Recht könne das Privatrecht im Hinblick auf den verfassungsmässigen Schutz des Waldes (Art. 77 BV) und die Eigentumsgarantie nach Art. 26 BV beschränken.»

#Special Procedural Aspects

Judgment 1A.212/2006 of 31 May 2007

Forest determination and Federal Supreme Court cognition.

The Federal Supreme Court clarifies its cognition in forest determinations and their significance for achieving the constitutional forest conservation objectives under Art. 77 BV.

«Aufgrund des Sachzusammenhangs mit dem anwendbaren Bundesrecht kann im Rahmen einer Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde auch die Anwendung des kantonalen Rechts überprüft werden, soweit dieses eng mit der Anwendung von Bundesrecht verknüpft ist.»

Judgment 1C_200/2009 of 19 February 2010

Deforestation permit and road plan; declaration as public road of the Black-Mangeli-Strasse.

The Federal Supreme Court demonstrates the coordination requirements for simultaneously running planning and licensing procedures, all of which must observe the constitutional forest protection under Art. 77 BV.