-
- Art. 5a FC
- Art. 6 FC
- Art. 10 FC
- Art. 16 FC
- Art. 17 FC
- Art. 20 FC
- Art. 22 FC
- Art. 29a FC
- Art. 30 FC
- Art. 32 FC
- Art. 42 FC
- Art. 43 FC
- Art. 43a FC
- Art. 55 FC
- Art. 56 FC
- Art. 60 FC
- Art. 68 FC
- Art. 75b FC
- Art. 77 FC
- Art. 96 para. 2 lit. a FC
- Art. 110 FC
- Art. 117a FC
- Art. 118 FC
- Art. 123b FC
- Art. 136 FC
- Art. 166 FC
-
- Art. 11 CO
- Art. 12 CO
- Art. 50 CO
- Art. 51 CO
- Art. 84 CO
- Art. 143 CO
- Art. 144 CO
- Art. 145 CO
- Art. 146 CO
- Art. 147 CO
- Art. 148 CO
- Art. 149 CO
- Art. 150 CO
- Art. 701 CO
- Art. 715 CO
- Art. 715a CO
- Art. 734f CO
- Art. 785 CO
- Art. 786 CO
- Art. 787 CO
- Art. 788 CO
- Transitional provisions to the revision of the Stock Corporation Act of June 19, 2020
- Art. 808c CO
-
- Art. 2 PRA
- Art. 3 PRA
- Art. 4 PRA
- Art. 6 PRA
- Art. 10 PRA
- Art. 10a PRA
- Art. 11 PRA
- Art. 12 PRA
- Art. 13 PRA
- Art. 14 PRA
- Art. 15 PRA
- Art. 16 PRA
- Art. 17 PRA
- Art. 19 PRA
- Art. 20 PRA
- Art. 21 PRA
- Art. 22 PRA
- Art. 23 PRA
- Art. 24 PRA
- Art. 25 PRA
- Art. 26 PRA
- Art. 27 PRA
- Art. 29 PRA
- Art. 30 PRA
- Art. 31 PRA
- Art. 32 PRA
- Art. 32a PRA
- Art. 33 PRA
- Art. 34 PRA
- Art. 35 PRA
- Art. 36 PRA
- Art. 37 PRA
- Art. 38 PRA
- Art. 39 PRA
- Art. 40 PRA
- Art. 41 PRA
- Art. 42 PRA
- Art. 43 PRA
- Art. 44 PRA
- Art. 45 PRA
- Art. 46 PRA
- Art. 47 PRA
- Art. 48 PRA
- Art. 49 PRA
- Art. 50 PRA
- Art. 51 PRA
- Art. 52 PRA
- Art. 53 PRA
- Art. 54 PRA
- Art. 55 PRA
- Art. 56 PRA
- Art. 57 PRA
- Art. 58 PRA
- Art. 59a PRA
- Art. 59b PRA
- Art. 59c PRA
- Art. 62 PRA
- Art. 63 PRA
- Art. 67 PRA
- Art. 67a PRA
- Art. 67b PRA
- Art. 75 PRA
- Art. 75a PRA
- Art. 76 PRA
- Art. 76a PRA
- Art. 90 PRA
-
- Vorb. zu Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 2 FADP
- Art. 3 FADP
- Art. 5 lit. f und g FADP
- Art. 6 Abs. 6 and 7 FADP
- Art. 7 FADP
- Art. 10 FADP
- Art. 11 FADP
- Art. 12 FADP
- Art. 14 FADP
- Art. 15 FADP
- Art. 19 FADP
- Art. 20 FADP
- Art. 22 FADP
- Art. 23 FADP
- Art. 25 FADP
- Art. 26 FADP
- Art. 27 FADP
- Art. 31 para. 2 lit. e FADP
- Art. 33 FADP
- Art. 34 FADP
- Art. 35 FADP
- Art. 38 FADP
- Art. 39 FADP
- Art. 40 FADP
- Art. 41 FADP
- Art. 42 FADP
- Art. 43 FADP
- Art. 44 FADP
- Art. 44a FADP
- Art. 45 FADP
- Art. 46 FADP
- Art. 47 FADP
- Art. 47a FADP
- Art. 48 FADP
- Art. 49 FADP
- Art. 50 FADP
- Art. 51 FADP
- Art. 54 FADP
- Art. 57 FADP
- Art. 58 FADP
- Art. 60 FADP
- Art. 61 FADP
- Art. 62 FADP
- Art. 63 FADP
- Art. 64 FADP
- Art. 65 FADP
- Art. 66 FADP
- Art. 67 FADP
- Art. 69 FADP
- Art. 72 FADP
- Art. 72a FADP
-
- Art. 2 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 3 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 4 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 5 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 6 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 7 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 8 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 9 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 11 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 12 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 25 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 29 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 32 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 33 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 34 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
CODE OF OBLIGATIONS
FEDERAL LAW ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
LUGANO CONVENTION
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON POLITICAL RIGHTS
CIVIL CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON CARTELS AND OTHER RESTRAINTS OF COMPETITION
FEDERAL ACT ON INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY ACT
FEDERAL ACT ON DATA PROTECTION
SWISS CRIMINAL CODE
CYBERCRIME CONVENTION
- I. History
- II. Context
- III. Commentary in the narrower sense
- Recommended further reading
- Bibliography
- Materials
I. History
1 The current distribution of forests and landscape structure in Switzerland is largely due to the intensive deforestation that began in the Middle Ages and continued into the 19th century. For several centuries, the forest was an indispensable source of raw materials and food and served various, sometimes conflicting, interests (in particular, forestry, gathering and shifting cultivation).
2 At the end of the 18th century and in the first half of the 19th century, deforestation and the associated destruction of the forest reached a peak. Industrialization caused the demand for wood to rise sharply. The separation of forestry from agriculture and the resulting professionalization also contributed to an intensification of wood use. The massive overuse of the forest eventually led to severe natural disasters, particularly flooding and avalanches.
3 Despite these worrying developments, the Federal Constitution of September 12, 1848, contained no provisions on forestry. This is partly due to the fact that the newly created federal constitution was a “minimal solution” that wanted to leave as many powers as possible to the cantons. On the other hand, the authorities and the population lacked awareness of the urgent need for action. Legislative authority in forestry thus remained with the cantons for the time being. However, cantonal forestry legislation was hardly able to prevent deforestation. Most of the decrees were not aimed at protecting the forest, but at erecting economically motivated trade barriers.
4 It was only after devastating floods hit the cantons of Ticino, Graubünden, St. Gallen, Valais and Uri in the fall of 1868 that the need for action at the federal level was recognized. The natural disaster is also referred to as the “decisive event for the creation of a federal forestry authority” or even as a “wake-up call”.
5 It was against this backdrop that Art. 24 aBV was incorporated into the Federal Constitution of May 29, 1874. Para. 1 granted the federal government the right of supreme supervision over water engineering and forestry police in high mountains and at the same time a fundamental legislative competence. Para. 2 obliged the federal government to support the correction and control of the wild waters as well as the afforestation of their headwaters and to establish the necessary protective provisions for the preservation of these works and the already existing forests. On March 24, 1876, the first forestry police law was enacted on the basis of the newly created constitutional norm. The aim of the decree was to preserve the forest in quantitative terms by largely prohibiting any reduction in forest area. Despite these efforts, the Forestry Police Act did not noticeably improve the situation in practice. The main reason for this was a lack of enforcement in the mountain cantons, which lacked the necessary financial means and resources to set up a forestry service.
6 Due to the lack of success of the Forest Police Act of March 24, 1876, and the growing demand for federal funding for reforestation efforts outside the federal forest area, the restriction of federal jurisdiction to the high mountains was finally eliminated in the constitutional amendment of July 11, 1897. The subsequent adaptation of the Forest Police Act came into force on August 1, 1898. However, the significance of this revision was not limited to the expansion of the spatial scope of application. The mandate to also protect the forests in the Jura and Mittelland was an expression of the important realization that “these forests, with their different functions, also form an integral part of the natural basis of life” and must therefore be preserved.
7 The extended scope and the “much greater variability of the circumstances to be regulated” required further adjustments to the legal basis. The Federal Assembly therefore passed a total revision of the Forest Police Act on October 11, 1902. The funding instruments were greatly expanded through federal funding to support afforestation, for example. The right of ordinance, which defined the terms forest and deforestation and, from 1965, set out the binding conditions for deforestation, also played an important role. The measures proved effective, with Switzerland's forest area increasing by over 40 percent during the 20th century.
8 In the second half of the 20th century, conditions changed significantly compared to when the Forest Police Act was passed in 1902. The focus was on the forest dieback that came to the attention of politicians in the 1980s, the growing pressure on the forest ecosystem due to increasing urban sprawl and the deteriorating economic situation of forestry operations due to falling yields. In addition, the population became increasingly aware of the functions of the forest as protection against natural hazards, as a natural habitat and as a recreational area. Furthermore, politicians realized that mere quantitative forest protection was not enough to preserve the forest functions. Measures of qualitative forest conservation through active tending and management of the forest became necessary.
9 In the light of these new challenges, the Forest Police Act of October 11, 1902, was again completely revised towards the end of the 20th century. On October 4, 1991, the Federal Assembly passed the Forest Act that is in force today. This came into force on January 1, 1993, together with the Forest Ordinance of November 30, 1992. In terms of constitutional law, the Forest Act is more broadly based than the earlier Forest Police Act. Under the Federal Constitution of May 29, 1874, it was based not only on Article 24 of the Federal Constitution, but also on Articles 24sexies (protection of nature and the homeland), 24septies (environmental protection) and 31bis (economic national defense) of the Federal Constitution. The Forest Act contains a comprehensive set of regulations on the principles of forest law; its entry into force also marked the transition from a purely quantitative understanding of forest conservation to one that is reinforced with qualitative elements.
10 The Forest Act also formed the starting point for the revision of Art. 24 of the Federal Constitution in the course of the total revision of the Federal Constitution of April 18, 1999. The constitutional provision was to be merely updated and editorially revised in line with the explicit goal of the revision. The part of Art. 24 para. 1 FC that is relevant to the forest was transferred to the current Art. 77 para. 2 FC. The term “supreme supervision”, which also included the power to enact basic legislation (see above, N. 5), disappeared from the constitutional text, as did the term “forest police”. In a contemporary formulation, the provision simply states that the Confederation shall define the principles for the protection of the forest. The elements of Article 24 para. 2 FC concerning the forest can be found in Article 77 para. 3 FC in a linguistically adapted form. The forest functions already mentioned in Art. 1 WaG (protective, productive and welfare functions) were also newly defined in Art. 77 para. 1 FC and thus at the constitutional level. The content of Art. 24 aBV concerning the water police was incorporated into Art. 76 FC.
11 Article 77 FC has not been amended since the Federal Constitution of April 18, 1999 came into force on January 1, 2000. In 2005, the Helvetia Nostra Foundation launched a popular initiative entitled “Save the Swiss Forest” to amend Article 77 FC. The aim of this was to tighten the ban on deforestation and to promote natural silviculture. The Federal Assembly did not accept the indirect counter-proposal subsequently submitted by the Federal Council. The initiative committee then announced the withdrawal of the popular initiative. Subsequent partial revisions of the Forest Act were adopted that did not require any amendments to the Constitution (2012: more flexible forestry policy; 2016: improved prevention with regard to biotic hazards and climate change, promotion of the timber industry, new regulations for forestry training).
II. Context
A. Preliminary remarks
12 Thematically, Art. 77 FC is assigned to Section 4, “Environment and Spatial Planning”. This assignment already shows that the forest is not to be understood in isolation, but “in concert with the other provisions of this section”. There are close links in particular to sustainability (Art. 73 FC), to environmental, nature and homeland protection (Art. 74 and Art. 78 FC) and to spatial planning (Art. 75 FC), especially since the Forest Act is also partly based on these constitutional provisions (see above, N. 9). In addition, Art. 77 FC is also related to water protection (Art. 76 para. 3 FC) and to fishing and hunting (Art. 79 FC).
B. Sustainability (Art. 73 FC)
13 Art. 73 FC explicitly enshrines the principle of sustainability at the constitutional level. Accordingly, the Confederation and the cantons shall strive for a balanced relationship between nature and its capacity for renewal on the one hand and the demands placed on it by humans on the other. The principle of sustainability was originally developed in forestry. It was in this context that it was first mentioned (at least implicitly) at the federal constitutional level. Art. 24 para. 2 aBV (before, N. 5) provided that “existing forests” were to be preserved. Since sustainability has now been placed before the environmental and spatial planning provisions as a constitutional principle in Art. 73 FC, it was no longer necessary to mention it again in Art. 77 FC. The sustainability principle thus continues to apply without restriction in forestry law. It is reflected, for example, in the forest conservation requirement in accordance with Art. 1 para. 1 let. a and Art. 3 Forest Act and is explicitly mentioned as a management principle in Art. 20 para. 1 Forest Act. Finally, the main objective of the “Forest Policy: Objectives and Measures 2021–2024” approved by the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications on May 26, 2021, is to ensure sustainable forest management.
C. Environmental, nature and heritage protection (Art. 74 and 78 FC)
14 Since the forest is part of the natural environment, the environmental protection regulated in Art. 74 FC overlaps to some extent with the content of Art. 77 FC. There are thematic links, for example, to air pollution control and protection against environmentally hazardous substances (Art. 18 Forest Act). Furthermore, as a habitat for animals and plants, forests fall within the scope of nature and cultural heritage protection under Article 78 FC (in particular para. 4 on species and biotope protection and para. 5 on the protection of mires and mire landscapes). These cross-references are also reflected in the relevant implementing legislation. For example, the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and the Homeland contains provisions on the protection of special forest communities (Art. 18 para. 1bis NHG), on forestry use (Art. 18c para. 1, Art. 19 and Art. 23d para. 2 lit. a NHG) and on riparian vegetation (Art. 21 NHG). The Federal Council inventory ordinances for the protection of alluvial zones and mires and moorland also include alluvial zone and mire forests and thus serve their conservation.
15 The relationship between forest law and environmental and nature protection and heritage conservation legislation is subject to some uncertainties. Case law has so far only commented on this selectively. For example, the Federal Court ruled that forest law is a lex specialis in relation to Art. 32d of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (assignment of costs for the remediation of contaminated sites). With reference to this ruling in particular, legal scholars hold the view that forest law generally takes precedence over environmental and nature and heritage protection legislation. However, as far as the protection of forests in their function as biotopes is concerned, the provisions of species and biotope protection take precedence. According to the view presented here, the provisions of forest law and environmental and nature and heritage protection legislation are generally applied alongside each other, especially since it is difficult to determine which provisions fall under forest law in some cases. Any conflicts between norms must be resolved in the context of the interpretation of the law. Since the Federal Court did not explain the reasons for its decision that forest law takes precedence in this specific case, no further statement can be inferred from the judgment, apart from the relationship between forest law and Art. 32d EPA, regarding the relationship to environmental and nature and home protection legislation.
D. Spatial planning (Art. 75 FC)
16 Article 75 FC grants the Confederation the power to legislate on the principles of spatial planning. As spatial planning is relevant for all state tasks with spatial implications, it has an interdisciplinary function. In principle, forests are also subject to spatial planning, as can be seen from Art. 1 para. 2 let. a and Art. 3 para. 2 let. e of the Spatial Planning Act (SPA), according to which forests and their functions are to be protected by spatial planning measures.
17 There is a special feature regarding land-use planning. In this context, Art. 18 para. 3 RPG stipulates that forest area is defined and protected by forestry legislation. Consequently, forest is excluded from the otherwise comprehensive land-use planning and is instead subject to the regime of forest legislation, without being excluded from the scope of spatial planning law. The forest definition is regulated in Art. 10 WaG. Accordingly, anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate interest can have the canton determine whether an area is a forest (para. 1). In addition, when issuing and revising land-use plans in accordance with the Spatial Planning Act, a forest determination must be ordered in areas where building zones border on forests or are planned to do so in the future (lit. a) and outside the building zones where the canton wants to prevent an increase in forest (lit. b).
18 The Forest Act therefore contains various substantive spatial planning provisions, some of which also refer to land-use planning in order to ensure a certain degree of coordination. Attention is drawn in the first instance to Art. 11 ff. of the 'Forest and Spatial Planning' section, which govern the relationship between clearing and building permits (Art. 11 WaG), the allocation of forest to a usage zone (Art. 12 WaG) and the demarcation of forest and usage zones (Art. 13 WaG). Furthermore, the Forest Act refers to spatial planning law in Art. 5 para. 2 let. b (exemption permit for deforestation), Art. 10 para. 2 (forestry determination in the enactment and revision of land-use plans) and Art. 17 (forestry distance).
III. Commentary in the narrower sense
A. Preliminary remarks
19 Article 77 FC is divided into three paragraphs. According to para. 1, the Confederation shall ensure that the forest can fulfil its protective, useful and welfare functions. To this end and to ensure a certain degree of harmonization in forest law, the Confederation shall then have the power to enact framework legislation (principle legislation) in accordance with para. 2. Finally, para. 3 enshrines a mandatory promotional competence of the Confederation for the conservation of the forest.
B. Forest
1. Qualitative and quantitative forest concept
20 The Federal Constitution does not elaborate in detail how the forest concept used in Art. 77 FC is to be understood. However, a corresponding legal definition can be found in the implementing legislation in Art. 2 ForestA in conjunction with Art. 1 ForestO. It includes both qualitative and quantitative characteristics and is essentially based on the description in the old law in the Implementing Ordinance of October 1, 1965, as well as the Federal Supreme Court rulings issued to date.
21 The qualitative characteristics arise from Art. 2 para. 1 WaG. According to this, forest is defined as any area that is stocked with forest trees or forest shrubs and can fulfill forest functions. Its origin, type of use and designation in the land register are not decisive. As a defining characteristic, the area in question must be capable of fulfilling protective, productive or welfare functions in accordance with Art. 1 para. 1 let. c LFA (see below, N. 30). It is sufficient for the area under consideration to fulfill just one of the aforementioned functions. The presence of characteristic forest soil, a forest fringe and a forest microclimate typically indicates the presence of forest. Finally, the qualitative forest concept is further defined by means of a positive and negative catalog in Art. 2 paras. 2 and 3 WaG and Art. 2 and 3 WaV, in that certain phenomena are included or excluded.
22 In order to simplify and standardize the assessment of forest quality, especially in the case of smaller stands, the first sentence of Art. 2 para. 4 of the Forest Act allows the cantons to define the unspecified qualitative forest concept in more detail by means of quantitative characteristics. Accordingly, the cantons may determine the minimum width, surface area and age of a growing area, and the minimum width and surface area of other stocking that is considered to be forest. When determining these, they must adhere to the framework set by the Federal Council in Art. 1 para. 1 WaV (see below, N. 23). If the thresholds set in this way are reached, the fulfillment of forest functions and thus forest quality (except under exceptional circumstances) is considered to be given. On the other hand, if the values are not reached, it cannot be automatically concluded that there is no forest, but rather an assessment must be made based on the qualitative characteristics (see also below, N. 25).
23 When setting the quantitative criteria, the cantons must ensure that these do not undermine the qualitative definition of forest, but rather serve only to clarify it. In its previous case law, the Federal Supreme Court assumed that stocked areas of around 500 square meters or more, 12 meters wide and 15 years old are regularly suitable for performing forest functions. It is therefore contrary to the qualitative concept of forest if the cantons apply the maximum values specified in Art. 1 para. 1 WaV “mechanically and indiscriminately”. In this case, the above-mentioned values defined by the Federal Supreme Court apply instead of the cantonal criteria.
24 A special regulation, which was adopted from the case law of the Federal Supreme Court and incorporated into the law, can be found in Art. 2 para. 4, sentence 2, WaG and Art. 1 para. 2, WaV. According to this, regardless of its area, its width or its age, a stand of trees is always considered to be forest under federal law if the stand of trees fulfills a particularly important welfare or protective function. If this is the case, the threshold values do not apply. In other words, the provisions stipulate that if the stocking has a special functional significance, quantitative criteria are not to be taken into account. These include, in particular, very small areas of stocking along watercourses (riparian woody vegetation as per Art. 18 para. 1bis NCHA) and those that are of particular importance due to their composition (rare forest associations as per Art. 18 para. 1bis NCHA). They also include small areas of stocking that have a particularly strong influence on the landscape due to their location.
25 The special regulation is intended to ensure that, under certain conditions, areas of stocking that do not meet the cantonal minimum criteria can also be considered as forest. In this case, it is not sufficient that the areas can fulfill forest functions (see Art. 2 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 let. b LFA). Rather, according to the text of the law and the ordinance, such stockings only acquire forest characteristics in the sense of a qualification if they fulfill welfare or protective functions “to a particular extent” (see above, N. 24). However, this qualifying requirement does not apply to every case in which the minimum cantonal criteria are not met: the special regulation is only relevant if the minimum cantonal criteria have been set in such a way that they specify the qualitative forest concept in line with the Federal Supreme Court's case law (see above, N. 23). According to the Federal Supreme Court, this is always to be denied if a canton makes full use of the federal legal framework without differentiation. In such cases, the Federal Supreme Court does not limit its examination to whether a stand of trees fulfills welfare or protective functions to a particular degree, but rather focuses on the qualitative requirements according to Art. 2 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 let. b LFA; this applies in any case to stocked areas from a size of about 500 square meters, a width of 12 meters and an age of 15 years (see above, N. 23).
26 Finally, the question remains to what extent the requirement that the stocking must fulfill welfare or protective functions to a “particular degree” places higher demands on the forest functions than the qualitative forest concept. The same also applies to the question of whether Art. 2 para. 4 WaG and Art. 1 para. 2 WaV require the actual fulfillment of welfare or protective functions (as the wording suggests) or, as in the case of Art. 2 para. 1 WaG (see above, N. 21), whether suitability for fulfillment is sufficient. However, these questions go beyond the scope of the present commentary on Article 77 FC.
2. Dynamic and static forest concept
27 The forest concept does not define any spatial boundaries. Rather, forest can develop anywhere, provided that an area stocked with forest trees or shrubs meets the relevant qualitative and quantitative characteristics. The expansion of the forest can be intentional or unintentional. The forest determines “its local area of applicability and its purpose of use under its own power under federal law”. If the expansion of the forest contradicts cantonal and municipal land-use planning, the latter is superseded. In case law and doctrine, therefore, there is talk of a dynamic forest concept. However, the dynamic forest concept is breached in two ways. In the context of a forest determination, it is replaced by the static forest concept in areas where building zones border on the forest or are planned to do so in the future (Art. 10 para. 2 let. a ForestA) or – outside the building zones – in areas where the canton wants to prevent an increase in forest (Art. 10 para. 2 let. b ForestA). In the latter case, the areas concerned must be designated in the cantonal structure plan in accordance with Art. 12a WaV. The relevant forest boundaries must then be entered in the land-use plans (Art. 13 para. 1 WaG), with the result that new stockings outside these boundaries are not considered to be forest (Art. 13 para. 2 WaG). Consequently, the removal of such stockings is permitted without a clearing permit in the corresponding areas.
C. Paragraph 1: Objective
28 According to Art. 77 para. 1 FC, the Confederation shall ensure that the forest can fulfill its protective, economic and welfare functions as a target. In contrast to Art. 24 AFC, which was primarily focused on the protective function, a “broader understanding of the function of the forest” is now enshrined in constitutional law (see above, N. 5). At the same time, this also substantiates the thrust of the fundamental legislative competence under Art. 77 para. 2 FC and the implementing competence based on it. The objectives enshrined in Art. 77 para. 1 FC must also be observed when interpreting the law. Furthermore, the requirement has an impact on the definition of ownership in that the permissible use (in particular in the implementing legislation) is described in more detail. Even if the constitutional text does not state, as it does in Art. 76 para. 1 FC, that the Confederation is to ensure the fulfilment of the forest functions “within the scope of its powers”, the Confederation is not granted any additional powers under Art. 77 para. 1 FC beyond those specified in paras. 2 and 3.
29 The protective function of the forest is to protect people and property from natural hazards, such as avalanches, landslides, erosion and rockfall (see Art. 1 para. 2 WaG). The utilization function is particularly relevant when wood is extracted from the forest as a raw material for construction or energy purposes. The forest then fulfills a welfare function if it “serves people as a recreational area due to its location, structure, stocking and design”. Furthermore, the latter function is demonstrated by the fact that the forest shapes the landscape, protects against harmful environmental influences (such as noise), safeguards water supplies in terms of quality and quantity, and provides a habitat for animals and plants.
30 The various forest functions are not ranked in any order, but are fundamentally equally important. However, the cantons are required to ensure sustainable forest management and to enact planning and management regulations for this purpose (Art. 20 para. 1 and 2 WaG). According to Art. 18 para. 2 of the Forest Ordinance (WaV), at least the site conditions and the forest functions and their weighting must be recorded in the forestry planning documents. Accordingly, despite the fundamental equality of the forest functions, a focus is set. For historical and traditional reasons, the protective function is of particular importance (see Art. 20 para. 5 WaG).
31 Finally, the principle of forest conservation is (at least implicitly) derived from the objectives set out in Art. 77 para. 1 FC. It is explicitly mentioned in Art. 77 para. 3 FC. While forest conservation used to be understood in the sense of quantitative forest protection (see above, N. 5), it is now understood in a broader sense that also encompasses qualitative forest protection. The fundamental ban on deforestation in accordance with Art. 5 WaG remains central here. In addition, reference is made to the implementing legislation in Art. 14 et seq. (protection against various types of impairment) and 20 et seq. WaG (management and use of the forest).
D. Paragraph 2: Basic legislative competence
32 Article 77 para. 2 FC grants the Confederation the power to legislate on the protection of the forest. This was still expressed in Article 24 para. 1 aFC by the fact that the Confederation was granted the right of supreme supervision over the forest police (see above, N. 5). Whether and to what extent the two formulations have the same meaning is controversial. Some legal scholars are of the opinion that although the power to legislate that arises from the supreme supervision corresponds to the power to enact framework legislation, the power to enforce the law by the federal government is also derived from it. Elsewhere, the term “supreme supervision” is interpreted restrictively to mean that the federal government may only make subsidiary use of the power, to the extent necessary for the supreme supervision. Regardless of these earlier terminological ambiguities, it seems clear under current law that the federal government may be responsible for enforcement based on legislation (Art. 46 para. 1 FC), even if this is no longer expressly granted in Art. 77 FC. In this context, particular reference is made to Art. 49 para. 1 Forest Act, according to which the Confederation shall supervise the enforcement of the Forest Act and carry out the tasks conferred directly upon it by this Act.
33 The fundamental legislative power allows the federal government to legislate minimum requirements in terms of the objectives of Art. 77 para. 1 FC and to ensure the necessary legal harmonization, while at the same time leaving the cantons their own regulatory leeway. However, this does not preclude the federal government from also creating directly applicable standards and regulating in detail aspects that are considered particularly important. In certain areas, the Forest Act has extensive and at the same time far-reaching regulatory content. For example, it contains directly applicable provisions on deforestation and forest determination (Art. 4 ff. WaG) and on spatial planning (Art. 11 ff. WaG). When the Forest Act was created, the comprehensive regulation was justified by the fact that the Federal Constitution placed “responsibility for the forest in the hands of the Confederation”, which is why the legislature had to take this principle into account. The aspects crucial to forest conservation should therefore be regulated by law. Since the depth of regulation of the Forest Act was already known at the time of the enactment of Article 77 FC, it can be assumed that the wording “principles of forest protection” is to be understood broadly. Even if the view were to be taken that the content of individual provisions goes beyond the basic legislative competence, Article 190 FC would preclude non-application.
E. Paragraph 3: Promotion of conservation measures
34 Article 77, para. 3 FC establishes a mandatory promotional competence of the Confederation for the conservation of the forest. The measures are to be geared towards the quantitative and qualitative conservation of the forest. Consequently, they must serve to ward off dangers for the forest. The specific design of the promotional instruments is left to the implementing legislation. The primary consideration is the granting of subsidies (Art. 35 ff. WaG), but also precautions against harmful organisms (Art. 27a WaG) and measures for adaptation to climate change (Art. 28a WaG), as well as the promotion of training, advice, research and the provision of basic information (Art. 29 ff. WaG). Limits arise from the economic freedom under Article 27 FC. For example, the federal government is prohibited from influencing the forestry and wood industries by means of economic control measures, as there is no constitutional basis for this, such as that provided for in Article 104, para. 2 FC for agriculture. A deviation is only possible in the event of forest disasters or exceptional timber yields, based on Art. 102 para. 2 FC and Art. 28 and Art. 38a para. 1 lit. c WaG.
35The Forest Act led to an increase in subsidies. The available federal funds and contribution rates were increased with the aim of guaranteeing the survival of forestry operations, which in turn were to ensure the quantitative and qualitative preservation of the forest. Initially, the Forest Act provided for a complex system of subsidies. Subsidies and financial assistance were then granted on a project-specific basis and scaled according to the financial strength of the cantons. With the reorganization of the financial equalization and division of tasks between the Confederation and the cantons (NFE) on January 1, 2008, the tasks, responsibilities and financial flows between the Confederation and the cantons were unbundled as much as possible and reasonable. Support for the cantons now generally takes the form of multi-year programs with agreed objectives, as well as global and flat-rate contributions instead of individual subsidies. Program agreements (public-law contracts) between the federal government and the cantons (Art. 46 para. 2 FC) serve as the instrument for granting subsidies. The Forest Act was also amended accordingly, specifically Art. 36 ff. WaG, according to which subsidies must be granted on the basis of program agreements. The relevant legal provisions are substantively specified in Art. 39 ff. WaV and formally in Art. 46 ff. WaV. Based on these, the two program agreements “Forest” and “Protective Structures and Hazard Foundations” were concluded. The first program agreement mentioned includes the sub-programs “Protective Forest,” “Forest Biodiversity” and “Forest Management.” Subsidies are now only granted by decree in exceptional cases, when the project requires an individual assessment by the federal government (Art. 36 para. 2 and Art. 37a para. 2 Forest Act G) or in the case of extraordinary events (Art. 37 para. 1bis and Art. 38a para. 2 let. b in conjunction with para. 1 let. c of the Federal Act on Gambling and Gambling Casinos (GamblA)).
About the authors
Martin Looser studied law at the University of Bern and worked as a research assistant at various chairs in Bern and Basel. Today, he is a partner at ettlersuter Attorneys at Law in Zurich and represents private individuals, organizations, companies and the public sector in public law matters, in particular in the areas of environmental, planning and construction law, disability equality law and animal law. He also works as an expert.
Alexander Lueger studied law at the University of Lucerne and worked for several years at a chair of private law and comparative private law. He has been an attorney at ettlersuter Rechtsanwälte since 2022. He advises and litigates in public law, with a focus on environmental, planning and construction law, as well as in private law.
Recommended further reading
Abt Thomas, Zehn Jahre Waldgesetzgebung des Bundes: Eine Zwischenbilanz aus kantonaler Sicht, SZF 2002, S. 356 ff.
Bloetzer Gotthard, Zur Entwicklung der schweizerischen Forstgesetzgebung, SZF 1992, S. 607 ff.
Bolgè Roberto/Schmutz Adrian, Neue Massnahmen für die Waldpolitik, Wald und Holz 2022, S. 37 ff.
Brändli Urs-Beat/Abegg Meinrad/Allgaier Leuch Barbara, Schweizerisches Landforstinventar, Ergebnisse der vierten Erhebung 2009–2017, Birmensdorf 2020, DOI: 10.16904/envidat.146.
Bühlmann Lukas/Kissling Samuel, Waldrodung für Siedlungszwecke?, Rechtsgutachten für den Kanton Zürich, Raum & Umwelt 2/2013, S. 1 ff.
Bundesamt für Umwelt (Hrsg.), Waldpolitik 2020 vom Bundesrat gutgeheissen am 31.8.2011, BBl 2011 8731 ff., abrufbar unter https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2011/1502/de, besucht am 4.10.2024.
Depenheuer Otto/Möhring Bernhard (Hrsg.), Waldeigentum, Dimensionen und Perspektiven, Berlin et al. 2010.
Favre Anne-Christine/Jungo Fabia, Chronique du droit de l’environnement, Deuxième partie, La protection de la forêt, des biotopes et du paysage, RDAF 2008, S. 307 ff.
Griffel Alain, Wald und Recht (Essay), SZF 2012, S. 304 ff.
Keel Alois/Zimmermann Willi, Der Wald im Lichte der neueren bundesgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung, SZF 2009, S. 263 ff.
Keel Alois/Zimmermann Will, Bundesgerichtliche Rechtsprechung zur Waldgesetzgebung 2000–2008, URP 2009, S. 237 ff.
Keller Peter M., Rechtliche Aspekte der neuen Waldgesetzgebung, AJP 1993, S. 144 ff.
Landolt-Parolini Daniel, Einflüsse der Landwirtschaftspolitik des Bundes auf den Wald, in: Bisang Kurt/Hirschi Christian/Ingold Karin (Hrsg.), Umwelt und Gesellschaft im Einklang?, Festschrift für Willi Zimmermann, Zürich et al. 2011, S. 153 ff.
Lieberherr Eva/Coleman Evelyn/Ohmura Tamaki/Wilkes-Allemann Jerylee/Zabel Astrid, Optimierung der Waldpolitik, Bericht im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Umwelt, 2023, abrufbar unter https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/de/dokumente/wald-holz/externe-studien-berichte/optimierung-der-waldpolitik-2020.pdf.download.pdf/Optimierung_der_Waldpolitik_2020.pdf, besucht am 4.10.2024.
Nay Giusep, Die bundesgerichtliche Rechtsprechung zur neuen Waldgesetzgebung, SZF 2002, S. 362 ff.
Ohmura Tamaki/Norer Roland/Lieberherr Eva, Waldpolitischer Jahresrückblick 2021, SZF 2022, S. 230 ff.
Pettenella Davide, Strumenti innovativi nel marketing dei prodotti e servizi forestali: i pagamenti volontari per servizi ambientali e ricreativi, in: Bisang Kurt/Hirschi Christian/Ingold Karin (Hrsg.), Umwelt und Gesellschaft im Einklang?, Festschrift für Willi Zimmermann, Zürich et al. 2011, S. 135 ff.
Schmidhauser Albin, Neuregelung von Verfügungsrechten in der Luzerner Waldwirtschaft, in: Bisang Kurt/Hirschi Christian/Ingold Karin (Hrsg.), Umwelt und Gesellschaft im Einklang?, Festschrift für Willi Zimmermann, Zürich et al. 2011, S. 171 ff.
Sonanini, Das neue Waldgesetz und die Raumplanung, BR 1992, S. 83 ff.
Spörri Andy/Steg Carmen/Bronzini Luca/Meier Fabienne/ Perch-Nielsen Sabine/Willi Christian/Steinmüller Karlheinz, Zukunftsszenarien Wald und Holz 2050, Schlussbericht im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Umwelt vom 9.1.2023, abrufbar unter https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/de/dokumente/wald-holz/externe-studien-berichte/zukunftsszenarien-wald-und-holz-2050.pdf.download.pdf/Zukunftsszenarien_Wald_und_Holz_2050_DE.pdf, besucht am 4.10.2024.
Steinmann Kathrin/Lieberherr Eva/Zimmermann Willi, Waldpolitik der Schweiz, Ein Lehrbuch, Zürich et al. 2017.
Weisz Leo, Forstpolitik und Forstverwaltung in der Helvetik, SZF 1948, S. 187 ff.
Wild Florian, Die Rodungsbewilligung im Rahmen der Neuregelungen des Bundes über die Verfahrenskoordination und über die Aufsicht im Bereich der Walderhaltung, ZBl 2002, S. 113 ff.
Wild-Eck Stephan, Der Wald: Die Sportanlage Nummer 1 im Spannungsfeld unterschiedlicher Interessen, in: Bisang Kurt/Hirschi Christian/Ingold Karin (Hrsg.), Umwelt und Gesellschaft im Einklang?, Festschrift für Willi Zimmermann, Zürich et al. 2011, S. 189 ff.
Wilkes-Allmann Jerylee/Zabel Astrid/Coleman Brantschen Evelyn/Ohmura Tamaki/Lieberherr Eva, Eine Evaluation der Waldpolitik 2020 und ein Ausblick, SZF 2023, S. 132 ff.
Williams Michael, Dark Ages and Dark Areas: Global Deforestation in the Deep Past, Journal of Historical Geography 200, S. 28 ff.
Wullschleger Erwin, Die Erfassung der Waldunktionen, Bericht Nr. 238 der Eidgenössischen Anstalt für das forstliche Versuchswesen, Birmensdorf 1982.
Wulz Christian, Grundlagen und Kompetenzordnung beim präventiven Umgang mit Naturgefahren im Wasser-, Wald-, Raumplanungs- und öffentlichen Baurecht, Zürich et al. 2020.
Zimmermann Willi/Keel Alois, Rechtsgutachten zu den Schwächen in der biodiversitätsrelevanten Gesetzgebung und entsprechenden Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten, Zürich 2010.
Zufferey Roger, Aspects juridiques des activités de loisirs et de détente en forêt, URP 2010, S. 337 ff.
Bibliography
Abt Thomas/Norer Roland/Wild Florian/Wisard Nicolas, Kommentierung der Einleitung, in: Abt Thomas/Norer Roland/Wild Florian/Wisard Nicolas (Hrsg.), WaG, Kommentar zum Waldgesetz, Zürich et al. 2022.
Biaggini Giovanni, BV Kommentar, 2. Aufl., Zürich 2017.
Bloetzer Gotthard, Die Oberaufsicht über die Forstpolizei nach schweizerischem Bundesstaatsrecht, Zürich 1978.
Brunner Ursula/Looser Martin, Das Verhältnis von Luft und Wald im Spiegel politischer Herausforderungen, in: Bisang Kurt/Hirschi Christian/Ingold Karin (Hrsg.), Umwelt und Gesellschaft im Einklang?, Festschrift für Willi Zimmermann, Zürich et al. 2011, S. 71 ff.
Bundesamt für Umwelt (Hrsg.), Waldpolitik: Ziele und Massnahmen 2021 – 2024, Bern 2021 (zit. Waldpolitik).
Bundesamt für Umwelt (Hrsg.), Handbuch Programmvereinbarungen im Umweltbereich 2020 – 2024, Bern 2018 (zit. Programmvereinbarungen).
Epiney Astrid/Kern Markus/Diezig Stefan, Zur Implementierung des Smaragd-Netzwerks in der Schweiz: Perspektiven der Einbindung der Schweiz in ein europäisches Naturschutzgebietsnetz, Zürich et al. 2013.
Errass Christoph, Kommentierung zu Art. 73 BV, in: Ehrenzeller Bernhard/Egli Patricia/Hettich Peter/Hongler Peter/Schindler Benjamin/Schmid Stefan G./Schweizer Rainer J. (Hrsg.), Die schweizerische Bundesverfassung, St. Galler Kommentar, 4. Aufl., Zürich et al. 2023.
Griffel Alain, Umweltrecht, in a nutshell, Zürich et al. 2019.
Grossmann Heinrich, Die schweiz. Forstwirtschaft in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, SZF 1949, S. 464 ff. (zit. Forstwirtschaft).
Grossmann Heinrich, Forstgesetzgebung und Forstwirtschaft in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (1803–1848), SZF 1948, S. 379 ff. (zit. Forstgesetzgebung).
Hoffmann Kristin/Griffel Alain, Kommentierung zu Art. 77 BV, in: Waldmann Bernhard/Belser Eva Maria/Epiney Astrid (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Schweizerische Bundesverfassung, Basel 2015.
Hürlimann Katja, Holzwirtschaft, in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS), Version vom 8.1.2008, abrufbar unter https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/export/articles/014025/2008-01-08/WebHome?format=pdf&pdftemplate=HLSCode.ArticlePdfExport, besucht am 4.10.2024.
Irniger Margrit, Wald, 2. Mittelalter und frühe Neuzeit, in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS), Version vom 29.4.2015, abrufbar unter https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/export/articles/007849/2015-04-29/WebHome?format=pdf&pdftemplate=HLSCode.ArticlePdfExport, besucht am 4.10.2024.
Jagmetti Riccardo, Kommentierung zu Art. 24 aBV, in: Aubert Jean-François/Eichenberger Kurt/Müller Jörg Paul/Rhinow René A./Schindler Dietrich (Hrsg.), Kommentar zur Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft vom 29. Mai 1874, Bern 1996 (zit. Kommentar BV 1874).
Jaissle Stefan M., Der dynamische Waldbegriff und die Raumplanung, Eine Darstellung der Waldgesetzgebung unter raumplanungsrechtlichen Aspekten, Zürich 1994.
Jenni Hans-Peter, Kommentierung der Vorb. zu Art. 1 WaG, in: Abt Thomas/Norer Roland/Wild Florian/Wisard Nicolas (Hrsg.), WaG, Kommentar zum Waldgesetz, Zürich et al. 2022 (zit. Kommentar WaG).
Jenni Hans-Peter, Vor lauter Bäumen den Wald doch noch sehen: Ein Wegweiser durch die neue Waldgesetzgebung, Bern 1993 (zit. Wegweiser).
Kilchhofer Christian, Kommentierung der Vorb. zu Art. 35 ff. WaG, in: Abt Thomas/Norer Roland/Wild Florian/Wisard Nicolas (Hrsg.), WaG, Kommentar zum Waldgesetz, Zürich et al. 2022 (zit. Kommentar WaG).
Largey Thierry, Kommentierung zu Art. 77 BV, in: Martenet Vincent/Dubey Jacques (Hrsg.), Commentaire romand, Constitution fédérale, Basel 2021.
Mader Luzius, Die Sozial- und Umweltverfassung, AJP 1999, S. 698 ff.
Mahon Pascal, Kommentierung zu Art. 77 BV, in: Aubert Jean-François /Mahon Pascal, Petit commentaire de la Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du avril 1999, Zürich et al. 2003 (zit. Petit commentaire).
Malanima Paolo, Energy Crisis and Growth 1650–1850: The European Deviation in a Comparative Perspective, Journal of Global History 2006, S. 101 ff.
Marti Arnold, Kommentierung zu Art. 77 BV, in: Ehrenzeller Bernhard/Egli Patricia/Hettich Peter/Hongler Peter/Schindler Benjamin/Schmid Stefan G./Schweizer Rainer J. (Hrsg.), Die schweizerische Bundesverfassung, St. Galler Kommentar, 4. Aufl., Zürich et al. 2023.
Marti Arnold, § 10 Waldrecht, in: Haller Walter (Hrsg.), Umweltrecht, Ein Lehrbuch, Zürich et al. 2004, S. 139 ff. (zit. Waldrecht).
Mather Alexander, The Transition from Deforestation to Reforestation in Europe, in: Angelsen Arild/Kaimowitz David (Hrsg.), Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation, Wallingford 2001, S. 35 ff.
Muggli Rudolf, Kommentierung zu Art. 18 RPG, in: Aemisegger Heinz, Moor Pierre, Ruch Alexander, Tschannen Pierre (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar RPG: Nutzungsplanung, Zürich et al. 2016 (zit. Praxiskommentar).
Norer Roland, Kommentierung zu Art. 2 WaG, in: Abt Thomas/Norer Roland/Wild Florian/Wisard Nicolas (Hrsg.), WaG, Kommentar zum Waldgesetz, Zürich et al. 2022 (zit. Kommentar WaG).
Ruch Alexander/Hettich Peter, Kommentierung zu Art. 75 BV, in: Ehrenzeller Bernhard/Egli Patricia/Hettich Peter/Hongler Peter/Schindler Benjamin/Schmid Stefan G./Schweizer Rainer J. (Hrsg.), Die schweizerische Bundesverfassung, St. Galler Kommentar, 4. Aufl., Zürich et al. 2023.
Schuler Anton, Wald, 2. 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS), Version vom 29.4.2015, abrufbar unter https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/export/articles/007849/2015-04-29/WebHome?format=pdf&pdftemplate=HLSCode.ArticlePdfExport, besucht am 4.10.2024 (zit. Wald).
Schuler Anton, Forstgesetze, in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS), Version vom 17.8.2007, abrufbar unter https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/export/articles/013802/2007-08-17/WebHome?format=pdf&pdftemplate=HLSCode.ArticlePdfExport, besucht am 4.10.2024 (zit. Forstgesetze).
Summermatter Stephanie, Die Prävention von Überschwemmungen durch das politische System der Schweiz von 1848 bis 1991, Bern 2017.
Tschannen Pierre, Staatsrecht der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, 5. Aufl., Bern 2021.
Wagner Pfeifer Beatrice, Umweltrecht, Besondere Regelungsbereiche, 2. Aufl., Zürich et al. 2021.
Waldmann Bernhard/Hänni Peter, Raumplanungsgesetz, Bundesgesetz vom 22.6.1979 über die Raumplanung (RPG), Stämpflis Handkommentar, Bern 2006.
Materials
Botschaft zu einem Bundesgesetz über Walderhaltung und Schutz vor Naturereignissen (Waldgesetz, WaG) vom 29.6.1988, BBl 1988 III 173 ff., abrufbar unter https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/fga/1988/3_173_157_137, besucht am 4.10.2024 (zit. Botschaft WaG 1988).
Botschaft über eine neue Bundesverfassung vom 20.11.1996, BBl 1996 I 1 ff., abrufbar unter https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/1997/1_1_1_1/de, besucht am 4.10.2024 (zit. Botschaft BV 1996).
Botschaft zur Ausführungsgesetzgebung zur Neugestaltung des Finanzausgleichs und der Aufgabenteilung zwischen Bund und Kantonen (NFA) vom 7.9.2005, BBl 2005 6029 ff., abrufbar unter https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/fga/2005/976, besucht am 4.10.2024 (zit. Botschaft NFA 2005).
Botschaft zur Änderung des Markenschutzgesetzes und zu einem Bundesgesetz über den Schutz des Schweizerwappens und anderer öffentlicher Zeichen («Swissness»-Vorlage) vom 18. November 2009, BBl 2009 8533, abrufbar unter https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/fga/2009/1471, besucht am 4.10.2024 (zit. Botschaft «Swissness»-Vorlage 2009).