What is Meant by Land Use Change? Effects of Mining Activities on Forest and Climate Change

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1881677/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

What is Meant by Land Use Change? Effects of Mining Activities on Forest and Climate Change

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1881677/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 31 May, 2023

Read the published version in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment →

You are reading this latest preprint version

The ownership of 99.9% of forests in Turkey belongs to the State. According to the mandatory provisions of the Turkish Constitution of 1982, the ownership of State forests cannot be transferred to third parties. However, forest legislation permits several activities within the State forests, other than forestry, under certain conditions. Thus, in this study, the legal process of mining permits granted in State forests in Turkey was analyzed, and the policies implemented in mining permits were tried to be evaluated. Then, how mining activities affect forestlands and the environment has been compared by taking international studies in the literature into account. The change in the amount of carbon stored in the forests where the land use changed as a result of the given mining permit was calculated using the Biomass Expansion Factor (BEF) method. After the mining permit was granted, 53% of the land use change occurred in the sample area, and there was a 43% decrease in the amount of carbon stored.

Forest

Climate Change

Mining

Permit

Carbon

The importance of forests has gained value once again with the fact that climate change, which is a problem on a global scale, is being felt, and efforts are made to prevent this problem. The role of the forests in combating climate change, which has an important place among natural resources, has been the subject of both international agreements (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement) and various research (Binkley et al., 2004; Zengin et al, 2005; Canadell and Raupach, 2008). According to the study, it has been determined that 1/3 of the CO₂ accumulated in the atmosphere is caused by land use change and deforestation, and 2/3 is caused by fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas) consumption (Saraçoğlu, 2010). To increase the effectiveness of climate policies on world scale, it is thought that not only consumption but also the production of oil should be limited for the future, and it is seen that seven countries currently impose such restrictions (Erickson et al, 2018). Germany is one of the countries that has taken action in this regard and has recommended that all coal-fired electricity generation activities be phased out by 2038, recognizing that its current policies would violate the 2020 national greenhouse gas reduction targets (Rafaty et al, 2020). However, Russia is one of the most significant contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. As a substantial fossil fuel exporter, it is far from contemplating a low-carbon future. Furthermore, it is also trying to grow its coal industry (Martus, 2019) rapidly.

Land-use, land-use change, and forestry activities can play an essential role in reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere (CBD, 2010). This is also emphasized in the management plans of forest ecosystems (Millar et al, 2007). The conversion of CO₂ in the air to organic matter is related to the number of leaves of the plants. Therefore, forests with more leaves than other plant communities absorb more CO₂ from the atmosphere (Zengin et al., 2005). In addition, forests are superior to different types of land use as they store the carbon they have accumulated in their bodies for years. It is also known that forests, especially mixed stands, have more carbon storage capacity than pure stands of the species forming the mixture (Durkaya et al., 2012). In addition to the protection and development of existing forests, it has been determined that reforestation and afforestation studies in different parts of the world reduce global warming through carbon sequestration (Bonan, 2008; Gençay, 2020). In any case, land use change, specifically the large scale conversion of forest lands to agricultural, pastoral, and industrial uses, remains an ongoing challenge for global conservation efforts (Manuschevich and Beier, 2016). For instance, forests hold 20–50 times more carbon per hectare than cleared lands, and 100–200 MgC/ha may be lost due to deforestation (Houghton and Hackler 1999). Properly, land use changes causing deforestation are significant causes of rising CO₂ levels in the atmosphere (Gençay et al, 2018). Conversion of forestlands to other land use types and reduction of carbon captured in a forest ecosystem is an anthropogenic effect (Zhou et.al., 2013), and deforestation, as a result of this impact, is a critical source responsible for approximately 15% of increasing greenhouse gases globally (Chaplin-Kramer et.al., 2015, Haddad et.al.,2015). Although forests play an essential role in the global carbon cycle and the services they provide to society (Pan et al, 2011), deforestation, non-forestry activities, and global climate change also cause adverse effects on forests (Dale et al, 2001). For example; deforestation, which has been one of the most critical environmental problems being experienced around the world (Lambin et al, 2001; Alves, 2002; Achard et al., 2002; Laurance et al., 2002; Fearnside and Laurance, 2004; Miettinen et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2013), is due to non-forestry activities or the rendering of forests unable to meet their expected benefits by destroying forest lands naturally, unnaturally, legally, or illegally (Gençay, 2020).

One of the activities that cause deforestation is mining activities in forestlands. Because most of the mineral and energy resources in the world are located in forest areas where severely damaged/degraded by surface mining (Macdonalt et al, 2015). However, mining activities have been identified as one of the driving forces of deforestation (Hosonuma et al, 2012; Tegegne et al, 2016). due to its adverse effects on the environment (Rocha-Nicoleite et al, 2017), water resources and streams Castello and Maceda, 2016), public health(Hendryx, 2015), and forests (Kissinger et al, 2002; Espejo et al, 2018; Ranjan, 2019).

In many countries of the world, mining activities are carried out depending on legal permissions. For example, German law's right to mine is subject to public law permits issued by administrative authorities (Rafaty et al, 2020). It has been emphasized that, despite scientific evidence that the adverse effects of surface mining are widespread and irreversible in, mining permits are still granted in the USA (Palmer et al, 2010).

While mining is dependent on legal permits in some countries (Handayani et al, 2018), it has been determined that illegal mining activities are carried out in some other countries, which is one of the causes of deforestation (Siqueira-Gay and Sánchez, 2021).

Mining permits in forest areas are subject to the provisions of the Mining Law and the Forest Law in Turkey. By analyzing how successful these legal regulations are in protecting the environment, Elvan (2013) found that many laws and regulations on the subject are insufficient.

In studies examining the level of involvement of the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement–which Turkey is a party to regarding climate change–in the Turkish Environment and Forestry Legislation, which are thought to prevent deforestation, it has been analyzed that the legislation is not at a sufficient level and that mining activities adversely affect deforestation (Coşkun ve Gençay, 2011; Gençay et al, 2018).

In this context, first, the legal and administrative bases of the permits for mining activities will be examined. Thus, it will be determined to what extent the legislation related to mining activities affects the permit processes. Afterward, the effects of mining activities on deforestation and, thus, on global climate change will be tried to be determined through the region selected as the sample area.

The first part of the study, starting with the Turkish Constitution of 1982, especially Forest Law, Mining Law, and other relevant regulations, was examined for the legislation analysis. Afterward, based on the data of the General Directorate of Forestry, it was evaluated how much each change in the legislation affected the mining permit areas and their numbers. It is essential to examine the legal basis of mining activities and land use changes that cause deforestation to fulfill the obligations arising from the international conventions to which Turkey is a party.

For this reason, in the second part of the study, the change in carbon sequestration caused by deforestation resulted from land use change in a mining permit area in the province of Bartın (Fig. 1), which was selected as the sample area, was analyzed. Thus, the hypothesis that mining affects deforestation and climate change will be confirmed by quantitative data. Forest inventory is being carried out to ensure the development and sustainable management of forests in Turkey. Based on these inventory data, management plans are prepared for 10 and 20-year periods. According to the argument that is thought to exist between the growing volume and biomass in forest areas, the amount of above-ground biomass can be calculated (Fang et al., 2007; Shi ve Liu, 2017). The Biomass Expansion Factor (BEF) coefficients used in defining the above-ground biomass value as the expansion factor, which converts it into biomass stored in the tree (Milne et al., 1998; Schoene, 2002; IPCC, 2003; 2006; Somogyi et al., 2007; Tobin ve Nieuwenhuis, 2007). These coefficients, which are not constant, also vary according to the growing conditions and tree species (Brown et al, 2002; Durkaya et.al. 2020). As a result, the above-ground biomass value is obtained by multiplying the tree volumes determined by the inventory data and with the BEF coefficient and the wood density value (Dewar and Cannell 1992; Porte et al., 2002; Fukuda et al. 2003; Tobin ve Nieuwenhuis, 2007; Kocaman and Durkaya. 2020).

Various BEF coefficients have been developed to be used in forest areas in Turkey (Asan, 1995; Asan, 2002; Tolunay, 2012; Tolunay and Çömez, 2008; Durkaya et. al. 2020). In order to calculate the amount of carbon stored in forest areas in Turkey, the method recommended in the Ecosystem Based Functional Forest Management Plans (ETFOP) has been used since 2008 (OGM, 2014). In this study, the BEF coefficients recommended by ETFOP were used (Table 1). The above-ground biomass value was multiplied by 0.29 for coniferous species and 0.24 for broad-leaved tree species to reach the amount of belowground biomass. The stored carbon amounts were calculated by multiplying the below and above-ground biomass values by 0.51 for coniferous species and 0.48 for broad-leaved tree species.

Tablo 1. Carbon computation according to the BEF coefficients recommended by ETFOP

	Coniferous	Broadleaf	Degrade Forests
Above-ground biomass (AGB)	DGHx0,446x1,212	DGHx0,541x1,3	DGHx0,446x1,212
Above-ground carbon (AGC)	AGB x 0,51	AGB x 0,48	AGB x 0,51
Below-ground biomass (BGB)	AGB x 0,29	AGB x 0,24	AGB x 0,40
Below-ground carbon (BGC)	BGB x 0,51	BGB x 0,48	BGB x 0,51
Deadwood carbon (DWC)	AGB x 0,01 x 0,47	AGB x 0,01 x 0,47	AGB x 0,01 x 0,47
Litter Cover Carbon (LCC)	Area x 7,46	Area x 3,75	Area x 1,86
Soil Carbon	Area x 76,56	Area x 84,82	Area x 19,14
Total Carbon	AGC + BGC + DWC + LCC + Soil Carbon

For a country to be self-sufficient in terms of forests, at least 30% of its lands must be covered with productive forests (OGM 2007).

According to the World Bank (2019), while the total amount of forestlands in the world decreased from 31.8% in 1990 to 30.8% in 2015, Turkey’s forestlands have increased from 12.5% in 1990 to 15.5% in 2016 (World Bank, 2019). According to the data of the General Directorate of Forestry (Turkish abbr; OGM), the area covered by all forests classified as productive and unproductive in Turkey is 29.4% (OGM, 2020). Since only productive forest areas are taken into account in the forest data of the World Bank, this rate is lower than the data of OGM.

In this part of the study, first of all, the legislation related to the mining permits was analyzed. Then the changes in the amount of carbon stored in the forestlands were calculated before and after the mining permits granted in the region selected as the sample area.

3.1. Legislation analysis

29.4% of Turkey's surface area is covered with forests (OGM, 2020), some of the mining activities are carried out in forest areas in Turkey, as in the world (Yıldız, 2020). In Turkey, mine exploration and mining operation permits in forest areas are carried out depending on the conditions in the legal regulations.

The constitutional basis of the mining permits issued in forests in Turkey is Article 168 of the Turkish Constitution of 1982. The relevant article includes the provision of “Natural wealth and resources shall be under the authority and at the disposal of the State. The right to explore and exploit these belongs to the State. The State may delegate this right to persons or corporate bodies for a certain period. Of the natural wealth and resources, those to be explored and exploited by the State in partnership with persons or corporate bodies, and those to be directly explored and exploited by persons or corporate bodies shall be subject to the explicit permission of the law. The conditions to be observed in such cases by persons and corporate bodies, the procedure, and principles governing supervision and control by the State, and the sanctions to be applied shall be prescribed by law.” (URL-1). According to the imperative provision of the Constitution, all natural resources are under the rule and disposal of the State, regardless of ownership. While the right to operate these resources belongs to the State, this right can be transferred to those who meet the conditions in the laws. Thus, mining permits are detailed by laws that are at a lower level of the normative hierarchy.

In the first version of the 16th article of the Forest Law No. 6831 dated 1956, the following provision is included regarding the mining permits to be granted in forest areas “It is necessary to obtain the consent of the Ministry of Agriculture (Ministry of Forestry) to be able to search for mines within the borders of state forests, or to be granted operating license and concession according to the provisions in question." For a long time, mining permits continued to be issued depending on this condition.

Article 7 of the first version of the Mining Law, which entered into force in 1985, is about forests. According to the provision of the relevant article, it is stated that “Mining activities in forests, afforestation areas, military forbidden zones and near protected areas are subject to permit under the provisions of the relevant law." Thus, in the year the law was enacted, it was regulated that mining permits in forest areas would be made under the provisions of the Forest Law.

However, with the amendments made in the Forestry and Mining Law in 2004, the Forest Law was eliminated in terms of the permit authority. After this date, all permits were subject to the provisions of the mining law. It has been regulated that mining permits will now only be granted in accordance with the principles of the regulation “by taking the opinion of the relevant ministries” This change caused an increase in the number of given mining permits (Arslan, 2010; Tolunay, 2015; OGM, 2020). This amendment was annulled by a decision of the Constitutional Court of Turkey, which would be valid from 2010, on the grounds that it opened forests, protected forest, afforestation areas, special protection zones, national parks, nature parks, protected areas, agricultural areas, water basins, and similar natural and cultural riches and therefore protected areas to mining activities at the expense of both Article 168 of the Turkish Constitution and international agreements to which Turkey is a party (URL-2, 2021).

In 2010, the relevant articles of both laws were rearranged. It was stipulated that the permits for mining activities to be carried out in the forests would be given, again, according to Forest Law No. 6831. From this date to the present, mining permits in forest areas continue to be granted in accordance with the Forestry Law and the administrative arrangements (by regulations) of the relevant institutions. The amount of mining permits granted in forest areas since 2003 is given in Fig. 2.

When the number of mining permits is analyzed by years, it is seen that the number of permits, which increased after 2004, peaked in 2011, and the number of permits decreased after the change in the legislation on that date. Although there is a decrease in the number of permits after this date, it is noteworthy that the permit areas are larger in area.

3.2. Permit Process

In the 16th article of the Forest Law, it is stipulated that the Ministry of Environment and Forestry will allow the exploration and operation of mines in the State forests and the necessary facilities, roads, energy, water, communication, and infrastructure facilities for mining activities, by taking the cost excluding the fund costs. It is also stated in the same article that the definition, forms, conditions, and principles regarding the implementation of this article will be regulated by a regulation. In this context, within the framework of administrative law rules, the “Regulation on Implementation of Article 16 of the Forest Law” was put into effect by the General Directorate of Forestry on 18.04.2014, and the existing permits and rehabilitation procedures– at the end of the permit period–to be carried out in the mining areas in accordance with the principles of this regulation.

For mine exploration, operation, facility, and infrastructure facility permits, first of all, the person holding the mining license should add the application documents (1/25000 scale map, coordinate list, forest cadastral map, rehabilitation project, EIA document, institution opinions) to the request letter stating the name of the mine and apply for a preliminary permit to the regional directorate of forestry. Preliminary permission is the permission granted for a maximum period of 36 months to prepare the documents required for the final permit on the condition that no work is done in the area.

After the documents required for the permit are completed, final permission is given to those deemed appropriate by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry by considering the mining license's duration. Permission fees, guarantees, and other application documents are requested within three months from the applicant's notification date. If the fees are not paid within three months and other documents are not completed, the permit is canceled.

According to the regulation, the cost of afforestation is asked once, and the land permit fee is taken regularly every year, from the aforementioned fees for the final permits within the border of the state forest. Moreover, the permit holder pays the additional state entitlement each year until the end of June.

In case the final permit expires or the permit holder gives up, the fees received are not refundable. The guarantee is returned if the obligations specified in the written contract are fulfilled. However, if the permit holder gives up the permit within one year from the start of the final permit date, the refund of the paid fees can be requested within three months. In such a case, it is determined by a report to be prepared by a committee that no work has been done at any point of the permitted area and that the natural structure has not been disturbed before the permit, and if this report is found appropriate by the forest regional directorate, the fees other than the land permit fee are refunded without interest.

Suppose an extension of the final permit period is requested. In that case, the application should be made to the relevant forest regional directorate with the renewed license, revised rehabilitation project, and other documents before the original permit period expire. If the application is appropriate, the permit period can be extended by updating the guarantee and land permit fees.

3.3. Rehabilitation Process

As an essential issue regarding permits for mining is rehabilitation. According to the legal obligations in Turkey, the permit holder must rehabilitate the mining area in accordance with the rehabilitation project. The fact that the area subject to permit has negative characteristics such as infertility and inefficiency in the pre-use period is not a reason for not rehabilitating the area. It was deemed necessary for the rehabilitation to start with the beginning of the mining activities, continue during the mining activities, and be completed on the date of the expiration of the permit. If the permit holder cannot complete the rehabilitation of the area by the end of the permit period, an additional period of one year may be granted. However, mining operations are not allowed to continue during this additional period. In this period, fees continue to be asked, and if the permit is canceled for any reason, the rehabilitation responsibility of the permit holder's legal liability does not disappear. Although there may be cases where rehabilitation cannot be started for various reasons, In the literature, Gençay and Birben (2018) indicated that the cases where the land is not suitable for rehabilitation. It is decided to leave it in its natural State have also been identified. In Fig. 3a, a mining area is seen where permission was obtained to mine marble, but before the permit period expiration, the permit holder requested to cancel the permit. It was also insufficient as tillage and filling as preliminary rehabilitation work. This area is left to its natural State and is expected to repair itself over time. Figure 3b shows a mining area that has been planted for rehabilitation purposes (Gençay ve Birben, 2018).

Rehabilitation and restoration of the damaged nature, whether natural or human-caused, is a method used all over the world, and in a study evaluating success criteria for such restorations by Ruiz-Jean and Aide (2005), attention was drawn to three ecosystem characteristics (criteria); diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological processes.

Especially after mining activities in forestlands; ants, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Nichols and Nichols, 2003); in tropical moist forests; crown cover, plant density, and tree basal areas, canopy height, and litter depth (Parrota and Knowles, 1999); in riparian forests cover, density, height, and tree basal area (Clewell, 1999) were monitored and used as a success criterion and to determine the health status of the forests. Rosa et al. (2020) conducted research to determine how mine rehabilitation can restore recreational usage of forest areas. It has been noted that after 50 years of continuous mining based on the activity, the measures used to rehabilitate the area have not yet entirely restored all recreational services.

The main challenges identified regarding rehabilitation in mining areas were promising species selection, reproduction and re-establishment (Nussbaumer et al., 2016), and monitoring rehabilitation success (MacDonald et al., 2015). Therefore, according to Gastauer et al (2018), functional or phylogenetic approaches play an important role in increasing success.

According to the Turkish Court of Accounts Regularity Audit Report for the year 2020 related to OGM, 152 of 649 mining permit sites selected by sampling method were found to have unauthorized structures and uses other than the purpose of the permit. Thus, according to this report, it has been determined that an effective inspection process for the control of mining permit sites by OGM could not be carried out. Yet, the same report emphasized that rehabilitation activities could not be carried out in most areas during the inspections subject to the mining permits. Moreover, it has been emphasized that irregular activities are carried out in these areas, while these areas should be operated and used within the framework of a certain plan and project in line with the permissions given (Turkish Court of Account, 2021).

3.4. Carbon Change in the Study Area

Forests in Turkey are managed according to the Management Plans prepared for 10- or 20-years plan periods. In this study, a sample area located within the provincial borders of Bartın was selected. In 2009, the mining site operation license was obtained for the first time in the area. For this reason, the forest condition and land use types in the 2001 Management Plan for the pre-license and the 2011 Management Plan for the post-license were examined. While 3.01 ha was agriculture, and 31.04 ha was forest area in the first plan period of the total area of 34.07 ha, in the second plan period, 0.19 ha of agriculture, 17.91 ha of the mining area, and 15.98 ha of forest area were specified. For the first 10-year period, a decrease of 15.08 ha was defined in forest areas. In the management plan of 2021 that covers the third 10-year period, it was defined that the entire area (34.07 ha) was designated as a mining site.

After this determination, the amount of carbon loss caused by deforestation between the 2001 and 2011 plan period was calculated, and the findings are given in Table 2, and the satellite images of the land use change of the area by years are given in Fig. 4.

The amount of carbon stored in the area in 2001 was 3,864.77 tons, 35% of which comes from the carbon stored in the stand. In 2009, when the mining license was obtained, the amount of carbon in the area reached 4,400.23 tons with increments of trees. 43% of which comes from the carbon stored in the stand. As a result of the land use change in 2011, the amount of carbon stored in the area decreased to 1,911.12 tons.

Table 2

The amount of biomass and carbon stored in the study area by years
	2001 (Tons)	2009 (Tons)		2011 (Tons)
Above-ground biomass (AGB)	2114,94	2941,48		970,50
Above-ground carbon (AGC)	1015,50	1412,34		465,84
Below-ground biomass (BGB)	718,37	998,97		328,65
Below -ground carbon (BGC)	345,00	479,74		157,75
Deadwood carbon (DWC)	9,94	13,41		4,56
Carbon stored in litter	116,47	116,47		59,91
Carbon stored in soil	2377,86	2377,86		1223,06
Total Carbon	3864,77		4400,23		1911,12

In the area subject to the study, a 53% change in land use was observed after the mining permits, and a 43% decrease in the amount of carbon stored was determined (Fig. 5).

In addition to all these evaluations, the opening of the forest areas where carbon is stored not only decrease the amount of carbon in their own environment but also is possible to expect a decrease in carbon storage by being exposed to stress and affected by adverse conditions in the surrounding forest environment due to other negative effects caused by mining activities. Chaplin-Kramer et.al. (2015) stated that due to land use changes in forest areas, there is a decrease of nearly 25% in carbon storage in the forests 500 m away from the change. Accordingly, it can be said that the decrease in carbon storage is more than the carbon calculated for the forest areas.

In this study, the legal basis of the mining permits granted in the State forests in Turkey and both the negative effects of mining activities in forest areas and their impact on climate change were evaluated. Mining activities are common worldwide (Macdonalt et al, 2015; Handayani et al, 2018; Rafaty et al, 2020). In Turkey, due to the forest legislation, mining activities are carried out with permission in forest areas. However, whether legal or illegal, mining activities adversely affect the environment (Bridge, 2004), water resources, and human health (Schwarzenbach et al, 2010), including the forestlands. Moreover, the heavy metal industry originating from mining negatively affects environmental health as well (Nagajyoti et al, 2010). In particular, it has been determined that the forests close to the forests where open mining operations are carried out are also damaged (Chaplin-Kramer et.al. 2015).

In Turkey, according to the Forest Law and other relevant administrative regulations, those who want to carry out mining activities in the State forests are required to obtain documents such as mining license Environmental Impact Assessment, as well as asked for land permit fees, afforestation fees, and if deemed appropriate by the forest regional directorates and then, permission can be granted for a period of 8–10 years. Mining activities in forests within a legal framework is a situation seen in other countries as well. For example, the Indonesian government has assimilated the principle that “mining should be given priority if there are overlaps” for mining activities in forests (Susmiyati et al, 2016). Moreover, with amendments to the mining law, which is also seen as one of the causes of deforestation, the mining sector has been opened especially to investors from abroad that provide significant benefits to state revenues. However, at the same time, it has been argued that this situation will both create negative effects on the environment and cause human rights violations (Winarno ve Pudjiastut, 2020).

In a study carried out in North America, Wickham et al (2007) found that Appalachian mountaintop mining increased substantially during the 1990s, posing a threat to the interior character of the forest by the confluence of technological innovation and the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. In a similar study, Mishra and Reddy (2009) emphasized that though India has many laws and acts related to mining in forest areas, it has failed to counter these socio-economic and environmental problems. Therefore, one of the significant impacts of mining on the forest is seen as the destruction of forests or deforestation.

It is a well-known fact that mining activities carried out in forestlands have a negative impact on deforestation and, therefore, climate change, as it has many negative effects on the environment. With this study, it was desired to make a numerical analysis of this known fact by making a calculation on stored carbon in the mine permit areas within the State forests.

In order to better understand the change before and after the mining permit in the selected forest area, carbon losses were calculated by using the BEF method depending on variables such as the size of the area, tree species, number of trees, canopy, developmental age. According to the results of the analysis: Before the mining permit was granted, the amount of carbon stored by the area in 2009 was calculated as 4,400.23 tons. However, with the start of mining activities in 2011, nearly half of the trees in the area were cut down, which was caused this value to drop to 1,911.12 tons. As a result of the mining activities that continued after this date, it was determined by 2021 that all the trees in the area were cut down, and the amount of carbon stored in the area decreased to zero. The applied calculation method can also be applied for different stand types with different areal sizes, and new values can be calculated. In this study, a productive forest area with a mining permit was selected, and these values were found.

A land use change occurs by changing the way of utilizing the area with the mining permits given in the forest areas. After the mining activities, in order to restore the area to its former state, measures such as afforestation fees were considered, and rehabilitation was mandated. There are legal and administrative regulations on how to carry out post-mining rehabilitation in Turkey. The rehabilitation project should be completed while the mining permit file is being prepared, and the area where the fertile topsoil to be used in the preparation of the site for afforestation when the mining activities are completed should be stored has to be shown. Furthermore, the permit holder must report annually to the OGM on the status of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is also supervised by OGM, but there are cases where it is left to its natural state due to failure or the reasons that rehabilitation cannot be done. However, no sanction is imposed on the holder that obtained the permit in such cases.

In studies conducted with remote sensing methods, it is argued that the natural process in the post-mining area should be supported by human intervention to accelerate the area's rehabilitation (Antwi et al, 2008). Rehabilitation of areas after mining activities has been made compulsory by legal regulations in different countries. For example, in the USA, mining companies are penalized by Fines Enforcing agencies in case of non-compliance with the conditions specified in the mining permit. Moreover, by law, no further mining permits are granted to these companies until they fulfill their rehabilitation obligations (Skousen & Zipper, 2014). In most European countries, mining companies have obligations to restore mining sites to their original land use, and some rehabilitation planning is required before mining begins. (Macdonald et al, 2015). A study conducted in Russia emphasized that there was an increase in interest in rehabilitating mining-caused land degradation only in recent years (Ignatyeva et al, 2020).

This study discusses the effects of deforestation and global climate change, and carbon losses are revealed when the mines as a non-renewable natural resource are preferred over forests as a renewable natural resource in a land use policy. Countries regulate their policies and laws in line with the needs of society. Mining activities in forest areas have been carried out with legal and administrative regulations for many years. However, considering that this situation often causes irreversible forest losses, it is a concrete suggestion of this study that the legal obligations should be tied to stricter rules, and heavy sanctions should be applied in case of non-compliance with these conditions.

Achard, F., Eva, H.D., Stibig, H.J., Mayaux, P., Gallego, J., Richards, T., Malingreau, J.P., 2002. Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297 (5583), 999–1002.

Alves, D.S., 2002. Space-time dynamics of deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia. Int. J. Remote Sens. 23 (14), 2903–2908.

Antwi, E. K., Krawczynski, R., & Wiegleb, G. (2008). Detecting the effect of disturbance on habitat diversity and land cover change in a post-mining area using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(1), 22-32.

Arslan, A. T., 2010. Türkiye’de Sürdürülebilir Orman Yönetimi. Türkiye’de Sürdürülebilir Orman Yönetimi: Mevcut Durum ve Gelecek Ulusal Çalıştayı 21-23 Haziran 2010, Isparta. http://ormanweb.sdu.edu.tr/soy/sunumlar/1_2.pdf

Asan, Ü. (1995). Global iklim değişimi ve Türkiye ormanlarında karbon birikimi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1-2), 23-38.

Asan, Ü., Destan, S., Özkan, U. Y. (2002). İstanbul korularının karbon depolama, oksijen üretimi ve toz tutma kapasitesinin kestirilmesi. Orman Amenajamanında Kavramsal Açılımlar ve Yeni Hedefler Sempozyumu, Bildiriler Kitabı, İstanbul, Türkiye, 194-202.

Binkley, D., Stape, J. L., & Ryan, M. G. (2004). Thinking about efficiency of resource use in forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 193(1-2), 5-16.

Bonan, G. B. (2008). Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. science, 320(5882), 1444-1449.

Brown vd, 2002. Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future challenges. Environmental Pollution, 116(3), 363-372.

Bridge, G. (2004). Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 29, 205-259.

Caballero Espejo, J., Messinger, M., Román-Dañobeytia, F., Ascorra, C., Fernandez, L. E., & Silman, M. (2018). Deforestation and forest degradation due to gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon: A 34-year perspective. Remote Sensing, 10(12), 1903.

Canadell, J. G., & Raupach, M. R. (2008). Managing forests for climate change mitigation. science, 320(5882), 1456-1457.

Castello, L., & Macedo, M. N. (2016). Large‐scale degradation of Amazonian freshwater ecosystems. Global change biology, 22(3), 990-1007.

CBD, 2010. Interlinkages Between Biological Diversity and Climate Change. Ad hoc Technical Expert Group on Biological Diversity and Climate Change. CBD Technical Series No:10.

Clewell, A. F. 1999. Restoration of riverine forest at Hall Branch on phosphate-mined land, Florida. Restoration Ecology 7:1–14.

Chaplin-Kramer, R., Ramler, I., Sharp, R., Haddad, N. M., Gerber, J. S., West, P. C., ... & King, H. (2015). Degradation in carbon stocks near tropical forest edges. Nature communications, 6(1), 1-6.

Coşkun, A. A., & Gençay, G. (2011). Kyoto Protocol and “deforestation”: A legal analysis on Turkish environment and forest legislation. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(5), 366-377.

Dale, V. H., Joyce, L. A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R. P., Ayres, M. P., Flannigan, M. D., ... & Wotton, B. M. (2001). Climate change and forest disturbances: climate change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides. BioScience, 51(9), 723-734.

Dewar, R. C., & Cannell, M. G. (1992). Carbon sequestration in the trees, products and soils of forest plantations: an analysis using UK examples. Tree physiology, 11(1), 49-71

Durkaya, B., Durkaya, A., & Macaroğlu, K. (2012). Bartın Yöresi Karişik Meşcerelerinin Biyokütle Stok Değişimlerinin Irdelenmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(21), 28–36.

Durkaya, B., Durkaya, A., & Kaptan, S. (2020). BEF-BCEF calculations for Turkey's important coniferous species. Bartin Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), 1053-1060.

Elvan, O. D. (2013). The legal environmental risk analysis (LERA) sample of mining and the environment in Turkish legislation. Resources Policy, 38(3), 252-257.

Erickson, P., Lazarus, M., & Piggot, G. (2018). Limiting fossil fuel production as the next big step in climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 8(12), 1037-1043.

Fang, J., Guo, Z., Piao, S., & Chen, A. (2007). Terrestrial vegetation carbon sinks in China, 1981–2000. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences, 50(9), 1341-1350.

Fearnside, P.M., Laurance, W.F., 2004. Tropical deforestation and greenhouse‐gas emissions. Ecol. Appl. 14 (4), 982–986.

Fukuda, M., Iehara, T., & Matsumoto, M. (2003). Carbon stock estimates for sugi and hinoki forests in Japan. Forest ecology and management, 184(1-3), 1-16.

Gastauer, M., Silva, J. R., Junior, C. F. C., Ramos, S. J., Souza Filho, P. W. M., Neto, A. E. F., & Siqueira, J. O. (2018). Mine land rehabilitation: Modern ecological approaches for more sustainable mining. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1409-1422.

Gençay, G., & Birben, Ü. (2018). Türkiye’de Devlet Ormanlarında Verilen Maden İzinleri ve Rehabilitasyonun Hukuksal Süreci (Bartın İli Örneği). Anadolu Orman Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 12-24.

Gençay, G., Birben, Ü., & Aydın, A. (2019). To be “a developed country” or not to be? The effect of the Paris agreement on Turkish forest law. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 191(4), 1-14.

Gençay, G., Birben, Ü., & Durkaya, B. (2018). Effects of legal regulations on land use change: 2/B applications in Turkish forest law. Journal of sustainable forestry, 37(8), 804-819.

Gençay, G. (2020). Legal framework of private afforestation: The case of Turkey. Land Use Policy, 96, 104673.

Handayani, I. G. A. K. R., Sulistiyono, A., Leonard, T., Gunardi, A., & Najicha, F. U. (2018). Environmental management strategy in mining activities in forest area accordance with the based justice in Indonesia. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 21(2), 1-8.

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A.A., Tyukavina, A., Kommareddy, A., 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. science 342 (6160), 850–853.

Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., ... & Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science advances, 1(2), e1500052.

Hendryx, M. (2015). The public health impacts of surface coal mining. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2(4), 820-826.

Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., De Fries, R. S., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., ... & Romijn, E. (2012). An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), 044009.

Houghton, R. A., & Hackler, J. L. (1999). Emissions of carbon from forestry and land‐use change in tropical Asia. Global Change Biology, 5(4), 481-492.

Ignatyeva, M., Yurak, V., & Pustokhina, N. (2020). Recultivation of post-mining disturbed land: Review of content and comparative law and feasibility study. Resources, 9(6), 73.

IPCC, (2003). Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.

IPCC, (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.). IGES, Japan. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html [Access 30/01/ 2022].

Kissinger, G. M., Herold, M., & De Sy, V. (2012). Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation: a synthesis report for REDD+ policymakers. Lexeme Consulting.

Kocaman, M., & Durkaya, B. Karbon Depolama Miktarlarının Zamansal Değişimi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 591-603.

Lambin, E. F., Turner, B. L., Geist, H. J., Agbola, S. B., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J. W., ... & Xu, J. (2001). The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global environmental change, 11(4), 261-269.

Laurance, W.F., Albernaz, A.K., Schroth, G., Fearnside, P.M., Bergen, S., Venticinque, E.M., Da Costa, C., 2002. Predictors of deforestation in the brazilian amazon. J. Biogeogr. 29 (5–6), 737–748.

Macdonald, S. E., Landhäusser, S. M., Skousen, J., Franklin, J., Frouz, J., Hall, S., ... & Quideau, S. (2015). Forest restoration following surface mining disturbance: challenges and solutions. New Forests, 46(5), 703-732.

Manuschevich, D., Beier, C. M., 2016. Simulating land use changes under alternative policy scenarios for conservation of native forests in south-central Chile. Land Use Policy 51 (2016) 350–362.

Martus, E. (2019). Russian industry responses to climate change: The case of the metals and mining sector. Climate Policy, 19(1), 17-29.

Miettinen, J., Shi, C., Liew, S.C., 2011. Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17 (7), 2261–2270.

Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L., & Stephens, S. L. (2007). Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological applications, 17(8), 2145-2151.

Milne, R., Brown, T. A. W., & Murray, T. D. (1998). The effect of geographical variation of planting rate on the uptake of carbon by new forests of Great Britain. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 71(4), 297-309

Mishra, P. P., & Reddy, M. G. (2009). Mining in forest areas-problems, causes and concerns: A Review. RULNR-CESS Working Paper Series, (1).

Nagajyoti, P. C., Lee, K. D., & Sreekanth, T. V. M. (2010). Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: a review. Environmental chemistry letters, 8(3), 199-216.

Nichols, O. G., and F. M. Nichols. 2003. Long-term trends in faunal recolonization after bauxite mining in the jarrah forest of southwestern Australia. Restoration Ecology 11:261–272.

Nussbaumer, Y., Cole, M. A., Offler, C. E., & Patrick, J. W. (2016). Identifying and ameliorating nutrient limitations to reconstructing a forest ecosystem on mined land. Restoration Ecology, 24(2), 202-211.

OGM, 2007. Ağaçlandırma Ve Erozyon Kontrolü Seferberliği Eylem Planı 2008-2012

OGM,2014. Ekosistem Tabanlı Fonksiyonel Orman Amenajmanı Planlarının Düzenlenmesine Ait Usul ve Esaslar. OGM

OGM, 2020. Ormancılık İstatistikleri. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara.

OGM, 2020. Türkiye Orman Varlığı, T.C Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü, Orman İdaresi ve Planlama Dairesi Başkanlığı.

Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Schlesinger, W. H., Eshleman, K. N., Foufoula-Georgiou, E., Hendryx, M. S., ... & Wilcock, P. R. (2010). Mountaintop mining consequences. Science, 327(5962), 148-149.

Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., ... & Hayes, D. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science, 333(6045), 988-993.

Parrota, J. A., and O. H. Knowles. 1999. Restoration of tropical moist forests on bauxite-mined lands in Brazilian Amazon. Restoration Ecology 7:103–116

Porté, A., Trichet, P., Bert, D., & Loustau, D. (2002). Allometric relationships for branch and tree woody biomass of Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Aıt.). Forest Ecology and Management,

Rafaty, R., Srivastav, S., & Hoops, B. (2020). Revoking coal mining permits: an economic and legal analysis. Climate policy, 20(8), 980-996.

Ranjan, R. (2019). Assessing the impact of mining on deforestation in India. Resources Policy, 60, 23-35.

Rocha-Nicoleite, E., Overbeck, G. E., & Müller, S. C. (2017). Degradation by coal mining should be priority in restoration planning. Perspectives in ecology and conservation, 15(3), 202-205.

Rosa, J. C. S., Geneletti, D., Morrison-Saunders, A., Sánchez, L. E., & Hughes, M. (2020). To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in southwest Australia. Land Use Policy, 90, 104290.

Ruiz‐Jaen, M. C., & Mitchell Aide, T. (2005). Restoration success: how is it being measured?. Restoration ecology, 13(3), 569-577.

Saraçoğlu, N. 2010. Küresel İklim Değişimi, Biyoenerji ve Enerji Ormancılığı, Elif Yayınevi, Ankara.

Sayıştay Raporu, 2021. 2020 yılı Sayıştay Denetim Raporu (Orman Genel Müdürlüğü), T.C. Sayıştay Başkanlığı. Ankara.

Schoene, D. (2002). Terminology in assessing and reporting forest carbon change. In Second expert meeting on harmonizing forest-related definitions for use by various stakeholders. FAO, Rome.

Schwarzenbach, R. P., Egli, T., Hofstetter, T. B., Von Gunten, U., & Wehrli, B. (2010). Global water pollution and human health. Annual review of environment and resources, 35, 109-136.

Shi, L., & Liu, S. (2017). Methods of Estimating Forest Biomass: A Review. In Biomass Volume Estimation and Valorization for Energy. InTech 158(1-3), 71-83.

Siqueira-Gay, J., & Sánchez, L. E. (2021). The outbreak of illegal gold mining in the Brazilian Amazon boosts deforestation. Regional Environmental Change, 21(2), 1-5.

Skousen, J., & Zipper, C. E. (2014). Post-mining policies and practices in the Eastern USA coal region. International journal of coal science & technology, 1(2), 135-151.

Susmiyati, H. R., Saleng, A., Noor, S. M., & Ashri, M. (2016). Model of Law Harmonization on Coal Mining in the Forest Area: The Law of Natural Resources's Perspective. JL Pol'y & Globalization, 52, 139.

Somogyi, Z., Cienciala, E., Mäkipää, R., Muukkonen, P., Lehtonen, A., & Weiss, P. (2007). Indirect methods of large-scale forest biomass estimation. European Journal of Forest Research, 126(2), 197-207.

Tegegne, Y. T., Lindner, M., Fobissie, K., & Kanninen, M. (2016). Evolution of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the Congo Basin forests: Exploring possible policy options to address forest loss. Land use policy, 51, 312-324.

Tobin, B., & Nieuwenhuis, M. (2007). Biomass expansion factors for Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) in Ireland. European Journal of Forest Research, 126(2), 189-196.

Tolunay, D., Çömez, A. (2008). Türkiye ormanlarinda toprak ve ölü örtüde depolanmış organik karbon miktarları. Hava Kirliliği ve Kontrolü Ulusal Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, s.750-765. 22-25 Ekim 2008, Hatay.

Tolunay, D. (2012). Türkiye’de ağaç servetinden bitkisel kütle ve karbon miktarlarının hesaplamasında kullanılabilecek katsayılar. Ormancılıkta Sektörel Planlamanın 50.Yılı Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, s:240-251 Ankara, 2013.

Tolunay, 2015. Türkiye’de Ormansızlaşma ile Kaybedilen Karbon Miktarları. 6. Ulusal Hava Kirliliği ve Kontrolü Sempozyumu, 7-9 Ekim 2015, İzmir.

URL-1, https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/en/legislation/turkish-constiution/ (Erişim tarihi 20.12.2021).

URL-2. Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyon Sistemi. Esas Sayısı: 2004/70 Karar Sayısı: 2009/7 Karar Günü: 15.1.2009; https://lib.kazanci.com.tr/kho3/ibb/files/amk2004-70-1.htm

Wickham, J. D., Riitters, K. H., Wade, T. G., Coan, M., & Homer, C. (2007). The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior forest. Landscape ecology, 22(2), 179-187.

Winarno, B. A., & Pudjiastut, L. (2020). Mineral Mining Business Control in The Area of Protected Forest. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(3), 1835-1846.

World Bank, (2019). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS.

Yıldız, T. D. (2020). Evaluation of forestland use in mining operation activities in Turkey in terms of sustainable natural resources. Land Use Policy, 96, 104638.

Zengin H., Asan Ü., Destan S., Özkan U.Y. 2005. Küresel Isınmanın Önlenmesinde Ormanların Rolü ve Önemi. Uluslararası Süreçte Acilen Eyleme Dönüştürülmesi Gereken Konular, Mevzuat ve Yapılanmaya Yansımaları Sempozyumu, Antalya, Türkiye. 22-25 Aralık 2005. ss.231-242.

Zhou, D., Liu, S., Oeding, J., & Zhao, S. (2013). Forest cutting and impacts on carbon in the eastern United States. Scientific reports, 3(1), 1-7.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 31 May, 2023

Read the published version in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment →

Editorial decision: Major revision
18 Aug, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
17 Aug, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
17 Aug, 2022
First submitted to journal
21 Jul, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

What is Meant by Land Use Change? Effects of Mining Activities on Forest and Climate Change

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials And Methods

3. Findings

3.1. Legislation analysis

3.2. Permit Process

3.3. Rehabilitation Process

3.4. Carbon Change in the Study Area

4. Discussion And Conclusion

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1