Short answer. A usufructuary of woodland may cut timber in the same manner and amount the owner habitually did — or, if no such practice exists, as local custom dictates. The overriding limit is that cutting must never prejudice the preservation of the land itself.
What the law says
If the woodland is a copse or consists of timber for building, the usufructuary may do such ordinary cutting or felling as the owner was in the habit of doing, and in default of this, he may do so in accordance with the custom of the place, as to the manner, amount and season. In any case the felling or cutting of trees shall be made in such manner as not to prejudice the preservation of the land.
Civil Code, Article 577 — Usufruct of Woodland. Read the full provision →
The owner's habits set the baseline
Article 577 starts with the clearest reference point available: what the owner actually did. If the woodland was regularly harvested in a particular way — a certain number of trees per year, at a certain season, by a certain method — the usufructuary may do exactly the same thing. This preserves the productive character of the woodland as it existed when the usufruct was created and prevents the usufructuary from either exploiting the resource beyond its normal yield or being unduly restricted below what the owner routinely extracted.
Custom fills the gap when no owner practice exists
When the owner had no established habit — perhaps they never cut the woodland at all, or the land changed hands with no clear record of past use — Article 577 falls back on the custom of the place. Local practice in the area where the woodland is located determines the manner, amount, and season of cutting that is acceptable. The usufructuary is not left without guidance; they must simply look to what comparable woodlands in the same locality are ordinarily managed like.
The preservation rule is absolute
Regardless of what the owner's habits were or what local custom permits, Article 577 imposes one overriding constraint: the felling or cutting of trees shall be made in such manner as not to prejudice the preservation of the land. A usufructuary cannot harvest in a way that degrades the soil, prevents regrowth, or renders the woodland permanently unproductive — even if the owner regularly did so. The naked owner's long-term interest in the land must be protected, and the usufructuary cannot cite past owner behaviour as a licence to damage the property they hold temporarily.
Nurseries, restoration work, and the general prohibition
For nursery land, Article 577 allows the usufructuary to make necessary thinnings so that remaining trees grow properly. Beyond these permissions, the article imposes a general prohibition: the usufructuary cannot cut down trees except to restore or improve things in usufruct — and even then, must first inform the owner of the necessity before proceeding. A usufructuary who fells trees outside these permitted situations breaches the usufruct and may be liable to the naked owner for the resulting damage. If you are a usufructuary unsure whether a planned timber operation stays within Article 577's limits, getting clarity before cutting avoids a serious dispute.