Opportunities and obstacles for smallholder and community forestry in the MAP region


Published on

Peter Cronkleton
Amy Duchelle
Rosa Cossio

Presentation for the conference on
Taking stock of smallholders and community forestry
Montpellier France
March 24-26, 2010

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Opportunities and obstacles for smallholder and community forestry in the MAP region

  1. 1. Opportunities and obstacles for smallholder and community Forestry in the MAP region<br />by<br />Peter Cronkleton<br />Amy Duchelle<br />Rosa Cossio <br />Taking stock of smallholder and community forestry<br />March 24, 2010 Montpellier, France<br />
  2. 2. Objective: Compare smallholder and community forestry in MAP region<br />How reforms and initiatives opened opportunity?<br /> What outcomes resulted from these changes?<br />
  3. 3. Juncture of international boundaries between Peru, Brazil and Bolivia<br /><ul><li>Madre de Deus ,Peru
  4. 4. Acre, Brazil
  5. 5. Pando, Bolivia</li></ul>The MAP REGION<br />
  6. 6. MAP: historical linkage and divergence<br />Initially settled in late 19th century during rubber boom<br />Early 20th century <br />National boarders defined<br />International price of rubber collapsed<br />Region marginalized, stagnant economy, boom-bust cycles<br />Rural workforce formed communities and developed diversified forest-based livelihoods<br />Late 20th century - transportation corridors makes region accessible<br />Frontier change<br />Promotion of CFM<br />
  7. 7. Madre de Dios, Peru<br />8.5 million ha <br />Population 109,555 <br />4.7 million ha of protected rainforest ecosystems <br />2.5 million ha permanent production forests<br />Extractive economy<br />Logging employs 65% of the economically active population <br />22 to 30% of population derive income directly or indirectly from the Brazil nut trade (FAO 2005)<br />Alluvial gold mining major economic activity<br />
  8. 8. Forestry and Wildlife Law (N°27308) of 2000<br />Mechanisms to grant use/management rights to smallholders and communities<br />forest concessions (40 years)<br />permits and authorizations (variable duration)<br />All commercial use requires approved management plan and payment of harvest fee <br />Photos: Cossio 2009<br />
  9. 9. Forestry and Wildlife Law (N°27308) of 2000<br />Timber concessions intended for small and medium scale loggers<br />Form associations (Small and Medium Forest Enterprises: SMFEs)<br />Concession contracts awarded through licitation process<br />2002-2003: 1,311,705 ha granted as forest concessions to 73 SMFEs <br />Rights are transferable leading to some concentration by large industries<br />
  10. 10. Forestry and Wildlife Law (N°27308) of 2000<br />NTFP concessions<br />982 contracts for Brazil nut concessions <br />area under Brazil nut management is 1,200,000 ha <br />2004 resolution authorized harvesting up to 5 m3/ha of timber in brazil nut concessions <br />Logging permits for Indigenous communities and smallholders: 2002-2007<br />4 indigenous permits for 31,801 ha<br />1640 smallholder permits for 154,318 ha<br />
  11. 11. Results in Madre de Dios<br />Forest concession system, <br />created a large sector of private SMFEs, <br />lacks adequate state resources for sufficient oversight to ensure legal forest management; <br />NGO support proved crucial for the implementation of the forest concession system, but. . .<br />assistance constituted a patchwork with little coordination, shifting in priorities and poor collaboration<br />limited capacity failed to manage realistic expectations<br />NGO assistance tended to be very short-term instead of sustained support over time; <br />SMFEs capacity variable, generally inadequate for sustainable forest management (Cossio 2009)<br />
  12. 12. Acre, Brazil<br />16.4 million hectares<br />Population 669,736 (46% in Rio Branco)<br />Birthplace of Brazil’s rubber tapper movement to defend forest property and livelihoods of regions rural people<br />41% of state is property controlled rubber tappers, indigenous people and smallholders<br />
  13. 13. Key programs and reforms<br />1992 Program for the Conservation of the Brazilian Rainforest (PPG7), <br />funding early CFM pilot programs in Amazon<br />1998 Simplified Forest Management Plans (PMFSimples) <br />introduced for community project up to 500 hectares<br />1998 ‘Forest Government’ elected, <br />institutes pro-forest community policies (Chico Mendes Law, NTFP and integrated management, cooperatives)<br />2006 Decentralization of authorization to state level IBAMA office and delegation to IMAC<br />
  14. 14. Timber management<br />Initially much debate about role of timber management <br />Implementation accelerated after 2006<br />Currently 18 community forestry projects approved or pending approval<br />Area under community management 32,525 ha<br />
  15. 15. Results in Acre<br />Most proactive policy to promote timber management<br />Conversely smallest area under community management plans<br />Although tenure relatively secure, tenure insecurity seen as key bottle neck<br />Bureaucracy another constraint to local management<br />
  16. 16. Pando, Bolivia<br />Characteristics<br />63,827 km2 <br />52,525 inhabitants<br />Over 95% forest cover<br />Historic dependence on NTFP extraction<br />
  17. 17. Economy Based on extraction of Brazil Nut (Bertholletia excelsa)<br />Export loans and improved access led to investments in processing industry starting in late 80s<br />Bolivia major source of world’s Brazil nuts<br />Bolivia’s #1 forest export (USD 74 M in 2005)<br />80 % originate in Pando<br />Until 2004 most producers relied on customary property rights<br />
  18. 18. Bolivia’s 1996 Tenure and Forestry Reform<br />Tenure Reform Law (Ley INRA):<br />redistribution based on technical and legal grounds<br />New Forestry Law:<br />promote sustainable management <br />democratize access to commercial benefits <br />For communities emphasized:<br />communal property rights (inalienable, indivisible, non-reversible, collective, and non-mortgageable and tax-exempt)<br />Modified to recognize agro-extractive communities<br />500 hectares per family <br />Titled at community level<br />Accommodates customary tree tenure<br />
  19. 19. Advances in tenure reform<br />Agro-extractive communities<br />159 communities <br />2,002,436 hectares titled<br />Indigenous territories (TCOs)<br />2 TCOs<br />432,899 titled<br />
  20. 20. Results in Pando<br />Emphasized timber management<br />Between 2002 to 2008, 28 forest management plans approved in agroextractive and TCOs.<br />A total of 342,807 ha of forest under management<br />Difficult for communities to meet requirements without assistance<br />23 of plans assisted by logging companies attempting to gain access to community forests<br />
  21. 21. Conclusions<br />Region dominated by livelihoods based on community forestry prior to reforms<br />Emphasis of policies and programs was introduction of timber management not NTFPs<br />Timber management projects based on externally introduced strategies<br />Relatively small percentage of rural population has benefited from forest management opportunities offered by reforms and projects<br />Those communities that did benefit were heavily dependent on external assistance from NGOs or others<br />Response of state agencies to community needs weak, insufficient or contradictory<br />
  22. 22. www.cifor.cgiar.org<br />