Regional Examples of Related Challenges and Opportunities

16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community : Lessons from Tropical America

Convening lead author: Wil de Jong

Lead authors: Carlos Cornejo, Pablo Pacheco, Benno Pokorny and Dietmar Stoian

Contributing authors: Cesar Sabogal and Bastiaan Louman

Abstract: Community forestry is pursued as rural development strategy in many tropical forest regions worldwide. In Tropical America, rich experiences have been ac- cumulated with community forestry support initiatives and this chapter summarizes published and the author’s hands on experiences. The chapter is divided in two parts. The first half focuses on the actual contribution of and to rural livelihoods, evidence that allows a more precise identification of the actual potential of communal forestry for rural development. The second half of the chapter reviews some of the challenges faced by community forestry development initiatives. The chapter critically reflects on generating profits, inserting communities in value-chains, setting up community forestry enterprises and the challenge to adequately deal with complex regulations. By exploring the experiences of a handful of current community forestry initiatives in Amazonia, and with some reference to Central America, the poten- tials, limitations and challenges of communal and smallholder forestry are discussed.

Keywords: forest incomes, forest regulations, forest product value-chains, community forestry support initiatives, community forestry enterprises

■

16.1 Introduction and anticipated fuelwood shortages, and mitigating undesired impacts of forest conversion on the en- The livelihoods of an estimated 300 million people vironment. worldwide living close to tropical forests depend on A review of the literature that deals with the or forest products for daily subsistence (Pimentel wide range of community forestry initiatives, also et al. 1997, but see Calibre Consultants 2000). The called smallholder forestry, participatory forest man- relationship of these people to trees and forests has agement, community-based , long been recognised as an opportunity for adopting community-based forestry, adaptive collaborative community or smallholder forestry to improve rural management, or , presents well-being (Cavendish 2000, Scherr et al. 2004). a mixed picture on realities, potentials, and experi- International organizations like the Food and Agri- ences to promote local forestry. Eminent scientists cultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) who researched indigenous groups in forest-rich re- and the World Bank began to promote community gions already observed long ago that trees and for- or social forestry in the late 1970s and early 1980s, ests play an important role in people’s economies, respectively (de Jong et al. 2008). Rural dwellers had and that local people do manage trees and forests in earlier been involved in forestry activities by both their estates. Anthropologists, rural economists, and national and colonial governments, though often as sometimes , who previously had focused on 299 labour force rather than beneficiaries (de Jong 2010). rural agriculture, shifted attention to swidden-fallows Community forestry pursues multiple objectives, in- management or other kinds of forest management cluding improved rural welfare, addressing actual (e.g., Posey 1982, Moran 1984, Balee 1987, Denovan

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

and Padoch 1988). Out of this work evolved the dis- the past two decades (Bray et al. 2005, Benneker course on non-timber forest products, which before 2008, Sabogal et al. 2008). had been called minor forest products or secondary In view of the quite contrasting experiences forest products (Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992). with community forestry, this chapter intends to Non-timber forest products were perceived as pos- address several relevant questions: What explains sible marketable forest products that could generate the disappointing outcomes, where they occur? Or, incomes to rural producers who, in turn, would make conversely, what explains the successful examples more profits from standing forests than from alterna- of community and smallholder development initia- tive land uses (Plotkin and Famolare 1992). These tives? More intriguing is why a significant number various efforts successfully brought attention to the of forestry development efforts achieve little results potential and opportunities of forests in the sustain- in locations where people depend on forests for their able development thinking. daily subsistence, and where forests contribute some- It can conceivably be argued that the community times significantly to their monetary income. The fol- forestry development model, as currently promoted lowing section16.2 reviews the opportunities related by national and international, governmental and non- to community forestry while section16.3 focuses on governmental development agencies, has its origins the challenges and limitations. Section16.4 draws in these early inquiries on the role of forests in rural some consistent conclusions from the ambivalent livelihoods. In the early stages of community forestry experiences. development, emphasis had been put on technical aspects of natural forest or management and community organisation. Later on, focus shifted 16.2 Opportunities for towards land tenure security and institutional de- velopment, including the role of forest-dependent Community Forestry people as effective forest stewards (e.g. Poffenberger Development 1990). Many publications on community forestry, in- 16.2.1 Concepts and Principles of cluding peer-reviewed papers, had as their main pur- Community Forestry pose to advocate community forestry to convince rural development specialists, donor agencies, and especially national forestry experts and forestry agen- Community forestry is defined in many different cies to progressively pursue this new development ways. For instance, McDermott and Schreckenberg and conservation approach by doing the necessary (2009: 158) emphasise in their definition “power changes in legislation, policies, funding allocations, and influence” that local people exert over “deci- and land and access rights. However, at least a num- sions regarding management of forests.” Pokorny ber of papers are somewhat more reserved about the et al. (2008) propose a definition of community for- potential of trees and forests to effectively improve estry as commercial local forestry that is actively rural livelihoods (e.g., Browder 1992, Cavendish being promoted by external agents, emphasising 2000, Campbell et al. 2001, Wunder 2001). the protagonist role of non-governmental organisa- Consequently, the studies and findings summar- tions (NGOs), development agencies, or national, ised in this chapter demonstrate some critical aspects regional and local governments. This definition sug- about the community forestry development model gests that community forestry development models (Gasché 2002 and 2004, Hoch et al. 2009, Cornejo and discourses concur with locally developed for- 2010), while also citing experiences where small- est use models (Hoch et al. 2009), or traditional or holders, with external assistance, have succeeded in indigenous forest management (McDermott and using their forestry portfolio to improve incomes. Schreckenberg 2009), while it is not immediately These successful examples cited below are mostly clear how the two complement or integrate. Given the from Central America and Mexico (e.g., Bray and different perspectives on the matter, it is relevant to Merino-Pérez 2002, Antinori and Bray 2005, Bray clarify what, in the context of this chapter, we mean et al. 2005, Nitler and Tschinkel 2005, Stoian and by community forestry. Rodas 2006a and b, Stoian et al. 2009). In Mex- Commonly, forestry is understood as activities re- ico and Guatemala communities and smallholders lated to standing forests. Numerous researchers (e.g., successfully organised themselves as community Dubois 1990, Sabogal et al. 1997, Smith et al. 2001, forestry enterprises (CFEs) and succeeded with Nalvarte et al. 2004, Sabogal et al. 2006, Hoch et inserting their forestry activities in timber or other al. 2009) have demonstrated that Amazonian small- 300 forest product value chains. In addition, the chapter holders manage natural stands and forest gardens, draws on cases from the Amazon basin, where rich and plant single species stands, fields, experiences of community forestry support exist and and single trees outside of natural forests. Many of important research findings have been generated over these activities, including those largely focusing on

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry CIFOR, Peter Cronkleton CIFOR, Peter

Photo 16.1. Community forestry is based on local customary practices, but also requires that protago- nists learn modern techniques, for instance the use of maps and machinery as well as how to organize themselves.

Table 16.1. Differentiation of community for- related activity carried out by members of rural estry in the Amazon (adapted from Hoch et communities or individual smallholders in Latin al. 2009). These include both locally devel- America. Hoch et al. (2009) distinguish ten types oped forestry schemes and schemes pro- of local forestry activities (Table 16.1). moted by external agents. Community forestry has been an integral element of development strategies since the early develop- Management of natural forest stands for NTFP ment decades after the Second World War. Its objec- Management of natural stands of fast growing timber tives and related approaches have changed over the Enrichment planting in natural forests years. During the 1970s, erosion protection, local Management of swidden fallows forest product supply, and generating rural incomes Swiddens intercropped with tree plantings were the dominant goals. During the 1980s, an im- Home or forest gardens portant shift towards promoting natural forest man- High value timber agement occurred to achieve development and forest Fast growing timber plantations conservation objectives. Since the 1990s, community NTFP plantations forestry support initiatives have explicitly focused Single in agricultural fields on both poverty alleviation and forest conservation, with emphasis on legal and regulatory reforms, local capacity-building, and small and medium enterprise development (de Jong et al. 2008). market-oriented production, are locally initiated. Forestry activities, along with other kinds of tree But, traditional and indigenous forest management management, are essentially economic undertakings. (c.f., McDermott and Schreckenberg 2009) encom- Most of the wide range of forest products, including pass a quite diverse set of locally generated forestry timber, fuelwood, and non- timber forest products practices or interventions to harvest, increase, or sus- (NTFPs) are being traded or are tradable in markets, tain production, or for other purposes. They usually while also used for subsistence. Recreational and en- include infrequent harvesting of forest products from vironmental services, such as ecotourism, and water 301 forests, tree stands, or single trees, which are to be and soil protection, biodiversity conservation, and sold or exchanged. In a certain sense, this kind of are equally, if not more, impor- management represents any sort of tree- or forest- tant, but related markets are still in their infancy.

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

In these forest economies local communities play with their new environment, and bring with them an important role, even more as their ownership over agricultural practices that are ill-suited for the new the world’s remaining natural forests significantly in- environment, there are documented cases where re- creased in recent years (Sunderlin 2008). At present, cent immigrants quickly became familiar with the close to 200 million ha representing a forth of the environment and adopted agroforestry production Amazon forest region are formally titled, or are in the practices that were well-suited to local ecological process of formal recognition, to local populations conditions (Smith et al. 1999). Recent Amazonia im- (RAISG 2009). Perz and Skole (2003) estimate that migrants, especially from the Andean highlands into in about 20–40% of land initially used for the western Amazon, tend to be more familiar with agriculture but where forests have returned is under trade, contract work, and social discipline. community or smallholder control. In particular with The vast majority of the above mentioned groups regard to the rapidly developing markets for environ- of long-term residents in tropical forest zones are mental services, it is assumed that local people are engaged in swidden fallow agriculture as well as going to be important protagonists for providing a in some kind of tree or forest management. For ex- growing world population with forests’ goods and ample, Summers et al. (2004) suggest that 30% of services. This is expected to provide attractive income recent settlers in Rondônia, in the western Brazilian opportunities for forest-dependent people, even more Amazon are involved in forestry activities. Smith et as many rural communities in forest-rich regions are al. (2001) as well as Sears et al. (2007) reconfirm a traditionally engaged in the management and trade similar proportion for Peru. Smallholders commonly of forest products, so that these local practices can understand forests and trees as an integral part of be incorporated into forestry value chains. It remains their production systems. In areas of direct occu- however somewhat unclear, if the currently promoted pation, forestry and agricultural constitute community forestry models are compatible with the integrated land use activities (Pokorny et al. forth- realities of forest communities. coming). Forest remnants, secondary forests, forest gardens, and trees in agricultural fields together cre- ate typical smallholders landscapes. In fact, there are 16.2.2 Who Manages Forests and spatial and temporal synergies between the different Trees in Amazonia? land use components, resulting in complex land use mosaics, with trees and forests managed at differ- ent intensities and for different purposes, including A persistent challenge in commenting on community environmental functions. These mosaics emerge dur- forestry is the adequate consideration of the immense ing several decades through a sequence of punctual diversity of actors and their forestry activities. A interventions and continuous experimenting, and common feature of many community forestry defi- achieve, in the best case, a kind of steady-state of nitions is the distinction between local actors as pro- land use components with the capacity to ensure tagonists of community forests, and non-local actors, ecosystem stability and the continuous provision of including corporate or entrepreneurial actors. Local environmental services (Godar 2009). actor groups include native indigenous communi- Although, the term “community” generally ties, many of whom still live in remotely located and invokes collective arrangements related to the co- isolated villages. Since the end of the 19th century, ordination and realization of forestry activities in migration into the Amazon region accelerated and commonly owned forests it is worthwhile to remind has resulted in a new resident indigenous population, that the Amerindian populations of most of tropical for instance, the ribereños from Peru and caboclos America are not and never have been “communal col- from Brazil (Chibnik 1991). A significant proportion lectivists.” Their social organisation is based mostly of these groups live in organised and legally recog- on reciprocal family networks in which goods and nised settlements, where they often have some kind services (i.e., labour) are exchanged. While com- of formally recognised local government structure. munal and ancestral territories are recognised and Since governments began to support Amazon devel- defended, most resource management, including opment projects and infrastructure improvements in swidden fallow secondary forests or forest gardens, the 1960s and1970s, there have been also new waves is individual or nucleo-familiar (Chirif 2009). More of immigrants moving to rural Amazonia, mostly recent residents often established their own peer known as colonists. They moved into existing vil- groups, maintaining social structures and collabora- lages established in settlement projects, or estab- tion practices that they brought with them from their lished farms on their own. location of origin. 302 There is a marked difference in familiarity with the local environment between indigenous groups and other long-term resident groups, and recent im- migrants. While the latter are initially unfamiliar

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

16.2.3 How Much Does Forest variations in access to markets, forest composition, Management Contribute to Rural local customs and preferences may actually lead to Livelihoods? an increased contribution of forests to local incomes. This is particularly the case in traditional contexts characterised by the absence of other more attractive Smallholders in Latin America rely heavily on the income opportunities. Examples of these are where use of natural resources. In many areas, forest and families shift to selected forest products that are in trees and the related environmental services play demand in local or regional markets, such as palm a major role for household income and livelihood heart and fruits from Euterpe oleracea Mart. in the security. This is true not only for families and com- eastern Brazilian Amazon, or palm fruits from Maur- munities with access to large forested areas, but also itia flexuosa L. in Peru; or in international markets, for families who manage small forest patches or for- such as Brazil nuts from northern Bolivia, southern est fallows. Pokorny et al. (forthcoming) and Hoch Peru, and western Brazil. In addition, along recent et al. (2009) confirmed that the majority of families agricultural frontiers, the commercialisation of tim- in their sample from Amazon locations in Brazil, ber can become an important source of monetary Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru included some kind of income for smallholders (Pokorny et al. forthcom- forestry activity in their agricultural activities for a ing). wide range of forest and tree products to satisfy their basic needs for nutrition, construction, fodder, tools, fuel, and medicines. 16.3 Challenges for Commu- While forests and trees are widely important among smallholders, dependency on them varies nity Forestry Development substantially. In some cases, forest and tree products are the principal source of income for families, as This chapter so far has reviewed contemporary reali- shown by Padoch (1987) and Padoch and de Jong ties of community forestry in the Amazon region, and (1991) for Peru, Clüsener-Godt and Sachs (1994) and their importance for rural incomes and the shaping Allegretti (1995) for Brazil, and Stoian (2000) and of tropical forest landscapes. The evidence confirms Henkemans (2001) for Bolivia. Vos et al. (forthcom- the assumption that supporting community forestry ing) estimate that for only about 25% of smallhold- may be an adequate strategy to further development ers’ forests don’t play a major role. Evidence from and conservation objectives. The community forestry Bolivia and Peru suggests that forest dependency sector has meanwhile acquired important accumu- increases when communities are located further away lated experience, based on implementation projects from urban centres (Stoian and Henkemans 2000, and studies (e.g., Gasché 2002, Gasché et al. 2004, Pyhälä et al. 2006). Sabogal et al. 2008, Hoch et al. 2009, Pokorny et al. The way communities and smallholders use their forthcoming). This section summarises some impor- forestry is strongly influenced by external dynam- tant lessons from these reviews. ics. In Amazonia, families respond to the increased presence of private companies with intensifying the harvesting of forest products in particular timber. 16.3.1 Lessons from Community Most smallholders sell forest products without fur- Forestry Support Initiatives ther processing in local markets or directly to traders. Vos et al. (forthcoming) estimate that less than 10% of the families trade processed forest products, while Cornejo (2010), analysing local forestry support about a fifth are involved in regional or national mar- initiatives from Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Co- kets – mostly confined to the first segment of the lombia, found that these initiatives in general were respective supply or value chain. The proportion duly designed with early involvement of the target of smallholders directly selling to the international beneficiaries, but varied with regard to the meth- market is negligible. ods and intensity used for consultations. The most When smallholders adapt their productive ac- common operation mode was to organise communal tivities to the emerging commercial opportunities workshops where ideas were presented to target ben- provided by improved linkages to markets, the im- eficiaries asked to provide opinions or suggestions. portance of forests for the livelihoods of families Even though several initiatives focused on rather new generally decreases. This suggests that forest pro- activities among the target beneficiaries, these activi- duction has a relatively low profit margin compared ties all fit well within the rural producers’ economic to other productive, but often non-sustainable land strategies. Thus, the new activities proposed by the 303 uses, and that these are the first activities to become initiatives did not demand excessive time allocation, unprofitable when markets provide opportunities for consumed only minor amounts of time and thereby commercialization of agricultural products. Regional occupied a relatively small proportion of the family

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry Wil de Jong Photo 16.2 Rural communities in Amazonia increasingly benefit from timber sales. Regulatory frames and available technology, however continue to hinder community forestry region wide.

labour pools. The activities all focused on manag- sell their products to local intermediaries with little ing local biodiversity, while complying to the extent influence on price formation. In fact, they hardly possible with the existing regulations. This implied ever succeeded in establishing trust relationships necessarily the introduction of new management with non-local market participants and therefore practices and new forms of organisation among ru- did not manage to receive more attractive prices for ral producers. their products. Findings of a global review of ru- All the cases reviewed by Cornejo (2010) had in ral community enterprises suggest that the start-up common that some kind of intervention by external phase necessary to establish viable business struc- agents had taken place. Interventions were typically tures would take at least between 10–20 years, fol- related to a development projects led by a NGO, lowed by a consolidation phase of a similar duration though government support was also present in sev- (Donovan et al. 2008). eral cases. Despite the fact that important resources Another immense challenge for community for- had been invested in technical assistance and train- estry initiatives was the legal formalisation of for- ing, and efforts had been made to define phase-out estry activities in accordance with pertinent regula- strategies, an overall result was that few of the in- tions (Pokorny et al. 2008). Obtaining legally valid novations continued after the project finished. One documents and permits, usufruct rights in the form of the reasons was that the initiatives failed to pay of forest concessions or extractive reserves, as well sufficient attention to the importance of smallholder as constituting formal smallholder organisations business organisation and related capacity-building, involved lengthy processes with high transaction and to product value-chain development. costs, even more as government norms and regula- In contrast to some successful examples from tions often were relatively difficult to comply with. Mexico and Central America, where communal busi- Where some kind of certification was pursued, this ness organisations could be built on existing struc- also proved to be an equally cumbersome and ex- tures for community and political-legal organisation pensive undertaking. (Stoian 2005), Amazonian forestry producers had Another major challenge was to gain effective little former integration in market structures and were control and protection against unauthorised use of 304 confronted with entirely new forms of organisation. the target resources by non-participating commu- So, Amazonian forest managers did become only in nity members or outsiders. Supporting development very few cases direct traders of the raw material or organisations helped the local stakeholders to ex- semi-finished products. Most of them continued to ert their rights, but once the interventions finished,

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

monitoring and control mechanisms relaxed consid- the demarcation of Extractive Reserves by the federal erably. They only remained effective in some cases government, many states – often in collaboration with where resources could be divided up among rural environmental NGOs – promote “forest settlements” producers, for instance in the form of individual (as in Acre), a “Zona Franca Verde” (Amazonas), and plots. Efforts to generate higher added-value through “areas for sustainable development” (Pará). post-harvest treatments or processing were unsuc- Recent studies point to a rather limited financial cessful in those cases where technologies were not potential of the externally promoted community appropriate because too expensive or too demanding forestry models. Their input requirements are high, to be maintained with local capacities and resources. prices obtained for traded forest products are low, and Even in cases where technology design matched with the managerial and logistical challenges are cumber- the local skills available, only small quantities of the some (Wunder 2001, Pokorny and Johnson 2008). principal forest products were processed. Case studies of externally promoted smallholder tree Few of the Amazonian initiatives reviewed by management analysed by Hoch et al. (forthcoming) Cornejo (2010) managed to establish autonomous suggest consistently disappointing results compared and long-term forestry production and trade. This to initial expectations. Even when market distances was largely because many initiatives failed to ad- are short and commercial timber stocks abundant, equately consider the prevailing socio-economic and as is the case in the southern part of the Ecuadorian cultural realities of the targeted beneficiaries. Where Amazon, local forestry producers rarely obtained rural producers managed to establish fair and stable annual per hectare incomes of more than USD 15 collaborations with external agents, as in the case (Pokorny et al. forthcoming). of Brazil nut production in southern Peru, or the All these experiences received important external case of floor producers in Loreto, the situation support. In accordance to the study of Medina and was more favourable and local benefits continued. In Pokorny (2008) analysing some of the most suc- most cases, however, it became clear that rural pro- cessful community forestry initiatives in the Ama- ducers targeted by development initiatives apparently zon, initiatives in dependence of size, technologies do not have the same values, motivations, objectives, and specific site conditions had initial investments or the same subjective logic of life as urban societies of between USD 20 000 and USD 800 000 to ac- or forestry communities that have had more expo- quire equipment and for technical and managerial sure to markets and urban societies (Gasché 2007). training. Small-scale initiatives like the “Oficinas The consultations that most initiatives applied at the Caboclas” in Boa Vista dos Ramos, Mamirauá, and beginning of the initiative, although well-intended, Pedro Peixoto collectively managed forest areas of were unable to identify the appropriate spaces of up to 50 ha without heavy machinery and produced dialogue or culture of discussion, reflection, and less than 250 m³/year of timber, while bigger initia- decision-making. The a priori focus on insertion of tives such as Ambé, Costa Marques, the “Projetos de local forestry production into forest product value- Assentamentos Agroextrativistas” (PAE) Cachoeira, chains hinder a more adequate exploration of op- Equador, and Porto Dias yearly harvested timber in portunities for setting up and promoting more ap- more than 100 ha with trained personnel and the use propriate mechanisms to achieve improvements of of machinery. These cases generated timber yields of local consumption or satisfying local needs. at least 650 m³/year. The analysis revealed that only those initiatives that operated larger areas and had little vertical integration managed to offset the labour 16.3.2 Generating Incomes from costs and, in a few cases, generated small profits. Community Forestry Other initiatives did manage to assure incomes to recover operational costs. Reasons for this lack of viability are relatively The experiences summarised in the previous section low productivities oscillating between only 5% up to can be disaggregated by looking at some key steps a maximum of 75% of timber enterprises, and con- that community forestry needs to pursue. Commu- sequently relatively high production costs ranging nity forestry supporters assume that a more effec- between USD/m³ 15–50 for round wood to USD/m³ tive management of trees and forests, and a more 190–600 for processed wood. Pokorny et al. (forth- effective insertion in forest product value-chains can coming) estimate annual per hectare family timber create attractive income opportunities to local for- incomes of about USD 5, considering an allowable est users. In expectation of this economic potential, cut in natural forests of 2–3 m³ per ha in a 20-year governments established settlement models where rotation (Silva et al. 1995). In the department of Lo- families were trained to effectively manage forests reto, Peru, an Iquitos-based company joined forces 305 and sell forest products to achieve adequate incomes with rural people to produce and export hardwood (CTA 2006, Carvalheiro et al. 2008) without the need for wooden floors. There, small producers extract an to practice agriculture. In Brazil, for instance, beyond average of 40 m3 at an amount of 2–3 m3/ha, which

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

yields them about USD 500/month. In summary, it ing). In Honduras and Nicaragua, there are further appears that timber production can provide comple- examples of local communities producing certified mentary sources of income, but cannot provide the timber where differentiation of their products in the only source of income and allow the forgoing of other market has generated additional benefits. land uses, except for some exceptional cases as the The benefits of insertion in such forest product floor-wood producers in Peru (Cornejo 2010). value-chains, however, depend not only on the cap- Tree-growing initiatives suffer from similar low acities of local communities and smallholders, but financial profitability. Hoch et al. (2009) have dem- also on the influence they can exercise other par- onstrated that smallholder tree plantations require ticipants in the value-chain. Value-chain participa- high initial investments, suffer from pests and fire, tion requires local producers to establish agreements and uncertain market conditions. In the Amazon re- with external actors, often in the form of written gion, only about 1% of participants in plantation and signed contracts. While establishing some kind programs end up selling plantation products for of agreement with traders may not be uncommon markets. Exceptions are perennials, such as cocoa, for local producers, it is also clear that more formal coffee, , and incidental local trees like umari agreements usually stand for more rigid rules and (Poraqueiba sericea Tul.) and cupuaçu (Theobroma important obligations on the part of local producers. grandiflorum(Willd. Ex Spreng.) K.Schum). Where Formal contracts may allow for risk sharing and, if such producers are linked to markets, they may ob- well negotiated, some kind of benefit sharing. This, tain net profits of up to USD 300–900 per hectare. in turn, requires skills and experiences in negotiat- However, initial inputs in time and capital are sig- ing the terms of trade – capacities that many local nificant (Hoch et al. forthcoming). producers are yet to develop. In the meantime, they need to rely on assistance from NGOs and develop- ment projects for negotiating contracts, complying with their stipulations, and ensuring compliance on 16.3.3 Insertion in Value-Chains the part of the trade partner. In addition, local pro- ducers need to meet quality standards and minimum Many community forestry initiatives as currently volumes, along with timely delivery of their raw promoted by development organisations require a materials or semi-finished products. Furthermore, number of adjustments from the local forest manag- the demand for capital is high, particularly when ers. Most critical, local forest users have to engage engaging in processing, but also to pay advances to in market exchange under rules with which they are raw material collectors. In the absence of financial often unfamiliar, nor do they have the necessary ca- services provided by downstream chain actors, lo- pacities to influence or take advantage of them. Their cal communities and smallholders need to rely on forestry activities become subject to a normative- commercial loans. Accessing financial services has institutional framework different from the one they its own sets of customs and rules, which require yet are acquainted with. However, the vast majority of another kind of skills. forest-based communities and smallholders con- These conditions contrast with how many rural tinue to participate mainly in primary production, producers operate. Often they operate in largely in- with little connection with downstream chain actors formal economies, where agreements are mainly ver- beyond local intermediaries. Their participation in bal. Furthermore, rural producers, such as the ones the supply- or value-chain may be sporadic, as they in the Amazon, usually apply advanced payments, often cannot supply the market with steady volumes committing the exchanging parties and reducing the or qualities (Pacheco and Paudel 2010). This limits risk of default of both parties. Where verbal agree- the opportunities of joint learning with other chain ments are made, they usually concern products that actors and, eventually, to strengthen their bargain- have relatively low exchange value, or services that ing power. can easily be withdrawn if obligations are not met. Many development initiatives promote so-called This, however, does not imply that such agreements inclusive value-chains. In particular in Mexico (see are not complied with or cannot be enforced, but Antinori 2005, Antinori and Bray 2005) and Gua- rather than introducing new practices of contractual temala (see Nittler and Tschinkel 2005, Stoian and agreements, it deems more promising to formalise Rodas 2006 a,b), a growing number of community local practices of establishing agreements. forest enterprises became engaged in vertical in- A simple representation of what is required when tegration. In Mexico, these relationships are often local forestry producers integrate in value-chains is based on contracts with timber companies, some- to assess how distant local customs, practices, and 306 times involving community-based processing (Bray rules are from those required in formal forest prod- et al. 2005). In Peten, Guatemala, local processing uct value-chains. Global economy, of which forest of certified timber into sawnwood by community product value-chains form a part, is based on private forest enterprises is common (Stoian, forthcom- ownership over the products from labour efforts and

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

personal assets, profit maximisation, and accumula- considerable pressure on forests and lead to increased tion of wealth. These economic principles, however, degradation. are not necessarily in line with those of forest or rural communities. Although in many cases local econ- omies depart from personal ownership over assets 16.3.4 Creating Community Forestry and the right to exclusively capture and consume Enterprises rewards from personal labour, key principles are also reciprocity and solidarity, and the concordance of pri- vate progress in tandem with progress of the solidar- Successfully integrating forest product value-chains ity group (Varese 2005, Gasché 2007). Hence, among requires some kind of business organisation, often forest-based communities in tropical countries, there referred to as community forest enterprises (CFEs). is much less a tendency of profit maximisation and Stoian and Donovan (2008) classify CFEs as small accumulation of wealth than, for instance, among and medium enterprises, with legal figures ranging more developed urban societies. While there are from cooperative or association to anonymous soci- differences in personal or family asset wealth and ety. Particular cases are ejido-based CFEs in Mexico, overall income between single families in most rural and comites de gestión in Peru, which are tasked communities, most rural producers pursue a strategy with the management of ejido lands and protected of accumulating productive assets, such as agricul- areas, respectively (see Bray et al. 2005, Monteferri tural fields or swidden fallow lands. These local 2006). CFEs engage in a wide variety of produc- accumulations provide insurance for future income tive and service-oriented activities, including timber uncertainties that may jeopardise the well-being of and NTFP production, and various kinds of tourism family members. In addition, local producers may (Stoian et al. 2009). Examples from the Amazon in- accumulate assets to pass them on to children, once clude community ecotourism enterprises in Peru and they start their own families and will require such Ecuador (e.g., Schmall 1999, Wunder 2000). assets to satisfy their own family needs. CFEs that are known in the region have similar- Rather than wealth accumulation, in typical Ama- ities in organisation and operation. Only a very few zonian communities, goods are exchanged in times among them can rely on the assistance of professional of need, but also in times of abundance to solidify managers. Rather, these enterprises are governed by a extensive family networks (Varesa 2005, Gasché group of persons elected from among the CFE mem- 2007, Chirif 2009). Among many rural communities, bers, and who formally are controlled by the general assisting a family member in need is considered more assembly of CFE members. The directing group is important than accumulating personal wealth beyond given the mandate to take operational decisions and what is needed to assure future well-being. Goods are administer the CFE. In some cases, the CFE is as- traded for money outside local family networks or sisted by a full time administrator or accountant who communities, but mostly to satisfy immediate needs, has had professional training (Stoian and Donovan such as buying consumer goods for daily consump- 2008). In general, many CFEs face significant trade- tion or to finance school or health expenses. It is also offs between the economic and social goals of the not uncommon that windfall incomes, as in the case enterprise. A typical question is whether any surplus of Brazil nut collectors in Bolivia, are spent exces- generated by the end of a year is divided up among sively on liquor and consumer goods for which there CFE members, or used for capitalising the enterprise. is little use, like motorbikes where there are no roads Investment decisions need to choose between acquir- or gas stations, or DVDs and music players where ing new machinery and equipment, and funding so- there is no electricity (de Jong and Evans 2005). cial projects related to granting stipends or building The implications of a local moral economy social infrastructure. Many CFEs in tropical America for the community forestry models are not easy rely heavily on external support from NGOs, which to predict. Some consequences could be that local provide the know-how and skills that professionals forest users may be interested in holding product- otherwise provide. Such external support essentially ive forest resources to which they can turn when implies that CFE are subsidised and are not able to needing money to satisfy urgent needs. They may operate profitably entirely on their own. be less inclined to become subject to rigid produc- The social re-organisation under a community tion schedules, which require delivery of products forestry development model is particularly challen- at fixed intervals, meeting agreed quality standards, ging. It seems to require a type of organisation that and the like. The implications of these behaviours is able to reconcile economic and social ends, as on forest management are diverse since, on the one suggested by Stoian and Donovan (2008). However, hand, in contexts of low pressure over the resources in many cases, local organisational traditions allow 307 they may contribute to forest conservation but, on the for social rather than strictly economic goals. To be other hand, when such pressures increase and involve viable, organisational structures and management more heavily local producers, this can translate into models have to allow for participatory decision-

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

Table 16.2. Principles of community forestry the national commercial codes is that local operators enterprises in the Amazonian context. need to constitute and register a formal economic organisation. CFEs should be modelled on existing labour and dis- The governments in the region have formalised tributive solidarity groups. community and smallholder forest tenures in dif- CFEs should adopt discussions and a decision-making ferent ways. Collective rights have been given as mechanism that coincide as much as possible with ex- indigenous territories, agro-extractive or extractive isting dialogue practices and spaces. reserves, sustainable development reserves, and Leadership implies organisation and coordination re- forestry settlements. The bundles of rights granted sponsibilities, but does not grant a position of author- ity. under these different models all recognise access Benefit distribution should represent the individual and withdrawal rights to communities, management contributions of each member. rights that impose the preparation of FMPs, and the Adequate amounts of surplus benefits should be in- right to exclude third parties from communal lands. vested in social projects (asset building), and in the The alienation rights in all cases remain with the enterprise (capitalisation). state (Larson et al. 2008). A second forest devolution strategy has been to grant individual titles through formal land titling programs, for instance in coloni- sation areas. making patterns that promote democracy, equity, The preparation of a FMP and an AOP do not and social justice without compromising the eco- only impose an administrative burden, but also repre- nomic viability of the enterprise. Social innovation sent a financial cost for local users, primarily because is needed to create business organisations that meet their preparation requires specialised skills that need the requirement of a formal enterprise, but that at the to be hired or contracted. In addition, FMPs require same time are adapted to local customs and practices. carrying out forest inventories by specialised person- While these social innovations have been little ex- nel. Most communities are not able to cover such plored, they should probably meet the criteria listed costs, so they depend on NGOs or forest companies in Table 16.2. for assistance (Benneker 2008). Several countries have recognised over time that the required plans following models inspired by corporate commercial 16.3.5 Setting up an Adequate Legal and as a consequence are financially and Framework technically too demanding for most local forestry producers. In response, some governments have at- tempted to simplify these regulations, though others Forestry regulatory frameworks influence how local have decided to cancel simplified forestry norms producers access and manage forests, but also how given the unintended consequences of simplifica- they interact with markets (Pacheco et al. 2008a). tion (Pacheco et al. 2008b). In many cases, cumbersome regulatory frameworks Ecuador, for instance, has simplified forestry tend to operate as institutional barriers and to impose norms that communities and smallholders need to excessive transactions costs to local forestry produc- comply with. Local forestry producers can do simpli- ers (Sherr et al. 2004), in particular as commercial fied forestry inventories and are allowed to produce forestry production tends to be more regulated than planks with chainsaws inside the forest. Approvals other economic sectors due to concerns for forest of plans for those operations, however, still have to conservation (Larson et al. 2008). Thus, devolution be signed by a (Ibarra et al. 2008). Never- policies in the region have increasingly granted for- theless, as in many other cases for simplification, est land ownership rights to local producers, but also smallholders and communities still have difficulties imposed management regulations more appropriate in complying with these norms. In fact, already the for corporate forestry. need to elaborate registers that record the number Communities and smallholders have access to of trees and estimated volume to be harvested often forests through individual or collective ownership, exceed the willingness and capacities of local pro- or through temporary use rights, like the social for- ducers. est concessions in Guatemala and Bolivia. Each of Also in Bolivia, there are several types of tech- these local forestry producers needs to follow a set of nical norms ranging from management plans for for- complicated rules when undertaking forest product est concessions to logging of forest areas less than harvesting. In nearly all Amazonian countries, they 200 ha that require only a harvesting permit. The 308 need to get a formal title of their lands or to regis- latter is much more simple and quickly to get than ter their existing rights, and have to develop forest an authorisation of a full-sized forest concession management plans (FMPs) and annual operational (Pacheco et al. 2008b). Between 2003 and 2006, plans (AOPs). An additional request contained in the Bolivian law also allowed smallholders to log

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

areas of less than 3 ha to facilitate the harvest of 16.4 Lessons from Amazonian small volumes of timber and to invest part of the Community Forestry Experi- profits in the formulation of formal management plans. However, the 3-ha plan was cancelled since ences it was systematically used by timber intermediar- ies to cumulate area for an easy access to timber This chapter summarised a number of critical re- (Cronkleton and Albornoz 2003). views of community forestry support initiatives in In Nicaragua, until 2006, there were three types tropical America (e.g. Gasché 2007, Pokorny et al. of plans to make small-scale logging easier and 2008, Hoch et al. 2009, Cornejo 2010). One con- cheaper: replacement plans for areas less than 10 ha, clusion is that the community forestry development minimal plans for 10–50 ha, and general FMPs and model – understood as the efforts by external agents AOPs for areas over 50 ha. A fourth type of permit to promote community and smallholder forest man- was created only in indigenous areas of the Autono- agement activities, and through these achieve objec- mous Northern Atlantic Region (RAAN) for logging tives to increase rural monetary incomes and forest pine for local markets. The simpler plans, however, conservation – is not having the expected success in were suspended following a Logging Moratorium an important number of cases, at least in the Ama- Law in 2006. All logging now requires a general zon region. In view of this, the chapter attempted to management plan. It is also now illegal for wood explain what the implications are for future efforts, to be sawn in the forest; all logs must be milled at and the potential for supporting community forestry a registered . Prior to the moratorium, saw- in order to achieve development and conservation ing boards with chainsaws was permitted under the objectives. simpler plans (Pacheco et al. 2008b). Section two of this chapter reinforced that forests In Brazil, a distinction is made between high- and and trees play an important role in daily subsistence low-intensity plans, but both are subject to compli- for the vast majority of low-income rural dwellers cated bureaucratic procedures. In both cases, a pro- in the Amazon basin. However, it also confirms that fessional forester must sign the FMPs. In community forest- and tree-based activities are relatively mar- areas, plans have to be additionally signed by leaders ginal compared to other economic activities that representing the community or territory. The profes- yield better returns per investment of labour, land, sional forester, who helps to formulate the FMP, is at or others. Financial analyses of several forestry ac- the same time responsible for the forestry operations tivities listed in Table 16.1 do suggest poor returns in the area. This intends to ensure relative transpar- compared to agricultural practices, and forestry only ency in both the formulation and implementation of receiving investment of marginal labour (Hoch et al. the FMPs, which facilitates central agency super- forthcoming). In general, when rural households’ vision, but they are hardly implemented in practice economies improve, they tend to shift their economic (Carvalheiro et al. 2008, Pacheco et al. 2008a). strategies to a more specialised portfolio of activities, An additional obligation for commercial forest often leaving forestry activities behind. On the other users is the requirement to register a forestry enter- hand, quite a number of financially attractive forestry prise under the commerce regulations. A registered activities have been reported in Amazonia, includ- forestry enterprise has to comply with tax regulations ing cocoa and palm fruit production, tropical cedar and can legally subscribe formal contracts and get planting, or tree enrichment planting (Padoch and access to formal credit. However, most of the com- Pinedo-Vasquez 2006, Hoch et al. 2009). munities see this as an additional requirement that What, then, explains the poor outcomes of com- provides little benefits. It is likely another reason munity forestry initiatives? Section three of this for communities and smallholder forest producers to chapter identifies some of the major challenges continue operating in informal forest markets. that such initiatives face. A key challenge relates Generally, it can be concluded that forestry precisely to the difficulties of forestry activities to regulations tend to operate against the interest of generate profitable incomes under the ecological and communities and smallholders because they impose economic circumstances prevalent in many parts of both legal barriers and transactions costs to them. tropical America. The community forestry devel- The simplification of forestry regulations has not opment models require a local adaptation to a set so much favoured the local forestry producers, but of practices, customs, and rules that are not only rather actors farther along the value-chain. In many alien and difficult to comprehend and absorb, but cases, market imperfections are the larger constraints they also conflict to an important degree with local to local forestry producers increasing benefits from moral-economic principles. This, for instance, im- simplified norms. Pacheco and Paudel (2010) suggest poses serious constraints in the organisational adjust- 309 that the simplification of forestry regulations is not a ments that local foresters need to make when they response to the more fundamental problems located set up CFEs. The realities of an insertion in a forest within the realm of markets. product value-chain of community forestry produc-

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

tion demand important organisational adaptations. velopment actors differ from the forestry producers Proponents of the community and smallholder de- receiving external assistance to the extent that any velopment model have suggested that the formation successful outcome is hardly to be expected. Forestry of CFEs increases the opportunities for successful development experts have, in many occasions, failed outcomes of initiatives. However, the hurdles that to adequately understand these local realities, and need to be overcome for a successful establishment neither have they been able to adjust their modus of a CFE surely contributed to the number of failed operandi according to these local realities. Accord- cases of CFEs. ing to Gasché (2002, 2007), development experts One additional challenge faced by community operate from an innate sense of self-superiority and and smallholder development initiatives is a persis- subsequently fail to appreciate the practices, val- tently limiting institutional and political environment ues, preferences, and priorities of their forest-based in all Amazonian countries. This is the case with interlocutors. In addition, development experts do much of the legislation, policies, and regulatory bod- not know or apply the adequate methods that are ies that affect community forestry, but also with those required to overcome the fundamental differences in that affect forest product markets, and the access socio-cultural realities between them and local for- and conditions of credits. Regulations and policies est managers. In view of this, many experts suggest have mostly been designed for large corporate ac- that “living together” and “mutual learning” between tors. A progressive entrance of local producers into development experts and local interlocutors is neces- commercial forestry production has hardly led to an sary to overcome these differences (Gasché 2002, adjustment of standards and subsequent modification Overing and Passes 2000, Campbell and Sayer 2003, of regulations. Where such adjustments were made, Sayer and Campbell 2004, Evans et al. 2008). the modified regulations were quite regularly abused In many locations, it is not easy to make export- by non-local producers and as a consequence legal oriented forest product value-chains, or opportunities simplifications to benefit local producers were often to improve the livelihoods of rural forest stewards, reversed. more compatible with socio-economic and cultural There are, however, other constraining conditions realities of tropical forest community and small- that equally explain the poor rate of success of local holder producers. This is not to say that there is no forestry assistance initiatives. Forestry development possibility or no need to do so. Rural forest producers initiatives suffer from inadequate funding, poorly are not stagnant, nor do they want to be; they have trained technical staff, and the requirement to comply aspirations and many pressing needs. Where these with planning and implementation regimes imposed shortcomings are to be resolved, a link between rural by funding agencies even where they are not ideal for realities and the wider national, regional, or inter- the objectives and local conditions. Several critics of national community is one of only a few available the forestry development establishment (e.g., Camp- options. However, to date, too often, efforts to ad- bell and Sayer 2003, Sayer and Campbell 2004) have dress genuinely local needs and at the same time ad- suggested that goals and objectives should be ad- dress the needs of the wider society have yet to have justed during the lifetime of assistance initiatives, been pursued with adequate understanding of the that implementation is more flexible, that problems mismatches between local rural realities and models, be addressed by multidisciplinary teams, and that and those that characterise the economic and social local ownership of initiatives be assured. life of societies outside this rural reality. The executing agencies, often NGOs, are not The community forestry development establish- always able to establish optimal implementation ment has indeed observed the self-generated forestry conditions. A limited pool of capable technical staff models, but has failed to interpret those adequately contributes to this limitation. Forestry faculties in to propose forestry development models that are ac- Latin America, but also in many other locations in the ceptable to local forestry protagonists. Externally world, are slow in adjusting their education curricula proposed forestry development models do not last to train a cadre of forestry experts who have a broad unless they are rooted in the local social structures, understanding of the issues and who have the required economies, and value systems. If they don’t meet skills (Pokorny et al. 2008). Forestry development in- these conditions, they become ephemeral and consti- itiatives often have to hire personnel who move from tute a drain on national and international resources. initiative to initiative, which creates vested interests Even though linking to export markets appears to for a continued stream of new initiatives. be necessary in order to achieve some significant As a last point, commentators are increasingly economic benefits, they are not the best departure arguing that Amazon forest-based societies operate points from which to design new models, unless 310 according to their own practices, values, preferences, those models have truly been adjusted to local real- and priorities (Henkemans 2001, Gasché 2004 and ities. And the only ones who can truly judge whether 2007, Varese 2005, Lynam et al. 2007, Chirif 2009). or not that is the case, are the local producers, and The value-laden visions and perceptions of the de- nobody else.

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

References dores da Amazônia. 48 p. De Jong, W. 2010. Forest rehabilitation and its implication for Allegretti, M.H. 1995. The Amazon and Extracting Activities. In: theory. Biotropica 42 (1): 3–9. Clüsener-Godt, M. & Sachs, I. (eds.). Brazilian Perspectives De Jong, W. & Evans, K. 2005. Volatile Markets and the Empower- on Sustainable Development of the Amazon Region. Man and ment of the Poor. Japan Center for Area Studies Newsletter, the Biosphere Series 15. UNESCO, Paris. p. 157–174. No 18. Available at: http://www.cias.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jcas/news- Antinori, C. 2005. Vertical integration in the community forestry letter/essay/20050705/01.html [Cited 9 MAr 2010]. enterprises of Oaxaca. In: Bray, D., Merino-Pérez, L. & Barry, De Jong, W., Pokorny,B., Sabogal, C., Louman, B. & Stoian, D. D. (eds.). The community forests of Mexico: Managing for 2008. Antecedentes, realidad y oportunidades del manejo sustainable landscapes. University of Texas Press, Austin, forestal comunitario en América Latina. In: Sabogal, C., de Texas. p. 241–272. Jong, W., Pokorny, B. & Lauman, B. (eds.). El manejo for- Antinori, C. & Bray, D. 2005. Community forest enterprises as estal comunitario en América Latina: experiencias, lecciones entrepreneurial firms: Economic and institutional perspec- aprendidas y retos para el futuro. CIFOR, CATIE. Belem, tives from Mexico. World Development 33(9): 1529–1543. Brazil. p. 33–74. Balee, W. 1987. Cultural forests of the Amazon. Garden 11(6): Denevan, W. & Christine, P. (eds.). 1988. Swidden-fallow agro- 12–14,32. forestry in the Peruvian Amazon. Advances in Economic Benneker, C. 2008. Dealing with the state, the market and NGOs: Botany 5. The impact of institutions on the constitution and perform- Donovan, J., Stoian, D. & Poole, N. 2008. Global Review of Rural ance of Community Forest Enterprises (CFE) in the low- Community Enterprises: The Long and Winding Road to Cre- lands of Bolivia. Doctoral thesis, Wageningen University, ating Viable Businesses, and Potential Shortcuts. Technical the Netherlands. Series, Technical Bulletin 29, Rural Enterprise Development Bray, D.B. & Merino-Pérez, L. 2002. The rise of community for- Collection 2. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. estry in Mexico: history, concepts, and lessons learned from Dubois J.C.L. 1990. The Management Potential of Neotropical twenty-five years of timber production. The Ford Foundation Secondary Lowland Rain Forest. and Man- Mexico City, Mexico. agement 47: 295–321. Bray, D.B., Merino-Perez L. & Barry, D. (eds.). 2005. The com- Evans, K., de Jong, W. & Cronkleton, P. 2008. Future scenarios as munity forests of Mexico: Managing for sustainable land- a tool for decision making in forest communities. SAPIENS scapes. The University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. 1(2). Available at: http://sapiens.revues.org/index209.html Browder, J. 1992. The limits of extractivism: Tropical forest [Cited 9 Mar 2010]. strategies beyond extractive reserves. Bioscience 42(3): Gasché, J. 2002. Criterios e instrumentos de una pedagogía inter- 174–182. cultural para proyectos de desarrollo en el medio bosquesino Calibre Consultants 2000. Number of forest dependent people; amazónico. Relaciones. Zamora, Colegio de Michoacán, A feasibility study. Available at: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/ssc/ 23(91): 193–234. publications/fdp.pdf [Cited 14 Sep 2009]. Gasché, J. 2007. ¿Para qué sirve el concepto de “sociedad bosque- Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Nemarundwe, N., Sithole, B., de sina? Folia Amazónica. 16(1–2): 81–88. Jong, W., Luckert, M. & Matose, F. 2001. Challenges to pro- Gasché, J. (ed.). 2004. Critica de proyectos y proyectos críticos ponents of Common Property Resource systems – despairing de desarrollo: Una reflexión latinoamericana con énfasis en voices from the social forests of Zimbabwe. World Develop- la amazonia. IIAP, Iquitos, Peru. 118 p. ment 29(4): 589–600. Godar, J. 2009. The environmental and human dimensions of Campbell, B.M. & Sayer, J.A. (eds.). 2003. Integrated natural re- frontier expansion at the Transamazon highway colonization sources management: Linking productivity, the environment area. PhD thesis. Universidade de León. 287 p. and development. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. Henkemans, A.B. 2001. Tranquilidad and hardship in the forest. Carvalheiro, K., Sabogal, C. & Paulo, P. 2008. Análise da le- Livelihoods and perceptions of the Camba forest dwellers in gislação para o manejo florestal por produtores de pequena the northern Bolivian Amazon. PROMAB Scientific Series escala na Amazônia brasileira. CIFOR, ForLive, IMAZON, 5. PROMAB, Riberalta, Bolivia. UFRA. Belém, Pará. Hoch, L., Pokorny, B. & de Jong, W. 2009. How successful is Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-en- tree growing for smallholders in the Amazon? International vironment relationship in rural households: Evidence from Forestry Review 11(3): 299–31. Zimbabwe. World Development 28(11): 1979–2003. Hoch, L., Pokorny, B. & de Jong, W. Forthcoming. Financial at- Chibnik, M. 1991. Quasi-Ethnic Groups in Amazonia. Ethnology tractiveness of tree growing for smallholders in the Amazon. 30(2): 167–182. (Submitted to Ecological Economics). Chirif, A. 2009. El otro sendero (despistado) de Hernando de Soto. Ibarra, E., Romero, M. & Gatter, S. 2008. Análisis del marco Servicios en Comunicación Intercultural, Servindi. Available legal para el manejo forestal por pequeños productores en at: http://www.servindi.org/actualidad/opinion/16603. [Cited la amazonia ecuatoriana. ForLive, CIFOR, SFA, EU, Quito, 21 Sep 2009]. Ecuador. Clüsener-Godt, M. & Sachs I. (eds). 1994. Extractivism in the Larson, A., Cronkleton, P., Barry, D. & Pacheco, P. 2008. Tenure Brazilian Amazon: perspectives on regional development. Rights and Beyond: Community access to forest benefits in MAB Digest 18. UNESCO, Paris. Latin America. CIFOR, Bogor, . Cornejo, C. 2010. Manejo local de la diversidad biológica en la Lynam, T., De Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T. & Evans, K. Amazonía Andina: Propuesta de gestión descentralizada para 2007. A review of tools for incorporating community know- un desarrollo alternativo. CIAS Discussion Paper. Center for ledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural Integrated Area Studies, Kyoto University. resources management. Ecology and Society 12(1): 5. Cronkleton, P. & Albornoz, M.A. 2003. Uso y abuso del aprove- Moran, E. (ed.). 1984. The dilemma of Amazonian development. chamiento forestal en pequeña escala, Provincia Guarayos. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Santa Cruz, Bolivia [Use and abuse of small-sacle forest McDermott, M. & Schreckenberg, K. 2009. Equity in commun- management, Province of Guarayos, Santa Cruz, Bolivia]. ity forestry: Insights from North and South. International 311 Centro Internacional de Investigaciones Forestales (CIFOR), Forestry Review 11(2): 57-170. Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Medina, G. & Pokorny, B. 2008. Avaliação Financeira do Manejo CTA 2006. Lições aprendidas a partir das experiências de manejo Florestal Comunitário. IBAMA/Universidad de Freiburg. florestal comunitário de uso múltiplo. Centro de Traballha- 215p.

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

Monteferri, B. (ed.). 2006. Comités de Gestión: Construyendo Garden Magazine 6(1): 18–24. gobernanza para las áreas naturales protegidas del Perú. So- Pyhälä, A., Brown, K. & Adger, N. 2006. Implications of Live- ciedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental, Lima, Peru. lihood Dependence on Non-Timber Products in Peruvian Nalvarte, W., Sabogal, C., Galván, O., Marmillod, D., Angulo, W., Amazonia. Ecosystems 9: 1328–1341. Córdova, N. & Colán, V. 2004. Silvicultura en la Amazonía Red Amazonica de Información Socioambiental Georeferenciada Peruana: Diagnóstico de experiencias en la Región Ucayali (RAISG) 2009. Available at: http://raisg.socioambiental.org/ y la Provincia de Puerto Inca. Pucallpa, Perú. 105 p. node/106 [Cited 8 Sep 2009]. Nepstad, D.C. & Schwartzman, S. (eds.) 1992. Non-Timber Prod- Sabogal, C., de Jong, W., Pokorny, B. & Louman, B. (eds.). 2008. ucts from Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and El manejo forestal comunitario en América Latina: experi- Development Strategy. Advances in Economic Botany Series encias, lecciones aprendidas y retos para el futuro. CIFOR, 9. 176 p. CATIE, Belem, Brazil. Nittler, J. & Tschinkel, H. 2005. Community forest management Sabogal C., Camacho, M. & Guariguata, M. (eds.). 1997. Ex- in the Maya Biosphere Reserve of Guatemala: Protection periencias prácticas y prioridades de investigación en sil- through profits. USAID, SANREM, University of Georgia. vicultura de bosques naturales en América tropical. Actas Overing, J. & Passes, A. (eds.). 2000. The anthropology of love del Seminario-Taller realizado en Pucallpa-Perú del 17 al and anger. The aesthetics of conviviality in native Amazonia. 21 de junio de 1996. Publicación Especial CIFOR/CATIE/ Routledge, London, New York. INIA. 236 p. Pacheco, P., Barry, D., Cronkleton, P., & Larson, A. 2008a. The Sabogal C., Almeida, E., Marmillod, D. & Carvalho, O.P. 2006. role of informal institutions in the use of forest resources in Silvicultura na Amazônia brasileira: avaliação de experiências Latin America. CIFOR. Bogor, Indonesia. e recomendações para implementação e melhoria dos siste- Pacheco, P., Ibarra, E., Cronkleton P. & Amaral, P. 2008.b. Políti- mas. CIFOR – EMBRAPA. Belém – Pará, Brasil. 190 p. cas públicas que afectan el manejo forestal comunitario. In: Sayer, J. & Campbell, B.M. 2004. The science of sustainable Sabogal, C., de Jong, W., Pokorny, B. & Louman, B. (eds.). development: local livelihoods and the global environment. 2008. El manejo forestal comunitario en América Latina: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. experiencias, lecciones aprendidas y retos para el futuro. Scherr, S., White, A & Kaimowitz, D. 2004. A new agenda for for- CIFOR, CATIE, Belem, Brazil. p. 201-228. est conservation and poverty reduction. Making markets work Pacheco, P. & Paudel, N.S. 2010. Communities and forest mar- for forest communities. Forest Trends, Washington, DC. kets: Assessing the benefits from diverse forms of engage- Schmall S. 1999. Das Ökotourismusprogramm der Organización ment. In: Larson, A., Barry, D. & Dahal, G. (eds.). Forests de Pueblos Indígenas de Pastaza (OPIP) im Amazonastiefland for people: Community rights and Forest Tenure Reform. Ecuadors. Ansätze selbstbestimmter Entwicklung einer indi- Earthscan, London. genen Basisorganisation. Dissertation Humboldt-University, Padoch, C. 1987. The Economic Importance and Marketing of Berlin. Forest and Fallow Products in the Iquitos Region. In: Dene- Sears, R.R., Padoch, C. & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. 2007. Amazon For- van, W.M. & Padoch, C. (eds.). Swidden Fallow Agroforestry estry Transformed: Integrating Knowledge for Smallholder in the Peruvian Amazon. Advances in Economic Botany 5. Timber Management in Eastern Brazil. Human Ecology 35: New York Botanical Garden, New York. p. 74–89. 697–707. Padoch, C. & de Jong, W. 1991. The house gardens of Santa Silva, J.N.M., de Carvalho, J.O.P., Lopes, J. do C.A., de Almeida, Rosa: An Amazonian agricultural system. Economic Botany B.F., Costa, D.H.M., de Oliveira, L.C., Vanclay, J.K. & Skovs- 45(2): 166–175. gaard, J.P. 1995. Growth and Yield of a Tropical Rain Forest in Padoch, C. & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. 2006. Concurrent activities the Brazilian Amazon 13 Years After Logging. Forest Ecology and invisible technologies: an example of timber manage- and Management 71(3): 267–274. ment in Amazonia. In: Posey, D.A. & Balick, M.J. (eds.). Smith, J., van de Kop, P., Reategui, K., Lombardi, I., Sabogal, C. Human Impacts on Amazonia: The role of traditional ecologi- & Diaz, A. 1999. Dynamics of secondary forests in slash- cal knowledge in conservation and development. Columbia and-burn farming: interactions among land use types in the University Press, New York. p. 172–180. Peruvian Amazon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Perz, S.G. & Skole, D.L. 2003. Expansion in the 76(2–3): 85–98. Brazilian Amazon and the Refinement of Forest Transition Smith J., Finegan, B., Sabogal, C., Ferreira, M.S.G., Siles, G., Theory. Society & Natural Resources 16(4): 277–294. van de Kop P. & Díaz, A. 2001. Management of Second- Pimentel, D., McNair, M., Buck, L., Pimentel, M. & Kamil, J. ary Forests in Colonist Swidden Agriculture in Peru, Bra- 1997. The value of forests to world food security. Human zil and Nicaragua. In: Palo, M., Uusivuori, J. & Mery, G. Ecology 25(1): 91–120. (eds.).World Forests, Markets and Policies. World Forests Plotkin, M. & Famolare, L. (eds.). 1992. Sustainable Harvest Volume III, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/London/ and Marketing of Rain Forest Products. Island Press, Wash- Boston. p. 263–278. ington, D.C. Stoian, D. 2000. Variations and Dynamics of Extractive­ Econo- Poffenberger, M. (ed.). 1990. Keepers of the forest: Land manage- mies: The Rural-Urban Nexus of Non-timber Forest Use ment alternatives in Southeast Asia. Kumarian Press, West in the Bolivian Amazon. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hartford. Freiburg, Germany. Pokorny, B., Hoch, L., Godar, J., Johnson, J., Medina, G., Vincent, Stoian, D. 2005. Reducción de la Pobreza Rural en Centroamérica: V. & Weigelt, J. Forthcoming. Florestas e a produção familiar Fortalecimiento de Servicios Técnicos, Empresariales y Fi- na Amazônia: una analise crítica sobre o potencial para o nancieros. Síntesis de los Hallazgos de la Conferencia y Taller desenvolvimento local. Síntese dos Resultados do Projeto de Internacional realizada en CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, del Pesquisa ForLive. University of Freiburg, Freiburg. 11 al 15 de abril del 2005. Pokorny B. & Johnson, J. 2008. Community forestry in the Ama- Stoian, D. (Forthcoming). Assessing the Impact of Forest Cer- zon: The unsolved challenge of forests and the poor. ODI tification on Poverty and the Environment: Tool Develop- Natural Resource Perspectives 112. 4 p. ment Based on Case Studies from Peten, Guatemala. Report Pokorny, B., Sabogal, C., de Jong, W., Stoian, D., Louman, B., commissioned by the Ford Foundation. CATIE, Turrialba, 312 Pacheco, P. & Porro, N. 2008. Experiencias y retos del manejo Costa Rica. forestal comunitario en América Latina. Recursos Naturales Stoian, D. & Donovan, J. 2008. Capacidades empresariales para el y Ambiente 54: 81–98. desarrollo de empresas forestales comunitarias. In: Sabogal, Posey, D.A. 1982. Keepers of the forest. New York Botanical C., de Jong, W., Pokorny, B. & Louman, B.(eds.). El manejo

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry

forestal comunitario en América Latina: experiencias, lec- Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J. & Liddle, M. 2008. From exclusion to ciones aprendidas y retos para el futuro. CIFOR, CATIE, ownership. Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest Belem, Brazil. p. 115–162. tenure reform. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, Stoian, D. & Henkemans, A.B. 2000. Between Extractivism and D.C. Peasant Agriculture: Differentiation of Rural Settlements Varese, S. 2005. Economía política, moral y territorialidad in- in the Bolivian Amazon. International Tree Crops Journal dígena en la Amazonia. Revista de la Casa de las Américas 10(4): 299–319. 239: 31–38. Stoian, D. & Rodas, A. 2006a. Community Forest Enterprise De- Vos, V., Llanque, O. & Zonta, A. forthcoming. Medios de vida y velopment in Guatemala: A Case Study of Sociedad Civil para manejo forestal por pequeños productores de la Amazônia. el Desarrollo Árbol Verde. http://www.rightsandresources. UAB/University of Freiburg, Riberalta, Bolivia. org/ documents/files/doc_220.pdf [Cited 10 Mar 2010]. Wunder, S. 2000. Ecotourism and economic incentives: an empiri- Stoian, D. & Rodas, A. 2006b. Community Forest Enterprise De- cal approach. Ecological Economics 32(3): 465–480. velopment in Guatemala: A Case Study of Cooperativa Car- Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests – melita R.L. Community-based Forest Enterprises in Tropical What Scope for Synergies? World Development 29(11): Countries: Status and Potential. Comparative Study ITTO 1817–1833. – Forest Trends. Available at: http://orton.catie.ac.cr/repdoc/ A2439I/A2439I.PDF [Cited 10 Mar 2010]. Stoian, D., Donovan, J. & Poole, N. 2009. Unlocking the develop- ment potential of community forest enterprises: Findings from a comparative study in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the United States. Paper presented at the XIII to be held in Buenos Aires on Oct. 18–23, 2009. Summers, P.M., Browder, J.O. & Pedlowski, M.A. 2004. Tropi- cal forest management and silvicultural practices by small farmers in the Brazilian Amazonia: Recent farm-level evi- dence from Rondônia. Forest Policy and Economics 192: 161–177.

313

FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE