Small and medium forest enterprises in a REDD+ context: An analysis of enabling environments in developing countries Olivia Sanchez Badini, Reem Hajjar*, and Robert Kozak
Forests and Communi/es in Transi/on (FACT) Lab, Faculty of Forestry, The University of Bri/sh Columbia
INTRODUCTION and OBJECTIVES Small and medium forest enterprises (SMFEs), including community forest enterprises, can contribute towards the achievement of REDD+ goals of reduced forest emissions and increased forest carbon stocks through sustainable and locally appropriate forest management, while at the same resulting in multiple local and global benefits1 (Figure 1). Because of this win-win scenario, it has been proposed to use a portion of the REDD+ readiness efforts to promote national enabling environments for these enterprises2. This study analysed the national level support for SMFEs in 41 developing countries across the world, as stipulated in REDDreadiness documents submitted to multilateral funders UNREDD, FIP, and FCPF. SMFEs play an important role at both the local and the global level: • ¼ of the world’s forests are owned by one billion smallholders3 • SMFEs generate $75-100 billion/year in goods & services4 • SMFEs represent 80-90% of forestry enterprises in many countries and <50% of forestry employment in many others5 • SMFEs spread wealth locally, empower local creativity, and act in preserving cultural identity and practices • SMFEs sector is highly informal, volatile, and fragmented; ~ 75% of firms fail within the first three years6 Figure 1. Importance of SMFEs at the local and global level. Photo: Natural Gum Marketing Enterprise in Adama, Ethiopia. Gum and resin resources collected from Acacia, Boswellia, and Commiphora tree species make a significant contribution to annual household income in the lowlands of Ethiopia (©Ollivier Girard/CIFOR).
Forest governance elements Coordination
Business environment (external elements)
SMFE capaci/es (internal elements)
1. Macroeconomics
8. Organizational
2. Tenure and ownership
Accountability
9. Clustering
3. Management rights
Transparency 4. Forest law enforcement Equity and inclusion
10. Business management
5. Markets 6. Regulatory frameworks
11. Forest management
7. Financial services
Figure 2. The 11 pillars of the SMFE enabling environment, classified into external business environment, and internal SMFE capacities7. Good forest governance – critical component of thae SMFE enabling environment - is a crosscutting theme that can be present throughout the various pillars.
• Despite a general recognition in REDD+ schemes of the importance of the direct and indirect promotion of SMFE developments, most countries failed to propose strategies and actions for addressing these • Tenure, forest law enforcement, and management rights were the pillars with the most prominence • The enabling environment gaps were most notorious in the lack of support for: 1) the business side of forest enterprise development (e.g. regulatory frameworks, markets, and financial service provision); 2) the internal SMFE capacities (particularly clustering and business management capacities)
Outcome: SMFE enabling environment framework (11 pillars) (Figure 2) Used to evaluate *
REDD+ preparedness documents (UN-REDD, FCPF, FIP) from 41 developing countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia-Pacific Outcome: Depth and breadth of support for each of the 11 pillars of the SMFE enabling environment in REDD-‐readiness proposals * Keywords from each of these pillars were used as a basis for qualitative content analysis and magnitude coding using NVivo10 software. For every REDD-readiness document, text pertinent to each pillar was scored against a pre-determined set of indicators to assess how the pillars were addressed in the documents: from mentioning them, to recognizing their importance, to proposing strategies and actions. RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012
www.PosterPresentations.com
Considerations include that the quality and appropriateness of REDD+ strategies was not covered; SMFE development and REDD+ goals might not align, depending on every country’s situation; and SMFE success is highly context-dependent.
Figure 3. Marketing of NTFPs: This farmer uses his 0.5 ha cacao plantation in West Bali National Park, Indonesia, to harvest honey, which he sells under the trade name 'Matal Honey' for $8/bottle. Marketing capacities are needed to sell products at prices that ensure adequate returns (©Aulia Erlangga/CIFOR).
REFERENCES Mention of pillar
80
% of countries treating each pillar under each of the four evaluative categories
Literature review on SMFE successes and challenges
Recommendations for building national strategies under REDD+ that fully embrace SMFEs as a climate solution and development strategy: • Creation of appropriate business regulatory frameworks, markets, and financial services for smallholders (Figure 3) • Provision of business development services and forest management training to smallholders • Support for SMFE clusters (e.g. secondary-level producer organizations). Because of the many direct and indirect benefits that arise from these networks, this could be the single most effective way to promote SMFEs
RESULTS
100
METHODS
RECOMMENDATIONS
60
Importance of pillar
40
Proposal of strategies
20 0
Macroeconomics
Tenure
Proposal of actions
Management rights
100 80 60 40 20
1. Scherr, S.J., White, A. & Kaimowitz, D. (2003). Making markets work for forest communities. The International Forestry Review, 5(1), pp. 69-73 Ribot, J., Agrawal, A. & Larson, A. (2006). Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Development, 34(11), 1864-1886 Bray, D. B., Duran, E., Ramos, V. H., Mas, J. F., Velazquez, A., McNab, R. B., & Radachowsky, J. (2008). Tropical deforestation, community forests, and protected areas in the Maya Forest. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 56. 2. Chhatre, A., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 106(42), 17667-17670. Cronkleton, P., Bray, D. B., & Medina, G. (2011). Community forest management and the emergence of multiscale governance institutions: lessons for REDD+ development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests, 2(2), 451-473. Tomaselli, M. F., & Hajjar, R. (2011). Promoting community forestry enterprises in national REDD+ strategies: A business approach. Forests, 2(1), 283-300. 3. FAO. (2013). Unleashing the economic power of forests lands through producer organizations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/partnerships/forest-farm-facility/39428-036df3a0da9ff203070b8481293166aff.pdf 4. Ibid. 5. Mayers, J. (2006). Poverty reduction through commercial forestry. What evidence? What prospects? The Forests Dialogue (2). Yale University, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. 6. Ibid. 7. Olivia Sanchez Badini et al., in progress
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
0
Forest law enforcement
Markets
Regulatory frameworks
Financial services
100 80 60
• • • •
Forests and Communities in Transition (FACT) Lab – http://fact.forestry.ubc.ca/ Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
CONTACT
40 20
• *Reem Hajjar (corresponding author): reem.hajjar@gmail.com
0
Organizational capacities
Clustering
Business mgmt capacities
Forest mgmt capacities
SMFE enabling environment pillars