Avaliação Financeira do Manejo Florestal Comunitário

Abstract

ResumoAs comunidades da Amazônia têm grandes possibilidades de melhorar suas condições de vida, por meio do manejo de suas florestas. Existem diferentes iniciativas externas buscando apoiar as comunidades a estabelecerem sistemas de manejo fl orestal comunitário (MFC) para a extração madeireira. No entanto, não existe ainda uma avaliação da viabilidade financeira dos modelos propostos. Esse estudo, feito com oito iniciativas de MFC, revelou que a viabilidade fi nanceira dos modelos atuais é bastante limitada. Um debate crítico sobre o potencial desses modelos técnicos externos precisa ser feito, buscando ajustar as propostas aos interesses e capacidades das comunidades. AbstractAmazonian communities have the potential for improving their livelihoods by effi ciently managing their forest resources. Aiming to support communities, there are different externally-driven initiatives promoting community forest management (CFM) for timber extraction. However, there is limited understanding of the fi nancial viability of those initiatives. This study revealed that families received limited fi nancial benefi ts from externally-driven CFM initiatives. A critical debate on the real potential of these approaches needs to take place in order to adjust the concepts to the interests and capacities of local communities.

REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies

“…Only in very few cases did smallholder communities obtain concession rights, as for example, in the Ambê initiative in the Tapajós National Park (Brazil) where river communities obtained the right to harvest timber from around 25,000 hectares of public forests (Medina and Pokorny 2008), or in the case of Bolivia where indigenous and multicultural communities have been assured first right to benefit from timber on their extensive communal areas and public forest concessions are allocated to organized urban groups called Agrupaciones Sociales del Lugar (Local Social Groups) (Ruiz 2005). In Brazil, the government established forest settlements (Projetos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável) where forests are owned and managed collectively.…”

“…The costs of implementing the new technologies and organization normally exceeded local capacities and resources. Often the promoted land uses suggested because of their positive environmental outcomes, were economically less attractive than anticipated (Hoch et al 2009, Medina and Pokorny 2011, and smallholders' benefits remained marginal compared to alternative options. Even in successful community forestry projects, for example, profits rarely exceeded 5 USD/ha/yr (Pokorny in press).…”

“…Even in successful community forestry projects, for example, profits rarely exceeded 5 USD/ha/yr (Pokorny in press). Even when profits were generated, smallholders were rarely able to accumulate sufficient capital to secure operations in subsequent years (Medina and Pokorny 2011), and sales in national and international markets remained difficult making them dependent on the continued mediation by NGOs (Scherr et al 2001). …”

“…Also in most indigenous areas and extractive reserve communities receive tenure rights over public forests which include the exclusive rights to commercially use forest products. However, in all these cases the smallholders face insurmountable difficulties to comply with the administrative and technical regulations (Chirif and Garcia Herrero 2007), and the few successful cases strongly rely on massive external support (Medina and Pokorny 2008.…”

Is Decentralization Leading to "Real" Decision-Making Power for Forest-dependent Communities? Case Studies from Mexico and Brazil

“…Such interventions, controlled and defined by external agents, have often had a strong and altering effect on the traditional decision-making structure and harvesting practices of NWFPs (Herrero-Jauregui et al 2009) and timber management (Medina and Pokorny 2008), and have often disregarded the local context and cultures (Colchester 2008, Pokorny 2009, Pokorny et al 2010. If the community is pandering to the intervener's choices and decisions, then local control is somewhat compromised.…”