Introduction
Forest-dependent people face both poverty and marginalisation. Their difficulties are often much broader than low incomes. They have to do with powerlessness and insecurity, the absence of ‘decent’ work, geographical and social isolation, the degradation of natural resources on which they are particularly dependent, and cultural disintegration.
Forest enterprise of all sizes can
... [Show full abstract] increase incomes by selling products such as fuel wood, industrial round wood, primary and secondary processed timber products, non-timber forest products (NTFPs) or services such as tourism, watershed management or carbon sequestration. Policy and practice often favour larger scales of forest industry (e.g. large concessions) despite reviews showing little evidence of poverty reduction by large-scale commercial forestry. Forest certification has got to grips with sustainable forest management but has tended to buttress up the large at the expense of the small – without making a significant impact on poverty reduction.
Recent analyses suggest that it is small enterprises, especially those democratically managed by communities, which address the broader dimension of poverty. They accrue wealth locally and secure local forest access (thereby reducing tensions that come from external interference in resource use). They foster local entrepreneurship and often participate in and strengthen local associations with strong social and environmental aims. They usually respect local cultural traditions and can help to build local environmental knowledge and accountability. Fair trade has made great progress in supporting small community enterprises in developing countries but with little involvement in the forest sector until now. There is scope to do more with the complementary foundations of forest certification and fair trade in support of community forest producers.
Timber is perhaps the most commercially important ‘community forest product’ and therefore deserves particular attention in any new support. By ‘community forest product’ we mean forest products whose production is overseen by a democratically managed organisation suited to act as a certificate holder, that can claim legitimacy within a self-defining ‘community’ in terms of people and area – though not necessarily either owning the forest or carrying out all the commercial functions necessary to produce those products.
Community forest producers must match what the buyer wants, often in competition with other more powerful, better informed and financed enterprises. Support could usefully focus on a number of areas – such as improving rights for small enterprises, facilitating access to financial or business services, or opening up new market mechanisms. This report looks at the third of these options – to distinguish and reward community forest enterprises in the market.
A previous report, ‘Exploring fair trade timber’, described the potential and limitations of eco-labelling, social auditing, forest certification and fair trade for enhancing community forest production. It noted the lack of detail about industrial demand to distinguish community forest products in the market. This report addresses this gap.
International industrial demand for a mechanism to distinguish community forest products in the market
There is little point in progressing further if no forest industries want to distinguish community forest products in the market. So what is the demand? Chapter 2 describes the results of an international demand survey using written and telephone questionnaires. More than 180 companies known for their social or environmental interest were approached in 25 countries. A total of 52 responses were received from 21 countries – including 16 companies in the timber trade, 19 medium to large-scale retailers and 17 specialist or niche firms.
Most company respondents perceived at least some demand for social and or environmental standards from their customers. Most used social or environmental marketing as a result. All either had or planned to have an ethical sourcing policy. Almost half already sourced some timber products from communities (although often in tiny amounts). A small number had tried but stopped after negative experiences.
Over two thirds of all respondents approved in principal of the idea of ‘distinguishing community forest products in the market’. This included 100% of the specialist firms, 73% of the timber traders and 56% of the medium or large-scale retailers (especially in the UK, the Netherlands and the USA). They saw a number of advantages, including their own competitive advantage, greater options for ethical consumers and a better deal for poor producers.
Most of the respondents did not wish to see any further proliferation of labels. They felt that any new mechanisms should maintain existing forest certification labels (such as the Forest Stewardship Council, FSC) or the fair trade label (of the Fair Trade Labelling Organisations, FLO). Some 60% of the respondents wished either to know more about piloting new mechanisms or definitely expressed willingness to pilot.
A separate survey of 11 firms already involved in different capacities with the fair trade of timber products (primarily craft and small scale furniture) was also conducted at a meeting of the International Fair Trade Association (IFAT). All but one noted an increasing customer demand for knowledge about the sustainability of fair trade timber items. All but two of the respondents felt it would be a positive step to develop a mainstream mechanism to distinguish community forest products in the market. The main concern was that any new mechanisms should not exacerbate costs for community producers.
National case studies of demand for community forest products in Brazil, Mexico, Papua New Guinea and Guatemala
Four country case studies were chosen against a careful set of criteria to maximise their contribution to what was learned in the international demand survey. In each country, a short literature review to give background context was complemented by a series of more specific interviews with people along value chains that involved community forest producers. One value chain was selected in each country for more in-depth analysis. This value chain was reviewed in terms of whether and how a mechanism to distinguish community forest products might emerge to the benefit of those involved. It is significant that in every case of successful community forest production, great progress was made first in the institutional structures and organisation that underpinned that production.
Chapter 3 looks in more depth at Brazil where sustainable community forest management is fast emerging. But it currently makes up only a small percentage of trade in a sector otherwise dominated by informal and often illegal trade in timber from forests converted for agricultural production. While Brazil has the highest area of FSC certified tropical forests in the world, only 11 certificates pertain to community forest producers (and most of the certified community area is linked to one Amerindian extractive reserve for NTFPs). Fair Trade is growing in the Brazilian forest sector but mainly for NTFPs such as Brazil nuts. Most certified community timber products are sold domestically – primarily to a Certified Products Buyer’ Group – based in São Paulo. Interviews with the diverse members of this group revealed a general interest in distinguishing community forest products for the domestic market – especially among high end furniture designers, but also in the timber trade, and to a lesser extent in the architectural and construction industries.
The Brazilian state of Acre features prominently in the supply of sustainable community forest products. Four of the five FSC-certified communities in Acre have formed a producers cooperative – Cooperfloresta which subcontracts a local sawmill to process approximately 1200m³ per year from member producers. A recent development has been the supply of low specific gravity, light-coloured species to a local plywood plant, Laminadas Triunfo Ltda which in turn makes composite boards for the European company Finnforest. The plywood company pays a 10% premium for FSC certified wood (but nothing extra for community origin) and FSC certified products currently make up 21% of the input. With potential expansion in the number of participating FSC-certified communities and improving business management there may be scope for real benefits to the poor from a mechanism that rewards sustainability and community ownership / management.
In Chapter 4 we turn to Mexico - remarkable in terms of the extent to which community forest management is the norm (80% of Mexico’s forests are owned under a social tenure system based on agrarian community nuclei - ejidos). Mexico has also been a pioneer in FSC certification (its area second only to Brazil in Latin America). Mexico’s 46 certified forest operations are all communally managed. Mexico also has a thriving Fair Trade movement with 67 organisations affiliated to FLO – especially for products such as coffee, honey and fruit.
The market for Mexican timber originating in sustainable community forest operations is largely domestic. While these markets have historically not placed value on certified sustainability or community origin, some exporters are beginning to experience pressure for such attributes. The FSC certified Ejido Noh Bec in the State of Quintana Roo produces approximately 6000m³ annually (of which 1500m³ is mahogany) – most of which is used to supply the separately constituted Noh Bec SPR sawmill / marketing unit. To date the main buyers of Noh Bec’s Mahogany have been US companies such as Rex Lumber Company and Inter-Continental Hardwoods, but there is also a small niche market for Katalox in Europe. Finding international contacts, and having the organisation between communities to supply the volumes that they might require is an area that requires further attention. Once again, a mechanism to distinguish community forest products in the market is widely seen as an important next step.
Chapter 5 moves East to Papua New Guinea. Like Mexico, Papua New Guinea has a long history of attempts to make sustainable community forestry work. With 80-85% of its population in mostly forested rural areas, the scope for timber production to make a contribution to poverty reduction is high. But to date, primarily large commercial forest concessions have not live up to this potential. Four community group certification schemes have attempted to provide an alternative model, but only two have survived, Forcert and those of the Foundation for People and Community Development and Madang Forest Resource Owners. In contrast with other case study countries, the domestic market in Papua New Guinea is much more restricted – forcing such groups to look for export options, which may in turn be more exacting in the specifications required.
The striking aspect of the work of Forcert, is the extent to which the geographical dispersal of member producers across four islands has sharpened its institutional model. This model involves separate producer members, supplying separate Central Marketing Units (CMUs), that then supply overseas buyers through a central brokering service, Forcert. The model has been critical to aggregating the supply of high quality timber for export markets (primarily the Woodage in Australia). Now certified as a Fair Trade Organisation (FTO) by the International Fair Trade Association (IFAT) – Forcert operates a stepwise approach to community forest certification. This encourages producer members to join the network by giving them instant market recognition and premiums as ‘Community Based Fair Trade Producers (CBFT)’ tied in to eventual FSC certification - attracting a further premium in price. New members will be essential if the Forcert network service is to break even as planned by 2010. Its current 29 producer members and 4 CMUs will need to expand to 50 producer members and 7CMUs with substantial increases in export from the 2006 total of 134m³ to an anticipated 2010 total of 1500m³ per year with an increase in the levy on members from 3 to 7% this year to compensate for a lower than anticipated growth in production. Building recognition of Forcert’s work through a new mechanism that draws on this model to distinguish community forest products in the market would be welcomed by those involved.
Chapter 6 introduces the Guatemalan context. Guatemala stands out for the innovative devolution of control of 13 forest concessions to communities in the Petén – which was conditional on their becoming FSC certified. The scale of these community forest areas is substantial. For example, forecast volumes for 9 of these concessions suggest logging volumes in the region of 15-20,000m³ per year with mahogany making up just over 25% of this. Until recently these communities were operating on an individual basis, with 8 separate and often inadequate sawmills.
Since 2004, a new Guatemalan Forest Services Community Enterprise (FORESCOM) was established as an umbrella organisation for its 9 community concession members. The aim was to reduce certification costs through a group scheme and better coordinate production, processing and marketing. A dedicated processing plant was built to add value to basic sawn timber (e.g. producing parquet, cladding, decking, folding chairs etc.). FORESCOM has engaged in business with nine companies – four from the USA, three from Europe, and one each from the South Pacific and Guatemala – and has started to participate in trade fairs (e.g. in Chicago in the USA). The stronger negotiation position of FORESCOM vis-à-vis its separate members has started to be felt in better prices, albeit without any identifiable ‘community’ premium. Consolidation of this model and increasing trust in collective action are expected to follow – along with increasing business capacity. There is a strong perception that a mechanism to distinguish community forest products in the market will strengthen this process.
Conclusions and ways forward
In Chapter 7 the report draws some final conclusions – based partly on the research findings, and partly on discussions at a final workshop on 1 October 2007 in Edinburgh, UK. The main conclusion is that there does seem to be significant demand for a mechanism to credibly distinguish community forest products in the market. This demand comes both from international and national buyers groups and from community forest producers themselves.
Practical examples of successful trade with communities throw useful light on two critical pre-requisites for success. The formation of strong community business organisations is one. The need to develop community forest management and business capacity over time in a step-wise manner is a second. The experience of the fair trade movement in addressing these issues makes it logical to build better links between forestry and fair trade.
This research has shown that there are many existing examples of attempts to distinguish community forest products in the market. The challenge therefore, is not to decide whether to distinguish community forest products in the market – it is how to do it credibly. With increasing community control over forests, companies will increasingly need to secure access to such forests. Developing mechanisms to assure that such access is to the benefit of the communities will become an increasingly important issue.
There is nothing intrinsically impossible about FSC and FLO working together to develop a mechanism for distinguishing community forest products. Indeed, there is much to recommend it. FSC even have a strategic mandate to do just that. What is needed now is for FLO to assess whether the development of a standard for fair trade timber is in its strategic best interest – and if not, how FSC might best be supported to develop such a mechanism on its own. A particular issue that needs more attention in either case will be to assess what institutional structures might be required to build capacity of community producer groups. Either way, funding will be required to develop or modify standards, strengthen the capacity of community forest producers, train auditors of those standards and inform potential traders and consumers of any emergent system.
The current status of community forestry and the institutional momentum behind the development of a mechanism to distinguish community forest products in the market represents a historic opportunity. It is the view of the authors of this report that this opportunity should be seized with both hands.