Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

G R E E NL I V E L I H O O D SThe Concession Model: An EvolvingBlueprint for Sustainable EnterpriseAs the concession initiative originated from foresters and as theenabling regulations were rushed through by CONAP againsta backdrop of donor pressure, communities living in the multipleuse and buffer zones were not widely consulted at the start.As a result, they were initially wary of seeking concessions, withthree years passing until a second community sought andreceived a contract in 1997 (Nittler and Tschinkel 2005:2).After that, as the benefits of forest harvesting rights becameapparent, “communities were suddenly standing in line,”according to Henry Tschinkel (Tschinkel 2007).As only six small communities inhabited the denselyforested multiple use zone—not enough to manage half amillion hectares of land—the remaining concessions weregranted to groups of villages in the adjoining buffer zone. Thedisadvantage of this was that seven of the communities hadstronger backgrounds in farming than forestry and faced a steeplearning curve for their new trade (Chemonics and IRG2000:III-6-8). Two additional concessions were awarded to localtimber companies, despite opposition from conservation NGOs,on the condition that their operations achieve certification underInternational Forest Stewardship Council guidelines within threeyears (Saito 2008). Unable to clear timber and then move on asin the past, these industrial concessions quickly became convertsto sustainable forestry practices and formed alliances withcommunity enterprises, buying their wood for processing andsale (Chemonics 2006:16).Although the multiple use zone remained governmentproperty, the concession contracts granted usufruct rights to legallyconstituted community organizations for 25 years, with an optionfor renewal (Nittler and Tschinkel 2005:3; Stoian and Rodas2006a:15). This was estimated as the time needed for the firstparcels of land to be ready fora second harvest, thus creatingcommunity self-interest inpracticing sustainable forestrymanagement (Tschinkel 2008).It was also long enoughfor communities to envisagebuilding healthy businesses,especially with significantdonor subsidies.The forest area in theconcessions ranges considerablyin size from 4,800 to72,500 ha (Chemonics andIRG 2000:A-iv-7). In a rushto get the concession programestablished as soon as possible,their borders were drawnon the basis of lobbying bycommunities and NGOs and of proximity to the park’s protectedcore zones, rather than by the presence and distribution of highvaluetree species. As a result, some of the early communityenterprises struggled to extract enough valuable trees from thesmall concessions they had been allocated to support a viablebusiness (Nittler and Tschinkel 2005:4–5). By the late 1990s, due inpart to lobbying from the newly formed EFC umbrella organization,ACOFOP, this problem was rectified for later concessions asthe national parks agency began awarding larger concessions withgreater commercial promise (Chemonics and IRG 2000:A-iv-8).Each concession was allocated to a legally constituted organization—thecommunity forestry enterprises. Every adult residentof the founding community was free to join, although in manycommunities, few villagers initially signed up due to concernsabout the responsibilities involved (Tschinkel 2007). Earlymemberships ranged from 29 to 372 and included residents of upto nine villages (Chemonics and IRG 2000:A-IV-11).Once CONAP approved an EFC’s five-year sustainableforest management plan, that plan became part of the legalcontract between the enterprise and the national parks agency.EFCs were then legally empowered to harvest and sell timberfrom their concession, in accordance with each managementplan’s conditions. They were also required to submit annualoperating plans for CONAP’s approval, detailing the species andvolume to be cut (Chemonics and IRG 2000:II-12; Tschinkel2008). Enterprises were legally empowered to harvest not onlyvaluable tree species, such as mahogany, but also non-timberforest products, including chicle, allspice, and xate palm leaves(Chemonics 2003:23).Crucially, the fledgling EFCs were also required by USAIDand CONAP to achieve certification under internationalsustainable forestry standards within three years in order toqualify for continued donor assistance (Chemonics and IRG2000:A-iv-12). To help them achieve this, the regulations forallocating a concession required that a qualified NGO assume129