Are community based forest enterprises financially viable: Three case studies from the Brazilian Amazon
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•475 vues
Shoana Humphries, University of Florida Dr. Tom Holmes, USDA Forest Service Dr. Karen Kainer, University of Florida Carlos Gabriel Koury, IDESAM Rosana de Miranda Rocha, IDSM Edson Cruz, Projeto Ambe Presentation for the conference on Taking stock of smallholders and community forestry Montpellier France March 24-26, 2010
![Background ,[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Are community based forest enterprises financially viable: Three case studies from the Brazilian Amazon
Similaire à Are community based forest enterprises financially viable: Three case studies from the Brazilian Amazon (20)
Plus de CIFOR-ICRAF
Plus de CIFOR-ICRAF (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Are community based forest enterprises financially viable: Three case studies from the Brazilian Amazon
- 1. Are community-based forest enterprises financially viable? Three case studies from the Brazilian Amazon Shoana Humphries, University of Florida Dr. Tom Holmes, USDA Forest Service Dr. Karen Kainer, University of Florida Carlos Gabriel Koury, IDESAM Rosana de Miranda Rocha, IDSM Edson Cruz, ProjetoAmbe Montpellier, France March 25, 2010 shoana_h@hotmail.com
- 3. For CFM to be successful it must be financially viable and competitive with alternative land uses.
- 4. After ten years of subsidized CFM in Brazil, knowledge of the financial viability and impact of community-based forest enterprises (CFEs) is still lacking.
- 6. Ambé Mamirauá Study Area
- 7. ACAF Ambé Mamirauá Study Area
- 9. Training in financial concepts
- 11. Mamirauá – average volumes (2002-2007)
- 13. Machinery and equipment (chainsaw)
- 16. Harvest
- 17. Skidding
- 19. Measurement
- 21. Profit = Total revenues – Total costs
- 25. Mamirauá had the lowest cost/m3 for logs due to low use of machinery
- 26. There were two cases where the average production costs/m3 were higher than the lowest value log price/m3:
- 28. Ambe sensitive to labor costs
- 29. Mamiraua sensitive to number of associations2% -48% Income * 2007 minimum was $219/month
- 31. Machinery costs were quite high
- 32. Processing: low efficiencies (time and waste)
- 34. Certification helped ACAF get higher prices for its boards.
- 35. Innovative sales strategies may have helped Ambé and Mamirauá.
- 36. Isolation may also affect price (abundance of cheap illegal wood, higher transportation costs).
- 38. Increase volume harvested and/or efficiencies
- 39. Collaborate with other CFEs (cooperatives and producer groups)
- 40. Consider objectives of processing (not always profitable, but provides wages)
- 41. Collaborators must help reduce costs:
- 42. Subsidize technical assistance (extension service, fee for services)
- 44. Reduce bureaucracy and taxes
- 45. Community forestry is important source of cash income
- 47. National Science Foundation and Working Forests in the Tropics IGERT Fellowship at University of Florida
- 48. AmbeProject, Mamirauá Sustainable Research Institute, and ACAF
Notes de l'éditeur
- ACAF: Potential volume is 29.54 m3/ha over 40 species
- ACAF: Potential volume is 29.54 m3/ha over 40 species
- ACAF: Potential volume is 29.54 m3/ha over 40 species
- Ambé: R$ 137 avg cost > price R$ 100Mamirauá: R$ 63 avg cost > price R$ 47Mamirauá: R$106 cost > R$ 97 price difference [R$ 200 – (R$ 47 x 2.2)]ACAF: R$ 327 cost > R$ 222 price difference [R$950 – (R$ 280 x 2.6)]
- Mamiraua harvests ~50% and ACAF harvests ~8%