John Palmer ( tropical.forestry@rmplc.co.uk) sent the following reply to my posting on incentives, and asked me to circulate it on his behalf since he'll be away from his email for the next 9 weeks. John talks about the tax-remission schemes in Latin America, but I have heard of direct cash payments/loans for farm planting in several LA countries - does anyone have information on these ? Gerry Lawson .................................................... 1. wrt your FUNET message yesterday, in reply to Donald Mansius' diatribe against forest rangers: point 2 - certification - none of the current sets of forest stewardship standards bypass or attempt to bypass the laws and regulations of any country. Most of them specifically require compliance with international and national legislation. ISO-type environmental management systems require policy-level commitments by the forest enterprise which add a further layer of obligation. 2. I regret that I can see little merit in Kiekens' scheme: ITTO has no policing role or forest monitoring capability, it would have to operate through national agencies. It was precisely the lack of effective capacity in these agencies which led to demands for independent, third-party certification schemes. The UK Forestry Commission has its certificates of excellence programme but these certificates seem to be awarded mainly to recreational forests and parklands/woodlands rather than to fully commercial forests. The criteria for the FICGB award seem to be rather woolly. 3. I agree entirely that the various forms of subsidy available to farmers/foresters in industrialised countries are enormously greater than in most developing countries. The fiscal incentive (tax break) schemes popular in Latin America aim mainly to put currently unused, privately-owned, farmland to a more productive use. These schemes are not much help to small farmers who pay no tax anyway. The cost of administration of public monies for almost any activity in small, poor and remote communities is a strong discouragement everywhere: staffing of rural health clinics and schools, provision of agricultural credit schemes, subsidies for local power generation, are examples that come immediately to mind. Hence the natural preference of governments to provide the capital infrastructure or benefits in other tangible forms (tree nurseries or seedlings), mainly because the administration of the money is less of a continuous headache and opportunity for corruption. Money credits and subsidies become administratively more attractive as countries develop country-wide clearing bank systems and as a higher proportion of the target population uses the banks. I suggest that a charge of double standards becomes less justifiable if you consider the relative feasibilities of administering money subsidies in countries and regions at a variety of levels of development. This might be a correlation worth examining by Michael Painter for his Msc thesis. 4. The theoretical attractions of diverting part of forest revenues/timber taxes to financial incentives for tree planting away from the forest which is the source of the revenue likewise become less attractive when you consider the (likelihood or otherwise of the) efficiency of the administration necessary to handle that diversion. Michael Painter should read the numerous reviews and evaluations of World Food Programme aid to forestry, the WFP being by far the largest single donor for rural forestry and afforestation. With best wishes John Palmer __________________________________________________________ G.Lawson@ite.ac.uk Institute of Terrestrial Ecology ITE Tropical Forestry Section Bush Estate Tel: +44-131-445-4343 Edinburgh EH26 OQB Fax: +44-131-445-3943 Scotland, UK __________________________________________________________
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0