CIFOR has accompanied the political process and at different stages provided inputs to the proposal.

Recently, CIFOR was invited to speak before the Special Commission under the Brazilian House of Representatives to offer its views and recommendations. CIFOR’s involvement raises several significant institutional issues: First, to what extent should an international research organization like CIFOR become involved in national policy making? Second, if CIFOR does become heavily involved, does this mean CIFOR is having impact? Third, if CIFOR really had impact, should it claim credit for it?

The Amazon is the world’s largest remaining contiguous rainforest, but it is rapidly changing, with forest being cleared faster than ever before for pastures and soybeans. At the same time, domestic timber demand remains high, and as timber stocks from natural forests in other continents gradually decline, the eyes of timber companies turn increasingly to the Amazon. However, no legal mechanism existed to properly allocate public forestland to timber extraction, driving much logging into illegality.

This was the principal background to a decision by Brazilian policy makers to propose the Law Project #4776, “Management of Public Forests for Sustainable Production”. The main feature of the proposal was the introduction of a forest-concession system. By tightly regulating access to public forests through a new institution, the Brazilian Forestry Service, supported by the new National Fund for Forestry Development, it was hoped a thriving timber industry could increase forest-related incomes and jobs while also protecting the Amazon forest.

In 2003, the World Bank asked CIFOR to prepare a project that would introduce international expertise on forest concessions into the debate surrounding the law. Although the project never materialized, Sven Wunder and CIFOR colleague Cesar Sabogal helped organize an international seminar in Belém in February 2004 that compared the Brazilian discussion with concession experiences worldwide. CIFOR’s Cesar Sabogal also participated in meetings of a task force of about 35 people, convened by the Ministry of the Environment, to help draft the Law Project.

“Co-organizing the seminar was not easy,” Wunder says, “Internationally, the record of tropical forest concession systems in achieving sustainable development is dubious. Clearly more failures than successes exist. Some national partners feared CIFOR’s call for caution and more critical discussion would delay the political process, which in itself was dictated by political necessities.”

Wunder says it also became clear that close involvement in the lengthy political process would require a huge time investment by CIFOR’s senior researchers.

While CIFOR did not become a major player in shaping the law, its expertise in contributing constructively to the discussion was widely acknowledged. CIFOR was asked to make a presentation to the Special Commission of the House of Representatives in May 2005, along with three Brazilian partners: the Amazon Institute of People and the Environment (IMAZON), the Amazon Institute of Environmental Research (IPAM), and the National Institute for Amazon Studies (INPA).

CIFOR used the opportunity to deliver a statement, distribute a two-page position paper, and participate in the public debate. Speaking on behalf of CIFOR, Wunder argued that the forest concession system, while offering good opportunities, also presented significant risks for the environment and for forest-dwelling communities. He stressed the need for the law to remain experimental and open to “learning-by-doing” adjustments.

According to Wunder, the law’s success or failure will depend a lot on factors such as land-tenure regularization and timber markets that the law itself cannot influence. CIFOR thus strongly supported a clause limiting experimental implementation to 20 percent of the potential Amazon concession area during the first decade.

CIFOR also recommended the law allow for a variety of concession models featuring communities, smallholders, non-timber extraction and conservation concessions. This would allow the new concession system to become a true learning process, not just a self-serving ploy for timber-hungry industrial concessionaires. The law was passed in Congress on 6 June 2005 and in the Senate on 5 October.

As regards CIFOR’s having any impact on the new law, Wunder says “First, we should remember Brazil is a large, self-confident country with excellent human resources. The last thing many Brazilians want is foreigners to tell them what to do with their forests. That does not mean we had zero influence. Some people thought our role was controversial. But through our international contacts and experience, we brought something to the Brazilian debate the national stakeholders couldn’t.”

Although Wunder is generally pleased with the new concession system, he is wary of CIFOR taking any credit for it.

“We were just one of the actors pushing the law into a more cautious and flexible direction. So it’s impossible to attribute any influence directly to us. Even if we could demonstrate our impact, given the politically sensitive Brazilian context, it would probably be best to keep a low profile, not boast about it.”

That raises a follow-up question: should CIFOR become more involved in processes like this in the future?

“Maybe,” says Wunder, “But we should be very selective, because it is so time-consuming. I also think CIFOR should never become a lead actor in a political process, because its independence will be compromised. Our research mandate can easily be taken hostage in the political games going on behind the scenery.”