iaif report

INTERAMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Environment, Rural Development, and Disaster Risk Management Division

Infrastructure and Environment Sector

Implementation of the Forest Investment Attraction Index

Technical Cooperation ATN/FT-9297-RG.

Forest Investment Attractiveness Index – IAIF

2006 Report

Technical Cooperation funded by the

Finnish Technical Assistance Program

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

San José, Costa Rica

August 2008

i

Supervision

José Rente NascimentoEspecialista senior en recursos naturalesDivisión de Medio Ambiente, Desarrollo Rural, y Administración de Riesgos por DesastresBanco Interamericano de Desarrollo

General Coordination

Cesar Cunha CamposExecutive Director - FGV - ProjetosRoy ZúnigaDirector del Centro Latinoamericano para la Competitividad y el Desarrollo Sostenible (CLACDS) del INCAE

Technical Coordination

Bernard KilianResource Economist - INCAESergio Gustavo da CostaProject Coordinator- - FGV - Projetos

Technical staff

Eduardo Ferreira Neto - FGV - ProjetosElizabeth Martin Perez - FGV - Projetos Lawrence Pratt - INCAEAna María Majano - INCAELeo Guevara - INCAEJorge Rodriguez - INCAERafaela Garcia - FGV - ProjetosRonnie Lins de Almeida - - FGV - Projetos

©2008 Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo1300 New York Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C., 20577. USAInternet: www.iadb.org/pforestal All rights reserved

ii

Partners

The Inter-American Development Bank – IDB

IDB, the oldest and largest regional bank in the world, is the main source of multilateral financing for

economic, social and institutional development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Its loans and

grants help finance development projects and support strategies to reduce poverty, expand growth,

increase trade and investment, promote regional integration, and foster private sector development

and modernization of the State.

The IDB Group is composed of the IDB, the Inter-American Investment Corporation (IIC), and the

Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF). The IIC focuses on support for small and mid-sized businesses,

while the MIF promotes private sector growth through grants and investment.

www.iadb.org/pforestal email: [email protected]

The Getulio Vargas Foundation – FGV

Founded in 1944, FGV is one of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in Brazil,

dedicated to teaching and research in the areas of Business Administration, Economics and Law.

FGV Projetos - the unit of the Getulio Vargas Foundation that provides consulting, training,

seminars and certification services - consists of a multidisciplinary team offering administrative,

economic and financial solutions that enable clients in both the public and private sectors to meet

and surpass their objectives.

www.fgv.bremail: [email protected]

The INCAE Business School

INCAE is a non-profit, private, multinational institution of higher education dedicated to teaching and

research in the fields of Business Administration and Economics. Using a global perspective,

INCAE trains and forms individuals capable of successfully undertaking the most senior

management positions in Latin America.

Since its founding in 1964, INCAE has been supervised by and in closed contact with Harvard

Business School.

www.incae.ac.ceemail: [email protected]

i

Foreword

Sustainable management of forest resources in any country depends on the success of

forest-based businesses. To be sustainable, forest businesses need to maximize financial

returns at same time that they satisfy criteria of environmental and social feasibility. If it is not

a good business for the landowners and associated entrepreneurs, however, forests will not

be managed and will likely be converted to other uses. Likewise, areas that should have tree

cover, the forest vocation lands, will not sustain forestland uses. Therefore, all the social,

economic and environmental benefits to society that forests can provide are substantially

undermined if forest-based businesses are not successful. .

According to a recent FAO report on the state of the world’s forests, Latin America continues facing

high rates of deforestation. The region lost between 1990 and 2005 around 64 million hectares of

natural forest cover, going from 51% of total land to 47%. Regardless of whether this loss is

undesirable to their respective societies or is associated to legitimate conversions of land use,

according to the World Bank, the principal reason for deforestation continues to be the higher

profitability of alternative land use systems such as agriculture. The business climate that investors

interested in the forest-based opportunities face in these countries is critical for the competitiveness

of forest land uses.

Aiming at improving these specific conditions affecting forest businesses in Latin America, the Inter

American Development Bank started in 2003 to develop the Forest Investment Attractiveness Index

– IAIF. The objective of the index is to measure the climate for investments in sustainable forest

business of the individual Latin American and Caribbean countries borrowing members of IDB. This

is done in order to provide governments, investors, NGOs and other stakeholders with crucial and

comparable information on the current performance of their countries in terms of the conditions they

offer to investors. That information has been found to have an important role in stimulating

stakeholders into promoting actions that improve their respective forest business climate and,

thereby, their countries’ IAIF performance.

In special, IAIF has served as reference for private investors interested in forest business in the

region, since it allows them to analyze and to compare different conditions for successful forest

investments based on objective data. Investor and forest-based businessman also have used the

IAIF to argue for improved conditions for their activities.

iii

The Getulio Vargas Foundation – FGV of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and INCAE Business School that is

based in Costa Rica, under the supervision of the IDB, prepared this 2006 edition of the IAIF using

information from 2006 and 2007. FGV was responsible for data collection, analysis, and the

development of the report for South American countries while INCAE covered Mexico, Central

America and the Caribbean nations.

The team that participated in the preparation of this report includes:

Dr. José Rente Nascimento, natural resources specialist EN2/RN2 from IDB, who coordinated

and supervised the project.

Dr. Cesar Cunha Campos, Executive Director of FGV Projetos coordinated FGV’s team which

included also Sergio Gustavo da Costa (Technical Coordinator), Ronnie Lins de Almeida,

Eduardo Ferreira Neto, Elizabeth Martin Perez, and Rafaela Garcia.

Dr. Bernard Kilian coordinated INCAE’s team which also counted with the following specialists:

Lawrence Pratt, Luis Figueroa, Jorge Rodríguez, and Paul Fervoy.

A comparison of the results of the IAIF report 2004 and the IAIF report 2006 shows at a first glance

an important increase of the achieved scores in many countries, specifically in countries which

received in 2004 lower scores. However, besides this rather good news, the results of 2006 also

clearly show some of the characteristic weaknesses of most Latin-American economies. On the

INTER sectoral level, for example, indicators such as property rights, well prepared labor forces and

clarity of current legislation present the lowest performance. The lowest scores of all, however, are

achieved on the INTRA sectoral level on indicators such as direct support for forest businesses,

forest productivity and national markets.

In consequence, the study of the present report allows many countries to locate and compare their

forest sector within a competitive environment, to identify weaknesses and strengths and therefore

facilitate a stringent process to improve the critical factors affecting forest businesses. This report,

therefore, also fosters forest related policies changes and the adoption of actions that help achieve

a higher profitability in their forest sector and the consequent increase in investment attractiveness.

That all ads up to being able also to minimize negative trends such as illegal deforestation.

Contributing to this objective and promoting forest based prosperity would be the greatest

achievements of this work.

iv

With the purpose of assisting countries to design and implement successful strategies and actions

that make them more attractive to direct investment in sustainable forest businesses, a companion

instrument was also developed; the Process to Improve the Business Climate for Forest

Investment--PROMECIF. This process uses the models and results of the IAIF in a cyclic process

that identifies countries interested in improving their forest business climate; prepares diagnostics,

defines strategies; and designs, executes, monitors, and evaluates projects and actions to improve

a given country’s forest business climate. Currently, Paraguay, Panama, Ecuador, and Haiti are

undertaking their PROMECIF.

It is expected that the current IAIF 2006 edition will further contribute to the understanding of the

factors affecting the performance of individual countries and stimulate the sector stakeholders to

consider improving their business climate for sustainable forest investment.

Roberto Vellutini, ManagerInfrastructure and Environment Sector, IDB

Cesar Cunha Campos, Executive DirectorFGV Projetos

Roy Zúñiga, DirectorCLACDS/INCAE

v

Acknowledgements

First of all, FGV and INCAE would like to thank Dr. José Rente Nascimento, who coordinated the

Project in IDB. His technical advises and constructive criticism were a major contribution for the final

results.

Secondly, since the IAIF methodology depends in part on data collected by means of

questionnaires, FGV and INCAE would like to thank all the questionnaires respondents (see Annex

IV).

FGV would like to thank specially the following institutions, which contributed for the research

implementation in their respective countries.

Argentina: AFoA – Asociación Forestal Argentina;

Brazil: Fórum Nacional das Atividades de Base Florestal;

Bolivia: Cámara Forestal de Bolivia;

Chile: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación – FAO,

Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe;

Colombia: Departamento Nacional de Planeación -DNP/Dirección de Desarrollo Agrario;

Ecuador: ESPOL – Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral;

Paraguay: Ministério de Industria y Comercio, Dirección General de Política Industrial;

Peru: Cámara Forestal Nacional;

Uruguay: Sociedad de Productores Forestales del Uruguay and SGS - Systems & Service

Certification; and

Venezuela: CONAPRI - Consejo Nacional de Promoción de Inversiones.

INCAE would also like to extend a special thanks to Jorge Rodriguez, Manager at FONAFIFO [?] at

the time of the study and now Costa Rica’s vice-minister of Environment and Energy; Alberto Salas,

Mesoamerican regional coordinator of the Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,

who through his numerous contacts all over Central America helped us enormously in the collection

of all the necessary data for the index; and Roberto Sosa, private consultant, for his important help

in gathering the data in Mexico.

vii

Executive Summary

i.1. The following tables present the IAIF 2006 results for the Latin American countries, as compared to the 2004 results.

Table i1: Overview of the IAIF scores results for 2006 and 2004 and evolution by

country.

Country IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference

Argentina 47 44 +3

Belize 34 31 +3

Bolivia 41 34 +7

Brazil 60 60 0

Chile 53 53 0

Colombia 44 40 +4

Costa Rica 39 41 -2

Dominican Republic 32 32 0

Ecuador 32 25 +7

El Salvador 43 33 +10

Guatemala 38 30 +8

Guyana 32 32 0

Haiti 36 23 +13

Honduras 34 31 +3

México 44 40 +4

Nicaragua 36 34 +2

Panamá 44 37 +7

Paraguay 33 31 +2

Peru 39 33 +6

Surinam 36 34 +2

Trinidad y Tobago 36 33 +1

Uruguay 47 44 +3

Venezuela 35 35 0Average 40 36 +4MIN 32 23 +9MAX 60 60 0

ix

Table i2: Overview of the IAIF rankings reached in 2006 and 2004, and evolution by

country


Argentina 3rd 4th 1

Belize 18th 19th 1

Bolivia 9 th 11th 2

Brazil 1st 1st

Chile 2nd 2nd

Colombia 7 th 7th

Costa Rica 11 th 5th 6

Dominican Republic 22 th 16th 6

Ecuador 21 th 22th 1

El Salvador 8 th 13th 5

Guatemala 12 th 21th 9

Guyana 23 th 17th 6

Haiti 13 th 23th 10

Honduras 19 th 20th 1

México 5 th 6th 1

Nicaragua 14 th 12th 2

Panamá 6 th 8th 2

Paraguay 20 th 18th 2

Peru 10 th 15th 5

Surinam 16 th 10th 6

Trinidad y Tobago 15 th 14th 1

Uruguay 4 th 3th 1

Venezuela 17 th 9th 8

x

i.2. The four-point increase in the average score indicates that, in aggregate terms, the attractiveness for forest investment in the region improved.

i.3. The fact that the minimum IAIF score improved from 23 to 32 in 2006 is also significant, as it

reflects the increased attractiveness to forest investments in the countries presenting the least

favorable conditions.

i.4. As to their relative positions in the ranking, the top four scoring countries – Brazil, Chile,

Argentina, and Uruguay – remained unchanged. It is worth noting that there were no variations in

the IAIF in Brazil and Chile during that period.

i.5. Haiti and Guatemala showed marked improvement, moving up 10 and 9 positions, respectively.

On the other hand, Venezuela showed a sharp decline in their positions (from the 9th to the 17th).

i.6. The table below shows the IAIF break up in the three sub indexes (SUPRA, INTER, and

INTRA), in order to provide a better understanding of the changes in performance underlying the

results obtained for 2006.

Table i3: IAIF Sub indexes average results for 2006 and 2004, and weighted

contributions for IAIF.

SUB INDEX 2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to IAIF

SUPRA Sectorial Subindex

76.3 65.1 11.2 1 1.6

INTER Sectorial Subindex

50.7 48.2 2.5 2 0.7

INTRA Sectorial Subindex

25.1 22.8 2.3 4 1.3

IAIF 39.8 36.1 3.7 3.7

i.7. The sub index with the greatest improvement was the SUPRA sub index, which refers to

macroeconomic factors affecting the profitability of businesses in all productive sectors of a country.

This result reflects the improved macroeconomic conditions in the Latin American countries during

the period.

i.8. The INTER and INTRA sub indexes have also improved during the same period.

i.9. A regional analysis of the 2006 IAIF grouped Latin America and Caribbean countries in four

sets: North and Central America; the Caribbean; Southern Cone; and the Andean Group plus

xi

Guyana and Suriname. The results of such analysis, as presented in the table below, indicate that

their relative positions remained unchanged.

Table i4: Average IAIF results for 2006 and 2004, and evolution per sub region

2006 2004 Difference

Southern Cone 48 46 2

North and Central America 40 35 5

Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 37 33 4

The Caribbean 35 30 5

xii

Resumen Ejecutivo

ii.1. Las tablas siguientes muestran los resultados de IAIF en Latinoamérica del año 2006 en comparación con los resultados del año 2004.

Resultados finales del IAIF años 2006 y 2004

País IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Diferencia

Argentina 47 44 +3

Belice 34 31 +3

Bolivia 41 34 +7

Brasil 60 60 0

Chile 53 53 0

Colombia 44 40 +4

Costa Rica 39 41 -2

República Dominicana 32 32 0

Ecuador 32 25 +7


Guatemala 38 30 +8

Guyana 32 32 0

Haití 36 23 +13

Honduras 34 31 +3

México 44 40 +4

Nicaragua 36 34 +2

Panamá 44 37 +7

Paraguay 33 31 +2

Perú 39 33 +6

Surinam 36 34 +2


Uruguay 47 44 +3

Venezuela 35 35 0Promedio 40 36 +4MIN 32 23 +9MAX 60 60 0

xiii

Clasificación final IAIF alcanzado en 2006 y 2004

País IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Diferencia

Argentina 3o 4o 1

Belice 18o 19o 1

Bolivia 9 o 11o 2

Brasil 1o 1o

Chile 2o 2o

Colombia 7 o 7o

Costa Rica 11 o 5o 6

República Dominicana 22 o 16o 6

Ecuador 21 o 22o 1

El Salvador 8 o 13o 5

Guatemala 12 o 21o 9

Guyana 23 o 17o 6

Haití 13 o 23o 10

Honduras 19 o 20o 1

México 5 o 6o 1

Nicaragua 14 o 12o 2

Panamá 6 o 8o 2

Paraguay 20 o 18o 2

Perú 10 o 15o 5

Surinam 16 o 10o 6

Trinidad y Tobago 15 o 14o 1

Uruguay 4 o 3o 1

Venezuela 17 o 9o 8

xiv

ii.2. El aumento del índico por cuatro puntos indica que el promedio en los resultados

conjuntamente ha aumentado la atracción hacia la inversión forestal en la región.

ii.3. El hecho de que el mínimo puntaje del IAIF aumentó de 23 a 32 es también relevante, como lo

refleja el aumento en la atracción hacia la inversión forestal en los países con condiciones menos

favorables.

ii.4. Conforme a su posición relativa en la tabla, los primeros cuatro países Brasil, Chile, Argentina

y Uruguay no presentan cambios. No obstante cabe señalar que no hubo variaciones en el IAIF en

Brasil y Chile durante este período.

ii.5. Haiti y Guatemala mostran una mejora significativa, subiendo 10 y 9 posiciones,

respectativamente. Por otro lado, Venezuela presenta una gran caída en sus posiciones (del

puesto 9o al 17o).

ii.6. La siguiente tabla muestra los resultados para el IAIF entero y para los tres subíndices

(SUPRA, INTER and INTRA), con el fin de lograr un mejor entendimiento de los factores

subyacente de los resultados obtenidos en el 2006.

Resultados IAIF- Promedios

2006 2004 Diferencia Factor de ponderación

Contribución al IAIF

SUPRA Subíndice Sectorial

76,3 65,1 11,2 1 1,6

INTER Subíndice Sectorial

50,7 48,2 2,5 2 0,7

INTRA Subíndice Sectorial

25,1 22,8 2,3 4 1,3

IAIF 39,8 36,1 3,7 3,7

ii.7. El más destacado subíndice fue SUPRA, el cual se refiera a factores macroeconómicos que

afectan la rentabilidad de las empresas en todos los sectores productivos de un país. Este

resultado refleja la mejora en las condiciones macroeconómicas en los países latinoamericanos.

ii.8. Los subíndices INTER e INTRA han mejorado también durante este periodo.

ii.9. El análisis de IAIF del 2006 consideró cuatro subdivisiones (sub regiones) en América Latina:

América del Norte y Central, el Caribe, el Cono Sur y el Grupo Andino, más Guyana y Surinam. Los

resultados mostrados en la siguiente tabla indican que sus posiciones no cambiaron.

xv

IAIF – Promedio por subregión

2006 2004 Diferencia

Cono Sur 48 46 2

Norte y Centroamérica 40 35 5

Grupo Andino más Guyana y Surinam 37 33 4

Caribe 35 30 5

xvi

Sumário Executivo

iii.1. Nas tabelas a seguir apresentam-se os resultado do IAIF 2006 para os países da América

Latina e sua comparação com os resultados do índice para 2004.

IAIF – Pontuação em 2006 e 2004


Argentina 47 44 +3

Belize 34 31 +3

Bolivia 41 34 +7

Brazil 60 60 0

Chile 53 53 0

Colombia 44 40 +4

Costa Rica 39 41 -2


Ecuador 32 25 +7


Guatemala 38 30 +8

Guyana 32 32 0

Haiti 36 23 +13

Honduras 34 31 +3

México 44 40 +4

Nicaragua 36 34 +2

Panamá 44 37 +7

Paraguay 33 31 +2

Peru 39 33 +6

Surinam 36 34 +2


Uruguay 47 44 +3

Venezuela 35 35 0Average 40 36 +4MIN 32 23 +9MAX 60 60 0

xvii

IAIF – Posições relativas em 2006 e 2004


Argentina 3o 4o 1

Belize 18o 19o 1

Bolivia 9 o 11o 2

Brazil 1o 1o

Chile 2o 2o

Colombia 7 o 7o

Costa Rica 11 o 5o 6

Dominican Republic 22 o 16o 6

Ecuador 21 o 22o 1

El Salvador 8 o 13o 5

Guatemala 12 o 21o 9

Guyana 23 o 17o 6

Haiti 13 o 23o 10

Honduras 19 o 20o 1

México 5 o 6o 1

Nicaragua 14 o 12o 2

Panamá 6 o 8o 2

Paraguay 20 o 18o 2

Peru 10 o 15o 5

Surinam 16 o 10o 6

Trinidad y Tobago 15 o 14o 1

Uruguay 4 o 3o 1

Venezuela 17 o 9o 8

iii.2. O crescimento de 4 pontos na média dos resultados indica que, em termos agregados, a

região apresentou uma melhoria nas condições de atratividade de investimentos florestais.

iii.3. Também é relevante o fato do IAIF mínimo ter passado de 23 para 32, refletindo a melhora

nas condições de atratividade de investimentos florestais nos países em piores condições.

iii.4. No que se refere as posições relativas não houve alterações no quatro primeiro lugares: Brasil,

Chile, Argentina e Uruguai. Cabe ressaltar, no entanto, que Brasil e Chile não apresentaram

variação do IAIF no período.

xviii

iii.5. Os países que mais galgaram posições relativas foram a Haiti e o Guatemala, subindo 10 e 9

posições . Por outro lado a Venezuela foi o país que mais perdeu posições (da 9a posição para a

17a ).

iii.6. A desagregação do IAIF em seus três subíndices (SUPRA, INTER e INTRA), apresentada na

tabela a seguir, permite uma melhor compreensão dos condicionantes dos resultados obtidos em

2006.

Resultados do IAIF – Médias

2006 2004 Diferença Peso Contribuição para o IAIF

SUPRA Sectorial Sub-index

76,3 65,1 11,2 1 1,6

INTER Sectorial Sub-index

50,7 48,2 2,5 2 0,7

INTRA Sectorial Sub-index

25,1 22,8 2,3 4 1,3

IAIF 39,8 36,1 3,7 3,7

iii.7. A dimensão que mais se destacou foi a SUPRA, que se refere a fatores macroeconômicos e

outros que afetam a rentabilidade dos negocios em todos os setores produtivos de um país. Esse

resultado reflete a melhora das condições macroeconômicas dos países do continente.

iii.8. Nas dimensões INTER e INTRA também verificou-se melhora da situação média do

continente.

iii.9. A análise dos resultados do IAIF 2006 incorporou o agrupamento dos países americanos

segundo 4 sub-regiões: América do Norte e Central, Caribe, Cone Sul e Gupo Andino mais Guiana

and Suriname. Os resultados apresentados na tabela a seguir indicam que não houve modificação

nas posições relativas.

IAIF – Médias por sub-regiões

2006 2004 Difference

Southern Cone 48 46 2

North and Central America 40 35 5

Andean Group plus Guyana and Surinam 37 33 4

Caribbean 35 30 5

xix

Contents

Partners i

Foreword ii

Acknowledgements vi

Executive Summary ix

Resumen Ejecutivoxiii

Sumário Executivo xvii

I. Introduction 9

II. The IAIF Methodology 11

III. Results of the IAIF 2006 and its Evolution in the Period 2004-2006 15

III.1. The IAIF Results 15

III.2. Subindexes and indicators 23

III.2.1. SUPRA Sectorial Subindex and Indicators 23

III.2.2. INTER Sectorial Subindex and Indicators 33

III.2.3. INTRA Sectorial Subindex and Indicators 47

IV. Results by Regions and Countries (Includes Evolution 2004-2006) 55

IV.1. North and Central America, Including Panama – Regional Overview 55

IV.1.1. A Comparison: The IAIF in North and Central America 55

IV.1.2. A Comparison: The SUPRA subindex in North and Central America 57

IV.1.3. A Comparison: The INTER Subindex in North and Central America 57

IV.1.4. A Comparison: The INTRA subindex in North and Central America 59

IV.1.5. An Individual Country Overview: North and Central America (Including Panama) 61

IV.1.5.1 Mexico 61

IV.1.5.2. Costa Rica64

IV.1.5.3. El Salvador 66

IV.1.5.4. Guatemala68

IV.1.5.5. Honduras 71

IV.1.5.6.Nicaragua 74

IV.1.5.7. Panama 77

IV.2. The Caribbean 81

IV.2.1. Comparison of the IAIF for the Caribbean 81

IV.2.2. A Comparison: The SUPRA Subindex in The Caribbean 81

IV.2.3. A Comparison: The INTER Subindex in the Caribbean 83

IV.2.4. A Comparison: The INTRA Subindex in the Caribbean 83

1

IV.2.5. An Individual Country Overview: The Caribbean 85

IV.2.5.1. Belize 85

IV.2.5.2.Dominican Republic 88

IV.2.5.3.Haiti 91

IV.2.5.4. Trinidad & Tobago 93

IV.3. The Southern Cone 97

IV.3.1. A Comparison: The IAIF in the Southern Cone 97

IV.3.2. A Comparison: The SUPRA Subindex in the Southern Cone 99

IV.3.3. A Comparison: The INTER subindex in the Southern Cone 101

IV.3.4. A Comparison: The INTRA Subindex in the Southern Cone 103

IV.3.5. An Individual Country Overview – The Southern Cone 105

IV.3.5.1. Argentina 105

IV.3.5.2. Brazil 107

IV.3.5.3. Chile 109

IV.3.5.4. Paraguay111

IV.3.5.5. Uruguay 113

IV.4. Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 117

IV.4.1. A Comparison: The Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 117

IV.4.2. A Comparison: The SUPRA Subindex in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 119

IV.4.3. A Comparison: The INTER Subindex in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 121

IV.4.4. A Comparison: The INTRA Subindex in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 122

IV.4.5. An Individual Country Overview – The Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 125

IV.4.5.1. Bolivia 125

IV.4.5.2. Colombia 127

IV.4.5.3. Ecuador 129

IV.4.5.4 Guyana 131

IV.4.5.5. Peru 133

IV.4.5.6. Suriname 135

IV.4.5.7. Venezuela 137

Annex I - IAIF Methodology 141

AI.1. IAIF 141

A1.2. IAIF-derived calculations 147

A1.3. Non-available data 149

2

A1.4. Changes in methodology from IAIF 2004 149

A1.5. Further information149

Annex II - IAIF Questionnaire 150

Annex III - List of questionnaire respondents by country – South America162

Annex IV - List of questionnaire respondents by country – North and Central America and Caribean 191

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart II.1: IAIF Geographic Scope 11

Chart III.1: IAIF Real (Measured) 2006 17

Chart III.2: Distribution of the total scores - IAIF 2006 17

Chart III.3: IAIF Scores variation - 2006/2004 19

Chart III.4: IAIF Rank variation - 2006/200421

Chart III.5: Distribution of the scores - SUPRA subindex 24

Chart III.6: Average score per indicator - SUPRA subindex 24

Chart III.7: Distribution of the scores - INTER subindex 33

Chart III.8: Average Scores of Indicators - Subindex Level 34

Chart III.9: Distribution of the Scores - INTRA Subindex 47

Chart III.10: Average scores for the indicators - INTRA subindex 48

Chart AI.1: IAIF Geographic Scope 141

Chart AI.2: The factors and IAIF – a causal relationship 145

LIST OF TABLES

Table II.1: IAIF components and their corresponding indicators 12

Table III.1: IAIF Results - 2006 16

Table III.2: Overview of the final IAIF scores for 2004 and 2006 18

Table III.3: Overview of the final IAIF rankings reached in 2004 and 2006 20

Table III.4: Scores on SUPRA sectorial level 25

Table III.5: Annual GDP Growth 26

Table III.6: Interest Rate 27

Table III.7: Exchange Rate Stability 28

Table III.8: Trade Openness 29

Table III.9: Political Stability 30

Table III.10: Tax Share of GDP31

3

Table III.11: Scores on the INTER Subindex Sectorial Level 35

Table III.12: Economic Infrastructure 36

Table III.13: Social Infrastructure 37

Table III.14: Licenses and Permits 38

Table III.15: Labor I 39

Table III.16: Labor II 40

Table III.17: Capital Market 40

Table III.18: Property Rights 41

Table III.19: Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 43

Table III.20: Agricultural Policies 44

Table III.21: Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 45

Table III.22: Scores on the INTRA sectorial subindex level 49

Table III.23: Forest Resources50

Table III.24: Support for Forest Sector 51

Table III.25: Domestic Market 52

Table III.26: Forest Vocation Land (FVL) 53

Table III.27: Adverse Actions 54

Table IV.1: IAIF Results: North and Central America 55

Table IV.2: Results of the SUPRA subindex in North and Central America 57

Table IV.3: Results of the INTER subindex in North and Central America 58

Table IV.4: Results of the INTRA subindex for North and Central America 59

Table IV.5: Overview of Basic Indicators in North and Central America (including Panama).61

Table IV.6: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 62

Table IV.7: IAIF Results in Mexico 62


Table IV.9: IAIF Results in Costa Rica64


Table IV.11: IAIF Results in El Salvador 67


Table IV.13: IAIF Results in Guatemala 70


Table IV.15: IAIF Results in Honduras72


Table IV.17: IAIF Results in Nicaragua 75


4

Table IV.19: IAIF Results in Panama 78

Table IV.20: IAIF Results in the Caribbean 81

Table IV.21: Results of the SUPRA Subindex in the Caribbean 81

Table IV.22: Results of the INTER Subindex for The Caribbean 83

Table IV.23: Results of the INTRA Subindex in The Caribbean 83

Table IV.24: Overview of Basic Indicators for the Caribbean 85


Table IV.26: IAIF Results in Belize 86


Table IV.28: IAIF Results in Dominican Republic89


Table IV.30: IAIF Results in Haiti 92


Table IV.32: IAIF Results in Trinidad and Tobago 94

Table IV.33: IAIF Results in the Southern Cone97

Table IV.34: IAIF Results in the Southern Cone - Averages 98

Table IV.35: SUPRA Subindex Results in the Southern Cone99

Table IV.36: SUPRA Subindex Results in the Southern Cone - Averages99

Table IV.37: Inter Subindex Results in the Southern Cone 101

Table IV.38: Inter Subindex Results in the Southern Cone - Averages 102

Table IV.39: Intra Subindex Results in the Southern Cone 103

Table IV.40: Intra Subindex Results in the Southern Cone - Averages 103

Table IV.41: Overview of Basic Indicators for the Southern Cone 105


Table IV.43: IAIF Results in Argentina106


Table IV.45: IAIF Results in Brazil 108


Table IV.47: IAIF Results in Chile110


Table IV.49: IAIF Results in Paraguay 112


Table IV.51: IAIF Results for Uruguay 114

Table IV.52: IAIF Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 117

Table IV.53: IAIF Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages 118

5

Table IV.54: SUPRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 119

Table IV.55: SUPRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages 119

Table IV.56: INTER Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 121

Table IV.57: INTER Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages 122

Table IV.58: INTRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname 123

Table IV.59: INTRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages 123

Table IV.60: Overview of Basic Indicators for the Andean Group 125


Table IV.62: IAIF Results in Bolivia 126


Table IV.64: IAIF Results in Colombia 128


Table IV.66: IAIF Results in Ecuador 130


Table IV.68: IAIF Results in Guyana 132

Table IV 69: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 133

Table IV.70: IAIF Results in Peru 134


Table IV.72: IAIF Results in Suriname 136


Table IV.74: IAIF Results in Venezuela 138

Table AI.1: Factors included in the IAIF index and corresponding indicators 143

6

List of Acronyms

AFoA – Asociación Forestal Argentina

CIA - Central Intelligency Agency

CONAPRI - Consejo Nacional de Promoción de Inversiones

ESPOL – Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral

FAO - Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación

FGV - Getulio Vargas Foundation

FVL - Forest Vocation Land

GDP - Gross Domestic Product

IAIF - Forest Investment Attraction Index

IDB - Interamerican Development Bank

PROMECIF - Process to Improve the Business Climate for Forest Investments

7

I. Introduction

1.1. IDB, FGV, and INCAE are pleased to present the IAIF - Forest Investment Attractiveness Index

– 2006 Report.

1.2. The IAIF was calculated for the first time in 2004 by the STCP group, in cooperation with the

IDB and a set of selected consultants working on the forest sector. However, at the time, the

calculation was based on strictly controlled conditions in which the questionnaires have not been

sent to the countries, but rather based on the participating expert’s knowledge and experience. In

2006, trials of the methodology were conducted in Costa Rica and Paraguay, as a way of testing

the applicability of the methodology and the IAIF were implemented in 23 Latin American countries.

1.3. Chapter II summarizes the IAIF methodology, which is presented in detail in Annex I. The

remaining chapters present the results of the updated information for the IAIF.

1.4. Chapter III presents an overview of the overall scores for 2006, as compared to the 2004

results.

1.5. Finally, Chapter IV presents the results per subindex and their respective indicators, as well as

the IAIF results for each country. The following subregions were considered: North and Central

America (including Panama), the Caribbean, the Southern Cone, and the Andean Group (including

Guyana and Suriname). The first two regions were analyzed by INCAE, and the last two by FGV.

9

II. The IAIF Methodology

2.1. The IAIF was implemented in 23 IDB borrowing member countries in Latin America and the

Caribbean (Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican

Republic, Suriname, Trinidad y Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela). Chart II.1 presents the IAIF

geographic scope.

Chart II.1: IAIF Geographic Scope

2.2. The IAIF design is based on a model that aggregates existing indexes, specific indicators and

data revealed by the questionnaires (primary). The combination of existing indexes, developed by

accredited institutions, and specific indicators based on information collected by means of

questionnaires allowed a significant cost reduction in the IAIF design, while maintaining its

credibility.

2.3. The IAIF Index is composed of three subindexes, all of which analyze the forest sector

investment attractiveness conditions in a specific country:

11

a. SUPRA Sectorial Subindex: Refers to the macroeconomic factors and to other factors that affect

the profitability of businesses in all productive sectors of a country;

b. INTER Sectorial Subindex: Refers to the factors, generated in other economic sectors, that affect

the profitability of forest-industrial businesses; and

c. INTRA Sectorial Subindex: Refers to factors that are inherent to the forest sectors and that affect

the profitability or forest-industrial businesses.

2.4. Based on the definition of the factors that make up the IAIF, we were able to identify indicators

that were used for measurement. In general, specially for the SUPRA and INTER-related factors,

we relied on indicators that have been used in existing indexes, once they adequately express the

IAIF components.

2.5. On the other hand, the factors that could not be measured by means of the existing indexes or

indicators were obtained in the questionnaires1.

2.6. Table II.1 presents the list of the factors included in the IAIF index, as well as their

corresponding indicators.

Table II.1: IAIF components and their corresponding indicators

Factor Subindex Indicator Concept SourceGDP SUPRA GDP Growth

RateLevel of economic growth World

BankInterest Rate SUPRA Passive Real

Interest RateCapital costs CEPAL

Exchange Rate SUPRA Exchange Rate Stability

Exchange rate stability PRS Group

Foreign Trade SUPRA Trade Openness Level of openness to international trade

Fraser Institute

Political Stability and Government Transparency

SUPRA Political Risk Level of political and social stability PRS Group

Tax Burden SUPRA Tax Share of GDP

Impact of taxes on economic activity

World Bank

Economic Infrastructure INTER Economic Infrastructure

Level of development and quality of road, sea and air transportation infrastructure, as well as Forest-industry transportation costs

FEM and STCP

Social Infrastructure INTER Social Infrastructure

Level of human development UNDP

Licenses & Permits INTER Licenses & Legal and bureaucratic obstacles to Heritage

1 For IAIF 2004 questionnaries’ results reflects the expertise of the consultants responsible for its calculation. For IAIF 2006 field work was developed (see annexes III and IV).

12

Factor Subindex Indicator Concept Sourcepermits start a business Foundation

Labor INTER Labor Labor regulations, productivity, training and wage level of workers

World Bank and

UNDP Access to Credit INTER Capital Market Sophistication of financial market,

access to loans and credit, and local securities market

FEM and STCP

Legal Safety and Law Enforcement

INTER Property Rights Legal abandonment of property rights and lack of law enforcement actions by the government

Heritage Foundation

Capital Market INTER Capital Flow & Foreign Investment

Barriers and restrictions to foreign investment

Heritage Foundation

Agricultural Policies INTER Agricultural Policies

Impact of cattle raising and harvesting policies on the profitability of forest/industrial enterprises

Interviews

Planting & Harvesting Restrictions

INTER Planting & Harvesting Restrictions

Perception of costs and risks associates to specific environmental regulations

Interviews

Forest Resource INTRA Forest Resource Surplus and stock of wood for commercial purposes

FAO

Favorable Support INTRA Favorable Support

Support activities that reduce the forest/industrial business costs, while increasing their benefits.

Interviews

Domestic Market INTRA Domestic Market Domestic consumption of forest input and products (includes export)

FAO

FVL INTRA FVL Legalized FVL available for business

FAO

Adverse Actions INTRA Adverse Actions Degree of adversity of actions that increase costs and reduce the benefits of forest/industry enterprises.

Interviews

2.7. IAIF methodology is presented in detail in Annex I. For further information, consult the website

www.iadb.org/pforestal.

13

III. Results of the IAIF 2006 and its Evolution in the Period 2004-2006

III.1. The IAIF Results

3.1.1. In the 2006 period, the IAIF was recalculated for virtually all Latin-American countries. The

new scores fall within a range of 32 (minimum) and 60 (maximum) . The average score was 40. The

country with the highest score was Brazil, followed by Chile, with a score of 53. In fact, Brazil and

Chile were the only countries with a score above 50. Argentina and Uruguay follow, with both

achieving a scores of 47. At the other end of the results are countries such as Dominican Republic,

Guyana, Ecuador, and Paraguay, which have achieved scores around 32.

3.1.2. Considering the improvement potential in scores, as well as in percentage, it becomes clear

that all countries do present a significant potential for improvement. The lowest improvement

potential, with respect to the potential improvement in points, was Chile, with 21 points, followed by

Uruguay (23 points), and El Salvador (26 points). Countries with the highest improvement potential

were Venezuela (43 points) and Mexico (42 points), followed by Brazil (39 points).

3.1.3. The results are slightly different if we consider the potential improvement in percentages.

Countries with the lowest improvement potential are Chile, with 40%, followed by El Salvador, 62%,

and Panama, 61%. The highest improvement potential was Venezuela, 122%, closed followed by

Guyana, 121%, Ecuador, 118%, Paraguay and Dominican Republic, both 117%.

15

Table III.1: IAIF Results - 2006

CountryIAIF

ScoresMax. Achievable

Scores

Potential improvement

(in scores)


(%)Argentina 47 79 32 67

Belice 34 69 36 105

Bolivia 41 75 34 82

Brasil 60 99 39 66

Chile 53 74 21 40

Colombia 44 81 37 85

Costa Rica 39 69 30 79

Dominican Rep 32 70 38 117

Ecuador (-) 32 71 38 118

El Salvador 43 69 26 62

Guatemala 38 70 31 82

Guyana (-) 32 71 39 121

Haití 36 69 33 91

Honduras 34 73 39 117

México 44 86 42 96

Nicaragua 36 71 35 96

Panamá 44 71 27 61

Paraguay 33 71 39 117

Perú 39 78 38 97

Suriname 36 71 35 100

Trinidad y Tobago 36 68 33 91

Uruguay 47 70 23 50

Venezuela 35 78 43 122

3.1.4. The analysis of such a distribution of the IAIF results with the help of an histogram reveals

that the great majority of the Latin-American countries achieved rather similar scores (from 32 to

38), and very few countries reached scores above 53, as shown on Chart III.2.

16

Chart III.1: IAIF Real (Measured) 2006

Chart III.2: Distribution of the total scores - IAIF 2006

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

32 to 38 39 to 45 46 to 53 54 to 60

17

3.1.5. A comparison between the new results of 2006 and 2004 is especially interesting. As shown

in Table III.2, it can be noticed that the average score improved notably, from 36 to 40. Interestingly,

some of the countries less favorably ranked in 2004, such as Ecuador, Guatemala and Haiti,

obtained a substantially higher score in 2006, whereas the top-ranked countries, such as Brazil and

Chile, obtained the same score as in 2004.

Table III.2: Overview of the final IAIF scores for 2004 and 2006


Argentina 47 44 4

Belize 34 31 2

Bolivia 41 34 7

Brazil 60 60 0

Chile 53 53 0

Colombia 44 40 3

Costa Rica 39 41 -2


Ecuador 32 25 7

El Salvador 43 33 9

Guatemala 38 30 8

Guyana 32 32 0

Haiti 36 23 13

Honduras 34 31 3

México 44 40 4

Nicaragua 36 34 3

Panamá 44 37 7

Paraguay 33 31 1

Peru 39 33 6

Surinam 36 34 2

Trinidad y Tobago 36 33 3

Uruguay 47 44 3

Venezuela 35 35 0

Average 40 36 4MIN 32 23 -2MAX 60 60 13

18

Chart III.3: IAIF Scores variation - 2006/2004

19

Table III.3: Overview of the final IAIF rankings reached in 2004 and 2006



Argentina 3rd 4th 1Belize 18th 19th 1Bolivia 9 th 11th 2Brazil 1st 1st Chile 2nd 2nd Colombia 7 th 7th Costa Rica 11 th 5th 6Dominican Republic 22 th 16th 6Ecuador 21 th 22th 1El Salvador 8 th 13th 5Guatemala 12 th 21th 9Guyana 23 th 17th 6Haiti 13 th 23th 10Honduras 19 th 20th 1México 5 th 6th 1Nicaragua 14 th 12th 2Panamá 6 th 8th 2Paraguay 20 th 18th 2Peru 10 th 15th 5Surinam 16 th 10th 6Trinidad y Tobago 15 th 14th 1Uruguay 4 th 3th 1

20

Chart III.4: IAIF Rank variation - 2006/2004

3.1.6. Information presented on the overall level does not allow deeper understanding of the

reasons underlying the performance of each country. Therefore, in the following chapters, results on

the subindexes level, including the different indicators that make up each subindex, will be

presented.

21

III.2. Subindexes and indicators

3.2.1. The IAIF is composed of three subindexes, the SUPRA sectorial subindex, the INTER

sectorial subindex, and the INTRA sectorial subindex. Each one of them is calculated through a set

of indicators. In this chapter, the results of the three subindexes, including their indicators, will be

presented separately, showing the actual performance of the measured (real) indicator, as well as

the calculated score, and the corresponding improvement potential.

III.2.1. SUPRA Sectorial Subindex and Indicators

3.2.2. The SUPRA sectorial level is related to the macroeconomic performance and to the political

stability of the surveyed country. The indicators used to measure the SUPRA subindex are: GDP

Growth Rate, Passive Real Interest Rate, Exchange Rate Stability, Trade Openness and Tax Share

of GDP. Information for all indicators is based on secondary literature and publications; when

gathering the required information for the different countries, few problems have emerged. For

some smaller countries, such as Belize, Suriname and Guyana, and in one case for Ecuador, there

was no information available for some of the indicators, for instance, Exchange Rate Stability, Trade

Openness, Political Risk, and Tax Share of GDP. In such cases, the group average was used.

3.2.3. With an average score of 76, the results for the SUPRA subindex are significantly above the

IAIF average score for all countries. Not only the average score of SUPRA subindex reached a very

high level but also the distribution has shown a low variance. The minimum score (67) was

assigned to Dominican Republic, and the maximum score (82) was assigned to Chile. However,

most of the scores lie in the 70 to 80 range (see Table III.4).

23

Chart III.5: Distribution of the scores - SUPRA subindex

3.2.4. As shown by the average subindex score, there has not been significant score variation

among the different indicators. The indicator with the highest score was Passive Real Interest Rate,

with an average score of 95, followed by the Exchange Rate Stability indicator, with 94. Indicators

with a lower performance were Trade Openness (score = 61), closely followed by Political Risk and

Tax share of GDP, which reached a score of 64 (see Chart III.6).

Chart III.6: Average score per indicator - SUPRA subindex

24

Table III.4: Scores on SUPRA sectorial level

Country Scores Maximum ScoresPotential

improvement(in scores)


(in %)

Actual contribution to the IAIF

Contribution of the potential improvement

Argentina 79 100 21 27 11 3Belize 71 100 29 41 10 4Bolivia 73 100 27 36 10 4Brazil 75 100 25 34 11 4Chile 82 100 18 22 12 3Colombia 75 100 25 33 11 4Costa Rica 79 100 21 26 11 3Dominican Rep 67 100 33 49 10 5Ecuador (-) 73 100 27 38 10 4El Salvador 78 100 22 28 11 3Guatemala 78 100 22 28 11 3Guyana (-) 76 100 24 31 11 3Haiti 73 100 27 37 10 4Honduras 73 100 27 37 10 4México 77 100 23 29 11 3Nicaragua 77 100 23 30 11 3Panamá 82 100 18 22 12 3Paraguay 75 100 25 33 11 4Peru 78 100 22 28 11 3Suriname 79 100 21 27 11 3Trinidad y Tobago 79 100 21 26 11 3Uruguay 82 100 18 22 12 3Venezuela 73 100 27 37 10 4

* Passive Interest Rate: Data from Banco Central del Uruguay.

25

Table III.5: Annual GDP Growth

CountryAnnual GDP growth (%)

StandardizedMax. Scores(in scores)


(in %)

Actual contribution to

the IAIF

Contribution of the potential improvement

Max. Achievable

Scores

Vi Ii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 9.0 95 100 5 5 2.3 0.1Belize 2.7 64 100 37 57 1.5 0.9Bolivia 3.9 70 100 30 44 1.7 0.7Brazil 4.9 75 100 26 34 1.8 0.6Chile 6.2 81 100 19 24 1.9 0.5Colombia 4.8 74 100 26 35 1.8 0.6Costa Rica 6.8 84 100 16 19 2.0 0.4Dominican Rep. 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Ecuador 7.6 88 100 12 13 2.1 0.3El Salvador 3.8 69 100 31 45 1.6 0.7Guatemala 4.6 73 100 27 37 1.7 0.6Guyana 1.6 58 100 42 73 1.4 1.0Haiti 2.5 63 100 38 60 1.5 0.9Honduras 5.6 78 100 22 28 1.9 0.5Mexico 4.8 74 100 26 35 1.8 0.6Nicaragua 3.7 69 100 32 46 1.6 0.8Panama 7.5 88 100 13 14 2.1 0.3Paraguay 4.0 70 100 30 43 1.7 0.7Peru 4.8 74 100 26 35 1.8 0.6Suriname 7.8 89 100 11 12 2.1 0.3Trinidad and Tobago 12.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Uruguay 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Venezuela 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0

26

Table III.6: Interest Rate

CountryInterest

rate in (%)Normalized

ResultsInverted Scores

Max. Scores

DifferentialPotential im-

provement (%)Current

ContributionDifferential contribution

Vi Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 0.0 0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Belize 0.9 4 96 100 4 4 2.3 0.1Bolivia 0.0 0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Brazil 0.6 3 97 100 3 3 2.3 0.1Chile 0.0 0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Colombia 2.2 11 89 100 11 12 2.1 0.3Costa Rica 0.5 3 97 100 3 3 2.3 0.1Dominican Rep. 4.8 24 76 100 24 32 1.8 0.6Ecuador 2.1 10 90 100 10 11 2.1 0.2El Salvador 0.4 2 98 100 2 2 2.3 0.0Guatemala 0.3 1 99 100 1 1 2.3 0.0Guyana 0.0 0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Haiti -5.2 -26 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Honduras 4.6 23 77 100 23 30 1.8 0.5Mexico 1.9 10 90 100 10 11 2.2 0.2Nicaragua -3.9 -20 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Panama 1.6 8 92 100 8 9 2.2 0.2Paraguay 2.8 14 86 100 14 16 2.0 0.3Peru 0.0 0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Suriname 0.0 0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Trinidad & Tobago -6.6 -33 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Uruguay 0.0 0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Venezuela 0.0 0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0

* Data from Banco Central del Uruguay.

27

Table III.7: Exchange Rate Stability

Country ResultsNormalized

scoresMax. scores Differential

Potential improvement (in %)

Current Contribution

Differential contribution

Vi Ii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 10 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Belize 9.5* 95 100 5 6 2.3 0.1Bolivia 10 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Brazil 10 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Chile 9.5 95 100 5 5 2.3 0.1Colombia 10 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Costa Rica 9.0 90 100 10 11 2.1 0.2Dominican Rep. 4.5 45 100 55 122 1.1 1.3Ecuador 9.5* 95 100 5 6 2.3 0.1El Salvador 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Guatemala 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Guyana 10 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Haiti 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Honduras 9.5 95 100 5 5 2.3 0.1Mexico 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Nicaragua 9.5 95 100 5 5 2.3 0.1Panama 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Paraguay 10 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Peru 10 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Suriname 9.5 95 100 5 5 2.3 0.1Trinidad & Tobago 10.0 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Uruguay 10 100 100 0 0 2.4 0.0Venezuela 7 70 100 30 43 1.7 0.7

* Results based on average

28

Table III.8: Trade Openness

TCI BCR TSE AverageNormalized

scoresMax.

scoresDifferential


(%)



Country Vi Vii Viii Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 6.6 5.7 5.3 5.9 59 100 41 70 1.4 1.0Belize* 6.5 5.7 3 5.1 51 100 49 98 1.2 1.2Bolivia 8.8 4.8 5.6 6.4 64 100 36 56 1.5 0.9Brazil 7.2 5 5.2 5.8 58 100 42 72 1.4 1.0Chile 9.5 7.9 6.8 8.1 81 100 19 24 1.9 0.5Colombia 7.9 5.7 4.1 5.9 59 100 41 69 1.4 1.0Costa Rica 6.5 6.1 4.9 5.8 58 100 42 71 1.4 1.0Dominican Rep. 6.8 5 4.3 5.4 54 100 46 86 1.3 1.1Ecuador 7.2 5 4.3 5.5 55 100 45 82 1.3 1.1El Salvador 8.2 6.3 3.5 6.0 60 100 40 67 1.4 1.0Guatemala 8 5.3 2.3 5.2 52 100 48 92 1.2 1.1Guyana 6.7 4.8 10 7.2 72 100 28 40 1.7 0.7Haiti 8 4.1 2.2 4.8 48 100 52 110 1.1 1.2Honduras 8.1 5 6.2 6.4 64 100 36 55 1.5 0.8Mexico 7.6 6.7 7.4 7.2 72 100 28 38 1.7 0.7Nicaragua 8.6 4.9 5.8 6.4 64 100 36 55 1.5 0.8Panama 8.2 6.5 2.3 5.7 57 100 43 76 1.3 1.0Paraguay 8.1 5.7 6.8 6.9 69 100 31 46 1.6 0.7Peru 8.2 6.1 3.9 6.1 61 100 39 65 1.4 0.9Suriname* 7.6 5.7 4.9 6.1 61 100 39 65 1.4 0.9Trinidad y Tobago 5.7 7.1 4.1 5.6 56 100 44 78 1.3 1.0Uruguay 7.8 6 3.3 5.7 57 100 43 75 1.4 1.0Venezuela 8 5.2 5.4 6.2 62 100 38 61 1.5 0.9

*Results based on average

29

Table III.9: Political Stability

ResultsNormalized

scoresMax. scores Differential


Current contribution


Country Vi Ii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 65 65.0 100 35 54 1.5 0.8Belize* 64.2 64.2 100 36 56 1.5 0.9Bolivia 60 60.0 100 40 67 1.4 1.0Brazil 66.5 66.5 100 34 50 1.6 0.8Chile 79 79.0 100 21 27 1.9 0.5Colombia 59 59.0 100 41 69 1.4 1.0Costa Rica 72.5 72.5 100 28 38 1.7 0.7Dominican Rep. 62.0 62.0 100 38 61 1.5 0.9Ecuador 57.5 57.5 100 43 74 1.4 1.0El Salvador 68.0 68.0 100 32 47 1.6 0.8Guatemala 65.5 65.5 100 35 53 1.6 0.8Guyana 63.5 63.5 100 37 57 1.5 0.9Haiti 41.0 41.0 100 59 144 1.0 1.4Honduras 58.5 58.5 100 42 71 1.4 1.0Mexico 74.0 74.0 100 26 35 1.8 0.6Nicaragua 64.0 64.0 100 36 56 1.5 0.9Panama 75.0 75.0 100 25 33 1.8 0.6Paraguay 57 57.0 100 43 75 1.4 1.0Peru 64 64.0 100 36 56 1.5 0.9Suriname 64.5 64.5 100 36 55 1.5 0.8Trinidad y Tobago 70.0 70.0 100 30 43 1.7 0.7Uruguay 74.5 74.5 100 26 34 1.8 0.6Venezuela 51.5 51.5 100 49 94 1.2 1.2

*Results based on average

30

Table III.10: Tax Share of GDP

CountryTax share

in %Normalized


Max. scores DifferentialPotential

improvement (in %)Current


Vi Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 23.5 47 53 100 47 89 1.3 1.1Belize 21.3 43 57 100 43 74 1.4 1.0Bolivia 26.8 54 46 100 54 116 1.1 1.3Brazil 23.7 47 53 100 47 90 1.3 1.1Chile 22.1 44 56 100 44 79 1.3 1.1Colombia 14.5 29 71 100 29 41 1.7 0.7Costa Rica 13.2 26 74 100 26 36 1.8 0.6Dominican Rep. 16.4 33 67 100 33 49 1.6 0.8Ecuador 24.7 49 51 100 49 98 1.2 1.2El Salvador 12.7 25 75 100 25 34 1.8 0.6Guatemala 9.8 20 80 100 20 24 1.9 0.5Guyana* 18.1 36 64 100 36 57 1.5 0.9Haiti 6.3 13 87 100 13 14 2.1 0.3Honduras 17.4 35 65 100 35 53 1.6 0.8Mexico 23.3 47 53 100 47 87 1.3 1.1Nicaragua 15.8 32 68 100 32 46 1.6 0.8Panama 9.3 19 81 100 19 23 1.9 0.4Paraguay 15.4 31 69 100 31 45 1.6 0.7Peru 15.1 30 70 100 30 43 1.7 0.7Suriname 18.1 36 64 100 36 57 1.5 0.9Trinidad y Tobago 25.8 52 48 100 52 107 1.2 1.2Uruguay 20.1 40 60 100 40 67 1.4 1.0Venezuela 22.4 45 55 100 45 81 1.3 1.1

* Results based on average

31

III.2.2. INTER Sectorial Subindex and Indicators

3.2.5. The INTER sectorial subindex considers indicators that are created by other sectors of the

economy but that affect directly the performance of the forest sector. Such indicators are Economic

Infrastructure, Social Infrastructure, Licenses and Permits, Labor, Capital Market, Property Rights,

Capital Flow and Foreign Investment, Agricultural Policies, and Planting and Harvesting

Restrictions. While seven out of those nine indicators were collected through secondary data, the

Agricultural Policies and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions indicators were obtained through

surveys, which have been carried out in each of the countries.

3.2.6. Data availability has been good in most cases; however, in some countries, i.e., Guyana and

Suriname, support was insufficient; therefore, no questionnaires were received. In these cases,

2004 results were considered.

3.2.7. The countries’ average score for the INTER subindex was 51, with a minimum of 40

(Dominican Republic, Paraguay, and Venezuela) and a maximum of 75 (Chile). Differently from the

SUPRA sectorial level results, however, in this case there was a much wider variance among the

countries, as shown in Graph 2. Nevertheless, a group of countries next to the three countries with

the lowest socre achieved only slightly better scores. Such group is composed of Haiti (40),

Honduras and Ecuador (41), Nicaragua (42). The countries with the best performance on the

INTER subindex level are: Chile (75), followed by Uruguay (65), and El Salvador (60).

Chart III.7: Distribution of the scores - INTER subindex

33

3.2.8. As to the different indicators, it can be stated that there is a series of indicators in which the

Latin American countries had a rather poor performance; for instance, Licenses and Permits, Labor,

Property Rights, and Capital Market, in which the average score has been just 40 or lower. On the

other hand, the Social Infrastructure indicator had a rather good score (76) (see Chart III.8).

Chart III.8: Average Scores of Indicators - Subindex Level

3.2.9. On the following pages, the detailed results for the INTER subindex, as well as for all of its

indicators, are presented (see tables below).

34

Table III.11: Scores on the INTER Subindex Sectorial Level

Country ScoresMax.

Achievable Scores


(in scores)



Contribution of the potential

improvement

Argentina 59 100 41 69 17 12

Belize 50 100 50 100 14 14

Bolivia 48 100 52 110 14 15

Brazil 55 100 45 82 16 13

Chile 75 100 25 34 21 7

Colombia 58 100 42 73 16 12

Costa Rica 52 100 48 93 15 14Dominican Rep. 39 100 61 155 11 17

Ecuador 41 100 59 143 12 17

El Salvador 60 100 40 67 17 11

Guatemala 45 100 55 122 13 16

Guyana 47 100 53 111 14 15

Haiti 39 100 61 154 11 17

Honduras 41 100 59 146 12 17

Mexico 52 100 48 91 15 14

Nicaragua 42 100 58 138 12 17Panama 59 100 41 68 17 12Paraguay 40 100 60 152 11 17

Peru 49 100 51 106 14 15

Suriname 56 100 44 79 16 13

Trinidad y Tobago 56 100 44 78 16 13

Uruguay 65 100 35 54 19 10

Venezuela 39 100 61 157 11 17

35

Table III.12: Economic Infrastructure

Physical infrastructure

Transportation costs AverageMax.

scoresDiffer.

Pot. im-prov. (%)

Curr. Cont.

Dif. Cont.

Country Scores Norm USD/m3 Norm. Inverted

Vi Ii Vii Iii Iiii Iiv Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 3,5 42,0 9,0 40,0 60 54 100 46 85 1,7 1,5Belice 3,5 41,3 9,2 42,0 58 52 100 48 91 1,7 1,5Bolivia 2,2 19,5 11,8 68,0 32 28 100 72 259 0,9 2,3Brasil 3,5 42,2 7,8 28,0 72 62 100 38 61 2,0 1,2Chile 4,6 60,3 7,1 21,1 79 73 100 27 37 2,3 0,9Colombia 3,1 34,3 9,5 44,5 56 49 100 51 106 1,5 1,6Costa Rica 2,5 25,0 11,3 63,1 37 33 100 67 203 1,0 2,1Dom Rep 3,6 43,3 9,5 45,0 55 51 100 49 96 1,6 1,6Ecuador 2,6 26,7 10,6 56,0 44 38 100 62 161 1,2 2,0El Salvador 4,7 61,7 9,7 47,0 53 56 100 44 79 1,8 1,4Guatemala 3,7 45,0 9,6 46,0 54 51 100 49 96 1,6 1,6Guyana 3,3 38,4 9,1 41,0 59 52 100 48 92 1,7 1,5Haití 3,5 41,3 10,2 52,0 48 46 100 54 118 1,5 1,7Honduras 2,9 31,7 10,5 55,0 45 41 100 59 146 1,3 1,9Mexico 3,6 43,3 8,5 35,0 65 58 100 42 73 1,8 1,3Nicaragua 2,5 25,0 10,9 59,0 41 36 100 64 180 1,1 2,0Panamá 4,3 55,0 8,0 30,0 70 65 100 35 54 2,1 1,1Paraguay 2,2 20,5 10,9 59,0 41 34 100 66 192 1,1 2,1Peru 2,7 28,7 8,5 35,0 65 53 100 47 89 1,7 1,5Surinam 3,3 38,4 9,5 45,0 55 50 100 50 102 1,6 1,6Trinidad y Topago 3,5 41,7 9,5 45,0 55 51 100 49 98 1,6 1,6Uruguay 3,6 43,8 9,2 42,0 58 53 100 47 88 1,7 1,5Venezuela 3,1 34,7 7,9 29,0 71 59 100 41 69 1,9 1,3

36

Table III.13: Social Infrastructure

ResultsNormalized

scoresMax.

scoresDifferential

Potential improvement (in

%)



Vi Ii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 0.863 86 100 14 16 2.7 0.4Belize 0.751 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Bolivia 0.692 69 100 31 45 2.2 1.0Brazil 0.792 79 100 21 26 2.5 0.7Chile 0.859 86 100 14 16 2.7 0.4Colombia 0.79 79 100 21 27 2.5 0.7Costa Rica 0.841 84 100 16 19 2.7 0.5Dominican Rep. 0.751 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Ecuador 0.765 77 100 24 31 2.4 0.7El Salvador 0.729 73 100 27 37 2.3 0.9Guatemala 0.673 67 100 33 49 2.1 1.0Guyana 0.725 73 100 28 38 2.3 0.9Haiti 0.482 48 100 52 107 1.5 1.6Honduras 0.683 68 100 32 46 2.2 1.0Mexico 0.821 82 100 18 22 2.6 0.6Nicaragua 0.698 70 100 30 43 2.2 1.0Panama 0.809 81 100 19 24 2.6 0.6Paraguay 0.757 76 100 24 32 2.4 0.8Peru 0.767 77 100 23 30 2.4 0.7Suriname 0.759 76 100 24 32 2.4 0.8Trinidad y Tobago 0.809 81 100 19 24 2.6 0.6Uruguay 0.851 85 100 15 18 2.7 0.5Venezuela 0.784 78 100 22 28 2.5 0.7

37

Table III.14: Licenses and Permits



Max. scores

DifferentialPotential

improvement (in %)Current

contributionDifferential contribution

Vi Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Belize 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Bolivia 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Brazil 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Chile 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Colombia 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Costa Rica 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Dominican Rep. 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Ecuador 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4El Salvador 2 25 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Guatemala 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Guyana 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Haiti 5 100 0 100 100 0 0.0 3.2Honduras 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Mexico 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Nicaragua 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Panama 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Paraguay 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Peru 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Suriname 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Trinidad y Tobago 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Uruguay 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Venezuela 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4

38

Table III.15: Labor I

Index of labor regulations

Labor productivityResearchers

in R&DLabor costs

Average

Country ResultsInverte

d Scores

GDP PPP USD

PEAProductivity

USDNorm.

Per million inhabitants

2003Norm.

(Vi) (Ii) Vii Viii Viv Iii Vv Iiii Iiv IvArgentina 41 59 510.3 10777 47353 95 720 36 50 60Belize 10 90 1.9 88 21484 42 602 3 50 46Bolivia 40 60 24.5 3824 6407 11 120 6 50 32Brazil 42 58 1507.1 92860 16230 31 344 17 50 39Chile 24 76 175.3 6358 27573 54 444 22 50 51Colombia 27 73 325.9 20256 16089 31 109 5 50 40Costa Rica 32 68 40.3 1825 22080 43 368 18 50 45Dominican Rep. 42 58 65.3 4039 16168 31 60 3 50 35Ecuador 51 49 51.7 4221 12249 23 50 3 50 31El Salvador 24 76 34.1 2979 11447 21 47 2 50 37Guatemala 34 66 53 4898 10821 20 103 5 50 35Guyana 21 79 3.3 278 11866 22 60 3 50 39Haiti 24 76 15.7 3873 4054 6 60 3 50 34Honduras 36 64 20.3 2673 7594 13 78 4 50 33Mexico 38 62 1017.5 45958 22140 43 268 13 50 42Nicaragua 24 76 19.5 2290 8516 15 44 2 50 36Panama 56 44 23.1 1292 17875 34 97 5 50 33Paraguay 59 41 29 1098 26419 52 79 4 50 37Peru 61 39 156.5 3761 41607 83 226 11 50 46Suriname 363 64 2 86 23283 45 60 3 50 41Trinidad and Tobago 7 93 15.9 627 25343 50 399 20 50 53Uruguay 31 69 32.4 1241 26119 51 366 18 50 47Venezuela 76 24 157.9 11674 13526 26 236 12 50 28

2 Results based on 2004 data 3 Results based on average

39

Table III.16: Labor II

Country Average Max. scores DifferentialPotential improvement (in %)


Differential Contribution

Iv Pi Pii PC CA CD

Argentina 60 100 40 67 1.9 1.3

Belize 46 100 54 117 1.5 1.7

Bolivia 32 100 68 215 1.0 2.2

Brazil 39 100 61 156 1.2 1.9

Chile 51 100 49 98 1.6 1.6

Colombia 40 100 60 151 1.3 1.9

Costa Rica 45 100 55 123 1.4 1.8

Dominican Rep. 35 100 65 182 1.1 2.0

Ecuador 31 100 69 221 1.0 2.2

El Salvador 37 100 63 168 1.2 2.0

Guatemala 35 100 65 183 1.1 2.1

Guyana 39 100 61 159 1.2 2.0

Haiti 34 100 66 195 1.1 2.1

Honduras 33 100 67 204 1.0 2.1

Mexico 42 100 58 137 1.3 1.8

Nicaragua 36 100 64 178 1.1 2.0

Panama 33 100 67 200 1.1 2.1

Paraguay 37 100 63 172 1.2 2.0

Peru 46 100 54 118 1.5 1.7

Suriname 41 100 59 147 1.3 1.9

Trinidad and Tobago 53 100 47 88 1.7 1.5

Uruguay 47 100 53 112 1.5 1.7

Venezuela 28 100 72 259 0.9 2.3

Table III.17: Capital Market

Country Financial market Ease of access Local equity Average Norm. Max. Differ- Pot. im- Curr. Cont. Dif.

40

sophistication to loans market access scores ential prov. (%) Cont.

Vi Vii Viii Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CD

Argentina 3.2 2.1 3.4 2.9 32 100 68 216 1.0 2.2

Belize* 3.9 2.9 3.8 3.5 42 100 58 138 1.3 1.8

Bolivia 2.7 1.9 3.4 2.7 28 100 72 260 0.9 2.3

Brazil 5.2 3.3 4.4 4.3 55 100 45 82 1.7 1.4

Chile 5.4 4 5.5 5.0 66 100 34 51 2.1 1.1

Colombia 4.2 3.2 4.5 4.0 49 100 51 102 1.6 1.6

Costa Rica 4.2 3.0 3.8 3.7 44 100 56 125 1.4 1.8

Dominican Rep. 3.4 2.7 2.6 2.9 32 100 68 216 1.0 2.2

Ecuador 3.1 2.3 3.2 2.9 31 100 69 221 1.0 2.2

El Salvador 4.7 3.6 4.0 4.1 52 100 48 94 1.6 1.5

Guatemala 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.4 39 100 61 154 1.3 1.9

Guyana* 3.9 2.9 3.8 3.5 42 100 58 138 1.3 1.8

Haiti* 3.9 2.9 3.8 3.5 42 100 58 138 1.3 1.8

Honduras 3.1 2.5 2.4 2.7 28 100 72 260 0.9 2.3

Mexico 4.6 2.9 4.9 4.1 52 100 48 91 1.7 1.5

Nicaragua 3.2 2.2 3.5 3.0 33 100 67 205 1.0 2.1

Panama 5.3 4.4 5.3 5.0 67 100 33 50 2.1 1.1

Paraguay 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.8 29 100 71 240 0.9 2.2

Peru 3.9 2.9 4.9 3.9 48 100 52 107 1.5 1.6

Suriname* 3.9 2.9 3.8 3.5 42 100 58 138 1.3 1.8

Trinidad and Tobago 4.1 3.1 5.3 4.2 53 100 47 89 1.7 1.5

Uruguay 3.4 2.2 1.9 2.5 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4

Venezuela 3.4 2.4 3.5 3.1 35 100 65 186 1.1 2.1

* Results based on average because no country specific information was available

Table III.18: Property Rights

Country Results Normalized Results

Inverted Scores

Max. Scores

Differential Potential improvement (in



41

%)Vi Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CD

Argentina 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Belize 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Bolivia 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Brazil 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Chile 1 0 100 100 0 0 3.2 0.0Colombia 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Costa Rica 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Dominican Rep. 4 70 30 100 70 233 1.0 2.2Ecuador 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4El Salvador 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Guatemala 4 70 30 100 70 233 1.0 2.2Guyana 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Haiti 5 90 10 100 90 900 0.3 2.9Honduras 4 70 30 100 70 233 1.0 2.2Mexico 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Nicaragua 4 70 30 100 70 233 1.0 2.2Panama 4 70 30 100 70 233 1.0 2.2Paraguay 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Peru 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4Suriname 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Trinidad and Tobago 2 30 70 100 30 43 2.2 1.0Uruguay 2 25 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Venezuela 4 75 25 100 75 300 0.8 2.4

42

Table III.19: Capital Flow and Foreign Investment



Max. Scores


improvement (in %)



Vi Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Belize 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Bolivia 1 0 100 100 0 0 3.2 0.0Brazil 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Chile 2 25 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Colombia 2 25 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Costa Rica 2 30 70 100 30 43 2.2 1.0Dominican Rep. 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Ecuador 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6El Salvador 2 30 70 100 30 43 2.2 1.0Guatemala 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Guyana 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Haiti 4 70 30 100 70 233 1.0 2.2Honduras 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Mexico 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Nicaragua 2 30 70 100 30 43 2.2 1.0Panama 2 25 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Paraguay 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Peru 2 25 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Suriname 3 50 50 100 50 100 1.6 1.6Trinidad and Tobago 2 30 70 100 30 43 2.2 1.0Uruguay 2 25 75 100 25 33 2.4 0.8Venezuela 5 100 0 100 100 1000 0.0 3.2

43

Table III.20: Agricultural Policies


resultsInverted Scores

Max. scores

DifferentialPotential im-

provement (in %)Current



* Results based on data from 2004

44

Table III.21: Planting and Harvesting Restrictions



Max. scores


improvement (in %)




* Results based on data from 2004

45

III.2.3. INTRA Sectorial Subindex and Indicators

3.2.10. The INTRA subindex measures the business climate conditions within the forest sector in

individual countries. Indicators used to measure the business climate are Forest Resources,

Favorable Support, Domestic Market, Forest Vocation Land (FVL), and Adverse Actions. While the

Forest Resources, Domestic Market, and FVL indicators are based on secondary statistics and

literature, the Favorable Support and Adverse Actions indicators are calculated through surveys.

Data availability has been good in most cases; however, in some countries, i.e., Guyana, Suriname

and Trinidad y Tobago, support was insufficient; therefore, no questionnaires were received. In

these cases, 2004 results were considered.

3.2.11. The average score of the INTRA subindex was 26. Once the Domestic Market, Forest

Vocation Land, and Forest Resources indicators have been defined, respectively, in relation to the

largest market, land, and resources, by definition, many smaller countries, especially in Central

America, can only achieve comparatively lower scores. Such conditions are reflected in the

distribution of the scores, in which most countries had a score ranging from 10 to 30. Only Brazil,

the largest country in the region and also the one with the highest potential, had a higher score, 59

(see Chart III.9).

Chart III.9: Distribution of the Scores - INTRA Subindex

47

3.2.12. However, not only the results of the indicators related to country size were low, but also the

indicators that are not dependent from country size, such as Favorable Support and Adverse

Actions, were low too. The Favorable Support indicator had an average score of 34, and the

Adverse Actions indicator reached a score of 50, which means that Latin American countries

provide poor support to their forest sectors, often favoring competing sectors, such as agriculture

(see Chat III.10).

Chart III.10: Average scores for the indicators - INTRA subindex

3.2.13. Given the special weight assigned to the INTRA sectorial subindex, it is not surprising that

the overall IAIF results have not been much higher.

48

Table III.22: Scores on the INTRA sectorial subindex level

Country ScoresMax.

Achievable Scores


(in scores)


(in %)


Contribution of the potential

improvement

Argentina 33 63 30 90 19 17

Belize 16 47 30 188 9 17

Bolivia 30 56 26 88 17 15

Brazil 59 99 40 68 34 23

Chile 34 54 20 57 20 11

Colombia 28 66 38 132 16 21

Costa Rica 22 46 24 110 12 14

Dominican Rep. 20 47 27 137 11 16

Ecuador 18 48 30 169 10 17

El Salvador 25 46 21 82 14 12

Guatemala 25 47 22 89 14 13

Guyana 13 49 36 265 8 20

Haiti 25 47 21 83 15 12

Honduras 21 53 32 157 12 19

Mexico 32 76 44 140 18 25

Nicaragua 23 49 26 113 13 15

Panama 27 49 22 83 15 13

Paraguay 19 50 31 165 11 18

Peru 25 61 36 141 14 20

Suriname 14 49 35 239 8 20

Trinidad y Tobago 15 44 30 201 8 17

Uruguay 29 48 18 63 17 11

Venezuela 24 62 38 159 14 22

49

Table III.23: Forest Resources

Wood surplus

Norm. Wood stock Score Norm. AverageMax.

scoresDiffer-ential

Pot. im-prov. (%)

Curr. Cont.

Dif. Cont.

Country Vi Ii Vii Iii Iiii Pi Pii PC CA CD

Argentina 31,912 70 765,125 8 10 40 55 15 38 4.6 1.7

Belize 4,626 24 89,840 1 5 15 23 8 57 1.7 0.9

Bolivia 27,016 62 1,336,061 13 15 38 58 20 51 4.4 2.2

Brazil -10,000 0 8,128,622 81 80 40 95 55 138 4.6 6.3

Chile 9,972 33 614,505 6 10 22 30 8 39 2.5 1.0

Colombia 2,720 21 838,806 8 10 16 55 39 253 1.8 4.5

Costa Rica 3,992 23 136,657 1 5 14 19 5 34 1.6 0.6

Dominican Rep. 1,245 19 37,438 0 5 12 19 7 60 1.4 0.8

Ecuador 194 17 180,426 2 5 11 19 8 73 1.3 0.9

El Salvador -3,508 11 27,026 0 5 8 15 7 90 0.9 0.8

Guatemala 82 17 255,910 3 5 11 47 36 331 1.2 4.1

Guyana 3,929 23 212,516 2 5 14 36 22 155 1.6 2.5

Haiti -1,945 13 3,348 0 5 9 15 6 63 1.1 0.7

Honduras 12,430 37 205,428 2 5 21 53 32 150 2.4 3.6

Mexico -4,676 9 2,647,764 26 30 19 40 21 106 2.2 2.4

Nicaragua 11,157 35 320,566 3 5 20 32 12 59 2.3 1.4

Panama 7,500 29 158,815 2 5 17 36 19 111 2.0 2.2

Paraguay 1,463 19 687,436 7 10 15 30 15 106 1.7 1.8

Peru 11,399 36 433,289 4 5 20 53 33 161 2.3 3.7

Suriname 2,529 21 105,585 1 5 13 36 23 178 1.5 2.6

Trinidad & Tobago 457 17 16,430 0 5 11 13 2 16 1.3 0.2

Uruguay 9,507 33 100,208 1 5 19 28 9 49 2.1 1.1

Venezuela 15,867 43 638,909 6 10 27 55 28 107 3.0 3.3

50

Table III.24: Support for Forest Sector


scoresMax.

scoresDifferential




Vi Ii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 108 43 100 57 130 5.0 6.5Belize 39 13 100 87 676 1.5 10.0Bolivia 101 40 100 60 148 4.6 6.8Brazil 94 37 100 63 168 4.3 7.2Chile 120 49 100 51 104 5.6 5.8Colombia 106 43 100 57 134 4.9 6.5Costa Rica 105 42 100 58 138 4.8 6.6Dominican Rep. 109 44 100 56 127 5.0 6.4Ecuador 61 23 100 77 343 2.6 8.9El Salvador 99 40 100 60 153 4.5 6.9Guatemala 109 44 100 56 127 5.0 6.4Guyana 42 14 100 86 603 1.6 9.8Haiti 80 31 100 69 221 3.6 7.9Honduras 74 29 100 71 250 3.3 8.2Mexico 123 50 100 50 99 5.7 5.7Nicaragua 106 43 100 57 134 4.9 6.6Panama 100 40 100 60 149 4.6 6.8Paraguay 69 26 100 74 279 3.0 8.4Peru 79 31 100 69 226 3.5 7.9Suriname 33 10 100 90 878 1.2 10.3Trinidad and Tobago 30 9 100 91 1025 1.0 10.4Uruguay 106 43 100 57 134 4.9 6.5Venezuela 95 38 100 62 164 4.3 7.1

* Results based on 2004 data

51

Table III.25: Domestic Market

CountryRound wood, sawn

wood and wood-based panels

ScoreWood charcoal, pulp and paper

and paper boardScore Average

Max. scores

Differ-ential

Pot. im-prov. (%)

Curr. Cont.

Dif. Cont.

Ii Iii Iiii Pi Pii PC CA CD

Argentina 16,952,484 10 4,906,157 15 13 45 33 260 1.4 3.7

Belize 234,972 5 5,705 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0

Bolivia 3,890,650 5 220,734 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0

Brazil 300,000,000 100 35,163,920 90 95 100 5 5 10.9 0.6

Chile 61,513,702 25 5,485,359 15 20 25 5 25 2.3 0.6

Colombia 12,883,773 5 4,235,986 15 10 50 40 400 1.1 4.6

Costa Rica 6,070,030 5 464,459 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0

Dominican Rep. 950,500 5 382,863 5 5 13 8 160 0.6 0.9

Ecuador 8,679,600 5 561,664 5 5 18 13 260 0.6 1.5

El Salvador 5,013,450 5 261,468 5 5 10 5 100 0.6 0.6

Guatemala 16,881,807 10 332,028 5 8 15 8 100 0.9 0.9

Guyana 2,862,377 5 704,254 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0

Haiti 2,261,457 5 37,719 5 5 13 8 160 0.6 0.9

Honduras 9,960,812 5 257,435 5 5 8 3 60 0.6 0.3

Mexico 53,175,608 20 7,779,458 20 20 100 80 400 2.3 9.1

Nicaragua 6,060,758 5 61,066 5 5 10 5 100 0.6 0.6

Panama 1,441,037 5 104,620 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0

Paraguay 13,279,565 5 470,023 5 5 10 5 100 0.6 0.6

Peru 9,810,677 5 1,022,492 5 5 33 28 560 0.6 3.2

Suriname 373,408 5 509,656 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0

Trinidad & Tobago 235,356 5 104,912 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0

Uruguay 6,724,655 5 446,955 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0

Venezuela 7,205,640 5 1,986,100 5 5 33 28 560 0.6 3.2

52

Table III.26: Forest Vocation Land (FVL)

Country FVLNormalized

scoresMax.

scoresDifferential


(in %)



(1.000 ha) Iiv Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 17190 10 10 0 0 1.1 0.0Belize 677 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Bolivia 13767 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Brazil 235619 80 100 20 25 9.1 2.3Chile 16499 10 15 5 50 1.1 0.6Colombia 31905 15 25 10 67 1.7 1.1Costa Rica 2171 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Dominican Rep. 1731 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Ecuador 4853 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0El Salvador 721 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Guatemala 411 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Guyana 5581 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Haiti 66 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Honduras 4664 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Mexico 56581 20 40 20 100 2.3 2.3Nicaragua 4623 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Panama 2993 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Paraguay 10322 5 10 5 100 0.6 0.6Peru 49467 20 20 0 0 2.3 0.0Suriname 3882 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Trinidad and Tobago 144 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Uruguay 2689 5 5 0 0 0.6 0.0Venezuela 24645 10 20 10 100 1.1 1.1

53

Table III.27: Adverse Actions


resultsInverted Scores

Max. scores


improvement (in %)




*Results based on 2004 data

54

IV. Results by Regions and Countries (Includes Evolution 2004-2006)

IV.1. North and Central America, Including Panama – Regional Overview

4.1.1. In this chapter, the IAIF results, including the subindexes, will be briefly compared and

analyzed on the regional level for North and Central America (including Panama). The purpose of

this chapter is to evaluate the performance of individual countries, compared with their direct

neighbors, often their closest competitors for the limited resources in direct investment.

IV.1.1. A Comparison: The IAIF in North and Central America

4.1.2. The evaluation of the overall IAIF results on regional level for 2004 and 2006 shows that the

average score for the region increased from 35 to 40. Both in 2004 and in 2006, Mexico had the

highest score, with 44 in 2006, as compared to 40 in 2004. However, as shown in more detail later

on, Mexico hardly can be compared to the Central American countries (including Panama), since it

is much larger than all the other Central American countries combined (see Table IV.5).

4.1.3 In Central America, Panama and El Salvador had the highest score (44 and 43) in 2006, as

compared to their 2004 scores. Both countries ranked much lower when the IAIF methodology was

implemented for the first time, in 2004, with Panama reaching a score of 37 and El Salvador, 33.

Costa Rica, the top-ranked Central American country in 2004, was granted the 4th position in the

ranking in 2006. It was the only country in which the overall IAIF score presented a decline, as

compared to 2004. Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras haven’t changed significantly their

ranking position within the Central American countries. Nicaragua and Honduras were granted the

lowest score in this group of countries, and the score improvement has been rather insignificant.

Table IV.1: IAIF Results: North and Central America

2006 2004

Score Position Score Position

Mexico 44 1 40 1

Panama 44 2 37 3



Guatemala 38 5 30 7

Nicaragua 36 6 34 4

Honduras 34 7 31 6

Average 40 35

55

4.1.4. In order to present and explain in detail major changes in the IAIF score, results on each

subindex level will be presented next.

56

IV.1.2. A Comparison: The SUPRA subindex in North and Central America

4.1.5. On the SUPRA subindex level, the results are significantly different from the overall IAIF

score. On this level, the country size, its resources and economy hardly affect the final score. A

comparison of the results and of the ranking for 2004 and 2006 shows a slight overall improvement

on the average (from 73 to 78).

4.1.6. As shown in table IV.2, most other countries maintained their positions or moved up or down

one position. Exceptions were Mexico (7th in 2004 to 5rd in 2006) and Panama (4th to 1rd).

4.1.7. In this region, Panama and Costa Rica are the two countries traditionally recognized for their

political stability and good economic performance; therefore these countries rank first and second

places within the group. El Salvador and Guatemala follow, with slightly lower scores. Mexico,

Honduras and Nicaragua appear at the bottom of the list .

Table IV.2: Results of the SUPRA subindex in North and Central America

2006 2004

Country Score Position Score Position

Panama 82 1 71 4



Guatemala 78 4 75 3

Mexico 77 5 69 7

Nicaragua 77 6 71 5

Honduras 73 7 69 6

Average 78 73

IV.1.3. A Comparison: The INTER Subindex in North and Central America

4.1.8. A comparison of the results on the INTER sectorial level for the North and Central American

region shows that they were relatively stable from 2004 to 2006. The average score in the region

showed slight improvement - from 48 to 50.

4.1.9. All countries improved their scores and, as to the positions, the only change occurred with

Guatemala and Honduras which switched from the 7th to 5th and vice-versa.

57

Table IV.3: Results of the INTER subindex in North and Central America

2006 2004



Panama 59 2 54 2

Mexico 52 3 51 3


Guatemala 45 5 38 7

Nicaragua 42 6 41 6

Honduras 41 7 41 5

Average 50 48

58

IV.1.4. A Comparison: The INTRA subindex in North and Central America

4.1.10. The changes with the highest impact on the final IAIF index probably occurred on the INTRA

sectorial level, especially because results on this level have the highest weight for calculation of the

overall IAIF score. The average score for the region increased from 19 in 2004 to 26 in 2006,

corresponding to an improvement of more than 35% (see Table IV.4).

4.1.11. As to ranking, Mexico remained in the first position in 2006, but it improved significantly its

score from 27, in 2004 to 32, in 2006. Panama in 2006 reached the second position within the

regional ranking, as compared to 2004, when the country ranked 4th. El Salvador showed a

remarkable improvement increasing its scores from 9 in 2004 to 25 in 2006. Guatemala improved

its scores from 15 in 2004 to 25 in 2006, but its position in the ranked underwent just a minor

change. The results are similar for Honduras, which also improved its scores notably (from 16 to 24,

however, the ranking remained unchanged.

4.1.12. On the other hand, Costa Rica and Nicaragua were the countries that lost most positions

from 2004 to 2006. While in 2004 Costa Rica ranked second and Nicaragua third, in 2006 Costa

Rica ranked the 6th position and Nicaragua the 7th.

Table IV.4: Results of the INTRA subindex for North and Central America

2006 2004


Mexico 32 1 27 1

Panama 27 2 20 4


Guatemala 25 4 15 6

Honduras 24 5 16 5


Nicaragua 23 7 21 3Average 26 19

4.1.13. A review of the changes that were noticed on different levels leads to the conclusion that the

North and Central American regions improved their performance on all three subindex levels and,

as a result, so has the IAIF. However, not all countries had an equal share of such an improvement.

While Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala have significantly improved their performance, as well

as their position, as compared to other countries in the region, Costa Rica was the only county with

a lower score in 2006, compared to 2004. Besides, the performance of Nicaragua and Honduras, as

compared to their neighboring countries, is below average in all levels.

59

IV.1.5. An Individual Country Overview: North and Central America (Including Panama)

4.1.14. This section presents specific IAIF results, as well as individual scores for the different

indicators in all Central American countries, including Mexico and Panama. Even though all

countries are included in the same region, their socio-economic performance, as well as the size of

their forest sectors are quite different. Mexico is obviously the largest country within the group, with

a population of more than 100 million inhabitants. It has the highest GDP per capita. The other

countries are quite different with respect to population and territory, but not so far apart in terms of

economic development (see Table IV.5). GDP per capita differences in Central American countries

can reach a factor of 4, with Panama and Costa Rica being the most developed countries, (with a

GDP per capita of nearly US$ 4,600 in 2005), while Nicaragua and Honduras had a GDP per capita

of approximately US$1,000.

Table IV.5: Overview of Basic Indicators in North and Central America (including Panama).

Country PopulationGDP per

capitaTotal area FVL IAIF

in millions in US$ in km² in km²

Mexico 103.1 7310 1973 1132 43

Costa Rica 4.3 4590 52 43 39

El Salvador 6.9 2450 21 14 43

Guatemala 12.6 2400 109 82 43

Honduras 7.2 1120 112 93 34

Nicaragua 5.5 910 129 92 35

Panama 3.2 4630 76 60 42Source: CIA World Factbook 2007, World Bank 2007 and IDB 2006.

4.1.15. Despite such differences and the differences in potential forest resources each country has,

the IAIF index performance is quite balanced. Mexico, the country that has by far the most

extensive forest resources and the highest level of economic development, is just on par with the

overall IAIF score for El Salvador and Guatemala. El Salvador, the smallest country in the group,

obtained a good ranking position, considering the fact that the IAIF methodology highly rewards the

amount of existing forest resources and the national market size for forest products. In order to

have a better understanding of the overall IAIF score for each country, the following chapter will

present and discuss results for each indicator in the individual countries.

IV.1.5.1. Mexico

61

4.1.16. The Mexican IAIF in 2006 was 44, moving up four points as compared to 2004. The

improvement was seen mainly on the subindex levels SUPRA and INTRA, while the result for the

INTER indicator remained nearly unchanged. On the SUPRA subindex level, Mexico improved its

score from 69 (2004) to 77 (2006); indicators such as Exchange Rate Stability and GDP Growth

Rate were the main contributors to such improvement. The scores on INTRA sectorial level

increased 5 points, reaching a final score of 32 in 2006. The indicators underlying this increase

were Adverse Actions and Favorable support, both of which are measured by surveys, meaning

that forest players in Mexico consider the business climate for forest businesses more favorable

than the BID expert group did in 2004 (see Table IV.7).

Table IV.6: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006

IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference

IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 44 40 +4

IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 5th 6th 1

Table IV.7: IAIF Results in Mexico

Rating in

2004Rating in

2006Max. rating

possiblePotential

growth in %GDP Growth Rate 61 74 100 35Passive Real Interest Rate 79 90 100 11Exchange Rate Stability 65 100 100 0Trade Openness 72 72 100 38Political Risk 69 74 100 35Tax Share of GDP 66 53 100 87SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 69 77 100 30Economic infrastructure 56 58 100 52Social Infrastructure 80 82 100 22Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 33 42 100 137Capital Market 44 52 100 91Property Rights 50 50 100 100Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 64 43 100 132Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 35 43 100 133INTER Sectorial Subindex 51 52 100 88Forest Resource 28 19 40 111Favorable Support 40 50 100 99Domestic Market 23 20 100 400FVL 20 20 40 100Adverse Actions 26 49 100 105INTRA Sectorial Subindex 27 32 76 138IAIF 40 44 86 91

62

4.1.17. Mexico, as compared to other Latin American countries, had an above average

performance. However, the SUPRA and INTER subindexes reached a score only slightly above

average. On the other hand, Mexico’s score in the INTRA subindex is significantly higher than Latin

American averages. The reason for the good performance on the INTRA sectorial level is basically

the size of the countries and, as a result, of their forest resources and Forest Vocation Land.

Besides, players in the forest sector consider governmental support significantly better than players

in the forest sectors in other Latin American countries.

4.1.18. Although apparently Mexico’s performance in the forest sector is comparatively good, there

are many areas with significant improvement potential. The highest improvement potential, despite

its relatively high score, is on INTRA sectorial level. Mexico has more forest resources, and a bigger

domestic market than its neighbors in Central America; however, it doesn’t mean that the country

really takes advantage of its enormous potential. As a result, Mexico’s forest sector could do a lot

better in attracting direct investment. For example, performance on the Domestic Market indicator

could improve 400%, Forest Resource a 111%, and finally the FVL indicator could improve 100%.

Additionally, there is still a high improvement potential considering the forest policy of the country,

as expressed by the indicators Favorable Support and Adverse Actions, both of which have an

improvement potential of nearly 50%.

4.1.19. The improvement potential on the INTER level (slightly under 90%) is also quite

considerable. On the INTER level, indicators which deserve more attention are again policy–related,

for instance Agricultural Policies and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions. As to Agricultural

Policies indicator, forest players in Mexico complain about the distortions related to credit terms,

which benefit more agricultural businesses than forest businesses. In the case of the Planting and

Harvesting Restrictions, the current environmental regulations negatively affect the attractiveness of

forest businesses. Other general indicators, such as Property Rights, Labor, and Licenses and

Permits have an important improvement potential of 50% or higher. Finally, on the SUPRA level,

Mexico has a notably higher tax burden than the rest of Latin America.

4.1.20. Mexico had a good overall IAIF score in 2006, and was thus considered a rather attractive

country for direct foreign investment. However, the country has a much higher potential than its

current performance indicates. Improvements can be made in the entire field of forest policies,

especially as compared to Agricultural Policies, and also in areas such as Property Rights and

bureaucracy.

63

IV.1.5.2. Costa Rica

4.1.21. Costa Rica received an overall IAIF score of 39 in 2006, which somewhat less than its 2004

rating (41). Interestingly, nearly all of the indicators’ scores changed over the two-year period;

however, the end result was just a one-point difference. At the subindex level Costa Rica’s strength

is clearly at the SUPRA level, in which the country scored 79 points, above the Latin American

average.

4.1.22. The weakest subindex results were in the INTRA level, with a score of just 22, a decrease

as compared to 2004 results. The main reason for this weak performance at the INTRA level is its

limited Forest Vocation Land area and domestic market size. Since these indicators are static in

nature, the country does not have much potential to improve its performance.



IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 39 41 -2


Table IV.9: IAIF Results in Costa Rica

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006

Max. rating possible

Potential growth in %

GDP Growth Rate 78 84 100 19Passive Real Interest Rate 98 97 100 3Exchange Rate Stability 85 90 100 11Trade Openness 66 58 100 71Political Risk 76 73 100 38Tax Share of GDP 60 74 100 36SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 77 79 100 26Economic infrastructure 36 33 100 203Social Infrastructure 83 84 100 19Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 46 45 100 123Capital Market 33 44 100 125Property Rights 50 50 100 100Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 75 70 100 43Agricultural Policies 64 58 100 71Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 20 33 100 206INTER Sectorial Subindex 51 52 100 92Forest Resource 16 14 19 36Favorable Support 49 42 100 138Domestic Market 5 5 5 0FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 59 43 100 132

64

INTRA Sectorial Subindex 27 22 46 109IAIF 41 39 69 77

4.1.23. Results at the INTER level reflect the overall average; however, there is an important

variance between different indicators. If, on the one hand, whereas the country’s social

infrastructure is considered rather good, on the other, the economic infrastructure is severely

lagging behind international standards.

4.1.24. The indicators with the most improvement potential and the greatest impact on the overall

IAIF index are Adverse Actions, Favorable Support, Economic Infrastructure, and Planting and

Harvesting Restrictions. These indicators will be reviewed in more detail below.

4.1.25. When interviewing players in the Costa Rican forest sector about adverse actions that

hinder the successful development of the forest business, the following factors came up as the most

critical ones: harvesting of trees in natural forests and transportation of wood and wood products. In

the case of harvesting trees in the natural forest, two main obstacles were mentioned: arbitrary

processing of applications by government employees and lack of supervision over compliance with

forest laws and regulations in these areas. Another area for potential improvement was

bureaucracy. The implications of excessive red tape leads to high transaction costs for anyone who

wishes to establish and run a forest business.

4.1.26. As to the Favorable Support indicator, interviewees in Costa Rica mentioned the lack of

specific technical support and services in the following areas: research, legal and technical

assistance, and insurance. When expropriation occurs for different reasons, land and forest owners

are not adequately compensated. In addition, they feel that there is a lack of business promotion

and lobbying for the sector.

4.1.27.In terms of the INTER indicator, Planting and Harvesting Restrictions, interviewees

especially criticized severe logging restrictions on certain species and areas. One further point of

concern was the logging restrictions and limitations imposed by environmental regulations and the

related processes to obtain permits; these often lead to increased transaction costs.

4.1.28. Any business in Costa Rica is negatively affected by the current economic infrastructure.

The Global Competitiveness Report considers the inadequate supply of economic infrastructure as

the second most problematic factor for doing business in the country. Since forestry depends

heavily on roads and ports, this situation directly affects the sector’s competitiveness in the country.

4.1.29. Another group of indicators also has considerable potential for improvement: Capital Market,

Labor, and Property Rights. Even though Costa Rica does not really underperform in these

65

indicators, there is room for improvement. In the case of Property Rights, for instance, the Heritage

Foundation wrote: “Although the judiciary is sometimes slow and complicated, it is considered

honest and independent. Contracts are generally upheld and investments are secure. … the legal

owner of land is at a disadvantage in a system that quickly recognizes rights acquired by squatters,

especially when the disputed land is rural and is not being actively worked” (p. 154, 2006).

4.1.30. To sum it up, Costa Rica has above average performance on a macroeconomic basis, while

INTER indicators in some cases show clear potential for improvement. The low performance in the

INTRA level should not be overestimated; however, it does show that the country’s resources are

limited.

IV.1.5.3. El Salvador

4.1.31. El Salvador is one of the few countries whose score improved significantly in the 2004 to

2006 period. While in 2004 El Salvador had an overall IAIF score of 33, in 2006 it scored 43, clearly

above average. Changes at the INTRA subindex level were responsible for such improvement (from

9 in 2004 to 25 in 2006). At the SUPRA and INTER levels, the results remained unchanged.

Nevertheless, there were some small differences in the INTER sectorial indicators.

4.1.32. The SUPRA sectorial subindex was the subindex with the best results, with a score of 78,

followed by the INTER sectorial indicator, with a score of 60.





66

Table IV.11: IAIF Results in El Salvador

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006



GDP Growth Rate 63 69 100 45Passive Real Interest Rate 92 98 100 2Exchange Rate Stability 100 100 100 0Trade Openness 63 60 100 67Political Risk 65 68 100 47Tax Share of GDP 78 75 100 34SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 77 78 100 28Economic infrastructure 46 56 100 79Social Infrastructure 72 73 100 37Licenses and Permits 75 75 100 33Labor 31 37 100 168Capital Market 37 52 100 94Property Rights 50 50 100 100Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 75 70 100 43Agricultural Policies 80 58 100 71Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 81 67 100 49INTER Sectorial Subindex 61 60 100 66Forest Resource 8 8 15 88Favorable Support 13 40 100 153Domestic Market 5 5 10 100FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 14 69 100 45INTRA Sectorial Subindex 9 25 46 84IAIF 33 43 69 60

4.1.33. As with the other small countries, the INTRA subindex had the lowest score, of 25, which

was mostly due to the rather static and limited nature of some of its indicators, such as Forest

Resources, Domestic Market, and Forest Vocation Land. This means that both the INTER and

INTRA sectorial indicators have the highest potential for improvement of more than 60%.

Consequently, these subindexes have the indicators with the greatest room for improvement.

4.1.34. The indicators with the greatest potential in terms of percentage, as well as scores, are

Favorable Support, Labor, Property Rights, Capital Market, and Agricultural Policies. The following

paragraphs present and analyze the reasons why El Salvador had weak performance in these

areas.

4.1.35. With respect to the Favorable Support indicator for the forestry sector in El Salvador, actors

perceived that governmental and state support for forest businesses, in general, is not very

favorable overall. Among the most critical factors is a lack of financial support for companies

investing in the forest sector, such as fiscal incentives or grants. The situation is similar for the case

of expropriation for different reasons – such as the creation of environment protection areas, legal

67

reserves and settlements for the landless – where forest actors believe that the state does not

compensate land owners properly. They also believe that payments for environmental services for

owners or investors, as a way to compensate for environmental benefits that are provided to

society, are also lacking. A final factor that is severely deficient is FVL coverage surveillance, which

refers to public inspection of the private sector, so that the FVL are kept strictly for forest use.

4.1.36. The indicator Labor also received a low score; this was especially due to the economy’s

comparatively low productivity and the reduced number of technicians in research and

development.

4.1.37. In El Salvador, as in many Central American countries, property rights are still lagging

behind international standards. The Heritage Foundation qualified the property rights situation as

follows: “Property rights are moderately protected in El Salvador....investors have found that

seeking resolution of problems through the slow-moving domestic legal system can be costly and

unproductive. The course of some cases has shown that the legal system is subject to manipulation

by private interests, and final rulings are sometimes not enforced” (p. 148, 2006).

IV.1.5.4. Guatemala

4.1.38. Guatemala achieved an overall IAIF score of 38 in 2006, which was the second best result

for a Central American country. Guatemala also made significant improvement when compared to

2004, when it received a score of 30. The improvement occurred at all three IAIF subindex levels,

but was especially noteworthy in the INTRA and INTER sectorial ones (see Table IV.13).

4.1.39. Scores for the INTRA sectorial subindex increased from 15 to 25, mainly due to important

improvements in the Favorable Support, and Adverse Actions indicators. At the INTER sectorial

level, the indicators with the most significant improvement were Licenses and Permits, Capital Flow

and Foreign Investment, and Economic Infrastructure, which increased nearly 30 points.

4.1.40. However, the structure of the results among the different subindexes follows the same

pattern as for the other Central American countries. The best results were obtained at the

macroeconomic level, SUPRA subindex with a score of 78, followed by the INTER sectorial

subindex (a score of 45), and finally, the INTRA sectorial level, with a score of 25.

4.1.41. Although Guatemala had a comparatively favorable IAIF result, several indicators in the

different subindexes can be improved to substantially aid the business climate and direct

investment. At the INTRA level, the Favorable Support and Adverse Actions indicators can be

greatly improved, not only in terms of percentage, but also in terms of score. The highest potential

68

for improvement however, is in the area of forest resource, where Guatemala currently reaches only

a score of 11 out of a 47 potentially possible.

Several of the INTER subindex indicators could also be improved, especially Property Rights, in

which Guatemala ranked a very low position, with a score of 30. Other indicators, such as Labor

and Capital Market, have scores in the 40-50 range. The Agricultural Policies and Capital Flow and

Foreign Investment indicators have slightly better scores, around 50. Finally, it is worth mentioning

that even though Guatemala had a good score in the SUPRA subindex (78), the Trade Openness

and Political Risk indicators are far from optimal.

4.1.42. Several important factors explain why the Favorable Support indicator received a low score.

First, there is a lack of financial subsidies for planting and controlling natural forests, such as fiscal

incentives or grants. Secondly, payment for land expropriations for the creation of environmental

protection areas, for instance, is insufficient. Another area in which there is considerable room for

noteworthy improvement in the forest sector is in the situation faced by suppliers: in their opinion,

the cost-benefit for supplier services in the forest sector is not very favorable.





69

Table IV.13: IAIF Results in Guatemala

GuatemalaRating in

2004Rating in

2006Max. rating

possiblePotential


4.1.43. As for the Adverse Actions indicator, most forest players in Guatemala believe that most

environmental regulations and forest management requirements are not that troublesome.

Exceptions are the requirements to plant exotic species in order to comply with environmental

regulations; these are seen as an obstacle for efficient forest management. The same applies to the

harvesting of natural forest trees and required control plans for natural forests.

4.1.44. The Property Rights issue is especially concerning in Guatemala, since the country received

one of the lowest ratings in Latin America. The Heritage Foundation, based on information from the

US Department of Commerce, writes about the property rights situation in Guatemala: “Resolution

of business disputes through Guatemala’s judicial system is time-consuming and often unreliable.

4.1.45. Civil cases can take as long as a decade to resolve.… Corruption in the judiciary is not

uncommon. In addition, land invasions by squatters are increasingly common in rural areas. It can

be difficult to obtain and enforce eviction notices, as land title is often clouded and the police tend to

avoid actions against squatters that could provoke violence” (p. 200, 2006). Obviously, these issues

are of great importance for forest businesses, as well as for any other business in the country;

70

consequently, the government of Guatemala should seriously try to improve its performance in this

area.

4.1.46. The Labor indicator result shows great room for improvement, with a total score of 35. While

labor regulations are pretty flexible and consequently business-friendly, the Guatemalan economy’s

overall labor productivity is below average in Latin America. On average, each employee creates a

net value of approximately US$11,000. Another aspect of the Labor indicator, the amount of

technicians and engineers in research and development, is also clearly below the Latin American

average, with approximately 100 per every one million inhabitants.

4.1.47. The Capital Markets indicator measures access to credit and financing, and is calculated on

the basis of the following three financial markets aspects: financial market sophistication, access to

loans and local equity markets. In the Global Competitiveness Report, access to financing is one of

the most problematic factors for doing business in Guatemala.

4.1.48. In short, Guatemala has a relatively high score within the Central American countries as a

result of higher scores at the INTRA subindex level. Nevertheless, Guatemala has many important

improvement potentials, especially on INTRA and SUPRA level, which would allow the country to

be a lider within the forest businesses in Central America.

IV.1.5.5. Honduras

4.1.49. In 2006 Honduras had an overall IAIF result of 34, one of the lowest ratings in Latin

America. This low rating was not just the result of a low score in one of the three subindexes, but

rather a below-average performance in all three. At the SUPRA level, Honduras scored 73. At the

INTER level, it scored 41, and at the INTRA level, 21.

4.1.50. A comparison of the 2006 results to the 2004 results suggests that Honduras has improved.

However, the observed differences are rather small and start from a very low level. In 2004 the

overall IAIF score was 31; at the subindex levels, the differences from 2004 to 2006 were minor.

The SUPRA subindex score went up from 69 to 73; the INTER subindex remained unchanged at

41, and the INTRA subindex went up from 16 to 21.





71

Table IV.15: IAIF Results in Honduras

HondurasRating in

2004Rating in

2006Max. rating

possiblePotential


4.1.51. Upon looking more closely at the individual indicators and when considering attractiveness

for investment, Honduras’ levels for all three subindexes indicators were very critical. For instance,

at the INTRA sectorial level the Favorable Support indicator, reflecting active business support

provided by the state, only received a score of 29 out of 100. Even worse, there are many Adverse

Actions, as indicated by the low score there. The situation at the INTER sectorial level can be

considered even more disadvantageous. There are five indicators that could be improved by at

least 200%, among them, Capital Market, Agricultural Policies, Property Rights, Labor and Licenses

and Permits. Scores at the SUPRA sectorial level are obviously higher, however, Honduras is still

considered to be one of the countries in the region with the highest political risk. Taking into account

that forest investments tend to be long-term, investors frequently consider this indicator as a key

issue when actually making an investment in a country.

4.1.52. In the Favorable Support indicator actors in the forest sector consider that there is a lack of

support for forestry industry business. The most critical factors mentioned in the survey were a lack

of private or public research and technical services for the forest sector. As already observed in

72

many other countries, Honduras was another country that does not provide adequate

reimbursement in the case of expropriation; it also lacks an efficient system to assure the integrity of

protected forest areas. Despite these critical factors, however, it was mentioned that payments for

environmental services in Honduras are very favorable.

4.1.53. Among the most limiting factors for the Adverse Actions indicator are restrictions to forestry

input imports, such as machinery, equipment, seeds, agricultural and chemical products or

specialized labor. Other issues of concern are the need for permits or licenses to operate in the

forest business. These include government approved control plans for natural forest tree use, a

license to use a motor saw or other tool for forestry products, and authorizations to install or operate

forestry businesses.

4.1.54. Among the INTER sectorial subindex indicators, access to financing has been characterized

as one of the most limiting factors for businesses in Honduras. In the Global Competitiveness report

access to financing is actually qualified as the most problematic factor for doing business in this

country. The Property Rights situation is not much different. The Heritage Foundation wrote in its

2006 report: “The most important political issues affecting the business climate in Honduras are the

administration of justice and rule of law. The lack of judicial security, a deteriorating security

environment, and endemic corruption pose real risks, making business disputes difficult to resolve”

(p. 210).

4.1.55. In the field of Agricultural Policies, interviewees showed concern about the issue that

agricultural related businesses have better access to financing than forest businesses, and, at the

same time, the agricultural businesses benefit from higher subsidies. As consequence, in areas

where forestry and agriculture compete for the same resources, especially land, forest businesses

face serious economic disadvantages.

4.1.56. The situation in this country for the Labor indicator is quite comparable to Guatemala.

Business regulation is considered to be rather flexible and business-friendly in Honduras, but

productivity in the country’s economy is comparatively low.

4.1.57. In addition, the county is short of technicians working in research and development. The

created net value per employee in the Honduran economy is below US$10,000 and the number of

technicians in research and development is less the 100 per one million inhabitants.

4.1.58. In summary, Honduras faces several severe challenges in order to provide a favorable

business climate for forest businesses. These currently create a barrier to foreign direct investment.

Overcoming the most crucial deficiencies would be extremely beneficial for the Honduran forest

73

sector, since within Central America, the country has one of the most expansive forest resources.

Therefore, it has great potential for forest businesses.

IV.1.5.6. Nicaragua

4.2.59. In the 2006 IAIF, Nicaragua had an overall score of 36. At the subindex levels, Nicaragua

received its highest score (77) at the SUPRA level, followed by the INTER level (42), and finally by

the INTRA sectorial level (23). When compared the results of other Latin American countries,

Nicaragua’s performance at all three levels is also slightly below average. A closer look at the

different indicators shows that there are no areas of special strengths or weaknesses.

4.1.60. Nicaragua more or less remained unchanged. In the case of all sub-index scores Nicaragua

managed a small increase of two points. The score for the SUPRA and INTER sectorial subindexes

went up from 71 to 77 and 41 to 42 respectively, and from 21 to 23 regarding the INTRA sectorial

subindex.





74

Table IV.17: IAIF Results in Nicaragua

NicaraguaRating in

2004Rating in

2006Max. rating

possiblePotential


4.1.61. The evaluation of Nicaragua’s improvement potential, in order to present a better business

climate for attracting foreign investment in the forest sector, shows that the INTRA and INTER level

indicators are crucial. While the INTER sectorial subindex indicators show the greatest potential for

improvement, due to their weight in the overall IAIF, the INTRA subindex indicators are also

important.

4.1.62. In terms of the INTRA subindex, the Forest Resources, Favorable Support, and Adverse

Actions indicators were offered the greatest improvement potential. Under the INTER subindex,

Agricultural Policies, Property Rights, Capital Markets, and Labor deserved special attention when

identifying areas for improvement.

4.1.63. The Forest Resources indicator shows that currently Nicaragua does not reach its

production potential. Reasons for this sub utilization of resources can be found in the performance

of other indicators that are included in the IAIF index, such as a lack of governmental support.

When interviewing forest players about support activities, the prevailing complaints were lack of

support for horizontal and vertical integration of forest businesses with their corresponding land and

lack of coverage surveillance of Forest Vocation Lands. Again, none of the potential support areas

75

mentioned in the questionnaire were qualified as non-favorable; however, no areas received a very

favorable or quite favorable qualification.

4.1.64. Upon reviewing the country’s Adverse Actions indicator, the players indicated that current

restrictions to the export of forest products, including logs, are highly detrimental to the forest

business climate. Another issue with negative repercussions for forest businesses was the

excessive red tape required to receive licenses and permits for many forest activities, such as

harvesting natural forest trees or establishing and operating a forest business. A final important

area is related to taxes and fees. Taxes on forestry lands, as well as fees, taxes, and forestry

quotas for cutting down forests or consuming its products, are considered to adversely affect forest

businesses.

4.1.65. The Agricultural Policies indicator is related to this topic. This is not directed toward the

forest sector per se, but it gives a competitive advantage to agriculture, which affects forestry, since

both compete for the same resources. The greatest distortion is caused by existing credit terms

which, according to the forest sector players, are much more favorable to agricultural activities than

to forestry. Another important issues are agrarian reforms or land regularizations, such as

expropriation and acknowledgment of property rights. In their opinion, they benefit agricultural

investors significantly more than forestry ones.

4.1.66. The perception that property rights are better protected in agriculture businesses than in

forestry ones does not necessarily mean that it is the case, or that property rights, in general, are

not a problem in the country. The Heritage Foundation qualifies the protection of property rights as

weak. Furthermore, it mentions that property rights are poorly enforced “and the resulting

proliferation of property disputes are among the most serious barriers to investment in Nicaragua”

(p. 302, 2006). In addition, Nicaragua’s judiciary system is considered to be based on politics,

corrupt and ineffective in resolving property and other disputes. As a consequence, even though

property rights for the agricultural sector seem to be better protected, the issue remains to be

resolved in the country.

4.1.67. Labor and Capital Markets are two other indicators with great improvement potential. The

Nicaraguan economy is, together with Honduras’, one of the poorest not only in Central, but also in

Latin America. As a consequence, labor productivity, which is part of the Labor indicator, is below

US$10,000. The number of technicians in Research & Development is about 50 per one million

inhabitants, just 1/5 of the Latin American average. With regard to financial access, or Capital

Markets, the World Economic Forum characterized in its 2006-2007 issue of the Global 4.1.68.

76

Competitiveness Index that access to financing was the second most problematic factor for doing

business in Nicaragua.

4.1.69. The fact that access to financing was ranked as the second most problematic factor brings

up the question, what was the most problematic one? According to the survey, policy instability is

ranked number one. This directly affects the results of the SUPRA sectorial subindex. Although the

SUPRA subindex indicators do not seem to have the same improvement potential as those of the

other subindexes, this does not mean that they are less important. As these results show, issues,

such as political risk and trade openness, also have to be considered in order to resolve

Nicaragua’s problems in its business climate index.

4.1.70. In short, Nicaragua faces many challenges in order to improve its attractiveness for foreign

direct investment. The overall IAIF score, as well as the three individual subindex scores, are below

the Latin American average. This means that, at the moment Nicaragua does not offer any

particular strength, despite the fact that the country, from a Central American point of view, has a

considerable amount of forest resources and, therefore, could play a more active role in the regional

forest sector.

IV.1.5.7. Panama

4.1.71. Although Panama is one of the smallest countries in Central America, in the 2006 IAIF, the

country had a score of 44, which has been above the average for Latin America. At the SUPRA

subindex level, Panama scored 82, at the INTER subindex, 59, and at the INTRA subindex level,

27. The score at the SUPRA subindex level is – in absolute terms – the highest. When comparing

the results with the rest of the Latin American countries, however, the INTER subindex score is the

highest (relatively).





77

Table IV.19: IAIF Results in Panama

PanamaRating in

2004Rating in

2006Max. rating

possiblePotential


4.1.72. A comparison of the results for 2004 and 2006 shows that the IAIF score for Panama

increased from 37 to 42. This overall IAIF increase is due mainly to a better score at the SUPRA

and INTRA subindex levels. The SUPRA subindex score increased 8 points and the INTRA level

increased 6 points. The improvement at the SUPRA subindex level was a result of GDP growth,

lower tax share of GDP and lower interest rates. In the case of the INTRA sectorial subindex, the

increase was caused mainly by a better evaluation of the government’s support to the forest sector.

4.1.73. Areas with important potential for improvement can be found at the INTER sectorial level,

where indicators, such as Economic infrastructure, Labor, and Property Rights could be improved

by more than 60%. At the INTRA level, the Forest Resource and Favorable Support indicators show

the greatest potential. The indicator with the most improvement potential at the SUPRA sectorial

subindex is Trade Openness. Nevertheless, this indicator also includes, among other factors, the

size of the entire trade sector, which, in the case of Panama and the other Central American

countries, is rather small. Consequently, there is no easy way to improve this indicator.

4.1.74. At the INTER level, the Property Rights indicator, with a rating of 30, is the most deficient. In

the annual Index of Economic Freedom report published by the Heritage Foundation, the Property

78

Rights situation is described as follows: “The business community generally lacks confidence in the

Panamanian judicial system as an objective, independent arbiter in legal or commercial disputes,

especially when the case involves powerful local figures with political influence.… The decision by

investors to avoid the court system is moreover understandable, given massive case backlogs and

the specter of corruption” (p. 332, 2006).

4.1.75. Panama’s overall economic infrastructure is not really considered to be as bad as the

Economic infrastructure indicator might lead us to imagine. The problem for forest businesses in

Panama is the high transportation costs for primary forest products. Thus, while infrastructure in the

capital area supplies rather well the needs of businesses, there are substantial shortcomings in the

countryside. This results in high costs, and consequently, a poor evaluation of this indicator. One

widely accepted deficiency in Panama’s economy, however, is in the Labor area. The IAIF findings

match the results of the Global Competitiveness Report, which shows that restrictive labor

regulations and an poor-educated workforce are among the top 5 most problematic factors for doing

business in the county. The Human Development Report estimated that the number of technicians

working in Research & Development in Panama is nearly half of the Latin American average.

4.1.76. The low performance of the Forest Resources indicator shows that Panama does not take

full advantage of its existing forest resources. The reasons can be found in the other IAIF indicators,

such as restrictions for forest businesses willing to exploit the country’s forest potential. Part of the

problem is definitely found in the lack of support provided by government to businesses; this is

shown by the low Favorable Support score. According to Panama’s forest players, the virtual

absence of financial support for environmental services is one of the main restrictions to forest

investment. Further topics of concern are inadequate payments in the case of expropriation, lack of

lobbying for the forest sector and lack of forest securities.

4.1.77. In short, Panama offers an interesting investment perspective from the macroeconomic

point of view. The country shows an above average performance when compared to other Latin

American countries. At the INTER sectorial level, Panama has also achieved above average

performance; however, some of the indicators at that level, such as property rights and a qualified

workforce, impose severe limitations to attracting direct investment. Internally, the country does not

exploit its existing resources; however, with more active support for forest businesses, the

attractiveness for foreign investment could be substantially improved.

79

IV.2. The Caribbean


analyzed on regional level for the Caribbean. The objective is to figure out the performance of the

individual countries as compared to their direct neighbors, since often these are the closest

competitors for the limited resources in direct investment.

IV.2.1. Comparison of the IAIF for the Caribbean

4.2.2. The IAIF score of the Caribbean countries, as well as in Central America, improved over the

2004-2006 period. In 2006, the average score was closed to 35, as compared to 30 in 2004. The

sequence of the performance remained nearly unchanged, with the big exception of Haiti, which

improved from the last position in 2004 to the first place in 2006, notably increasing its scores from

23 (2004) to 36 (2006). The other three countries, Trinidad and Tobago, Dominican Republic and

Belize, hardly experienced any change in their scores (see table IV.20).

Table IV.20: IAIF Results in the Caribbean

2006 2004


Haiti 36.3 1 23 4

Trinidad y Tobago 35.7 2 33 1

Belize 33.8 3 31 3

Dominican Republic 32.2 4 32 2

Average 34.5 30

IV.2.2. A Comparison: The SUPRA Subindex in The Caribbean

4.2.3. The four Caribbean countries have significantly improved their performance on the SUPRA

subindex level. While in 2004 the average score was just 59, in 2006 the average score increased

to 73. As to the relative position of the different countries, once more there was only a minor

change. In 2004, Belize was the country with the best performance on the SUPRA subindex level.

In 2006, Trinidad y Tobago reached the highest score (79). Although all countries improved during

the two–year period, the most important improvement was seen in Haiti. In 2004, Haiti had the

worst ranking of all Latin American countries, with a score of just 48; in 2006, Haiti, with a score of

73, managed to reduce the gap separating it from the other Latin American (see Table IV.21).

81

Table IV.21: Results of the SUPRA Subindex in the Caribbean

2006 2004



Haiti 73 4 48 4

Belize 71 2 65 1

Dominican Republic 67 1 63 2

Average 73 59

82

IV.2.3. A Comparison: The INTER Subindex in the Caribbean

4.2.4. Results in INTER subindex level remained stable. The average score decreased slightly (49

to 47). In the rating, only Haiti and the Dominican Republic changed their position: Haiti moved up

and the Dominican Republic moved down. In this case, however, the change of positions was not

due to Haiti’s improvement; instead, it was due to the Dominican Republic decreased score. In

2006, the Dominican Republic had a score of 39, as compared to its 2004 score of 47. Trinidad and

Tobago, as well as Belize, have been ranked best on the INTER subindex level, and there were

only minor changes in their scores. With a change of max 2 points in both cases, both countries

maintained their ranking within the Caribbean region (see Table IV.22).

Table IV.22: Results of the INTER Subindex for The Caribbean

2006 2004



Belize 50 2 53 2

Haiti 39 3 41 4


Average 47 49

IV.2.4. A Comparison: The INTRA Subindex in the Caribbean

4.2.5. The comparison of results on INTRA level for the Caribbean countries shows an important

improvement on the average (13 to 19), as well as in most of the countries. Once more, Haiti

showed the most remarkable improvement. In 2004, the country achieved a score of only 8; in

2006, the score more than tripled, reaching 25 and being ranked 1st place among the Caribbean

countries. The score for the Dominican Republic increased three points, reaching 20, and ranked

2nd place. Belize maintained its position, but also improved its score by 4 points (12 to 16). Trinidad

and Tobago was the only country with no change in scores (15), losing 2 positions in the ranking

see Table IV.23).

Table IV.23: Results of the INTRA Subindex in The Caribbean

2006


Haiti 25 1 8 4


Belize 16 3 12 3


83

Average 19 13

4.2.6. The results for the Caribbean countries show that the overall regional performance showed a

modest improvement. A large part of the overall regional improvement was a result of major

improvements in nearly all sectorial levels (but not on the INTER level) in Haiti. In the 2004 survey,

Haiti was the worst performing country; in the 2006 survey, the country ranked 1st place within its

region. In all other Caribbean countries the IAIF scores and its subindexes remained virtually

unchanged.

84

IV.2.5. An Individual Country Overview: The Caribbean

4.2.7. The Caribbean countries are the smallest Latin America countries. As a result, they are the

countries with the least amount of forest resources, and the ones with the smallest markets for

forest products. Despite their small population and country size, poverty is a huge problem for many

of them. More often than not, the local governments are hardly in control of this limited resource;

this often hinders their ability to have a more active role in economic policies. The Caribbean

countries included in the IAIF rating are: Belize, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Trinidad and

Tobago. The populations range between less than one million in Belize to nearly 9 million in the

Dominican Republic. None of these countries is larger than 50,000 km2. Economically, most of the

countries have GDPs per capita below US$5,000, with the exception of Trinidad and Tobago, with a

GDP per capita of US$10,000 in 2005. Haiti is at the other end, with a GDP per capita of less than

US$500 (see Table IV.24).

Table IV.24: Overview of Basic Indicators for the Caribbean

Country Population GDP per capita Total area TVL IAIF

in millions in US$ in 1000 km² in 1000 km²

Belize 0.29 3500 23 13 34

Dominican Republic 8.9 2470 49 35 35

Haiti 8.1 450 28 22 36

Trinidad and Tobago 1.3 10440 5 3 35

4.2.8. Considering the above-mentioned limitations in the Caribbean countries, IAIF levels were

expected to be low; this is shown in the results of the study. In the four surveyed countries, IAIF

scores were very similar, ranging from 34, in the case of Belize, to 36, in the case of Haiti.

Nevertheless, as the following chapters will show, the performance of the individual indicators in the

different countries was quite diverse.

IV.2.5.1. Belize

4.2.9. Belize is the smallest country in Central America, and has limited forest resources. Its 2006

IAIF was 34, one of lowest in Latin America. The INTRA subindex score (16) is about 84% of the

Latin American average. The SUPRA subindex score (71) is closer to the average, and the INTER

subindex (50), is on par with the Latin American average (see Table IV.26).

85





Table IV.26: IAIF Results in Belize

Rating in

2004Rating in

2006Max. rating

possiblePotential

growth in %GDP Growth Rate 61 64 100 57Passive Real Interest Rate 79 96 100 57Exchange Rate Stability 72 95 100 5Trade Openness 54 51 100 97Political Risk 64 64 100 56Tax Share of GDP 59 57 100 74SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 65 71 100 53Economic infrastructure 50 52 100 92Social Infrastructure 74 75 100 33Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 30Labor 36 46 100 117Capital Market 37 42 100 138Property Rights 50 50 100 100Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 38 38 100 160Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 89 49 100 102INTER Sectorial Subindex 53 50 100 100Forest Resources 16 12 23 92Favorable Support 4 13 100 676Domestic Market 5 5 5 0FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 32 43 100 130INTRA Sectorial Subindex 12 16 47 198IAIF 31 34 69 103

4.2.10. There is little difference between the 2006 and the 2004 results. However, at the SUPRA

and INTRA level, there was an increase in the score (from 12 to 16 and from 65 to 71). The INTER

score decreased 2 points.

4.2.11. However, when evaluating Belize’s scores, it is important to mention the unavailability of

country-specific information for several indicators. Thus, the calculation of the overall IAIF index

was based on the average score for all countries. The indicators for which there was no available

information were: Political Risk, Exchange Rate Stability, and Capital Markets. The indicators that

were incomplete: Trade Openness and Labor. As a consequence, the overall result for the IAIF

lacks some explanation as compared to other countries. Further research remains to be done.

86

4.2.12. Obviously, there is plenty of room for improvement. Even though the Favorable Support and

Adverse Actions indicators showed some improvement between 2004 and 2006, current

performance, especially in the case of Favorable Support, is way below the optimum level. The

INTRA subindex has great potential for improvement; the Agricultural Policies indicator could be

improved by 160 %, and similar in the case of Planting and Harvesting Restrictions, which could be

improved by more than 100%. The Capital Markets and Labor indicators also show some

improvement potential; however, considering the fact that these results are not entirely based on

sector-specific information, further analysis is necessary. Most indicators at the SUPRA subindex

have a small improvement potential, since the result of the weakest indicator in this category, Trade

Openness, is heavily influenced by the country’s size, and therefore, is hard to change significantly.

4.2.13. When questioned about the type of active support for existing for forest businesses, such as

financial support (subsidies and payments for environmental services), or logistical support (market

intelligence or education), the Belizean respondents generally considered “not favorable.” In short,

this means that the Belizean government does not provide particular instruments to actively attract

investors to the forest sector. The situation worsens when considering that Belize does have

severely adverse actions in the forestry business, as measured by the Adverse Actions indicator.

4.2.14. The most distorting issues are taxes on forestry lands and restrictions to forestry input

imports. Additionally, players in the forest sector in Belize complain about uncertainty in the sector,

modification or enforcement of forestry regulations and adverse legal requirements, all of which

affect the landowners’ ability to keep the forest cover on his/her property. This final point leads to

another indicator, which also negatively affects the Belizean forest sector: Agricultural Policies.

4.2.15. Currently, the agricultural sector in Belize benefits from more active governmental support,

which gives it a comparative advantage over forestry businesses. For example, interviewees

indicated that policies regarding agrarian reforms or land regularization highly benefit agricultural

investors. Another area of distortion is the existing credit terms for businesses in both sectors.

Credit terms for agricultural activities are considered more, or highly more, favorable than those

offered for forestry activities.

4.2.16. Even when a forest business is been established, however, this does not necessarily mean

that all obstacles have been surmounted; results on the Planting and Harvesting Restrictions

indicator show this. The need for authorizations or licenses for harvesting specific species in natural

forests and harvesting in special areas and in specific ecosystems are considered to be highly

adverse actions. Even in the case of planted forests, there is no easy access to harvest.

87

4.2.17. In short, Belize has not yet developed its forest sector as an interesting economic

opportunity for the country. Regulations currently favor the agricultural sector; in addition, the

country’s forest resources are limited. Belize does have several factors to its favor, including its

economic infrastructure and a decent regulatory policy that does not disturb businesses. Also, in

contrast to many other Latin American countries, the topics of property rights and corruption are not

seen as major obstacles to doing business in this country. However, the challenges faced by forest

businesses in Belize definitely surpass the opportunities currently offered.

IV.2.5.2. Dominican Republic

4.2.18. In 2006, the overall IAIF score in the Dominican Republic was 32. The scores at the

individual subindex levels were: 67 for the SUPRA subindex, 39 for the INTER subindex and 20 for

the INTRA subindex. Comparing these results to the rest of Latin America shows that the

Dominican Republic weaknesses are at all three sub-index levels. The scores in such subindexes

are just about 80% of the Latin American average. As a consequence, when considering the

attractiveness for foreign direct investment in the forest sector, the Dominican Republic is one of the

countries with the weakest performance (see Table IV.28).





88

Table IV.28: IAIF Results in Dominican Republic

Rating in

2004Rating in

2006Max. rating

possiblePotential

growth in %GDP Growth Rate 70 100 100 0Passive Real Interest Rate 70 76 100 37Exchange Rate Stability 50 45 100 0Trade Openness 52 54 100 86Political Risk 67 62 100 61Tax Share of GDP 69 67 100 49SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 63 67 100 49Economic infrastructure 50 51 100 96Social Infrastructure 74 75 100 33Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 74Labor 36 35 100 182Capital Market 40 32 100 216Property Rights 25 30 100 233Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 51 22 100 364Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 75 33 100 203INTER Sectorial Subindex 47 39 100 128Forest Resources 13 12 19 58Favorable Support 3 44 100 127Domestic Market 5 5 13 160FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 57 34 100 194INTRA Sectorial Subindex 17 20 47 135IAIF 32 34 70 106

4.2.19. Comparing the results between 2006 and 2004 at least shows a stable performance in the

IAIF score of 32. An increase can be found primarily at the SUPRA level, where the score improved

from 63 to 67. A slight improvement was also seen at the INTRA level. On the other hand, at the

INTER level, the score decreased from 47, in 2004, to 39, in 2006.

4.2.20. The best performing indicators can be found at the SUPRA level. In 2006, due to decent

macroeconomic conditions, such as GDP growth, where the maximum score (100) was achieved.

Another indicator with a very good score was Social Infrastructure, at the INTER subindex level. No

other indicators were qualified as outstanding. This leads to the identification of the most critical

areas or indicators that could be improved in the Dominican Republic.

4.2.21.The improvement potential at the INTER- and INTRA sectorial subindex levels are very

similar (128% and 135%, respectively); however, the poorest performing indicators can be found at

the INTER sectorial level. The Agricultural Policies indicator received a score of 22 out of 100;

Property Rights had a score of 30 (out of 100). The Capital Markets and Labor scores were also

quite low. At the INTRA subindex, Adverse Actions, Domestic Market, and Favorable Support, were

89

also critically low, and deserve attention when looking for areas to improve the forest business

climate.

4.2.22. Players in the forest sector in the country consider that current policies highly favors

agricultural activities over forestry activities, as indicated by the Agricultural Policies indicator. Credit

terms were especially distorting; they are also much more favorable to agricultural than to forestry

activities. The situation regarding taxes, subsidies and agrarian reform policies is similar.

4.2.23. The property rights situation in the Dominican Republic is also a great concern. The US

Department of Commerce, as cited in the Index of Economic Freedom, describes the situation as

follows: “A number of…investors have outstanding disputes with the Dominican government

concerning expropriated land.… Investors and lenders often do not receive prompt or adequate

payment for their losses, and payment has been difficult to obtain even when a Dominican court has

ordered compensation. In addition, despite recent judicial reforms, Dominican and foreign business

leaders have complained of judicial and administrative corruption, and have charged that corruption

affects the settlement of business disputes” (p. 168, The Heritage Foundation 2006).

4.2.24. The Capital Markets indicator, which evaluates access to financing in the Dominican

Republic for businesses in general, received a score of 32 out of 100. The Global Competitiveness

Report ranked this limited access to financing as the second most problematic factor, corruption

being the first, for doing business in the Dominican Republic; this also explains the low ranking of

the Capital Market indicator in the IAIF. The study shows an inadequate workforce supply as a

major problem in the Labor indicator. The Human Development Report confirms this finding by

pointing out that, in the Dominican Republic, only about 60 technicians per one million inhabitants

work in Research & Development; this is about ¼ of the Latin American average. Labor regulations,

on the other hand, are quite liberal.

4.2.25. Players in the forest sector in the country indicate that the most critical indicator at the

INTRA subindex is Adverse Actions, while complaining of insufficient support. Among the most

restricted activities are harvesting and management of natural forest trees, as well as plantations

with native forest species. Interviewees also insisted that the authorizations, licenses and permits

required for the transportation of logs and other industrialized or non-industrialized forest products,

and required for establishing or operating of a forestry business in the country, were highly

distorting. Support is lacking in the area of environmental services. Payment for environmental

services for the development of industrial and forestry businesses are not considered favorable.

Consulting and legal assistance services, as well as management consulting services provided to

producers and investors in the forestry industry, are also considered to be not very favorable or

90

entirely unfavorable. A consequence, the Dominican Republic currently does not take advantage of

its forest resources, and this clearly shows in the low score for the Domestic Market indicator.

4.2.26. In short, the forest sector in the Dominican Republic is facing severe challenges at the

INTER and INTRA subindex levels, which limit its attractiveness to direct investors. The main

problem is that some of the indicators in this country received some of the lowest scores in all of

Latin America. This shows that in several cases the Dominican Republic government places higher

priority and provides greater support to the development of the agriculture sector, rather than to

forestry. In addition, from a foreign investor’s point of view, the situation of property rights and

access to financing are both very unfavorable.

IV.2.5.3. Haiti

4.2.27. Haiti is the country that most improved its IAIF score between 2004 and 2006. While in 2004

Haiti had the lowest score of all the countries (23), by 2006 it had improved its score to 36.

Nevertheless, the country’s overall performance still ranges far below the Latin American average.

Additionally it needs to be mentioned that this important increase is caused by much better results

in the questionaries, where participation was rather limited. As a consequence, representativity

can’t be guaranteed. All three subindexes contributed to the country’s score improvement. At the

SUPRA level, Haiti received a score of 73 in 2006, up from 48 in 2004. At the INTER level, the

remained practically stable; at the INTRA level, it went from 8 to 25. Obviously, the greatest

changes occurred at the SUPRA level; however, due to the higher weight of that subindex in the

IAIF methodology (see Table IV.30), the changes at the INTRA sectorial level were the most

important ones for the overall IAIF score .





91

Table IV.30: IAIF Results in Haiti

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006



GDP Growth Rate 47 63 100 60Passive Real Interest Rate 73 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 10 100 100 0Trade Openness 49 48 100 110Political Risk 45 41 100 144Tax Share of GDP 63 87 100 14SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 48 73 100 37Economic infrastructure 43 46 100 117Social Infrastructure 47 48 100 107Licenses and Permits 0 0 100 1000Labor 34 34 100 195Capital Market 37 42 100 138Property Rights 0 10 100 900Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 25 30 100 233Agricultural Policies 92 54 100 86Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 89 91 100 10INTER Sectorial Subindex 41 39 100 156Forest Resources 9 9 15 67Favorable Support 1 31 100 221Domestic Market 5 5 13 160FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 22 77 100 30INTRA Sectorial Subindex 8 25 47 88IAIF 23 36 69 92

4.2.28. Examining strengths and weaknesses at the different subindex levels, one can see that Haiti

is a country of contrasts. While Haiti received one of the highest scores for Tax Share of GDP,

Planting and Harvesting Restrictions, and Adverse Actions indicators, on the one hand, it received

one of the lowest scores for the GDP Growth, Property Rights, and Licenses and Permits indicators.

The Property Rights and Licenses and Permits scores were especially low, with 10 and 0 out of

100, respectively; the situation is especially dire for the latter.

4.2.29. The situation of property rights is also a major concern in Haiti. The Index of Economic

Freedom states that “according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the protection and

guarantees that Haitian law extends to investors are severely compromised by weak enforcement

mechanisms, a lack of updated laws to handle modern commercial practices and a dysfunctional,

resource-poor legal system. Business litigants are often frustrated with the legal process and most

commercial disputes are settled out of court” (Heritage Foundation, 2006, p. 208). In addition, the

report mentions that corruption frequently influences judicial decisions.

4.2.30. The Index of Economic Freedom also reports on the situation concerning required licenses

and permits for businesses. The extremely low score for this indicator is based on the experience

92

that: “It is virtually impossible to open a business legally under Haitian law” (Heritage Foundation

2006, p. 208). The reason for this can be seen in the fact that Haiti has severe deficiencies “in a

number of areas, including…publication of laws, regulations and official notices; establishment of

companies; land tenure and real property law and procedures; bank and credit operations;

insurance and pension regulation; accounting standards; civil status documentation; customs law

and administration; international trade and investment promotion; foreign investment regime; and

regulation of market concentration and competition” (The Heritage Foundation 2006, p. 208).

4.2.31. Even though the country has recently escaped its worst political troubles, Haiti is far from

being politically stable. It is reported that “violence still continues to afflict the capital and major

provincial towns as Haiti’s 4,000-member police force, assisted by security forces from the U.N.

Stabilization Mission, attempts to dismantle armed gangs and criminals” (The Heritage Foundation

2006, p. 2007).

4.2.32. As to some of the other indicators more directly related to forestry, in many areas Haiti’s

performance is sometimes considered very good; however, the country, like many others, lacks

direct support for forest businesses. Most players in the forest sector qualify governmental support

as not very favorable or not favorable at all. The areas with the least support, according to

interviewees, were financial subsidies for planting or controlling natural forests and private initiatives

for commercial promotion, including electronic commerce. Furthermore, Haiti does not provide

enough support in order to increase vertical integration of the forest sector.

4.2.33. In short, Haiti needs to improve significantly in several areas in order to attract more direct

investment for its businesses. Issues such as political stability, clear rules for licenses and permits,

corruption control and well-respected property rights are basic for any investor; however, this is

especially true for investors in forest businesses, since these investments are usually made in the

long term. Improvements in these indicators would greatly facilitate the country in taking advantage

of its forest resources and allowing it to explore its market potential.

IV.2.5.4. Trinidad & Tobago

4.2.34. Trinidad and Tobago does not offer good attractiveness conditions for foreign investment in

the forest sector. The country’s overall IAIF score in 2006 was 34, which, as compared to the 2004

result, represents a minor change. However, even this minor change may not reflect the real

situation - due to a lack of interest in participating. Therefore, it was necessary to use some of the

2004 results for several indicators, such as Adverse Actions, Favorable Support, Planting and

Harvesting Restrictions, and Agricultural Policies.

93





Table IV.32: IAIF Results in Trinidad and Tobago

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006




4.2.35. Trinidad and Tobago received a score of 79 in the SUPRA subindex, a score of 57 in the

INTER subindex and a score of 15 in the INTRA subindex. A comparison of these results with the

rest of Latin America shows that the SUPRA and the INTER subindex score are above average.

The INTRA sectorial index scores, on the other hand, is below the Latin American average. On

SUPRA index level, Trinidad and Tobago reached very good socre for GDP Growth Rate, Interest

Rate and Exchange Rate Stability. The comparatively good result at the INTER sectorial level is

due to an above average performance of the Property Rights, Capital Flow and Investments,

Capital Markets, and Labor indicators. For example, access to financing is much easier than in most

other countries in the region, and finding a qualified workforce also seems to be easier.

94

Nevertheless, it is important to stress this relatively good performance, since Trinidad and Tobago

shows improvement potential in these areas.

4.2.36. Overall, however, within the Latin American context, the country is doing significantly better

than most other countries.

4.2.37. Areas in which Trinidad and Tobago is still lagging far behind in terms of performance can

be found at the INTRA sectorial level. The Agricultural Policies and Planting and Harvesting

Restrictions indicator also have great improvement potential. For example, there is virtually no

support at all – whether financial, educational or in terms of lobbying – to the forest sector in the

county. The score for Favorable support is the lowest of all the countries surveyed. In addition,

current Agricultural Policies tend to favor agricultural businesses over forestry ones.

4.2.38. In short, it can be stated that Trinidad and Tobago offers quite favorable conditions for

general business activities. However, this does not necessarily apply to the forest sector. Most of

the indicators that are directly related to the forest sector had low scores in absolute and relative

terms. The data provided indicates that the government does not offer specific incentives for forest

businesses; rather, it considers the agricultural sector a higher political priority. If the country wishes

to attract more direct investment in the forest sector, changes in these policies seem to be

necessary.

95

IV.3. The Southern Cone


analyzed on regional level for the Southern Cone countries. The goal is to figure out the

performance of the individual countries, as compared to their direct neighbors, since often these are

the closest competitors for the limited resources in direct investment.

IV.3.1.A Comparison: The IAIF in the Southern Cone

4.3.2. Table IV.33 shows the IAIF 2006 result in the Southern Cone countries, comparing them to

the overall IAIF index for 2004.

Table IV.33: IAIF Results in the Southern Cone

Country 2006 2004


Brazil 60 1 60 1

Chile 53 2 53 2

Argentina 47 3 44 4

Uruguay 47 4 44 3

Paraguay 33 5 31 5

Average 48 46

4.3.4. The average indicates that, in aggregate terms, there was an improvement in the forest

investment attractiveness conditions in the region.

4.3.5. In Brazil and Chile, the two countries with the highest IAIF in the Southern Cone, the results

were stable1. On the other hand, in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, IAIF results showed some

improvement, which reflects better attractiveness conditions for forest investments.

4.3.6. Argentina changed places with Uruguay, rising up from the 4th to the 3rd place, and vice-

versa. However, in spite of the IAIF growth, Paraguay showed a rather poor result as compared to

the other countries in the same region.

4.3.7. The break up of the IAIF into its three subindexes – SUPRA, INTER, and INTRA – allows a

better understanding of the factors underlying the 2006 results.

97

Table IV.34: IAIF Results in the Southern Cone - Averages

2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to IAIF growth


78.5 57.8 20.7 1 3.0


58.7 51.8 6.9 2 2.0

INTRA Sectorial Subindex

34.9 40.8 -5.9 4 -3.4

IAIF 47.9 46.4 1.5 1.5

4.3.8. As shown on Table IV.34, in spite of having the lowest weight in the composition of the index,

the SUPRA subindex contributed most to IAIF growth. This result reflects the improved

macroeconomic situation in the countries.

4.3.9. The INTER subindex has also increased, reflecting the improvement of factors determining

forest investment attractiveness. On the other hand, the INTRA subindex deteriorated.

98

IV.3.2.A Comparison: The SUPRA Subindex in the Southern Cone

4.3.10. Table IV.35 presents the results of the SUPRA subindex in the Southern Cone Countries,

comparing them to the 2004 results.

Table IV.35: SUPRA Subindex Results in the Southern Cone

2006 2004


Uruguay (*) 82 1 50 5

Chile 82 2 76 1

Argentina 79 3 50 4

Paraguay 75 4 61 2

Brazil 75 5 51 3

Average 78 58 (*) Passive interest rate: Data from Banco Central del Uruguay.

4.3.11. All five countries showed an improvement in the SUPRA subindex. Uruguay (32 points) and

Argentina (29 points) had the most significant growth.

4.3.12. As to their relative positions, Uruguay replaced Chile as the top-ranked country, and Chile

moved down to second place. Brazil and Paraguay, in spite of showing some increase in the

SUPRA subindex, lost their relative positions, and are now ranked 5th and 4th places.

4.3.13. The break up of the SUPRA subindex into its six indicators allows a better understanding of

the factors underlying the 2006 results.

Table IV.36: SUPRA Subindex Results in the Southern Cone - Averages

2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to growth

GDP Growth Rate

84.0 68.2 15.8 1 2.6

Passive Real Interest Rate

96.6 56.2 40.4 1 6.7

Exchange Rate Stability

99.0 38.0 61.0 1 10.2

Trade Openness 64.6 60.9 3.7 1 0.6Political Risk 68.4 65.2 3.2 1 0.5Tax Share of GDP

58.1 58.4 -0.3 1 -0.1


78.5 57.8 20.6 20.6

99

4.3.14. Table IV.36 clearly shows that the main contribution to the SUPRA subindex improvement

was basically a result of macroeconomic variables: increasing GDP growth rates, declining interest

rates, and exchange rate stability were responsible for 95% of the subindex improvement.

100

IV.3.3.A Comparison: The INTER subindex in the Southern Cone

4.3.15. Table IV.37 presents the results of the INTER subindex in the Southern Cone countries as

compared with the 2004 subindex results.

Table IV.37: Inter Subindex Results in the Southern Cone

2006 2004


Chile 75 1 63 1

Uruguay 65 2 57 2

Argentina 59 3 46 5

Brazil 55 4 46 4

Paraguay 40 5 48 3

Average 59 52

4.3.16. The average of the results indicates that, in aggregate terms, the forest investment

attractiveness conditions in the region associated to the INTER subindex improved.

4.3.17. Of the five surveyed countries, only Paraguay (-8) showed a reduction in the INTER

subindex. Argentina (13 points) and Chile (12 points) showed the highest growth.

4.3.18. As to their relative positions, Chile and Uruguay maintained their positions (1st and 2nd

places). Argentina and Paraguay swapped positions: the former is now in the 3 th position and the

latter in the 5th position.

4.3.19. The break up of INTER subindex in its nine indicators allows a better understanding of the

factors underlying the 2006 results.

101

Table IV.38: Inter Subindex Results in the Southern Cone - Averages


Economic Infrastructure

55.3 55.1 0.2 1 0.0

Social Infrastructure

82.4 81.0 1.4 1 0.2

Licenses & permits

45.0 45.0 0.0 1 0.0

Labor 46.7 40.2 6.5 1 0.7Capital Market 41.4 45.4 -4.0 1 -0.4Property Rights 55.0 55.0 0.0 1 0.0Capital Flow & Foreign Investment

60.0 60.0 0.0 1 0.0

Agricultural Policies

73.9 33.5 40.4 1 4.5


68.1 51.2 16.9 1 1.9


58.7 51.8 6.8 6.8

4.3.20. Table IV.38 shows that the main contribution (93%) to the INTER subindex growth resulted

from improved expectations, by forest sector players, related to Agricultural Policies, and of the

Planting and Harvesting Restrictions.

102

IV.3.4.A Comparison: The INTRA Subindex in the Southern Cone

4.3.21. Table IV.39 presents the results of the INTER subindex in the Southern Cone Country, as

compared with the 2004 subindex results.

Table IV.39: Intra Subindex Results in the Southern Cone

2006 2004


Brazil 59 1 69 1

Chile 34 2 42 2

Argentina 33 3 41 3

Uruguay 29 4 36 4

Paraguay 19 5 16 5

Average 35 41

4.3.22.The average of the results shows that, in aggregate terms, the forest investment

attractiveness conditions in the region associated to the INTER subindex worsened.

4.3.23. Of the five surveyed countries, only Paraguay showed growth in the subindex (3 points).

The largest decline was noticed in Brazil (-10 points). However, the relative positions remained

unchanged.

4.3.24. The break up of the INTRA subindex into its five indicators allows a better understanding of


Table IV.40: Intra Subindex Results in the Southern Cone - Averages


Forest Resources

27.0 31.3 -4.3 1 -0.9

Favorable Support

39.8 64.8 -25.0 1 -5.0

Domestic Market 27.5 24.0 3.5 1 0.7FVL 22.0 22.0 0.0 1 0.0Adverse Actions 58.2 61.7 -3.5 1 -0.7INTRA Sectorial Subindex

34.9 40.8 -5.9 -5.9

4.3.25. Table IV.40 shows that the reduction in the INTER subindex in the Southern Cone countries

resulted basically (contribution of 85%) from the deterioration in the perception of favorable support

to forest businesses by the forest sector players.

103

IV.3.5. An Individual Country Overview – The Southern Cone

4.3.26. This section presents the specific IAIF results, with the individual scores for the different

indicators in all Southern Cone countries. Although all of the countries are located in the same

region, their socio-economic performance, as well as the size of their forest sector, are quite

different. Brazil is by far the largest country within this group, with a population of more than 190

million inhabitants, and 3927 km2 of forest vocation land. Its GDP per capita, however, is lower than

that of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Although Argentina, Chile, and Paraguay have significant

differences in terms of population and total area, their potential for forest activities, as measured by

the Forest Vocation Land (FVL) indicator, is similar. Uruguay, on the other hand, has a more

restricted potential.

Table IV.41: Overview of Basic Indicators for the Southern Cone

Country Population GDP per capita Total area FVL IAIF

in millions in US$ in 1000 km² in 1000 km²

Argentina 40 15200 2767 344 48

Brazil 190 8800 8511 3927 60

Chile 16 12700 756 330 53

Paraguay 6 4800 406 206 33

Uruguay 3 10900 176 54 47Source: CIA World Fact book 2007, World Bank 2007, and IDB 2006.

IV.3.5.1. Argentina

4.3.27. In terms of domestic market potential, Argentina is the leading country in the Southern Cone. Its population (40 million inhabitants) is the second largest in the group, and its GDP per capita (US$ 15,200) is the highest.

4.3.28. As to forest potential, even though its forest vocation lands area (344,000 Km2) is almost ten

times smaller that that of Brazil, Argentina ranked second place in the Southern Cone.

4.3.29. In 2006, Argentina ranked 3rd place in the IAIF ranking, moving up one position as

compared to 2004.

4.3.30. Tables IV.42 and IV.43 present the results for the IAIF in 2006, compared to the IAIF results

in 2004.

105




IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 3rd 4th 1

Table IV.43: IAIF Results in Argentina

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006

Max. possible

rating



4.3.31. The Argentinean IAIF improvement (from 44 to 47) from 2004 to 2006 points to better forest

investment attractiveness conditions during that period. Such improvement is related to the SUPRA

subindex, notably macroeconomic variables (interest rate reduction and increased exchange rate

stability), and to the INTER subindex, notably the perception, by forest sectors players, about the

Agricultural Policies, and the Planting and Harvesting Restrictions.

4.3.32. However, in terms of the INTRA subindex, the contribution to the IAIF evolution was

negative, reflecting mainly the perception, by the forest sector players, of decreased support to

forest businesses.

106

4.3.33. For the factors involved in the SUPRA subindex, indicators such as GDP Growth Rate,

Passive Real Interest Rate, Exchange Rate Stability, Trade Openness and Political Risk showed

some improvement from 2004 to 2006. The only factor showing deterioration was Tax Share of

GDP.

4.3.34. For the factors involved in the INTER subindex indicators, such as Economic Infrastructure,

Social Infrastructure, Labo, Agricultural Policies, and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions

improved. Licenses and Permits, Property Rights, and Capital Flow and Foreign Investment

remained the same, and one indicator showed a decline: Capital Market.

4.3.35. As to the factors involved in the INTRA subindex, the indicators Forest Resources,

Favorable Support, and Adverse Actions worsened. The Domestic Market indicator improved, and

the FVL indicator remained unchanged.

4.3.36. Growth potential for the Argentinean IAIF is 68%, pointing to the existence of substantial

room for the implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.

4.3.37. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Argentina is 79, 20 points lower

than that of Brazil, the highest IAIF potential in Latin America and, as a result, in the Southern

Cone.

IV.3.5.2. Brazil

4.3.38. In terms of domestic market potential, Brazil is the leading country in the Southern Cone in

terms population (190 million inhabitants), the largest in the Southern Cone, but not in terms of GDP

per capita (US$ 8,800), the second smallest.

4.3.39. As to forest potential, Brazil has an area of forest vocation land (3,927,000 Km2) almost ten

times larger than that of Argentina, the country ranked second place in the Southern Cone.

4.3.40. In 2006, Brazil maintained the leading position in IAIF ranking (the same position as 2004).

4.3.41. Tables IV.44 and IV.45 present the 2006 IAIF results, compared to the IAIF results in 2004.



IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 60 60 0

IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 1st 1st

107

Table IV.45: IAIF Results in Brazil

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006




4.3.42. Even though the country maintained the leading position, the Brazilian IAIF remained stable

(growing 0.1 points).

4.3.43. Nevertheless, this result does not reflect the stability of factors involved in the SUPRA,

INTER, and INTRA subindexes. As a matter of fact, the substantial improvement seen in the

SUPRA subindex, notably macroeconomic variables (GDP growth, interest rate reduction, and

exchange rate stability), and INTER, notably the perception, by the forest sector players, of the

agricultural policies and planting and harvesting restrictions, was offset by a decline in the factors

involved in the INTRA subindex. Such result reflects basically the deterioration of the forest sector

players’ perception of decreased favorable support to forest businesses.

4.3.44. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, GDP Growth Rate, Passive Real Interest Rate,

Exchange Rate Stability, and Tax Share of GDP improved. However, two of them declined: Trade

Openness and Political Risk.

4.3.45. As to the INTER subindex-related factors, Economic Infrastructure, Social Infrastructure,

Labor, Agricultural Policies e Planting and Harvesting Restrictions improved.

108

4.3.46. Licenses and Permits, Property Rights, and Capital Flow and Foreign Investment remained

unchanged. Capital Market was the only factor that declined.

4.3.47. In terms of the INTRA subindex-related factors, Forest Resources, Favorable Support and

Adverse Actions declined. Domestic Market improved, and FVL remained unchanged.

4.3.48. Growth potential for the Brazilian IAIF is 65%, pointing to the existence of substantial room

for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.

4.3.49. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Brazil (99) is the highest in

Latin America and, as a result, in the Southern Cone.

IV.3.5.3. Chile

4.3.50. In terms of domestic market potential, Chile is one of the leading countries in the Southern

Cone, as a result of its GDP per capita (US$ 12,700), the second highest in the group, and of its

population (16 million inhabitants), the third largest in the group.

4.3.51. As to forest potential, with an area of forest vocation land (330.000 Km2) almost ten times

smaller than that of Brazil and very close to that of Argentina, Chile was ranked third place in the

Southern Cone.

4.3.52. In 2006, Chile maintained the second position in IAIF ranking (the same position as 2004).

4.3.53. Tables IV.46 and IV.47 present the results of the 2006 IAIF, compared to the IAIF results in

2004.




IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 2nd 2nd

109

Table IV.47: IAIF Results in Chile

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006




4.3.57. In spite of not moving up in the ranking, IAIF for Chile was stable (with a 0.4 point

reduction).

4.3.58. However, this result does not reflect the stability of factors related to the SUPRA, INTER,

and INTRA subindexes.

4.3.59. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, their contribution to IAIF growth was positive,

basically reflecting the country's macroeconomic stability.

4.3.60. As to the INTER and INTRA subindexes-related factors, the former increased, (notably the

perception, by forest sector players, of agricultural policies, and planting and harvesting

restrictions), and the latter decreased (a reflection of the perception, by forest sector players, of the

favorable support to forest businesses).

4.3.61. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, over the 2004-2006 period there as improvement

in GDP Growth Rate, Passive Real Interest Rate, Exchange Rate Stability, and Political Risk. On

the other hand, two factors deteriorated: Trade Openness, and Tax Share of GDP.

110


Labor, Capital Market, Agricultural Policies and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions improved.

Licenses and Permits, Property Rights, and Capital Flow and Foreign Investment remained

unchanged.

4.3.63. As to the INTRA subindex-related factors, Forest Resources, and Domestic Market

improved. Favorable Support and Adverse Actions deteriorated, while FVL remained unchanged.

4.3.64. Growth potential for the Chilean IAIF is 41%, pointing to the existence of substantial room


4.3.65. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for (74) is 25 points below that of

Brazil, the country with the highest IAIF potential on Latin American and Southern Cone.

IV.3.5.4. Paraguay

4.3.66. In terms of domestic market potential, Paraguay does not hold a significant position in the

Southern Cone, with a population of just 6 million inhabitants (the second smallest in the group),

and the lowest GDP per capita (US$4,800) of all countries in the group.

4.3.67. As to forest potential, Paraguay has the second smallest forest vocation land area (206,000

Km2) in the Southern Cone.

4.3.68. Tables IV.48 and IV.49 present the results for the IAIF in 2006, compared to the IAIF results

for Paraguay in 2004.



IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 33 31 +2IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 20st 18th 2

111

Table IV.49: IAIF Results in Paraguay

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006




4.3.69. IAIF in Paraguay moved up from 31 to 33 points, a reflection of the improvement in the

investment attractiveness conditions. Nonetheless, the country is in the 20st position in the 2006

ranking, i.e., two positions lower as compared to 2004.

4.3.70. This result is linked both to SUPRA subindex-related factors, notably greater exchange rate

stability, and to INTRA subindex-related factors, notably the perception, by the forest sector players,

of the support to forest businesses. On the other hand, the INTER subindex showed a reduction,

notably the perception, by the forest sectors players, of agricultural policies and planting and

harvesting restrictions.

4.3.71. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, Passive Real Interest Rate, Exchange Rate

Stability, Trade Openness, and Political Risk improved. GDP Growth Rate remained unchanged

and Tax Share of GDP was the only factor that showed a deterioration as compared to 2004.

4.3.72. As to the INTER subindex-related factors, Social Infrastructure and Labor improved.

Licenses and Permits, Property Rights e Capital Flow and Foreign Investment remained

112

unchanged. Four factors showed a decline. They were: Economic Infrastructure, Capital Market,

Agricultural Policies, and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions.

4.3.73. In terms of the INTRA subindex-related factors, Favorable Support and Adverse Actions

improved. Domestic Market and FVL remained unchanged; Forest Resources decreased in the

2004-2006 period.

4.3.74. Growth potential for the Paraguayan IAIF is 113%, pointing to the existence of great

potential for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.

4.3.75. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Paraguay is 71, 28 points

below that of Brazil, the country with the highest IAIF potential in Latin America and, as a result, in

the Southern Cone.

IV.3.5.5. Uruguay

4.3.76. In terms of domestic market potential, Uruguay occupies a less significant position in the

Southern Cone, as a result of its population (just 3 million inhabitants), the smallest in the group,

and, less importantly, of its GDP per capita (US$ 10,900), the second highest in the group.

4.3.77. The same applies to its forest potential: its area of forest vocation land amounts to just

54,000 Km2, the smallest in the Southern Cone.

4.3.78. Tables IV.50 and IV.51 present the results of the 2006 IAIF, compared to the 2004 IAIF

results.




IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 4th 3rd 1

113

Table IV.51: IAIF Results for Uruguay

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006



GDP Growth Rate 63 100 100 0Passive Real Interest Rate* 58 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 5 100 100 0Trade Openness 50 57 100 75Political Risk 72 75 100 34Tax Share of GDP 53 60 100 67SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 50 82 100 22Economic infrastructure 55 53 100 88Social Infrastructure 83 85 100 18Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 42 47 100 112Capital Market 38 25 100 300Property Rights 75 75 100 33Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 75 75 100 33Agriculture Policies 25 100 100 0Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 67 73 100 36INTER Sectorial Subindex 57 65 100 54Forest Resource 19 19 28 49Favorable Support 71 43 100 134Domestic Market 5 5 5 0FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 78 74 100 35INTRA Sectorial Sub-index 36 29 48 65IAIF 44 47 70 49(*) Data from Banco Central del Uruguay

4.3.79. IAIF growth from 44, in 2004, to 47, in 2006 was not enough to prevent Uruguay from

moving down one position in the ranking during the 2004-2006 period. Nevertheless, the country

ranked 4th place.

4.3.80. SUPRA subindex-related factors (notably GDP growth, interest rate reduction, and, more

importantly, exchange rate stability), as well as INTER subindex-related factors (notably the

perception, by the forest sector players, of agricultural policies), contributed to the increase of the

Uruguayan IAIF.

4.3.81. However, such results were offset by a reduction in the INTRA subindex, which reflected

basically the perception, by the forest sector players, of the favorable support to forest businesses.

4.3.82. All SUPRA subindex-related factors - GDP Growth Rate, Passive Real Interest Rate,

Exchange Rate Stability, Trade Openness, Political Risk, and Tax Share of GDP - improved in the

2004-2006 period.

114

4.3.83. As to the INTER subindex-related factors, Social Infrastructure, Labor, Agricultural Policies,

and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions improved in the period. Capital Market and Economic

Infrastructure decreased, while Licenses and Permits, Property Rights, and Capital Flow and

Investment remained unchanged.


worsened. Forest Resources, Domestic Market, and FVL remained unchanged.

4.3.85. Growth potential for the Uruguayan IAIF is 49%, pointing to the existence of potential for

implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.

4.3.86. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Uruguay is 70, 29 points below

that of Brazil, the highest IAIF potential in Latin America and, as a result, in the Southern Cone.

115

IV.4. Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname


analyzed on regional level for the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname. The objective is to

figure out the performance of the individual countries in comparison to their direct neighbors, since

often these are the closest competitors for the limited resources in direct investment.

IV.4.1.A Comparison: The Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

4.4.2. Table IV.52 presents the IAIF 2006 results in the Andean Group countries, plus Guyana and

Suriname, comparing them to the 2004 results.

Table IV.52: IAIF Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

2006 2004


Colombia 44 1 40 1

Bolivia 41 2 34 4

Peru 39 3 33 5

Suriname 36 4 34 3

Venezuela 35 5 35 2

Ecuador 32 6 25 7

Guyana 32 7 32 6

Average 37 33

4.4.3. IAIF improved in 5 of the 7 countries, reflecting better forest investment attractiveness

conditions. The highest growths were seen in Bolivia and Ecuador (7 points). Venezuela and

Guyana maintained 2004 IAIF.

4.4.4. As to their relative positions, Colombia remained in the first position within the group. Bolivia,

Ecuador and Peru moved up in the ranking, while Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela moved down.

4.4.5. The break up of the IAIF into its three subindexes – SUPRA, INTER, and INTRA – allows a

better understanding of the factors underlying the 2006 results.

117

Table IV.53: IAIF Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages

2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to IAIF growth


75.3 66.0 9.3 1 1.3

INTERSectorial Subindex

48.2 45.1 3.1 2 0.9

INTRASectorial Subindex

21.9 19.1 2.8 4 1.6

IAIF 37.0 33.2 3.8 3.8

4.4.6. As seen on Table IV.53, all three subindexes improved.

4.4.7. The highest improvement was seen on the SUPRA subindex, as a result of the better

macroeconomic situation in the countries within this region. Then came the INTER subindex.

4.4.8. However, considering the relative weight of each factor, the greatest contribution to IAIF

growth can be traced back to the INTRA subindex.

118

IV.4.2. A Comparison: The SUPRA Subindex in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

4.4.9. Table IV.54 presents the SUPRA subindex results for the Andean Group countries, plus

Guyana and Suriname, comparing them to the 2004 results.

Table IV.54: SUPRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

2006 2004


Suriname 79 1 69 3

Peru 78 2 72 2

Guyana 76 3 74 1

Colombia 75 4 66 6

Bolivia 73 5 67 4

Venezuela 73 6 47 7

Ecuador 73 7 67 5

Average 75 66

4.4.10. All countries performed better in the SUPRA subindex, specially Venezuela (26 points).

4.4.11. As to their relative position, Colombia, Suriname and Venezuela moved up in the ranking,

while Bolivia, Ecuador and Guyana moved down. Peru remained in the 2nd position.

4.4.12. The break up of the SUPRA subindex into its six indicators allows a better understanding of


Table IV.55: SUPRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages

2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to Growth

GDP Growth Rate

79.0 51.4 27.6 1 4.6

Passive Real Interest Rate

97.0 79.4 17.6 1 2.9

Exchange Rate Stability

94.2 79.3 14.9 1 2.5

Trade Openness 61.8 61.9 -0.1 1 0.0Political Risk 60.0 59.0 1.0 1 0.2Tax Share of GDP

60.1 65.2 -5.1 1 -0.9

SUPRA Subindex

75.3 66.0 9.3 9.3

119

4.4.13. Table IV.55 shows that the macroeconomic variables were the main contributing factor for

the SUPRA subindex growth. Better GDP growth rates and passive real interest rate accounted for

81% of the result.

120

IV.4.3.A Comparison: The INTER Subindex in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

4.4.14. Table IV.56 presents the INTER subindex results for the Andean Group countries, plus


Table IV.56: INTER Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

2006 2004


Colombia 58 1 50 2

Surinam 56 2 55 1

Peru 49 3 45 4

Bolivia 48 4 43 5

Guyana 47 5 46 3Ecuador 41 6 36 7

Venezuela 39 7 42 6

Average 48 45

4.4.15. All countries performed better in the INTER subindex, notably Colombia (8 points).

4.4.16. As to their relative position, Bolivia, Colombia, Equador and Peru moved up in the ranking,

while Ecuador, Guyana, and Suriname moved down.

4.4.17. The break up of the INTER subindex into its nine indicators allows a better understanding of


121

Table IV.57: INTER Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages


Economic Infrastructure

46,9 46,1 0,8 1 0,1

Social Infrastructure

75,5 74,5 1,0 1 0,1

Licenses and Permits

28,6 28,6 0,0 1 0,0

Labor 36,5 32,1 4,4 1 0,5Capital Market 39,4 31,6 7,8 1 0,9Property Rights 32,1 32,1 0,0 1 0,0Capital Flow and Forest Investment

57,1 57,1 0,0 1 0,0

Agricultural Policies

53,1 56,0 -2,9 1 -0,3

Planting and Harvesting Restrictions

64,2 47,4 16,8 1 1,9

INTER Subindex 48,2 45,1 3,1 3,1

4.4.18. Table IV.57 shows that the main contribution for the INTER subindex resulted from the

improvement in capital markets and in the perception, by the forest sector players, of the planting

and harvesting restrictions (88%).

IV.4.4.A Comparison: The INTRA Subindex in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

4.4.19, Table IV.58 presents the INTRA subindex results for the Andean Group countries, plus


122

Table IV.58: INTRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

2006 2004


Bolivia 30 1 21 3

Colombia 28 2 29 1

Peru 25 3 18 4

Venezuela 24 4 29 2

Ecuador 18 5 9 7

Suriname 14 6 15 5

Guyana 13 7 14 6

Average 22 19

4.4.20. The average of the results shows that, in aggregate terms, the forest investment

attractiveness conditions in the region associated to the INTRA subindex has improved.

4.4.21. However 4 of the 7 countries showed a reduction in this specific subindex: Colombia (1

point), Guyama (1 point), Suriname (1 point), and Venezuela (5 points). In other hand, Bolivia (9

points), Ecuador (9 points), and Peru (7 points) showed increase.

4.4.22. As to their relative position, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador moved up in the ranking, while

Colombia, Guyana, Suriname, and Venezuela moved down.

4.4.23. The break up of the INTRA subindex into its five indicators allows a better understanding of


Table IV.59: INTRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages

2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to Growth

Forest Resources

19,8 20,5 -0,7 1 -0,1

Favorable Support

28,4 23,9 4,5 1 0,9

Domestic Market 5,7 5,4 0,3 1 0,1FVL 9,3 7,9 1,4 1 0,3Adverse Actions 46,2 37,9 8,3 1 1,7INTRA Subindex 21,9 19,1 2,8 2,8

4.4.24. Table IV.59 shows that the main contribution to the INTRA subindex growth (93%) in the

countries within the group resulted from the improved perception, on the part of the forest sectors

players, of the support provided and of the adverse actions related to forest businesses.

123

IV.4.5. An Individual Country Overview – The Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname

4.4.25. This section presents specific IAIF results, as well as individual scores for the different

indicators in all the Andean Group countries. Even though all countries are included in the same

region, their socio-economic performance, as well as the size of their forest sectors, are quite

different. Although Peru does not stand out among the other countries, it shows the highest

potential for forest activity, as measured by the forest vocation lands (FVL) indicator. Ecuador,

Guyana, and Suriname are less representative.

Table IV.60: Overview of Basic Indicators for the Andean Group

Country Population GDP per capita Total area FVL IAIF

in millions in US$ in km² in km²

Bolivia 9 3100 1098 275 43

Colombia 44 8600 1138 638 44

Ecuador 13 4500 283 97 33

Guyana 0.7 4800 214 56 33

Peru 29 6600 1285 989 40

Suriname 0.5 7100 163 39 36

Venezuela 26 7200 912 493 36

IV.4.5.1. Bolivia

4.4.26. In terms of domestic market potential, Bolivia has a rather inexpressive situation within the

Andean Group (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela). Both its population (9 million

inhabitants) and its GDP per capita (US$3,100) are the smallest in the group.

4.4.27. As to forest resources, Bolivia has 275,000 Km2 of forest vocation land, the second smallest

FVL area in the group.

4.4.28. In 2006, Bolivia ranked 9th place in the IAIF ranking, moving up two positions as compared

to 2004.

4.4.29. Tables IV.61 and IV.62 present the results for the IAIF in 2006, compared to the 2004 IAIF

results.

125





Table IV.62: IAIF Results in Bolivia

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006




4.4.30. The Bolivian IAIF improvement (from 34 to 41) from 2004 to 2006 points to better forest

investment attractiveness conditions during that period. Such improvement is related to the three

subindexes.


Exchange Rate Stability, and Trade Openness improved during the period. Political Risk and Tax

Share of GDP deteriorated, as compared to 2004.


Labor, Capital Market, and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions improved in the period. Licenses

126

and Permits, Property Rights e Capital Flow and Foreign Investment remained unchanged. Only

one factor worsened: Agricultural Policies.


Adverse Actions improved. Domestic Market and FVL remained unchanged.

4.4.34. Growth potential for the Bolivian IAIF is 83%, pointing to the existence of substantial


4.4.35. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Bolivia is 75, 24 points below

that of Brazil, the highest IAIF potential in Latin America, and six points below that of Colombia, the

highest IAIF potential in the Andean Group.

IV.4.5.2. Colombia

4.4.36. In terms of domestic market potential, Colombia has the best situation within the Andean

Group (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela). Both its population (44 million

inhabitants) and its GDP per capita (US$8,600) are the highest in the group.

4.4.37. Colombia also has a prominent situation in the forest sector: its area of forest vocation land

covers 638,000 Km2, the second largest in the group.

4.4.38. In 2006, Colombia ranked 7th place in the IAIF ranking, maintaining the same position as

compared to 2004.


results.




IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 7th 7th

127

Table IV.64: IAIF Results in Colombia

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006




4.4.40. The Colombian IAIF improvement (from 40 to 44) from 2004 to 2006 points to better forest

investment attractiveness conditions during that period. This result is linked both to SUPRA

subindex-related factors, notably greater exchange rate stability, and to INTER subindex-related

factors, notably the perception, by the forest sector players, of the planting and harvesting

restrictions.


Exchange Rate Stability, and Political Risk improved during the period. Trade Openness and Tax

Share of GDP deteriorated, as compared to 2004.

4.4.42. As to the INTER subindex-related factors, Economic infrastructure, Social Infrastructure,

Labor, Capital Market, Agricultural Policies, and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions improved in

the period. Three factors remained unchanged. They were: Licenses and Permits, Property Rights,

and Capital Flow and Foreign Investment.

4.4.43. In terms of the INTRA subindex-related factors, Domestic Market improved. FVL and

Adverse Actions remained unchanged, and Forest Resources and Favorable Support deteriorated.

128

4.4.44. Growth potential for the Colombian IAIF is 83%, pointing to the existence of substantial


4.4.45. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Colombia is 81, the highest

IAIF potential in the Andean Group. Nonetheless, it is 18 points below that of Brazil, the country with

the highest IAIF potential in Latin America.

IV.4.5.3. Ecuador

4.4.46. In terms of domestic market potential, Ecuador has the less expressive situation within the

Andean Group (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela). Both its population (13 million

inhabitants) and its GDP per capita (US$4,500) are the second smallest in the group.

4.4.47. In terms of forest potential, its forest potential situation is not noteworthy: its area of forest

vocation land amounts to just 97.000 Km2, the smallest in the group.


2004.

4.4.49. It is worth mentioning that the Exchange Rate Stability indicator was not available;

therefore, the average of results for the other countries in the same group has been used.




IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 21nd 22nd 1

129

Table IV.66: IAIF Results in Ecuador

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006



GDP Growth Rate 44 88 100 13Passive Real Interest Rate 100 90 100 11Exchange Rate Stability* 100 95 100 6Trade Openness 60 55 100 82Political Risk 57 58 100 74Tax Share of GDP 39 51 100 98SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 67 73 100 38Economic infrastructure 37 38 100 161Social Infrastructure 74 77 100 31Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor 30 31 100 221Capital Market 22 31 100 221Property Rights 25 25 100 300Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 27 53 100 90Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 31 41 100 146INTER Sectorial Subindex 36 41 100 143Forest Resources 11 11 19 73Favorable Support 16 23 100 343Domestic Market 5 5 18 260FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 9 46 100 116INTRA Sectorial Subindex 9 18 48 167IAIF 25 32 71 119* Result based on average

4.4.50. In spite of the seven-point increase in IAIF (from 25 to 32), Ecuador gained one position in

the ranking.

4.4.51. SUPRA subindex-related factors (notably GDP growth), INTER subindex-related factors

(notably the perception, by the forest sector players, of policies) and INTRA subindex-related

factors (notably adeverse actions) contributed to the increase of the Ecuadorian IAIF.

4.4.52. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, GDP Growth Rate, Political Risk, and Tax Share

of GDP improved during the period. Passive Real Interest Rate, Exchange Rate Stability, and Trade

Openness deteriorated.


Labor, Capital Market, Agricultural Policies, and Planting and Harvesting Restrictions improved.

Three factors remained unchanged. They were: Licenses and Permits, Property Rights, and Capital

Flow and Foreign Investment.

130


improved. Forest Resources, Domestic Market, and FVL remained unchanged.

4.4.55. Growth potential for the Ecuadorian IAIF is 119%, pointing to the existence of great potential


4.4.56. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Ecuador is 71, 28 points below

that of Brazil, the country with the highest IAIF potential in Latin America, and six points below that

of Colombia, the highest IAIF potential in the Andean Group.

IV.4.5.4 Guyana

4.4.57. Guyana is a scarcely populated country (700,000 inhabitants), with a GDP per capita (US$

4,800) that is similar to that of the bottom-ranked countries in the Andean Group.

4.4.58. The same applies to its forest potential: its area of forest vocation land amounts to just

56,000 Km2, the smallest in the group.


2004.

4.4.60. It is worth mentioning that the Tax Share of GDP, Economic Infrastructure, Labor, and

Capital Market indicators were not available; therefore, the average of results for the other countries

in the same group has been used.

4.4.61. Besides, given the non-availability of primary data, the calculation of the following indicators

was based on the results of the 2004 IAIF calculations: Agricultural Policies, Planting and

Harvesting Restrictions, Favorable Support to Forest Businesses, and Adverse Actions.




IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 23th 17th6

131

Table IV.68: IAIF Results in Guyana

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006



GDP Growth Rate 61 58 100 73Passive Real Interest Rate 80 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 100 100 100 0Trade Openness 77 72 100 40Political Risk 66 64 100 57Tax Share of GDP* 63 64 100 57SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 74 76 100 31Economic infrastructure* 51 52 100 92Social Infrastructure 72 73 100 38Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor* 32 39 100 159Capital Market* 37 42 100 138Property Rights 50 50 100 100Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies** 29 29 100 242Planting and Harvesting Restrictions** 67 67 100 50INTER Sectorial Subindex 46 47 100 111Forest Resources 16 14 36 155Favorable Support** 14 14 100 603Domestic Market 5 5 5 0FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions** 29 29 100 245INTRA Sectorial Subindex 14 13 49 264IAIF 32 32 71 121* Results based on average. ** Results based on data from 2004.

4.4.62. Although the IAIF remained unchanged, it ranked the 23rd position in the 2006 IAIF ranking,

moving down 6 positions as compared to 2004.

4.4.63. Growth potential for the Guyanese IAIF is 121%, pointing to the existence of great potential


4.4.64. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Guyana is 71, 28 points below

that of Brazil, the country with the highest IAIF potential in Latin America, and ten points below that

of Colombia, the highest IAIF potential in the Andean Group.

132

IV.4.5.5. Peru

4.4.65. In terms of domestic market potential, Peru has a significant situation within the Andean

Group (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela). With a population of 29 million

inhabitants, the second largest in the Andean Group, Peru has the third highest GDP per capita

(US$ 6,600) in the group.

4.4.66. The Peruvian forest potential is also noteworthy: its area of forest vocation land covers

989,000 Km2, the largest in the group.

4.4.67. In 2006, Peru ranked 10th place in the IAIF ranking, moving up five positions as compared to

2004.


results.

Table IV 69: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006




133

Table IV.70: IAIF Results in Peru

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006




4.4.69. The Peruvian IAIF improvement (from 33 to 39) from 2004 to 2006 points to better forest

investment attractiveness conditions during that period.

4.4.70. SUPRA subindex-related factors (notably GDP growth and interest rate reduction), as well

as INTER subindex-related factors (notably capital market and the perception, by the forest sector

players, of planting and harvesting restrictions), contributed to the increase of the Peruvian IAIF.

4.4.71. The main contribution resulted from INTRA subindex-related factors, notably the improved

perception, by forest sector players, of the support and adverse actions related to forest

businesses.


and Trade Openness improved during the period. and Political Risk, and Exchange Rate Stability

remained unchanged, while Tax Share of GDP deteriorated.

4.4.73. As to the INTER subindex-related factors, Social Infrastructure, Labor, Capital Market, and

Planting and Harvesting Restrictions improved in the period. Economic Infrastructure, and

134

Agricultural Policies deteriorated, and the following factors remained unchanged: Licenses and

Permits, Property Rights, and Capital Flow and Foreign Investment.

4.4.74. In terms of the INTRA subindex-related factors, Favorable Support, FVL, and Adverse

Actions improved. Forest Resources deteriorated and Domestic Market remained unchanged.

4.4.75. Growth potential for the Peruvian IAIF is 97%, pointing to the existence of substantial


4.4.76. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Peru is 78, 21 points below that

of Brazil, the country with the highest IAIF potential in Latin America, and six points below that of

Colombia, the highest IAIF potential in the Andean Group.

IV.4.5.6. Suriname

4.4.77. Suriname is a scarcely populated country (500,000 inhabitants), with a GDP per capita (US$

7,100) that is similar to that of the top-ranked countries in the Andean Group.

4.4.78. Suriname does not have a prominent situation in the forest sector, either: its area of forest

vocation land amounts to just 39,000 Km2.

4.4.79. Tables IV.71 and IV.72 present the results of the 2006 IAIF for Suriname, compared to the

IAIF results in 2004.

4.4.80. It is worth mentioning that the Trade Openness, Tax Share of GDP, Economic

Infrastructure, Labor, and Capital Market indicators were not available; therefore, the average of

results for the other countries in the same group has been used.

4.4.81. Besides, given the non-availability of primary data, the calculation of the following indicators

was based on the results of the 2004 IAIF calculations: Agricultural Policies, Planting and

Harvesting Restrictions, Favorable Support, and Adverse Actions.





135

Table IV.72: IAIF Results in Suriname

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006



GDP Growth Rate 60 89 100 12Passive Real Interest Rate 69 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 100 95 100 5Trade Openness* 59 61 100 65Political Risk 66 65 100 55Tax Share of GDP* 63 64 100 57SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 69 79 100 27Economic infrastructure* 48 50 100 102Social Infrastructure 78 76 100 32Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor* 33 41 100 147Capital Market* 37 42 100 138Property Rights 50 50 100 100Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies** 85 85 100 18Planting and Harvesting Restrictions** 86 86 100 16INTER Sectorial Subindex 55 56 100 79Forest Resources 13 13 36 178Favorable Support** 10 10 100 878Domestic Market 5 5 5 0FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions** 39 39 100 155INTRA Sectorial Subindex 15 14 49 238IAIF 34 36 71 100* Results based on average. ** Results based on data from 2004.

4.4.82. IAIF growth from 34 to 36, which reflected some improvement in the forest investment

attractiveness conditions, was not enough to prevent Suriname from losing six positions in the

ranking as compared to 2004: in 2006, Suriname ranked the 16th position. The result reflected

mainly an improvement in the following SUPRA subindex-related factors: GDP growth rate and

passive real interest rate.

4.4.83. Growth potential for the Suriname IAIF is 100%, pointing to the existence of substantial


4.4.84. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Suriname is 71, 28 points

below that of Brazil, the country with the highest IAIF potential in Latin America, and ten points

below that of Colombia, the highest IAIF potential in the Andean Group.

136

IV.4.5.7. Venezuela

4.4.85. In terms of domestic market potential, Venezuela has a significant situation within the

Andean Group (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela). With a population of 26 million

inhabitants, the third largest in the Andean Group, Venezuela has the second highest GDP per

capita (US$ 7,200) in the group.

4.4.86. As to forest potential, Venezuela has 493,000 Km2 of forest vocation land, the third largest

FVL area in the group.


2004.





137

Table IV.74: IAIF Results in Venezuela

Rating in 2004

Rating in 2006



GDP Growth Rate 4 100 100 0Passive Real Interest Rate 93 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 10 70 100 43Trade Openness 55 62 100 61Political Risk 46 52 100 94Tax Share of GDP 76 55 100 81SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 47 73 100 37Economic infrastructure 60 59 100 69Social Infrastructure 78 78 100 28Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor 32 28 100 259Capital Market 32 35 100 186Property Rights 25 25 100 300Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 0 0 100 NDAgricultural Policies 63 48 100 108Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 65 51 100 95INTER Sectorial Subindex 42 39 100 157Forest Resources 28 27 55 107Favorable Support 44 38 100 164Domestic Market 5 5 33 560FVL 10 10 20 100Adverse Actions 55 39 100 155INTRA Sectorial Subindex 29 24 62 161IAIF 35 35 78 122ND – Not defined

4.4.88. Although the IAIF remained unchanged, Venezuela ranked 17th place in the 2006 IAIF

ranking, moving down 8 positions as compared to 2004.

4.4.89. IAIF result reflected an improvement in SUPRA subindex-related factors, notably GDP

Growth Rate and Exchange Rate Stability.

4.4.90. However, such results were offset by reductions in the and in INTER subindex-related

factors, notably the agricultural policies, and the INTRA subindex, which reflected basically the

perception, by the forest sector players, of the support and adverse actions related to forest

businesses.


Exchange Rate Stability, Trade Openness, and Political Risk improved. Tax Share of GDP was the

only variable that deteriorated.

138

4.4.92. As to the INTER subindex-related factors,Social Infrastructure, and Capital Market improved

in the period. Economic Infrastructure, Labor, Agricultural Policies, and Planting and Harvesting

Restrictions decreased, while Licenses and Permits, Property Rights, and Capital Floand Invest

ment remained unchanged.


Adverse Actions worsened. Domestic Market, and FVL remained unchanged.

4.4.94. Growth potential for the Venezuelan IAIF is 122%, pointing to the existence of great


4.4.95. Finally, it is worth noting that the estimated IAIF potential for Venezuela is 78, 21 points

below that of Brazil, the country with the highest IAIF potential in Latin America, and three points

below that of Colombia, the highest IAIF potential in the Andean Group.

139

Annex I - IAIF Methodology

AI.1. IAIF

AI.1. The IAIF was implemented in 23 IDB borrowing member countries in Latin America and the

Caribbean (Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican

Republic, Suriname, Trinidad y Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela). Chart AI1 presents the IAIF

geographic scope.

Chart AI.1: IAIF Geographic Scope

AI.2. Most existing indexes are based on the four different models of data aggregation listed below.

141

a. Secondary data aggregation: consists in applying mathematical operations to secondary data

from external sources (government, companies, research institutions, international agencies, etc.) in

order to consolidate them into one index. It is probably the simplest and less expensive

methodology;

b. Aggregation of data collected by means of questionnaires (primary): used when it is necessary to

measure concepts that are difficult or impossible to measure through secondary data;

c. Combination of secondary data and data collected by questionnaires: in some cases, the

methodology based exclusively on secondary data or on questionnaires does not render

satisfactory results. A combination of the two methodologies can then be used.

d. Aggregation of indexes: The aggregation of indexes is used to measure abstract concepts, for

instance, governability or corruption. This methodology has the power to combine several

aggregate measurements in one index.

AI.3. The IAIF design is based on a model that aggregates existing indexes, specific indicators and

data revealed by the questionnaires (primary). The combination of existing indexes, developed by

accredited institutions, and specific indicators based on primary and secondary information, to

information collected my means of questionnaires allowed a significant cost reduction in the IAIF

design, while maintaining its credibility.

AI.4. The model is based on the hypothesis that the level of direct investment in sustainable forest

businesses is directly and proportionally affected by the attractiveness level of investment to such

businesses. Thus, the investment attractiveness level depends on the sustainable forest business

profitability. That is, the more profitable a business is, the highest is its level of attractiveness.

AI.5 On the other hand, the profitability of forest-industrial businesses is affected by a series of

factors that can either limit or maximize its levels of revenue or costs. Knowing such factors and

their importance to the forest-industrial businesses is crucial for potential investors.

AI.6 Therefore, the IAIF index, through a mathematical model, incorporates the most relevant

factors affecting forest-industrial enterprises, measures them and calculates a final score

representing the business climate for investments sustainable forest businesses in any country of

the world.

AI.7. The IAIF Index is composed of three subindexes, all of which analyze the forest sector

investment attractiveness conditions in a specific country:

142

a. SUPRA Sectorial Subindex: Refers to the macroeconomic factors and to other factors that affect

the profitability of businesses in all productive sectors of a country;

b. INTER Sectorial Subindex: Refers to the factors, generated in other economic sectors, that affect

the profitability of forest-industrial businesses; and

c. INTRA Sectorial Subindex: Refers to factors that are inherent to the forest sectors and that affect

the profitability or forest-industrial businesses.

AI.8. Besides facilitating the analysis of the level of attractiveness to direct investments in a specific

country, this rating is highly useful for organizing factors according to the kind of players involved,

and responsible for activities that might turn the business climate more favorable. At first, this

approach will be oriented to the INTER subindex-related factors, in order to supply their demand,

and to the INTRA subindex-related factors, over which the players have more action mechanisms.

The SUPRA subindex-related factors can not be easily changed by actions on the part of the forest

sector players.

AI.9. Based on the definition of the factors that make up the IAIF, we were able to identify indicators

that were used for measurement. In general, specially for the SUPRA and INTER-related factors,

we relied on indicators that have been used in existing indexes, once they adequately express the

IAIF components. On the other hand, the factors that could not be measured by means of the

existing indexes or indicators were obtained in the questionnaires.

AI.10. Table AI.1 presents the list of the factors included in the IAIF index, as well as their

corresponding indicators.

Table AI.1: Factors included in the IAIF index and corresponding indicators

Factor Subindex Indicator Concept SourceGDP SUPRA GDP Growth

RateLevel of economic growth World

BankInterest Rate SUPRA Passive Real

Interest RateCapital costs CEPAL

Exchange Rate SUPRA Exchange Rate Stability

Exchange rate stability PRS Group

Foreign Trade SUPRA Trade Openness Level of openness to international trade

Fraser Institute

Political Stability and Government Transparency

SUPRA Political Risk Level of political and social stability PRS Group

Tax Burden SUPRA Tax Share of GDP

Impact of taxes on economic activity

World Bank

143

Factor Subindex Indicator Concept SourceEconomic Infrastructure INTER Economic

InfrastructureLevel of development and quality of road, sea and air transportation infrastructure, as well as Forest-industry transportation costs

FEM and STCP

Social Infrastructure INTER Social Infrastructure

Level of human development UNDP

Licenses & Permits INTER Licenses & permits

Legal and bureaucratic obstacles to start a business

Heritage Foundation

Labor INTER Labor Labor regulations, productivity, training and wage level of workers

World Bank and

UNDP Access to Credit INTER Capital Market Sophistication of financial market,

access to loans and credit, and local securities market

FEM and STCP

Legal Safety and Law Enforcement

INTER Property Rights Legal abandonment of property rights and lack of law enforcement actions by the government

Heritage Foundation

Capital Market INTER Capital Flow & Foreign Investment

Barriers and restrictions to foreign investment

Heritage Foundation

Agricultural Policies INTER Agricultural Policies

Impact of cattle raising and harvesting policies on the profitability of forest/industrial enterprises

Interviews


INTER Planting & Harvesting Restrictions

Perception of costs and risks associates to specific environmental regulations

Interviews

Forest Resource INTRA Forest Resource Surplus and stock of wood for commercial purposes

FAO

Favorable Support INTRA Favorable Support

Support activities that reduce the forest/industrial business costs, while increasing their benefits.

Interviews

Domestic Market INTRA Domestic Market Domestic consumption of forest input and products (includes export)

FAO

FVL INTRA FVL Legalized FVL available for business

FAO

Adverse Actions INTRA Adverse Actions Degree of adversity of actions that increase costs and reduce the benefits of forest/industry enterprises.

Interviews

AI.11. Based on the concept that the indicator intends to measure, Chart A12 presents the causal

relationship between the factors and the IAIF. The arrows (+) and (–) represent, respectively, a

directly and inversely proportional relationship among the connected elements. Thus, a change in

one of the elements will cause a chain reaction, and will have impacts in the direction pointed by the

arrows.

144

Chart AI.2: The factors and IAIF – a causal relationship

AI.12. In order the simplify comparison process for the IAIF components, data were normalized and

converted into a scale from 0 to 100, in which the higher the normalized value, the greater its

contribution to the IAIF.

AI.13. Besides, the normalization used preset maximum values (upper value) and minimum values

(lower value) based on a global comparison scale that was built upon historical data. This allows the

comparison of the normalized results, as well as the subindexes results and the IAIF itself, over the

years.

AI.14.Where the factors for which there was a negative relationship between the indicator and the

corresponding factor or the subindex affected, that is, when a high value associated to the indicator

hinders the attractiveness level of the investment, results had to be inverted.

AI.15. The results for the SUPRA, INTER and INTRA sectorial subindexes were obtained through

the arithmetic mean of data corresponding to the subindex-related indicators.

145

AI.16. Finally, in order to assign greater importance to the INTRA subindex indicators, which are

intrinsic to forest activity, and to the INTER subindex indicators, which are particularly related to the

profitability of direct investments in the forest sector, the IAIF subindexes were weighted.

AI.17. The weighting was used only on the subindexes, assuming that all indicators had the same

weight. Thus, weight “1” was used for the SUPRA subindex, weight “2” for the INTER subindex, and

weight “4” for the INTRA subindex.

146

A1.2. IAIF-derived calculations

a) Potential

AI.18. The calculation of the potential value is based on the estimated maximum score each

country could have for each one of the IAIF indicator, given its limitations in terms of land, forest

area, economic, etc. Considering such maximum values and using the same calculation

methodologies that were used for the IAIF, one can calculate the potential value of this subindexes

and of the IAIF itself. The potential value reflects the maximum achievable score for that country in

the indicators, subindexes and IAIF itself, on the process of improving the business climate for

forest investment

b) Differential

AI.19. The differential value is the absolute difference between the potential values and the actual

values assigned to indicators, subindexes and to the IAIF for a specific year.

AI.20. Here is the formula for calculating the differential value:

Vdifferential = Vpotential – Vactual

AI.21. Where Vpotential is the potential value of the indicator, subindex or IAIF, and Vactual is the actual

value of the indicator, subindex or IAIF for a specific country in a given year.

C) Growth potential

AI.22. The growth potential represents the maximum growth percentage of the actual value of the

indicator, subindex or IAIF for a specific country in a given year. It is the relative difference between

the potential and actual value of indicators, subindex and IAIF for a given year.

PC = (Vpotential/Vactual – 1) x 100

AI.23. Where VPotential is the potential value of the indicator, subindex or IAIF, and Vactual is the actual

value of the indicator, subindex or IAIF for a specific country in a given year.

d) Contribution to IAIF

(i) Actual contribution

147

AI.24. Once the IAIF is the weighted average of the subindexes, which, in turn, are a weighted

average of the indicators, the differential values of indicators and subindex do not represent their

contribution for IAIF composition.

AI.25. In order the calculate such contributions, the corresponding weights must be considered.

AI.26. Here is the formula used to calculate the actual contribution:

CE = [(Vactual x W) / n ] / S

AI.27. In the calculation of the actual contribution of an indicator, Vactual is its actual value, W is the

respective weight in the subindex calculation value formula, n is the number of indicators that have

been considered for the calculation of each subindex, and S is the sum of all such weights.

AI.28. In the calculation of the actual contribution of a subindex, Vactual is its actual value, W is the

respective weight in the IAIF calculation formula, n is the number of subindexes that have been

considered for the IAIF calculation (3), and S is the sum of all such weights (7).

AI.29. The differential contribution represents the contribution of an indicator for the corresponding

potential subindex or of the subindex for the potential IAIF.

AI.30. For the calculation the differential contribution, the same formula used for the actual value

calculation is used, replacing the actual value for the differential value (of the indicator or subindex).

AI.31. Here is the formula used to calculate the differential contribution:

CE = [(Vdifferential x W) / n ] / S

AI.32. In the calculation of the actual contribution of an indicator, Vdifferential is its actual value, W is the

respective weight in the subindex calculation value formula, n is the number of indicators that have

been considered for the calculation of each subindex, and S is the sum of all such weights.

AI.33. In the calculation of the actual contribution of a subindex, Vdifferential is its differential value, W is

the respective weight in the IAIF calculation formula, n is the number of subindexes that have been

considered for the IAIF calculation (3), and S is the sum of all such weights (7).

148

A1.3. Non-available data

AI.34. The following procedures have been adopted for data from secondary sources:

a) Adopting reliable alternative sources, making sure the calculations involved in the indicator are

consistent.

b) Considering as the indicator the average of indicators for the other countries in the continent.

AI.35. Where no data from primary sources, collected through questionnaires, were available, the

IAIF results from previous years have been used.

AI.36. In all cases, the procedure was submitted to detailed analysis.

A1.4. Changes in methodology from IAIF 2004

AI.37. The IAIF calculation according to the methodology defined by IDB involves the gathering of

secondary data and the collection of primary data through questionnaires.

AI.38. For secondary data, the methodology originally approved by IDB and used for the calculation

of the 2004 IAIF remained unchanged.

AI.39. For the primary data, it was noticed that the questionnaire developed in the IDB-approved

methodology was serving two objectives: allowing the calculation of some of the IAIF indicators,

without clarifying their causes, and generating a detailed survey of the factors behind them, thus

serving as an input for the development of PROMECIF.

AI.40. In order to facilitate the application of the questionnaire, a simplified version was developed

(see Annex II), aimed specially at the IAIF, and encompassing all items foreseen in the

methodology that had been originally approved by IDB, but not including the underlying factors for

the concepts that were used. It was then possible to simplify the questionnaire, while maintaining

the same weights that had been used in the original methodology for the calculation of the

indicators, as explained in the above-mentioned annex.

AI.41. For IAIF 2004 questionnaires’ results reflects the expertise of the consultants responsible for

its calculation. For IAIF 2006 field work was developed (see annexes III and IV).

A1.5. Further information

149

AI 42. For further information, consult the website www.iadb.org/pforestal.

150

http://www.iadb.org/pforestal

Annex II - IAIF Questionnaire

The IAIF calculation according to the methodology defined by IDB involves the gathering of

secondary data and the collection of primary data through questionnaires.

For the primary data, it was noticed that the questionnaire developed in the IDB-approved

methodology was serving two objectives: allowing the calculation of some of the IAIF indicators,

without clarifying their causes, and generating a detailed survey of the factors behind them, thus

serving as an input for the development of PROMECIF.

In order to facilitate the application of the questionnaire, the following simplified version was

developed, aimed specially at the IAIF, and encompassing all items foreseen in the methodology

that had been originally approved by IDB, but not including the underlying factors for the concepts

that were used. It was then possible to simplify the questionnaire, while maintaining the same

weights that had been used in the original methodology for the calculation of the indicators, as

explained in the above-mentioned annex.

1. AGRICULTURAL POLICIES

For each of the following questions, if answer “Yes”, please inform the degree of distortion in favor

of the agricultural and against the forest investor you consider appropriate as a result of the existing

pertinent policies or regulations. Consider the following scale:

DEGREES OF DISTORTION:

Very high: 5 High: 4 Medium: 3 Low: 2 Very low: 1 Does not apply: 0

151

1.1. Are the credit terms (interest rates, terms, collateral, etc) for agricultural activities more

favorable than those offered for forest activities?

( ) Yes (please enter a degree of distortion you consider appropriate) ( ) No ( ) I don’t know

1.2. Are there direct subsidies (production, product price, input price, etc) that might benefit more

agricultural activities than forest activity?


1.3. Would you say that taxes over agricultural activity are comparatively lower than taxes over

forest activity?


1.4. Do you feel that the policies regarding agrarian reform or land regularization (such as

expropriation, acknowledgment of property rights, and so on) benefit more agricultural investors

than forest investors?


2. RESTRICTIONS TO PLANTATION OR UTILIZATION

Consider the costs and risks associated to environmental regulation. If you answer “yes”, please

inform the degree of adversity you or your company perceive in the areas of finances and other

areas (time, labor, preparation of documentation, etc). Consider the following scale:

DEGREES OF ADVERSITY:


2.1 According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to

plant native species? We are referring to uniform plantations, not to isolated trees.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

152


plant exotic species? We are referring to uniform plantations, not to isolated trees.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

2.3 According to the current environmental regulation, is the development of an environmental

control plan required for exploiting forest plantations of native or exotic species?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

2.4 According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required

for the utilization of planted forests?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know


use the desired sustainable technology in natural forests?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

2.6 According to the current environmental regulation, is a special authorization or license

required for cutting down specific species in natural forests?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know


required for cutting down trees in specific areas of natural forests?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know


required for cutting down trees in specific ecosystems?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Aggravation due to discrimination against forest investment

2.9 Does the current environmental regulation have the same types of requirements both for

commercial investments in agricultural activities and for commercial investment in forest

production? The question refers to plantation activities of to the utilization of natural forests or

plantations and their equivalents, whenever they exist, of the agricultural production.

153

( ) Yes, there is no discrimination.

( ) No. How adverse are the additional costs to comply with the environmental regulation

requirements that the forest investor has to use the land for foresting purposes, as compared to the

additional costs to comply with the environmental regulation requirements that the agricultural

investor has to use the land for the aforementioned activities?

5 ( ) 4 ( ) 3 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 ( ) 0 ( )

( ) I don’t know, or I have no opinion about it

3. SUPPORT TO FOREST INDUSTRY BUSINESS

For each of the following questions, if you answer “Yes”, please inform the corresponding degree of

benefit that the forest producers gave, either financial or others (time, labor, preparation of

documentation, etc), regarding the type of the support mentioned. Consider the following scale:

DEGREES OF BENEFIT:

Very favorable:

5

Quite

favorable: 4

Favorable: 3 Not very

favorable: 2

Not favorable: 1 Does not apply: 0

3.1 According to the country’s forest policies, how favorable are the existing financial subsides

for planting or controlling natural forests? For instance, fiscal incentives or grants for forest

producers.

Please select one of the following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.2 How favorable for the development of industrial and forest business are payments for

environmental services? Consider such payments received by the owners as a compensation for

the environmental benefits they provide to society. Environmental services most commonly

identified are carbon sequestration, the landscape natural beauty, biodiversity, and hydrological

services. Please select one of the following options.

154

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.3 In your opinion, how favorable are the payments associated with expropriation of lands,

either partial or total, existing in your country? This payment is the mechanism through which the

authorities compensate land owners when their state is expropriated for different purposes, such as

the creation of environmental protection areas, legal reserves, settlements for the landless. Please

select one of the following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.4 How favorable is the availability of industry data (market surveys, price statistics, volumes,

business opportunities, and others) for incrementing the forest-industrial business productivity and

for doing business in general? Please select one of the following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.5 Considering the current industry demands, how favorable is the professional education

system (universities, training centers, etc) and/or the technical forest training system (technical

school, national training institutes, graduate programs, etc)? Please select one of the following

options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.6 How favorable are the public and private forest protection services (preventive action and

technologies for potential forest fires, pest attacks, etc) and or forest insurance services

(agreements that safeguard forest assets from potential damages)? Please select one of the

following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.7 How favorable is the support for the horizontal and vertical integration of FVL?

Consider FVL as Forest Vocation Lands, where the land’s social income is higher under use or

forest cover. Horizontal integration is the growth of a business by means of merges or partnerships

that might provide similar products and services in similar markets. Vertical integration is the

process in which one company controls every step for the production of a higher added-value good

or service – from the raw material acquisition to the final product sale. Please select one of the

following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

155

3.8 How favorable is the FVL coverage surveillance? FVL coverage surveillance refers to the

public inspection of the private sector, so that the FVL are kept for strictly forest use, in order to

prevent further uses that might cause negative externalities and restrain the advancement of illegal

activities. Please select one of the following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.9 How favorable are the consulting and legal assistance services, as well as management

consulting services provided to producers and investors of the forest industry? Please select one of

the following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.10 How favorable are the suppliers of equipment, materials and other forest inputs? Consider

factors such as availability and the cost-benefit relationship. Please select one of the following

options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.11 How favorable is the existing financial support for contracting consulting services? Consider

as “support” the direct or indirect financial subside granted to forest producers and investors for

buying consulting services. Please select one of the following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

3.12 How favorable are the public or private initiatives for commercial promotion, including

electronic commerce services, as well as lobby actions in support of forest business? Please select

one of the following options.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

4. ADVERSE ACTIONS

QUANTITATIVE MATRIX “A” FOR MEASURING THE “ADVERSE ACTIONS” INDICATOR

For each of the following questions, if you answer “Yes”, please inform the corresponding degree of

adversity, either financial or other (time, labor, preparation of documentation, etc), regarding the

regulations mentioned. Consider the following scale:

156



Theme A.1: Forest plantation with native forest species

According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to plant

native species trees? We are referring to uniform plantations, not to isolated trees.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.2: Forest plantation with exotic forest species

According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to plant

exotic species trees? We are referring to uniform plantations, not to isolated trees.

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.3: Harvesting natural forest trees

According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to harvest

natural forest trees in private properties?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.4: Harvesting trees in plantations with exotic or native species

According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to harvest

native forest trees in private properties?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.5: Natural forests control plan

According to the current environmental regulation, is a government-approved control plan required

to control or make use of natural forest trees in private properties?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.6: Forest plantation control plan

According to the current environmental regulation, is a government-approved control plan required

to control or make use of native or exotic species plantations in private properties?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

157

Theme A.7: Using a motor saw or another input required for forest production

According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to use a

motor saw or another input for forest production in any of the steps of the production process?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.8: Transportation of logs of other industrialized or non-industrialized forest

products

According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to

transport logs or other industrialized or non-industrialized forest products?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.9: Forest industry workings

According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to install or

operate a forest industry in the country?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.10: Taxes on forest lands

According to the current environmental regulation (income tax, tax on land, or other fees), is the

landowner of natural or planted vegetation coverage subjected to any charges? ( )5 ( )4 ( )3 (

)2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.11: Fees, taxes, forest quotas or other charges for cutting down forests or

consuming its products

According to the current fiscal or forest regulation, does the production of consumption of forest

products involve the payment of any fee, tax, quota or other charge (from now on referred to as

forest fee)?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

Theme A.12: Restrictions to the export of forest products

According to the current commercial or forest regulations, is the export of forest products, including

logs, subjected to governmental fees, quotes or other charges (from now on referred to as export

restrictions)?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

158

Theme A.13: Restrictions to the import of forest input

According to the current commercial or forest regulations, is the import of input for forest production

(machinery and equipment, seeds, agricultural and chemical products, specialized labor, logs, or

other forest products) subjected to governmental fees, quotes or other charges (from now on

referred to as import restrictions)?

( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know

QUANTITATIVE MATRIX “B” FOR MEASURING THE “ADVERSE ACTIONS” INDICATOR



Theme B.1: Limitation or restriction to the use of private forest land without indemnity

According to the current forest regulation, can the owner or legitimate possessor of lands with

native vegetation and/or forest vocation lands, either with or without native vegetation coverage,

have his/her rights of use limited or restricted, partially or completely, without proper compensation

for his/hers opportunity costs?

Yes (please answer question B.1.) No (go on to Theme B.2.)

B.1. In your opinion, how adverse are the losses from transaction costs (time, materials, personnel,

and equipment), opportunity costs or others resulting from the above-mentioned restrictions?


( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

Theme B.2: Limitation or restriction on the use of private forest land with indemnity lower

than the opportunity cost or insufficient

According to the current forest regulation, can the owner or legitimate possessor of lands with

native vegetation and/or forest vocation lands, either with or without native vegetation coverage,

have his/her rights of use limited or restricted, partially or completely, receiving an indemnity that is

lower or insufficient to compensate his/her opportunity costs? Yes (please answer question B.2.)

No (go on to Theme B.3.)

159


and equipment), opportunity costs or others resulting from restrictions that have not been properly

compensated?


( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

Theme B.3: Prohibition to cutting down native species trees

According to the current environmental regulation, is the owner or legitimate possessor or the land

with native vegetation coverage prohibited to cut down one or more existing native trees in his/her

own land without the proper indemnity to compensate for his/her opportunity costs? Yes (please

answer question B.3.) No (go on to Theme B.4.)


and equipment), opportunity costs or others resulting from insufficient compensation for the above-

mentioned prohibition?


( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

Theme B.4: Prohibition for planting exotic species trees

According to the current environmental regulation, is the owner or legitimate possessor of the land

prohibited to plant exotic species trees in his/her own land without the proper indemnity to

compensate for his/her opportunity costs?

Yes (please answer question B.4.) No (go on to Theme B.5.)


and equipment), opportunity costs or others resulting from insufficient compensation for the above-

mentioned prohibition?


( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

Theme B.5: Level of forest regulation uncertainty

In your opinion, is there any level of uncertainty in the establishment, modification or enforcement of

forest regulation, generating substantial risk for the success of a forest business? Yes (please


160

B.5. In your opinion, how adverse are the potential losses that might result from the uncertainty

associated to the establishment, modification of enforcement of forest regulation and that might

affect the success of a forest business?


( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

Theme B.6: Effects of agrarian laws on the forest cover

According to the agrarian regulations, do landowners have to eliminate the forest cover of his/her

estate to obtain ownership rights over the lands, or to pursue non-forest use for forest lands, in

order to demonstrate the proper land use and avoid expropriation of their land rights? Yes (please


B.6. In your opinion, how adverse are such legal requirement, i.e., how adversely do they affect the

land owner’s or possessor’s ability to keep the forest cover of his/her properties?


( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

Theme B.7: Access to public forest land

Are there productive forest lands controlled or owned by the federal government (such as national

forests) or by the local government? Yes (please answer question B.7.) No (go on to the next

theme.)

B.7. In your opinion, how adverse are the access conditions to such forest resources, in order to do

transparent and competitive business?


( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0

161

Annex III - List of questionnaire respondents by country – South America

ARGENTINA: 14 answers

# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL

1Subsecretaria de Bosques y Forestación de la Provincia de Misiones /Ministerio de Ecología, Recursos Naturales Renovables y Turismo

Ing. Juan Angel Gauto Subsecretario

[email protected]

[email protected]

2

AFoA – Asociación Forestal Argentina

Bartolomé.Mitre, 1895 2º C

C1039AAA – Buenos Aires

Claudia Peirano Directora de Desarrollo Institucional

(54 11) 4374-8838

Fax: (54 11) 4375-6154

[email protected]

[email protected]

3 IERAL NEA – Fundación MediterráneaGerardo Alonso Schwarz

Economista Jefe

[email protected] ;

[email protected]

4

APFCh - Asociación de Productores Forestales del Chaco

Güemes 345 H3700HIG Presidencia

Roque Sáenz Peña, Chaco

CPN Edmundo Ybarra

(03732) 42-2656 / 42-2657

[email protected]

5

ASORA

Asociación de Fabricantes y Representantes de Máquinas, Equipos y Herramientas para la Industria Maderera

Bernardo de Irigoyen 972, Piso 3º B

C1072AAT Buenos Aires

Lic. José R. Vásquez

Gerente General

Tel/Fax: (011) 5235-0011/ int. 19

[email protected]

6

RITIM – Red de Instituciones de Desarrollo Tecnologico de la Industria de la Madera

Bernardo de Irigoyen 972 3º B

C1072AAT Buenos Aires

Tel/Fax: (011) 5235-0011 / 14 (Buenos Aires)

Calle Bertoni, 124 km 3

(N3382GDD) Eldorado (Misiones)

Ing. M. Sc. Miguel López

Presidente

* Diputado Provincial – Misiones

* Decano de la Univ. Nac. de Misiones, Fac. Ing. Forestal

Tel/Fax: (3751) 431-526/ 431-766 (Misiones)

[email protected]

[email protected]

163

mailto:[email protected]








7

Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable – Dirección de Bosques Nativos/ Ministerio del Medio Ambiente

San Martín 459 piso 3

1004 Buenos Aires

Ing. Jorge Luis Menéndez

Director de Bosques

(54 11) 4348-8488

(54 11) 4348-8486 - fax

[email protected]

8

Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos – Dirección Nacional de Producción Agropecuária y Forestal / MEcon – Ministerio de Economia y Producción

Av. Paseo Colón, 982, 2º Piso – Oficina 226

C1063ACV Buenos Aires

José Amigo

Secretario General del Comité Organizador XIII Congreso Forestal Mundial 2009 – Buenos Aires

(5411) 4349-2111 / 2235

Fax (5411) 4349-2196

[email protected]

9

FAIMA – Federación Argentina de la Industria Maderera y Afines

Av. Belgrano, 355 – Piso 5º

C1092AAD – Buenos Aires

Ing. Victor Marecos

Miembro del Consejo FAIMA/

Coordinador General RITIM

Tel/Fax: (5411) 5235-0011/ ext.14 - RITIM

Tel/Fax: (5411) 4343-4303/ 0334/ 1499 – FAIMA

[email protected]

[email protected]

10

Coordinación General de Comisión Asesora Ley 25080

Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos / MEcon – Ministerio de Economía y Producción

Av. Paseo Colón, 982, Anexo Jardín

Piso 1º - Oficina 274

C1063ACW Buenos Aires

Ing. Gustavo Cortés

Coordinador

(5411) 4349-2192

[email protected]

11

AFCP – Asociación de Fabricantes de Celulosa y Papel

Av. Belgrano, 2852

C1209AAN – Buenos Aires

Osvaldo Vassallo

Presidente

Gerente de Logística de Celulosa Argentina S.A.

(5411) 4931-0051

Fax: (5411) 4931-0053

[email protected]

164







12

COMPYMEFOR

Apoyo a la Mejora de la Competitividad de las PyMEs del Sector Forestal Industrial en Argentina/ Cofinanciado por la Unión Europea

Proyecto Nacional - convenio entre la Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos – SAGPyA (MEcon)y la Unión Europea

Ing. Juan Laxague

Director

(5411) 4349-1391

Fax: (5411) 4349-1399

[email protected]

13

Secretaria de Industria y Comercio y PyMEs de la Nación / MEcon – Ministerio de Economía y Producción

Julio Aroca, 651, 3º Piso – Oficina 10

Lic. Gonzalo Campos

Coordinador Nacional y del Mercosur del Foro de Competitividad de la Cadena Productiva Madera y Muebles (Foresto-Industria)

(5411) 4349-3319

[email protected]

14

AFCP - Asociación de Fabricantes de Celulosa y Papel

Av. Belgrano 28521209 Buenos Aires

CICEPLA - Confederação Industrial de Celulose e de Papel Latino-Americana

Ing. Rafael Gaviola

Ex Presidente

(Miembro del CECEPLA)

(541) 14 931-0051/2/3/4Fax: 541 14 931-0053

[email protected]

165




BOLIVIA: 15 answers


1

Cámara Forestal de Bolivia

Prol. Manuel Ignacio Salvatierra, 1055

Casilla 346 – Santa Cruz

Ing. Pablo A. Antelo Gil

Presidente

(591-3) 3332699 Fax:3331456

[email protected]

2

Embajada de Suecia

Sección de Cooperación – La Paz

Pje. Villegas Esq. Campos Edif.. Anexo Artemio, piso 1

Casilla 12452 – La Paz

Emilie Göransson

Segundo Secretario

Oficial de Programas del Sector Privado

(591-2) 2434943/2435011/2432143

Fax 2434926

[email protected]

3

USAID-Bolivia

United States Agency for Internacional Development

Calle 9, nº 104, Obrajes, P.O. Box 4530

La Paz

Ricardo Roca Steverlynck

Gerente de Programas/CTO

Oficina de Médio Ambiente

(591-2) 2785548

Fax: 2786654

[email protected]

4

Vice Ministerio de Biodiversidad, Recursos Forestales y Medio Ambiente

Avenida Camacho

La Paz

Beymar Villarroel

Jefe de Unidad de Desarrollo Productivo Forestal

(519-2) 2111102

Móvil (519) 71744595

[email protected]

5Prefectura Departamento de La Paz

Adiva Eyzaguirre

Directora de Recursos Naturales

Móvil (591) 71521044

[email protected]

adiva_germi.yahoo.es

6Prefectura Departamento de La Paz

Dirección Dptal. De RRNN

Gonzalo Gordillo Fernández

Técnico Forestal

Móvil (591) 71216807

7 Consultor

Ing. Ftal. Richard Mancilla Terrazas

Consultor

Móvil: (591) 71626476

[email protected]

166






8

CADEFOR – Centro Amazónico de Desarrollo Forestal/Proyecto BOLFOR II/ USAIDEquipetrol, Calle 8 Este nº 16

P.O. Box 4081 Santa Cruz

Gerd Resnikowski K.

Director Ejecutivo

(591-3) 3423773

Fax: 3424353

[email protected]

9

The Nature Conservancy, Proyecto BOLFOR II

Edif.. Multicentro Torre B Oficina 401 – Av. Arce esq. R. Gutiérrez

La Paz

Marianella Curi

Directora

Proyecto BOLFOR II

(591-2) 2145096

Fax: 2150236

Móvil: (591) 70635970

[email protected]

10

The Nature Conservancy, Proyecto BOLFOR II

Av. 2 de Agosto esq. 4to. Anillo, Casilla 6204 – Santa Cruz

Pablo Pinell

Especialista em Inversión y Comercio

Proyecto BOLFOR II

(591-3) 3480766

Fax: 3480854

[email protected]

11

MABET – Maderera Boliviana Etiemme S.A.

Av. Juan Pablo II, 5000, Rio Seco, El Alto

Casilla 13617

La Paz

Fernando Vargas

Gerente General

(591-2) 2862374

Fax 2861628

[email protected]

12

CIMAL IMR S.A. Industria Forestal

Parque Industrial M – 10

Casilla 700

Santa Cruz

Larry Hansler Bell

Gerente General

(591-3) 3460404

Fax: 3461501

Móvil: (591) 77332130

[email protected]

13


Prol. Manuel Ignacio Salvatierra, 1055

Casilla 346 – Santa Cruz

Freddy Terrazas Sedlak

Jefe Dpto. Económico y Comercial

(591-3) 3332699 Fax:3331456

[email protected]

167







14


La Paz

Jhony Zapata

PhD- Jefe Dept. de Proyectos

Representante en La Paz

(591-2) 2441.491

[email protected]

15

CIMAL IMR S.A. Industria Forestal

Parque Industrial M – 10

Casilla 700

Santa Cruz

Alfonso Vargas

Gerente

(591-3) 3460404

Fax: 3461501

[email protected]

168



BRAZIL: 49 answers


1.

ABIMCI – Associação Brasileira das Indústrias de Madeira Compensada e Industrializada

Alameda Dr. Muricy, 474 - 2º andar.

Curitiba/ Paraná

CEP: 80010-120

Jeziel Adam de Oliveira

Superintendente Executivo

(41) 225-4358/ 5158/223-3358

Fax:: 225-5158

[email protected]

2.

ABRAF – Associação Brasileira de Produtores de Florestas Plantadas

SAS, Q1, Bloco N, lotes 1 e 2,

Ed.Terra Brasilis, sala 504

Brasília, DF CEP 70 070 010

César Augusto dos Reis

Diretor Executivo

(61) 3224-0108/0109

fax 0115

[email protected]

3.AIMEX – Associação das Indústrias Exportadoras de Madera do Estado do Pará

Justiniano de Queiroz

Netto – Diretor Executivo

(91) 3242-7161

[email protected] ; [email protected]

4.

ANPM- Associação Nacional dos Produtores de Pisos de Madeira Rua Campos Salles, 1818 - Sala 64 Bairro dos Alemães / Piracicaba/SP

CEP: 13416-310

Ariel de Andrade

Gerente Executivo

(19)-3402-2166

[email protected] ;

[email protected]

5.Aracruz Celulose S A

Zoé Antonio Donati

Gerente de Desenvolvimento Florestal

(27) 3270 2888; fax: (27) 3270 2689

[email protected]

6.

Aracruz Celulose S.A.

Unidade Guíba

R. São Geraldo, 1.800, Guaíba-RS

CEP 92500-000

Jorge E. Meyer Klein

Coordenador de Planejamento Florestal

(51) 2139-7341

Fax: 2139-7181

[email protected]

7. Banco da Amazônia S.A

Marilene de Sena Ribeiro

Gerente Executiva

(91) 4008-3152

[email protected]

169








8. Banco da Amazônia S.A

Marcelo Lúcio Silva

Analista – Gerência de Crédito de Fomento

(91) 4008-3152

[email protected]

9.BDMG – Banco de Desenvolvimento de Minas Gerais S.A

Mário José Ferreira

Gerente – Departamento Agronegócios

(31) 3219 8286


Vanor Barbosa Almeida

Gerente – Divisão Agropecuária

(31) 3219 8286

Fax 3219 8471


Luiz Felipe Valério Firme

Analista de Desenvolvimento – Divisão Agropecuária

(31) 3219 8286

Fax 3219 8471

[email protected]

12.

Bracelpa – Associação Brasileira de Celulose e Papel

Rua Afonso de Freitas, 499 - Paraíso - São Paulo – SP

Mario Higino N. M. Leonel

Diretor Executivo

(11)3885-1845

Fax (11)3885-3689

[email protected]

13.Celulose Nipo-Brasileira – CENIBRA

Cláudio R Pontes

Planejamento Florestal

(31) 3829-5043

[email protected]

14. Consultor

Sebastião Kengen

Consultor

(61) 3302-2281

(61) 9987-3109

[email protected]

15. Embrapa Florestas / Colombo-PR

Moacir José Sales Medrado

Chefe Geral

(41) 3675-5600

Fax:(41)3675-5601

[email protected]

170




16.

Embrapa Florestas / Colombo-PR

Estrada da Ribeira, km 111 - Caixa Postal 319 - Colombo, PR.

CEP:83411-000

Sérgio Ahrens

Engº Florestal-Pesquisador

Deptº Manejo Florestal e Legislação

(41) 3675-5600

Fax: (41) 3675-5601

[email protected]

17. Eucatex

Edward Fagundes Branco

Diretor Florestal e de Agroindústria

(11) 4028-9194 ou

(19) 3888-4400

[email protected]

18.

Fundação Florestal do Estado de São Paulo

Rua do Horto, 931 - São Paulo – S.P

CEP 02377-000

José Amaral Wagner Neto

Diretor Executivo

(11) 6231-6321

Fax: (11) 6997-5011

[email protected]

19. IBAMA

Antonio Carlos Hummel

Diretor de Florestas

Sérgio Luiz do Bomfim – Assessor


20. IBAMA

José Humberto Chaves

Coord. Geral de Gestão dos Recursos Florestais – CGREF/Diretoria de Florestas – DIREF

(061)3316-1474 Fax: (61)3316-1712

[email protected]

21. IBAMA

Adalberto Costa Meira Filho

Analista Ambiental

Diretoria de Florestas

[email protected]

22.IMAZON – Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia

Paulo Barreto

Pesquisador Sênior

(91) 3182-4000

R/ 4004

Fax: (91) 3182-4027

[email protected] ;

[email protected]

171








23. International Paper do Brasil Ltda.

Armando J.S. Santiago

Vice-Presidente Florestal

(19) 3861-8817

Fax: //-8194

[email protected]

24.

IPEF

Av Pádua Dias, 11 - Esalq/USP. Caixa Postal: 530 - Piracicaba - SP - CEP13400-970

Luiz Ernesto George Barrichelo

Diretor Executivo

(19)3436-8600

Fax:(19)3430-8666

[email protected]

25. Klabin S.A.

Evaristo Manuel Lopes

Gerente de Incentivos Florestais

(11) 3046-8405

[email protected]

26.Ministério do Meio Ambiente – Serviço Florestal Brasileiro (SFB)

Tasso Rezende de Azevedo

Diretor Geral

(61) 4009-1095/1010

[email protected]

27.

Nobrecel S.A Celulose e PapelFazenda Coruputuba Caixa Postal 1Pindamonhangaba, SP

CEP 12400-970

Ivo de Couto

Coordenador Florestal Sênior

(12)3644-7032

(12)3644-7000 Fax: 3643-1337

[email protected]; [email protected]

28. Professor/Consultor

Carlos Adolfo Bantel

Ex-Presidente da Sociedade Brasileira de Engenheiros Florestais,

(11) 5524-2693

[email protected]

29.

Quimvale Florestal

Av Cândido Portinari, 684 sl 4São Paulo - SP - CEP: 05114-000

Francisco Muniz

(11) [email protected]

30. Rigesa

Etsuro Murakami

Diretor Florestal

(47) 3621-5251

[email protected];

[email protected]

31. Satipel Florestal S.A.Edmundo Bernardo Silva Smith – Gerente

[email protected]

172











Unidade de Negócio Florestal

32.SINDUSMAD – Sindicato das Indústrias Madeireira do Norte do Estado de Mato Grosso

Jaldes Langer

Presidente

[email protected] ;

[email protected]

33. Sociedade Brasileira de Engenheiros Florestais Glauber [email protected]; [email protected]

34. Sociedade Brasileira de Silvicultura

Amantino Ramos de Freitas - Presidente

(11) 3719-1771

[email protected]

35. Sociedade Brasileira de Silvicultura

Rubens Cristiano Damas Garlipp – Superintendente

(11) 3719-1771

[email protected]

36.

STCP Engenharia de Projetos Ltda.

Rua Euzébio da Motta, 450, Juvevê – CEP: 80.530-260 Curitiba, Paraná

Rodrigo Rodriguez

Coordenador de Projetos

(41) 3252-5861

Fax: (41) 3252-5871


37.

STCP Engenharia de Projetos Ltda.

Rua Euzébio da Motta, 450, Juvevê – CEP: 80.530-260 Curitiba, Paraná

Marcelo Wiecheteck

Gerente de Unidade de Negócios

(41) 3252-5861

Fax: (41) 3252-5871

[email protected]

38.

Stora Enso Arapoti

Rodovia DR 01, km 7,

Fazenda Barra Mansa, Arapoti, PR

CEP 84990-000

Ricardo Ribeiro

Gerente Florestal

(49) 3512-2210/2100

Fax: 3512-2415

[email protected]

39.

Suzano - Companhia Suzano Bahia Sul Papel e Celulose S. A. Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 1355 - 8º andar 01452-919 São Paulo, SP

Luiz Cornacchioni

Diretor de Meio Ambiente e Florestas Plantadas

(11)3503-9235

Cel:(11)9425-4988

[email protected]

40.Universidade Federal de Viçosa

Departamento de Engenharia Florestal- DEF/UFV

Laércio A. G. Jacovine

Professor [email protected]

41.Universidade Federal de Viçosa

Departamento de Engenharia Florestal

Sebastião Renato Valverde

Professor

[email protected]

42. Universidade Federal de Viçosa Márcio Lopes da Silva

[email protected]

43. Universidade Federal do Acre -UFAC

Departamento de Ciências Agrárias

Tarcísio José Gualberto Fernández

[email protected]

173












Sub-Coordenador do Curso de Engenharia Florestal

(68)3901-2521

(68)9226-4390

44. Universidade Federal do Acre - UFAC

Ecio Rodrigues

Professor

(68) 3244-1534

[email protected]

45.

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro – UFRRJ /Departamento de Silvicultura

Tokitika Morokowa

Professor

(21) 2682-1128

[email protected]

46.

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro - Instituto de Florestas - Deptº de SilviculturaRod. BR 465, km 07, Seropédica, RJCEP 23890-000

Sílvio Nolasco de Oliveira Neto

(21) 2682-1128

Ramal 221

[email protected]

47.

Votorantin Celulose e Papel S.A

Unidade Florestal Jacareí

Gerência Geral de Planejamento, Pesquisa e Desenv. Florestal

Rod. Gal. Euryale de Jesus Zerbine, Km 84 SP 66

CEP 12340-010 Jacareí, SP

Cláudio Roberto Silva

Coordenador de P&D Florestal

(12) 3954-1697

Fax:(12) 3954-1721

Cel: (12)9724-9458

[email protected]

48.

Votorantin Celulose e Papel S.A

Unidade Florestal

Gerência Geral de Planejamento, Pesquisa e Desenv. Florestal

Rod. Gal. Euryale de Jesus Zerbine, Km 84 SP 66 Jacareí, SPCEP 12340-010

Juliano Ferreira Dias

Meio Ambiente

(12) 3954 1597

[email protected]

174





CHILE: 13 answers


1

INFOR – Instituto de Investigación Forestal

Unidad de Planificación y Control de Gestión

Camino a Coronel km 7,5 Casilla 109 CConcepción

Marta Abalos Romero

Directora Ejecutiva

Tel: (56-2)693-0720

[email protected]

2

CONAF - Corporación Nacional Forestal

Barros Arana 215.

Concepción

Alberto Bordeu S.

Encargado Medio Ambiente CONAF -Región del Bío - Bío Unidad de Estudios y Medio Ambiente

Tel: (56-41) 624014Fax: (56-41) 624054

[email protected]

3

Colegio de Ingenieros Forestales A.G. – CIFAG

San Isidro 22 Of. 503 - Santiago

Julio Torres CuadrosSecretario Ejecutivo

Tel.: (56-2) 639 3289

Fax: (56-2) 638 5280

[email protected]

4

Agrupación de Ingenieros Forestales por el Bosque Nativo – AIFBN /

Casilla: 1305 Valdivia, X Región.Universidad Austral de Chile - Instituto de Silvicultura.

Claudio Donoso Zegers

Presidente Honorario Académico del Instituto de Silvicultura, Universidad Austral de Chile.

Tel:(56-63) 530135

[email protected]

5

Universidad de Chile – Facultad de Ciencias Forestales

Santa Rosa, 11315

Casilla 9206 – La Pintana

Santiago

Javier Gonzalez Molina

Decano

(56-2) 978-5880

Fax: 541-7971

[email protected]

[email protected]

6

Universidad de Chile – Facultad de Ciencias Forestales

Santa Rosa, 11315


Manuel Rodríguez R.

Director Económico y Administrativo

(56-2) 978-5883

Fax: 541-4952

[email protected]

175








7

Universidad de Chile – Facultad de Ciencias Forestales /Departamento Manejo de Recursos Forestales

Santa Rosa, 11315


Guillermo Guerra Marín

Director Dep. Manejo de Rec. Forestales

(56-2) 678-5743

Fax: 541-9437

[email protected]

8

Corporación Chilena de la Madera – CORMA

Agustinas, 1.357, Piso 3°. Santiago-Centro

María Teresa Arana S.

Gerente de Estudios

Tel/Fax: (56-2) 688-7978

[email protected]

9

CONAF-Gobierno de Chile

Paseo Bulnes, 259, Of. 404

Santiago Centro

José A. Cabello Medina

Ingeniero Forestal

(56-2) 390-0382

Fax: 696-3544

[email protected]

10

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación – FAO

Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe

Dag Hammarshjöld 3241, Vitacura

Casilla 10.095

Santiago

Carlos Marx R. Carneiro

Oficial Principal Forestal

(56-2) 337-2214

Fax: 337-2101

[email protected]

11

Fundación Chile

Av. Parque Antonio Rabat Sur, 6.165

Vitacura

Santiago

Aldo Cerda

Gerente Bosques e Industrias Forestales

(56-2) 250-0553

Fax: 241-9385

[email protected]

12

CMPC – Cia. Manufacturera de Papeles y Cartones

Agustinas, 1.343, 4º piso

Santiago – Centro

Fernando Raga Castellanos

Vice-Presidente

y Gerente de Desarrollo Forestal

(56-2) 441-2802

[email protected]

13

Forestal de Sur S.A.

Apoquindo 3.200, 9º piso – El Golf

Santiago

José Rafael Campino

Presidente

(56-2) 233-1283

Fax: 246-6300

[email protected]

176








COLOMBIA: 22 answers


1.

DNP – Departamento Nacional de Planeación

Dirección de Desarrollo Agrario

Calle 26, nº 13-19 P7 Santafe de Bogotá

Gabriel Alfonso Beltrán Muñoz - Asesor

(571)596.0300, Ext.2113

Fax: 281.6737

Móvil: 300-562-7429

[email protected]

2.DNP – Departamento Nacional de Planeación

Calle 26, nº 13-19 P7 Santafe de BogotáMartha Arévalo


Calle 26, nº 13-19 P7 Santafe de BogotáClara Martin


Calle 26, nº 13-19 P7 Santafe de Bogotá

Martha Méndez

Directora de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible

596-0300

[email protected]

5.

CONIF – Corporación Nacional de Inversión y Fomento Forestal

Av. Circunvalar, nº 16-20 (detrás del Instituto Roosevelt)

Bogotá

Camilo Aldana Vargas

Presidente

(571) 341.7000

Fax: 337.6970

[email protected]

6.

Procuenca

INFI-MANIZALES (convenio con la FAO)

Km 3, Via El Magdalena

Manizales

Francisco Ignacio Ocampo – Director Nacional

[email protected]

7.Universidad Districtal Francisco Jose de Caldas

Facultad del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Jair Preciado Beltrán

Professor

(571) 442.1541

337.6895

Móvil:(57)312.5497.848

[email protected]

8.

Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas

Facultad del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Av. Circunvalar Venado de Oro

Bogotá

Robert Orlando Leal Pulido

Ing. Forestal

(571) 337.6670

337.6849

[email protected]

9. Ministerio del Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial Raimundo Tamoyo Medina

177







Calle 37, #8-40, Bogotá Especialista

10.

Ministerio del Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial – Dirección de Ecosistemas

Calle 37, #8-40, Bogotá

Leonardo Muñoz

Director

11.

Ministerio del Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial – Dirección de Ecosistemas

Calle 37, #8-40, Bogotá

Rubén Dario Guerrero

Asesor

(571)3323-434 Ext. 337

rdguerrero@[email protected]

12.Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural

Av. Jiménez 7-65, Bogotá

Nelson Lozano

Coordinador de la Cadena Forestal

(571)284-5529

[email protected]

13.

Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo

Calle 28, nº 13ª-15 Piso 4

Bogotá

Camilo Salazar Luque

Director de Produtividad y Competitividad

(5711)606.7676 Ext.1222

Fax: 606.7516

[email protected]

14. Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y TurismoEdith Urrego

[email protected]

15. Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo

Yelitza Cádenas Rojas

Asesora del Ministerio y Coordinadora de Cadenas Productivas

16.

USAID-Colombia

United States Agency for Internacional Development

Programa MIDAS-Más Inversión para el Desarrollo Alternativo Sostenible

Apartado Postal nº 1-360721Bogotá

Luis Betancur

Gerente Comercial Forestal

(571) 313.3505

Fax: 313.3317

[email protected]

17.

FEDEMADERAS – Federación Nacional de Industrias de la Madera

Calle 39, nº 21-25, Oficina 301

Bogotá

Alejandra Ospitia Murcia – Coordinadora de Gestión

(571) 287.6015

288.1412

Fax: 288.1412

Móvil:(57)310 2468360

[email protected]

18.Programa MIDAS/USAID (Más Inversión para el Desarrollo Alternativo Sostenible)

Octavio Lopes

[email protected]

19.FEDEMADERAS – Federación Nacional de las Industrias de la Madera

Alfonso Davila Hijo

[email protected]

178








mailto:rdguerrero@[email protected]

20.Programa MIDAS/USAID (Más Inversión para el Desarrollo Alternativo Sostenible)

Cristina Porras

[email protected]

21.

Reforestación Andina

FEDEMADERAS – Federación Nacional de las Industrias de la Madera

Jorge Berrio

Empresario

Director Técnico

[email protected]

22.

Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo

BID - Representación en Colombia

Carrera. 7ª.,nº 71-21 Torre B, Piso 19

Bogotá

Fernando Balcazar Vanegas

Especialista Sectorial

(571) 325.7000

Fax: 325.7050

[email protected]

179




ECUADOR: 06 answers


1CAMARO

Guaranda 1911 y Camilo Destruge

Rodolfo Arambulo

2444751 2447665

2445831

[email protected]

2

Aglomerados Cotopaxi

Av. Granados E12-70 e Isla Marchena

Quito

Bernardo Perez

(593-2)396-3000

Fax: 396-3093

[email protected]

3

Consultor

Calle Filamil Vélez/frente iglesia católica/Pichincha, Manabì

Luis Suarez Loor

092325-772

05-2323396

[email protected]

4CORPEI

Rafael Altamirano [email protected]

5

EUCAPACIFIC

Av. Amazonas y NNUU, Edf Bco. La Previsora, Torre B 5to.P of 514 /Quito

Guillermo Rodríguez

02-2462094 2462095

02-2274329

[email protected]

6

ECUAPINE

Pasaje 1 de mayo, #15 y Av 1 de mayo

Gina Ambrosi

07-2811878

072-883779

[email protected]

180






PARAGUAY: 13 answers


1.

Ministério de Industria y Comercio

Dirección General de Política Industrial -Subsecretaría de Estado de Industria

Av. Mcal. López 3333 c/ Dr. Wiss,

Villa Morra, C.P. 2151 Asunción,

Sonia González Saldivar

Directora General

(595-21) 616-3073

[email protected]

2.

FEPAMA

Federación Paraguaya de Madereros –Ayolas 177, esq Benjamim Constant

Edificio Mercurio, 4º piso - Asunción

Manuel Rodas Insfran

(595-21) 294 078 / 283 320

[email protected] ;

[email protected]

3.

RALE S.A.

Ruta 3, km 24 - Limpio

Raul Legal

CEO

(595-21) 780- 661Fax: 780-662

[email protected]

4.

Pro Agro S.R.L.

Iturbe, 1156 c/ R. de Francia

Asunción

Guillermo Rolón del Puerto

Socio-gerente

(595-21)492-373

Fax: 441-781

[email protected]

5.

Secretaria del Ambiente – SEAM

Dirección General de Control de la Calidad Ambiental y de los RRNN

Madame Lynch, 3500 c/

Primer Presidente, Asunción

Adolfo Gustavo Rodríguez

Director General

(595-21) 615-813/803/ 804

[email protected]

6.Copetrol /

Cámara Paraguaya de Reforestadotes

Blas Zapag

Director/

EmpresarioReforestador

Tel/fax (595-21) 442-322 / 441-711

[email protected]

7. Servicio Forestal Nacional – SFN/MAG

Mariscal Estigarriba, km 10

Asunción

Jose Maria Marengo Director

(595-21) 575-562 / 524382

[email protected]

181



8.

Servicio Forestal Nacional – SFN/MAG

Mariscal Estigarriba, km 10

Asunción

Damiana Mann

Jefe del Departamento de Educación y Extensión Forestal

(595-21) 575-562 / 524382

[email protected]

9.

Colegio de Graduados en Ciencias Forestales/

Paraguay Silvestre

Madame Lynch, 3500 Asunción

Arnulfo Fretes

Presidente/

Gerente Operativo

Tel/fax: (595-21) 614-666/667

[email protected]

10.


Paraguay Silvestre


Jose Ayala

Esperto/Asociado

Tel/fax: (595-21) 614-666/667

11.


Paraguay Silvestre


Andrés Alvarenga

Esperto/Asociado

Tel/fax: (595-21) 614-666/667

12.

Universidad Nacional de Asunción

Facultad de Agronomia

Campus Universitário San Lorenzo,km 11 – Asunción

Jorge Pinaso

Director de la Carrera de Ingeniería Ambiental

(0981) 383628/ 585-607

[email protected]

13.

Banco Nacional de Fomento

Dirección de Negocios

Banca PyMEs

Ind. Nacional c/ 25 de Mayo, 1 er. Piso

Asunción

Luis Fernando Tomassone

Jefe División

419-1509

Fax: 419-1496

[email protected]

182




PERU: 16 answers


1

Cámara Forestal Nacional

Wilfredo Salvino Ojeda Ojeda - Presidente

(51-1) 423-6726

[email protected];

[email protected];

[email protected] SNV – Netherlands Development Organization

(Servicio Holandés de Cooperación al Desarrollo)

Jr. Lambayeque 1042, 2do. Piso

Puerto Maldonado

Flor de María Robles Barreto

Asesora en Desarrollo Económico

(51-8) 257-4223

[email protected]

3 Consultor

Dirección:Urb. Los Cipreses Mz. T 10 Huacho

Manuel Antonio Pesantes Rebaza Ingº Forestal – Consultor

Tel. 232-4784

[email protected]

4ATFFS INRENA Lima

Rafael Ramírez Arroyo [email protected]

5

Sociedad Nacional de Industrias

Alfredo Biasevich Presidente del Comité de la Madera

[email protected]

6 Foripsac Alan Schipper Guerovich Gerente [email protected]

7

Consultor

Walter Nalvarte

Ex- Director Forestal del Instituto Nacional de Investigación

[email protected]

8

Tecnología Forestal SAC

Humbreto Esteban Bartolini Martinez 92110704 / 2265557Director - Gerente

[email protected]

9

Bosques, Sociedad y Desarrollo

Calle Ramón Dagnino Nº 369, Jesús María, Lima

José Dancé

Presidente

(Coordinador Mesa Nacional de Diálogo y Concertación Forestal)

(51-1) 424-1082

[email protected]

10 Comité de Gestión de Bosques de la Región Madre de Dios

Arnaldo García

Presidente [email protected];

11 Consultor Javier Arce Baca [email protected]

12CORPAC

Av. del Parque Norte Nº 480, Oficina 402, San Isidro, Lima

Hugo Che Piu Deza Director EjecutivoDerecho Ambiente y Recursos NaturalesTelefax: 511-225-5008Celular: 511-98894606

[email protected]

13Consultora

Micha Torres

Asesora Forestal y Ambiental

[email protected] ;

[email protected]

183





mailto:[email protected];%20











14OSINFOR

Emilio Alvarez Romero

[email protected]

15 Facultad de Ciencias Forestales /Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina

Hector Enrique Gonzalez Mora - Decano

Telefax (51-1) 349-5669/ 349-5647 anexos 203

Celular: 9635-9839


16 Confederación Peruana de la Madera Erik Fischer LLanos [email protected]

184





URUGUAY: 14 answers


1

Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente

Zabala, 1432, 4º piso - Montevideo

Oscar Caputi

Asesor

(598-2) 917-0710, int.1409

[email protected]

2

Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente

Zabala, 1432, 4º piso - Montevideo

Jaime Igorra

Sub-Secretario

(598-2) 916-3988

Fax: 916-4988

[email protected]

3

Cofusa

Rala. Baltasar Brum, 2819 CP 11800 Montevideo

Andrés Gomes

(598-2) 200-5759

Fax: 209-6590

[email protected]

4

Exdocente/Esperto

Daniel Sán Román

Agronomo

Exdocente de la Universidad de la Republica

(598-2) 915-1900

[email protected]

5

Consultor

Ituzaingó 1377 Piso 1 Montevideo

Carlos Faroppa

(598) 99 656065

915-80-22

[email protected]

6Universidad de la Republica - Facultad de Agronomia

Departamento de Producción Forestal y Tecnología de la Madera

Avda. Garzón 780

Rafael Escudero

Profesor – Silvicultura

(598-2)354-9563


7

Eufores

Paraguay, 1470, piso 6º

CP 11100 Montevideo

María Noel Fadel

Responsable Sistemas Integrados de Gestión

(598-2) 901-8431

Fax: 901-8436

[email protected]

185









8 Laboratorio de Semillas y Servicios Forestales

Juan P. Laguna, 3320 esq. Osorio

CP 11300 Montevideo

Graciela Romero

Directora

(598-2) 622-9779

[email protected]

9

Foresur G.I.E

Zabala, 1276 CP 11000 Montevideo

Gerardo Barrios-Director

(598-2) 916-3638 / 3640

[email protected]

10

Forestal Oriental

Cebollati, 1474

11200 Montevideo

Javier Solari

Gerente de Comercialización y Fomento

(598-2)410-3790

Fax: 410-3789

[email protected]

11

Colonvade-Weyerhaeuser

Continuación Echevarriarza 3535 Torre A. Oficina 1802.

Pablo Armand Ugón -

Gerente de Operaciones Forestales

(598-2) 623 44 1270.

[email protected]

12 Sociedad de Productores Forestales del Uruguay

Av. 18 de Julio, 1474, of. 701

11200 Montevideo

An13dréa Regusci

Gerente Técnica

(598-2) 401-1441

[email protected]

13

Grupo Forestal

Rincón, 477, Of. 801 - CP11000, Montevideo

Alberto Rodríguez

Gerente General

(598-2)916-1475

Fax: 916-1436

[email protected]

14Uruguay Forestal

Rosario Pou Ferrari

[email protected]

186








VENEZUELA: 17 answers


1 CONARE – Compañia Nacional de Reforestación

Tania Zambrano

Gerente de Planificación

+58 (212) 782.7423

[email protected]

2 CONARE – Compañia Nacional de ReforestaciónMiguel Aguilera [email protected]

3

INPARQUES – Instituto Nacional de Parques

Av. Rómulo Gallegos, entre 1ra. Y 2da. Transversal de Santa Eduvigis

Al lado de Estación del Parque del Este – Sector Santa Eduvigis - Caracas

Ing. Adomia Rodríguez

D.G.S. Parques Nacionales

(58-212) 273.2862/2863

Fax: 273.2862

[email protected]

4

MASISA

FICA, ANCA, TERRANOVA

Av. Fco. De Miranda, Edif.. Parque Cristal,

Torre Oeste, Piso 10, Ofic.. 10-4

Zona Postal 1060 – Los Palos Grandes

Caracas

Miguel Oneto

Gerente General

(58-212) 285.5575

Fax: 285.4217

[email protected]

5

MASISA

FICA, ANCA, TERRANOVA

Av. Fco. De Miranda, Edif.. Parque Cristal,

Torre Oeste, Piso 10, Ofic.. 10-4

Zona Postal 1060 – Los Palos Grandes

Caracas

Fernando Zamorano

Gerente Forestal

(58-212) 285.5575

Fax: 285.4217

[email protected]

6

Conservación Internacional-Venezuela

Av. San Juan Bosco, Edif.. San Juan, piso 8, Ofic..8-A, Altamira. Caracas

Franklin Rojas Suárez

Director Ejecutivo

(58-212) 266.9123/7834

264.5186/7937, Ext.102

[email protected]

187







7

INFORECO C.A. Consultores

Ingeniería Forestal, Economía y Ambiente

Centro Comercial Plaza Páez, Planta Oficinas (P.O.) Ofic.#8,

Calle Madariaga, El Paraíso, Caracas

Ing. For. Y Eco. Omar Carrerro N.

Presidente

(58-212)481.6960

Fax: 484.0494

Cel. (58-416)630-9373

[email protected]

8

El Manteco C.A. Aserradero

Av. Mirador con Calle El Empalme – Edif.. Torre 18 – Piso 14 – Ofic.. 14D y 14E

Urb. La Campiña – Caracas - 1050

Ing. Msc. Yuraia Mago

Director General Plan de Ordenación y Manejo Forestal

(58-212) 730.2390/1979

731.1132/1910/1375

Fax: 731.1774

Cel. 0414-2505901

[email protected]

[email protected]

9

CONARE – Compañía Nacional de Reforestación

Av. Andrés Bello, Centro Andrés Bello, Torre Oeste, Piso 07, Ofic.. 73-O

Caracas

Ing. For. Yadira OsunaG.

Jefe de la Unidad de Planificación Estratégica y Estudios Básicos

(58-212) 782.7423

Fax: 782.3523

Cel. 0416-822-87-24

[email protected]

10IFLA – Instituto Forestal Latinoamericano

Ernesto Arends/ Director. María Elizabet Suescum Asistente

(58-274) 244.8906

[email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]

11 Smurfit Cartón de Venezuela S.A. Rafael Arrieche e Bilma Torres

Tel. 0255 6145062/5050

Oficina de Vicepresidencia

División Forestal de Bosques

[email protected]

[email protected]

188










12

Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario Pesquero Forestal y Fines (FONDAFA)

Elvis García

Planificador III

+58 (212) 542.3605/3718

Telefax: +58 (212) 541.2479

13


Yesenia Menendez

+58 (212) 542.3605/3718

Telefax: +58 (212) 541.2479

14


Raul Hidalgo

+58 (212) 542.3605/3718

Telefax: +58 (212) 541.2479

15


Yemilis Montesina

Planificación Estrategica

+58 (212) 542.3605/3718

Telefax: +58 (212) 541.2479

16 Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario Pesquero Forestal y Fines (FONDAFA)

Luiz Baptista Rodríguez

Gerente de Planificación

189

Estrategica

+58 (212) 542.3605/3718

Telefax: +58 (212) 541.2479

17

Asociación Venezolana de Industriales de Bosques Manejados - ASOINBOSQUES

Ing. Diomira Barrios - Directora Ejecutiva

+58 (212) 730.4145

[email protected]

190


Annex IV - List of questionnaire respondents by country – North and Central America and Caribean

BELICE: 5 answers

Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL

1

Toledo Institute for Development & Environment (TIDE)

P.O. Box 150, Punta Gorda, Belize, C.A.

George C.A. Emmanuel

Communications Coordinator

T.(501)722-2274 /2431 F.(501)722-2655 C.(501)622-0736 /609-0320

[email protected]

2

Ya’ axche Conservation Trust

Jose Maria-Nunez Street P.O. Box 177, Punta Gorda Toledo District, Belize, C.A.

Nick Wicks

Scientific Coordinator

Tel.Fax(501)722-0108

[email protected]

3

Earl Green

(Ex director forestal Belice)

T.(501)822-2614C.(501)600-3054

[email protected]

4

The Nature ConservancyBelize Country Program 1899

Constitution Drive Belmopan City, Belize C.A.

Natalie Rosado

Conservation Program Manager

T.(501)822-0274 / 0250C.(501)610-0086F.(501)822-0277

[email protected]

5

Osmany Salas

Director de las estrategias de BELNaRM

192





COSTA RICA: 13 answers


1 Oficina Nacional ForestalAlfonso Barrantes

Secretario Ejecutivo

2 Corporación de Desarrollo Forestal, CODEFORCarlos Herrera

Sub Director

3

Max Koberg

Industrial Forestal y Productor de Madera

4Jorge Rodríguez

Consultor Internacional

5Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, FONAFIFO

Ing. Jorge Mario Rodríguez

Director Ejecutivo

6 Oficina Nacional Forestal, ONFIng. Alfonso Barrantes


7Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, FONAFIFO

Ing. Héctor Arce

Director de Crédito

8 Cámara Costrarricense ForestalLic. Sebastián Ugalde


9 Junta Nacional Forestal Campesina, JUNAFORCAIng. Felipe Vega

Director

10Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación, SINAC

Ing. Sonia Lobo

11 Sistema Nacional de Areas de ConservaciónIng. Germán Rodríguez

Director de Operaciones

12 INCAE Dr. Bernard Kilian

13 Estrategia Forestal Centroamericana Ing. Jorge Rodríguez

193

EL SALVADOR: 20 answers


1Cardocoffee S.A. de C.V.

Alfredo Cardoza

Presidente

T.2243-0570F.2243-0568

[email protected]

2 Funde

Andrew Cummings

Coordinador Puembo II

2209-5318

[email protected]

3 Afosalva

Carlos Bondanza

Presidente

T.2228-0805F.2228-1051

[email protected]

4 ENFF / EFSA

Carlos Isaac Pérez

Coordinador ENFF

2211-4718

[email protected]

5 MAG / DGF

Edgar Cruz

Coordinador Nacl. EFSA

7884-9456

[email protected]

6 Afosalva

Ernesto Obed

Directivo

2276-3901

[email protected]

7 Centa

Guillermo Hurtado

Dirección de Proyectos

T.2302-0200F.2302-0241

[email protected]

8 MARN

Hugo Zambrana

Gerente Bosques Conservación

2267-9307

[email protected]

9 Procafé

Jersto Gil

Mercadeo y Proyectos

2288-3088

[email protected]

10 FUNDE

Jorge Criollo

Mecanismos Financieros

2209-5318

[email protected]

11FIAES

Jorge Enrique Trejo

Director

[email protected]

12 FIAGRO Juan Carlos Hidalgo [email protected]

194













Director2267-0050

13 UES

Juan Rosa Quintanilla

Facultad de Agronomía

2225-1500

[email protected]

14 Reforestador

Julio Olano

Consultor ENFF

7888-3088

[email protected]

15 Agrisal

Miguel Araujo

Asesor en Medio Ambiente

T.2500-9000F.2500-9001

[email protected]

16 Procafé

Oscar Ramos

Mercadeo y Proyectos

2288-3088

[email protected]

17 Camagro

Raúl García

Coordinador Planificación EFSA

18 Afosalva

Salvador Sánchez

Directivo

T.2284-1801F.2264-5507

[email protected]

19 BMI

Samuel Salazar

Subgerente de Proyectos

T.2267-0000F.2267-0001

[email protected]

20 Prods. Forestales S.A.

William Figueroa

Director

T.2242-0132F.2242-0132

195




mailto:miguel.araujo@agrisal



GUATEMALA: 22 answers


1Baren Comercial

Santa Elena Petén, contiguo al Hotel Casa Elena

Carlos Díaz Rivera

Asesor Forestal

7926-1451y 2428

[email protected]

2AGROKAN

4ta calle, 21 – 21 zona 14. Guatemala

Andrea Polanco

Gerente

2385-50642385-49955412-4099

[email protected]

3

Aserradero García

1ra. Calle 1 – 70, Zona 2, San Mateo, Quetzaltenango

Fernando García

Propietario y Gerente

7763-88835409-2713

4FORESCOM

4ta Av. Y 11 calle, San Benito, Petén, Petén

Jorge Sosa

Presidente

796-0135

[email protected]

5FORESCOM


Reyes de León

Gerente General

55877750

[email protected]

6

ACOFOP


Apolinario Córdova

Subdirector

7926-3571 / 72

[email protected]

7Cooperativa Carmelita, San Andrés Petén

Colonia Itza, San Benito Petén

Juan Francisco Trujillo Méndez

Socio

57691165Oficina79248245 y 35

[email protected]

8

ASILSUR

13 Av. 17 – 73 zona 11 Vía del Mariscal, Guatemala

Federico Alvarado

Presidente

2473-08522472772253128464

[email protected]

9FEDECOVERA

6 calle 5 – 05 zona 11, Coban, Alta Verapaz

Hugo Moran

Director, Depto. Forestal

7952-10355502-7872

[email protected]

10Carrocerías Xela

7ma Av. 12 – 24 zona 7, Quetzaltenando

Andrés Macario

Propietario y Gerente

11SEF

7ma Av. 6.80 zona 13, Ciudad Guatemala

Roberto del Cid

Gerente

24402819

[email protected]

196










12Universidad del Valle de Guatemala

18 Av. 11 – 95, Vista Hermosa III

Cesar Castañeda

Director Depto. Forestal

PBX: 2364-0336/4053086859

[email protected]

13 Km 31.5, carretera a La Antigua Guatemala

Ing. Roberto Alvarez

Consultor en Industria Forestal

59776692

[email protected]

148va calle 31 – 66 zona 1, Residenciales el Paraíso, Quetzaltenango

Giuseppe Dal Bosco

Consultor

7765-2648776526575787-6733

[email protected]@latinmail.com

158va calle 31 – 66 zona 1, Residenciales el Paraíso, Quetzaltenango

Axel M. Gómez Chavarry

Consultor

7765-2648776526575787-6733

[email protected]@latinmail.com

16

CONAP

5 Av. 6 – 06 zona 1, edificio IPM 5to nivel, Ciudad Guatemala

Ing. Lis Regina Lima Cordón

Técnica Forestal Depto. de Manejo Forestal

24226700

[email protected]

17INAB

7ma Av. 6.80 zona 13

Edwin Oliva

Coordinador del Programa Forestal Nacional

2440281924719699

[email protected]

18Cluster Forestal

Ruta 6, 9 – 21 zona 4, Ciudad Guatemala

María Eugenia Rey Rosa

Gerente

2360-19985702-8528

[email protected]

19Programa Reverdecer Guatemala

7ma Av. 6.80 zona 13, Ciudad Guatemala

Ing. Blanca Aragón

Coordinadora

2440281924719699

[email protected]

20PRODAM – FUNDAP

8va calle 25 “A” – 43 zona 3, Quetzaltenango

Efraín Monterroso

Gerente del Programa de Desarrollo Ambiental

7763-61635703-2857

[email protected]@fundap-com.gt

21Rainforest Alliance

8 Av. 15 – 62 zona 10, Guatemala

Luis Alejandro Mejía

Encargado de Negocios y Asesor de Proyectos Financieros

2383-5757

[email protected]

197














22

ASOREMA

2 Av. 1 – 66 zona 16, Concepción Las Lomas, Guatemala

Roberto Cáceres

Miembro de la Junta Directiva

5208-73012364-04192364-1921

[email protected]

198


HAITI: 14 answers


1

Marck L. Timitheé

626-6927719-1418

2

Josepht Alex

431-4597729-7602

3 Gilme Almonor [email protected]

4 Dextra Enmanuel Benoit [email protected]

5Mens Lunel [email protected]

[email protected]

6 Etienne Caristil Joseph [email protected]

7 Badette Huguette [email protected]

8 Venite Vilmont [email protected]

9 Saintilmont Cathy [email protected]

10 Wideline Serrand [email protected]

11Rose Laure Paien Aime

[email protected]

12Claurin Sylveste

975-5262

[email protected]@gmail.com

13

Anje Sonna Bastién

431-6576431-4165

[email protected]

14Badette Ludger Thérameñe

[email protected]

199














HONDURAS: 6 answers


1 Agenda Forestal HondureñaJuan Blas Zapata

Director Ejecutivo

2Oscar Flores

Consultor

3Escuela Nacional de Ingeniería Forestal, ESNACIFOR

Ing. César Alvarado

Director

4 COHDEFORRaúl Contreras

Director de Planificación

5 Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería Sotero Medina

6 PROLEÑA Carlos Sandoval

200

MEXICO: 14 answers


1Forestal La Bufa

Durango

Javier Emilio Sáenz Aragón

Ex funcionario Forestal del Gobierno de Eduardo de Durango, Administrador y productor industrial

2

Centro de Producción Industrial de Aserrados y Tarimas

El Salto, Durango

Tiburcio Quiñones Salas

Propietario

3 Durango, Durango

Miguel Angel Osio Martínez

Consultor para Proyectos Técnicos y de Inversión

4

MADENSA Centro de producción de tarimas, empaques y maderas aserradas

El Salto, Durango

Carlos Labrador Muñoz

Propietario y Administrador

5Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Lucas Solís Cázares

Jefe de Departamento

T. 56280600

[email protected]

6Productores de primer y segundo nivel

7 CONAFOR

Juvenal Rodríguez Villicaña

Coordinador de Integración de Cadenas Productivas Norte

201


NICARAGUA: 24 answers


1 Centro HumbolthVictor Campos

[email protected]

2 Coordinación Territorial INAFORMartín Cuadra

[email protected]

3 IPADEOve Faurby

[email protected]

4 MARENARoberto Araquistain

[email protected]

5 CATIEMiguel Sinon

[email protected]

6 ACDI Mercedes Salgado L. [email protected]

7 JOVENES AMBIENTALISTASRoberto Herrera

[email protected]

8 BOSAWASYadira Meza

[email protected]

9Empresario de la maderaMaderas Tropicales

Alex MendozaSe puede localizar por medio de la Sra. Livi Roíz

10 Empresaria de la maderaLivi Roís

844-3667

11 RAIN FOREST ALLIANCEJaime Guillen

[email protected]

12 FNIMarlon Cardoza

[email protected]

13 FCRRosa María Tablada

[email protected]

14 MAGFOR Yader Guzmán [email protected]

15 LIMINAWA Abraham Clark No tiene

16 CLUSTER FORESTAL Lolo Morales

17 CAMARA FORESTAL Héctor Ramos [email protected]

18 BLOQUE FORESTALFranklin Bordas

854-7139

19 UNAN Mario López [email protected]

20 PROLEÑA Serafín Filomeno

21 FONADEFOManuel Esquivel

[email protected]

22 GTZMarvin Centeno

[email protected]

23 Proyecto Sureste (incentivos)Gustavo Zapata

583-0176 ext 15

24 BCIE Melvin Cuevara

202

















REPUBLICA DOMINICANA: 15 answers


1 Cámara Forestal Dominicana

Bernabé Mañón Ross

Presidente

T.241-7977F.559-2440C.309-1870

[email protected]

2 SEMARN/SUREF

Elías Vargas

Director Planificación y Política Forestal

T.688-0902F.685-4950C.501-2726

[email protected]

3 Jarabafinca

Freddy González

Director Ejecutivo

T.574-6085C.519-4794

[email protected]

4 PROCARYN

Humberto Checo

Director Ejecutivo

T.574-6727F.574-6994C.753-8899

[email protected]

5 Vivero Agroforestal Loma Grande

Jhonny Quiñónez

Presidente

T.763-9995

[email protected]

6Centro Regional de Estudios y Servicios (CRECER)

José Elías González

Director Ejecutivo

T.583-0725F.583-0725C.545-0816

[email protected]@gmail.com

7Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente en El Caribe (enda caribe)

Mamerto Valerio

Director Ejecutivo

T.385-0421F.385-2359C.330-7889

[email protected]

8 Cámara Forestal Dominicana

Omar Domínguez

Director Ejecutivo

T.541-4449C.842-2304

[email protected]

9 PROCARYN

Pablo Ovalles

Coordinador Componente Forestal

T.574-6729F.547-6994C.502-5660

[email protected]

203











10 Plan de Desarrollo de la Sierra

Simeón Abreu

Director Ejecutivo

T.578-8764C.917-5644

[email protected]

11 Fundación Sur Futuro

Wilkin Luciano

Encargado Componente Forestal

T.472-0611F.472-0612C.501-3961

[email protected]

12Jose de Moya

696-3395

13Nicolás Tejada

223-1460

14Rubén Moisés Espinal

578-8181

15Juan Gilbato Torres

578-8370

204



iaif report

Documents